Dems cautious on gay issues (Logo/HRC forum)

[Newsjock]

Source: Chicago Tribune

LOS ANGELES—The leading Democratic presidential candidates struck a delicate balance Thursday evening between showing commitment to expand the rights of gay people and justifying their opposition to same-sex marriage during the campaign's first-ever televised forum focused on gay issues.

... Perhaps the most personal question of the evening was posed to Sen. Hillary Clinton by Etheridge, who told Clinton that she had felt personally hurt and abandoned by the Clintons after President Bill Clinton's inauguration.

... "We certainly didn't get as much done as I would have liked," Clinton said, "but there was a lot of honest effort."

New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson waded into the contentious debate over whether homosexuality is innate or a personal choice.

When asked the question, he responded, "It's a choice."

... Like all the Democratic candidates except Rep. Dennis Kucinich and former Sen. Mike Gravel, who both support gay marriage, Obama supports only civil unions for gay couples. He cited the need to "disentangle" the issue of legal rights for gay couples from what "has historically been the issue of the word marriage, which has religious connotations to some people."

Read more: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-deba...

[Enjoying_the_Ride]

1. Not that he had much of a chance anyway, but Richardson's sunk

Despite his role in the Wu case, I thought Richardson would make a decent Secretary of State in the next admin, but if he thinks sexuality is a choice, maybe his next job should be at the Creationsim Museum.

[CBHagman]

32. Do read the whole exchange.

A little background on the quotation from Richardson, for those of you who didn't catch coverage of the forum or read the transcript: Melissa Etheridge asked whether Richardson believed homosexuality was biological or a choice, and Richardson said, "It's a choice." Etheridge gently replied, "I don't know if you understand the question." She then asked if homosexuality was something you are born with or something you decide on by the seventh grade!

Part of Richardson's reply: "I see gays and lesbians as people as a matter of human decency. I see it as a matter of love and companionship and people loving each other. You know I don't like to categorize people. I don't like to, like, answer definitions like that that, you know, perhaps are grounded in science or something else that I don't understand."

However, I would have thought that Richardson was savvy enough to have caught some of the science stories in the newspaper, or that he would have at least anticipated the issue of research into the biological basis of sexual orientation to come up.

On edit: Link to the "Visible Vote '08" website and videos of the forum:

http://visiblevote08.logoonline.com/

[JudyM]

40. He issued a statement about this today, to clarify...

"Let me be clear -- I do not believe that sexual orientation or gender identity happen by choice," Governor Richardson said. "But I'm not a scientist, and the point I was trying to make is that no matter how it happens, we are all equal and should be treated that way under the law. That is what I believe, that is what I have spent my career fighting for. I ask that people look at my record and my actions and they will see I have been a true supporter of the LGBT community."

I wouldn't write him off since he has a good record of affirmatively pushing for LGBT rights like domestic partnership...

[shawmut]

54. Looks like you had a bumpy ride n/t

[Heidi]

2. Note to the media: They're human rights issues, not "gay issues." (nt)

[jobycom]

3. Thank you.

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[moggie]

5. Allowing people to marry is not "special treatment"

Is it "exhibitionist" to claim that you should have the same rights as other people?

[David__77]

7. "Gay exhibitionists?"

Huh? Marriage conveys concrete rights and when we have schools talking about "no sex before marriage," we need this to include same sex relationships, as just one small example. Separate but equal is not equal. I'm not an exhibitionist because I want the same rights as my straight counterparts.

[Divine Discontent]

53. don't you just love these fanatic conservative exhibitionists who come on DU

and stalk our pages just to post anti-gay rhetoric? I didn't see the post before it was erased, but wow, to say gay people wanting marriage are exhibitionists summarizes the general ignorance from the rethug conservative side of their party, which is the main portion of them, sadly.

[Heidi]

8. "Special treatment"???????? It's not "special treatment"

to insist that all Americans have the right to have their marital commitments legally honored, to be able to put their life partners on the company health insurance that often is extended to the spouses of heterosexual employees, to be protected from discrimination, etc.

These are basic human rights to which most of us heterosexual folks feel entitled, so why shouldn't our gay friends enjoy these rights, too? I look forward to your answer.

[Heidi]

9. What kind of "exhibitionist" was Martin Luther King Jr.?

What kind of "exhibitionists" were the leaders of the Women's Sufferage Movement?

What's so tricky about the topic of human rights? I'm very much interested in your answer.

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Heidi]

12. Can you give us an example or two of "IN YOUR FUCKING FACE" aggressive tactics?

Thank you.

[Name removed]

16. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Heidi]

17. Wouldn't you say that there's a lot more of 1) going on than 2)?

I was married for 11 years to a conservative who couldn't even bear to watch CNN coverage of Pride events without flipping out about homosexuals bringing their "immoral lifestyle" into our home. Yet, he must have been courting a stroke because he never once changed the channel.

I don't doubt your word, but I've never heard of gay activists disrupting church services. Then again, most of the gay activists I know don't dress in drag; my drag queen friends do, though.

[Name removed]

21. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Sapphocrat]

23. Oh, give me a fucking break.

Gay activist dressed in drag, going to the local Baptist Church disrupting their meeting inside, and putting on a public display or show, spraying hormones on each other for all the thumpers to see. (Saw this one in Berkley)

Yeah, and I'm Doris Day.

I don't know who's been feeding you these "special rights" talking points, but your grasp of equal rights, and your complete ignorance of protecting minority classes subject to domestic terrorism (that's what hate crimes are) would be laughable were your arguments not so tired and transparent.

The one thing you do know about is "pissing off perceived adversaries."

And it's Berkeley, not "Berkley."

[LeftyMom]

26. Y'know I never heard news story #2

I know sometimes we miss news like that here in the godforsaken wilds of Sacramento, but I have a sneaking suspicion you pulled that one straight out of your ass.

[Heidi]

36. I wonder if there was any media coverage of that event in "Berkley."

Surely such an event would have been celebrated as evidence of the left's rampant immorality covered by that bastion of truth, Faux News, don't you suppose?

[NMMNG]

37. Where can I get some of this "hormone spray"

I've never heard of any such thing.

[Bluebear]

41. Now available in New Fresh Linen Scent, Too!

[La Lioness Priyanka]

25. i think just for you, stupid is the current word of the day. n/t

[Bluebear]

19. "Special treatment" eh? Where have I heard that before?

Gay exhibitionists indeed.

[19jet54]

22. What words should I have used?

"Special Treatment" - How do you know I was not talking about the Fucking Bible Thumpers, who also want special treatment, or the NRA, or NOW, or how about BIG OIL. The point is, equal treatment means equal treatment with no exceptions, otherwise we are just implementing a cast system like India!

I'm sorry if the gay exhibitionist part was offensive, it was not meant to be. Nobody here seems to object to the Bible Thumper or Homophobe stuff - which is equally insulting & offensive?

[La Lioness Priyanka]

31. you are truly a jackass.

[Zuiderelle]

35. Yes, I hear those "Bible Thumpers" are very upset that they are not allowed to get married.

Oh wait...




Who are you?

[Bluebear]

20. PS you have also used up your allotment of snarky "quotation marks" for the next 3 weeks.

"Thank you."

[La Lioness Priyanka]

24. the problem with gay issues are homophobes and idiots.

we should clarify marriage laws so i have equal rights to you.

special rights is a little condescending, when denying people equal rights, dont you think?

[Zuiderelle]

34. Oh.... my.... god. I'm a gay exhibitionist.

go fuck yourself

[NMMNG]

38. Cool!

Can you spray me with your hormones?

[dbackjon]

39. I am sure you will be happy then

To send me the $25,000 in extra taxes my partner and I have paid since we have been together, and I am sure you will continue to send me the money to cover the additional tax burden we face.

You can start by sending me $900 to cover the added cost of health insurance - married couples can deduct the cost of a spouse's coverage, my partner's coverage on my plan is AFTER taxes.

[radfringe]

6. just scratched Richardson off my list

did anyone ask him how old he was when he decided to be straight? doubt it.

[xchrom]

10. here's what i don't get --

since no one is going to make a church marry anyone they don't want to -- and the piece of paper i HAVE to get at the city hall has no religious connotation -- then why can't i get married?

i pay taxes -- i support heteros children in schools -- often voting myself higher taxes to educate the little darlings better -- work and contribute positively to society -- so discriminating against me gets society what exactly?

[Heidi]

14. Exactly. Thank you, xchrom.

Here, any two consenting adults have the right to a civil union, which entitles them to all marriage rights under the law. Those who want a marriage recognized by a church must find a church that will marry them. CMW and I have a civil union and it's as good as gold where the law is concerned. We need to get churches out of the business of approving legal contracts, and that's what a marriage is.

By the way:

[xchrom]

15. ...

[xchrom]

13. lastly -- i have to say this -- i'm just glad the candidates came to the

logo forum.

my biggest concern isn't gay marriage -- it's the protection -- physical, psychological, what ever -- well being of my gay brothers and sisters.

the democratic party is going hurt us the least -- and may in some cases move our hopes for equality forward.

but mostly -- i just want everyone to be safe -- to be able to see the next day.

i can't be sure that will happen with a republick party president --

[19jet54]

18. Living in fear

is a terrible thing; not that I have any special connection with any God or Government, but I wish you peace, happiness & a safe life!

[La Lioness Priyanka]

27. thats exactly how i feel. you are so eloquent and rational.

(and also pretty)

[xchrom]

30. lol -- yeah -- but i can't make a sundress look

as fabulous as you do!

[Name removed]

28. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[customerserviceguy]

42. It's proof that

they sense that the mushy middle is still wary of marriage equality. Those fucking amendments really muddied the picture, I sometimes think that MA's recognition of marriage equality seriously backfired. If MA had civil unions, there probably wouldn't have been so many of these ugly pieces of discrimination lodged in so many state constitutions.

Once a dozen or so states had civil union or domestic partnership for a decade, then everybody would see that the sky is not falling when same sex couples make commitments of responsibility to each other, and we'd probably have a Supreme Court ruling that would give this country full marriage equality.

[brentspeak]

45. Why don't you show us how brave you are

Tell us your real name.

Well, why not? All you do on the boards here is bash Democrats. And now you're accusing them, without any rationale, that they are "cowards on most issues."

Show us how courageous you are.

[bigwillq]

29. Shit!

I missed it. See this is what happens when I don't post on DU for most of the week...I miss out on my daily dose of news, events and happenings.

maybe they will replay it.

[CBHagman]

33. Link to check out.

http://visiblevote08.logoonline.com /

I don't know if any of the major newspapers linked to the transcript. The New York Times sometimes does that.

[racaulk]

43. It will be on Logo again tonight from 7:00pm to 9:00pm EST.

Set your VCR/DVR and don't miss it again!

[bigwillq]

47. I am going to miss it again!

I am at the man's house and he doesn't get Logo!

[Zhade]

44. REMINDER: Per Skinner's own words, DUers are EXPECTED to support the equal right of GLBT marriage.

It's not optional - if you don't support our rights, you're not welcome here.

And if they think I'm going to vote for them while they try to keep me a second-class citizen, they're out of their fucking minds.

[Socal31]

52. Playing devil's advocate,

I think this would exclude a huge chunk of even the dem. population. So now its "Democratswhosupportgaymarriageonly Underground?"

[Midlodemocrat]

57. You'd think wrong.

Marriage should be a right that everyone can enjoy, not just the heteros like me.

[Zhade]

61. Excluded or not, it's a fact - people here are expected to support the equal right of marriage.

If you do not, you are not welcome here.

[Socal31]

63. Sooo..

what other specific topics do we all have to have the exact same opinion on to be considered progressive? Can we have a list so I know...

[HuffleClaw]

46. fuck 'em

cowards.

[Maribelle]

48. Civil unions should be up to the States, marriages up to the churches.

That's the way already is in some palces.

I have never thought the goverment should be involved in marriages.

[Zhade]

49. No, civil unions should not be up to the states.

Unless you mean, should be issued by the state, and not decided on by the states, since there is no decision that needs to be made except to allow us our due equal rights.

Not sure which you meant, hopefully the former.

[Maribelle]

50. Yes, you are right - - issued by the state.

Sorry I was not more clear.

[Zhade]

62. Thanks for clarifying.

[Name removed]

51. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[leaninglib]

55. It is wise to be cautious.

Polls indicate that 10% would consider voting for a candidate who was perceived to be pro-gay. On the other hand 30% would be likely to vote against that same candidate.

[LostinVA]

56. That math doesn't add up

[leaninglib]

64. Actually, I was in a hurry, so I didn't take the time to include all of the numbers.

10% would be more likely
30% would be less likely
60% made no difference

[ProudDad]

58. Obama's got it right this time

The real solution is that all references in LAW be changed from "marriage" to "domestic partnership"...

There should be the same legal and tax implications for all people who choose to share their lives together and wish the legal protections and privileges inherent in that decision...primarily for any children involved in these arrangements.

"Marriage" is a religious concept and as such should have NO mention in law or governmental processes or procedures.

[LostinVA]

59. When did Obama say that?

I haven't read that anywhere else.

[ProudDad]

60. I mean that this statement of his

is on the right track:

He cited the need to "disentangle" the issue of legal rights for gay couples from what "has historically been the issue of the word marriage, which has religious connotations to some people."

The two issues should be "disentangled".

All people who choose to create long term relationships with other people and accrue the legal advantages and obligations of same should be allowed to declare that intention and be legally bound by that declaration.

That's what a "domestic partnership" is/should be...

"Marriage" has religious connotations and all of the various cults that label themselves as "religions" have their own peculiar definitions as to who and what "marriage" is depending on their particular myths.

"Marriage" has NO place in law in a Secular State...

Therefore, all "marriages" recognized as such by the State should be converted to "domestic partnerships", all mention of the word "marriage" expunged from all laws and all legally competent persons allowed to engage in "domestic partnerships"...

Problem Solved...

[Ms. Toad]

65. No he doesn't

Marriage is a state institution. It is a legal contract between two adults and the state which entitle the couple to rights not only in their state, but i the country in which it was entered and rights in other states (through reciprocity) and other countries (also through reciprocity).

The only connection between marriage and religious entities is that the state has chosen to recognize certain marriages entered into in a religious context. It refuses to recognize certain others (for example, currently same gender marriages, polygamous marriages; in the past interracial marriages, Quaker marriages, and marriage between African Americans). Marriage may be entered into in a number of different ways (at least three in the US) - via common law (12 states, currently), secular ceremony (justice of the peace, judge), or a religious ceremony.

I am extremely disappointed in Obama's statement, which indicates that he is inflexible on the matter and ignorant of the law (see the above) or ignorant of the growing acceptance within faith communities of same gender marriages. I am not thrilled by Edwards, but at least he acknowledges where he is (struggling) and has shown evidence of growth on this matter.

[DuaneBidoux]

66. Obviously supporting gay rights is right but at this time Dems must ask the following question:

Is doing the right thing, right now, worth losing power for another 30 years?

Kennedy and Johnson did the right thing in civil rights, and Johnson even said something to the effect that the Dems had lost the country for 30 years. He proved to be right. As a result of giving blacks their rights the South completely flopped to the Pukes.

If Dems had had power for the last 30 years, shaping public policy, and if we now had better schools, universal health care, a court packed our way for the next 20 years regardless of who is in power, and a secure social security system and corporations that had been forced into responsible behavior I would without question say push for full gay rights now--it is most definitely the right thing to do--and we could probably stand 30 more years of Puke rule.

But the realistic problem now is that we are coming off of 30 years of Puke damage, and I ask could we afford to lose our country for another 30 years?

Is it the right thing in a broader moral sense? No question. Can we afford to push it now? That should be open for debate. (I know I'll get flamed by gay members but ask yourself, how would you fare after another 30 years of wingnut rule?).