Gay voters should blame themselves for Prop 8, not black Californians.
Smart LGBT leaders knew our campaign couldn’t make Prop 8 a “gay” issue.
Must we appear as churchgoers or nationalists to deserve our rights?
In part, Prop 8 failed because of inept LGBT leadership.
advertisement
advertisement
|
By MICHAEL LUCAS
Friday, July 27, 2007
How were gay interests served in the recent CNN/YouTube debate among Democratic presidential candidates? The event was, after all, moderated by that paragon of LGBT openness, Anderson Cooper.
A question from the pastor of Exodus Mission and Outreach Church in Hickory, N.C., the Rev. Reggie Longcrier was intriguing. After noting that John Edwards said his opposition to gay marriage is influenced by his Southern Baptist background, and that most Americans agree it was wrong and unconstitutional to use religion to justify slavery and segregation and to denywomen the right to vote, the Rev. Longcrier asked, “So why is it still acceptable to use religion to deny gay Americans their full and equal rights?”
The question was intriguing in that it showed a Christian clergyman far ahead of the clueless candidate Edwards on this issue. Edwards’ IQ was showing in his response, I might add. He deemed Rev. Longcrier’s question “very important,” but then reformulated the question as “whether it’s right for any of our faith beliefs to be imposed on the American people when we’re president of the United States.” Don’t ask why Edwards said “when we’re president of the United States.” Last time I checked, only one person holds the position at any given moment.
After further hemming and hawing, and talking about how he’s “been on a journey on this issue,” Edwards again reformulated the Rev. Longcrier’s question. This time, he said: “I’ve been asked a personal question which is, I think, what Rev. Longcrier is raising, and that personal question is, Do I believe and do I personally support gay marriage?” That isn’t remotely what Longcrier asked. It ain’t very eloquent, either. If John Edwards were any worse at speaking on his feet, he would be better off letting a sock puppet answer the debate questions posed to him.
SEN. BARACK OBAMA IS another one who doesn’t get it. Asked about the difference between a ban on interracial marriages and one on gay marriages, he spewed his usual “unions, not marriages” bit, and said that “it’s my belief that it’s up to the individual denominations to make a decision as to whether they want to recognize (gay) marriage or not.” Gay people should settle for that answer only if Obama also says it should be up to individual denominations to decide whether to recognize interracial marriages.
The other gay-themed question during this alleged debate came from Mary and Jen of Brooklyn. They wanted to know if the candidates would let them marry each other. Congressman Dennis Kucinich not only said “yes” with no prevarications, but also added that “our brothers and sisters who happen to be gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender should have the same rights accorded to them as anyone else.” On the one hand, I’d like to cheer him for that. On the other hand, though, I do not believe he is a viable candidate. His views on foreign policy are, I believe, dangerous. And he doesn’t have the high profile that would be necessary to compete effectively with the other candidates. So when he says he would let Mary and Jen marry each other, it’s as if my babushka said that gays would be able to marry during a dinner party in Brooklyn—and then expecting that to happen.
CHRISTOPHER DODD endorsed civil unions but said, “I don’t go so far as marriage.” Ever get the feeling that these candidates are teenage girls on dates, saying that they won’t go to home base? Dodd struck out, as far as I’m concerned. Bill Richardson, who not too long ago used the Spanish word for faggot—“maricon”—in a joking context on the radio, told the Brooklyn love birds that he would do “what is achievable.” He said: “What I think is achievable is full civil unions with full marriage rights.” What exactly does that mean? If a heterosexual couple is wed before a justice of the peace, do we say that they got married, or do we say that they got civil unioned? What part of the phrase “equal rights” do some of these doofus candidates not understand?
Even though Sen. Hillary Clinton was not during this forum asked to address the subject of equal rights for LGBT people, my impression after watching it is that she’s better versed in our concerns than is Sen. Obama.
AND ADMIRABLE THOUGH he may be in many respects, Obama should avoid appearing next to Hillary, as her additional experience shines through every time. For instance, the candidates were asked if they as President would meet with leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea. Obama elaborated on why he absolutely would. But Clinton gave the world an example of her capacity for quick thinking and true leadership by saying she would not immediately meet with the leaders of those countries. She explained how she would send high level diplomatic envoys for talks with them, because you don’t “promise a meeting at that high a level before you know what the intentions are.” She further elaborated on why she thought it imprudent to meet at once with a gay-baiting ogre such as Iran’s President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. “I don’t want to be used for propaganda purposes.”
The upshot is that while we gained some useful insights from this YouTube debate, we should all circle Thursday, Aug. 9, on our calendars. At 9 p.m. EST, candidates will participate in a forum addressing gay issues. It will be broadcast live on Logo and streamed live on LOGOonline.com. I heard some joker ask whether during that debate, the Breck girl will admit he’s gay. I’d settle for him giving a straight answer to Rev. Longcrier’s question.
Michael Lucas is the president and CEO of LucasEntertainment.com. You can read more about his thoughts and his XXX movies at LucasBlog.com.
|
