Jan 25, 2008  |  By: LOU CHIBBARO J  | COMMENTS     

New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg could become a wildcard in the competition for gay votes if he decides to run for president this year as an independent, according to Democratic and Republican strategists monitoring the 2008 election.

Bloomberg, a billionaire businessman who succeeded Republican Rudy Giuliani as New York’s mayor in 2002, supports full same-sex marriage rights for lesbians and gays along with virtually all other gay and transgender rights initiatives.

His support on the marriage issue puts him ahead of the three leading Democratic presidential candidates — Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards — who have declined to fully embrace same-sex marriage. All three back civil unions, which they say should provide all of the rights and benefits of marriage.

The leading Republican presidential contenders, including Arizona Sen. John McCain and Giuliani, have expressed opposition to gay marriage, with some, such as Giuliani, backing domestic partnerships for same-sex couples.

Although Bloomberg has insisted he is not a candidate for president, draft Bloomberg-for-president committees organized by moderate Republicans and Democrats have popped up throughout the country. He raised eyebrows among political operatives last fall when he announced he was withdrawing from the Republican Party to become an independent, a gesture interpreted by many to mean he was considering a run for president.

Bloomberg had been a Democrat for most of his adult life, including during the time he built his multi-billion dollar financial information services company. He became a moderate Republican in 2001 when he first ran for mayor in New York. Similar to Giuliani, he won a large percentage of Democratic votes in a city with a lopsided Democratic majority.

“I think Bloomberg would take away an awful lot of gay votes from both the Democratic and Republican candidate,” said Jim Driscoll, a gay GOP activist from Northern Virginia.

If Bloomberg’s decision to run is based, as some have speculated, on who the main parties choose as their nominees, timing could be a factor as he’d have to start working in March and April to assure himself a spot on state ballots. That could be well before the main parties finalize their candidates.

Gay activists in New York note that Bloomberg has a cordial working relationship with lesbian Democrat Christine Quinn, president of New York City Council. Some have speculated that Bloomberg might endorse Quinn to succeed him as mayor in 2009. A term limit law prevents Bloomberg from running again and political insiders have said the popular Quinn is expected to throw her hat into the mayoral race, where she has a shot at becoming the nation’s first openly gay big city mayor.

Evan Wolfson, executive director of Freedom to Marry, the nation’s leading same-sex marriage advocacy group, said a Bloomberg presidential candidacy could benefit the cause of same-sex marriage rights.

“Having an independent candidate coming out in an unequivocal way for the freedom to marry may tug the debate in the right direction,” Wolfson said. “That will make it easier for the other candidates to follow.”

John Marble, spokesperson for National Stonewall Democrats, a gay partisan group, noted that Bloomberg’s record on same-sex marriage is mixed and that many gays in New York consider him to have “sold out” gays in response to a controversial court ruling on the issue.

Marble was referring to Bloomberg’s decision in 2005 to order the city to appeal a lower court ruling declaring same-sex marriage legal in New York City. The court held that New York’s 100-year-old marriage law violated that state constitution’s prohibition against sex discrimination.

At the time, Bloomberg had not taken a position on same-sex marriage. When the court ruling came, he announced he supported legalizing same-sex marriage. But he said he determined, at the advice of city lawyers, that allowing the city to begin issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples would create confusion and potential chaos if a higher court eventually overturned the lower court ruling.

In July 2006, New York’s highest court issued a sharply worded decision upholding the state law banning same-sex marriage. The decision held that any change in the marriage law would have to come from the state legislature.