by Chris Crain
To hear Sarah Palin tell it, there's no disagreement between Republicans and Democrats over extending full equality in legal recognition for gay couples, so long as it's not called "marriage." That's the impression the Alaska governor left in the vice presidential debate with Joe Biden last week.
"I am tolerant and I have a very diverse family and group of friends and even within that group you would see some who may not agree with me on this issue, some very dear friends who don't agree with me on this issue," Palin said in response to a question from moderator Gwen Ifill about whether she would support extending nationwide the domestic partner benefits adopted in her home state of Alaska.
"No one would ever propose, not in a McCain-Palin administration, to do anything to prohibit, say, visitations in a hospital or contracts being signed, negotiated between parties."
Joe Biden seemed taken aback in response.
"I'm glad to hear the governor, I take her at her word, obviously, that she thinks there should be no civil rights distinction," Biden said, "none whatsoever, between a committed gay couple and a committed heterosexual couple."
But when Palin dodged a follow-up from Ifill about whether that's in fact her position, Ifill simply joked, "Wonderful. You agree."
The audience laughed but the joke was on us, since the viewing public was left in the dark about how Palin and McCain really feel about legal recognition for same-sex couples. For example:
By promising a McCain-Palin White House would never work to "prohibit" hospital visitation and the like among gay partners, Palin was definitely not saying those rights should be guaranteed by government recognition; or
As governor, she only reluctantly accepted limited D.P. health and retirement benefits – for state workers only, not the general population – because the Alaska Supreme Court ruled they were required by the state's constitution; or
She supported a constitutional amendment that would have overturned that ruling; or
McCain backed a similar state constitutional amendment in Arizona – rejected by voters in 2006 – that would have banned state and local governments from adopting marriage, civil unions, domestic partnerships or even limited D.P. benefits.
How did Palin get away with it? Nobody called her on it, that's how.
That's also how McCain himself regularly gets away with claiming in response to gay questions that he "opposes discrimination in any form," while never letting on that he also opposes legislation in any form that would make such discrimination illegal – whether hate crimes, workplace bias or prohibiting gays from serving in the military.
Politicians like McCain and Palin can soft-pedal bigotry – or more charitably, their refusal to stand up to bigotry – because journalists are too often leave the gay Q&A on a superficial level, never pressing with follow-ups that would pin these pols down and let voters see their true colors.
What can be done about that? "Work the refs," that's what.
Barack Obama has talked a lot about "working the refs," the sports phrase he uses to dismiss efforts by the McCain campaign to portray the mainstream media as hostile, liberal and pro-Obama.
In basketball and football, coaches and players "work the refs" by complaining about poor calls or missed fouls, hoping the referees will feel pressured to steer a few whistles the other way – just to appear more even-handed.
Obama's opponents in the primaries and now the general election have made the complaint quite effectively. Hillary Clinton even went so far as to complain that debate moderators unfairly asked her to answer questions first.
But as the McCain-Palin gay "tolerance" riff makes clear, it isn't just the candidates who need to work the refs. The need has never been greater for gay rights advocates to pressure journalists – in the mainstream media and the gay press as well – to educate themselves on our issues and better focus their inquiries.
Two organizations central to that effort are the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation and the National Lesbian & Gay Journalists Association. Both groups have been reinvigorated by new leadership in recent years, and ultimately will play a role as valuable as that played by the gay political groups in Washington.
Never underestimate the power of a good follow-up question. Tom Brokaw followed a voter's health care question in the presidential debate this week by asking, rather simply, "Is health care a right, a responsibility or a privilege?" The responses – "a right," said Obama, while McCain left it up to an employer to voluntarily accept the "responsibility" of offering coverage – spoke volumes.
That same question would apply just as well to life and work free from anti-gay discrimination. Should it be "a right," as Obama believes, or simply a "responsibility" that employers should accept voluntarily?
If only someone would ask the question.
