HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Retired » Retired Forums » 2016 Postmortem (Forum) » PolitiFact agrees Bernie ...

Tue Oct 6, 2015, 02:32 AM

PolitiFact agrees Bernie was "there" on gay marriage 20 yrs ago. AND Hillary's words from 2004

The recent attacks by Slate and some at DU regarding Bernie Sanders' support for same sex marriage...are just too much. It's expected due to his rise in the polls and the huge crowds he is drawing...but it is not a valid criticism.

Tampa Bay Times Pundit Fact examines Chuck Todd's recent words about Bernie Sanders and his support for same sex marriage.

NBC's Chuck Todd: Bernie Sanders was 'there' on same-sex marriage 20 years ago

Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders and his presidential campaign serve as an almost constant reminder that Hillary Clinton has not always taken the lead on issues near and dear to the more liberal members of the Democratic Party. She only recently declared that she opposed the Keystone XL pipeline that would link oil from the tar sand fields of Canada to refineries on the Gulf Coast. On same-sex marriage, Clinton’s views evolved.

As PolitiFact has described, in 1999, Clinton both supported the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which defined marriage as between a man and woman, and legal recognition of civil unions. By 2007, she opposed DOMA, but fell short of backing same-sex marriage. Then in 2013, she came out in favor of same-sex marriage pure and simple.

Chuck Todd, the host of NBC’s Meet the Press, focused on same-sex marriage during an interview with Clinton on Sept. 27, 2015.

"Bernie Sanders has been where you are on these issues," Todd said. "Bernie Sanders was there when it came to marriage 20 years ago. Do you think one of the reasons he's doing well right now is some progressives think, ‘Well, you know what? He was there when it wasn't popular.’"


PolitiFact called it

Just a reminder of Hillary's words on the topic in 2004. She evolved much later than Bernie Sanders.



And a further reminder of how very far Bernie Sanders, even as Mayor, had evolved in 1985.

From the desk of Mayor Sanders:



104 replies, 5444 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 104 replies Author Time Post
Reply PolitiFact agrees Bernie was "there" on gay marriage 20 yrs ago. AND Hillary's words from 2004 (Original post)
madfloridian Oct 2015 OP
beam me up scottie Oct 2015 #1
moobu2 Oct 2015 #16
Fawke Em Oct 2015 #17
moobu2 Oct 2015 #24
madfloridian Oct 2015 #26
moobu2 Oct 2015 #28
beam me up scottie Oct 2015 #50
Warren DeMontague Oct 2015 #59
beam me up scottie Oct 2015 #62
HooptieWagon Oct 2015 #68
beam me up scottie Oct 2015 #69
HooptieWagon Oct 2015 #78
moobu2 Oct 2015 #79
DisgustipatedinCA Oct 2015 #81
dorkzilla Oct 2015 #101
Warren DeMontague Oct 2015 #85
beam me up scottie Oct 2015 #86
Warren DeMontague Oct 2015 #91
beam me up scottie Oct 2015 #92
Warren DeMontague Oct 2015 #93
beam me up scottie Oct 2015 #94
Warren DeMontague Oct 2015 #72
Armstead Oct 2015 #21
moobu2 Oct 2015 #23
Armstead Oct 2015 #25
merrily Oct 2015 #35
merrily Oct 2015 #33
Report1212 Oct 2015 #34
merrily Oct 2015 #36
Report1212 Oct 2015 #42
merrily Oct 2015 #43
Aerows Oct 2015 #51
moobu2 Oct 2015 #52
beam me up scottie Oct 2015 #53
moobu2 Oct 2015 #55
beam me up scottie Oct 2015 #57
Aerows Oct 2015 #58
moobu2 Oct 2015 #60
Aerows Oct 2015 #65
madfloridian Oct 2015 #2
Fearless Oct 2015 #3
brooklynite Oct 2015 #4
MADem Oct 2015 #10
DURHAM D Oct 2015 #12
jeff47 Oct 2015 #15
beam me up scottie Oct 2015 #45
beam me up scottie Oct 2015 #56
MADem Oct 2015 #61
beam me up scottie Oct 2015 #63
MADem Oct 2015 #73
beam me up scottie Oct 2015 #76
MADem Oct 2015 #95
beam me up scottie Oct 2015 #96
MADem Oct 2015 #97
beam me up scottie Oct 2015 #98
MADem Oct 2015 #100
madfloridian Oct 2015 #14
whatchamacallit Oct 2015 #18
MyNameGoesHere Oct 2015 #5
sabrina 1 Oct 2015 #7
beam me up scottie Oct 2015 #9
Bluenorthwest Oct 2015 #13
sabrina 1 Oct 2015 #6
Live and Learn Oct 2015 #8
beam me up scottie Oct 2015 #11
Live and Learn Oct 2015 #22
moobu2 Oct 2015 #19
jeff47 Oct 2015 #20
moobu2 Oct 2015 #27
jeff47 Oct 2015 #29
moobu2 Oct 2015 #31
jeff47 Oct 2015 #32
moobu2 Oct 2015 #38
jeff47 Oct 2015 #39
moobu2 Oct 2015 #40
jeff47 Oct 2015 #41
TDale313 Oct 2015 #71
merrily Oct 2015 #37
moobu2 Oct 2015 #47
beam me up scottie Oct 2015 #44
moobu2 Oct 2015 #48
beam me up scottie Oct 2015 #49
azmom Oct 2015 #30
beam me up scottie Oct 2015 #46
LonePirate Oct 2015 #54
madfloridian Oct 2015 #64
beam me up scottie Oct 2015 #66
MADem Oct 2015 #67
beam me up scottie Oct 2015 #70
MADem Oct 2015 #75
beam me up scottie Oct 2015 #77
MADem Oct 2015 #82
beam me up scottie Oct 2015 #84
MADem Oct 2015 #88
beam me up scottie Oct 2015 #89
MADem Oct 2015 #90
sadoldgirl Oct 2015 #74
treestar Oct 2015 #83
bowens43 Oct 2015 #80
riversedge Oct 2015 #87
beam me up scottie Oct 2015 #99
CharlotteVale Oct 2015 #102
TheKentuckian Oct 2015 #103
madfloridian Oct 2015 #104

Response to madfloridian (Original post)

Tue Oct 6, 2015, 02:36 AM

1. Of course he was.

Bernie has never been opposed to anyone's civil rights, it's his greatest strength.

The people who are trying to turn it into a weakness are desperate and pathetic.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to beam me up scottie (Reply #1)

Tue Oct 6, 2015, 10:23 AM

16. Bernie was for letting each state decide on marriage equality

there's a video of him saying that and he voted against DOMA because he thought it violated states rights...that's what HE said.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to moobu2 (Reply #16)

Tue Oct 6, 2015, 10:26 AM

17. Do you know the story about glass houses and throwing stones?

As a Hillary supporter, I think you should take that story to heart on this issue.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fawke Em (Reply #17)

Tue Oct 6, 2015, 12:42 PM

24. Hillary wasn't hiding her past positions

She's been open and honest about the issue not like the scheming little sneak who isn't even a Democrat.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to moobu2 (Reply #24)

Tue Oct 6, 2015, 12:46 PM

26. "the scheming little sneak who isn't even a Democrat."

You really just said that?

He's more of a Democrat than our party leaders who followed the path to being more like Republicans so they could win.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to madfloridian (Reply #26)

Tue Oct 6, 2015, 12:50 PM

28. Bernie Sanders is running as a Democrat so he can win.

So what. In the end enough people will see he's a phony so that he wont win the nomination. I hope.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to moobu2 (Reply #24)

Tue Oct 6, 2015, 03:30 PM

50. "the scheming little sneak who isn't even a Democrat"

Bookmarking.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to beam me up scottie (Reply #50)

Tue Oct 6, 2015, 03:51 PM

59. one wonders what horrible thing the man has done to make some people loathe him so much.

Oh yeah, I remember- he's running against someone WHOSE TURN IT IS, DAMMIT!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to beam me up scottie (Reply #62)

Tue Oct 6, 2015, 04:03 PM

68. Don't forget 2008.

 

Camp Weathervane introduced Birtherism and racist dog whistles into the primary campaign. Their sense of entitlement means there's no depth too low when they're desperate. Just all the more reason to not vote for HRH.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HooptieWagon (Reply #68)

Tue Oct 6, 2015, 04:05 PM

69. Yep. The 3am phone call commercial was another.

I can't wait to see what they do to Biden if he jumps in the race.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to beam me up scottie (Reply #69)

Tue Oct 6, 2015, 04:17 PM

78. She'll have to divert most fire towards Biden.

 

Their corporatist platforms are virtually identical, Biden is vastly more experienced, he's far more 'likeable', and a direct threat to her flow of corporate funding and support from DNC establishment. She'll have to fight a battle on two fronts, but Biden is her more immediate threat.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HooptieWagon (Reply #78)

Tue Oct 6, 2015, 04:23 PM

79. and this will make him a 3 time loser.

sad to end a career being remembered as a loser like Bernie.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to moobu2 (Reply #79)

Tue Oct 6, 2015, 04:28 PM

81. Just wondering: what grade are you in?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to moobu2 (Reply #79)

Tue Oct 6, 2015, 06:28 PM

101. Loser? Donald Trump, is that you? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to beam me up scottie (Reply #62)

Tue Oct 6, 2015, 04:38 PM

85. Under some circumstances, orgasms DO prevent cancer.

I wonder what group, besides priests, finds that information upsetting, convtroversial, or otherwise bothersome?

Odd.



http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/844820

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #85)

Tue Oct 6, 2015, 04:41 PM

86. True! I was surprised to see so many anti-orgasm people on DU.

That thread was an eye opener, that's for sure.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to beam me up scottie (Reply #86)

Tue Oct 6, 2015, 04:59 PM

91. I'm not. There is a neo-puritan streak among some people, ive noticed.

I think they've taken their fundamentalist religious bargle and just dressed it up in different clothes, but it's the same routine.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #91)

Tue Oct 6, 2015, 05:01 PM

92. I'm guessing they took a vote on the meme "Bernie supports more orgasms!".

And it was an epic fail.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to beam me up scottie (Reply #92)

Tue Oct 6, 2015, 05:03 PM

93. Instead they apparently want to have a debate on whose stance re:marriage equality was more

Offensive some 10 years ago.

Go figure.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #93)

Tue Oct 6, 2015, 05:05 PM

94. Yeah, that one wins the Irony Meter Destroyer of the year award.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to moobu2 (Reply #24)

Tue Oct 6, 2015, 04:11 PM

72. you seem tense.

anyway, it'd be pretty tough for her to "hide her past positions", given that there's video.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to moobu2 (Reply #16)

Tue Oct 6, 2015, 10:47 AM

21. And that's wrong because.....?

 

The adoption by individual states created the right to same sex marriage.....and that eventually led to the national right to marry.

Got a problem with that?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Armstead (Reply #21)

Tue Oct 6, 2015, 12:37 PM

23. Same sex marriage wasn't adopted by each individual state

same sex couples sued the states and won the right to marry while the state fought them tooth and nail all the way to the Supreme Court.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to moobu2 (Reply #23)

Tue Oct 6, 2015, 12:43 PM

25. It varied from state-to-state

 

Circumstances were different in each state.

But the point is that if Massachusetts' right to legalize ss marriage had been denied, and all states were told they could not legalize it, the whole concept would still only be a remote possibility today.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to moobu2 (Reply #23)

Tue Oct 6, 2015, 02:01 PM

35. Not true. Massachusetts was the first to recognize equal marriage. No fight to the SCOTUS.

The State Supreme Judicial Court (sic) made the decision and the state did not appeal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to moobu2 (Reply #16)

Tue Oct 6, 2015, 01:58 PM

33. link?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to moobu2 (Reply #16)

Tue Oct 6, 2015, 02:00 PM

34. It did violate states rights and that was a good argument against it at the time

Apparently Bernie gets slammed for voting against the bad policy that the Clintons supported because he used strategic reasoning?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Report1212 (Reply #34)

Tue Oct 6, 2015, 02:04 PM

36. Fact is, even Ted Kennedy said it should be left to the states.

Seems as though there could have been some agreement as to how to frame this.

Fact also is, family law--including marriage, adoption. inheritances, etc.--had always been purely a state law issue, going back to our English roots.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #36)

Tue Oct 6, 2015, 02:41 PM

42. And those of us who work on marijuana make states rights argus all the time

It doesnt mean we dont support national decriminalizzation but as feds are trying to crack down on states what other argument should you make?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Report1212 (Reply #42)

Tue Oct 6, 2015, 03:03 PM

43. Exactly. This is such a non-issue it isn't funny.

If you are fighting conservatives, a states rights argument is politically the best one to make and we are talking about professional politicians.

Also, if there was to be any kind of law at all, it would be easier for gay rights organizations to work within a state than to try to get a federal law like DOMA overturned.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to moobu2 (Reply #16)

Tue Oct 6, 2015, 03:32 PM

51. Uh, he spoke up, took a position

 

and now you somehow think that it is a bad thing?

I completely understand why Hillary supporters want to put the spin on this, but a hoola hoop couldn't help it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Aerows (Reply #51)

Tue Oct 6, 2015, 03:37 PM

52. He was for states deciding marriage equality

at the time Bernie said it should be up to the states hardly any states had approved it so mass amounts of of Americans were being denied basic civil rights and Bernie was Okay with that. He's a phony.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to moobu2 (Reply #52)

Tue Oct 6, 2015, 03:39 PM

53. He voted for DOMA which means he supported states' rights to enact marriage equality.

Hillary lobbied for DOMA and opposed same sex marriage until 2013.

Big difference.

Bernie supported lgbt civil rights and voted for them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to beam me up scottie (Reply #53)

Tue Oct 6, 2015, 03:42 PM

55. Bernie said he thought states should have the right to decide not to let same sex couple marry

at the time he said that a huge majority of states banned it. He's a phony and not even a Democrat.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to moobu2 (Reply #55)

Tue Oct 6, 2015, 03:44 PM

57. Where did he say that? Let's see some proof that he wanted to deny lgbt rights.

And knock it off with the lame "he's a phony" bullshit.

It's pathetic.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to moobu2 (Reply #52)

Tue Oct 6, 2015, 03:47 PM

58. A stance that paved the way for individual states

 

to grant the right to legalize gay marriage. Which is exactly what happened in Iowa, and in his own state of Vermont.

I'm pretty sure that if someone unearthed a quote where Bernie said he believes in climate change, somebody would spin that to "Bernie Sanders wants the earth to burn up, that's what they mean by "FeelTheBern"!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Aerows (Reply #58)

Tue Oct 6, 2015, 03:52 PM

60. Bernie Sanders said he thought marriage equality should be left up to the states.

So he was Okay with most states denying basic civil rights to an entire class of people with the exception of some that lived in states that had marriage equality which was almost none at the time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to moobu2 (Reply #60)

Tue Oct 6, 2015, 04:00 PM

65. He has voted for gay marriage and gay rights every single time it came up.

 

I'm sorry your candidate had to wait for the weather to change before she reluctantly decided to be FOR gay rights, but that's just the way it is.

People don't have political amnesia and suddenly not remember that Hillary had some ugly things to say about gay people due to the fact that she was scared of Sarah Palin.

I don't want a President that is scared of what Sarah Palin might say, for heaven's sake.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to madfloridian (Original post)

Tue Oct 6, 2015, 02:39 AM

2. Don't care for Todd, Politifact is often iffy. But unfair attacks are not right.

Read the whole TB Times article before getting upset with me. It's pretty thorough.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to madfloridian (Original post)

Tue Oct 6, 2015, 02:40 AM

3. Imagine that!

The progressive liberal candidate wasn't secretly conservative!

The things people believe around here!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to madfloridian (Original post)

Tue Oct 6, 2015, 04:42 AM

4. That does it! I'm not voting for a flip-flopper like...

 

Last edited Tue Oct 6, 2015, 05:17 AM - Edit history (1)

...Barack Obama again!

And being so knowledgable and principled, I'm guessing the OP never voted for him?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brooklynite (Reply #4)

Tue Oct 6, 2015, 06:27 AM

10. He was for civil unions in VT before he was for marriage equality.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #10)

Tue Oct 6, 2015, 08:55 AM

12. Thanks for posting.

All this revisionist history is pathetic. The bottom line is that if the HRC or any other organization called him for help he didn't respond. It was not his thing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #10)

Tue Oct 6, 2015, 10:20 AM

15. So, "Sanders loves the NRA" wasn't getting enough traction?

Should we start a pool over which recycled bullshit you'll post next week?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #15)

Tue Oct 6, 2015, 03:07 PM

45. Lgbt DUers asked him to stop doing that but he won't listen.

Exploiting lgbt rights to smear someone who supported them for decades is despicable.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #10)

Tue Oct 6, 2015, 03:42 PM

56. You said: "Then the "marriage" people cry. I say make everyone get "civil marriages."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x5739724#5740037

You have a lot of nerve lecturing people about marriage equality, MADem.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to beam me up scottie (Reply #56)

Tue Oct 6, 2015, 03:53 PM

61. I am not running for President or misstating my views on the topic.

Not sure what you think you got there, with your little archived "gotcha."

I still think that everyone should get a civil union, regardless of their orientation, like they do in Europe, and that should be the conclusion of their interaction with the state. Then, if they want marriage, they should go to their favorite house of worship, be it the church, synagogue, mosque, or Temple of Grondor, and get their "marriage" solemnized there.

That's not the law of the land here, though. And because it's not, you don't make fish of one, and flesh of the other--that's 'separate but unequal' and it's not cool.

You need to stop trying to play that gotcha game--it doesn't work because you don't take into account CONTEXT. Quite obviously, given your latest post! Talk about nerve!

I am discussing this issue forthrightly. This isn't about "how soon"--it's about overstating the case. That's what the SLATE writer --not a "blogger" as you continually insist -- was trying to drive home. If you're ahead of the pack by a mile, why insist it was five or ten miles?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #61)

Tue Oct 6, 2015, 03:57 PM

63. So you "evolved" on civil rights for lgbt people?

And yet you still think you have the right to lecture DUers who have always supported marriage equality.

Interesting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to beam me up scottie (Reply #63)

Tue Oct 6, 2015, 04:12 PM

73. No.You did not read what I wrote. AGAIN. I have not evolved on civil unions vs. marriage for ANYONE.

What's "interesting" is how you like to write, but you don't like to read the replies.

I have always believed--one more time, since you haven't grasped it yet from when I told you a few moments ago--that the ONLY interaction with the state between people (gay, straight, who-so-ever we appreciate) desiring to enter into a partnership should be the CIVIL UNION process. I do not think states should be in the "marriage" business at all. Why? Because it is a RELIGIOUS term, with varying religious definitions. I am a fan of separation of church and state.

Then, if people want to engage in a "marriage" ceremony, they should run to their favorite house of worship and book the joint and invite all their friends.

However, if a state (or a nation) is offering something called "marriage" for SOME, and something called "civil unions" for others--based on their orientation and nothing else--that is inherently separate but UNEQUAL.

I've explained my POV as simply as I can manage--again. Hopefully you will start to understand this simple concept.



beam me up scottie
63. So you "evolved" on civil rights for lgbt people?
View profile
And yet you still think you have the right to lecture DUers who have always supported marriage equality.

Interesting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #73)

Tue Oct 6, 2015, 04:14 PM

76. Unlike you I didn't accuse marriage equality supporters of "crying" about it.

And unlike you I have always been a supporter.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to beam me up scottie (Reply #76)

Tue Oct 6, 2015, 05:43 PM

95. That's because, unlike you, I can have a contextual conversation.

Your desperate attempt to play gotcha with me is a major fail.

I think most people agree with me that there should be no distinction between the type of union a government offers to citizens--regardless of orientation. I have always "been a supporter" of this.

You, by trying to 'call me out' are disagreeing with this point I made back in 2009, and are apparently siding with the religous argument.

I favor separation of church and state, and believe that what Americans call marriage (and what is called civil union/civil partnership/civil marriage) in Europe and other civilized places, should be a secular exercise--again, regardless of gender. I have "always been a supporter" of this. People who want to add a religious component are free to do that, privately, superfluous to government requirements.

You, apparently disagree, if you object to my remarks in that thread.

Who knew you agreed with a religious argument with regard to marriage?

This is the sixth time I've told you this--yet you keep running from thread to thread, cutting and pasting a false argument to try and disparage me--anyone who looks closely, though, can see what you're doing. Hmmm.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #95)

Tue Oct 6, 2015, 05:48 PM

96. You: "Then the "marriage" people cry. I say make everyone get "civil marriages."

You can keep trying to dig your way out of saying it but it's there for everyone to see.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to beam me up scottie (Reply #96)

Tue Oct 6, 2015, 06:02 PM

97. HURRAH! At last--thank you for quoting me accurately--make EVERYONE get "civil marriages."

i.e.--non religious marriages.

You're STARTING to get it!! At long last!!!!

EVERYONE--gay, straight, trans, you-name-it. Everyone means everyone!

Civil Marriage--a non-religious, separation-of-chuch-and-state, union that entitles the members of the union to file a joint federal tax return, if they'd like.

Don't quite get why you're playing more gotcha with you childish little "dig out" comment--that is exactly what I meant. It's what I still mean. I think there are many Americans who want religious marriages to NOT be under the purview of the government. You're disagreeing with this?

I have no objection to religious marriage, but I don't think the government should sanction them, never mind arrange them or provide paperwork for them. The government should do civil marriages, and leave the rest up to individuals.





beam me up scottie
96. You: "Then the "marriage" people cry. I say make everyone get "civil marriages."
View profile
You can keep trying to dig your way out of saying it but it's there for everyone to see.


It is, indeed, "there for all to see!"

And this is only the ninth time I've told you this. It looks like it's starting to sink in.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #97)

Tue Oct 6, 2015, 06:04 PM

98. I think you should focus on defending the "cry" part of your post.

Claiming proponents of marriage equality are "crying" or whining is what the right wing does.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to beam me up scottie (Reply #98)

Tue Oct 6, 2015, 06:08 PM

100. No, I don't think I should. You might want to "cry" because you so woefully and gleefully

misinterpreted the points I was making, though.

Since when, on DU, is absolute equality for all, and government keeping religion out of the mix, a bad thing?

Answer--when BMUS says so?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brooklynite (Reply #4)

Tue Oct 6, 2015, 10:18 AM

14. The OP is "knowledgable and principled". Supported Obama both times...

though very disillusioned with his education destructive policies.

Anything wrong with being "knowledgable and principled"?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brooklynite (Reply #4)

Tue Oct 6, 2015, 10:29 AM

18. The latest crazy pretzel

Distort and smear Bernie's LGBT record. If anyone defends it by contrasting Hillary's abysmal record, call them disingenuous for voting for Obama. Truly twisted shit...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to madfloridian (Original post)

Tue Oct 6, 2015, 04:50 AM

5. Nice to see Sanders

issue a proclamation legalizing gay marriage in 1985. Oh wait that's a gay pride day proclamation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MyNameGoesHere (Reply #5)

Tue Oct 6, 2015, 05:05 AM

7. Where was Hillary on Gay Rights in 1985?? 1995? DOMA? DADT? Her record on this is just

awful. She was 'uncomfortable' with gays airc. And in 2012, where was she on Marriage Equality? I believe she was still referecning the 'Sanctity of Marriage' to oppose Marriage Equality!

All these Dark Money Funded smear attempts re Bernie show that no matter how much spend if you don't hire quality, intelligent people, you risk huge embarrassment to your client. See Brock eg, using that Dark Money to try to launch a 'redbaiting smear campaign against Bernie, succeeded in raising $1.3 million for BERNIE in just 24 Hours! Loll!

I'm fine with the corporate smear campaigners continuing to demonstrate why we have to get the Money out of Politics.

Lies, deceptions, smears, personal attacks, etc, it just disgusts voters and has backfired so spectacularly in this campaign, I'm kinda hoping they keep it up! Fund raisers for Bernie are great!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MyNameGoesHere (Reply #5)

Tue Oct 6, 2015, 05:16 AM

9. Straw man.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MyNameGoesHere (Reply #5)

Tue Oct 6, 2015, 09:22 AM

13. Do you hae any idea how much of your own lack of knowledge on this subject you demonstrate with

 

such a comment? 1985? Do you have any idea what the reality was in 1985? Marriage Equality (which is what we call it, or just marriage) was not on the table nor even in the same room as the table. Many States sill had anti gay laws on the books, it was illegal just to be gay.

1985 was the year a test for HIV was invented. It was the year AIDS was found in China making it truly global, with over 30,000 cases reported.

1985 was not the year of four weddings, it was the year of the funeral. The dawn of the decade of death.

Knowledge = Life

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to madfloridian (Original post)

Tue Oct 6, 2015, 04:52 AM

6. Hillary's record on Gay Rights is just awful. They know this, Bernie's has been so consistent

that they are getting desperate. You can SEE the desperation in the lies being told, the feeble attempts to twist facts.

Let them keep up their Rovian tactics, this is exactly what that Dark Money buys and what has turne so many people off politics.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to madfloridian (Original post)

Tue Oct 6, 2015, 05:08 AM

8. What a surprise? NOT. But they already knew that.

Which only proves that it is not the issues they care about at all, but the candidate. And one is left to wonder why or how that could be.

I've drawn my conclusions. I'll leave others to draw their own.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Live and Learn (Reply #8)

Tue Oct 6, 2015, 06:33 AM

11. Yep, I'll just leave these here so everyone can see for themselves who's always been an ally:

32 Years Before Marriage Equality, Bernie Sanders Fought For Gay Rights



But these are only very recent developments. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton may be champions of same-sex marriage now, but you don’t have to go far back to find a time when they weren’t. And hey, we’re happy to have their evolved support.

Not only did Sanders vote against the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996 which defined marriage as between one man and one woman, signed into law by then-president Bill Clinton — an unpopular position then — a look back at Sanders’ political career shows consistent support of the gay rights movement. Even when it was more than just unpopular, it was downright controversial.

“In our democratic society, it is the responsibility of government to safeguard civil liberties and civil rights — especially the freedom of speech and expression,” Sanders wrote later in a memo. “In a free society, we must all be committed to the mutual respect of each others lifestyle.”

...

“It is my very strong view that a society which proclaims human freedom as its goal, as the United States does, must work unceasingly to end discrimination against all people. I am happy to say that this past year, in Burlington, we have made some important progress by adopting an ordinance which prohibits discrimination in housing. This law will give legal protection not only to welfare recipients, and families with children, the elderly and the handicapped — but to the gay community as well.”

http://www.queerty.com/32-years-before-marriage-equality-bernie-sanders-fought-for-gay-rights-20150719


On LGBT Rights, Bernie Leads and Hillary Follows

Of course, Clinton has since evolved on LGBT rights, as many have. That's wonderful. But the problem is, she only came out in support of marriage equality after it was not politically risky to do so. In fact, by 2013 - the year Clinton announced her full support for marriage equality - Democratic support for same-sex marriage was the norm, not the exception.

On such an important moral issue that affects my life and the lives of thousands of other Americans, making decisions in this manner is rather despicable. Additionally, Clinton's habit of doing what polls deem politically popular is the reason why so many voters find her inauthentic. Now, if Clinton were the only option for the Democratic presidential nomination, I would understand why we should support her despite these flaws.

But she isn't the only option.

Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, the longest-serving Independent in the history of Congress, is also running for the nomination. And unlike Clinton, his record on LGBT rights is historically excellent.

Sanders voted against DOMA, one of the few members of Congress to do so, at a time when such a stance was not politically popular. Four years after DOMA passed, Sanders helped champion Vermont's decision in 2000 to become the first state to legalize same-sex civil unions. This set a national precedent for LGBT equality achieved via legislative means. In 2009, when Vermont became the first state to allow marriage equality through legislative action rather than a court ruling, Sanders expressed his support once again. Truly, Sanders has been a real leader on LGBT rights, even if this leadership isn't recognized in the way that Clinton's current support is.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/scott-novak/on-lgbt-rights-bernie-lea_b_7662682.html


Bernie Sanders Was for Full Gay Equality 40 Years Ago

Today’s Supreme Court decision was a monumental moment in American history, as it guaranteed the right for gays and lesbians to get married and established full marriage equality.

Many politicians offered their words of support, including President Obama and Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton.

Yet it is important to remember that Obama and Clinton both opposed marriage equality as late as early 2012. It is a testament to the work of thousands of activists over decades that the political class was pulled towards supporting equality.

There is however one prominent politician who did not wait so long to call for full gay equality: Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT)

In a letter he published in the early 1970’s, when he was a candidate for governor of Vermont from the Liberty Union Party, Sanders invoked freedom to call for the abolition of all laws related to homosexuality:


http://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/bernie-sanders-was-full-gay-equality-40-years-ago



Sanders: I was ahead of the curve on gay rights

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) said Saturday he has been waiting for the nation to catch up to his support for same-sex marriage.

Sanders’ remarks come a day after Friday’s landmark 5-4 Supreme Court ruling legalizing same-sex marriage nationwide.

He argued he was well ahead of the historic decision, unlike Hillary Clinton, his main rival for the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination.

...

Sanders at the time served in the House of Representatives, which voted 342-67 in favor of DOMA. The Senate voted 85-14 in favor, before former President Bill Clinton signed it into law.

“That was an anti-gay marriage piece of legislation,” he added of the law that defined marriage at the federal level as the coupling of one man and one woman.

Sanders on Saturday praised Americans for creating greater opportunities for same-sex couples. Friday’s Supreme Court ruling, he charged, was not possible without national pressure for gay rights.

“No one here should think for one second this starts with the Supreme Court,” Sanders said.

“It starts at the grassroots level in all 50 states,” he said. “The American people want to end discrimination in all its forms.”


http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/246370-sanders-i-was-ahead-of-the-curve-on-gay-rights


Bernie Sanders was decades ahead of the country on gay rights and ending the war on drugs

Most Americans now support legally allowing gay and lesbian relationships, same-sex marriage, and personal marijuana use after decades of shifting public opinion. But one Democratic candidate for president, Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont, was calling for many of these changes decades ago.

In a 1972 letter to a local newspaper — which was recently resurfaced by Chelsea Summers at the New Republic — Sanders wrote that he supported abolishing "all laws dealing with abortion, drugs, sexual behavior (adultery, homosexuality, etc.)" as part of his campaign for Vermont governor:

These stances were far removed from public opinion at the time, according to Gallup surveys on marijuana and gay and lesbian rights. In 1972, 81 percent of Americans said marijuana should be illegal — which suggests even more would favor the prohibition of more dangerous drugs like cocaine and heroin. In 1977, the earliest year of polling data, 43 percent of Americans said gay and lesbian relations between consenting adults should not be legal, while 43 percent said they should be legal.


...

But it took decades for the American public to come around to majority support on these issues: It wasn't until 2013 that a majority of Americans supported marijuana legalization, the early 2000s that most consistently responded in favor of legal gay and lesbian relations, and 2011 that a majority first reported backing same-sex marriage rights.

Sanders has carried many of these positions to this day. He was one of the few federal lawmakers to vote against the Defense of Marriage Act, the federal ban on same-sex marriages, in the 1990s. And while he told Time's Jay Newton-Small in March that he has no current stance on marijuana legalization (but backs medical marijuana), he characterized the war on drugs as costly and destructive.

http://www.vox.com/2015/7/7/8905905/sanders-drugs-gay-rights


Bernie Sanders' Views On Gay Marriage Show He's Been A Supporter For A Long Time

Now that he's officially announced he will seek the Democratic nomination for president and challenge Hillary Clinton, Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders will be talking about his positions on major issues on the campaign trail, and one very big issue he has championed for years is gay marriage. Sanders, unlike some of his potential Republican opponents, seems like he would not turn down an invitation to a gay wedding (and he might actually get invited to one).

In 1996, then-Representative Sanders voted against the Defense of Marriage Act, which barred recognition of gay marriage at the federal level (DOMA was ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in 2013). Sanders' and his home state of Vermont were the first to legalize same-sex unions in 2000, at first recognizing them as civil unions. Gay marriage has been legal in Vermont since 2009, and as The New York Times reported, Vermont was the first state to pass legislation in support of same-sex marriage, rather than in reaction to a court ruling.

On Tuesday, as the Supreme Court took up the issue of gay marriage, Sanders issued a statement on his website reaffirming his support, saying gay Americans in every state should be allowed to marry.

Of course all citizens deserve equal rights. It’s time for the Supreme Court to catch up to the American people and legalize gay marriage.

http://www.bustle.com/articles/79951-bernie-sanders-views-on-gay-marriage-show-hes-been-a-supporter-for-a-long-time


Is Bernie Sanders the Most LGBT-Friendly Candidate?

Bernie Sanders, the longest-serving independent member of Congress, is officially seeking the Democratic nomination for president in 2016, the Vermont senator announced in an email to supporters this morning.

"People should not underestimate me," Sanders told the Associated Press in an interview that broke the news of his candidacy Wednesday night. "I've run outside of the two-party system, defeating Democrats and Republicans, taking on big-money candidates and, you know, I think the message that has resonated in Vermont is a message that can resonate all over this country."

The self-described "Democratic socialist" wants to challenge the business-as-usual trend of big money in politics that he says dominates the current candidates — including Hillary Clinton.

The thrust of Sanders's campaign thus far — like his political career as the mayor of Burlington, Vt., 16 years in the U.S. House of Representatives, and the past seven in the U.S. Senate — has focused on supporting working-class Americans through elevated taxes on the wealthy and correcting income inequality "which is now reaching obscene levels," he told the AP.

But Sanders has also been a steadfast and reliable supporter of LGBT equality, supporting the Employment Non-Discrimination Act when it passed the Senate in 2013 and even calling on President Obama to evolve already and support marriage equality in 2011. He's a cosponsor of the federal LGBT-inclusive Student Non-Discrimination Act and has consistently voted against bills seeking to amend the Constitution to ban same-sex marriage, while cosponsoring a bill that would repeal the remaining portions of the so-called Defense of Marriage Act. Sanders has a perfect score of 100 percent on the Human Rights Campaign's latest Congressional Equality Index.

http://www.advocate.com/politics/election/2015/04/30/bernie-sanders-most-lgbt-friendly-candidate


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to beam me up scottie (Reply #11)

Tue Oct 6, 2015, 10:49 AM

22. +1 nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to madfloridian (Original post)

Tue Oct 6, 2015, 10:30 AM

19. Hillary had almost the exact same position as Bernie in 2002.

Bernie Sanders thought marriage equality was a states rights issue. Here's Hillary in 2002 talking to Chris Mathews. Most Americans had the same position in 2002. I think only like 30% was for it then. Who cares anyway? She for full equality today and that's all that matters. Bernie changed his position and so did Hillary.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to moobu2 (Reply #19)

Tue Oct 6, 2015, 10:42 AM

20. Clinton changed her position after a 60% majority opposed her old position

thus making her old position no longer politically sustainable.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #20)

Tue Oct 6, 2015, 12:47 PM

27. Well? She's a politician, not a cult Savior figure

Bernie isn't a politician? He's been in political office for 1/4 century. Bernie Sanders is a professional politician.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to moobu2 (Reply #27)

Tue Oct 6, 2015, 12:59 PM

29. It demonstrates the difference between the candidates.

Sanders took a position when it was not popular, because he felt it was right.

Clinton took that position only after it became popular. She has not explicitly stated why she waited.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #29)

Tue Oct 6, 2015, 01:14 PM

31. Bernie Sanders said he thought marriage equality should be left up to the states in 2008

If it were left up to Bernie Sanders same sex couple would still not have marriage equality today. Both candidates changed their positions for whatever reasons. Bernie has libertarian views so some of them just line up with liberals but he's not a liberal really. He's not even a Democrat.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to moobu2 (Reply #31)

Tue Oct 6, 2015, 01:22 PM

32. And Clinton thought it should be banned in 2008.

If it were left up to Bernie Sanders same sex couple would still not have marriage equality today.

And if was left up to Clinton, the same thing would have happened. Again, she only changed position when her old one was no longer politically sustainable.

It's really baffling that Clinton supporters are trying to turn this into an issue. Because even if every false claim you are making about Sanders were true, his record is still much better than Clinton.

Bernie has libertarian views so some of them just line up with liberals but he's not a liberal really. He's not even a Democrat.

And I heard he doesn't call his mother!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #32)

Tue Oct 6, 2015, 02:19 PM

38. It doesn't matter what his record in the past was.

This is the present and anyway Bernie Sanders will never be the nominee anyway once his followers find out he isn't some kind of saint. Bernie Sanders is a career politician who's an opportunist and is just using the Democratic party to give his 3rd party candidacy some legitimacy it wouldn't have had otherwise...ask Ralph Nader.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to moobu2 (Reply #38)

Tue Oct 6, 2015, 02:22 PM

39. Then why are you talking about "his record in the past"?

Also, I'd like you to explain what "his record in the future" or any other timeframe would be. (A candidate's record can only be in the past).

This is the present and anyway Bernie Sanders will never be the nominee anyway once his followers find out he isn't some kind of saint.

And he eats worms too!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #39)

Tue Oct 6, 2015, 02:26 PM

40. I was responding to someone

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to moobu2 (Reply #40)

Tue Oct 6, 2015, 02:29 PM

41. Yeah...me. That's why my name was next to the post when you hit "reply". (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to moobu2 (Reply #38)

Tue Oct 6, 2015, 04:08 PM

71. Quit making shit up.

He's not running third party, has said he wouldn't, and has caucused with Dems for years. The fact that he feels Dems need to go in a different direction- many of us who are lifelong Dems and Liberals/Progressives agree. As for "He'll never be the nominee anyway once his followers find out he isn't some kind of saint" I heard those exact same words from Clinton supporters about Obama in '08. How'd that work out?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to moobu2 (Reply #19)

Tue Oct 6, 2015, 02:06 PM

37. No, it is not all that matters. What a claim!

Also, she said, on the Senate floor, that marriage was between a man and a woman after 2002.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #37)

Tue Oct 6, 2015, 03:20 PM

47. She was talking about "marriage'. She was for civil unions and domestic partnerships.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to moobu2 (Reply #19)

Tue Oct 6, 2015, 03:06 PM

44. No she didn't, she OPPOSED same sex marriage until 2013.

Bernie never opposed anyone's civil rights.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to beam me up scottie (Reply #44)

Tue Oct 6, 2015, 03:25 PM

48. Sanders was Okay with states denying people marriage equality.

he said it should be up to the states in 2008.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to moobu2 (Reply #48)

Tue Oct 6, 2015, 03:27 PM

49. He voted against DOMA in 1996 so that's another bullshit claim.

Got any proof he opposed same sex marriage like Hillary did?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to madfloridian (Original post)

Tue Oct 6, 2015, 01:01 PM

30. That video of Hillary on Gay

Marriage says it all for me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to madfloridian (Original post)

Tue Oct 6, 2015, 03:09 PM

46. Bernie voted against DOMA in 1996. That vote was him supporting marriage equality.

Hillary lobbied for DOMA and didn't "evolve" until 2013.

I don't know why that's so confusing or why people think they can get away with spinning the truth.

Another day, another meme that Bernie didn't support minorities.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to madfloridian (Original post)

Tue Oct 6, 2015, 03:41 PM

54. Does it matter when the evolution occurred so long as it has occurred?

As far as I know, I'm not voting to elect former versions of either candidate. Both of them seem exceptionally strong on LGBT issues today. That's what truly matters as they are both light years ahead of any candidate from the other party.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LonePirate (Reply #54)

Tue Oct 6, 2015, 03:59 PM

64. It matters because...

others have posted that it's not true about Bernie's long time support.

Can't link, against rules.

Honesty matters a lot to me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LonePirate (Reply #54)

Tue Oct 6, 2015, 04:03 PM

66. It matters because Bernie voted against DOMA and never opposed same sex marriage.

That matters, especially when a Slate blogger is lying about it and his lies are being cited as fact on DU.

It's more despicable exploitation of minorities by supporters of one candidate who started swift boating Bernie the day he announced.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LonePirate (Reply #54)

Tue Oct 6, 2015, 04:03 PM

67. This is a fair point, and I don't think the SLATE writer who started this discussion would disagree

with the notion that it is a good thing that evolution occurred. They're all on the same page now, even the Republicans, because they're all "rule of law" guys and the Supremes have spoken.

The issue he has is with the candidate overstating the case--claiming utter fealty with a cause when there was either benign neglect or something other than what he claimed. There's no need to do that, particularly when he was ahead of most people anyway, for a longer period of time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #67)

Tue Oct 6, 2015, 04:06 PM

70. Unlike you some of us have always supported marriage equality.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to beam me up scottie (Reply #70)

Tue Oct 6, 2015, 04:14 PM

75. And "some of us" are being deliberately obtuse!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #75)

Tue Oct 6, 2015, 04:16 PM

77. So why did you say we were "crying" about marriage equality?

Is that how you characterized people who were outraged that lgbt people couldn't marry the people they love?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to beam me up scottie (Reply #77)

Tue Oct 6, 2015, 04:36 PM

82. Although you lack the ability, apparently, to put words into context, you DO enjoy the gift of

literacy, and you can read my comments and reasonings--which I have offered you, what--THREE times, now, already--and figure it out.

I actually used the term "CIVIL MARRIAGE" in that thread (if you bothered to read it, and not just grab the gotcha and run). My objection is re: distinguishing between CIVIL UNIONS and MARRIAGE. I don't think the state should offer one to heterosexuals, and the other/implied as "lesser" to homosexuals. It should be the same title for all. Further, it should not have a religious imperative associated with it.

Everyone who wants to form a contract between two people that entitles them to file a joint federal tax return should leave religion OUT of it. That's my point. You disagree?

How interesting that you are now taking the view of the religious communities against my "separation of church and state" argument. You're arguing against my point that unions solemnized by the state should be secular in nature, and any religious accommodation should be done in superfluous fashion!

Well, isn't this fascinating!!! Who knew?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #82)

Tue Oct 6, 2015, 04:37 PM

84. mmm hmmmm. Whatever you say, MADem.

I'm just glad I'll never have to defend a comment like that.

Good for you, you've evolved on the issue!



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to beam me up scottie (Reply #84)

Tue Oct 6, 2015, 04:51 PM

88. That IS what I say--if you take issue with my comments back in 2009, then you oppose separation of

church and state. My arguments were based entirely around that premise. This means:

You do not agree that the state should not be involved in religious matters.

You do not agree that the same label should be applied to every union, regardless of orientation, of two people that results in their ability to file a joint a federal tax return.


I have not "evolved"--I believe in separation of church and state, and that "civil unions/civil marriage" (pick one) should be separate from any religious ceremony that a person might--or might not--choose to have.

You, apparently, disagree with my rather plainspoken view, and you keep running around the board saying so!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #88)

Tue Oct 6, 2015, 04:53 PM

89. And your characterization of those of us who demanded marriage equality as crying about it was what?

An homage to right wing talking points used by anti-lgbt rights activists?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to beam me up scottie (Reply #89)

Tue Oct 6, 2015, 04:55 PM

90. Do continue to lack context--it shows everyone how you "make points."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LonePirate (Reply #54)

Tue Oct 6, 2015, 04:13 PM

74. It may not matter to you, but

it does to me. I am very skeptical about anything
a candidate says about issues on the campaign
trail, but has not supported in the past. I want
a longer record from every politician than just
campaign talk.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LonePirate (Reply #54)

Tue Oct 6, 2015, 04:37 PM

83. +1

Who cares really, why live in the past?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to madfloridian (Original post)

Tue Oct 6, 2015, 04:26 PM

80. no issue so important or unimportant that hillary wont lie about it to further her ambitions

 

we have no way of knowing how she actually feels on any issue. Which ever way the wind blows. I am amazed that anyone would support this woman for any political office.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bowens43 (Reply #80)

Tue Oct 6, 2015, 04:41 PM

87. Where did she lie -as you claim-on this issue?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to madfloridian (Original post)

Tue Oct 6, 2015, 06:05 PM

99. Here are Bernie's exact words from that c-span video:

I was a strong supporter of civil unions, I believe that. I voted against the DOMA bill, I believe that the federal government should not be involved in overturning Massachusetts or any other the state because I think the whole issue of marriage is a state issue.



No where does he say he opposes same sex marriage or supports civil unions over it.


The blogger at Slate is a liar.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to madfloridian (Original post)

Tue Oct 6, 2015, 06:51 PM

102. New meme coming up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CharlotteVale (Reply #102)

Tue Oct 6, 2015, 07:19 PM

103. From the crowd with ethics that would drive even an unreformed Grinch

to cry out "have you no decency, have you no code of honor?".

I wouldn't trust the crew guided by Captain Jack's compass as far as I could throw a super massive black hole with my right arm tied behind my back no their imperious leader.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to madfloridian (Original post)

Wed Oct 7, 2015, 09:42 PM

104. Kick

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread