There, after a lengthy debate, the Illinois House of Representatives voted to amend the state’s civil-rights statute to ban discrimination based on “sexual orientation.” Legislators decided that gays, lesbians and bisexuals should join persons of color, women and the disabled on the list of those protected against bias in housing, employment and social services. The same body had rejected the measure overwhelmingly two years ago. This time it passed easily, 6049-a margin that astonished even the most optimistic gay-rights activists.
How they won says as much about the emerging clout of gays in politics as any PR stunt in the Media Big Top of Washington. The Illinois pitch was simple and blandly nonsexual, stressing a sense of fair play and support for the underdog. Gay-rights organizers made common cause with unions and religious leaders. Beefy labor bosses and soft-spoken nuns and priests worked the legislature’s halls on the bill’s behalf. Organizers even took the radically traditional step of hiring a Republican lobbyist. This corporate insider-a straight male with a wife and kids and close ties to the state’s GOP establishment-helped corral seven crucial Republican votes. Republican Gov. Jim Edgar even dropped by a gay-rights cocktail party. “We kept it simple and basic,” said Rick Garcia, a gayrights leader who now must persuade a skeptical Illinois Senate to go along. “We mainstreamed the issue-and ourselves.”
Gay power is going traditional at lightning speed. The massive March on Washing-ton was meant, in part, to evoke past gatherings of powerless multitudes, especially the archetypal March on Washington led by Martin Luther King Jr. in 1963. Leaders proudly referred to themselves as “The Niggers of the ’90s.” But the real story isn’t so much in the streets as in the corridors of power. In Springfield and Washington-not to mention New York, Chicago, Atlanta, San Francisco and especially Los Angeles-homosexuals are a powerful and increasingly savvy bloc. Their money, organizing talent and votes are openly sought, and their agenda is championed in a way that would have been inconceivable only a few years ago. With the new clout comes the risk of backlash if they are seen as demanding special treatment or official government encouragement of homosexual lifestyles. That generally hasn’t been the case so far, as long as the march wasn’t perceived as too gaudily gay. “For the most part, the gays haven’t overplayed their hand-yet,” says political analyst Kevin Phillips.
The new prominence has been building for years. The AIDS crisis gave gays a sense of urgency and led to new organizing and mainstream fund-raising contacts. Liberals who adopted AIDS as a cause have become more comfortable championing gay rights generally. Society’s obsession with legally enforceable “rights” for perceived victims crosses party lines. Republicans, for example, were among the capital’s chief champions in 1991 of new federal protections for the disabled. Ironically, the most forceful push for gay rights came as a response to the GOP’s Houston convention: a seeming declaration, by Pat Buchanan, among others, of a “religious war.” Even many GOP operatives viewed the event as a disaster. “They did a brilliant job,” said New York lesbian activist Ellen Carton. “They galvanized us and scared the country.”
Gays and lesbians justifiably stress their continuing sense of social oppression. And they face a religious right that has made opposing gay initiatives the centerpiece of its own organizing efforts. Colorado voters passed an initiative scuttling city gayrights bills last November. But it’s clear the homosexuals are on a power curve. Eight states and more than 135 local jurisdictions now specifically protect them against discrimination. More than a dozen states now are, or soon will be, considering such measures. Recently elected members of Congress, including new senators from California and Illinois, owe their victories in part to the openly displayed muscle and money of homosexuals in big cities. Gays and lesbians, in fact, have become a key source of new funds for sympathetic Democratic candidates nationwide. And their concentration in pivotal states with huge Electoral College numbers-New York, Illinois and especially California-add to their clout in the geopolitics of public life.
Though gay leaders didn’t advertise it as such, the March on Washington was just as much a celebration of victory as it was a plea for political respect. It was equal parts Mardi Gras, coming-out party, lobbying convention and display of sheer numbers-whatever recent surveys say about gays’ percentage of the population. There were campy stage shows, but also bigdonor fund-raisers honoring members of Congress or labor leaders. There was the giant rally on the Mall, but also 10,000 gays and lesbians in business attire lobbying Congress. “The point is, we are your family,” says Nadine Smith, a march organizer.
In Bill Clinton’s Washington, they indeed are family. The reason is pure campaign politics. Gays were with him from the beginning, and vice versa. With the help of longtime friend David Mixner, a gay activist and ally from the Vietnam antiwar movement, Clinton got early backing from a wealthy, influential group of Los Angeles gays in October 1991. That gave Clinton entree to a wider circle of straight Hollywood and liberal money. He reciprocated the following spring with a moving speech at a gay-rights fund-raiser in L.A. “I have a vision,” he told the crowd, “and you are part of it.”
Clinton has followed through, in his fashion. He has named gays and lesbians to his White House staff and cabinet departments. Two top political lieutenants, Rahm Emanuel and David Wilhelm, have extensive experience in dealing with homosexual leaders. Though Clinton has waffled on the issue of allowing gays and lesbians to serve without restrictions in the military, he is too committed on the question to fold entirely. His healthcare plan is certain to include a guarantee of coverage for all persons with preexisting medical conditions, a key feature for HIV-positive patients. And though he made sure that he would be out of town last weekend, Clinton planned to send a letter of support and to mention gay rights in a speech he was to give to newspaper editors in Boston.
Emboldened by confidence in their status as insiders, gay-rights leaders these days are entirely unabashed about playing what Democratic political consultant Harrison Hickman calls “squeaky-wheel politics.” They are in theatrical high dudgeon about Clinton’s waffling on the issue of military service. And they complain that Clinton has yet to follow through on a campaign promise to champion federal civil-rights legislation for them. “We’ve learned that we have to keep the pressure on him,” says Mixner. March organizers tried to keep the focus-and the pressure -on their own ally, Clinton, to the point of infuriating a sympathetic White House.
Even so, homosexuals clearly see Clinton as a hero who has legitimized their role in national affairs. Michael Dukakis got only about half of the gay and lesbian vote in 1988; Clinton got nearly 75 percent. A NEWSWEEK Poll shows the president’s towering popularity among gays and lesbians. His approval rating among them, 88 percent, is nearly double his overall national number. An amazing 91 percent of homosexuals in the NEWSWEEK survey answered “yes” when asked whether Clinton “cares about people like me,” even while more than a third said that he had “compromised too much” on the issue of gays in the military. As is the case elsewhere in the electorate, Hillary Rodham Clinton is a plus. Her 91 percent approval rating is slightly higher than her husband’s.
Still, the new wheelhouse of gay political power isn’t really Washington or the White House; it’s Los Angeles. A synergy is at work there. California is now the undisputed prize of national politics, and the chief source of campaign funds for Democrats. The city is home to an affluent, upwardly mobile gay and lesbian population. “They’re a big chunk of votes here, and they give serious money,” says California political consultant William Carrick.
The Hollywood community, which has long embraced the AIDS cause, is now embracing gay rights as a political cause. In what was viewed as an important symbolic moment, billionaire record producer David Geffen “came out” last fall at an AIDS benefit, and he is now helping to bank-roll gay-rights causes. Norman Lear, the TV producer and driving force behind People for the American Way, a liberal lobbying group, recently helped encourage the organization to adopt the gays-in-the-military cause. Responding to their own hearts-and the realization that there may be money to be made-Hollywood producers are about to launch gay themes into the filmmaking mainstream.
But politics isn’t the movies. Some observers think homosexual activists’ expectations may spin out of control-and that they risk backlash from the straight community. A new coolness from the White House could follow if they overinterpret the lessons of Houston. “If the gays are seen as proselytizing-and if Clinton somehow is seen as helping them do it-then he and they are going to have a problem,” predicts analyst Phillips.
There are internal problems as well. The radicals of the movement-the ACT-UP and Queer Nation crowd-see the inside players as Uncle Toms. Homosexuals share a common bond but few of the outward life experiences-economic hardship, regional identity, inherited political allegiances–that are the glue of other movements. “We’re different races, genders, classes,” says Carton. Lesbians have deep resentments of what they see as yet another white-male conspiracy of white males at the top-even if they are gay white males. And, says Carton, there is an almost innate aversion to leadership. There is no Martin Luther King Jr., and may never be. “We seem to be loath to have leaders,” she says.
In the meantime, there are races to be won. The next big one, appropriately enough, is in L.A. There Democrat Michael Woo, a longtime supporter of gay rights, is in a close race for mayor with conservative businessman Richard Riordan. When he was deciding to run last year, one of Woo’s first phone calls was to a prominent gay leader. Woo’s handlers know that one key to their victory will be turnout. Polls say Woo enjoys at least a 2-1 advantage among gay and lesbian voters in the city, and needs a big showing from them.
The election is not until June 8, so there will be plenty of time for everyone to make it back home from Washington.
A special poll of homosexuals shows that they view the Clinton presidency far more positively than the public at large.
Do you approve or disapprove of the way Bill Clinton is handling his job as president?
88% Approve 8% Disapprove
Which of the following applies to Clinton? (Percent saying yes)
91% Cares about people like me 85% Has picked good people for his administration 74% Is basically keeping his campaign promises 10% Pays too much attention to special interests
Has Clinton compromised too much on the issue of gays in the military?
37% Too much 7% Too little 52% Right amount of compromise
From the NEWSWEEK Poll of gays April 20-23, 1993
Are gay points of view underrepresented in the Clinton White House?
34% Underrepresented 2% Overrepresented 61% Right amount of representation
Should gay people support candidates solely on the basis of their position on gay rights?
4% Solely on position 23% Mostly on position 71% It should be one of the factors
Which is more important to gay people these days:
62% Gaining equal rights in terms of jobs, housing and the legal system
23% Winning acceptance for gay lifestyles from society at large
A study released last week estimated only 1 percent of men aged 20 to 39 are homosexual. Do you think that estimate is too high, too low or about right?
93% Too low
What do you think the actual percentage is?
30% 10 percent or more
For this special NEWSWEEK Poll. Princeton Survey Research Associates conducted phone interviews will, a sample of 460 gay men and lesbians April 20-23, drawn from lists compiled by Strobeo, Inc., of 400,000 who have associated themselves with gay a.d lesbian interests and activities. Margin of error is +/- 5 percentage points. “Don’t know” and other responses not shown. The NEWSWEEK Poll copyright 1993 by NEWSWEEK Inc.
