

New Mexico governor Bill Richardson has clearly been a friend to LGBT people, promoting a domestic-partner bill in his state and backing a number of line items on the "gay agenda," including the repeal of "don't ask, don't tell," a rollback of the federal Defense of Marriage Act, and an end to immigration blocks against binational same-sex partners.
Yet his performance on the stump has been rife with controversy, from his use of a Spanish term for "faggot" last year to his comment on last week's Logo debate that homosexuality is a "choice."
The "choice" remark drew immediate condemnation from activists and bloggers, obliging the candidate to offer an apology and an explanation (he was tired) the following day, when he went personally to The Advocate's Los Angeles office and spoke with news editor Kerry Eleveld.
Overlooked in the hoopla, however, was an inexplicable misstatement during the debate, one that arguably should have triggered a far greater outcry than the comment about choice. When asked about his 1996 House vote in favor of the Defense of Marriage Act, Richardson told the panel:
"Well, I was the chief deputy whip of the Democrats at the time. President Clinton was president. And at the time the objective in passing DOMA was to fight a huge assault for a constitutional amendment in the Congress to ban marriage. It was sort of a cheap political way to decimate a bad initiative."
This was simply not the case.
The Federal Marriage Amendment, which failed to advance after congressional votes in 2004 and 2006, did not exist in 1996. No one had proposed it. No one had discussed it. No one had even thought of it, and it certainly was not a factor in the passage of DOMA.
The brainchild of Matt Daniels, founder of the Alliance for Marriage, the amendment was first suggested in 2001, when the idea fell on deaf ears. It was only after the Massachusetts supreme judicial court legalized same-sex marriage in its 2003 ruling that the amendment won solid support within the Republican Party.
It's true, as Sen. Hillary Clinton noted when it was her turn on the hot seat, that DOMA was eventually trotted out as a key talking point in the fight over the amendment in 2004 and 2006, when opponents could make the argument that the amendment was "unnecessary," thanks to the federal law.
"I don't know that we could have defeated [the amendment] if we had not had DOMA," Clinton said last week. "That, if anything, has provided great protection against what was clearly the Republican strategy...to just cynically use marriage as a political tool."
Clinton (who also calls for the repeal of DOMA's federal ban on recognizing same-sex couples) appeared to be justifying DOMA after the fact, a stance that most activists would find hard to swallow.
But unlike Richardson, the former first lady did not link the original legislation to a showdown eight years in the future, a contest that had yet to be imagined by anyone on either side of the issue. Richardson's false memory of these fairly recent events is difficult to explain. (Ann Rostow, Gay.com)
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.