Washington Blade - October 29, 2004

OST GAY AMERICANS decided their vote for president months before the Democratic Party had even selected a nominee.

The choice was made for them on Feb. 24, 2004, when George W. Bush gave a belated Valentine's Day gift to heterosexuals, promising to amend the United States Constitution to forever enshrine their relationships as deserving of special legal recognition.

The president couched his pledge to ban gay marriage in talk about tolerance and respect, but the amendment in question represented a retrenchment on both, and by anointing one theological view of marriage over others, he mocked the First Amendment's promise of separation between church and state.

He claimed to be responding reluctantly in the face of "activist judges," but his amendment went much further than his alleged objections. Rather than simply preventing judges from imposing marriage equality, Bush's marriage amendment aimed to ban states from extending marriage to gay couples, even by legislation or popular vote.

His complaint about "activist judges," repeated even by his wife, instead echoed the ugly refrain of civil rights foes from days gone by, who similarly disrespected the role of the judiciary in protecting minorities from the tyranny of the majority.

This week, the president bucked his own party platform and said that states should be allowed to adopt civil unions or domestic partnerships, but "his rhetoric doesn't match his record," to borrow a Bushism. His administration has for months ignored objections that the marriage amendment he backs would ban civil unions and other forms of legal recognition for same-sex couples.

For most gay Americans, that is enough. Amending history's most important and enduring guarantee of freedom to single out gay relationships for discrimination is unprecedented, unnecessary and un-American.

BUT IT'S NOT enough for everyone.

Neither is his opposition to workplace protection or hate crimes laws. Nor is his continued support for "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" and its aggressive enforcement even as we fight the war on terror. Nor is his thoughtless reliance on "abstinence-until-marriage" as a reliable form of HIV prevention.

For some, it's not enough. As much as it irritates gay liberals, some gays remain loyal to Bush because they back him on Iraq or the war on terror, or tax cuts or any number of other non-gay issues.

As many as 1 million of these gay conservatives voted for George Bush four years ago, drawn by his promise to be "a uniter and not a divider."

It is the president's failure to fulfill that last promise, more than any other issue, which ought to sway gay Bush loyalists. They should see the president's support for the marriage amendment for what it is: a cold political calculation designed to energize evangelical voters.

Ten years ago, when Bill Clinton's presidency was mired in low ratings and a disastrous midterm election, he took the advice of Dick Morris to move to the middle politically and embrace popular ideas. It worked like a charm; he was easily re-elected and his popularity survived even impeachment.

In 2000, Al Gore and George W. Bush both employed the same strategy - hence Bush's promise to unite, not divide - and John Kerry is following it even today, running fast and furious from his liberal Senate record.

But under the advice of Karl Rove, Bush chose a different path this time around. He is practicing politics of the wedge, not the politics of compassionate conservatism. And if Bush wins next week, watch out.

The new political lesson will be that the anti-gay wedge pays off, and we can expect to see gay-baiting repeated in federal, state and local elections throughout the country.

If the wedge strategy fails, however, we should see a return in the GOP to unifying Reaganesque rhetoric and a more modest approach to gay rights - embodied by the likes of Rudy Giuliani and Arnold Schwarzenegger.

IT IS DIFFICULT to imagine a presidential candidate less deserving of support from gay Americans than George W. Bush. But how deserving is his challenger?

John Kerry's gay supporters point to a long record of supporting gay civil rights over two decades in the U.S. Senate. He has for the most part been on the right side on every issue where George Bush stands on the wrong side: workplace protection, hate crimes, repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," responsible HIV prevention.

Every issue, that is, except one. On the most important gay rights issue, marriage, John Kerry has misstepped and done so badly. He opposes gay marriage for grounds that shift with almost every interview he gives on the subject.

He backs amending state constitutions to ban gay marriage, including in his home state, showing the same disregard of judicial protection of civil rights as his opponent.

He tells gay voters to worry about the Supreme Court, but never explains why we should expect he will appoint justices open to marriage equality when he backs overturning such decisions at the state level through constitutional amendment.

It didn't have to be this way. He could have opposed gay marriage without offering religious explanations. He could have said it should be left to the states and left it at that, as Bush did on the Confederate flag issue four years ago.

But with gay rights groups "led" by dyed-in-the-wool, Bush-hating Democrats, Kerry has felt no pressure to be better.

So we are where we are, and the choice is one between Bush and Kerry. Third-party nominees and independents like Ralph Nader may be more supportive, but their candidacies simply aren't viable.

Even in places like D.C. and Maryland where the electoral victor isn't in doubt, votes should not be wasted on these alternatives. Post-2000, the popular vote matters as a mandate, and if Kerry should win the electoral count with a minority of popular votes, we face four more years of division and divisiveness.

John Kerry may not support gay marriage, but he does support civil unions, and he supports the extension of federal benefits to gay couples equal to those offered straight couples. He has promised to make workplace protections and hate crime laws an early priority.

Unfortunately, and it is deeply unfortunate, everything about John Kerry suggests he is Bill Clinton all over again, saying and doing the minimum necessary to secure gay and progressive support without alienating moderates.

But that's a monumental improvement over the current occupant of the White House. A vote for John Kerry is a vote for progress, however incremental, and a vote against the hateful, cynical politics of division.

041029
WB041027

Always watch for outdated information. This article first appeared in 2004. This material is designed to support, not replace, the relationship that exists between you and your doctor.

AEGiS presents published material, reprinted with permission and neither endorses nor opposes any material. All information contained on this website, including information relating to health conditions, products, and treatments, is for informational purposes only. It is often presented in summary or aggregate form. It is not meant to be a substitute for the advice provided by your own physician or other medical professionals. Always discuss treatment options with a doctor who specializes in treating HIV.

Copyright ©1980, 2004. AEGiS. All materials appearing on AEGiS are protected by copyright as a collective work or compilation under U.S. copyright and other laws and are the property of AEGiS, or the party credited as the provider of the content. .