|
|
|
|
Executive Director, National Gay and Lesbian Task Force |
|
Where are Democrats on the Federal Marriage Amendment?
We can moan and groan, but the President is delivering money and issue red meat to a part of the electorate that was responsible for 40% of his votes in 2000. In return, they are energized, grateful, and will turn out en masse in November - an essential ingredient if Mr. Bush is to be re-elected. Old fashioned, smart politics. So what are the Democrats doing to protect and energize a critical part of their base, namely the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender community? After all, our people consistently and overwhelmingly vote Democratic. (In light of the GOP's lousy positions on so many key gay issues, it's not hard to understand why.) In fact, we are the party's third most loyal bloc of support - just behind the African American and Jewish communities. We've remained loyal in spite of slaps like "Don't Ask/Don't Tell," the federal Defense of Marriage Act, and the lack of a single federal law acknowledging our existence, even when the Democrats controlled the White House and one or both houses of Congress. Just as important in this day and age, our community raises a ton of money for the party - far outstripping our proportion of the vote. Given all of this, one would think the party would be willing - rhetorically and legislatively - to stand up for us. Let me be specific. I don't understand why our community should have to spend one more hour, one more dime, make one more phone call or write one more letter to make sure an anti-gay, anti-marriage constitutional amendment is dead on arrival in the U.S. Senate. Last July 17, Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle pledged that Senate Democrats would kill the federal marriage amendment if it ever came to a vote. We were all grateful and relieved to hear that pledge. But, it didn't feel like such a big lift to me because killing the amendment requires only 34 votes, and there are 48 Democrats, five of whom are retiring at the end of this year. In other words, every single Democratic Senator considered "at risk" this fall could be "let off the hook" on this vote, if necessary, and the amendment would still be defeated. In a classic display of Washington legalese - we've since discovered that last July's pledge is in question. You see, it apparently applied only to "the" Federal Marriage Amendment as written last year. If the amendment is re-worded so it still outlaws same-sex marriage anywhere in the country but leaves the door open to state-based domestic partnerships or civil unions, all bets are off. As a result, LGBT organizations - including my own -are making desperate appeals to their members asking them to press their representatives in Washington to oppose the amendment. Our allies at the Human Rights Campaign, for example, have raised $6 million to fight it. Log Cabin Republicans and their principled new leader Patrick Guerriero are spending $1 million on anti-amendment advertising. Ironically, even the Democratic Party has jumped on the bandwagon, seeking 500,000 signatures on petitions opposing the amendment to be circulated during gay pride events this summer.
We thought we could help head this off and give some cover to those now getting squishy on us by getting a few senators from safe (let me say SAFE) seats not up for election this year to say unambiguously that they would oppose any amendment seeking to restrict marriage rights. (There's no shortage of ways to say this without - god forbid - having to endorse marriage equality.) Turns out not even THEY would come through. One response I got from a SAFE seat was, "You can't ask us to say we'll oppose any amendment... what if the amendment is reworded to specifically authorize civil unions?" Like that could happen -when hell freezes over. Sorry, I can't buy this. We're not even asking Senate Democrats to take a stand for full equality or asking them to vote against a popular measure. (In fact, no poll shows majority support for the amendment.) No, this is about amending the U.S. Constitution to take away rights from a minority, something that has never occurred in the history of our nation. If Bob Barr, the anti-gay author of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, is against amending the constitution this way, how hard should this be for our "friends?" The religious right knows how to play adult politics: they insist on getting something in exchange for their support. It's time we did the same. Our community is owed a renewed pledge - now - that any anti-marriage amendment is dead on arrival in the Senate. If we can't get something this simple and this just and this easy, then... |
Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle has pledged that the Senate Democrats will kill the federal anti-gay marriage amendment, but NGLTF asks what else Democrats will do to protect same-sex couples' rights 
NGLTF Executive Director Matt Foreman