Elizabeth Edwards Continues Gay Rights Stump

Elizabeth Edwards continued her gay rights stump -- perhaps on behalf of her husband, Democratic Presidential candidate John Edwards -- this past weekend as she again reiterated her support for marriage for same-sex couples at the Human Rights Campaign annual gala in San Francisco. Edwards also used the dinner as an opportunity to blast President George W. Bush's opposition of the federal hate crimes bill in the context of a Sacramento man who died earlier this month after a group of men attacked him because they thought he was gay.

"This president talks a lot about good and evil and the need to seek out evil doers," she said. "He doesn't seem to recognize the evil in hate crimes. The right to live without the fear of being murdered for whom we love is not a special right."

The U.S. Senate is slated to debate the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007 later this week to the almost universal praise among local, regional and national LGBT organizations. Edwards, for her part, came out in support of marriage for same-sex couples last month in San Francisco at a pre-Pride breakfast. Her husband reportedly expressed surprise at his wife's position. He opposes marriage for same-sex couples but both Edwardses maintain their overall support for LGBT people. Is Edwards' appearance in San Francisco another example of political courtship with a potentially influential voting block? Of course! Politics remains a cynical entity as candidates continue to criss-cross the country in search of support and lucrative donors in what has already become the most expensive Presidential campaign in American history. Activists should thank Edwards for her appearance in San Francisco and her pro-LGBT overtures in recent weeks. The proof of this new found support, however, remains in the campaign's actions in the months leading up to Iowa and New Hampshire. Candidates continue to make blanket statements, issue good sound bites and talk a good talk on their stump. Voters, on the other hand, need to demand specifics from those who seek to sucede the current administration.

Presidential Hopefuls Pressed on Gay Issues

Political speculation remains an art form which never seems to go out of style as indicated from this article I wrote for EDGE this week. It remains a safe bet the candidates -- former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney in particular -- will continue to face difficult questions about their own records on gay rights as they outline their positions with their target constituents in the coming months. All of this political posturing will certainly provide journalists and politicos alike a multitude of new headlines and topics to discuss around the water cooler.

With the 2008 presidential campaign in overdrive, candidates from both sides of the aisle continue to stake out positions on marriage equality, hate-crimes legislation, Don’t Ask Don’t Tell and other issues as they court potential voters and donors across the country. Although the first primaries and caucuses are more than six months away but skeptics, gay activists and even some politicos have already pressured White House hopefuls to define or further explain their positions on gay rights.

Former North Carolina Senator and Democratic hopeful John Edwards went on the defensive late last month after the Washington Post reported he told Democratic strategist Bob Shrum in 1998 he is "not comfortable with those people" in response to a question about gay rights. Edwards quickly dismissed the comments but has publicly maintained his opposition to marriage for same-sex couples.

Senator Hillary Clinton and other Democratic presidential hopefuls--as well as Republican former New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani, considered the most gay-friendly of the GOP major candidates currently in the race--also oppose marriage for same-sex couples. New York public radio host Brian Lehrer told Edge that the North Carolina native’s tone on this issue remains different than other candidates. He speculated this difference could help Edwards attract moderate voters.

"Edwards does own his personal discomfort with gay marriage in his public statements," he said. "He says he’s just not there yet unlike [other] Democrats who just say they’re not for gay marriage. This avoids getting him too far out in front of the population."

The Democratic National Committee platform officially calls upon each state to define marriage. It also opposes the FMA. The majority of Democratic candidates continue to tout their party’s line in their stump speeches and public statements on the issue.

"That federalist dance is pretty much what the leading Democratic [candidates] are doing on gay marriage," Lehrer said. "They say they oppose legal gay marriage but oppose a Constitutional ban and the Defense of Marriage Act."

As the political editor of Rollcall, a magazine that exclusively covers Capital Hill, Josh Kurtz has been watching the developing races with a knowing eye. Democrats often moderate their positions on marriage and other potentially divisive social issues which could polarize target constituencies, he said, adding that candidates cannot appear too liberal if they hope to garner support from moderate voters.

"Democrats have to move to the left during the primary season but move to the center during the general election," he said. "At this level, candidates are walking a kind of tight rope. They have to find themselves as close to the center as they can get."

Among Republicans, social conservatives continue to challenge former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney’s previous statements in support of gay rights. Romney famously described FMA supporters as "extremists" during his failed campaign to unseat popular incumbent Sen. Ted Kennedy in 1994. The former governor heavily courted gay and lesbian Republicans during his 2002 gubernatorial campaign.

Romney later expressed support for the FMA after the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court issued its landmark Goodridge decision to allow marriage for same-sex couples in the commonwealth. He spearheaded the campaign in support of a proposed Constitutional amendment in the state but observers agree his own record presents a significant challenge to his campaign as he continues to position himself as a viable conservative candidate.

"It’s already a liability for his campaign," Kurtz said. "To get elected in Massachusetts, he had to present himself as a moderate on social issues. He is running away from that record as fast as he can."

Lehrer agreed. He said Romney has lost credibility among social conservatives as a result of his apparent flip flops on gay rights, abortion and other issues. "A huge challenge for him is the way he’s done a full 180 on a number of things," Lehrer said. "He has a lot of explaining to do on a lot of issues."

Social conservatives continue to question Giuliani’s record in light of his opposition of the FMA, a bill he signed into law in 1998 which extended benefits to same-sex partners of city employees and other aspects of his political and private life. Among other things, Giuliani famously shacked up with an affluent Manhattan gay couple when he moved out of the mayoral residence during a break-up with his second wife.

Kurtz said this scrutiny appears to have had little impact on the former mayor’s campaign. "Giuliani has been a little more adept at walking the right rope than Romney has," he said. "He hasn’t had a whole sale 180 degree turn on some critical social issues."

Candidates will continue to outline their positions as the first caucuses and primaries approach. Observers said the majority of voters will pay less attention to these issues during this campaign cycle. They added this dynamic could change if a state court issues a pro marriage for same-sex couples ruling or if New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg or another potential third party candidate enters the race. Bloomberg, a Republican, has very publicly bucked his party’s platform by advocating for gay marriage.

Lehrer concluded, however, that social conservatives and other potential voters will continue to focus on Iraq, health care and other issues and the candidates’ positions on them.

"Because of the gravity of the world situation and what Americans perceive as an existential threat to the country [and to our democracy], the gay marriage issue should recede in importance for people on the right this year."

New Hampshire Civil Union Bill Clears Last Hurdle

The New Hampshire Senate yesterday passed a bill that would allow gay and lesbian couples to enter into civil unions less than a month after the House overwhelmingly endorsed the same legislation.

Governor John Lynch said last week he would sign the bill into law as "a matter of conscience, fairness and preventing discrimination." Presidential candidates who have already inundated the state in advance of the first primary early next year have also taken note. Former U.S. Sen. John Edwards was among the candidates who issued statements in support of the bill.

"Gov. Lynch and the state of New Hampshire showed us that the idea of America -- fairness, justice and equal opportunity -- can become a reality when we have the courage to stand up for what is right," Edwards said. "New Hampshire's decision tor recognize civil unions and grant gay and lesbian couples the same rights granted to heterosexual married couples is an important step in the fight for justice. This is an issue of fundamental fairness, and by passing this law, New Hampshire's leaders chose fairness over discrimination."

Civil unions are not the same as marriage for same-sex couples but the bill certainly represents a significant step forward. The conservative Union Leader and the handful of other vocal groups, institutions and politicians who oppose the bill will certainly continue to express their opposition at the expense of many others in the state who support it. New Hampshire has a strong libertarian tradition based on limited government involvement in the private lives of its residents. This bill only continues that proud tradition in the Granite State.

Presidential Candidates Seek Gay Endorsements

Even though the first caucuses and primaries are nearly a year away, the 2008 presidential campaign is in full swing and LGBT voters and organizations have already begun to weigh in.

Candidates from both sides of the aisle have raised a record $157 million in the first quarter. Many have created elaborate operations in Iowa, New Hampshire and other early contest states in this election cycle.

U.S. Sen. Hillary Clinton’s campaign announced April 18 that openly lesbian New York City Council Speaker Christine Quinn, former Democratic National Committee LGBT caucus chair Jeff Soref and more than two dozen other elected officials, activists and celebrities had endorsed her bid for the White House. Former U.S. Sen. John Edwards issued a similar statement earlier this month to announce Democratic fundraiser David Mixner and other LGBT activists had endorsed his campaign.

Both Clinton and Edwards, along with U.S. Sen. Barack Obama and other leading Democratic candidates, remain opposed to marriage for same-sex couples.

National Stonewall Democrats Communications Director John Marble conceded most candidates are not "perfect on this issue at all" but added his organization remains confident their positions will evolve over time. "We now expect them to be open to evolving their positions on marriage," he said.

Blogger Andrew Sullivan and other gay commentators have already criticized the Human Rights Campaign and other national LGBT advocacy organizations for their perceived support of candidates who do not support marriage for same-sex couples. National Black Justice Coalition Executive Director H. Alexander Robinson, on the other hand, said the candidates themselves need to better explain their position on this issue and others, such as hate crimes, which concern voters.

He further added he believes the candidates generally fail to understand the complexity of the issues LGBT people routinely face."The political analysis that gay and lesbian issues present a liability has meant that in many cases the candidates have failed to have a sort of fundamental view of what the challenges of discrimination are," he said. "Leadership is not just about casting the right vote or taking the right position. It is about going to a place where people may not share their opinion and really making the case for the positions [they] support."

HRC Executive Director Joe Solmonese dismissed Sullivan’s criticisms and was quick to point out his organization has yet to endorse any candidate. He said marriage remains one of several issues voters will examine during the campaign. And Solmonese added the HRC will carefully examine each candidate’s positions before it makes any decisions.

"Our job is to evaluate each race and make a decision based on the best interest of the community and understanding the whole host of issues the community expects us to advance," he said as he dismissed Sullivan’s criticisms. "It’s the whole package and a variety of different factors."

Equality California Executive Director Geoff Kors was more pragmatic. His organization refused to endorse U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s re-election campaign last year after she failed to support marriage for gay and lesbian couples. Lawmakers in Sacramento continue to debate a bill which would allow same-sex couples to marry but Kors remained confident his organization will not support any presidential hopeful who did not fully support their LGBT constituents. "Equality California does not endorse any candidate who opposes our mission," he said.

Marriage remains an important issue for voters in other states as well. Alabamans overwhelmingly passed a state constitutional amendment to define marriage last June while voters in South Carolina, South Dakota, Virginia and three other states supported similar initiatives in November.

Equality Alabama Board Chair Howard Bayless said LGBT voters in his state will continue to examine each candidate’s position on marriage. But he also believes voters will expect them to outline their positions in support of hate-crimes legislation and non-discrimination statutes before they head to the polls.

"This election is not about one or two issues," Bayless told EDGE in a recent interview from Birmingham. "It is about a myriad of issues. People will look at the candidate who is going to reach out to them the most."

This analysis remains consistent with the position many national LGBT organizations took following the mid-term elections. They saw the election results, in particular the Democratic take-over of the House and the Senate, as an opportunity to advance the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, the Local Law Enforcement and Enhancement Act and the repeal of the ban on gays serving openly in the military that had stalled during the previously Republican controlled Congress.

Solmonese added that the results, including the defeat of anti-LGBT incumbent U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa., and other social conservatives, were an indication voters had begun to reject the rhetoric that had determined the outcome of previous elections. He expects this trend will continue into 2008. "We continue to have fewer and fewer people buying into their rhetoric," Solmonese said.

Log Cabin Republican Executive Director Patrick Sammon agreed. He insisted his party will maintain the White House only if the GOP returns to what he described as its "core principles" and appeals to a much broader base."

Republicans need to nominate a candidate who can appeal to voters in the middle," Sammon said. "They [gay and lesbian Republicans] are looking for a candidate who will focus on uniting Republicans and not dividing Republicans."

It remains to be seen whether marriage and other issues will play a prominent role in the 2008 election as they did in previous campaigns. But most activists and political pundits agree the war could ultimately determine its outcome. "The war in Iraq will be a huge issue," Sammon said.

Robinson of the National Black Justice Coalition echoed these sentiments. He asserted many NBJC members and supporters remain concerned the Bush administration continues to fund the war at the expense of efforts to combat HIV and AIDS, public health and other social and educational initiatives. "Issues of national concern--the war in Iraq and the sense many people have that the country is headed in the wrong direction--are themes I’ve heard time and time again," Robinson said.

Marble added that Americans will continue to scrutinize events in the civil-war-torn nation as the election draws closer."The current situation has LGBT voters largely focused on issues that aren’t LGBT specific," he said. "This cuts across the electorate regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity."

Solmonese hesitated to say whether he feels the war would overshadow LGBT issues during the presidential campaign. He added, however, voters will almost certainly continue to demand the White House change its policy in Iraq.

"The war in Iraq and the administration’s role in the war defined the [2006] election," Solmonese said. "If there are no significant changes in the Middle East, the war will continue to dominate the agenda."

The Bush administration announced earlier this year it would increase the number of troops in Iraq. This deployment remains highly unpopular among members of Congress on both sides of the aisle and among the American people. Observers remain doubtful the GOP will maintain the White House in 2008 if this policy remains in place."

LGBT voters, like the majority of voters in the country, are ready to see an end to the hostile positions and the incompetent Bush administration," Kors predicted.

Bayless of Equality Alabama agreed. "The electorate will be revved up for a change," he said. "Republicans will have a difficult time overcoming the last eight years."