(Washington) Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign announced Wednesday that it has formed an LGBT steering committee made up of prominent gays to reach out to the community.

It includes New York City Council Speaker Christine Quinn; Elizabeth Birch, former Executive Director of the Human Rights Campaign; people from the entertainment industry including Greg Berlanti, the creator/producer of TV series “Brothers and Sisters” and Ilene Chaiken, the creator and producer of “The L Word” among others, and various gay people with experience in the federal government including Eldie Acheson, a former U.S. Assistant Attorney General and the founding director of Public Policy and Government Affairs at the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force.

In all 65 people will serve on the committee.

“I’ve seen how Hillary Clinton’s experience, commitment, and leadership have made a difference for the LGBT community,” said New York City Council Speaker Christine Quinn in a statement released by the Clinton campaign.

I have never received a satisfactory answer (political pragmatism doesn't count as an answer, folks) from any of Clinton's gay/lesbian "Dream Team" members that explains why she remained mute on the issue of gay immigration or more generally, but not less urgently, federal recognition of gay and lesbian civil unions, domestic partnerships, and marriages. And I do not refer to her silence during this campaign, but her silence as an elected official, my U.S. Senator, in fact.

I am unclear why she has not drafted legislation to establish federal recognition of gay and lesbian relationships, and repeal the Defense of Marriage Act, a law which she seems not to support. She was elected to legislate, not to campaign.

Hillary Clinton is not just a superstar, an icon, a former first lady, a brilliant politician, or an exceptionally intelligent and masterful public speaker, she is also a legislator. And what has she legislated for our community? LOL, as they say. She's been there since January 3, 2001. Six-and-a-half long years of silence, ignoring the pain inflicted on gay and lesbian couples in New York state by discriminatory treatment at the federal level (no, it's not just a "states' rights" issue), standing by while relationships are destroyed, and families of New Yorkers are torn apart. All the while, a thoughtful well-crafted legislation that followed on the heels of similar policy in 12 other countries including Canada, the United Kingdom and Australia, was begging for her support. The Permanent Partners Immigration Act had over 120 co-sponsors in the House and 12 in the Senate, but Hillary Clinton was not one of them. Nor did she speak up to condemn the anti-gay Defense of Marriage Act signed by her husband into law. (Only now has she dispatched Ethan Geto to explain to us why she feels part of that law is "unfair.") The gay marriage wars have been fought, won and loss in many jurisdictions in the past 6 years, but the U.S. Senator from the state that most likely has the largest lesbian and gay population in the country, has remained silent on how to establish full equality at the federal level for gay and lesbian couples. Silent. (You won't hear me clapping like a trained seal because she worked to defeat the Federal Marriage Amendment. It simply is not the same as taking proactive steps toward legislating equality.)

For this reason I am disappointed that such an illustrious group has signed up to the Hillary Clinton campaign. The experienced and committed men and women should take Senator Clinton to task for her silence. And they should be vociferous critics of her outrageous and offensive platitude (she couldn't possibly believe it, right?) that the Uniting American Families Act (formerly the Permanent Partners Immigration Act) would result in fraud and overburdening of the bureaucracy. The Senate horse trading on immigration reform is in full swing, where is the Junior Senator from New York working overtime to get UAFA attached to this bill. (Oh, yes she is busy campaigning.)

Pillars of our community, with all due respect, should not be signing up enthusiastically, giving her their early imprimatur and credibility (she already enjoys what appears to be unwavering love fest at HRC) as long as Clinton continues to reject the common sense approach: a statement of support of full and equal marriage rights coupled with introduction of legislation that would extend to all gay and lesbian couples the 1,049 rights currently bestowed under federal only to married opposite sex couples. Gay marriage is the defining civil rights issue of our generation, and our community should hold back its support until a candidate with uncompromising morality and courage to lead on this issue comes calling. We should not and must not rush to support one candidate in the primary simply because conventional wisdom has assessed her as most electable of the lot. We do not need more access, we need more action.

U.S. Rep. Dennis Kucinich is the only 2008 presidential candidate who has publicly supported all eight LGBT issues. Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney is the only 2008 presidential candidate who has publicly opposed all eight LGBT issues.

...

“The public statements and voting records of the Democratic candidates show that they are clearly light years ahead of the Republicans on almost every issue important to the LGBT community. Nevertheless, the lack of courage on marriage equality is disturbing on both political and moral grounds. Politically, being for civil unions but against marriage doesn’t bring a single voter over from the other side. Morally, it’s hard to understand how a Democratic candidate can say to people they know individually and to one of the most loyal and generous voting blocs the party has, ‘Sorry, I just can’t go there — you understand, right?’ Actually, we don’t.”

I would consider Larry Kramer a pillar (one among several). I am confident that he is not participating in this steering committee. I can even imagine the colorful terms that would accompany his rejection of such a suggestion... Mr. Kramer would not, I think, be 'polite.'

In the meantime, I don't think it's fair to characterize Senator Obama as any more homophobic than anyone else running for president.

I have great respect and admiration for Barack Obama. My sense is that he respects gay and lesbian people and wants everyone to be treated equally and fairly.

Does he intend to repeal DOMA and grant full legal equality to same-sex marriages? Does he intend to support the move to let the foreign partners of US residents to immigrate? Will the US administration do something for Gay refugees during his presidency?

As president he would have almost no power to do any of these things. Any candidate who suggests that they would do these things if elected president is, well, lying. Much like Mr. Bush's earlier agitations for an amendment barring gay marriage -- I don't believe the president's opinion would ever be asked for on that matter. It's an issue for the Congress and the individual state legislatures.

Mr. Bush's (or Mr. Romney's) views on constitutional amendments though are of little import. Such things must be passed by two-thirds majorities in the Congress. A two-thirds vote may also over-ride a veto. While it is conceivable that a president's opposition might alter a hypothetical vote to over-ride a veto, it is passingly unlikely.

Democratic presidential hopeful Bill Richardson apologized this week for using a Spanish-language slur for gay people, even as he suggested it smacked of politics that news of his “maricón” moment is surfacing now, more than a year later.

The New Mexico governor used the term as part of a joke instigated by talk show host Don Imus during a March 29, 2006, segment of his “Imus in the Morning” syndicated radio program, simulcast on MSNBC.

...

“Bernard on the staff here has been claiming you’re not really Hispanic so-- that you're just claiming that for some sort of advantage or something,” Imus said to Richardson, tongue clearly in cheek. “You can just answer this yes or no and this will answer that question. Would you agree that Bernard is a maricón?”

Without missing a beat, Richardson replied in Spanish, “Yo creo que Bernardo, sí — es un maricón si él piensa que yo no soy hispano. [General laughter] Was that good enough or what? [General laughter]”

The March 2006 appearance is resurfacing now because of one reader of this blog. Christopher Hubble, a Denver, Colo.-based book publisher and blogger, e-mailed me after I wrote very approvingly of Bill Richardson's gay right record when he announced for president earlier this year.

Like several of the Richardson supporters quoted in the story, I think the Imus appearance raises legitimate questions about Richardson's judgment. He was clearly baited by Imus, but he replied using the same word without missing a beat. He was so anxious to reply he talked over the host. A clip of the appearance is available here.

Democratic presidential hopeful Bill Richardson apologized this week for using a Spanish-language slur for gay people, even as he suggested it smacked of politics that news of his “maricón” moment is surfacing now, more than a year later. [Emphasis mine.]

“I would never knowingly say or do anything to hurt the GLBT community — a community that I have worked hard for and supported my entire career,” the statement says.

“In the Spanish I grew up speaking, the term means simply ‘gay,’ not positive or negative. It has been brought to my attention that the word also has a hurtful or derogatory connotation, which was never my intent. If I offended anybody, I’m sorry.”