'Voting my dreams, not my fears' Green Party supporters argue that Nader is a good choice for Gays
by Tom McGeveran
He's been blasted by a leading Gay Democrat for "steadfastly" ignoring Gay issues. He's been the target of a political resolution that has deemed him a Johnny-come-lately on Gay issues. And though consumer advocate Ralph Nader has been a candidate for president before (in 1996), as the Green Party's nominee this year, his presence in the current presidential campaign appears to be pumping the ire of some Gay Democrats who fear he could pull votes from Democrat Al Gore - and possibly cost Gore the election.
That fear prompted the National Stonewall Democrats, an association of Gay clubs affiliated with the Democratic Party, to approve a resolution earlier this month admonishing Gay voters to support Gore. The measure, adopted Aug. 12 at the club's convention meeting, says "it is widely acknowledged that Ralph Nader cannot be elected president of the United States in 2000, though he could prevent Al Gore from winning the presidency by drawing votes away." The resolution also takes Nader to task for a comment he made in a March 1996 interview with New York Times columnist William Safire; in the interview, Nader dismissed Gay civil rights and pro-choice concerns as "gonadal politics."
Meanwhile, during a speech at the recent Democratic National Convention, openly Gay U.S. Rep. Barney Frank, a Massachusetts Democrat, amplified those concerns, saying Nader "throughout his career, has steadfastly ignored Gay rights and ignored the right of a woman to choose, and ignored gun regulation - and today, [he] diminishes and trivializes those central issues to many of us by denying there are important differences between Al Gore and George Bush."
Most Green Party supporters who spoke with the Blade allowed that Nader has not always been an outspoken supporter of Gay civil rights. In addition to his 1996 remark, Nader has said in the past that issues such as abortion and Gay civil rights distract from more weighty concerns, such as class and economic issues, and divide voters unnecessarily.
"No one has claimed for Mr. Nader a history of Gay, Lesbian, bisexual, and transgender or pro-choice activism. Some of the strongest criticism of Mr. Nader's 1996 dismissal of 'gonadal politics' came from Greens (including me)," writes Scott McLarty, spokesperson for the Washington D.C.-based Association of State Green Parties, in an open letter responding to Frank. "The 1996 campaign was an admittedly limited effort, a forum for Mr. Nader to raise a few vital topics, especially civic participation and corporate domination of the major parties."
But McLarty points to the Green Party platform, ratified in June at the first Green Party National Nominating Convention in Denver, that supports "the rights of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered people in housing, jobs, civil marriage and benefits, child custody - and in all areas of life, the right to be treated equally with all other people."
The platform further advocates comprehensive sex education that includes information about diverse sexualities, rights for transgender people and sex workers, the legalization of marijuana for medical purposes, needle exchange, and an end to the "don't ask, don't tell" policy in the military.
McLarty says Nader cleaves to this platform in the current election and points to a Nader interview that appeared in May in Poz magazine, an informational and political magazine for people with HIV and AIDS, in which the candidate called Vermont's legalization of civil unions for same-sex couples "a humane and touching decision with a very searching rationale - it's not only a matter of affinity, but of economics on health care and other issues, which makes it all the more needed."
In the same interview, Nader also backed a woman's right to have an abortion, needle exchange, and medical use of marijuana, and discussed access to AIDS medicines and universal health care.
In an Aug. 6 interview on Meet the Press, Nader repeated his support for the right of Gays to adopt children, the right for Gays to serve openly in the military, and for protection from hate crimes for Gay people.
But Daniel McGlinchey, political director of the National Stonewall Democrats, says he is unimpressed with Nader's Gay civil rights avowals. In particular, he says, he is stymied by Green Party efforts to distinguish Nader from Gore on some key Gay issues, such as Gay marriage. McLarty and others frequently characterize Nader as a proponent not only of civil unions but also of Gay participation in marriage.
"Gore has not come out in favor of Gay marriage, but he has come out in favor of civil unions," says McGlinchey. "It is not clear to me that Nader is entirely wedded to Gay marriage."
McGlinchey points out that in interviews Nader has used the terms "civil unions" and "Gay marriage" interchangeably. For instance, in the Meet the Press interview, moderator Tim Russert asked whether Nader supported same-sex marriage. Nader responded, "Yes. Civil union and equal rights, equal responsibility."
When Russert later asked, "So the government should recognize Gay unions or Gay marriages?"
Nader's response: "Yes."
"The Democratic Party platform supports 'an equitable alignment of benefits for Gay and Lesbian families,'" says McGlinchey. "So they are essentially the same - except that Nader will never be in a position to do anything about any of it."
Still, members of the Association of State Green Parties have begun to call on Gay Democrats to rethink their commitments to the Democratic Party. Greens rebuked Human Rights Campaign Executive Director Elizabeth Birch for admonishing Gay voters at the Millennium March on Washington to cast their votes for Gore.
"We must vote for Al Gore in November," Birch told the crowd at the April 30 event, which attracted hundreds of thousands.
"Birch's speech reveals that the purpose of the Millennium March had little to do with rights and liberation for Gay, Lesbian, bisexual, and transgender Americans," McLarty says. "The march's real goal was to serve as a pep rally for HRC's pet candidates, including Democrats with weak records on queer issues, and to give HRC the privilege of speaking on behalf of queers - in disregard of the diversity of queer political opinion."
Greens say that, despite the public perception of strong support from Clinton, Gore, and many Democrats, the Clinton administration and Democrats have retreated on many Gay and AIDS issues.
They note that Clinton signed the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, and was joined in his support of that measure by even the most progressive Democrats like Minnesota's U.S. Sen. Paul Wellstone. They say Clinton instituted the "don't ask, don't tell" policy, resulting in increased harassment and dismissals of Gays from the military, and opposes needle exchange and the legalization of marijuana for medicinal use.
But Gay issues are not the only issues attracting Gays to the Green Party. Some cite Clinton's Welfare Reform Act of 1996, which critics say withheld needed entitlements from adult men with HIV, women, and children.
"In many of these cases, Clinton and Gore caved in either to corporate lobbies or to right-wing ideologues," McLarty said in a statement responding to the National Stonewall Democrats' resolution. "The Clinton/Gore compromises and retreats on queer and AIDS issues are analogous to their weak records on the environment, labor, health care, and many other issues."
New Yorker Dan Wentzel believes Gays have good reason to be frustrated with the Democrats. A lifelong Democrat until 1993, he says he found himself leaving the party after Clinton's efforts to reverse the ban on Gays in the military faltered.
"That's when I had had enough," he says.
In fact, in a few short years Wentzel went from being a disenchanted Democrat to a go-getting Green, and he is currently mounting a challenge against U.S. Rep. Jerrold Nadler, a New York City Democrat who is considered very good on Gay issues, to represent parts of Manhattan and Brooklyn.
Meanwhile, Ulster County Green activist Nina Scalora says, "People are very disenchanted with the Democratic Party, and particularly the Gay community," she says, "because we were sold a bill of goods by Clinton, and he compromised with [the Employment Non-Discrimination Act] and with Gays in the military."
"It may sound good," she adds, speaking of Vice President Al Gore, the Democratic nominee for president, "but who knows what's actually going to happen when Gore gets into office and has to compromise with the Republican Congress? Or with other constituents, or corporate sponsors, or special interests?"
If that stand seems politically naive, it should not suggest that Scalora is oblivious to the pervasive fear among Democrats that a good turnout for Greens could translate into a victory for Republican presidential hopeful George W. Bush; it's something she's thought about in practical terms.
"I want Greens to win," she says. "But from a much more practical perspective, I don't think Nader is going to garner enough votes to swing a state either way. The states that are going to go to Bush are going to go to Bush by a much wider margin than the number of votes Nader will pull in."
Most Greens who talked to the Blade echoed Scalora's sentiments, both idealistic and practical. But all are quick to point out that, even if Nader loses, the 5 percent of the vote the party needs to qualify for Federal Election Commission matching funds and become a more part of the national political landscape seems, in recent polls, to be within reach.
Says Scalora: "I'm going to vote because I support that person, and I believe in what they stand for. I'm voting my dreams, not my fears."