OPINION | OutRight So Far, So O.K.
by Dale Carpenter It's way too early to say I told you so, but 10 weeks into the administration of George W. Bush things are actually looking O.K. Bush isn't about to campaign for same-sex marriage (neither did his predecessor) and he isn't going to lift the ban on gays in the military (ditto), but those who predicted gloom and doom for gays under a GOP-dominated government have so far been disappointed. And there have actually been some arguably positive developments.
You wouldn't know that from reading the fundraising letters or press releases of gay political organizations, which thrive on the fear of impending crisis. And you wouldn't know it from following the gay press, which is dominated by writers and editors who were bitterly disappointed by the election and want no part in giving even faint praise to Bush.
Consider some issues on which Bill Clinton proved most disappointing. Unlike Clinton, Bush did not campaign on a pledge to end the anti-gay military ban. The most that could be hoped for from Bush is a relaxation of the widespread, intrusive investigations into soldiers' personal lives that occurred during Clinton's administration.
That softening of the military ban may soon be on its way. A report recently released by the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network (SLDN), a watchdog and advocacy group that monitors harassment and official persecution of gays in the military, revealed that death threats, assaults, and verbal gay-bashing continued at high levels during Clinton's last year. "We are now at a crossroads," declared SLDN Executive Director C. Dixon Osburn. "The question is whether the Bush administration will do what the Clinton administration failed to do and enforce ¨'Don't Ask, Don't Tell, Don't Pursue, Don't Harass,' with fairness and compassion."
Responding quickly to the report, the Bush administration vowed to issue anti-harassment regulations aimed at curbing the abuse of gays. Until that's done, promised Rear Admiral Craig Quigley, "there should be no doubt in any service member's mind that their service does not tolerate harassment." Finally, someone in the federal government appears to be taking this problem seriously.
Bush is also doing better than Clinton, at least rhetorically, on the issue of same-sex marriage. Where Clinton exploited public disapproval of gay marriage for his own political gain, Bush is resolutely refusing to play demagogue on the issue.
In Vermont, the epicenter of the cultural and political conflict over legal recognition of gay relationships, state legislators have been considering an explicit ban on gay marriage. The bill is redundant since Vermont already bars same-sex marriage, but the issue has great symbolic importance for religious conservatives.
Thus, the controversy is tailor-made for cheap, anti-gay rhetoric of the kind GOP leaders have historically used to their advantage. The easiest thing in the world would have been for the new administration to praise Vermont legislators' heroic efforts to save the traditional family.
But no. Ari Fleischer, Bush's spokesperson, said the President would not take sides in the battle over same-sex marriage in Vermont, calling it a state issue. Pressed on whether the administration would at least voice some support for fellow Republicans in Vermont sponsoring the bill, Fleischer refused even to do that.
On yet a third issue of vital importance to many gays, AIDS, Bush is doing as well or better than Clinton. Some feared that funding for federal AIDS programs would be gutted by Bush. However, it appears Bush's proposed budget will not reduce the AIDS budget and may even increase funding above levels supported by Clinton. That really should not be surprising since the GOP Congress repeatedly increased AIDS funding levels above those proposed by Clinton.
Meanwhile, a string of reported disasters confirming gay advocates' fears about Bush have failed to materialize or been proven outright false.
It was reported that the Bush administration would close the federal AIDS office. But the office will stay open.
It was reported that Bush would appoint, as his advisor on gay issues, a 22-year-old gay man who supported an anti-gay marriage initiative in California. The Stonewall Democrats immediately denounced Bush. The Advocate interviewed the supposed appointee at length. The problem was: nobody in the White House had ever heard of the guy.
Remember how bad John Ashcroft was supposed to be? He was going to bring back stoning as a punishment for homosexuality or something like that, we were told. Yet one of his first acts as attorney general was to meet with the Log Cabin Republicans. It was a wholly symbolic gesture, to be sure, but was also wholly unprecedented for a Republican attorney general. And Ashcroft hardly speaks in public anymore without reaffirming his promise not to discriminate against gays.
I know, things could be better. But even if Bush signs no pro-gay legislation he will have matched Bill Clinton's record. In the realm of signing anti-gay legislation, of course, Clinton is peerless among American presidents.
There is still plenty that could go wrong. Bush could rescind Clinton's executive order forbidding anti-gay discrimination in federal employment. At the behest of Ashcroft and others, he could try to appoint a really bad justice or two to the Supreme Court who might make a difference on a gay legal issue sometime in the future. He could, likely more out of ignorance than mendacity, publicly say some really dumb things about gays.
But the glass is starting to look more half-full than half-empty.
Dale Carpenter, a law professor, is the winner of three Vice Versa awards for excellence in gay writing. He can be reached at OutRight at aol.com.