(First, just a note to say that I didn’t post my usual Weekly Political Roundup last Friday because I thought the HRC/LOGO Presidential Forum was enough politics to hold us for a while. I’ll incorporate outstanding items from last week into this Friday’s update.)
Presidential candidate Chris Dodd, who missed Thursday’s HRC/LOGO Presidential Forum because of a “scheduling conflict,” has posted his responses to many of the questions that were asked of other candidates at the Forum. Kudos to him for doing so—the other absentee candidate, Joe Biden, has not, as of this writing.
Here’s a quick overview of Dodd’s answers:
He believes in equal rights regardless of sexual orientation, and says “as a United States Senator, I have been working to make that a reality for over 30 years.” He also entertains the idea that one or both of his daughters might be lesbian or bi, a more personal reflection than we’ve seen from the other candidates:
I wish every American, when considering these issues, would think about this as a personal matter affecting their own family not an esoteric issue affecting “others”. I have two young daughters, 2 and 5 years old, I would want them to have access to all the benefits their mother and I have had. They should be able to have the jobs of their choice, build homes, and take care of the people they love. I want these things for my children regardless of their sexual orientation. Every American ought to want that.
He’s in the Hillary camp, though, in viewing marriage as a states issue, and says this is one of the reasons why he voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment. At the same time, he wants to amend the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) “to ensure parity for civil unions at the federal level,” echoing Obama’s call for “strong civil unions” carrying federal recognition.
He wants to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” supports the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), and would never put anyone in power who was known to be anti-LGBT. He supports legislation “to expand the definition of hate crimes to include gender, sexual orientation, and disability.” I assume he means “gender identity,” but he never uses this term. (See my comment below about his response regarding a transgender staffer.)
His healthcare program would cover everyone, regardless of sexual orientation. He wants to extend the Family and Medical Leave Act to cover same-sex couples. He was an original cosponsor of the first Ryan White CARE Act, and would reinstate funding for outreach to prevent HIV/AIDS. He believes that the CARE Act, plus his healthcare plan, would help reduce the rate of HIV/AIDS in urban communities. He believes the use of medical marijuana is a states issue, though. He understands it can be useful in pain relief, and would not interfere with states who listen to the advice of doctors and permit its use.
He is not as definitive as Edwards was about the need to educate students regarding LGBT families. He says schools “should embrace diversity of all types,” but “What is taught at individual schools is a local school board decision.” He does believe it is up to the federal government to ensure LGBT students have equal rights, responsibilities and protections.
He believes that sexual orientation is biological, but refers once to “sexual preference.” Elsewhere, he uses “sexual orientation,” so I’m willing to give him the benefit of the doubt and say this was an editorial mistake by a staffer—but change it, please, Chris, or you’ll lose credibility.
He would support a transgender staff member who was thinking of transitioning. He does not, however, include “gender identity” whenever he lists “sexual orientation” as a category for protection and equal rights.
In summary, he says:
I have been a supporter of the GLBT community throughout my career, and in the White House I will be able to do even more to advance issues important to this community. My record shows consistent commitment to the advancement of GLBT issues. . . . I have spent a great deal of time on these issues, and in the White House I would continue to fight for you.
My take? On LGBT issues, he’s no better or worse than the other the Democratic frontrunners. He’s behind Kucinich and Gravel on marriage equality, of course. He also gets points off for not showing up at the Forum, but has a reasonable record of support for LGBT rights. I really like the fact that he understands one of his own daughters might be lesbian or bi. I don’t like his “leave it to the states” stance on marriage, though, nor the fact that he never explains why he favors federal recognition for civil unions instead of marriages, and doesn’t want to scrap DOMA.
Senator Dodd’s positions on LGBT rights is comparable to many of the other Democrats, but his absence at the HRC/Logo forum spoke volumes about the strength of his convictions. This candidate demonstrated a lack of respect and concern for gays and lesbians when he chose not to show. His “scheduling conflict?” Being photographed standing alone in a field in New Hampshire. His campaign Flickr’d the photo, which I posted on my blog at http://www.lifeonq.com. While the other candidates disappointed us to varying degrees in their forum statements, at least they had the courage to stand up, reach out and be heard. Meanwhile Dodd chose to stand out in a field.
why was Biden missing?
when will he address these issues!
says alot about their character!
thanks
I notice that Dodd has pulled his GLBT-related answers from his “Dodd for Pres” site. Invited responses were critical of Dodd for not explaining his absence from this historically significant political event. One respondent pointed out that on the one hand, Dodd believes that being GLBT is not a choice; on the other, he used the contradictory term “sexual preference.”
Quite a few respondents took it from there, but were respectful in tone. Dodd did not reply on the the blog. How can he affirm that he regards the GLBT community as other than voter resorces to be exploited, with little worry that states rights will require him to do more??.
He has something to lose here.