Glossing over gay rights

By Daniel Koffler
The Guardian Unlimited UK

When given an opportunity to take a stand against the US military’s discriminatory practices, the Democratic candidates demured.

Tuesday night’s Democratic primary debate in Nevada was as insubstantial as it was soporific – with one exception. Moderator Tim Russert put the following question to all three candidates:

There’s a federal statute on the books which says that, if a college or university does not provide space for military recruiters or provide a ROTC program for its students, it can lose its federal funding.
Will you vigorously enforce that statute?

Posing the question in these terms is tantamount to asking the candidates if they support literacy for children, adoption of stray puppies, apple pie and motherhood. Naturally, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and John Edwards each took the bait and pledged to enforce the law – before changing the subject and ticking off each item in a litany of (justified) complaints about how the Bush administration has mistreated American war veterans.

Anyone watching the debate who did not know the subtext of Russert’s question would have been utterly baffled as to how such seemingly inarguable legislation could even be opposed, let alone allowed to go unenforced. Presumably, however, the Democratic candidates did know what lay behind the question – the issue of gay rights – which is precisely why they moved on as quickly as possible to unrelated talking points.

Continue reading