THE REPUBICANS forgot somebody. As I watched the Democratic convention, the liberals' memories seemed a little deficient too. During the Democratic convention in Los Angeles, several speakers alluded to the last convention, held there in 1960. What was less often referred to was one of the major issues at that convention: civil rights.
Because, as the popular wisdom goes, civil rights are no longer as important. We all have them; no one is getting attacked with fire hoses or chased by dogs or barred from public places or booed from ball fields because of his race. Nearly everyone has the right to vote, even if they do not exercise it.
Yet civil rights remain relevant. Not just equality regardless of race or gender - although we still have work to do there - but for the less obvious minority of gays, lesbians, bisexuals and others who do not identify themselves as simply heterosexual. Some states have legislated against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or preference, but the federal government has made no such laws or additions to the existing civil rights acts.
Even as the gay community has worked hard to increase awareness of these civil-rights issues, its members continue to remain invisible to many. They are second-class citizens, as women and members of racial minorities once were. Since it is Proud to Be Out Week, now would be an appropriate time to consider what the presidential candidates propose to do about this issue. Neither candidate has brought gay rights to the forefront, but a look at their respective Web sites gives some clue to their sentiments.
Judging by his Web site, www. georgewbush.com, Republican nominee Texas Gov. George W. Bush is unaware of the existence of the non-hetero community. His "Voter Outreach" drop menu only has African Americans, Agriculture, Latinos, Students, Veterans and Young Professionals. Evidently Bush agrees with the aforementioned popular wisdom, as his "Vision for America" does not incorporate civil rights. One hopes for more from a man trumpeting himself as "compassionate."
A search of Bush's entire Web site turns up zero results for "gay," "lesbian" and "bisexual." The only result for "homosexual" is a criticism of Gore's refusal to comment on the Supreme Court's 5-4 Boy Scouts v. Dale decision, which allowed the Scouts to violate New Jersey law by discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation. There is, however, no comment on the case by Bush either.
Democratic nominee Vice President Al Gore's site, www.algore2000.com, includes, along with several other groups Bush left out, Gay & Lesbian Americans on its "Voter Outreach" list. Perhaps more importantly, under "Issues," Gore has Civil Rights, on which page is the following statement: "Al Gore has made clear that it is time for all Americans to recognize that the issues that face gays and lesbians in this country are not narrow, special interests - they are a matter of basic human civil rights. As President, Gore will work to increase the country's understanding that dignity and fundamental rights for all Americans must include homosexuals."
By all means, be skeptical. Call it a sound bite, a nice remark that makes no actual promises. After all, President Clinton failed to deliver on his word about gays in the military, in his impractical compromise of "don't ask, don't tell."
He also signed the "Defense of Marriage Act," which denies federal recognition to same-sex couples, and makes an exception to the Constitution so that states are not required to recognized marriages performed in other states. Clinton's heir will not be any different.
Call me desperate, but Gore's Web page statement makes me cheer, because it is precisely my point: Gay rights are human rights. Gore's public recognition of this fact puts him far ahead of many of his political peers. People like to talk about this year's election being merely a choice between Tweedledumb and Tweedledumber, about there being little substantive difference between the candidates on most issues.
Here is your difference - a huge, glaring difference. As Kate Ranson-Walsh, president of the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transsexual Union said in a personal interview, "Any student at the University should be concerned about the election." She cited Bush's remark, "an openly known homosexual is somebody who probably wouldn't share my philosophy," as one of several instances of his negative viewpoint toward homosexuals.
As much as I care about the main topics of the debates, such as health care, social security and taxes, I have to admit that I had made my choice even before their opening statements. It did not require reading Gore's 191 page economic plan. Nor did I have to check out Bush's Fact Sheet on Abstinence Education.
Bush is not someone who will work to ensure the equality of all. In several speeches referring to the Clinton-Gore administration, he has intoned, "They have not led; we will." On the issue of gay and lesbian rights, however, he would have to say, "They haven't gotten far; we'll go backwards."
I will vote for Gore with the same feeling as some of the people voting for Lincoln or Kennedy probably had: This guy might not get it done, but he is on the right side, and the other guy surely is not. Equality regardless of sexual orientation is as important in the year 2000 as racial civil rights would have been in 1960, or abolition of slavery in 1860.
This time, everything else will have to be second class.
(Pallavi Guniganti is a Cavalier Daily viewpoint writer.)
Read More
SULLIVAN: Ramp up physical accessibility on Grounds
By Scarlett Sullivan | 17 hours agoThe University must take responsibility for the inaccessibility of Grounds and work to promote accessibility for all students despite misguided laws.
EDITORIAL: Scapegoating students will not stop hazing
By Editorial Board | 3 days agoInstead of retroactively responding to extreme hazing allegations, we, and especially the University, must begin asking more probing questions about the role of fraternal organizations on Grounds.
EDITORIAL: Celebrating and reflecting on The Cavalier Daily’s independence
By Editorial Board | April 18, 2024Our independence grants us the ability to ask the hard questions and to say what University representatives cannot.
