Brian Bond, former executive director for the Gay and Lesbian Victory Fund and Democratic Party liaison, was expecting to take a job leading the gay political group National Stonewall Democrats. That was until Donald Hitchcock was fired from his post as executive director of the Democratic National Committee’s Gay and Lesbian Leadership Council in April, and Bond stepped in.
Hitchcock was fired by DNC chair Howard Dean one week after Hitchcock’s partner, Democratic Party operative Paul Yandura, wrote an open letter criticizing Dean and the Democrats for not doing enough to defend the rights of gay and lesbian couples. The DNC has stated repeatedly that Hitchcock was not let go in retaliation for the letter.
Bond sat down with The Advocate during his first full day at work on May 9 to talk about the party’s prospects in 2006, how gays and lesbians fit in, and whether he thinks he could get fired for something his partner says.
Does the DNC have a strategy to combat what
promises to be another big round of constitutional
marriage bans on state ballots this year?
I would say yes, but I think you have to look at
this in both a short-term and long-term context. In
the short term, clearly strategy is being put in
place. Obviously I’m new here, so I have some ideas
myself. But at the same time there is a long-term
piece to this too. One of the things Governor Dean has
done very well with the staff here is to start and put
an infrastructure in place that starts bringing people up
through the process. They are doing an incredible
amount of training that I don’t think they are
getting credit for, quite frankly. Having been the former
gay desk person [before Dean eliminated it in favor of a
more integrated approach to outreach], I can tell you
I actually think the new approach, the way the
governor has integrated things—where everybody has to
talk and work together here and everybody knows
what’s going on—is going to be more
beneficial in the long run. That is part of the reason I
wanted to take this job.
Some people were very critical of the DNC getting
rid of its desk system. How did you feel about it,
having been someone on that desk?
This integrated approach will work better. It
doesn’t minimize the impact of the community. I
mean, my work is going to be [with] GLBT [people], but
I think it allows you to bring more people in. I mean, I had
to fight for pencils. Having to call a major donor to
get pencils for your desk was a little tough when you
should be focusing on the issues. They changed the
paradigm here, and I think in the end it will pay off.
Are you afraid that if your partner or boyfriend
says something critical [of the DNC], you’re
going to get fired?
No. First of all, I trust my partner beyond a
shadow of a doubt.
Some people are saying the reason your predecessor
is gone is because of what his partner was saying
publicly. Do you agree?
I think timing in this whole situation is what
it was. It’s apples and oranges. I don’t
think they had anything to do with each other. It was a
timing issue.
What position were you up for at the National
Stonewall Democrats when you decided to take this job instead?
I was in the final round for the National Stonewall
Democrats [executive director position]. In the end, I
love that organization. And I know they will be an
integral part of whatever is happening here in the
DNC. They have to be. If I can be their advocate and bring
them more into the process—it’s a great
organization, and it is grassroots. It is what we
should be doing.
How would you respond to gay people who say,
“I’m not going to write a check to
the DNC because they have not been as supportive
of gay couples as they could be”?
One of the wonderful things about the Democratic
Party is open discussion, open dialogue, and
hopefully, constructive criticism. In the end, part of
my job will be to use this as an opportunity to digest
suggestions people have, with a respect of knowing we both
want the same thing in the end. [We need to] identify
the coalition partners, obviously the [National Gay
and Lesbian] Task Force, Victory Fund, Stonewall, and
see what roles people need to play, and then just get to
work. Because we’re losing what we need to be
doing right now, and that’s focusing on winning
elections. Honestly, I respect everyone who has criticisms
right now. I hope people know me as somebody who will
listen, and bring it back to the table, and try to
come up with plans that work.
Do you think the Democratic Party should have an
official position on marriage equality, or is it better
to let that be an issue each candidate has to deal with?
Even in the infamous Yandura letter, Paul says
he doesn’t expect [the DNC] to be right there
on marriage right now but to be focusing on winning
elections, which is what I think we should be doing. And
listening to not just donors but the grassroots activists
for what works in their area and moving forward with
that. We’ve got to get someone like a [minority
leader] Nancy Pelosi in charge of the House versus what
we’ve got now, or this is all for naught.
What do you think will happen in the Senate with
the Federal Marriage Amendment, which is now scheduled
for a vote on June 6?
All I can tell you is at this point it’s about
the incredible work [Human Rights Campaign president]
Joe Solmonese and HRC have been doing right now. It is
about scapegoating. Having just started, I’m still
getting my feet wet, but I do know the HRC is putting
together a strategy that will involve a lot of our
coalition partners.
Do you think in the 2004 elections the state
marriage amendments drove turnout and influenced votes?
I need to focus on the future instead of
second-guessing some of this. I do believe one of
things I can be helpful with is helping with message.
Getting some of our gay elected officials out there, they
are definitely part of our process for moving things
forward. I know Stonewall for a fact did an excellent
job in the 2004 elections. [But] the scapegoating, the
wedge issues, it’s going to work where it’s
going to work. Some of it was dictated by the
presidential campaign too, not by just specific
issues.
Do you see the recent wave of proposed bans on
adoption by gays as similar to the political wedge issue
marriage has been?
That’s a good question. I have to take that from
a personal note too. My partner has a 12-year-old
daughter. When you talk to anybody about how they
raise their children, it’s a passionate issue. I
think it is dealt with differently. People feel more
deeply about the adoption battle and fighting it,
while some of the community is still split on where the we
should be on civil unions versus marriage versus domestic
partnership.
Are you optimistic about political change in 2006?
I can only say I’m very excited to be
working here right now, or I should say, again. The
governor has a great vision for what we need to be doing,
and it is focused on the states and the grassroots level. It
is going to be exciting to be a part of that.
[Because] of the people that I have met in my one hour
here, it’s going to be an incredible election cycle.
But we’ve got to get focused back on the
elections.
Are there any other issues you hope to focus on in
your new position?
The DNC has been spending a lot of time training
volunteers. Part of their training process is to learn
how to do outreach to the GLBT community. I think that
is a significant shift. It’s helping basically to
build the party from the ground up, but also with the
inclusion of the GLBT piece. It also ties in as well
to the whole delegation selection process of making us
part of that process. One of the things I know they
have done, and I have a definite interest in, is electing
more GLBT candidates and having them be part of the
process.
These comments are reproduced as written by visitors to this Web site. They have not been edited for content, grammar, or spelling. The viewpoints appearing here are those of the writer, and do not necessarily reflect the opinion or views of advocate.com, The Advocate, or its affiliates.
Be the first to comment on this story.
If you would like to submit a comment for posting, please fill out the form above.
All comments submitted via this form are subject to posting or publication. (To send a private letter to an Advocate editor or writer, please use the e-mail button at the top of the page, or use snail mail.) If you would like your comment considered for publication in The Advocate magazine, please include your full name, your city of residence, and a phone number where you can be reached during business hours so that we can confirm your identity. Your e-mail address and telephone number are strictly confidential and will not be shared or used for any purpose other than to contact you about your comment.
See the Contact page for sending comments for reasons other than responding to Advocate editorial and news stories.
Please note that comments sent by fax or snail mail are unlikely to be posted, although they will be considered for publication along with all letters received via e-mail or via this Web page. Comments that chiefly concern Advocate.com content will be considered for posting only on the Web site. The Advocate reserves the right to edit submitted comments for grammar, spelling, obscenities, or libel; we will, however, do our best to preserve the original comment's style and intent. Comments considered for publication in The Advocate magazine may also be edited for length.
Home | Contact | Current Issue | LGBT Community Partners | Staff
Career Opportunities | Help
Subscribe: Print Edition Digital Edition | Subscriber Services: Print Edition Digital Edition
Visit our Websites
Out.com | OutTraveler.com | HIVPlusMag.com | Alyson.com | HereTV.com | GayWired.com | SheWired.com
Privacy Policy | User Agreement | Community Guidelines | Legal Notice
Advocate.com © 2009 Regent Entertainment Media Inc. All Rights Reserved.
