The United States has seen tolerance for LGBT people grow quickly over the past two decades. In the media, same-sex relationships are now portrayed as being something other than a caricature. In politics, various openly gay men, and even one lesbian, have been elected from both parties to the House of Representatives. And in the society at-large, more and more gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered people are coming out of the closet and into the wider community. Not surprisingly for such a hot button moral issue, the country is deeply divided: progressives, often younger, more secular, and largely from metropolitan areas, applaud the trends as a victory for human rights and dignity, as well as the logical extension of the battles of the civil rights and women’s movements. Traditionalists, on the other hand, decry what they see as the breakdown of traditional morality and culture.


What’s the Issue?

The question of LGBT rights encompasses many more specific issues. For years, states have debated whether to ban adoptions by LGBT couples, or even single people. Laws banning sodomy also were a controversial legal issue until the Supreme Court invalidated all. Today, however, the two main issues seen to be facing the LGBT community are marriage rights and anti-discrimination laws.

The next President will have a major effect on LGBT rights, both through actual executive power and through prestige. The President has the power to sign or veto bills, as well as use executive orders to end the military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy and order the United States Delegation at the United Nations to back LGBT rights internationally. Furthermore, by pushing for or against greater acceptance, the President can affect broader societal attitudes, which, in the long-run, affect voting practices.

Why Do I Care?

It depends on who you are. If you are a member of the LGBT community, you most probably will be eager to have federal protection from discrimination and the right to marry whom you choose. If you have a religious objection to homosexuality, it most probably will be important to you to defend traditional marriage. Civil libertarians, as well as those on the left, often view support for LGBT rights as a logical extension of the 1960s struggle for Civil Rights from Black Americans in the South, a comparison made by no less than Coretta Scott King herself. Federalists also can have a stake in this issue, though not necessarily on either side-- many would be against both national recognition and a constitutional amendment banning it. For them, it is an issue better left to the States.

Anti-Discrimination Laws

So far, twenty-nine states and the District of Columbia have laws which to varying degrees protect LGBT people from discrimination. The laws fall into four categories. Some states guarantee protection both in the public and private sectors. Of these, thirteen states protect not only “sexual orientation” (which includes gays, lesbians, and bisexuals), but also “gender identity,” (which covers transgendered people and others of diverse identities). A further seven states forbid discrimination in both the public and private sectors, but only for sexual orientation. Other states have laws only covering the public sector, with three protecting sexual orientation and gender identity and six protecting only the former. These laws vary greatly between regions: all states in the northeast and the Pacific have such laws, while only two southern states do. Some laws were passed by state legislatures (which is seen as having the greatest democratic legitimacy), while others owe their existences to executive orders by governors or court decisions.

Same-Sex Marriage

While there is a growing consensus that the government should protect LGBT individuals from discrimination in the work-place, the same cannot be said of support for same-sex marriage. In 1996 Congress overwhelmingly approved the Defense of Marriage Act, which states that:

I. No state (or other political subdivision within the United States) need recognize a marriage between persons of the same sex, even if the marriage was concluded or recognized in another state.
II. The Federal Government may not recognize same-sex or polygamous marriages for any purpose, even if concluded or recognized by one of the states

Issues have been raised, however, as to the constitutionality of this law, in particular the first part. This would seem to violate the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution, which says that contracts granted in one state must be respected in others. This has not yet been challenged, however. Meanwhile, a proposed constitutional amendment stalled in both congress and in state legislatures is seen as having virtually no chance of passing.

Of the states, only Massachusetts recognizes same-sex unions, a decision that came about as a result of a court ruling, not a legislative one. Nonetheless, since legalization in 2003, the state legislature has consistently declined to take action to reverse the decision, and has quashed efforts to put it to referendum. Polls show that same sex marriage probably would survive a popular vote in this most liberal of states, though not by an overwhelming margin. Four other states, all in the northeast, allow effectively equivalent civil unions. More limited domestic partnerships are granted in yet another four states, all in the northeast or the Pacific. Finally, Hawaii permits even less extensive reciprocal benefits. On the other side, eight states, none in the northeast, have legal bans on same-sex marriage, and a further eighteen explicitly ban recognition of all forms of same-sex relationships. There have been a total of twenty-eight state referendums on proposed constitutional bans (including those covering only marriage and those banning all recognition), and all but one have been successful. The sole exception came only in November 2006, when voters in Arizona narrowly (52-48) turned back the tide of anti-same-sex marriage amendments.

 

Impact to D.C.
Your choice in this election could also impact two other, less prominent issues. The first is the right of the District of Columbia to craft its own laws dealing with LGBT rights. While there is strong support for legalizing same-sex marriage there, the District’s laws are subject to federal review. A more pro-LGBT rights President would allow such laws to go through, while a more conservative one would try to block them.

Furthermore, the President, through the Department of State, would determine to what extent US foreign policy would favor LGBT rights. This would include supporting LGBT organizations to become observers at the UN, backing pro-LGBT resolutions in the General Assembly and the Human Rights Council, and instructing US embassies abroad to work with LGBT NGOs.

Human Rights Campaign Ratings


The Human Rights Campaign is the nation’s largest gay rights group. Each year, it grades members of Congress on their stances related to the LGBT community. Here are the scores for 2006 for those candidates serving in Congress:

Currently in the Senate
John McCain 33%
Barack Obama 89%
Hillary Rodham Clinton 89%
Joseph Biden 78%
Christopher Dodd 100%

Formerly in the Senate
John Edwards (2004) 66%
Fred Thompson 14%


Currently in the House
Dennis Kucinich 100%
Ron Paul 38%


What are the Candidates Saying?
Hillary Clinton
Hillary Clinton is generally well regarded in the LGBT community, though not without some friction. While Clinton generally backs LGBT rights, she is sometimes seen as willing to back down on them for political gain.

Clinton opposes same-sex marriage, calling it something that most people “can’t agree with." Nonetheless, she is in favor of civil unions that literally would be marriage in all but name. She also would permit states that chose to do so to grant marriage licenses.

The question of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” is a particularly thorny one for Clinton since the policy was created by her husband’s first administration. Indeed, this is a major cause of mistrust among LGBT groups. Hillary’s current position helps to allay these fears, as she has come out in support of allowing gays to serve openly. Clinton believes that the policy is detrimental to the country’s security because it reduces the pool of qualified troops by “turning people away or discharging them not because of what they've done but because of who they are." Clinton also criticized remarks by former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Peter Pace stating his belief that homosexuality is “immoral.”

Clinton also supports ENDA and making a sexual orientation a category for federal hate crimes laws.

While Clinton is far from the most liberal Democratic hopeful, she is often perceived negatively as being quite far to the left. Many believe that this is largely due to her depiction on talk radio during the 1990s. Fair or not, such a perception means that Clinton is not particularly eager to talk about LGBT questions, and her website makes no mention of them.
 
The 2004 Democratic Vice Presidential nominee’s views on LGBT rights are fairly typical of his party’s mainstream.  Edwards backs state sovereignty on civil unions and domestic partnerships, but opposes same-sex marriage.  He supports extending anti-discrimination laws to cover the LGBT community. 

Along with his actual political views, Edwards’ personal feelings on the subject have gained some attention.  He appears to have grappled with the question, famously telling interviewer George Stephanopoulos that he was “not there yet” in supporting marriage rights.   His influential wife and confidante, Elizabeth, is a supporter of LGBT rights.  Furthermore, Edwards got into hot water over comments that he allegedly made in the presence of 1998 senatorial campaign strategist, Bob Shrum.  In his 2007 memoir of life in politics, Shrum accused Edwards of having said that he not “comfortable around those people,” and claimed that Elizabeth immediately responded by saying “John, you know that’s wrong.” (Read accounts of this exchange here and here.)  Both John and Elizabeth Edwards vigorously denied that the exchange took place.  Nonetheless, Shrum has a long history in and is widely respected in Democratic circles, and the event raised doubts about Edwards’ commitment to LGBT rights. 

Edwards’ website has an extensive section explaining his strong support for practically every issue important to the LGBT community save for marriage itself.  The section addresses “equal rights for same-sex couples”, workplace discrimination, military service, adoption, hate crimes, and HIV/AIDS.  It also includes links to articles discussing Edwards’ advocacy for LGBT people. 
 
Giuliani’s relationship with the LGBT community is perhaps the most complicated of any Republican candidates. As mayor, Giuliani was largely supportive of gay rights, instituting benefits for same-sex partners of city employees. He also expressed support for broader recognition of domestic partnerships, backed including sexual orientation in hate crimes legislation, and stated his opposition to the Federal Marriage Amendment.

More than his positions, however, Giuliani came off to many as someone who was genuinely not homophobic. He’s attended events in the gay community, even appearing in drag a couple of times. During his divorce, he for a time lived not in Gracie Mansion but in an apartment with a gay couple with whom he is friends. When Giuliani campaigned in South Carolina in 2002 for now-Senator Lindsay Graham (R), Graham’s Democratic opponent mocked Giuliani as having left his wife to “move in with two gay men and a shi tzu.” In a country in which many people, even perhaps Democratic candidate John Edwards (do we have a link we can include for this?), still find it hard to stomach “those people," Giuliani’s very public acceptance, personal as well as political, was a ray of sunlight to members of the LGBT community.

However, in his bid to win over a more conservatives Giuliani has begun to change, or at least nuance, his tune. Since the start of the 2008 Presidential campaign, he has emphasized his opposition to actual, full marriage recognition for same-sex couples. Furthermore, he has come out against civil unions and domestic partnerships that offer full marriage benefits (except the name.) He also has said that he supports reconsidering “don’t ask, don’t tell” only after the War on Terror has been concluded.

Giuliani’s website addresses the issue under the heading of “Marriage.” Here, Giuliani, while stating that he “believes marriage is between a man and a woman,” also declares his support for “equal rights under the law.”
 
Mike Huckabee
Former Arkansas Governor Huckabee, an ordained Baptist minister, could emerge as the darling of the religious right.  As such, his quite conservative views on LGBT rights are expected to attract much attention as a contrast to the more moderate candidates.  Aside from a vague expression of support for tolerance, Huckabee does not seem to be in even partial agreement with the LGBT community on any major issue.  

As governor of Arkansas in 2002, Huckabee signed a bill banning same-sex marriages.  He also opposes all forms of civil unions.  Huckabee’s website features a lengthy section under the heading “Marriage,” where he discusses not only his opposition to same-sex vows but also his support for “covenant marriages.”  Covenant marriages are a legal option available in some states that essentially creates a pre-nuptial agreement that makes divorce much more difficult.  Support for traditional marriage is thus one of Huckabee’s major campaign themes, and his website even asks “What's the point of keeping the terrorists at bay in the Middle East if we can't keep decline and decadence at bay here at home?”  
 
Huckabee, not surprisingly, also opposes including sexual orientation as a criteria for hate crimes and anti-discrimination laws.  

John McCain has developed a reputation as a maverick, and to a limited extent this includes LGBT issues. In the past, he has been very critical of the more conservative, homophobic elements in his party, once calling the Christian Right “agents of intolerance.” While professing his opposition to same-sex marriage, McCain was one of six Senate Republicans who in 2006 voted against the failed Federal Marriage Amendment, arguing that this was an area best left to the judgment of each state. At home in Arizona, McCain backed the 2006 referendum to amend the state constitution to ban same-sex marriage, which was ironically the only such vote thus far to be defeated. McCain has also expressed a willingness to consider domestic partnerships. However, he does not support ENDA. McCain supports “don’t ask, don’t tell,” but has called the prospect of LGBT troops “an intolerable risk” to cohesion. As a Vietnam veteran and former prisoner of war, McCain is almost always seen as having a certain legitimacy on all issues related to the military.
 
Barack Obama
Obama is largely supportive of LBGT rights, and his positions do not differ greatly from Clinton’s. He supports civil unions, ENDA, protection for victims of sexual orientation hate crimes, and the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” While not in favor of same-sex marriage, Obama supports allowing states the leeway to legalize it, and opposed the Federal Marriage Amendment.

Obama does not personally believe that homosexuality is immoral. He got into trouble in October 2007, however, for his association with Donnie McClurkin. McClurkin is a gospel singer well known in the Black community, and he headlined an Obama-sponsored concert in South Carolina, a state in which Blacks make up about half of the Democratic electorate. McClurkin is also a self-described “ex-gay” who believes that homosexuality is a choice and that spirituality can “cure” a person of this “curse.” It remains to be seen whether the episode will have any long-term negative effect on Obama’s standing among LGBT voters. While Blacks are overwhelmingly Democratic and reliably liberal, particularly on economic issues, there is a strong current of anti-LGBT sentiment among some sectors of the Black church. Obama, as the only Black Democratic hopeful, is more sensitive to this question than the others.

Obama’s website, like those of the other Democratic front-runners, does not mention his views on LGBT rights.

Ron Paul
The Texas congressman and former Libertarian presidential candidate is easily the most paleo-conservative candidate in the Republican primary.  Given that in the past his campaign material has suggested that black people are biologically inferior and that he has accepted donations from white supremacist Don Black, is not surprising that Paul is not generally a supporter of LGBT rights. 

Though he does not believe in a constitutional amendment to define marriage, Paul opposes adoption by same-sex couples, opposes allowing any judicial input into marriage decisions, and supports allowing states to outlaw sodomy.  Paul supports the Defense of Marriage Act and was one of 48 cosponsors of the as yet unsuccessful Marriage Protection Act, which essentially would allow states to contravene the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution and refuse to recognize same-sex marriages performed elsewhere in the country. 

In spite of these views, Paul does not necessarily support banning states from expanding LGBT rights if they choose to do within their own borders, and has said that he would not necessarily court martial LGBT soldiers if their behavior was not “disruptive."

Paul’s website does not mention LGBT rights, though it includes a section on “Privacy and Personal Liberty."

If Giuliani’s relationship to LGBT issues is the most complicated, Mitt Romney’s is perhaps the most ironic. It was during his term as governor of Massachusetts that that state’s Supreme Court ordered the legalization of same-sex marriage, which Romney strongly opposed, supporting judicial and legal action to reverse the ruling. His role on the “frontlines” of the struggle to protect “traditional” marriage gives him a certain cachet on the religious right.
 
Yet like, Giuliani, Romney was in the past more liberal and has moved to the right to attract more culturally conservative voters. Many observers believe that Romney’s posturing against same-sex marriage following the court ruling during his governorship was designed to help him win a future Republican presidential primary, and would have been a liability had he chosen to run again for state office.
 
In his 1994 Senate campaign, Romney spoke out against anti-LGBT discrimination, and expressed his support for “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” which was considered a fairly liberal position for the time. He also suggested that he might be open to supporting an ENDA-like bill in congress, professed a desire to involve more LGBT people in the Republican Party, expressed sympathy for the idea of “domestic partnerships,” and opposed a proposed amendment to the Massachusetts constitution to ban same-sex marriage because it would have prevented the recognition of other same-sex relationships.
 
Yet when faced with legal same-sex marriage in his own state Romney backed a state constitutional amendment expressly outlawing same-sex marriage, (though not necessarily “domestic partnerships”). Since he began his campaign for the Republican Presidential nomination, Romney has come out strongly against same-sex marriage and “civil unions,” and now unequivocally opposes federal legal anti-discrimination protects for LGBT people, calling ENDA “overly broad.” Romney still declares his opposition to “bigotry and disparagement,” and some on the right, such as Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council, have expressed serious reservations at what they see as his apparent flip-flopping.
 
Fred Thompson
Despite coming from a very conservative state, former Tennessee Senator Thompson’s views on LGBT rights are not markedly more to the right than those of his main rivals.  Because Thompson considers himself a federalist,  he prefers to leave as many questions as possible to state and local authorities.  Thus, while not personally in favor of many measures dear to the heart of the LGBT community, Thompson generally does not back barring jurisdictions in favor of LGBT rights if the state elects to do so.  However, Thompson has also expressed opposition to “activist” judges whose rulings expand rights for LGBT people while bypassing the legislative branch. 

Thompson opposes a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage.  He did, however, back the Defense of Marriage Act and would support putting that piece of legislation into the constitution.  Thompson has spoken broadly of a need for tolerance, but opposes efforts to make orientation subject to hate crimes and anti-discrimination laws. 

Thompson’s website has only a passing reference to LGBT issues, as part of a broader section entitled “Building Stronger Families”.  The text refers to marriage as a “union between a man and a woman”, but makes no mention of any other LGBT-related question.