The White-Washing of Karyn Polito: Has she really changed her tune on LGBT issues?
Karyn Polito’s Lieutenant Governor candidate website belies a woman who has beaten the odds and succeeded in politics by working hard and helping the constituents of her district — a compassionate conservative who sees social issues in a more liberal light and fiscal issues in a more conservative framework.
A Republican of the Henry Cabot Lodge and Bill Weld standard. She’s Kerry Healey 2.0.
All this is in contrast to State Rep. Karyn Polito who led the charge for a statewide ballot question to ban gay marriage, voted against the Transgender Civil Rights bill, and supported Gov. Romney’s attempt to dissolve the LGBT Youth Commission.
She, along with Massachusetts Family Institute, MassResistance, and a bevy of other conservative groups tried to stop the implementation of the Goodridge decision, which allowed gay marriage in Massachusetts, and most other initiatives that supported LGBT rights. Polito even received an award from the Massachusetts Family Institute for her work on “traditional marriage.”
I am all for changing hearts and minds in order to achieve equality. However, how are we supposed to decipher whether hearts and minds are truly changed or whether a white-washing of a candidate’s past is occurring because people realize that once prevalent culture wedge issues won’t win you an election in 2014?
I believe a good old-fashioned white-washing is occurring. Polito can say, “gay marriage is settled law,” as she said recently – but what does that really mean? It means that she’s resigned to the fact its law and wants the conversation to end there.
But our conversation should not end there. It should also go to issues beyond marriage, like HIV/AIDS funding, LGBT youth issues, LGBT elders, transgender civil rights issues, and public accommodations laws.
What happens when people want to continue the conversation with Polito?
Here is an example from the Boston Globe (December 6, 2013):
“The Baker campaign, looking to placate social conservatives, said late Thursday that Polito considers same-sex unions to be accepted law. But the campaign would not make Polito available to be interviewed about her position.”
Lets recap some of Polito’s legislative record:
2003 — Signed her name to a signature drive that supported the ballot question that would put a ban on equal marriage on the ballot.
- 2004/2005/2006/2007 — Polito voted for a constitutional amendment that would have defined civil marriage as exclusively heterosexual.
- 2008 — Polito voted against repeal of the law preventing non-resident same-sex couples from marrying in Massachusetts – also known as the “1913 Law,” which was originally passed as an anti-miscegenation law to prevent blacks and whites from marrying.
- 2009 – Polito voted against the Transgender Civil Rights Bill which protects transgender people under the state’s hate crimes and anti-discrimination laws
- Jan. 2009 – Polito co-sponsored an anti-LGBT ‘parent’s rights’ bill written by Brian Camenker, the Executive Director of MassResistance. The bill established a parental notification if LGBT topics were to be discussed in schools – in any class – even if you talked about Gertrude Stein in English class. When faced with the true consequences of the bill, 15 co-sponsors asked to have their names taken off. Polito was not one of those legislators.
- Feb. 2009 – Polito, along with now Worcester County Sheriff Lewis Evangelidis, filed an official complaint when the Registry of Motor Vehicles began allowing transgender people to change the sex designation on their driver’s license without proof of sex reassignment surgery. The complaint objected to such changes because of “constituent complaints” that were concerned about “fraud and theft.” The DMV simply made a change, where people seeking a new license because of changing genders did not have to provide medical documentation any longer – but still had to provide proof of identity.
To be fair, there are many politicians that do not have stellar track records on gay marriage. President Obama, Hillary & Bill Clinton, Cong. Stephen Lynch, and Sec. of State John Kerry are all examples of electeds that did not support equal marriage originally but have now seen the light and supports equal marriage.
However, we need to move beyond questions of a candidate or electeds support for only equal marriage. What about the 1,001 other things that LGBT people need in order to create a holistic and accepting environment for LGBT people and their children?
I wish I could ask Polito some more detailed questions like:
What do you think your Administration can do to help the aging LGBT population with their specific needs as they relate to assisted living and nursing care?
- What specific programs do you think your administration can do to help the LGBT youth homelessness problem in the Commonwealth?
- Do you believe that transgender individuals should be covered under our Commonwealth’s anti-discrimination statutes as they relate to public accommodations?
- Would you continue and/or expand the current HIV/AIDS programs through the state and would these programs support the use of PReP?
- Would you support the LGBT Youth Commission under your administration?
Martha Coakley and Steve Kerrigan have answered these questions. The Baker/Polito ticket have not. Baker noticeably was a no-show to a LGBTQ gubernatorial forum held earlier this year by WGBH/MassEquality at the Boston Public Library. Polito continues to only speak through press releases and recycled sound bites on just the equal marriage issue. Though she had it in her elevator speech the other night on Broadside’s Lt. Governor debate, Polito said nothing beyond support of equal marriage.
In law, we have the term “res ipsa loquitor” which is Latin for “the thing speaks for itself.” It means that one is presumed to be negligent if he/she/it had exclusive control of whatever caused a event to occur — even though there is no specific evidence of negligence — but without an act of negligence the event would not have occurred.
Here, the lack of answers by the Baker/Polito ticket seems to be an answer in itself.
This begs the question – would the environment be the same under a Baker/Polito administration versus a Coakley/Kerrigan administration for LGBT folk?
Time will only tell – but I’m going to venture to say that we might find ourselves having to fight harder for programs and services for LGBT elders and youth, funding for HIV/AIDS programs and protections for transgender individuals under an administration that refuses to answer questions and acknowledge the presence of these populations in the Commonwealth.
On Tuesday, remember these facts when you go to the ballot box.
