Bradley on GLBT issues

Note: My commentary is at the end.

Note: this was from the first Gore vs. Bradley debate in October 1999.

Q. Senator Bradley, my name is Ingrid Bailey, and I live in Hanover. 

Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness have not been fully extended to 
gays and lesbians in this country. 

Social justice for these citizens is long overdue. Can't we do better than 
the military's don't ask, don't tell? What leadership will you offer to move 
our national conversation and policies forward? 

BRADLEY: Thank you very much for your question. 

This is an issue for all of us to think about. I support gays being able to 
serve openly in the military. If a gay American can serve openly in the White 
House, in Congress, in the courts, in the Treasury Department, in the 
attorney general's office, why can't they serve openly in the U.S. military? 
Doesn't make sense. If a gay American can be a bricklayer, a doctor, an 
athlete a lawyer, a painter, why can't a gay American be a sergeant and a 
lieutenant colonel? It does not make sense to me. 

I am against all discrimination. I am against discrimination on the basis of 
race, gender, sexual orientation. And the place to deal with that is the 1964 
Civil Rights Act, adding sexual orientation to the list of protected classes. 

I also think that it's important that we can talk about gay Americans and 
realize that they are our neighbors, they're our bosses. They're no different 
in many ways than all of us. 

And we have to get to a time in America where we can see beneath skin color, 
eye shape, or sexual orientation, to the individual because that is when we 
are going to be able to achieve the dignity that I think America stands for. 
(Applause.) 

SHAW: Your question, please, for Vice President Gore. 

Q. I'm Nancy Hayes Kilgore (sp) from Plainfield. And my question, President 
-- Vice President Gore is also -- 

GORE: What was your last name? 

Q. (Laughs.) 

GORE: What was your last name? 

Q. Oh, sorry. Nancy Hayes Kilgore (sp). Yeah. 

GORE: Oh, O.K.. (Laughter.) 

Q. Close! (Laughter.) 

GORE: Let me have it! (More laughter.) 

Q. I liked Senator Bradley's answer. And I know that you have also been an 
advocate for human rights. Many of us here in New Hampshire care deeply about 
the rights and the dignity of gay and lesbian people. And recently, across 
the river, our neighbors in Vermont have been discussing legalizing same-sex 
marriage. I'm wondering what your thoughts and feelings are about the 
legalizing of same-sex marriage? 

GORE: Bill and I have the same position on that. I'm for domestic 
partnerships having legal protections, but not the same sacrament, not the 
same name, because I favor protecting the institution of marriage as it has 
been understood between a man and a woman. 

But I think that a partner should have legal protection and contractual 
rights and health care and the rest. 

Now, I also want to pull back and address the broader question, because I 
thought Bill was very eloquent on that. 

I think that the story of our country is in part an unfolding of the American 
dream with a deeper meaning in each generation. 

It's a mystery how Thomas Jefferson could write the words of our Declaration 
and own slaves. It's a mystery how the founders in Philadelphia could write 
our Constitution and not allow women to vote. But we have taken the inner 
meaning and power of our founding documents and the spirit of America and 
breathed new life into them in each new generation. And the time has come for 
gays and lesbians to be recognized within the circle of human dignity. 

Now, this is an issue that is a moral issue. 

I feel very strongly about it, and I will fight for advances in this area. I 
have supported the Non-discrimination Act in the Congress. And frankly, you 
know, most gay and lesbian leaders, and certainly most civil rights groups 
leaders, have argued against opening up the 1964 Civil Rights Act. 

MS. BROWN: Mr. Vice President? 

GORE: And they take the -- they prefer the other approach.

My commentary:

It's good to see that they are pro-gays in the millitary. However, this has little political backing at the grass roots, so I doubt it will actually happen. And the way they back off from full marriage is disappointing, but what can you expect from mainstream candidates. Of course, they all lose points for saying "gay and lesbian" instead of "lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered". Candidates are afraid to use the word "bisexual" because the radical right has starting using that as a wedge issue. Candidates don't know what a transgendered person is, so that community gets left out. However, as time marches on those issues will get better. (Not by themself, but because activists will painstakingly educate at all levels.)

However, there is something excellent happening here. 10 years ago those questions would not be asked. 10 years ago, the candidates would have tried to change the subject. 10 years ago New Hampshire would not have been the place to expect to hear such questions being asked in a public forum. I think that shows the positive effect that grass roots education has had. I know that the 1993 March On Washington and the 1994 Stonewall 25 March both had a grassroots focus, and therefore did wonders to draw out rural LGBT people, like those in New Hampshire. The grassroots organizing finds people and galvanizes them to work on the march, and when the march is over they don't return to their closets. They don't want to go back to the old ways. They end up organizing locally and creating community. It's a beautiful thing. It is a shame that the March on the Millenium (MMOW) planned for April 2000 is not grass roots. It's a "if you can get to the web, you can participate" campaign that keeps people in their homes, detached from the process. When MMOW is over there will be very little change in this country, except HRC will have dozens of new members that think all change can happen by waiting for activists in D.C. to make it happen for them. It's a shame. I bring this up because my volunteer efforts with Stonewall 25 introduced me to many activists from New Hampshire and I got to know them, understand their issues, and appreciate how their movement is different and yet the same as the movement in New Jersey. I can't hear mention of that state without thinking about the power of the grass roots structure of SW-25.

Ok... enough of my rant against MMOW.

Let's talk about Bradley. I've said this in conversations, so I might as well put this on my web site. I really think Bradley is a good guy. When AIDS was "new" and politicians weren't willing to mention the term, Bradley was willing to talk about it. When the federal government was finally willing to fund AIDS healthcare and prevention ("The Ryan White AIDS Act"), Bradley went to bat for the LGB community. When it was discovered that the Ryan White money directed at our "region" was disproportionately going to New York State, and starving New Jersey's efforts, he went to bat for us and realigned the funding. All that when most politicians wouldn't talk about AIDS, wouldn't meet with LGB activist. He has always been a sponsor or co-sponsor of federal non-discrimination legislation (similar to the watered down BS that HRC is pushing as "ENDA").

I have a lot of respect for the man. I will vote for him.

Tom Limoncelli
1999-11-04