BARNEY FRANK
The Massachusetts congressman on same-sex marriage, the 2004 election, and the prospect of becoming
As one of only three openly gay members of Congress, Rep. Barney Frank has long been an articulate and dominant voice in gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender political discourse. A member of the House since 1981 (and out of the closet since 1987), Frank is nevertheless speaking out on what he sees as the potential long-term setbacks caused by Mayor Gavin Newsom's feel-good marriage stunt in San Francisco. Frank's home state of Massachusetts had been ground-zero for the same-sex marriage movement, but earlier this month the state legislature took the first steps towards passing a state constitutional gay marriage ban, which could put the issue before Massachusetts voters in 2006. The ban still has to go through several more hurdles, including another vote on March 29. No matter what the legislature does, however, it looks like the state's Supreme Judicial Court will force Massachusetts to start offering same-sex licenses as early as this May. Plenty of activists have criticized Frank for being too cautious, but he argues that the courts are the place to fight for gay marriage and that Newsom's apparent lawbreaking gets gays nowhere.
CityBeat: Where is the Federal Marriage Amendment now in Congress?
Barney Frank: It has been introduced, but in Congress something can be introduced and linger until it molds. Nothing now happens unless committees decide. In the Senate the relevant subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee did hold one hearing, and in the House the chairman has announced a series of meetings. It doesn't look like the House contemplates action anytime soon. My sense is the Senate is likely to vote on this, and may vote within a couple months.
Will the White House use political capital to get votes in the Senate if that does happen? Or was it enough for the president to say he was for the Amendment?
That was our original speculation, but I think he is doing this because his right wing is demanding it of him. I don't think the president is doing this to get votes he doesn't already have. If he is not putting any real effort into it, they will catch him at it. I think the president is creating a situation where, whatever he originally intended, he will have to lobby for votes.
Are you surprised by the reaction of Republicans on this? Some moderates say they will vote for it, while more conservative members are against it.
Ironically, the conservative Republicans probably feel freer to oppose this. If you are going to get in trouble politically in this, it's going to be, to a great extent, in the Republican primary if you're not seen as sufficiently anti-gay. It's the moderates who are more afraid. So that's why you see some of the so-called moderates caving in on this.
Is this a win or lose for the president in November?
I'm not sure. I think it is, at best, a marginal win or might be a marginal loss for this reason. Certainly, if you took a vote in the country about whether or not there should be same-sex marriage, we would lose. But to the extent we make it an issue is not whether or not you have same-sex marriage, but whether you amend the Constitution to prohibit any state from doing it, and then the votes get much closer. Beyond that, there are clearly two groups in the country for whom this is such an important issue; it will motivate how they vote. I think the group that is against us may be a little bit larger than us, but here's the critical difference. I believe that 98 percent of the people whose vote will be moved by a politician's stance on the same-sex marriage are already Republicans. On the other hand, there is a minority among gay and lesbian people who are Republican. Of the people whose votes are likely to be determined by this, he will lose more Republicans to us then we will lose Democrats to him.
You've been a critic of Gavin Newsom even though you support gay marriage. Why?
I think it's fantastic, [but] it doesn't help. I am fighting hard on two very important fronts here. One, trying to defend the Massachusetts Supreme Court decision; two, trying to defeat a federal constitutional amendment. What Gavin Newsom did, A) is, unfortunately, almost certainly not going to produce real marriages. The Courts almost certainly are going to invalidate the ones that were performed. And B) just generated political opposition that's going to hurt us in trying to win the real fights.
Many people feel Senator Kerry saying he supports a Massachusetts state amendment banning same-sex marriage wasn't very helpful. Is that Gavin Newsom's fault?
That had nothing to do with Gavin Newsom. Every Democratic candidate for president who has a chance to win the nomination took the same position, namely, "I'm against same-sex marriage, I'm for strong civil unions." I wish I thought it were possible for someone to be explicitly for same-sex marriage and get elected president. I think that will probably be the case four years from now. That is not the case now.
If Nader takes a pro-gay stand, will it suck away votes from Kerry?
Nader has no credibility on the same-sex issue. When we were fighting [the Defense of Marriage Act] in 1996, we were in that tough fight, Nader was asked about it and he said, "I don't take a position on gonadal politics." Totally dismissive. He never, ever, before 2000 spoke out on behalf of gay rights.
Have you considered a Senate run if Kerry wins?
I have. Here's the problem. Right now under Massachusetts law, that election to fill the rest of his term comes in 2006. That now looks like we will also do the referendum on same-sex marriage. I will not run for the Senate if that's the case, because I will spend all my time as a campaigner trying to defeat that referendum. You can't do both.
Is there any way for those May gay marriages not to happen?
They will happen, and no matter what happens in 2006, they will not be invalidated retroactively. The worst that would happen, and it's bad, is no new ones, and I think we can stop that. But that's why I am so focused on Massachusetts, because unlike all these other efforts, we are going to have real marriages. The reality of real same-sex marriages in Massachusetts is going to be the best refutation of this argument that there is something about same-sex marriages that destroy society.
Published: 03/17/2004
DIGG | del.icio.us | REDDIT
