Log Cabin and Stonewall spar over election at Harvard debate

The closest any of the presidential debates have come to discussing LGBT issues has been a brief discussion of same-sex marriage during the vice presidential debate, and even then Joe Biden and Sarah Palin both seemed eager to change the subject as quickly as possible. But gay issues were front and center at Harvard University the evening of Oct. 14, when Stonewall Democrats Executive Director Jon Hoadley and Log Cabin Republicans President Patrick Sammon visited the campus to debate each other and make the case for why Obama or McCain respectively is the best choice for LGBT voters.

The arguments were familiar to anyone following the campaign: Hoadley pointed to Obama's progressive stances on most LGBT issues, and Sammon argued that McCain is the most LGBT-friendly candidate the Republicans have nominated in the party's history. But Hoadley and Sammon each argued forcefully on behalf of their candidates before a crowd of about 60 -- most of them Harvard students. The debate is unlikely to have much of an impact outside that room, but it's as close as the LGBT community is likely to come to seeing a full debate on LGBT issues in the presidential cycle.

As with the national debates, the Sammon/Hoadley debate was as much a contrast in personal style as it was in politics. The two students who introduced the speakers, former Harvard Republican Club President Jeffrey Kwong and current Harvard College Democrats President Jarret Zafran, looked like polar opposites as they stood before the crowd, Kwong wearing a crisp grey suit and Zafran decked out in jeans and a Kerry '04 baseball shirt. Both students, who are seniors, said they are openly gay and have been embraced by their respective organizations.

Sammon and Hoadley were also a study in contrasts. Sammon, dressed in a suit, had a sober and reserved demeanor as he spoke from the podium, speaking slowly and deliberately, his hands often clasped together in front of him. He acknowledged that most of the students in the audience were on the opposite side of the fence from him politically -- before he spoke Kwong presented him with a Harvard Republican Club T-shirt with the slogan "Behind Enemy Lines Since 1888." His goal throughout the evening was to build a case that McCain was generally LGBT-friendly and to sow doubts that Obama was unlikely to expend any political capital to pass LGBT-rights legislation.

Hoadley, meanwhile, was on home turf and seemed at ease throughout the debate. Dressed in a sport coat and pink button-up, sans tie, he spoke rapidly, injected jokes and asides into his remarks and gestured with his hands during his time at the podium. He spent the evening hammering home the message that Obama had staked out almost uniformly pro-LGBT positions on ENDA, hate crimes, HIV/AIDS funding, and relationship recognition and that McCain had largely taken stances against LGBT equality.

Most of the debate followed those well-worn talking points. But there were a few moments of interest, particularly when the two politicos had the chance to lob questions at each other. Hoadley asked Sammon about McCain's support for maintaining the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy, prompting Sammon to compare McCain to a figure not likely to arouse much sympathy in a room full of liberal Harvard students: Richard Nixon. He said Democrats, still stung by the backlash Bill Clinton faced after his failed attempt to repeal the ban on gays in the military early in his first term, still do not have the stomach to mount a serious challenge to the policy, but he said McCain may be movable.

"Anyone who examines the policy factually I think can be moved and swayed, and I think Sen. McCain has been always someone who's been willing to reexamine a position and move in the face of facts. We disagree with him on that position but I have every confidence that he is someone we can engage with on this issue, and I do believe that he is someone with the credibility to be Nixon going to China. Given his military record there's going to be no one in the Republican Party who's going to question his support for dealing with this issue," said Sammon.

Hoadley replied that the difference between the two candidates was that Log Cabin believes McCain could be persuaded to adopt pro-LGBT positions over time while Obama already holds those views.

"When he legitimizes the idea that rational thought and discussion can move someone forward, I would rather take the person who's already stated a position that he supports us, and all we're trying to convince him to do now is take action. That's a lot easier, that's already a step ahead of where Patrick is, which has to convince John McCain that this is a rational thing to do, let alone take action," said Hoadley.

Sammon pressed Hoadley on Obama's various about-faces on issues like telecom immunity and offshore drilling, asking, "If he's elected, when it might be politically expedient to throw us under the bus, what assurances do you have that he won't do that?"

Hoadley responded by pointing to Obama's actions during the campaign, including his public statement of opposition to marriage amendments in California, Arizona and Florida.

"When he went on record as opposing state constitutional amendments in California and Arizona and in that little swing state of Florida, that's something where he put his name on the line and said, 'I'm against these constitutional amendments.' I like that action," said Hoadley. He also pointed to Obama's speech mentioning gay rights at South Carolina's Ebenezer Baptist Church, a black church that many political observers felt would not be receptive to that message.

Sammon countered by pointing out a comment Obama deputy campaign manager Steve Hildebrand made to the gay political blog Bilerico that he did not expect Obama to talk about the Florida marriage amendment while campaigning in the swing state.

"If you're a champion of our community when you're on the trail in Florida, particularly when there's an opportunity to make the case about why voters in Florida should vote against that, again it's what willingness is there to use political capital to benefit our community?" said Sammon.

After Hoadley criticized McCain VP nominee Sarah Palin as someone who "attends a church that supports conversion therapy for homosexuals," Sammon came to the beleaguered hockey mom's defense. While Palin's selection helped galvanize social conservatives to support the campaign, winning applause from religious right heavyweights like James Dobson and Tony Perkins, Sammon claimed that Palin was the bane of the religious right in her native Alaska for failing to press hard for anti-abortion legislation and for vetoing a bill to deny domestic partner benefits to state employees; Palin publicly stated at the time that she opposed domestic partner benefits but that she was acting in accordance with a ruling of the state's high court.

"She again paid a political price with social conservatives for that veto. Again she's not where we want her to be, but quite frankly her lack of a public record on a lot of the issues in our community provide a huge opportunity because the fact is she will never be president if she's a hard-line social conservative, and she's smart enough to understand that," said Sammon.

Whether either speaker changed anyone's mind, or whether the votes of a few dozen Harvard students will make any difference in the presidential contest is anyone's guess, but at the very least Sammon and Hoadley engaged in more of a real debate -- responding to each other's questions and making forceful but respectful arguments -- than either of the presidential or vice presidential candidates have done so far.