Oct 15, 2004  |  By: PETER ROSENSTEIN  | COMMENTS     

I AM ALWAYS amazed at how some politicians, whose own election is never in doubt, continue to make excuses for failing to fully support our equality or for endorsing candidates who openly discriminate against gay people? Why do we think that is acceptable?

I am a political person. I understand that sometimes candidates take positions I don’t like because they are too sensitive politically for their constituents. And in some cases, the alternative candidates are much worse.

But I was dumbfounded when I read the excuses that Carol Schwartz is giving for not supporting gay marriage and that she won’t rescind her endorsement of George W. Bush.

Who are the Republicans in Congress with whom she claims to “enjoy comfortable access” but who would freeze her out if she supports gay marriage?

District Mayor Anthony Williams, who has been too cozy with Republicans on issues like school vouchers, nonetheless understands that supporting gay marriage wouldn’t deprive him of access to those Republicans moderate enough to understand the needs of Washingtonians.

LET ME MAKE this clear. I like Carol Schwartz as a person and have always admired and appreciated her work for Whitman-Walker Clinic and her support of local gay rights issues. I even served as co-chair of her issues committee when she ran for mayor against Marion Barry in 1994.

But there has to be a better reason for opposing marriage equality for gays than, “It just won’t happen in D.C.”

Is she struggling with religious objections or some strongly held moral belief? I think we as voters are entitled to get that answer.

If that’s the problem, I may disagree but at least I can respect her beliefs. But what I can’t accept is supporting discrimination because she’s afraid of being attacked by conservatives.

If a local politician here said we shouldn’t give equal rights to any other minority group because someone in Congress would object, we would rise up against them. Why is it OK when gays are the target?

I APPRECIATE THAT Carol is against the Federal Marriage Amendment, but then how can she endorse President Bush, who backs the FMA, and who was nominated by a party that has made passage of the amendment part of its platform?

I wish that Carol would for once state clearly what part of the Republican platform it is that she supports and what hold it is the party has on her.

As David Catania, our other Republican councilmember has finally come to accept, it is no longer enough to fight for change within the GOP when the Republican Party is so clearly heading even more to the right.

That good fight has been lost because it has fallen on deaf ears. Carol Schwartz is now supporting a president, and a party, that is committed to doing real damage to the people she claims to support and care about, and to the basic ideals of the people who elected her.

The issue is not whether D.C. will succeed in marrying gay couples. Some local activists aren’t even asking for that right now.

The issue is whether Carol supports the full rights and responsibilities for same-sex couples, whether marriage or civil unions.

I want to vote for Carol Schwartz as I always have in the past, but I believe she owes her gay constituents a more reasoned explanation of her opposition to us marrying and her continued support of George W. Bush.