A few lines in an Associated Press story on January 12 caught my attention the other day. The story was about Al Gore's campaign in Iowa prior to the Iowa caucus. "Karen Mass, a transsexual and jet systems designer, pressed Gore on anti-discrimination protections for transgendered men and women. Noncommittal, Gore said, 'I'll have to learn more about it.' Mass said she took his answer to be a 'stepping away' from such issues."

I am sorry, but that is bullshit. Someone in Gore's position should know damn well that transgendered people are part of the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender community. Someone who is running for the Democratic Candidate for President should be acutely aware that all people are entitled to protection from discrimination. Someone who has spent the past eight years as Vice President does not need to "learn more about it." That's bullshit.

Bill Bradley would not have backed away from a question on transgender equality. Having fought all forms of discrimination his entire life, the answer would have been as obvious to him as it should have been to Al Gore. All of us, whether gay or straight, black or white, Christian or Jew, yes, even transgendered, are human beings endowed by the Creator with certain inalienable rights. Our country was founded on that premise. What the hell does Gore mean that he has to learn more about it?

I am proud to be a Bradley delegate. There is no doubt about that. What puzzles me is why the gay and lesbian community has so embraced the Gore candidacy. Why have they not taken the time to find out who the alternative is? I don't know the answer to that, and I won't even venture one. I would only get in trouble if I did so.

I do know this… it takes a man of extraordinary courage and vision to seek out not only gay and lesbian, but also transgender delegates to the Democratic National Convention. If Bradley gets the nomination in the 8th Congressional District, I will be the first openly transgender delegate to a national convention. You've got to admire the Bradley campaign for taking that bold first step.

If you just look at the surface, you might think that both candidates agree

Does Bradley differ from Gore on gay and lesbian issues? Well, if you just look at the surface, you might think that both candidates agree on all of the issues. But there are some major differences that to my way of thinking put Bradley way out ahead of Gore.

Take the Employment Nondiscrimination Act (ENDA) for example. Both candidates have supported this bill. Bradley was a co-sponsor of ENDA while in the Senate, but now he believes that the nondiscrimination protection afforded by ENDA is simply not good enough. He has publicly called for amending the 1964 Civil Rights Act to include sexual orientation. "That would clearly indicate that discrimination against gays is in the same category as discrimination against other protected groups."

In a statement to New York gay and lesbian supporters in December, Bradley said, "Today, gays and lesbians must fight bitter and costly battles, city by city, county by county, state by state, just to achieve the most basic protections in employment, housing and public accommodations… It is not right for any group to be denied the full rights of citizenship just because of sexual orientation. We can and must be better than that."

I agree with that wholeheartedly. ENDA does not go far enough. It is one of the most narrowly written human rights bills I have seen. I am glad that Bradley sees it that way too. Gore doesn't.

Photo by Israel Wright, Copyright 2000, Lambda Publications, Chicago

OK, and let's take a look at "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." Word on the street is that both Bradley and Gore believe the policy has got to go. But tell me, didn't Gore support that litany of discrimination against gays and lesbians in the military for over six years? Didn't Gore just come out against "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" within the last few months, when it became politically expedient to do so? Didn't Gore make a fool of himself when he made the statement, which he later retracted, that support of gays in the military would be the litmus test for the Joint Chiefs of Staff?

In the meantime, Bradley's been against "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" from the beginning. Back in 1993, he supported the Boxer amendment to prevent the Clinton-Gore endorsed policy from ever taking effect. "If gay or lesbian young people desire to serve their country, we should warmly welcome their patriotism and commitment, not hound them out of the armed services and imperil their future careers."

As for gay marriage, Bradley has a problem with calling same-sex unions "marriages." So, for that, we can't put him in saint category. But he publicly supports equal benefits. "On grounds of both fairness and prudence, then, when the state provides men and women who marry benefits that encourage their staying together and rewards them for the social contribution their constancy makes, the state must extend similar benefits for exactly the same reasons to same-sex couples in the form of domestic partner legislation."

In a speech at the HRC dinner in Michigan this past October, Bradley said, "Where justice is concerned, no half measures are acceptable." That just about sums it up. These are not the words of a man who would have had to "learn more about it" when asked about the basic human rights of transgendered or any citizens of this country. That just wouldn't have been acceptable.

Miranda Stevens-Miller
welcomes your comments at
MirandaSt1@aol.com