08/01/2007
Matt Foreman to Dem. Candidates: End Your Spineless Silence
National Gay and Lesbian Task Force Executive Director Matt Foreman, who recently spoke at the Fort Lauderdale rally protesting statements by Mayor Jim Naugle, has a message for the Democratic Presidential candidates. He's sick and tired of gays and lesbians being thrown "under the political bus by politicians either in the White House or those who want to get there."
In a statement issued yesterday, Foreman calls on the Democratic political candidates, particularly frontrunners Clinton, Obama and Edwards to stop "parsing their support" of gays and lesbians "in the language of careful legislative reform."
Says Foreman: "We deserve and we must demand from the Democratic 2008 presidential candidates the simple and straightforward statement that our humanity requires full respect and fair treatment by all and, further, an equally simple and straightforward condemnation of those who seek to use our lives for political gain. This needs be said in front of all audiences — not just in front of us."
Read Matt Foreman's full statement after the jump...
--TEXT of MATT FOREMAN statement--
The Democratic candidates for president, as a group and individually, express more support for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) issues and legislative and policy initiatives to improve our lives than any prior set of presidential candidates in the history of American politics. These new standards of support for LGBT people are worthy of our applause, our appreciation and our accolades.
Still, no major Democratic candidate has made the kind of sweeping statement of inclusion as did Gov. Bill Clinton in 1992, when he declared to a huge crowd of LGBT people in Los Angeles, “I have a vision for America and you are part of it.” His words brought tears to the eyes of the audience and rang out across the United States. Even the most skeptical of us in the LGBT community knew that we heard something previously unspoken by any major political figure.
We also know and painfully remember that Clinton’s vision of America did not translate into much of anything positive for us at the federal level. We can recount our bitter disappointments during Clinton’s time in the White House: the crash and burn of the effort to rescind the Department of Defense policy of discharging gay and lesbian service members, the secret late-night signing of the Defense of Marriage Act, and an ushering in of abstinence-only sexuality education in the public schools. Clinton couldn’t or wouldn’t deliver on the specifics, but at least he held us in his larger vision of a healthy society.
Since 1980, we have suffered the gross indignities of defamations and slanders from a ravenous and rapacious right-wing anti-gay movement, a veritable industry churning out anti-LGBT propaganda at every turn. We endured the AIDS epidemic and the Reagan administration’s cruel indifference while our people fell to illness and then to death. We saw the U.S. Supreme Court uphold state laws that branded us criminals for our sexuality. We have been clubbed by an onslaught of ballot questions that put our lives up to popular vote. Time and again, we’ve been thrown under the political bus by politicians either in the White House or those who want to get there.
All of this misery has been exacerbated exponentially by the spinelessness or unwillingness of all but a few national leaders to take a stand for us and denounce the animus unleashed on us. Many of our “friends” have simply looked the other way.
We bear our scars and yet remain unbowed. But, we are still waiting for the country’s political leadership to defend our right to live and thrive as a matter of principle, not parse our dreams as a matter of misguided political calculation.
This far into the 2008 race, things don’t look all that good. People who think GOP candidates are backing away from using us to inflame and divide are simply wrong. Republican rhetoric is peppered with code that thinly disguises — and affirms — anti-LGBT sentiment with references to safeguarding the family, the sanctity of marriage, the foundation of civilization. For example, Mitt Romney said in Derry, N.H., “The source of America’s strength is the American people…family oriented American people.” And, John McCain on his official Web site: “The family represents the foundation of Western Civilization and civil society and John McCain believes the institution of marriage is a union between one man and one woman.” Let’s be clear: Romney and McCain do not include our families when they speak of “the family.” The Web sites of other Republicans, except for Ron Paul and Rudy Giuliani’s, explicitly reject full and equal recognition of our relationships.
But, what of the Democrats? Sadly, mostly silence. You can find our issues explicitly referenced on only three candidates’ sites (Kucinich, Richardson and Gravel). Frontrunners Clinton, Obama and Edwards carefully parse their support of our people into specific reforms. We find no evidence that the Democratic frontrunners counter Republicans’ anti-LGBT speech with routine and positive inclusion of LGBT people in their visions for a whole and healthy society.
It’s déjà vu all over again — the GOP often slyly and sometimes audaciously whips us for political gain. The Democrats include us — sorta — but only in response to a direct question and typically in the language of careful legislative reform.
This must change, starting now, because at this moment in history, reforms are both important and insufficient.
We deserve and we must demand from the Democratic 2008 presidential candidates the simple and straightforward statement that our humanity requires full respect and fair treatment by all and, further, an equally simple and straightforward condemnation of those who seek to use our lives for political gain. This needs be said in front of all audiences — not just in front of us.
We need leadership. We need strength of vision. And we need to know that the promises of reform come from the candidates' understanding of LGBT people as inseparable from the national community in which we live. There can be no more equivocating or silence about the goodness of our personhood, our families, our relationships. Period.
--END--
Sphere: Related ContentPosted 11:56 AM EST by Andy in Democratic Party, Election 2008, Matt Foreman, News | Permalink
Like it?
Subscribe to FREE Towleroad daily headlines with our RSS feed!
RECENT STORIES:
Nice partisan statement, but I'd rather have the Democrats "carefully parsing their support" than the zero support -- or even open hostility -- that we get from the GOP candidates.
Posted by: Frank L | Aug 1, 2007 12:11:19 PM
Remember what Ron Paul said at the debate :
"the problem that we have with dealing with this subject is we see people as groups, as they belong to certain groups and that they derive their rights as belonging to groups. We don't get our rights because we're gays or women or minorities. We get our rights from our creator as individuals. So every individual should be treated the same way. So if there is homosexual behavior in the military that is disruptive, it should be dealt with. But if there's heterosexual sexual behavior that is disruptive, it should be dealt with. So it isn't the issue of homosexuality. It's the concept and the understanding of individual rights. If we understood that, we would not be dealing with this very important problem."
It all comes down to individual rights and personal freedom. Ron Paul is the only candidate - Democrat OR Republican - who is fighting for that basic tenet. Its time we stopped begging the government to support our views, and instead start fighting for our rights to simply be individuals. I believe Ron Paul will help us do just that.
Posted by: Heather | Aug 1, 2007 12:47:11 PM
There is much I admire about Foreman, but I am shocked and disappointed by the absurdity, in terms of political reality, as well as misstatements of fact, in this tedious temper tantrum.
Even if everything he asserted were true, does he genuinely believe that a Democrat can win the White House with more than they have done so far in relation to expressing support for gay rights when they can’t even succeed in stopping Bush’s Iraq insanity although polls show Americans want them to?
What more does he want the candidates to do? What does that call for strength of vision and this editorial translate to but an effort to paint larger targets on the heads of our supporters? Will he be unsatisfied until one of them shouts, "Gay marriage all the way"? Is Foreman a fox in our henhouse? Is he working "counter ops"? Does he WANT the Dems to lose? Or is he just content to continue living an anemic second-class citizen life under the next Republican President while his stentorian self-righteousness remains fat and sassy?
As for his [unintentional, I’m sure] false claims:
He says, "You can find our issues explicitly referenced on only three candidates' sites (Kucinich, Richardson and Gravel). Frontrunners Clinton, Obama and Edwards carefully parse their support of our people into specific reforms."
How WOULD "our issues" be redressed other than with "specific reforms"? A couple of weeks ago I scanned the official campaign sites of Hillary, Obama, and Edwards and discovered, in short, Edwards' site included OFFICIAL endorsements of our gay rights four different times in press releases published for any and all to see. Hillary's had two and Obama's had none, though we know he has expressed in other venues essentially the same degree of support as Edwards and Hillary save for Edwards’ strong statement that his administration would not interfere with any efforts to advance gay equality INCLUDING gay marriage. [Site details below.]
And, for the millionth time: vis-a-vis this election, only naive fools give a fuck what Kucinich and Gravel support? Again, Totie Fields stands a better chance of winning just one primary, let alone getting on the ticket, than these two put together and she died with only one leg. It diminishes my respect for Foreman's grasp of "real politic" that he bothers to mention them at all.
Richardson, who has a chance to be selecting as the VP running main but zip to lead the ticket, does include support for hate crimes legislation and domestic partnership among his official site’s "Issues" pages, but the language falls far short of the "strength of vision" Foreman calls for, and there’s that recent sticky issue of his sudden amnesia about what “maricon” means, as he used it on the Imus show.
In sum, demanding a scorched earth, all or nothing strategy is known as “Naders Raiders 2000.” Of course, all they succeeded in raiding were enough votes to throw the election in dispute and throw Bush in the White House. If gay issues are all you care about, may I remind you that gay American soldiers, men and women, are dying in Iraq, too, and necessarily in the closet at the same time. Every Repug candidate wants to keep DADT; every Dem candidate wants to dump it. But, wait, Foreman would call that meaningless parsing. Well, Mr. Foreman, with all due respect I call you unrealistic and self-destructive at a time when we need YOUR LEADERSHIP not your wishful thinking and wish list. Election Day does not fall on December 25th.
FROM EDWARDS’ official site:
NATIONAL LGBT LEADERS ENDORSE JOHN EDWARDS FOR PRESIDENT. Pull quote: “I am honored to have the support of so many well-respected LGBT leaders,” said Edwards. “They work hard every day to make our country a better place and I am proud to join with them to fight for equal rights for all Americans.”
EDWARDS STATEMENT ON THE MILITARY’S ‘DON’T ASK, DON’T TELL’ POLICY. Pull quote: “It is long past time to end the military’s ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ policy and to allow openly gay men and women to serve in the military.”
JOHN EDWARDS STATEMENT ON NEW HAMPSHIRE’S RECOGNITION OF CIVIL UNIONS. Pull quote: “New Hampshire’s decision to recognize civil unions and grant gay and lesbian couples the same rights granted to heterosexual married couples is an important step in the fight for justice.”
EDWARDS STATEMENT ON SURGEON GENERAL NOMINEE. Pull quote: “Dr. James Holsinger’s anti-gay writings and beliefs suggest that he will undermine, not advance, the cause of equality and fairness in health care.”
HILLARY’S SITE:
CLINTON CAMPAIGN ANNOUNCES LAUNCH OF LGBT AMERICANS FOR HILLARY STEERING COMMITTEE. Pull quote: “I am proud to have the support of such distinguished leaders in the LGBT community,” said Clinton. “Together, we can move our nation closer to the promise of fairness and equality that all Americans deserve.”
STATEMENT FROM HILLARY CLINTON ON GAY & LESBIAN PRIDE MONTH. Pull quote: “For six long years, the Bush Administration has only seen the families that matter to them. It’s been a government of the few, by the few, and for the few. And no community has been more invisible to this administration than the LGBT community.”
When I checked, Obama’s site only included several gay grassroot support groups listings and gay rights references in the supporter blogs.
Posted by: Leland | Aug 1, 2007 12:56:38 PM
the problem with this statement is that matt foreman's ego is a little too involved-- he wants to be the al sharpton of gay rights. hmm... leaves me skeptical....
Posted by: matthew | Aug 1, 2007 1:07:10 PM
the problem with this statement is that matt foreman's ego is a little too involved-- he wants to be the al sharpton of gay rights. hmm... leaves me skeptical....
Posted by: matthew | Aug 1, 2007 1:07:16 PM
I'm personally tired of this all or nothing kind of attitude. The top primary candidates support civil unions. It's a start.
Posted by: Bran | Aug 1, 2007 1:48:50 PM
i love your guys rationalizations. I think Foreman is right the democrats talk a good game when they are around gays but coming from a "democratic" state like oklahoma i've come to understand that they really don't care and will say whatever the audience wants them to. That's honestly why i stuck with conservatives at least they don't tax me as much while giving me the same slop.
Posted by: Tim | Aug 1, 2007 2:17:17 PM
Sorry, Tim, I stopped taking you seriously the moment you said, "Oklahoma."
Posted by: Leland | Aug 1, 2007 2:54:12 PM
I appreciate people weighing in.
As to the facts, none of the frontrunners includes us in his/her Issues pages. They do have references to us in various press releases, etc., and that's all fine and good but it misses our central point - namely, that we really do need candidates to speak affirmatively for us - or at a minimum denounce the ways we are used by others to divide and distract the electorate - in front of all audiences. We're not saying we want candidates to go through a litany LGBT-related policy issues - just the opposite. Go forward or hit back with non-nuanced, simple conviction about our place in society.
While none of us like it, we have been put squarely in the "culture wars" bullseye by others. When candidates who support us do not respond affirmatively, is is not just gravely disappointing to our community, it's plain dumb politics. The proportion of the electorate that bases its votes on marriage equality, for example, is tiny and would never go for a Democrat. On the other hand, the proportion of the electorate that bases its votes on a candidate's perceived leadership skills and strength of conviction and character is huge. Perhaps a better way to say this is that - contrary to popular wisdom - defending us can be a powerful, positive "wedge" for candidates.
Posted by: Matt Foreman | Aug 1, 2007 4:49:45 PM
"I'm personally tired of this all or nothing kind of attitude. The top primary candidates support civil unions. It's a start."
What all or nothing attitude. Gay and lesbian voters have ALWAYS had to settle for the nothing when it comes to mainstream candidates, especially in Presidential elections. We get vague support and go crazy for a candidate because he mentions us in an obscure speech somewhere and then we just bite the pillow and don't say a word when we are eventually screwed because it's politically expedient. We continue not to press our issues because the Democrats are at least better than the Republicans, but they are not really supportive of us. But we are always ready and willing to be sacrificed because--we are told--the alternative is worse. I will probably vote for whoever the Decocratic nominee is againe this year, but I will have to hold my nose while doing it.
Posted by: db | Aug 1, 2007 5:08:54 PM
I hate to add to already negative words about someone I've long respected but contrary to Mr. Foreman's received wisdom, "the proportion of the electorate that bases its votes on marriage equality" is NOT tiny, not at least in terms of a close election as we saw in 2000 & 2004, despite all of our "gay leaders" parsing of exit polls to the contrary [read defending their own failures to make a difference]. Or has his crystal ball revealed a future election with a wide margin of error we can afford?
Further, Foreman contradicts his own previous statement, as he did so many times in the original rant: "We have been clubbed by an onslaught of ballot questions that put our lives up to popular vote."
Tiny voters with big clubs, I guess. But ones he expects, one deduces, to stay at home election day, 2008. Have any stock tips for us, Matt?
As for "speaking affirmatively for us," once again, despite Foreman's further curious obfuscation, except for marriage, every Dem candidate has, both in answers to questioning and stand alone statements issued by them on their official campaign sites [in the latter case, save Obama, at least as far as I could find], and, e.g., by Hillary's spokesman as reported in the Advocate in June regarding her positions on DOMA and DADT, done precisely what he claims they haven't.
Repeating from above:
“Dr. James Holsinger’s anti-gay writings and beliefs suggest that he will undermine, not advance, the cause of equality and fairness in health care.” - John Edwards
“For six long years, the Bush Administration has only seen the families that matter to them. It’s been a government of the few, by the few, and for the few. And no community has been more invisible to this administration than the LGBT community.” - Hillary Clinton
Attempts at grandiloquence aside which only serve to confuse gay-supportive voters about where the candidates stand, why couldn't Mr. Foreman simply ask for what he clearly wishes for:
1. some kind of primetime press conference devotely solely to embracing us even though he knows, or SHOULD know, that's unlikely to happen and why. If he needs a hug so much, I suggest he talk to his partner.
And, 2., explicit endorsement of gay marriage which one can only hope behind steam emitted by his hissy fit he realizes they would do at a loss of the White House and result in another 8 years of Republican oppression, as well as further fascist ideologues appointed to the Supreme Court for life.
Perhaps Mr. Nader, er Mr. Foreman, has simply developed a bad case of the gay equivalent of Beltway Syndrome, in which, privileged as he is and so far removed from the daily terrors and tribulations of gay youth and gay parents and gay military personnel and all of the other constellations of those among us most vulnerable beyond the Beltway he has forgotten what a luxury moral purity is to those who can't afford it.
Whatever the cause, I suggest sadly that with this pointless sermon, signifying nothing given that he knows neither of his wishes for Santa are going to come true, he has become a part of the problem not the solution.
Posted by: Leland | Aug 1, 2007 6:05:08 PM
"I'm personally tired of this all or nothing kind of attitude. The top primary candidates support civil unions. It's a start."
Same here, Bran. There ARE other issues at stake other than marriage equality, which is small beans in comparison to Supreme Court nominees, torture, destruction of the Constitution, separation of church and state, et al..
Posted by: SC | Aug 1, 2007 6:36:00 PM
If you are happy with crumbs ... you get crumbs.
Gays/Lesbian must DEMAND respect and more from our politicians, especially the Democrats.
Enough is enough with their tip toeing their issues.
It's almost 40 f**king years since 1969 Stonewall Riots. We are not going back to the bus.
I salute GLTF for taking a stand!
Posted by: FunMe | Aug 1, 2007 9:48:47 PM
Even Foreman doesn't call their support crumbs or tiptoeing.
Posted by: Tom | Aug 1, 2007 10:08:05 PM
With Ron Paul as President, I would feel free to be and do and love as I please, so long as I allowed other people to do the same. Well... I already do that. So it is very refreshing to find a candidate who endorses these fundamental liberties.
Posted by: Richard B. | Aug 2, 2007 5:02:47 AM
Fat chance we will ever get that level of support from the Dems, but I'm sure most gays will continue to be voting sheep for the Dems on election day. Neither political party is good enough for my vote.
Posted by: Greg | Aug 2, 2007 9:15:04 AM