Those who were involved in the fights around the LGBT community and our rights a couple of decades ago, or even fifteen years ago, remember what an uphill battle it was. We remember how popular opinion was overwhelmingly against same-sex marriage, we remember how states were passing ballot measures and laws to ban same-sex marriage. And we remember who stood in our corner then. And we certainly remember who didn’t.
Kamala Harris was with us. Her fight against Proposition 8 in California is a big part of the reason we have marriage equality today. That is not an overstatement. Had she not become Attorney General of California in 2010, LGBT history in this country might look quite different.
That doesn’t mean that her record shouldn’t receive scrutiny, or that she shouldn’t have to stand up for it. But it certainly means that she has been a long-term ally of the community and comes to any and every conversation about LGBT issues from the perspective of someone who has been in those good fights for longer than most in the current presidential field.
What happened at the Glaad LGBTQ-forum on Friday was incredibly disrespectful to her, for that and a number of other reasons.
Moderator Lyz Lenz asked Harris about a case during her tenure as California’s Attorney General, where she filed a brief on behalf of her client (the California Department of Corrections) to oppose the gender reassignment surgery of a transgender inmate. The question seemed to understand that she was doing her job (“You’ve stated that you were just enforcing the existing law”), but goes on to say: “With this history how can trans people trust you will advocate for them?”
In her answer, Harris goes on to explain what she has explained before: She was representing a client, though she was personally opposed to her client’s views, but worked behind the scenes to change the policy. And for what it’s worth, California later became the first state to change its policy on this specific issue.
Compare this to how Elizabeth Warren was later asked about the same topic, based on her statements in 2012 where she opposed transgender inmates getting gender reassignment surgery. The question was framed very differently. “In January of this year, you said you had changed on this issue, which is great,” Lenz said. “But so many people in America haven’t. […] You just said we have to get everybody on board, how do we even do that?”
While the moderator presented Harris as an “other”; somebody that the trans community might not be able to “trust”, Warren is presented as a part of the collective “we.” The question is framed “How can people trust you?” versus “How can people evolve like you?”, and it’s difficult to find any justification for this based on Harris and Warren’s records, particularly given that Harris worked to change the policy in California, while Warren just changed her position at the start of her presidential campaign.
See the difference in the questioning for yourself:
Every candidate has their strengths and weaknesses. People have longer histories on certain issues than others. That’s fine. When it comes to LGBT issues, Elizabeth Warren doesn’t really have a history. She has admitted that she voted Republican for many years, including during the time of the AIDS epidemic, which affected countless of gay people, and which the Republican party chose to ignore. She didn’t have a public position on gay marriage until 2012 – she hadn’t held public office before then.
It’s certainly interesting that she enjoys the presumption of allyship and good intent, while that same presumption is not afforded to Kamala Harris, who has been in the trenches with the LGBT community for fifteen years – or in other words, her entire public life. It’s certainly interesting that Harris is the one who gets painted as “untrustworthy” on LGBT issues. And again, it’s difficult – or rather, impossible – to find a substantive reason why.
This is not the first time that the tone of questioning is different for Harris than her white counterparts. But the fact that the questions were practically on the same topic, asked by the same moderator almost back to back, certainly makes the contrast jarring. It also makes it clear that a black woman in this country has to do twice as much to get a fraction of the credit. And most importantly, it makes it clear that bias like this is something everyone should call out when it presents itself.
