|
|
Last night, the Governor issued a statement clarifying an answer to a question
during the Human Rights Campaign Presidential Forum in Los Angeles. The question
came from panelist Melissa Etheridge, who asked if he believed homosexuality
is a choice. From the Governor:
"Let me be clear -- I do not believe that sexual orientation or gender identity
happen by choice, but I'm not a scientist, and the point I was trying to make
is that no matter how it happens, we are all equal and should be treated
that way under the law. That is what I believe, that is what I have
spent my career fighting for. I ask that people look at my record and my actions
and they will see I have been a true supporter of the LGBT community."
The Governor has an accomplished record fighting for the rights of all Americans.
Since taking office, Governor Richardson has:
- Expanded anti-discrimination laws to include
sexual orientation. [Senate Bill SB 28, 2003 Legislature] - Signed into law the state's first hate crimes
legislation for acts including those based on sexual
orientation. [SB 38, 2003 Legislature] - Provided state health insurance for domestic
partnerships. [Executive Order 03 010] - Signed the Billy Griego HIV and AIDS Act, which
was designed to ensure that consumers are the focus of the funding and
services provided in all the state's HIV and AIDS cases. [Senate
Bill 314, 2005 Legislature] - Created the state's first HIV and AIDS Policy
Commission charged with reviewing and making recommendations
on state HIV and AIDS policies. The commission also studies and makes
recommendations on all factors affecting the availability, quality and
accessibility of health services for persons with HIV and AIDS. [Senate Bill 313, 2005 Legislature] - Called a Special Session of the NM State Legislature to
push for Domestic Partnerships Legislation, among other issues, after
it failed by one vote in the Senate during the Regular Session. Governor
Richardson has pledged to push for the legislation again during the
next Legislative Session.
As President, Bill Richardson will:
- Continue to fight for equal rights for ALL Americans.
- Champion a repeal of the US Military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy.
- Appoint his Vice-President to be the Chair of the HIV/AIDS Commission.
As a bisexual Latina with roots in NM and plenty of GLBT friends & relatives still living in your jurisdiction, I can no longer support your presidential run as it is clear from your fumbling last night that you are not truly ready to commit to what it will take to build a society that is truly based on a sense of equality for all.
Politics may be the art of the possible, but this country is in dire need of someone with the vision AND the huevos necessary to move us out of these mental backwaters and into a far more promising future.
Again, I just want to say the question that Melissa ask was off the wall and there are more than 2 reasons for being gay.
What some might not know is that a few state senators hadn't blocked it, New Mexico would now have a Domestic Partner Rights Act. Richardson fought hard for the legislation this year. Have any of the other Presidential candidates called on their state legislatures and governors to enact Domestic Partners statutes?
Recently, the Bay Area Reporter, the leading LGBT paper for San Francisco, profiled Richardson noting:
It seems Governor Richardson has a lot of problems answering questions of any type in debates, every debate we've had so far he's had problems understanding questions etc.
If we want to beat a republican, we have to have someone who isn't going to look weak and pathetic in a debate and appear that he doesn't know what he's talking about.
Therefor I officially withdraw my support for the Governor.
His problem is twofold: He's not coming to too many debates underprepared and not ready to play ball. And he's done a little too much pandering with a couple of his positions, so that when he does go off script, he has a hard time explaining himself.
What happened to the effective, confident, and qualified candidate who won 70% of the vote in NM??? Sure this man hasn't been as successful as he has for no reason.
It's his record as Ambassador and Gov that attracted me in the first place...and he's not using it effectively because he's doing too much pandering to the far left. He's a moderate and he just needs to admit it.
As a gay man, last nights' forum was especially important to me. I knew going in that none of the "top tier" candidates would be as supportive as I wanted but I at least thought they would be okay discussing these issues. The entire time, the Governor seemed uncomfortable. Not to say that he was uncomfortable being around GLBT people, but he seemed to be walking on egg shells, like he was trying too hard. He looked like anything but a leader. Esencially, Clinton, Obama and Edward all have the same view as Richardson on Civil Unions and Gay Marriage...the difference was they articulated their view a helluv a lot better.
We need a strong leader in the White House. At this point, I'm sorry to say I can no longer see my self supporting Richardson. He lost me :-(
That said, no candidate is perfect. Every candidate has an Achilles Heel that can and will be exploited by every other candidate, as well as the Mainstream Media, who are determined to dictate who we will have to choose from come primary time. But that's a different soapbox. My point is, the Governor's Achilles Heel is now in a glaring spotlight. Preparation. Who is responsible for preparing the Governor? Himself? His aides? I don't know who should be held responsible for this, not being a campaign insider, but someone needs to be taken to task for the Governor's repeated gaffes that are simply due to lack of sleep, lack of skill, poor briefing on the topics, performance anxiety, whatever. He is beginning to look like a rank amateur, which we all know he is not. He is the best person for the job, hands down. He obviously has enough composure to garner the release of hostages and hash things out with dictators, and NM thinks he's the greatest thing going. So clearly, there is a gap here. It needs to be addressed immediately, or the Governor will truly be done here.
The mumble jumble about "I'm not a scientist" is absolutely meaningless. It does not take a scientist to understand sexual orientation is NOT a choice - just ask the millions of gays and lesbians all over the world, or read a little history. Sexual orientation - gay or straight - is inborn, part of every person's very nature.
The Governor's "clarification" as another poster so clearly pointed out, is NOT a clarification. It is a reversal. What he said on the forum - twice - was not a mistake. It is what he feels. Of course he is entitled to his opinion. But I cannot accept his gross misunderstanding of the very nature of gays and lesbians.
I have sadly determined I can no longer support Bill Richardson for president.
08/11/07-08/13/07
Richardson asks to speak with The Advocate to clarify his positions
After a performance in Thursday night's HRC/Logo presidential forum in Los Angeles that was universally panned by media outlets including NPR and The New York Times, New Mexico governor Bill Richardson requested an interview with The Advocate to explain what he was thinking when he said that being gay was a "choice" versus a biological predisposition.
Richardson clearly wanted to make amends with the gays and lesbians, but he seemed beleaguered after a long day of trying to heal the wounds left by last night's forum. Perhaps the most illuminating part of our 20-minute interview at The Advocate's offices came at the end, during informal banter as the governor prepared to leave. Referring back to a question I'd asked earlier in the interview about his possible lack of empathy for a fundamental LGBT concern, he asked, "But you think I didn't come across with much empathy [last night]?" It was a rare, humanizing comment from a presidential candidate who was clearly grappling with the chasm between how he sees himself versus how others view him—in this case, gay and lesbian voters.
Bill Richardson and Kerry Eleveld (Meghan Quinn) | Advocate.com
The Advocate: What happened last night when you were asked whether being gay was a matter of choice or biology and you said that it was the former?
Richardson: I misunderstood the question, and I made a mistake in the way I answered it. I thought it was a trick question. I made a mistake and I apologize.
I've always understood that [being gay is biological], I just haven't thought about that in a very long time. Again, I'm very action-oriented. I deal with getting things done for gay and lesbian people, as I have as a governor. And I fully understand that it's something you're born with and it's not a lifestyle choice. I've always understood that, but when you're flying all night from New Hampshire as I had—we're human too. We flew all night to get here. That shouldn't be an excuse. I am here in a symbolic visit to The Advocate to say I misunderstood the question, I handled it in a bad way, and I caused a lot of confusion. But my main message is that I should be judged by my actions, on what I've done, not words that don't accomplish anything, that had been misunderstood.
You also said that if the New Mexico state legislature passed a bill to legalize same-sex marriage, you wouldn't sign it. Why?
What I would sign is a civil unions bill with full marriage rights. That's what I would sign. But that's not the issue. The issue is, what can I get done in my legislature. I was unable in a special session to get done a domestic-partnership bill, and we lost by one vote in the regular session. But then I called special session a few days later to deal with the full domestic-partnership bill. No other governor has ever done that. It failed, so I'm going to bring it up in January again in the new legislative session.
As a purely hypothetical question, if the legislature handed you a marriage bill, would you sign it?
I'm going to answer it hypothetically: It's not going to happen. What I want to emphasize is that I would be a president who recognizes that the country is on a path to full inclusion, and I think what we need to concentrate on is what is doable now. What is doable now is the following: First, repealing [the Defense of Marriage Act], which I said I would do. Secondly, repealing "don't ask, don't tell." I voted to do that in the Congress [Richardson is a former U.S. representative from New Mexico] when I was the chief deputy whip. I felt that was a vote of conscience. Third, repeal No Child Left Behind, which has some diversity provisions that basically discriminate against gay kids.
What I would also do is a full civil unions bill with full marriage rights. I think that is achievable with a combination of Republicans and Democrats. A hate crimes law. I think the country today needs to be brought along on a whole range of these issues.
My message is that I should be judged by my action and not by a word that I misunderstood.
If you were elected president and you could change something immediately for gays and lesbians by executive order, what would you do?
Immediately, in the federal workforce, nondiscrimination, as I did in New Mexico, on the basis of employment, insurance, full partnerships for gays and lesbians in the federal workforce.
So, basically, employment nondiscrimination and partnership benefits for federal employees?
I think that could be done by executive order. Now, unlike [what] Edwards [has said], you can't repeal "don't ask, don't tell" by executive order. You've got to go through the Congress because it was made into a congressional act.
I understand what you're saying about your record on LGBT issues, but I respectfully think you came off last night as lacking a little bit of empathy for gays and lesbians. Even with your record, can you expect the community to get behind you if they perceive you that way?
I became very engaged in gay and lesbian issues when a good friend of mine, who was one of my workers in my congressional campaign [in the early 1980s], by the name of Billy Griego, got involved in helping me, and he then died of AIDS. That's when I felt a real recognition and empathy for gay issues, because of my friendship with him. Years later, with the [state] legislature, I named an initiative that I pursued, which was more funding and a new structure to deal with AIDS at the state level, the Billy Griego HIV Act.
Regarding the maricón comment you made on the Don Imus show, the native Spanish speakers I've asked all say it's a derogatory term for gays. But you've indicated that maricón is just a term for homosexuality and doesn't have a negative connotation. Do you want to clarify?
I also said I shouldn't have used that word. It was at the end of an interview and I was goaded into doing that, and I shouldn't have said it. But in my day, and I'm older than most, there was no such word as faggot. It was more in the sense of being demeaning to someone, more of a pejorative term that was not given the connotation that it has now. But if you look at the transcript of that show, I was goaded into saying it because Imus was trying to stipulate that I'm Hispanic. It was wrong and I apologize.
Any final thoughts, Governor?
I hope the gay and lesbian community supports my candidacy and doesn't judge me on the basis of one silly misunderstanding that I take full responsibility for. They should look at the record and what I've done and what I can potentially bring the country in pursuing equal rights for everybody. I came here today to send this message.
Kerry Eleveld is the news editor of The Advocate.
New Mexico has been friendly to the glbt community and because of this many live there. Of all the many glbt people I met there not one was that way because they chose to be. They are what they are because they are what they are. Simple as that!
When the Governor said being gay was by choice, although I didn't agree, I would have accepted that. His clarification sounded like something The Shub would say, it was complete double talk! I've had over six years of that kind of talk and enough is enough!
I'm very strongly considering switching my support to another candidate.
Jerry
RK: What did you all think about the way Bill Richardson answered the question, posed by Melissa Etheridge, about whether you are born gay or choose to be gay?
AS: I thought Richardson's failure to grasp that question was one of the most poignant moments of the entire forum. It honestly didn't matter to him. It just wasn't computing. Why would it matter? Why would protection from discrimination be appropriate for people who were born Jewish but not for people who converted to Judaism? It makes no logical sense whatsoever, and I think that's why it wasn't computing with him, and I found that kind of endearing and also heartening.
LD: I think it was the inadvertent best moment in the whole forum because his answer was basically so good. He said it doesn't matter, that equality isn't a matter of choice or biology. It's when he said, "I don't want to characterize people according to some standards of science that I don't understand."
AS: It was his least political, most direct answer. You could really see him processing the question and trying to think it through because for once, he didn't have a prepared answer. It was very naked and honest--and right-on.
LD: They pushed him on it over and over again. Margaret Carlson followed up and explained to him that saying you are born gay is the ground on which equality can be claimed. But he was clearly, absolutely resisting the language of choice versus biology. It's not clear to me why he was, but he was.
TN: That marks a certain political shift. I thought it was a positive sign
Hillary Clinton has shown that she's not ready for prime time as well, and she's been at the very top of the political scene for what, 15 years?? In the span of a week she: 1. Foolishly defended lobbyists at a Democratic bloggers forum and almost got booed off the stage. 2. Got caught in a flip-flop on Pakistan, slamming Obama on taking nukes off the table when she was quoted saying the exact same thing last year. 3. Claimed wrongly at the HRC forum that an amendment banning gay marriage would be the "first time" discrimination would be enshrined in the Constitution, in which the original document stated that slaves were to be considered 3/5 of a white person. She's showing bad political skills as well as ignorance in all of these blunders.
We need to look at the big picture here. Governor Richardson is the best, most qualified candidate we have. He has executive experience. He has great one-to-one campaign skills that Hillary woefully lacks. He is far and away the most electable national candidate we can nominate. I still support him vigorously, and will continue to do so over the unelectable Hillary.
As for Richardson's stellar performances on TV, I guess we were not watching the same debates/forums. And how about the weak showing on "Meet the Press." He waits and waits for an opportunity to speak in settings where he (and others) are nor taken seriously -- he finally gets his chance -- and then I realize why he isn't taken seriously. He needs to be better prepared. This campaign has lacked a clear strategy for him to get serious attention. Does he really want to be President? Then convince the people! Somedays I wonder.
By the end of February the ballgame will be over. I can only hope both Hillary and Barack will both blow up soon and some other electable Democrat will emerge. Unfortunately, Richardson had his chance but got no traction. He was my first choice, but time has run out. He is stuck.
Of course if you are correct that he really is blowing the opponents away in the debates/forums I will be very pleased to not be seeing and hearing clearly. I do hope you are correct.
Richardson is still in this. He has to be. I know what you're saying about time starting to run out, but its still early enough that he can catch on.
Bill's also a realist. He knows that full civil unions are the best he can offer, as that's what's most likely to pass in Congress. There is no way, at this point in our history, that any candidate can promise more. If they do, they're lying to you.
Gay by Choice? Yeah, What If?
Alright, so Bill Richardson was confused. He looked it in the gay rights' forum the other day when Melissa Etheridge asked him whether he thinks homosexuality is a choice. He said yes; she rephrased the question, and he said yes again. Then, yesterday Richardson spent the day backtracking. All of which has created quite a hubbub.
My question is, does the gay rights movement really want choice to be the nexus of the fight? Asking whether you think being gay is a choice is kind of like asking whether you think there's life in other galaxies. Asking for an opinion on science isn't so useful; scientifically we just don't know for sure yet. Evidence points in that direction, sure, but, whatever your answer is, it's your opinion, nothing more.
And if the answer to that question is indeed a proxy for belief in equal rights, as this hullabaloo suggests, then what happens if the science ends up showing there is choice involved in sexual preference? Gary Greenberg points out in our upcoming issue (on newsstands, or in your mailbox, come September) that some research has shown that sexual preference is mutable.
Whether being gay is a choice, to me, isn't the crux of the issue. Yes, it would make the fight for equal rights much cleaner (and I believe it someday may), but I would rather see Etheridge ask Richardson whether he believes that people should be afforded differential treatment based on whom they love? Make that the platform, force humanity to the fore, and let science, if it turns out to show genetic predisposition, strengthen the argument.
Somehow the religious right has co-opted the gay-by-choice meme and owns this pro-choice movement. How about the left sticks to its right-to-choose guns here? That choosing whom we love, same sex or opposite, is a "lifestyle choice" regardless. I mean, where is the science proving we are born straight by default? The argument could be made that there are plenty of gay folks out there choosing to be straight, do they then have fewer rights in their straight relationships?
Think about it, and fire back.