EDITOR’S NOTE: The following interview with Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama was conducted by Mark Segal of the Philadelphia Gay News on behalf of 12 LGBT news outlets, including Dallas Voice. The interview was conducted over the telephone directly with the candidate, and is Obama’s first live, person-to-person interview with the LGBT press since he was confirmed as the Democratic nominee.

In this election season, the Gay History Project attempted to present the views of both the Democratic and Republican candidates for president.

The format proposed to both candidates was to ask each the same questions, with no follow-up questions and the same time limit.

Since April, the Gay History Project repeatedly reached out to Republican Sen. John McCain’s press representative, Jill Hazelbaker, by phone, letter and e-mail. Once it became clear that McCain would not participate, Sen. Barack Obama’s campaign put no conditions on the interview.

Obama spoke to Mark Segal by phone Sept. 16; an audio version of the interview will be posted at www.epgn.com.

In his first interview with gay press since he officially took the Democratic nomination, here’s what Obama had to say.


MARK SEGAL: You are the most LGBT-friendly candidate running for president in history. Are you concerned that John McCain and the Republicans might use this as a divisive issue as they did in 2004?

BARACK OBAMA: No. I think they can try, but I don’t think it will work for a couple of reasons. Number one, I think that the American peoples’ attitudes with respect to LGBT issues are continuing to evolve. I think people are becoming more and more aware of the need to treat all people equally regardless of sexual orientation.

There are some people who disagree with that, but frankly those folks — many of them — probably have already made their minds up about this election earlier.


MS: You’ve talked about your many gay friends. Would you and Michelle be comfortable attending their commitment ceremony?

BO: We would. But I’ll be honest with you that, these days, I can’t go anywhere.


MS: The current President Bush has used signing orders to change military rules and regulations. If White House counsel advised you that you could end [the military’s anti-gay] “Don’t ask, don’t tell” [policy] by attaching a signing order to a military appropriations bill, would you?

BO: I would not do it that way. The reason is because I want to make sure that when we reverse “Don’t ask, don’t tell,” it’s gone through a process and we’ve built a consensus or at least a clarity of that, of what my expectations are, so that it works.

My first obligation as the president is to make sure that I keep the American people safe and that our military is functioning effectively. Although I have consistently said I would repeal “Don’t ask, don’t tell,” I believe that the way to do it is make sure that we are working through a process, getting the Joint Chiefs of Staff clear in terms of what our priorities are going to be. That’s how we were able to integrate the armed services to get women more actively involved in the armed services.

At some point, you got to make a decision that that’s the right thing to do, but you always want to make sure that you are doing it in a way that maintains our core mission in our military.


MS: Many lawyers contend that the Defense of Marriage Act passed by Congress is unconstitutional. It takes away over 1,100 rights, including IRS joint filings. If a suit is filed in federal court, would you expect or instruct your attorney general to join in that suit with an amicus brief questioning its legality?

BO: I would want to review carefully any lawsuit that was filed. This is probably my carryover from being a constitutional lawyer.

Here’s where I can tell you [that] my principle is: DOMA was an unnecessary encroachment by the federal government in an area traditionally reserved for the state. I think that it was primarily sent as a message to score political points instead of work through these difficult issues.

I recognize why it was done. I’m sympathetic to the political pressures involved. But I think that we need to bring it to a close, and my preference would be to work through a legislative solution.

I would also point out that if it’s going before this court, I’m not sure what chances it would have to be overturned. I think we’re going to have to take a different approach, but I am absolutely committed to the concept it is not necessary.


MS: In last year’s [Gay] History Project, Elaine Noble, who was one of the first elected [gay] officials in the country, referring to her discussions with Harvey Milk, said, “I think we both knew that one of us was going to die.” Milk, of course, was killed. As the first African-American president, have you and Michelle discussed this?

BO: We don’t spend time worrying about security issues. We have Secret Service protection, which is the best in the world.

Obviously we take precautions and listen to them, but what I spend the day thinking about is how do I get my message out that we need to change this country to make it more just and more fair, to make sure the economy is growing on behalf of middle-class Americans, make sure kids can go to college and bringing this war in Iraq to an end. That’s what I spend my time thinking about.


MS: In the wake of the torture murder of Matthew Shepard [in 1998], Sen. McCain voted against adding sexual orientation to the definition of hate crimes and says he’ll vote against it again. Isn’t this inconsistent for a man who knows torture?

BO: You’ll have to ask Sen. McCain that. Here’s what I can say. There is no doubt that hate crimes based on sexual orientation are all too prevalent. It is something that we have to hit back hard against and identify these vicious crimes for what they are: hate crimes.

This is something that I believe in and will continue to believe in when I am president.


MS: President Reagan, President Bush and President Clinton, when meeting world leaders, have raised human rights questions. Amnesty International has documented countries that imprison, torture and kill gay men, some of which are very close U.S. allies. Would you be willing to raise that question when meeting with those leaders?

BO: I think that the treatment of gays, lesbians and transgender persons is part of this broader human rights discussion. I think it is not acceptable that we would in any way carve out exceptions for our broader human rights advocacy to exclude violations of human rights based on sexual orientation. I think that has to be part and parcel of any conversations we have about human rights.

Mark Segal is publisher of the Philadelphia Gay News.
E-mail mark@epgn.com.


This article appeared in the Dallas Voice print edition September 19, 2008.

‘Invisible And Overlooked’
A growing population of lesbian and gay senior citizens seeks recognition for their unique needs and challenges.

Jessica Bennett
Newsweek Web Exclusive
Bob McCoy is a youthful, active 78-year-old. He sings in his church choir, takes a weekly computer class, and regularly attends social gatherings organized by a gay senior citizens group in Brooklyn, N.Y., where he lives. But McCoy worries about a day when he can no longer care for himself: he has no close family, no partner, and he's outlived most of his friends. "I'm used to having friends I can call up and say, 'Let's go to [a movie],'" he says. "But now there's nobody to call."

Newly engaged, Jim Fetterman, 62, and Ilde Gonzalez-Rivera, 56, look forward to growing old together at their home in Queens, N.Y., where they share a garden and a green Cadillac. But the couple isn't sure if or when they'll be able to marry. Their house is in Rivera's name, but because the couple can't legally wed in New York, Fetterman won't automatically inherit it, should his partner die. And even though they are registered domestic partners in New York City, neither man will have access to the other's Social Security, because the federal government doesn't recognize their relationship. "It's not something we like to think about, but there's a certain amount of anxiety that comes with not having those things," says Fetterman.

These are typical faces of the gay and aging—a growing population often overlooked by mainstream advocates. Gerontologists haven't traditionally viewed sexual orientation as relevant to their work—and, according to a study by the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, most national health surveys of elderly citizens fail to assess sexual orientation. But gay seniors confront unique challenges: they're twice as likely as straights to live alone, and 10 times less likely to have a caretaker should they fall ill. Older gay men are at high risk for HIV, and many suffer the psychological effects of losing friends to the AIDS crisis. (See our report on HIV and aging.) Many face discrimination in medical and social services, and on top of it all, they're less likely to have health insurance: one survey, by the Williams Institute on Sexual Orientation Law, at UCLA, estimates that gay seniors are half as likely to have coverage as their straight counterparts.

"In many ways, this population is a mirror opposite of what the mainstream aging community looks like," says Karen Taylor, director of advocacy and training for the New York-based Services and Advocacy for Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual & Transgender Elders, or SAGE, the nation's oldest senior network. "The average senior in the United States lives with one other person; two-thirds of LGBT seniors live alone. If you don't have those informal support networks built into your life, then everything else becomes a bigger issue. Who forces you to go to the doctor? What happens if you fall?"

As this community grows, in both population and visibility, those questions are becoming harder to ignore. Over the next 25 years, persons in America who are 65 and older are expected to grow from about 12 to 20 percent of the total population, and various estimates indicate that lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered individuals will comprise 7 to 10 percent of that senior population. Meanwhile, like the Baby Boomers of all stripes, aging gays and lesbians are radically redefining what it means to be a senior—and how they fit into the larger community. They're coming out of the closet, vocalizing their experiences and needs, and, most importantly, demanding public recognition. "If you go back 40 years, there were virtually no openly gay seniors," says Gary Gates, a senior research fellow and demographer at the Williams Institute. "But now you have a large enough group that people are paying attention."

This year, SAGE is celebrating its 30th anniversary, and running an ad campaign in New York to raise awareness about their constituents. And when the organization holds its national conference on aging next month, it will be sponsored for the first time by the AARP. Just that acknowledgement, say advocates, is huge: with 40 million members, the AARP is considered one of America's most powerful lobbying groups—and an influential voice on health care and social policy. "When we look to the future, we know we cannot progress if we don't bring in these other communities," says the Washington-based organization's chief diversity officer, E. Percil Stanford. "The [gay and lesbian] community is quite often invisible and overlooked."

That recognition is much needed—especially for older seniors, many of who spent years hiding their sexuality, and in some sense, still do. Many of today's seniors were already in their 20s and 30s when the Stonewall riots took place in 1969, considered the birth of the gay rights movement. Until 1973, homosexuality was still considered a mental illness, and in some jurisdictions in the United States, gays could be prosecuted as recently as five years ago, before the Supreme Court struck down a Texas sodomy law. Attitudes may have changed, but many seniors harbor chilling memories of being shunned, isolated, and in fear for their physical safety.

Social worker Lee Chew, 59, remembers, in junior high school, looking up "gay" in the dictionary, to find out just how "sick" he was—and deciding, until he was in his mid-20s, "to keep this to myself." At 90, Jerre Kalbas, one of SAGE's original female members, tells stories of growing up in the 1930s, when women weren't supposed to even wear pants. She describes men hooting at her on the street, yelling "dyke"—and even though she had relationships with other women, she was terrified she'd be exposed to her family, or fired from her job. McCoy, who spent years as an Army communications official, remembers going to a bar in Greenwich Village in the late 1960s, and climbing out a bathroom window to escape police officers during a surprise raid. Fetterman, who came out to his wife and the Episcopal church where he was a priest just six years ago, was dismissed from his job and kicked out of his home. "My entire life came crashing down," he says.

Some seniors, like McCoy, still won't offer up their orientation willingly. (Though McCoy considers himself out, he still hasn't told his doctor, therapist or social worker he is gay.) And in some cases, that internalized fear may actually prevent lesbian and gay seniors from accessing public services. One study, by the Milwaukee County Department On Aging, found that gay seniors who feared they wouldn't be welcome at an aging center were five times less likely to step foot in the door.

For those who can afford it, there are gay-specific retirement communities and free service centers dotted around the nation, mostly in urban areas. But most regular nursing homes give shared-room preference to their married clients, and only a few states require employers to give leave for employees caring for same-sex partners. Inside care centers, advocates tell stories of social workers using gloves to treat only their gay patients, or those patients being shuffled around from room to room to avoid harassment from other residents. In rare cases, social workers say that couples have gone to the extent of agreeing not to visit each other, for fear the staff will treat them differently. And many patients revert back into the closet to protect themselves. "If you can imagine a situation where you're 80 years old, with no kids, a partner passed, no cousins or relatives and not one service that will provide you help with an emoticon of respect, that's what most LGBT seniors in this country face right now," says Michael Adams, SAGE's executive director.

Financial and estate-planning matters can complicate things further. In most cases, gay survivors don't have rights to a partner's pension plans, and are taxed on 401(k)s and IRAs they might inherit. Same-sex couples must also pay federal estate taxes on jointly owned homes where married couples don't. Sometimes they even have to fight with blood relatives over how to dispose of a partner's remains. To approximate some of the protections of marriage, many gay couples have to set up extra legal frameworks, such as powers or attorney and joint tenancy agreements. "Senior citizens have enough of a challenge just figuring out all the paperwork for health insurance—but gays and lesbians have this added layer," says attorney David Buckel, the director of the Marriage Project at the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, a civil rights group. "It can be overwhelming."

The good news, of course, is that attitudes are changing. At New York's gay pride parade earlier this year, SAGE made the rounds in two purple trolleys, amid 90-degree heat, with walking canes and colorful streamers waving out the windows. Some had been coming to the parade for years; for others, it was their first time. One couple, in matching T-shirts, held a sign that read: "Together 51 Years"—to raucous cheers from the crowd. "The fact is," says Adams, "the [gay and lesbian] community is going through a sea change in terms of the way we live our lives." For gay seniors, there's no time to waste.