The Gay Presidential Debate: Democratic Contenders Answer to the Queer Community

Avatar http://alternet.org Posted by admin 377 days ago



Last night LOGO, the subscription cable TV channel dedicated to LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender) content, broadcast a debate with six Democratic candidates. At the predominantly gay Boston venue Club Cafe, waiting for the debate to start, the small group at my table made a list of issues we wanted to hear discussed -- while around us the noise level got louder and louder, until there was an SRO crowd.

Our little group was annoyed that Melissa Etheridge was among the questioners, and wondered whether there would be some intelligent questions or whether only the M-word would be spoken. "Please," one woman groaned, "let them talk about something besides marriage." Not that there's anything wrong with that.

We're all in favor of full marriage rights; we live in the one state that offers them, and the club was jammed with many of the advocates who ensured that our legislature voted to uphold those marriage rights. But we know where a viable Democratic candidate has to stand -- in favor of full-on civil unions, but "not ready" for marriage -- and so we wanted to hear whether they'd done any homework about any other issues. We made a short list of the issues we wanted discussed, and added a few others for bonus points.

It was a highly annoying format: each candidate sat alone for 15 minutes with the four questioners: Joe Solmonese, who heads the Human Rights Campaign, the largest and most mainstream of the gay rights groups, which co-sponsored the debate; Melissa E., who (in case you didn't know) is not an actual journalist; moderator Margaret Carlson, longtime liberal columnist, formerly at Time magazine, now at Bloomberg News; and Jonathan Capehart, Washington Post editorial page writer.

Obama was up first, poor man, and was pounded with marriage questions, one after another. He's already stated his position: he favors full-on civil unions, with all of civil marriage's rights and responsibilities, but not the word "marriage," since so many people think the word is religious. (See Evan Wolfson's eloquent points on that issue.)

But here's the problem: the senator didn't know how to shift his answers. Any good politician knows how to take a bad question and turn it to better purposes. Not Barack, who got a little testy, repeating his same-old-same-old lines about knowing what it's like to be excluded and noted that, after all, he had mentioned us in "the most important speech of my life" at the Democratic convention. Well, isn't that special. (Melissa tossed him a nerf ball about inclusion, which he caught. Yawn.) Doesn't this man have any lesbian or gay advisors who made sure he'd done his homework? Next!

Next up was John Edwards, who has the rep of being uncomfortable with gay folks. Not last night. He had the easiest possible body language, and even better, no matter what they asked him, he made sure he mentioned yet another important issue. My table kept gasping as he hit every button on our list. He talked about going to the LA Gay and Lesbian Center and talking with kids who were homeless because, after they came out, their parents kicked them out on the street -- and how un-American that was.

He talked about repealing Don't Ask Don't Tell, the military policy that forces lesbian and gay folks in the military to hide their orientation or get kicked out (women are kicked out more often than men). He brilliantly handled the marriage question, opening it up into impressive component parts. He said that, when he first answered said he was for civil unions but against civil marriage, he had been wrong to explain his reasoning via his religion; unlike the current administration, he would never push his religion down the nation's throats.

He explained eloquently, even movingly, that he fully understood why the LGBT community would long for full equality, but that he stood by his civil union position -- and, later, said that presidents don't really make change, that movements made change, and we should all keep up our work. My table understood this as a big wink and nod: you change the country and I'll back you on marriage. We were wowed. And -- still better -- he said he would repeal section 2 of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, which drew a hugely impressed gasp from the crowd, not just for his detailed knowledge, but because that is absolutely the holy grail of what's conceivably politically possible, but would be difficult.


 Discuss | Trackback | Category: Sourced | Add this link to... | Tell a friend

Comments


Log in to comment or register here.

Who supported this story



    Sponsored by: Indoxyl Directory | Design by Student Web Designer | Powered By Pligg | Legal: License and Source Powered By Pligg | Legal: License and Source