Sebastian White :: A Convention of Highs and Lows for Gay America

NEWS

A Convention of Highs and Lows for Gay America

The Empty Closet | September 1, 2004
By Sebastian White

Marriage for same-sex couples may be a top political issue this election season, but those watching the recent Democratic National Convention and waiting for clear and unambiguous mention of the divisive issue were hard pressed to find it on the agenda. Like abortion and gun control, the well-oiled convention in Boston largely avoided the polarizing issue of marriage, with only thinly-veiled references to equality and the constitution cropping up in speakers’ oratories.

Such is the ultimate strategy of the political convention, the quadrennial pep rally-style gathering designed to woo the slim margin of undecided voters in swing states watching on television and not necessarily to affirm the views of party faithful on the convention floor. Contentiousness is kept to a minimum, with dissenting opinion and thorny debate ushered away from the watching glare of television cameras.

Dispatches from Boston to the nation's gay media may have been critical of the lack of prime airtime given to overtly discussing gay and lesbian issues, a traditional Democratic strong point, but delegates like Joe Lacey of Dayton, Ohio, didn’t necessarily feel the same way.

Lacey, who was among the 255 openly-gay delegates at the convention, was pleased that John Kerry highlighted his stand on the George W. Bush-backed constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage during his critical acceptance speech. "Our candidate, in one of the most important speeches of his life, clearly staked out his opposition to a constitutional amendment on marriage,” he said.

A resolute Kerry told delegates and millions of viewers around the world, “Let's never misuse for political purposes the most precious document in American history, the Constitution of the United States.”

Earlier in the week, a thundering and unsubtle Rev. Al Sharpton also energized a prime-time audience by declaring, “The promise of America is that government does not seek to regulate your behavior in the bedroom, but to guarantee your right to provide food in the kitchen. The issue of government is not to determine who may sleep together in the bedroom, it's to help those who might not be eating in the kitchen.”

Except for those instances, marriage was kept largely out of the spotlight, with even less attention given other issues important to gay and lesbian Americans including non-discrimination laws and hate crimes protections, partnership benefits, and HIV/AIDS. That omission was understandable to Lacey, who countered, “Hearing [Kerry’s] opposition to a constitutional amendment far outweighs his running through a laundry list of issues such as ENDA and gay people serving openly in the military where his record is clear in supporting us.”

The official Democratic Party platform this year is more pro-gay than it has ever been, supporting “full inclusion of gay and lesbian families in the life of our nation,” and although it stops short of endorsing marriage for same-sex couples, the party does “seek equal responsibilities, benefits, and protections for these families.”

The election is neck-in-neck with two deeply opposing candidates: one with a liberal voting record in the U.S. Senate friendly to gay and lesbian Americans, and one who has been an outspoken opponent of marriage for same-sex couples, hate crimes legislation and gay adoption rights. So it should come as no surprise that for many gay and lesbian Americans, this election is seen as a dogfight between one mostly “pro-gay” candidate and another who is perceived as mostly “anti-gay.”

In their rush to back the more pro-gay candidate, critics say some voters are forgetting about other important issues this year: an unprecedented war is being waged in Iraq, incomes are falling, and job growth is slack. Mindful of these central issues facing Americans, Lacey prefers to take a more broad view, saying he is “not looking for a candidate who will necessarily make my issues the centerpiece of his platform.”

That being said, he added, “I do want to see some evidence that he is on my side.” In his acceptance, “Kerry let me know that he is on my side in the fight.” Lacey feels that not electing the Kerry-Edwards ticket this November “would have the most dire consequences for me as a gay man.”

For the Ohio Democrat, the “fight” he describes centers around places like his home state where constitutional amendments under consideration would outlaw not only same-sex marriage but other spousal equivalents like civil unions and domestic partnerships.

While John Kerry has expressed his opposition to same-sex marriage, he has indicated that he is in favor of civil unions, a move that has earned him the backing of gay and lesbian Americans with polls projecting he will win their votes by a landslide.

The disconnect between gay and lesbian voter support for Kerry and his position on marriage angers some like Andy Thayer, the national action coordinator for DontAmend.com, the political action group, who believes “gay Democrats put their party first and gay people second.” For Thayer and others, giving one’s vote to a candidate should happen only when that candidate voices full, unequivocal support for the gay community and its causes, no matter how politically charged they may be.

But for committed delegates like Lacey, supporting Kerry, despite his hesitation on marriage, is a no-brainer. “To those of us for whom civil unions are a far away dream, the protests of those who want a presidential candidate who will not compromise on same-sex marriage are not productive,” he said.

Many undecided voters who see pros and cons with both candidates are guiding their selection by asking themselves one tough question: what would handing Mr. Bush a second term mean for America versus giving Sen. Kerry a shot at the White House?

For Lacey, the answer is clear-cut. Invoking the words of U.S. Rep. Barney Frank, a leading gay voice who energized the GLBT caucus at the convention, Lacey explained, “A George Bush win would mean that attacking our community works, that it benefits a politician electorally. A Kerry win means it doesn't work and the result will be repeated for a long time by pundits nationally.”