Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Family Law Blogs -> Independent Gay Forum

Family Law

: Independent Gay Forum

The Case for McCain

pstrongby Dale Carpenter/strongbr /emFirst published in the bBay Area Reporter/b on October 23, 2008/embr //p pJohn McCain has made it hard to vote for him. Linking Barack Obama to terrorism was odious. Choosing Sarah Palin was reckless. Still, an advocate of gay equality whorsquo;s otherwise closer to McCainrsquo;s views on economic and foreign policy can support him with a clear conscience. Thatrsquo;s because the differences on gay issues mdash; as a practical matter mdash; are less dramatic than wersquo;ve been told by the organized ldquo;GLBT movement.rdquo; As the practical differences on gay issues get smaller, non-gay issues grow in salience./p pYou wouldnrsquo;t know it by listening to gay pundits and organizations, but McCain is the most gay-friendly Republican presidential nominee ever. Thatrsquo;s not just faint praise. Despite election-season pandering to the religious right, hersquo;s not one of them and they know it. He has openly gay staffers and campaign officials. He has defended his gay colleagues in public office against attacks by religious conservatives. The convention that nominated him was free of anti-gay rhetoric. Even marriage, long a crowd-pleaser, was rarely mentioned. In fact, 49 percent of the delegates to the GOP convention supported civil unions or gay marriage. And unlike Bush in 2004, McCainrsquo;s campaign has not exploited homophobia./p pTherersquo;s much more. In a first for a Republican presidential nominee, McCain recently responded in writing to questions from the iWashington Blade/i, DCrsquo;s gay newspaper. The responses, while occasionally mealy-mouthed, were encouraging. Yet gay activists replied to the interview as if hersquo;d called for death camps for gays./p pTake the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, which McCain voted against in 1996. Gay organizationsrsquo; scorecards continue to say that he ldquo;opposesrdquo; ENDA. The truth is more complicated. McCain told the iBlade/i that he now supports ldquo;non-discrimination in hiring for gay and lesbian peoplerdquo; and will ldquo;give careful considerationrdquo; to ENDA. Moreover, his lingering reservations about ENDA are not ldquo;anti-gayrdquo;: if drafted too broadly, the law will needlessly erode religious liberty and generate frivolous and costly litigation./p pSkeptics will say these are excuses for vetoing ENDA, no matter what form it takes. They may be right. But itrsquo;s significant that McCain, who unlike Obama has a long record of actually working productively with the other party, also promises to consult Congress to meet these concerns. Unlike Obama, McCain could actually get around a possible GOP filibuster in the Senate to pass the bill./p pStill, Obama would sign ENDA no matter how broadly drafted. A Democratic Congress wouldnrsquo;t have the votes to override a McCain veto, which would at least mean a narrower bill than wersquo;d get under Obama. So the advantage goes to Obama, but the difference is smaller than once supposed./p pObama supports a hate-crimes law covering sexual orientation. McCain would veto it largely on federalism grounds because controlling crime is primarily the responsibility of the states. Again, thatrsquo;s not an ldquo;anti-gayrdquo; view; indeed, protecting the statesrsquo; prerogatives to decide important policy matters was the basis for McCainrsquo;s and many congressional Democratsrsquo; opposition to a federal marriage amendment in 2004 and 2006. In any case, therersquo;s no evidence such laws actually deter hate crimes, so Obama is better on an issue that doesnrsquo;t much matter in practice./p pThen therersquo;s ldquo;Donrsquo;t Ask, Donrsquo;t Tell,rdquo; which Obama opposes. As gay organizations like to remind us, McCain supported it in 1993 (as did Bill Clinton and the Democratic Congress back then)./p pBut, in another sign of a thaw ignored or belittled by gay leaders and writers, McCain told the iBlade/i he ldquo;will have the policy reviewed.rdquo; He is open to ending DADT, he said, but only if military leaders agree. So the upshot, one might think, is that Obama will end DADT while McCain will only ldquo;reviewrdquo; whether to end it. Thatrsquo;s a big difference between them, you say./p pNot so fast. Like McCain, Obama would need the support of military leaders to end the ban. He would then have to pressure Congress on a matter involving military policy and national security, areas of perennial Democratic political vulnerability./p pNeither persuading military leaders nor wary congressional Democrats to end DADT is a given in an Obama administration. Unlike McCain, Obama has no military background and little credibility with the military brass. (If, on the other hand, McCain decided to end the ban, he would be uniquely positioned to do so, like Richard Nixon traveling to China.) Also unlike McCain, Obama has an undistinguished legislative record, which bodes ill for pressuring his own party or Republicans on the issue./p pThus, itrsquo;s unlikely that DADT would be repealed in an Obama administration. I agree that itrsquo;s better symbolically to have a president on record against DADT than one whorsquo;s agnostic about it, but the outcome is likely to be the same: no end to DADT in the next administration./p pBoth men oppose gay marriage. But McCain supported the Defense of Marriage Act (along with Bill Clinton and most congressional Democrats) back in 1996, and continues to support it, while Obama opposes it. This another area in which the conventional gay-rights scorecard favors Obama./p pBut here we have another distinction that makes little practical difference. Repealing DOMA would be very difficult, requiring full presidential commitment and masterful legislative skills. Obama might be up to this task, but therersquo;s little evidence of it so far./p pGay pundits and leaders love to remind us that Obama opposes Californiarsquo;s Proposition 8, which would ban gay marriage. But they never mention that Obamarsquo;s ldquo;oppositionrdquo; has consisted of a single letter sent several months ago to a local gay Democratic group in San Francisco. No public statements. No TV or radio ads. McCain supports Prop 8, but never mentions it in his campaign. Again, therersquo;s a paper advantage to Obama here, but neither his nominal opposition to Prop 8 nor McCainrsquo;s nominal support for it has had any practical impact./p pDespite what he once erroneously said, McCain does not oppose gay adoptions. His campaign clarified that he supports adoptions by loving parents, without regard to sexual orientation. In fact, McCain told the iBlade/i that he ldquo;respect[s] the hundreds of thousands of gay and lesbian peoplerdquo; struggling and doing their best to raise adopted children. Gay groups have pounced on McCainrsquo;s original misstatement as evidence that hersquo;s ldquo;anti-gay,rdquo; but they never get around to explaining the context and the subsequent clarification./p pAlso on the subject of gay marriage, we should never forget that McCain led the charge against the Federal Marriage Amendment, loudly bucking his own party and President Bush when it really counted. Though he seems genuinely accepting of gay people, Obama has never taken a position on gay rights that cost him politically. McCain did so on the single most important gay issue of this generation./p pItrsquo;s true that Sarah Palin recently broke with McCain and endorsed the FMA, just as Dick Cheney broke with Bush in 2004 to oppose the FMA. But Palin is not the presidential candidate in this race, McCain is. Amending the Constitution to ban gay marriage is off the table politically, regardless of what Palin thinks mdash; thanks in part to McCain./p pThe upshot legislatively is this: Under Obama wersquo;d likely get ENDA and a symbolic hate-crimes law. Under McCain, we might get a narrower ENDA and no hate-crimes law. Thatrsquo;s all. Itrsquo;s a difference that gay voters are surely right to take into account, but itrsquo;s hardly a huge difference./p pFinally, Obamarsquo;s judicial nominees will be more gay-friendly and more aggressive about using judicial power to support gay rights than McCainrsquo;s will be. But McCain will face a strongly Democratic Senate, which will moderate his choices. He also tends to favor judicial-restraint conservatives who respect precedent rather than judicial-activist conservatives who want a right-wing legal revolution./p pSo while they wonrsquo;t advance the cause, McCainrsquo;s nominees probably wonrsquo;t reverse prominent gay-rights legal victories, either. Despite what you may have heard, itrsquo;s unlikely the Supreme Courtrsquo;s decision overturning sodomy laws will even be reviewed, much less reversed, because of appointments by McCain./p pNone of this will persuade a liberal voter who prefers Obama on lots of non-gay issues. Nor will it persuade a single-issue gay-rights supporter who cares about nothing else. I respect these choices. I myself opposed Bush in 2000 and 2004 because he backed sodomy laws and the FMA. These were red lines for me and Bush crossed them./p pBut this year is different. While Obama is undisputedly better on gay issues than McCain, the differences in likely results are not so great that a vote for McCain is unforgivable. For those gay and gay-supportive voters who worry about the effect of an Obama administration combined with a Democratic Congress on taxes, spending, trade, Iraq, and national security against terrorism, a vote for McCain this year is not a betrayal of gay rights. For such voters, itrsquo;s the right choice./p

Full post as published by Independent Gay Forum on October 24, 2008 (boomark / email).