The Richardson Solution

HRC Forum In Retrospect

  It's funny - initially I had really wild thoughts about Richardson's "gaffe" at the HRC forum recently.

This was the moment were he said being gay was a choice, backtracked and then flustered about how he was not a scientist and equality was for everyone.  I have to admit, it had me puzzled.  And then, thanks to Stephen Cassidy and his amazing internet work, I came upon this post from the Nation:

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.

It made me think - that his answer is the right one right?  Because equality is for all.  Whether or not someone chooses to be a certain way or is born, that is still them and their choices.

In many ways, it is the most post-modern yet old school answer one could have offered.

 

Richardson calls for repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell

From the Advocate:

Bill Richardson, the Democratic governor of New Mexico and 2008 presidential candidate, announced Thursday that he believes "don't ask, don't tell" should be repealed. Responding to Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman Peter Pace's antigay comments earlier this week, the onetime congressman said he doesn't agree that homosexuality is immoral, instead saying discrimination against gay people in the U.S. military should end, the Associated Press reports. "I voted against it when I served in Congress," Richardson told the AP in Santa Fe, referring to the ban on openly gay service members, signed into law by then-president Bill Clinton in the 1990s. "People should not be judged based on their sexual orientation. Throughout my entire career I have fought for equal rights and against discrimination of any kind."

After Obama and Hillary skitted around this issue for awhile,it's nice to see some clarity and candor on the issue from any candidate.  I'm excited Richardson strikes this sort of tone on issues of sexual orientation.  I'll be posting later on his special session of the legislature that includes, among other things civil unions for same-sex couples.

Where are Barack and Hillary on these issues in the Senate?

GLBT Issues

I'll let the commentator speak for himself:

The other Bill—Richardson from New Mexico—is as much a do-er as Hillary is a talker. He has 15 years in Congress under his belt, followed by a stint as energy secretary and then U.N. ambassador, earning a reputation as a top-notch international negotiator, a skill set desperately needed and so sorely lacking in the current White House occupant.

That negotiation savvy shouldn’t be underestimated. Look what it did for Richardson on the same issue that tripped Hillary: marriage equality. Both oppose gay marriage, but when the New Mexico legislature pushed a “Defense of Marriage Act” in 2005, Richardson said he would veto it unless it was enacted alongside civil unions. His position wasn’t just expedient; it was principled and would satisfy any but those with a marriage litmus test. The DOMA effort failed.

What’s more, in Richardson’s first term as governor of a red state that went twice for George W., he signed a virtual panoply of gay rights protections, that includes:

  * expanding civil rights laws to include sexual orientation and gender identity (only three other states had done so at the time);
  * a hate crimes law that protects both actual or perceived sexual orientation and gender identity; and
  * an executive order extending health insurance and other benefits to the same-sex domestic partners of state employees.

Like Hillary, Bill is on record backing full-fledged civil unions and unlike John Kerry, the Democratic nominee in 2004, Richardson opposes state-level constitutional amendments that ban gays from marrying.

While in Congress in the early ‘90s, Richardson backed military service for out gay men and lesbians. That means, unlike Hillary and the rest, Richardson was anti-Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell when it was very uncool to be.

Richardson’s record isn’t unblemished. He voted for the federal Defense of Marriage Act in 1996, and hasn’t recanted his support. He will need to explain his position on DOMA and, at the very least, back repeal of the portion of DOMA that bans federal recognition of marriage licenses issued to gay couples.  He also backs federal recognition of state-issued civil unions. Given his support for civil unions, that seems likely.

Richardson’s resume and negotiation savvy, which requires bringing people together rather than wedging them, makes him an experienced politician who can legitimately claim to being “a uniter and not a divider.”

Besides the point that he was UN Ambassador and then Energy Secretary and GW lost NM the first time, this author brings up valid points.