IT WAS THE e-mail that launched a thousand knives—the sort of sharp political dagger, however unintentional, that can either be dismissed as catty backstabbing or welcomed as a not-so-pleasant reality check.

It was sent marked "confidential" by Alan Van Capelle, executive director of New York’s statewide gay rights lobby, to his board members, but it was too cutting to stay sheathed for long.

After all, how often does a leading gay activist call Hillary Rodham Clinton "a complete disappointment" and vow never to "lend my name and sell tickets" to her fund-raisers? That sort of "man bites dog"—or "queer bites Hillary"—story will get people’s attention, and it did last week.

Hillary’s popularity among gays isn’t hard to understand: She’s a strong, intelligent woman who’s been unfairly and viciously maligned by conservative Republicans for years—all qualities most politically active lesbians and gay men gravitate toward. Plus she’s got star power and was done wrong by her man, qualities particularly irresistible to many gay men.

Van Capelle’s problem with Clinton boiled down to one issue—marriage—and Hillary’s dogged insistence that gay couples are not entitled to it. To date, she has perfected the minuet made famous by her husband: dance with the gays, take their money, their votes and their praise, but cut in with the next available dancer whenever the moves look too risky.

If the song is about employment protection or hate crimes or civil unions, on which there’s already overwhelming support in New York, Hillary is ready to samba. But when it comes to a wedding waltz, her dance card is full.

CLINTON’S HAUGHTINESS ON marriage is particularly galling given her own rocky experience with the institution. She did vote against an unprecedented amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would ban gays from marrying, but to do otherwise would have been unthinkable for her politically.

In her speech on the Senate floor, she said, "I believe marriage is not just a bond but a sacred bond between a man and a woman." Another reality check: She’s known for decades that in her own case the institution was never so limited and in fact was a not-so-sacred bond between a man and several women, including his wife and untold Gennifers, Monicas and others.

Hillary opposes allowing gays to marry in New York, and she backed the Defense of Marriage Act, signed by philandering Bill, which not only deprives married gay couples of federal legal recognition, it allows states to ignore marriage licenses issued to gay couples in Massachusetts or elsewhere.

With that kind of track record, Van Capelle rightly argued that there’s no good reason for New York gays to throw good money after bad support.

‘’It will send a message to other elected officials that you can be working against us during this critical time and not suffer a negative pushback from the gay community,’’ he said in the e-mail. ‘’We have become a community that throws money at politicians, and we demand nothing in return. And that’s what we get: nothing. It’s the wrong message to send.’’

Van Capelle’s point is a needed reality check for active gay politicos, especially in blue states like New York where marriage is no longer the untouchable third rail of politics.

"This year Eliot Spitzer, David Patterson, Alan Hevesi, Andrew Cuomo, Mark Green, Sean Maloney and others are running for statewide office and are in favor of marriage equality for gays and lesbians," Van Capelle points out.

HAPPILY GONE ARE the days when Howard Dean, now Democratic Party chair, can galvanize gay support by "courageously" signing into law as governor of Vermont second-class civil unions, and then only when the state’s highest court ordered him to do so.

Gone are the days when John Kerry could back a constitutional amendment banning gays from marrying in his home state of Massachusetts, the only state where we can, and still expect widespread gay support.

Over Kerry’s objection, the Massachusetts Democratic Party now backs marriage equality, and they do in California as well.

So what’s Hillary’s excuse? Her anticipated run for president in 2008, according to her gay supporters.

"As she gears up to run for president, it’s a broader stage, and these issues matter in a way that perhaps they don’t when she’s in the Senate," Jeff Soref, a prominent gay Democrat and co-chair of the National Gay & Lesbian Task Force board, told the New York Blade.

Let’s get this straight. Hillary Rodham Clinton can’t support gay marriage ...

continued on next page

1  |  2

email   password The following comments were posted by our readers and were not edited by SOVO.  We ask that you treat others with respect; any post deemed offensive will be removed.