As we all know, it’s presidential season, a time of big TV ads, long debates, town halls in some states and yard signs in others.

But something is different about this year, and it’s the extent to which the (Democratic) candidates are talking about LGBTQ issues. (Well, maybe not Q issues, or B issues, or T issues, really, unless you count their inclusion of “passing ENDA” in their platforms as a reference to T folks, despite the fact that the ENDA they would pass excludes T folks entirely.)

So they’re talking about L and G issues, but which ones?

Relationship recognition — not marriage, but civil unions, including the (partial) repeal of DOMA
Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell
Employment Nondiscrimination
Hate Crimes

Did I miss anything? Any major issue they discuss without being asked a specific question?

The reason I bring this up is this: In 2004, presidential candidates couldn’t avoid talking about “gay issues” because there were so many insidious constitutional amendments to ban same-sex marriage active in the states (11 in total, all of which passed). (If you’re interested, you can search for “marriage” on this page and find where Kerry and Bush discussed it in the 3rd general debate during the last election.)

Nowadays it seems like the constitutional amendments are fewer and farther between — hey, we don’t have that many states left to restrict the freedom to marry in, so I guess that makes sense. Meanwhile, states around the country are passing more pro-LGBTQ legislation, especially in specific towns/cities, than they are passing anti-LGBTQ legislation.

In other words, for the Dems, at least, there doesn’t seem to be a hot button LGBTQ issue right now that they have to address — or are we just not forcing their hands enough?

The issues they do discuss (or should I say “mention”) — relationship recognition; Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell; ENDA; Hate Crimes — are all important issues to our community and deserve immediate attention. But in the meantime, no one’s trying to strengthen Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. The Federal Marriage Amendment is a lame duck, much like its presidential proponent. ENDA and Hate Crimes, though hanging in the balance and not fully what we want, are intended to be positive, not negative, approaches to ensuring our equality.

In other words, the assumption seems to be that all the presidential candidates could do for us right now are positive, proactive things, when in reality there are real fights being had out there, real measures being taken against LGBTQ people and their families. Presidential candidates could stand up and help us beat back these attacks, as well.

In any number of states this year, including Arkansas, Tennessee and Mississippi, bills are being filed and signatures gathered to put ballot questions in the voting booths to BAN or severely limit the kinds of people who can qualify to foster and/or adopt children, including, in large part, LGBTQ people.

Just last week, a young gay man was shot execution-style in a high school classroom in Oxnard, CA, by a classmate roundly believed to be motivated by anti-gay bias. Both boys had troubled upbringings. Both boys lived in and out of foster care.

Where’s the discussion of these issues in a time when Democrats are trying to take back control of the domestic agenda, talking about supporting families through real programs and protections?

Even in states where we have passed pro-LGBTQ legislation, or in which court cases have bolstered our equality, pro-LGBTQ policies are not being taken seriously. California, where Lawrence King was shot, has some of the strongest policies on supporting LGBTQ youth in schools in the country, just recently strengthened by new laws (which, by the way, have come under serious attack from the right).

Minnesota has one of the strongest Human Rights Laws in the country — it’s been around since 1993 and includes gender identity in its protections — yet its school districts aren’t required to adopt nondiscrimination policies that match the high standards of the law, and therefore most of them do not. (For more info on Minnesota schools, click here.)

It’s easy for a community accustomed to second-class status to get lost in what seems like tremendous progress — presidential candidates with LGBT policy statements on their websites! — but let’s not forget that our issues don’t begin and end at the federal level, and that a president’s job in stewarding the country doesn’t begin and end with commenting on issues at the federal level.

If presidential candidates want to talk about ensuring the health and safety of families in this country, let them address ALL families, explicitly. If they want to create worlds in which 15 year old boys aren’t gunned down by 14 year old boys in schools, let them address the child welfare crisis in this country and the homophobia and violence endemic in our schools.

Perhaps then we’ll see some healthy debate about LGBTQ issues this election season. We certainly won’t see it during the general election, not unless it involves the Republican Party coming after Democratic candidates for (what little) they said about our issues in the primaries.

Still, we should push, push, push! No group has ever achieved its goals in this country by waiting quietly, or even whispering softly. In a representative democracy like ours, it’s the job of the few to respond to the demands of the many. Let’s remember the we are not the few, but we are part of the many, and let’s make our voices heard!

Popularity: 31% [?]