Three months into his presidency, Bill Clinton already has done more to nurture the civil rights and liberties of homosexuals than any other president in the nation’s history.
Even though his desire to integrate openly gay men and lesbians into the armed forces has been derailed and delayed, Clinton has raised discrimination against homosexuals into a civil rights issue that he believes requires presidential leadership and governmental intervention.
Clinton has appointed openly gay men and lesbians to key posts, including Roberta Actenberg as assistant secretary of housing and urban development, and Bob Hattoy as deputy White House personnel director. He is searching for an AIDS czar and has asked for a 28 percent increase-$585 million-in funding for AIDS-related research, prevention and health care.
On Jan. 29, after his proposal to remove the armed services ban against gays met military and congressional resistance, Clinton delivered an unequivocal, personal statement rejecting discrimination against homosexuals and lesbians.
“The issue is not whether there should be homosexuals in the military. Everyone concedes that there are,” the president said. “The issue is whether men and women, who can and have served with real distinction, should be excluded from military service solely on the basis of their status. And I believe they should not.”
Clinton said he will issue an executive order ending the ban July 15, giving the Defense Department and Congress time to examine the issue.
From the Oval Office on down, according to administration members, there is a new culture of openness and comfort for homosexuals serving in government, although some activists argue that politically, some White House advisers wish the issue would disappear.
But over these 10 weeks Clinton also learned that public sentiment has not rallied to his decision to press the military issue, and that it could erode support badly needed to pass his economic program and health-care plan, the cornerstones of his presidency.
It has clouded his role as commander in chief, already suspect by many in the service because he avoided the draft and opposed the Vietnam War.
By threatening to write the ban into law and then passing a prohibition against admitting refugees carrying the AIDS-causing HIV virus, Congress, including many of his fellow Democrats, has signaled a deep division with the president on the matter of homosexual rights.
Next Sunday, gay and lesbian groups plan a march in Washington that they predict will be the largest civil rights demonstration in history, surpassing those on abortion and minority rights.
The march underscores the delicate politics of the president’s decision. On one hand, he is accused of moving too slowly to satisfy some homosexual-rights activists; on the other, his commitment to the interests of a relatively narrow segment of the population could be contributing to the erosion of his broad national support.
White House press secretary Dee Dee Myers said Clinton is proceeding with the agenda he set out during the campaign, moving to keep his promises to powerful and vocal segment of his winning coalition and a personal commitment to equality.
Clinton has knowingly thrust himself into a national debate that touches on individuals’ deepest personal fears, misconceptions and beliefs regarding sexuality, family and religion.
“No president of the United States has ever forged a closer friendship and working relationship with the gay and lesbian community as Bill Clinton has,” said Gregory King, spokesman for the Human Rights Campaign Fund, the largest political organization devoted to promoting gay and lesbian rights.
Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), who is gay, said, “It’s the first time in history the president, even a major presidential nominee, has committed himself.”
If the march draws one million participants, as its planners expect, it could provide a measure of reassurance for the president to proceed with his campaign vows in the face of angry and emotional opposition.
“Everyone who is coming to the march expects to see the president on stage,” said Scout, a Chicagoan who is co-chair of the march organizing committee. But they are likely to be disappointed; Clinton plans to be in Boston, where he will be addressing newspaper executives.
Nor should he attend, Frank argued, because “a small percentage of people in the march will act in ways they hope will outrage people . . . I don’t want the president on television any way linked with that.”
Clinton’s hero, President John F. Kennedy, also grappled with how far he could go in support of civil rights-in his case for blacks-in the face of a recalcitrant Congress.
Perhaps taking a page from Kennedy, who invited Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. and the leaders of the 1963 civil rights march to the White House, Clinton met with seven gay and lesbian leaders Friday afternoon, the first such private Oval Office meeting. But the administration declined to allow media photographers and reporters to record the event.
“This meeting symbolized the entry of lesbian and gay people into the mainstream of American life, and it is the president of the United States who, through his moral leadership, permitted that to happen,” Tom Stoddard, executive director of the Campaign for Military Service, a group working to overturn the military ban, said after the meeting.
The group discussed other ways for Clinton to participate in the march, perhaps through a live video hookup from Boston.
During the 1992 presidential campaign, Democratic presidential hopefuls competed for the support of gays and lesbians, but Clinton sealed his compact with them during a dramatic speech last May at a Los Angeles fundraiser, where he talked about growing up in the segregated South.
“I have a vision, and you are part of it,” Clinton said. “If I could wave my arm for those of you that are HIV positive and make it go away tomorrow, I would do it, so help me God I would. If I gave up my race for the White House and everything else, I would do that.”
Gays and lesbians reacted with an outpouring of money, organization and votes for Clinton. They were further energized by attacks from the podium at Republican National Convention. Various polls say one out of every six or seven Clinton voters was a homosexual. Activists said gays and lesbians contributed between $3.5 million to $5 million to the Democratic national ticket.
Gays and lesbians joined thousands of others in Washington who celebrated Clinton’s inauguration at formal dances held in posh Washington hotels.
Marvin Liebman, a founder of the modern conservative movement who supported Clinton because of his stand on homosexuals, thought the reaction to Clinton’s election was “a bit effusive.”
“Bill Clinton is a consummate politician, obviously better than President (George) Bush was,” Liebman said. Important, however, is that Clinton’s “not homophobic,” he said.
But after the lifting of the military ban was delayed and Clinton flirted with the idea-since rejected-of segregated units for gays, the euphoria among gay rights groups mellowed into sober analysis.
In late March, upset gay and lesbian leaders met with administration officials, including Hattoy, the HIV-infected campaign aide whom Clinton tapped to give a prime-time speech at the Democratic convention. Hattoy had publicly criticized White House management of the issue but reaffirmed Clinton’s commitment to gays and lesbians.
David Mixner, the Los Angeles businessman who befriended Bill and Hillary Clinton during the anti-war politics of the late 1960s and helped organize the L.A. fundraiser, said, “I think there’s been a transformation in all of us in the gay and lesbian community.”
“We are not willing to extend unquestionable loyalty, blind faith,” Mixner continued. “But on the other hand, we have great faith that the man has the right instincts and is someone we can, yes indeed, work with.”
And the president himself said Friday: “I don’t see how any serious person could claim that I have snubbed the gay community in this country, having taken the position I have not only on the issue of the military but of participation in the government. I have-I believe it’s clear-taken a stronger position against discrimination that any of my predecessors.”
