Will the real pro-gay party please stand up?
Much ballyhoo is made over which political party a gay person should choose. In fact, in many circles if you are not a Democrat you are not a true homosexual, much in the same way that if you are not a Republican you are not a true Mormon. (I grew up in the Mormon church and still live in Utah. Trust me. I know whereof I speak.) The Democrats are certainly much more willing to openly court the gay vote. They are vocal about their support for gay rights, and critical of the Republicans' socially conservative ideologies which continue to exclude gay and lesbian Americans. Indeed it seems the Republican party would like to take us back to the days of the Puritan pilgrims when America was more of a theocracy than a democratic republic. On the surface it seems almost self evident that a gay or lesbian American should adhere to the Democratic party. But is it really that cut and dried?
Democrats have generally been those who have sponsored and supported pro-gay legislation. Howard Dean signed civil unions into law in Vermont. Gray Davis signed a similar law in California. Bill Clinton appointed some 150 openly gay and lesbian people to government posts while in office. He also created a federal anitdiscrimination policy which included sexual orientation.
Believe it or not, Republicans, including the much maligned Dubbya, have a track record as well. Oddly enough it would appear that the Republicans' bark is worse than their bite. It was Republicans Gov. Pataki and Mayor Guliani of New York who signed an executive order ensuring survivor benefits for partners of gays and lesbians lost in the attacks of September 11. President Bush has lauched a major global AIDS program, signed a bill ending a nine year ban on domestic partnership registration in Washington D.C., and has left Clinton's anitdiscrimination policy intact.
Bush has also appointed Scott Evertz, an openly gay man, to the post of AIDS Policy Director making him the first Republican president to name a gay American to an office within the Executive Branch. He also named another openly gay man, Michael Guest, as ambassdor to Romania. During the swearing in ceremony Guest's partner, who will accompany him to Romania, was openly acknowledged as such by Secretary of State Colin Powell. It is also worth noting that the first public condemnation of the insane and vicious remarks by Fallwell and Robertson after the attacks on September 11 came from the Bush White House. For all of these things he has received sharp criticism from the conservative right, those to whom he's often accused of pandering.
Yes, Bush has also done some things that seem to counter any postive acts he might have made for gay and lesbian Americans. His faith based initiatives are dangerously close to state sanctioned discrimination. His show of support for the extremely conservative remarks of Santorum is also upsetting. But in all fairness, the Democrats aren't perfect either.
In the current Democratic race for the presidential nomination, Howard Dean is making much ado about the civil unions he created in Vermont. It is a step in the right direction to be sure. I do appricate the political risk he took in championing that cause. However, I have a problem with someone whose foundation for gay civil rights is "separate but equal." Black Americans didn't stand for that. I have yet to find someone who can convince me that gay Americans should.
Dick Gephardt has joined the fray with his lesbian daughter campaigning for him. That's touching and sweet, but a big political ho-hum. Dick Cheney's lesbian daughter is also politically active and visible in Republican circles.
Bill Clinton left us with the disastrous Don't-Ask-Don't-Tell-yatta-yatta policy which essentially gave the military legal grounds for dismissing gay and lesbian servicemen. And let's not forget DOMA (the Defense of Marriage Act). What a cop out. He should have at least vetoed the thing and made congress ratify it on their own. Yes, it would still have become law, but at least his name wouldn't be on it. For someone who is supposedly a great friend of gays and lesbians it was a real slap in the face.
In short, instead of picking your polictical affliations based on gay and lesbian issues, maybe you should think about picking your policital affiliations based on things like, style of government, taxation, and foreign and economic policies.