The gay moment

For the first time ever, presidential candidates are fighting over the gay vote. This is not a time to be complacent, but to demand action as well as words.

These are remarkable times politically for lesbians and gay men. For the first time in history, two major presidential candidates -- Democrats Al Gore and Bill Bradley -- are competing for the gay vote. (Bill Clinton, the first candidate to seek gay votes openly, had the field to himself in 1992 and '96.) Sure, Bradley and Gore may be pandering, but far better to be pandered to than to be held up as an object of fear and hatred. And even on the Republican side, front-runner George W. Bush and his only plausible challengers, John McCain and Elizabeth Dole, have reportedly passed the word that gays have nothing to fear from them.

Secure in the knowledge that the next president will not be hostile to gay concerns, and may even be supportive, it would be easy for gay and lesbian voters -- and those who champion their causes -- to become complacent. Which is why it's particularly important that they avoid that trap.

For one thing, a Republican presidency would be bad news for the gay community -- not a setback on the order of Reagan's eight years, certainly, but a lost opportunity to move forward. What's good about Bush's "compassionate conservatism" is that it eschews the sort of hate speech that troglo-dytic Republicans such as Dick Armey and Tom DeLay indulge. What's bad is that there's little substance behind it. A President Bush, forced to navigate the treacherous waters stirred up by his party's right wing, would almost certainly not advance the gay agenda through any concrete legislation. Indeed, Bush has already shown that he fears offending the cultural right; he's begged the homophobic (not to mention anti-Semitic) Pat Buchanan not to leave the party.

Bradley and Gore, by contrast, strongly oppose any type of legal discrimination against gays, and for that reason either would be vastly preferable to Bush or some other Republican. But it's by no means certain that the Democrats would match their supportive words with bold actions, or that gutsy proposals would succeed even if they tried. Bradley has been unusually specific, calling for an amendment to add sexual orientation to the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The intent may be laudable, but African-American leaders rightly point out the dangers of giving a Republican Congress an excuse to tinker with that momentous law. Gore, meanwhile, spoke symbolic volumes recently by appearing at a San Francisco meeting where plans for a community center for gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and transgendered people were announced. Not exactly the Kiwanis drop-by that is normally favored by politicians.

Lesbian and gay voters should feel pleased that Gore and Bradley want their support -- and their money -- badly enough to ask for it. Still, it's important that the candidates' feet be held to the fire. Neither man supports gay marriage, even though that would be the surest solution to such problems as insurance benefits that cover only one partner, credit woes, and ill-defined and unequal parenthood rights. It may be politically unwise to require that candidates endorse gay marriage as a condition of support, but it should be made clear to politicians -- including Gore and Bradley -- that they cannot be considered full partners with the gay community until they take that important step.

Last Sunday evening, October 3, Bill Clinton appeared at the Palace Theater, in Los Angeles, to accept the thanks of his enthusiastic and grateful gay supporters, who raised some $6 million for him in 1992. Clinton deserved their praise both for setting an inclusive tone and for naming lesbians and gay men to a number of important federal offices. Yet his presidency has hardly been an unalloyed triumph. He was forced to renege on his promise to allow gays to serve openly in the armed forces. And when it looked as if the Hawaiian courts might recognize gay marriages, Clinton signed the odious Defense of Marriage Act, and took out commercials to brag about it on religious-right radio programs.

"I wish I could have done better," Clinton said in Los Angeles. The goal now should be to make sure that the next president has nothing to apologize for when his (or possibly her) presidency draws to a close.
What do you think? Send an e-mail to letters[a]phx.com.