Taking Gay Family Issues to the Republicans

by MAJeff

Community

(This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Tuesday, Nov. 11, 2003 Tuesday, Nov. 11, 2003 at 12:33:30am PST

This past week, Governor Dean took on Florida's ban on adoption by gay parents. This was the right move to make, and it's something that all of the Democratic candidates need to pay attention to. From the Miami Herald:

Dean also lambasted Florida's Republican governor for his refusal to end the state's ban on gay adoptions. Earlier in the day, Bush unveiled a program aimed at finding homes for thousands of foster children -- but reaffirmed the ban on gay adoption while endorsing adoptions by single parents.

Bush's administration has defended the unique-in-the-nation ban in court, arguing that children are best raised by a man and a woman.

Said Dean, who legalized civil unions for gays in Vermont: "In all the other states in the country gay people are allowed to adopt. It hasn't harmed children, and children are better off with loving parents no matter what their sexual orientation is."

Bush's administration has defended the unique-in-the-nation ban in court, arguing that children are best raised by a man and a woman.

First of all, as I argued here, Bush's contention that opposite-sex parents are superior to same sex parents is flat out wrong. There is simply no evidence to back that contention. However, that's not the larger point I'd like to discuss here. The bigger issue here is how Dean is using the issue to go after the Republicans.

Now, I don't want this to become an argument over candidates and their stances. As I noted here, the Human Rights Campaign gave a score of 100 to all of the Democratic Presidential candidates who were in Congress during the last session (only members of Congress got scores). All of the Democratic candidates have pretty good stances on gay issues. How can we use these issues to go after the Republicans?

Some folks will want us to avoid gay issues altogether. They'll say it's too divisive, we'll lose too many votes. Well, beside the fact that avoiding the issues is just wrong, we won't be able to do it. Bink has a diary entry with an imaginary potential ad from the R's. They've already made it clear they're going to run against us gays. We won't be able to not address gay issues. The question is, How will and should we address them?

Some thoughts:

Dean was right to go after Bush's policy in Florida. Strategically, it is an ideal approach. By going after the policy, Dean is not allowing the Republicans to define the issue. Instead, he gets to define it. By doing so, Jeb is put on the spot--he has to defend the policy. It becomes a stronger issue if gay parents who can't adopt can be brought forward to detail the struggles and difficulties this law has created, similar to the publicity that was occurring when Rosie came out. Plus, combine it with the scientific studies that show virtually no difference between children with gay and straight parents, and we put the R's on the defensive. By taking the lead, we get to define the issues and play offense, a much more enviable position than defense. All of our candidates should be figuring out how to go on the offensive.
Marriage v. Civil Unions. These discussions somehow always come back to this distinction. I, for one, oppose civil unions. The reason for this is that they are a "separate but equal" solution. Separate is pretty much never equal. The only way I will fully support Civil Unions over marriage is if straight couples are no longer eligible for marriage licenses--if everyone is granted the same legal standing of a civil union. That ain't gonna happen because most straight people won't give up marriage. Having said that, though, I have to be pragmatic and recognize that the Democratic candidates with the best chances of winning the nomination are pretty much on the civil unions wagon. We'll have to work within that framework. That raises the question, How should we deal with it in the election? That leads to my next point:
Framing gay rights as pro-family. One of the ways we can take it to the R's is by portraying them as anti-family. Granting marriage (or marriage-like) benefits to same-sex couples provides stability for those relationships, and the children living in such families. It is humane, as well. How, for instance, is not allowing hospital visitation by partners "pro-family." It's just plain cruel. We can take the issue away from the R's by painting them as cruel and anti-family.

Gay rights are going to be a major issue next year. Bush's base will not allow him to run away from them on these issues. We can't simply hope that these issues will not arise. Instead, knowing that they will be prominent, we must find ways of turning them to our advantage. I've tried to lay out a few ways I think we can do so. Any other ideas?