___________________________________________________

All Things Queer
GAY & LESBIAN ISSUES
coverage, commentary & community
for people with brains *and* an attitude!
____________________________________________________

 

Google
or SEARCH THIS SITE

 

Home
All News
Features
Election 2008
Shopping
Snippets
Resources
Coming Out Stories
Gays for God
Ask an Expert
Jobs
Know Thine Enemies
Fun and Games
Community
FAQ
Historical Calendar
Search
 

With Friends Like These

Dateline: 09/17/99

There are currently two leading contenders for the Democratic Party nomination for President. Bill Bradley, and Vice-President Al Gore. As exit polls in the last two elections suggested that 5% of those who voted for the Clinton ticket were willing to self-identify as gay or lesbian, we are not an unimportant swing vote.

On many GLBT issues Bill Bradley has said the right things. For example, he believes that protections for gays and lesbians should be added to the federal Civil Rights Act of 1964, and further that gays and lesbians should be able to openly serve in the United States military. He also stated that he could not and does not support an anti same-gender marriage proposition in California, the Knight measure, further described below.

Both candidates support ENDA, an annually proposed, yet not yet passed, federal employment non-discrimination law which would protect gays and lesbians in the workplace. They are also both on record as being willing to support legal protections for "domestic partnerships." (Do note however that if I wanted a "domestic partnership" I would have contacted an attorney - not a Rabbi.)

Although we've heard some of this type of talk before, Bradley has a no-nonsense type of reputation that suggests he may be as good as his word.

By way of comparison, Vice-President Al Gore does not want to do away with the failed "Don't Ask Don't Tell" policy currently in force vis a vis gay and lesbian military service, but rather suggests that the policy be handled more compassionately.

As the end result of the policy is that more gays and lesbians are being discharged and subjected to witch hunts than ever before in the history of the U.S. military I'm not quite sure how compassion would help. "We're so sorry that we're discharging you from the military and not allowing you to serve your country or continue to fulfill your life-long dream. Our thoughts go with you!" doesn't seem to do enough to make up for the blow these service personnel suffer.

Both candidates recently spoke out on what is for me a local issue. As noted above, come March 2000, Californians will be voting on an openly bigoted, but sadly not unusual, ballot proposition. With a little help from out-of-state religious groups we left-coasters will be voting on the "Knight measure," which is a "Defense of Marriage" type act defining marriage as between a man and a woman.

All in all, on paper they both look pretty good, with Bradley seeming to win by the nose of his armed forces position. However, Bradley should have quit while he was ahead, at least where I am concerned. In discussing the Knight measure Bradley said that he opposes same-sex marriage because of "the religious nature of marriage."

This is where we come to the clue department, and what I would say to Bradley, if given the opportunity:

Senator Bradley, there is something called the first amendment which notes the appropriate relationship between religious beliefs, which encompass a rather wide range, including numerous denominations which celebrate gay and lesbian relationships and marriages, and civil laws which determine how a secular government treats, in this instance, couples.

The California initiative seeks to impose the religious beliefs of some upon the civil rights of all. In fact, my marriage is a religious marriage, with a ceremony performed by a Rabbi. My religion is fine with me - it's the state that chooses to pretend that what exists does not.

Senator Bradley, you are not a stupid man. Surely you know the difference between the religious and the secular. Why on earth did you make such a pandering and ignorant sounding statement? Were you indeed pandering to the religious right or did you just speak without thinking?

I certainly hope that it is the latter, and that you restate your position. If you have some non-religious basis for denying civil recognition of marriages (which are taking place each and every day by the way) please do share it will all of us. If not, I look forward to your support.

And as for you Mr. Gore.... Don't Ask Don't Tell is not only a failure, it remains fundamentally wrong. So what's your excuse?

In Pride,
Deborah


Best Dating Site
Free Trial!









 

Click Here to Pay Learn More Amazon Honor System

Adult Personals - looking for the perfect adult dating site? sexsearch.com is the perfect stop for online adult personals. search thousands of cities for adults looking to meet you.

 

Join the Gay/Lesbian Issues mailing list  

Email:

SubscribeUnsubscribe 

Powered by YourMailinglistProvider.com


 



Questions? Comments? Submissions?
Drop a note to Deborah at gaylesissues@rslevinson.com

copyright © 1986-2007 Deborah Levinson