Democratic Contenders Address Gay Rights in TV Forum

[Dos Equis]

Spinless, fence-sitting pandering.  They know the majority of Americans don't support it, but are trying to get those campaign dollars and votes.  They ought to just take a stand already. 

Democratic Contenders Address Gay Rights in TV Forum
Friday, August 10, 2007

LOS ANGELES —  Democratic presidential contenders Thursday sought to underscore their differences with Republicans on gay and lesbian rights, but leading candidates also faced sharp questions on their reluctance to embrace marriage for same-sex couples.

In a forum focusing on gay issues sponsored by a gay-rights organization and aired on a gay-oriented cable channel, Sen. Barack Obama argued that civil unions for same-sex couples wouldn't be a "lesser thing" than marriage. He disputed that his position on same-sex marriage made him a vestige of the past rather than an agent of change.

Obama belongs to the United Church of Christ, which supports gay marriage, but Obama has yet to go that far.

"If we have a situation in which civil unions are fully enforced, are widely recognized, people have civil rights under the law, then my sense is that's enormous progress," the Illinois Democrat said.

New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson said the nation was on "a path to full inclusion" but added, "In my judgment, what is achievable is civil unions with full marriage rights."
 
New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton echoed support for civil unions. "I will be a president who will fight for you," she said.

But she also said she made a mistake in March when she steered around a question on whether homosexuality was immoral. She was asked about it at the time after Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, said he considered homosexual acts immoral and similar to adultery. He later said he should have not expressed his personal views. Clinton later issued a statement saying she did not think being gay was immoral.

"I should have put it in a broader context," she said.

Six of the eight Democratic candidates answered questions at an event described as a milestone by organizers. It marked the first time that major presidential candidates appeared on TV specifically to address gay issues, organizers said.

Obama called the event "a historic moment ... for America."

The two-hour forum, held in a Hollywood studio with an invited audience of 200, was co-sponsored by the Human Rights Campaign, a gay-rights group active in Democratic politics, and Logo, a gay-oriented cable TV channel that aired the forum live.

"Tonight was an important night in the fight for equality," Human Rights Campaign President Joe Solmonese, who was on a panel posing questions to the candidates, said in a statement.

"Unfortunately, we have more work to do. The overwhelming majority of the candidates do not support marriage equality. While we heard very strong commitments to civil unions and equality in federal rights and benefits, their reasons for opposing equality in civil marriage tonight became even less clear."

Of the eight Democratic candidates, two did not attend, Sens. Joe Biden of Delaware and Chris Dodd on Connecticut.

The candidates, who appeared one at a time and sat in an upholstered chair, took questions from a panel that also included singer Melissa Etheridge and Washington Post editorial writer Jonathan Capehart.

Clinton was cheered by the crowd when she alluded to the prospect for change at the White House in the 2008 election. Former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards argued that Democrats must speak out against discrimination coming from the other party.

Unless you speak out against intolerance, it becomes "OK for the Republicans in their politics to divide America and use hate-mongering to separate us," Edwards said.

All of the Democratic candidates support a federal ban on anti-gay job discrimination, want to repeal the "don't ask, don't tell" policy barring gays from serving openly in the military and support civil unions that would extend marriage-like rights to same-sex couples.

A majority of Americans oppose nationwide recognition of same-sex marriage and only two of the Democrats support it — former Alaska Sen. Mike Gravel and Rep. Dennis Kucinich of Ohio, both longshots for the nomination.

The forum brought some of those distinctions into focus.

When Kucinich was asked whether there was anything on the agenda for gay and lesbian rights he didn't support, he paused and said, "All I can say is, keep those contributions coming ... and you'll have the president that you want."

In a statement clearly aimed at the leading Democrats in the field, he said his support for same-sex marriage was "a question of whether you really believe in equality."

"I stand for real equality," Kucinich said.

Logo, available in about 27 million homes, wanted to hold a second forum for Republican candidates but GOP front-runners showed no interest, channel officials said.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,292817,00.html

[Hedgehog]

FWIW, I think Gay rights seems to have gained a tremendous amount of support in only the last few years.

And any candidate who fcuks with the gays, will probably be lost.

The gays have a powerful lobby, and are also a very influencial group economically, few have kids, often low crime rate, et al.

But most importantly: Gays are starting to become accepted and gaining support.

[Dos Equis]

FWIW, I think Gay rights seems to have gained a tremendous amount of support in only the last few years.

And any candidate who fcuks with the gays, will probably be lost.

The gays have a powerful lobby, and are also a very influencial group economically, few have kids, often low crime rate, et al.

But most importantly: Gays are starting to become accepted and gaining support.

They don't necessarily have a powerful lobby, but I agree with everything else.  I also believe that, despite the current overwhelming opposition across the entire country, homosexual marriage is inevitable. 

[24KT]

They don't necessarily have a powerful lobby,

Wake up and smell the coffee. They have one of the most powerful lobbies, ...they're just all in the closet. 

I also believe that, despite the current overwhelming opposition across the entire country, homosexual marriage is inevitable. 

So codify their rights into law once and for all.
Get it over with already, ...so your nation can move on to tackling the issues that affect ALL Americans.

[headhuntersix]

Live in a red state, most are horrified at the Gay agenda.....give em civil unions and tell them to shut up.

[Decker]

Spinless, fence-sitting pandering.  They know the majority of Americans don't support it, but are trying to get those campaign dollars and votes.  They ought to just take a stand already. 

Marriage is a contractual relationship btn 2 people and the State.  The religious celebration of marriage is not necessary to that contract.

The objections to gay marriage, as I've heard, generally issue from the bible and the condemnation of homosexuality it contains...generally articulated as, "I'm against gay marriage because it is wrong."  Or as Rick Santorum put it, it's a slippery slope to state sanctioned man-dog marriages (I paraphrase).

Personally, I don't find either of those rationales compelling.

It looks to me like anyone interfering with the proposed marriage between 2 consenting adults is poking his/her nose in where it doesn't belong.

Thanks to the current sociological climate we occupy, the biblical and Santorum reasons for banning gay marriage receive support at the polls.  Under this circumstance, the civil union is about the best that can be achieved for these disenfranchised people. 

The candidates's supporting civil unions for homosexuals seems like a stand to me.

[headhuntersix]

I support civil unions and thats about it. However there is a "Gay agenda" and many people do not like, or except it. Civil unions are a good compromise that I think most people can except. I think they should take this as a win for their side and move on. Many "Red States" don't like the idea at all, but if they, gays except cvil unions as the end state, the issue will go away. If they continue with the push toward full marriages etc, then they may not get anything.

[Eyeball Chambers]

Give them some kind of Civil Union with all the rights Married couples get.

Is should not be labeled as Marriage though, thats something that happens between and man and a women.

[candidate2025]

government has no business in marriage. it is a religious tradition. gov. recognizing marriage is like if the gov. started recognizing and loggin circumcisions, confirmations, babtisms..ect.

however; gov. recognizing "civil unions between ANY two united states citizens for the purpouses of wills, hospital rights, and other such issues that a legal bond between two people would effect woudl be totally legitament.

we should nt gaining marriage rights for gays, we should be stripping marriage from straight. and then applying civil unions to any two citizens that want to be legally bonded to eachother.


if churches want to "marry" two peopl, they can do tht on their own.

[Dos Equis]

Marriage is a contractual relationship btn 2 people and the State.  The religious celebration of marriage is not necessary to that contract.

The objections to gay marriage, as I've heard, generally issue from the bible and the condemnation of homosexuality it contains...generally articulated as, "I'm against gay marriage because it is wrong."  Or as Rick Santorum put it, it's a slippery slope to state sanctioned man-dog marriages (I paraphrase).

Personally, I don't find either of those rationales compelling.

It looks to me like anyone interfering with the proposed marriage between 2 consenting adults is poking his/her nose in where it doesn't belong.

Thanks to the current sociological climate we occupy, the biblical and Santorum reasons for banning gay marriage receive support at the polls.  Under this circumstance, the civil union is about the best that can be achieved for these disenfranchised people. 

The candidates's supporting civil unions for homosexuals seems like a stand to me.

The candidates are cowards IMO.  They know the majority of the American people don't support homosexual marriage.  That's the only reason they won't come right out just say they support it. 

The opposition to homosexual marriage comes from liberal and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans, in almost every state in the country.  It isn't just Bible thumpers. 

[Decker]

The candidates are cowards IMO.  They know the majority of the American people don't support homosexual marriage.  That's the only reason they won't come right out just say they support it. 

The opposition to homosexual marriage comes from liberal and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans, in almost every state in the country.  It isn't just Bible thumpers. 

You might be right about the cross-section. 

But in this instance, my libertarian streak is showing--what 2 consenting adults do is their business and not mine, not yours and not the public's.

The right to live as you please is deeply ingrained in our history as a country. 

I think we should remain conservative and honor that value.

[Dos Equis]

You might be right about the cross-section. 

But in this instance, my libertarian streak is showing--what 2 consenting adults do is their business and not mine, not yours and not the public's.

The right to live as you please is deeply ingrained in our history as a country. 

I think we should remain conservative and honor that value.

I agree that what two consenting adults do, particularly behind closed doors, is their business. 

When two consenting adults ask the state to recognize and sanction what they do, it becomes the people's business. 

[headhuntersix]

Further, I think many who want to get married are going to do so in a normal way that would not threaten the values of many christian Americans. What the average Red stater is worried about is the Gay Pride parade antics coming to their town. Right or wrong, it offends people and does a disservice to many gay people who want civil unions and to be treated decently. Much like the KKK or Black Panthers that hurt the causes that they are supposed to be supporting or groups people might think they represent.

[Decker]

I agree that what two consenting adults do, particularly behind closed doors, is their business. 

When two consenting adults ask the state to recognize and sanction what they do, it becomes the people's business. 

So you believe that the State has the right to crush the 'pursuit of happiness' of any individual or group if 'the people', possibly defined as the merest majority, disagrees with that kind of pursuit?

I don't believe the State should wield that kind of power, especially where the pursuit of happiness, by the gay people, does not materially hurt others.

I don't trust government to that extent.

To me, that's busybodies with too much time on their hands interfering in the lives of others.

[Al Doggity]

The candidates are cowards IMO.  They know the majority of the American people don't support homosexual marriage.  That's the only reason they won't come right out just say they support it. 

The opposition to homosexual marriage comes from liberal and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans, in almost every state in the country.  It isn't just Bible thumpers. 

It isn't cowardly, it's smart. The gay marriage debate is largely a non-issue. Conservatives only throw it on the table to distract people from more important issues. For the last decade and a half, libs have never failed to take the bait.

 Remember in 2004, when newsers were crowing about how so many people were voting based on "ethics" and "morality"? You know what those people actually thought they were voting for, right?

The entire debate boils down to a shameless parlor game of semantics, anyway.
There are staunch conservatives who consider homosexuality wrong in every facet.

The majority of the nation approaches the issue with varying degrees of acceptance-"living together's fine""civil unions are fine" "health benefits for partners are fine"- stopping just short of being able to accept a full blown marriage.

 There is no real, logical reason to oppose gay marriage, but most people still see homosexuality as a sin.

[Hedgehog]

I have to agree with Al Doggity here.

The Gay Issue is constantly being given too much time in the media.

There are so many more issues that are much more important, such as how to address the economy, how to deal with the education system, the health care, the military, the war, the infrastructure, the environment, border control, the elder care, et al.

And much more.

And then, somehow, certain groups manages to make Gay Rights and Gay Marriage an issue?

WTF is up with that?

[Decker]

It isn't cowardly, it's smart. The gay marriage debate is largely a non-issue. Conservatives only throw it on the table to distract people from more important issues. For the last decade and a half, libs have never failed to take the bait.

.....

Reminds of the burning Family Values issue of the Clinton/Dole election cycle.  Talk about talking about nothing.

[Dos Equis]

So you believe that the State has the right to crush the 'pursuit of happiness' of any individual or group if 'the people', possibly defined as the merest majority, disagrees with that kind of pursuit?

I don't believe the State should wield that kind of power, especially where the pursuit of happiness, by the gay people, does not materially hurt others.

I don't trust government to that extent.

To me, that's busybodies with too much time on their hands interfering in the lives of others.

Absolutely.  The voters decide.  We're not talking about "fundamental rights" or "protected classes," so majority rules.  

We regulate conduct and lifestyle choices all of the time.  For example, I dropped off and picked up my kid at an ice skating rink the other day and saw a sports bar next door with a bunch of guys standing outside smoking.  We recently banned smoking at all restaurants and bars.  That's the people/government regulating a lifestyle choice.    

[Dos Equis]

It isn't cowardly, it's smart. The gay marriage debate is largely a non-issue. Conservatives only throw it on the table to distract people from more important issues. For the last decade and a half, libs have never failed to take the bait.

 Remember in 2004, when newsers were crowing about how so many people were voting based on "ethics" and "morality"? You know what those people actually thought they were voting for, right?

The entire debate boils down to a shameless parlor game of semantics, anyway.
There are staunch conservatives who consider homosexuality wrong in every facet.

The majority of the nation approaches the issue with varying degrees of acceptance-"living together's fine""civil unions are fine" "health benefits for partners are fine"- stopping just short of being able to accept a full blown marriage.

 There is no real, logical reason to oppose gay marriage, but most people still see homosexuality as a sin.

This isn't a conservative issue.  It isn't a non-issue.  It continues to come up in state after state on the ballot box.  It has come up in the Congress with the Federal Defense of Marriage Act.  It has probably been a part of Democrat and Republican party platforms.  Although I believe this will eventually change, there is bipartisan opposition to homosexual marriage.   

[headhuntersix]

My first question would be..they have ice there, your kidding me. Second the man's got a point. Uncle Sam sticks his nose in all over the place. It all depends where u live. People on here might be from the coasts, not sure, but come to red state land. People don't like this shit.

[Dos Equis]

My first question would be..they have ice there, your kidding me. Second the man's got a point. Uncle Sam sticks his nose in all over the place. It all depends where u live. People on here might be from the coasts, not sure, but come to red state land. People don't like this shit.

lol.  It's indoors.     Appropriately named "Ice Palace."  Only one on the island.  Very popular. 

[Decker]

Absolutely.  The voters decide.  We're not talking about "fundamental rights" or "protected classes," so majority rules.  

We regulate conduct and lifestyle choices all of the time.  For example, I dropped off and picked up my kid at an ice skating rink the other day and saw a sports bar next door with a bunch of guys standing outside smoking.  We recently banned smoking at all restaurants and bars.  That's the people/government regulating a lifestyle choice.    

There is no fundamental right to smoke and 2nd hand smoke has been proven to have carcinogenic effects on other people.  So the analogy dies out of the gate. 

The pursuit of happiness and the right to marriage are fundamental rights under our Constitution. 

It is not the majority rule that governs our rights, it is the constitution.  However, the courts have never defined what marriage is giving opponents of gay marriage a path to attack another person's pursuit of happiness...all in the name of....what again? 

Why should these people be treated like second class citizens?

Here's a very short (but very good) explanation of the problems with the fundamental right to marriage:

http://lsr.nellco.org/yale/student/papers/26/

[Al Doggity]

This isn't a conservative issue.  It isn't a non-issue.  It continues to come up in state after state on the ballot box.  It has come up in the Congress with the Federal Defense of Marriage Act.  It has probably been a part of Democrat and Republican party platforms.  Although I believe this will eventually change, there is bipartisan opposition to homosexual marriage.   

It's a conservative issue in the sense that CONSERVATIVES continually raise the issue. As you've noted already, democrats are "cowardly" on the issue and state ballot after state ballot rejects it. Conservatives reliably use this issue as a wedge, even though there is no real momentum behind it from liberals. It's a scare tactic, plain and simple.

[Dos Equis]

There is no fundamental right to smoke and 2nd hand smoke has been proven to have carcinogenic effects on other people.  So the analogy dies out of the gate. 

The pursuit of happiness and the right to marriage are fundamental rights under our Constitution. 

It is not the majority rule that governs our rights, it is the constitution.  However, the courts have never defined what marriage is giving opponents of gay marriage a path to attack another person's pursuit of happiness...all in the name of....what again? 

Why should these people be treated like second class citizens?

Here's a very short (but very good) explanation of the problems with the fundamental right to marriage:

http://lsr.nellco.org/yale/student/papers/26/

There is no fundamental right for a man to marry another man, just like there is no fundamental right to smoke in public place.  Both are lifestyle choices.  There is no fundamental right for a man to marry two women. 

Has a court ever determined that homosexual marriage is a fundamental right? 

[headhuntersix]

Instead of wasting time, I'd simply say that " I support Civil Unions only as a compromise between those who believe in marriage and those who wish the same legal protections as those who are married". That would serve as my postion. They need to move on. Maybe in non-war time, booming economy time period, we could revisit this.