The Human Rights Campaign fears that Republican politics aimed at discrediting Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry will bring about a vote on the antigay Federal Marriage Amendment (FMA) as early as this summer. While condemning Republicans for playing politics with the issue, HRC acquiesced to the Democratic political strategy of not defending gays.
It is the same strategy that all three players adopted in years past that resulted in passage of the antigay military policy of Don't Ask, Don't Tell in 1993, and the antigay Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in 1996. Will there be the same outcome this time around?
HRC scheduled the May 4 telephone news conference with the gay press to inform and educate the community on the marriage amendment. President Cheryl Jacques criticized some media accounts that suggest that a vote on the FMA is vote unlikely this year; 'We don't see it that way at all.'
'I think [Republicans] are trying to spot Sen. Kerry, they are looking for the worst possible political time to put this on the floor and damage him, and put him in a tough position on a tough vote.' Jacques believes the timing will be after Massachusetts starts issuing marriage licenses to gay couples but before the Democratic National Convention in Boston this July.
HRC political director Winnie Stachelberg believes socially conservative Republicans are holding marriage-related hearings in other Senate committees 'because, it looks like they don't have the votes in the Senate Judiciary Committee to mark up and report out' a marriage amendment.
Arch-nemesis Sen. Rick Santorum was scheduled to chair one of those hearings before a Finance subcommittee the next day. Sen. Kerry is a senior member of that subcommittee. But HRC had not asked Kerry to attend the hearing or defend gay families.
'We were quite pleased to see the Democrats not engaging in what we see on the Republican side as gamesmanship. None of the Democrats showed up for the [last such] hearing and we hope that will continue in tomorrow's Senate Finance Committee,' Stachelberg said.
Democrats and HRC have participated in similar hearings before the Senate and House judiciary committees.
Jacques pointed to a pattern of state versions of the FMA that are being pushed in key battleground states such as Ohio as being 'very consistent with the President's plan to bring out his base, to get them all fired up on a gay-rights issue and to be sure that they show up at the polls for him.'
Yet even while absolving Democrats from the need to stick up for gays, Jacques was exhorting the community to 'do the hard work that needs to be done—pick up the phone and talk to their Senators and Congress people,' visit their offices, and 'support organizations like HRC and others who are fighting this fight.'
She pointed to a HRC poll taken in the community several weeks ago showing that more than half of the GLBT people surveyed 'don't talk to family, friends, and colleagues about the impact of discrimination on their lives. So a lot of our natural allies really don't know what any of this means.'
'So what are the Democrats doing to protect and energize a critical part of their base, namely the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender community?' asked National Gay and Lesbian Task Force executive director Matt Foreman in a column circulated a few hours later. Precious little it appears—perhaps because the community, or its political leaders, is not demanding it of them.
Jacques tossed off an incendiary charge in responding to the final question of the news conference. It concerned faith-based programs that President Bush strongly supports.
'We keep learning that a lot of the inner city ministries, a lot of the African American leaders who are speaking with our enemies in support of the constitutional amendment and against gay marriage, are receiving a lot of resources and funding through the faith-based initiative,' Jacques said.
'That may be part of the motivation of why they are joining forces with people who would have done everything to marginalize their community when given the opportunity. We are very concerned about where this is headed. Obviously part of our goal in electing fair-minded leaders is to elect people that will recognize the separation of church and state and will not try to use federal tax dollars to bait people into gay bashing.'