by Mike Dorning
The political anxiety that gay rights can provoke among Democratic candidates for president broke out in to the open early in this campaign.
Both Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, schooled in the poltiics of home states with influential gay communities, instinctively dodged the questions in March when first asked about a military leader justifying the Pentagon's ban on openly gay soldiers and declared that homosexuality is immoral.
It took a torrent of criticism from gay donors and supporters to elicit unequivocal statements that they consider homosexuality to be more and repudidated the personal statements of then Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Peter Pace. There will be no time for recovery from misstepts, however, when Democratic candidates appear at a live televised forum tonight in Los Angeles to face questions from gay-rights activists including singer Melissa Etheridge.
The event will be broadcast live at 8 pm CDT on the cable network, Logo.
For more, see the story in today's Tribune:
By Mike Dorning
Chicago Tribune
SAN FRANCISCO — The high political anxiety that gay rights can provoke in Democratic presidential aspirants broke out into the open early in this campaign, as the party’s two leading candidates both stumbled when asked to give unrehearsed answers on morality and homosexuality.
Sens. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., and Barack Obama, D-Ill., both schooled in the politics of home states with influential gay communities, each instinctively dodged in March when first asked to respond to a top military officer who in justifying the Pentagon’s ban on openly gay soldiers publicly declared homosexuality immoral.
Only after a torrent of criticism from gay donors and supporters over their initial hesitancy did Clinton and Obama come out with unequivocal statements that they considered homosexuality to be moral, repudiating Marine Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
There will be no such time to recover when Democratic candidates appear Thursday at a live televised forum in Los Angeles to face questions from gay-rights activists including singer Melissa Etheridge. The event will be broadcast beginning at 8 p.m. central time on the gay-themed cable network Logo.
While opposition operatives will be watching for a video moment that later can be used to portray a candidate as out of the social mainstream, gay-rights advocates will be alert to signs of discomfort or hedged commitment.
“I think people will be looking for body language, the choice of words to see how comfortable the candidates are. Are they passionate?” said Ethan Geto, a long-time gay political activist in New York who is an informal adviser to Clinton on related issues.
Democratic candidates face evolving but still mixed public attitudes toward homosexuality.
Their own party includes an important constituency of gay donors and political activists as well as large numbers of social liberals who look to candidates’ views on gay rights as a bellwether for commitment to broader progressive values such as tolerance.
Public opinion overall is moving slowly toward greater acceptance of a range of gay-rights positions, and passions have cooled since same-sex marriage erupted as a key issue on the verge of the last presidential campaign. Even among social conservatives, illegal immigration has supplanted gay marriage as a source of grass-roots fervor.
“There was a great deal of shock in 2003 and 2004, when the gay marriage issue became prominent, and things have calmed down a bit,” said Andrew Kohut, director of the Pew Research Center, which studies public opinion.
But polls show the public still disapproves of gay marriage and remains closely divided on whether homosexual relations are morally acceptable. Democrats also have fresh memories of gay rights as a wedge issue used to portray the party’s candidates as removed from traditional cultural values and a cause to galvanize social conservatives to turn out to vote for Republicans.
Matt Foreman, executive director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, said Republican candidates frequently highlight their opposition to gay marriage and gay-rights causes, either directly or by promising to uphold “the sanctity of marriage” and “traditional values.”
“They’re code words. Everybody knows what they’re talking about,” Foreman said.
But, Foreman added, Democratic candidates rarely place support for gay-rights causes at the center of their campaigns by incorporating the themes in stump speeches or messages to general audiences.
“That’s the challenge we have right now: As the other side continues to bash us ... There’s still this emotional disconnect,” Foreman said. When Democratic candidates are “asked about gay people and our causes, they freeze up.”
During the 2004 election, social conservatives placed referenda banning same-sex marriage on the ballots in 13 states. Though Democratic strategists disagree on how important a factor the issue was in the outcome of the presidential campaign, conservative evangelicals turned out in large numbers, aiding President Bush’s re-election.
Bob Shrum, a media adviser to 2004 Democratic nominee John Kerry, wrote in a recent book that former President Bill Clinton considered the issue so damaging that he urged Kerry to support a federal ban on gay marriage as a way to defuse the matter. Kerry did not do so.
On the eve of his own re-election in 1996, Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act, permitting states to refuse recognition of same-sex marriages performed elsewhere and denying federal benefits to same-sex married couples. Many saw that as a protective maneuver.
Clinton suffered political damage early in his first term from an uproar over a pledge to end a ban on homosexuals in the military. He retreated to the current “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy that allows gay soldiers to serve as long as they do not disclose their sexual orientation.
In the successful Democratic campaign to re-take control of Congress last year, party leaders worked to de-emphasize hot-button social issues such as abortion, gay rights and gun control that divide its working-class base. And in the current campaign, the party’s major candidates have sought to focus on opposition to the war in Iraq and populist stands on economic issues.
Still, the two parties present sharp distinctions. In debates earlier this year, each of the Democratic presidential candidates has said they would favor ending the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy and permitting gays to openly serve in the armed forces. All the Republican candidates support maintaining the current policy.
All the Democratic candidates favor at least civil unions for same-sex couples and two candidates — Rep. Dennis Kucinich of Ohio and former Sen. Mike Gravel of Alaska — favor gay marriage. The Democratic candidates also all support allowing gay couples to adopt children.
The candidates may now have more leeway. After years of greater openness among gays in society and popular entertainment, public acceptance of homosexuals is growing.
A Gallup Poll report this May concluded support for gay rights is “at a high-water mark.” A record 57 percent of the public said it considered homosexuality “an acceptable alternative lifestyle.” The country was evenly split on whether homosexual relations are “morally acceptable,” with an all-time high of 47 percent saying yes and 49 percent saying no.
Support for same-sex marriages also has grown to a new high for Gallup. But the poll found Americans still oppose gay marriage, 53 percent to 46 percent.
Even among those opposed to gay marriage, feelings are not running as strong as during 2004.
In quick succession, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down state anti-sodomy laws in June 2003 and then the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled unconstitutional the state’s refusal to marry same-sex couples in November 2003. By February 2004, San Francisco was issuing marriage licenses to gay couples and in May of that year Massachusetts town clerks were ordered to do the same.
A Pew survey found that 42 percent of Americans said they “strongly opposed” gay marriage in February 2004. But by March 2006, the number had dropped to 28 percent, slightly lower than the number who had said they were strongly opposed before the Massachusetts court ruling.
• 
• 
• 
Comments
First of all, this is ridiculous to have debates before this particular group, that particular group, etc. Isn't that segregating people and dividing people? Everyone has differences, but this is one country, well except for those from the Loony Left.
Second, questions from Keith Olbermann? Melissa Etheridge? Chris Matthews? Boy, those Dems sure know how to face the tough, "objective" interviewer, don't they?
Posted by: John D | August 9, 2007 8:42 AM
Questions that candidates should be asked:
1. Who is harmed when two people of the same gender commit themselves to each other?
2. What is your view of the notion that the greatest beneficiaries of bans on legal same gender (marriage/unions are insurance companies and pension plans which do not have to pay survivor benefits upon the death of single enrollees in most cases?
3. Do you believe homosexuality can be cured?
4. In your opinion are heterosexual people happier than gays?
5. Is the military better off without any gay people in it?
6. Do you have a member of your family who is gay, or you suspect is gay, and how do you feel about him or her?
7. Have you ever had a friend who you knew was not openly gay?
8. What do you say to a close friend or associate who constantly made jokes and derogatory remarks about gays?
9. Do you believe homosexuality is learned behavior, or a natural phenomenon?
10. When, and how did you first learn that there was such a thing a homosexuality.
I realize that these are tough questions for candidates, but I expect someone who is a Democrat to be able to answer. I'm sure Republicans would have a heart attack just thinking about having to answer them.
Posted by: GW | August 9, 2007 8:54 AM
The Republic forum could be hosted by Matt Drudge and Mary Cheney.
Posted by: Raving Loon | August 9, 2007 9:52 AM
John D.,
I know it's scary, but I agree with you.
I mean, what's next? The ambidextrous underwater basket weaver debate?
Posted by: Doug Zook | August 9, 2007 10:03 AM
John D. and Zook, both of you show the vast extent of your un-imaginativistic natures. Of course you cannot be expected to comprehend that a series of debates hosted by different constituencies is an excellent way of thoroughly addressing the concerns of those groups, as opposed to debates in which all issues are on the table and none get fully covered. But, your lack the capacity for deep thinking will not be held against you.
Posted by: GW | August 9, 2007 11:07 AM
John D, I do agree with you on the premise that candidates should consider what is best for the citiznens in totality. But it is the talents and needs of "individual" citizens that makes our nation, despite its problems, the greatest in the world. And candidates do need to know the needs of individual citizens to work through and asess how all can have access to the "American Dream" (whatever that means).
The repubs will certainly be meeting with the NRA, Focus on the Family, and other groups that support their causes, too. So don't try to make it a one party problem.
Also, don't go complaining about who is "asking" the dems questions, when Bush only gives interviews to people like
Neil Cavuto and the other Fox propagandists.
Posted by: Steve | August 9, 2007 11:31 AM
GW, get a brain, Ok.
As an avowed member of the right wing conspiracy and "bible-thumper" movement, I will answer them. And no heart attack either!
Also, isn't Dick Cheney's daughter gay? And they seem pretty close, too.
Anyway:
1. There is nothing wrong with members of the same gender committing to each other.
2. In regard to gay marriage, I do not support it. Civil unions seem like a good compromise though.
3. I would say no. From what I can tell, someone who is homosexual is just who they are genetically, for whatever reason.
4. I would say that generally heterosexual people are happier than gays and studies and facts bear this out. From what I have read and listened to (I do have a gay friend who came out to me a few years ago), many would just as soon be heterosexual, but it's who they are. Not saying that homosexual is wrong, either.
5. Since my gay friend was in the military and that he is an exemplary individual, I would say gays in the military is fine. This also is an position change for me as I was against it at one time.
6. No one I know in the family is gay, but as stated do have a gay friend. He was my friend before he came out to me, so why wouldn't he remain my friend after coming out? I also have a gay coworker, and a friend of mine has a lesbian sister who happens to have a partner, who is quite hot actually. Also had a lesbain boss once, hated her, but not because of her sexual preference.
7. See answer 6.
8. I don't know. My gay friend jokes about gays and even makes an occasional derogatory comment. My opinion is that too people are way too sensitive period and too easily offended.
9. Again, I would say it is natural, not learned. But then those that galavant like some carnival act at gay pride parades, I don't view that as natural. By the way, the gay friend has never attended a gay pride parade nor ever will. He hates them. (Course, now you will say he is a gay gay-hater, won't you?)
10. when did I first learn about homosexuality. Hmmm, well I am getting old, but my fading memory tells me probably in 6th or 7th grade. Not quite sure how all that matters anyway.
Posted by: John D | August 9, 2007 11:33 AM
Oh boy! Nothing revs up the good christians like the gays.
Lets see what the good book says about others groups of people:
1 Corinthians 14: 34-36
Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.
Ephesians 5: 22-24
Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.
Colossians 3:18
Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as it is fit in the Lord.
1 Timothy 2: 11-15
Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing.
Wow...Back to the "man cave" guys.
Posted by: bill r. | August 9, 2007 12:18 PM
GW,
Okay, have it your way.
Let's have a (fill in the blank) hyphenated-American series of debates.
Mine will be the baby boomer, caucasian, male of Swiss, German, Scott, Irish, English decent-American debate.
Let me know when it's my turn.
P.S. I don't give a crap what consenting adults do behind closed doors. And, for the record, this ex-union business agent negotiated sexual orientation non-discrimination clauses into union contracts throughout the Chicago area going back to 1990.
See you at the debate.
Posted by: Doug Zook | August 9, 2007 12:22 PM
I just think it's way too early for the campaign to have begun already.
Posted by: Cheryl | August 9, 2007 12:52 PM
First of all, this is ridiculous to have debates before this particular group, that particular group, etc. Isn't that segregating people and dividing people? Everyone has differences, but this is one country, well except for those from the Loony Left.
Second, questions from Keith Olbermann? Melissa Etheridge? Chris Matthews? Boy, those Dems sure know how to face the tough, "objective" interviewer, don't they?
Posted by: John D | August 9, 2007 8:42 AM
The above post from Little Johnny Dimbulb is another fine example of one of the many reasons why the Republic Party in America is on the fast-track to extinction.
The Wingnutters (angry old rich Republican white guys) just don't get it and they never will.
Posted by: John E | August 9, 2007 1:35 PM
"THANK YOU DEMOCRATS FOR TALKING TO AMERICA"
ONLY THE DEMOCRATS HAVE PROVEN THAT THEY HAVE AN AGENDA TO TALK TO AMERICA.
TAKING QUESTIONS FROM THE AMERICAN PEOPLE THAT HAVE BEEN DISCRIMNATED AGAINST, AND DISREGARDED AS BEING A HUMAN BEING IS WHAT "straight talk" REALLY IS IN AMERICA.
AS YOU CAN SEE THE GOP WILL NOT DISCUSS ANYTHING BUT "roe vs wade"
IF MAN COULD PROCREATE WHAT DO YOU THINK HIS BELIEFS WOULD BE? PRO CHOICE OR SOME LITTLE BOY IN CHURCH OR WANDERING DOWN THE STREET. STATISTICS SPEAK FOR THEMSELVES.
THE GOP SKIRTS AROUND ANY AND ALL QUESTIONS THAT ARE RELATED TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. NO DISCUSSIONS ABOUT WIRE TAPPING, NO DISCUSSIONS ABOUT HEALTH CARE, NO DISCUSSION ABOUT EAVES DROPPING ON HILLARY AND OBAMA AS WE SPEAK. NO TALK IS LIKE NO NEWS IS GOOD NEWS. STATUS QUO. BUT THE DEMOCRATS ARE JUST NOT IN TUNE WITH THE NATIONAL SECURITY OF BROKE AMERICA.
THE DEMOCRATS HAVE NO CLUE HOW MUCH REAL ESTATE THIS PRESIDENT HAS SOLD TO MANY OF NATIONS.
THE GOP IS GAY AMERICA, AND ARE JUST UPSET BECAUSE THEY CANNOT BE AMERICAN AND ENJOY ITS VERY FABRIC OF SOCIETY. HIS OR HERS ON WILL IN HIS OR HERS OWN DAY.
TOO BAD THERE AREN'T ANY ELECTORIAL VOTES LEFT FOR THE GAY / LESBIAN AMERICA.
THE GOP ALREADY BOUGHT AND SOLD THEM EXCEPT SAN FRANCISCO'S AND THEY ARE WORKING ON THAT AS WE SPEAK.
NO SAY FOR YOU! YOU....YOU...YOU
Posted by: Roger Morris | August 9, 2007 1:37 PM
Could someone tell me why: That the bible tells you being gay is a sin, then why are the passages I wrote earlier, not followed? Or are they?
Posted by: bill r. | August 9, 2007 2:10 PM
Hey Roger,
Your keyboard has a "caps lock" button. Carefully press it with your index finger and then release.
Posted by: Marko | August 9, 2007 2:44 PM
Little Stevie, you need to get a clue in life. Bush has been interviewed by Katie CooCoo, Brian Williams, Tim Russert, Chris Matthews, George Stephanopoulos and a host of folks. We had Spit Matthews moderate a GOP debate on MSNBC, but yet the Dems are afraid of Fox News and Brit Hume or Chris Wallace?
Stevie, if the Dem candidates are too afraid of Fox News and Brit Hume, how in the hell are they going to be able to face world leaders of all stripes?
Posted by: John D | August 9, 2007 4:01 PM
John D.,
It's not about fear. It's about giving the middle finger to Roger Ailes and Rupert Murdoch.
Which I am all for.
Posted by: Doug Zook | August 9, 2007 4:31 PM
Doug, first of all Rupert has donated money to Hillary.
Second, if we want to get to media bias, you going to tell me that Tim Russert, former Dem operative, is objective? How about George Stephanoplous, former Dem operative and Clinton employee? How about Bill Moyers, Dem operative and former DNC and JFK employee? Chris Matthews, former Dem operative? Steve Zucker, president of NBC, who keeps taking the network on a leftward path?Keith Olbermann is objective and fair? I could go on and on and on with liberals and Dems who manage the news at CNN, NBC, ABC and CBS. republicans go on those networks all the time. Edwards has been interviewed in Fox nearly three dozen times. Now, because of your Left Loon buddies, he denigrates Fox and won't appear.
Talk about chikenhawks.
Posted by: John D | August 9, 2007 5:14 PM
John D.,
I'm of the opinion that Rupert Murdoch (like a lot of other Republicans) wants Hillary to win the Democratic nomination because they think she's easiest to beat in the general.
And, ssh, don't tell anyone, mums the word, but I think Rupert & RNCCO are right.
Posted by: Doug Zook | August 9, 2007 6:58 PM
To at least 96 per cent of readers — the heterosexuals — the idea that we can be persuaded to change something as fundamental as sexual orientation seems ridiculous. So it is to homosexuals, who make up the remaining 4 per cent and who are often told that their “deviant” behavior is a lifestyle choice. Make it known either way http://www.youpolls.com/details.asp?pid=313
Posted by: PollM | August 10, 2007 9:03 PM
"The political anxiety that gay rights can provoke among Democratic candidates for president broke out in to the open early in this campaign."
Yeah, but that's noting compared to the hard sweating and machine like posturing that would occur if the Republic candidates were subjected to the same pressure.
Can you imagine the nervous flop sweat, twitching, and denials coming from Dressed to Kill Rudy, Brokeback Brownback, and Cpn. Willard? They all protest too much.
You just know they are ready to tumble out of the closet.
Posted by: C.Morris | August 12, 2007 8:40 PM