Ambassador at last.

Bit will James Hormel's appointment harm pro-gay legislation pending in Congress?

On gay rights at least, Bill Clinton may go down in history as the president who raised hopes he often couldn't fulfill. But when the White House on June 4 invoked a rarely used executive privilege to make multimillionaire philanthropist James C. Hormel the first openly gay envoy, the resilient president showed his determination to make reality meet his rhetoric.

"I'm afraid Clinton's epitaph on gay rights will be the gays-in-the-military debacle," said Amy Walter, an editor of the Cook Political Report, an insider's guide to Washington politics. "But the Hormel appointment and other supportive gestures, which do involve some degree of political risk, will add an important element to his legacy. This is definitely a breakthrough for the gay community."

The so-called "recess" appointment, made while Congress was on its Memorial Day vacation, allows Hormel to serve as ambassador to Luxembourg until near the end of Clinton's second term in 2001. Hormel's nomination had been blocked since October 1997 by Senate majority leader Trent Lott (R-Miss.) and a small group of other right-wing senators.

The nomination became a lightning rod for the religious right, and Hormel, a patrician former dean of the University of Chicago Law School, was derided as anti-Catholic because of his support of the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence, a group whose members don drag to satirize conservative elements in the Catholic Church. Critics also assailed Hormel's financial support of the gay and lesbian center of the San Francisco Public Library because it contains some sexually explicit materials.

In defending the recess appointment, the White House stressed that Hormel's treatment in the Senate was a glaring example of antigay discrimination. "This came down to a couple of senators who thought that he shouldn't be ambassador to Luxembourg because he's gay," White House spokesman Joe Lockhart said after the appointment was announced. "And the president thinks that's wrong and discriminatory."

In sticking to a tight script about the perils of discrimination, the White House was laying the groundwork for the reintroduction of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, federal legislation that would ban workplace bias on the basis of sexual orientation. The House coauthor of the bill, Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), took the unusual step this year of inserting a provision that explicitly prohibits the application of affirmative action to gay men and lesbians.

While the bill, introduced in 1994, never required hiring quotas, Frank said the provision will deprive opponents of one of their most powerful but false arguments. In last year's debate over the unsuccessful Hefley Amendment, which sought to overturn Clinton's executive order banning antigay discrimination in federal employment, conservatives regularly invoked the specter of affirmative action.

"There was no point in letting conservatives beat us up over affirmative action," Frank said. "In the old days we would overwrite a bill and then cut it back. Now if there is a controversial aspect to a bill, it's too late to save it. So you work to anticipate and minimize objections."

In a flurry of meetings, E-mail messages, and conference calls, gay activists debated the anti-affirmative action provision -- and the debate produced some strange bedfellows. Log Cabin Republicans, a gay lobbying group that opposes all affirmative action, weighed in on Frank's behalf while the Human Rights Campaign, the nation's largest gay political group, was among those expressing reservations. Critics of the provision were concerned that it could alienate allies in the larger civil rights leadership who are wary of negative references to already-embattled affirmative action in any legislation. In a March 26 letter to Log Cabin, Frank, who in other contexts has been harshly critical of gay Republicans, praised the group and expressed determination to "not allow well intentioned but not equally well informed people to screw this up."

"It was a long and arduous process, and we did initially have some problems with the provision," said Winnie Stachelberg, HRC's political director. "We wanted to make sure we were not damaging the civil rights movement or malting it more difficult for litigators in other contexts. Of course, I would prefer that Log Cabin support affirmative action, but we can work together anyway."

In the end civil rights groups signed off on the provision. "With the wording we came up with, I'm no longer concerned that it will be used to hurt affirmative action," said Wade Henderson, an African-American who is executive director of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, a lobbying group. "What this discussion does is clarify the difference between affirmative action and antidiscrimination. Gays don't need affirmative action to advance in this society."

Kevin Ivers, director of public affairs for Log Cabin Republicans, said the debate showed a new pragmatism on the part of gay rights groups. "This process showed that we can't afford to write bills from a narrowly defined liberal position," he said. "We need to bring in people from the Republican side in order to have widespread support. This bill we have crafted ... in the long run has the best chance of passage ever."

Despite the preemptive move by its proponents, ENDA faces far more opposition than the Hormel appointment, which itself has triggered threats of reprisal from some Congressional critics. Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), a leading opponent of Hormers nomination, hinted at a political backlash, accusing Clinton of "utter contempt of the Senate and its role in the confirmation process." And Sen. Bob Smith (R-N.H.) said he would urge colleagues to block most of Clinton's nominees for the remainder of the president's term.

But Richard Socarides, Clinton's appointed liaison to gay men and lesbians, insisted that the White House had carefully weighed the risks. "We notified the relevant members of Congress," he said, "including those who opposed Hormel, and no one suggested that there would be repercussions in other areas. We're confident ENDA will be considered on its merits."