Gov. Richardson admits his “maricon” comment was a mistake, talks about his impressive LGBT rights record in New Mexico, and stumbles over whether being gay is a choice.
Is gay marriage achievable now?:
The objective on passing Defense of Marriage Act:
HOW TO EMBED VIDEO: See the small blue downward-facing arrow in the blue cube at the bottom of each video? Click that, and then click “Embed.” Copy the code and post the video wherever you want!
His response to his use of a Spanish, anti-gay slur:
Would he sign a New Mexico gay-marriage bill today?
His support for gay, bi-national couples:
On whether or not he believes homosexuality is a choice:
Posted: Aug. 10. 2007 at 12:16 AM EDT
Digg This
You can leave a response or trackback from your own site.
The question was, if the New Mexico legislature handed you a bill (a bill that they passed) for you to sign into law, granting gay marrige in New Mexico, would you sign it? You stated you support only the achieveable initiatives. If I remember correctly, when a bill reaches your desk to be signed into law, the initiative has been achieved. Your choice is to sign it into law or veto it! I personally think you would veto it, because I think you are a homophobic bigot!
I couldn't understand some parts of this article, but it sounds interesting...
Yosef:
You seem to forget that he called me and every gay and lesbian Hispanic or Latino the worst name there is in our culture. You seem to forget that he called me not you, “maricon”, plain and simple. You forget that after that terrible word usually death can come to you in many instances. Yes, death or violence usually follows. Get it? Do you have nightmares?
I am aware of the constructs. Mine has helped me; his elected him governor.
Thank you Logo and HRC.
Poor Richardson for getting skewered by this panel. I don't understand why they decided to gang up on someone who clearly does support the LGBT community, and not just in a superficial, calculating way.
By the way, people who keep bringing up his ethnic identity--that's a social construction too! Racial definitions change when you cross state borders. People who are white or mestizo in Cuba, Mexico and other parts of Latin America come to the US and are suddenly racialized as 'Latino.' Richardson was right to bring up his experiences. He understands what it's like to be pegged as different. And saying that we are biologically different along racial, ethnic, sexual lines has a history too: it's called eugenics.
Wake up people! It's not about marriage. It's about building coalitions with other people who are disenfranchised in this country--people of color, the poor, people with disabilities--if we are going to be as self-interested as HRC, we will never get a damn thing passed for our community on the national level.
Amen to the people who envision other paths to equality. Look up beyondmarriage.org if you haven't seen it already. This is a failed tactic that has already resulted in a humiliating backlash with all the anti-gay state constitutional amendments.
Being a member of the Latino community, I feel deeply embarrassed to have you represent me. If you do not understand why, then I suggest you replay your interview.
I was far more upset with his weasel-like answer to the question from Joe on whether he would sign a gay marriage bill in New Mexico if put on his desk.
His posturing has always been pressing for full rights as being achievable, but that the American people were not ready yet for gay "marriage". He is no doubt correct on that score.
At the time I first watched this portion of the interview, I thought he was just being political and I did not like that. I thought a simple yes answer would be fine. Upon relistening, however, to follow-up questioning from Joe, it seems clear that he is not there yet in his heart--an answer that I like even less.
You said "maricon". Somehow you made people think it was funny or harmless but it is not. You come from a homophobic culture and it shows. You need to learn that there are hundreds of thousands of happy gay and lesbian Hispanics and Latinos living all over the United States, especially in those states where the law respects and/or protects us. How dare you? How dare you make us feel like second-class citizens again? We left the countries of our birth because of this kind of discriminatory and humiliating treatment of our persons everyday of our lives. How dare you? Do you know how much young gays and lesbians suffer because they are raised in intolerant households in the United States? Do you know about the verbal abuse and physical violence?
We won’t tolerate this kind of behavior Mr. Richardson. Mr. Barney Frank needed to think harder before he accepted your apology. We need to hear much more from you.
You are a role model for all Hispanics and Latinos in the world right now. Can you handle it? Do you understand what it means? Until then…
Thank you Logo and HRC.
This is 2007, the LGBT community has been discriminated and misunderstood for way too long largely due to people's misunderstanding and mis education on the issue. We don't need another candidate who misrepresents or misunderstand us due to his own dis-interest in educating himself on the topic. We certainly don't need someone who snickers and mimmicks like a little boy when gay slurs are tossed around. Although Richardson may have apologized for his comment, it still remains an abomination for a presidential candidate in 2007 to slur any member of the LGBT community or any other community for that matter, even in jest.
Also, Richardson plays the equality card when it comes to unions, but not marriage. To separate gay unions from those of the heterosexual community by labeling them "legal union" is to discriminate nevertheless against gays. If the term "marriage" is legally used for heterosexuals it should equally be applied to gays. Anything less is laundered discrimination.
I am not into politics, but I know what is right and what is wrong. Could it possible be, that prior to his term that he was Govener here in New Mexico, the bill for domestic partnership and HIV/AIDS research was already work in progress? I know I had a partner, years prior to Mr. Bill Richardson, who found out he was HIV + who has plenty of assistance and plenty of support.
Some people have skeletons in their closet, personal, I think Bill Richardson has an entire graveyard in his closet.
I was born a Homosexual (first), I became Gay (second) because I learned to be proud in NYC and soon after Hispanic (third) because mostly my own people made me conscious and labeled me when I emigrated here. Yes, in that order.
This is what I have to say:
Mr. Richardson is ignorant. Nobody has explained to him the truth about homosexuality in all of the Americas. The irony. We are the originators and creators of most of our art and culture. The same one he is so proud about. And still somehow the “school of Hispanic politics” erases us (women too) from history in Latin America and the USA.
We came to the United States not because of economics but because of freedom and the need to be who we are. My generation and many others before me took the chance and made the decision to leave behind our “home”. We couldn’t take the hate any longer. We found love in abundance, fought arm in arm with others for our rights and died as well. Today, thousands are born here. We are hundreds of thousands if not a million and up and more are coming. Mr. Richardson didn’t know we existed or were so many. Back then and there we would take the “Maricon” quietly and move on. I am sorry, but not any longer and especially not here. How dare you? Not for one minute should anyone think in politics that my heritage is more important than my sexual orientation. I was born a homosexual and everything else came after. Furthermore, when I am allowed to marry my partner of 23 years in every state, I will become that day a very happy Gay American.
Mr. Richardson is not ready to lead this nation. Showing up is not good enough anymore. Perhaps one day he will. Like my father and mother, he will learn to respect all of us. Until then…
Thank you LOGO and HRC.
His "maricon" flub is the only really stupid thing I think he's done, thanks to moron Don Imus. I didn't realize how negative a word it was till looking it up. That is part of the worst part of American culture -- going along with the boys club when prompted for a laugh. But when it comes to his work as a Governor he has voted the right way and protected people's rights and he is learning about life and improving re: that Imus faux pas. I was a little embarrassed for him that he was confused on the one question on choice but I could tell he had his heart in the right place on that one and he clarified. Glad Logo had this session and great that Richardson participated. (Kucinich is more in line with my views according to a questionnaire I took, though.)
In reply to the comment on this page from Bridget, who felt the need to pull a quote out of context with regard to Gonzalez, here is more context from CNN.com at http://www.cnn.com/POLITICS/blogs/politicalticker/2007/04/richardson-gave-gonzales-chance-to.html
ORANGEBURG, South Carolina (CNN) -- While acknowledging he gave Alberto Gonzalez some leeway due to their shared Hispanic ethnicity, Democratic presidential aspirant Bill Richardson said Monday he wanted to hear the attorney general's testimony before calling for his ouster.
"I admitted that because I knew Gonzales, I liked the guy, he's Hispanic, he came up from nowhere, that I gave him maybe another two days before I'd call for his resignation," the New Mexico governor told CNN's "American Morning."
"I wanted him to defend himself before the Senate Judiciary Committee. He didn't do well. He wasn't candid. It was clear he politicized the department. Then I called for his resignation."
During Thursday night's debate in South Carolina, Richardson acknowledged he was among the last to call for Gonzalez to resign. Asked whether such comments -- including the role played by Gonzales' ethnicity -- may hurt him, the governor said, "Maybe so, but I think the American people want the candidates to speak from their heart.
"I'm not a consultant-driven candidate... I'm going to tell it like it is."
He has the most administrative leadership experience, both foreign and domestic. But most of all he is sincere. He was visably uncomfortable, but he does has a history of LGBT staffers so he must be comfortable around LGBT.
How in Congress voted against Don't Ask Don't Tell? VERY few!!! But he had the courage to go against the grain back then.
Hillary couldn't even get up and stand up in Congress and state why she was against the Marriage Amendment, because she had the Presidency stamped on her brain. She has absolutely no courage. She has resolve, but no courage. I want a president who has courage! BEcause there will be someday sometime our President will need courage. That's not something you can dance around and. That is inherent.
I'm still supporting Richardson, because he is a man who knows what it's like to be discriminated against and he has all the professional and personal experience needed.
We all screw up. Bill Clinton sure did his share.
The Spanish speaking readers of this site will know that the word maricon is a derogatory colloquialism for "f_ggot" en espanol. The revelation of Bill Richardson's previous use of the word while a guest on Imus in the Morning may turn out to be......
As to some of the writers interjecting their religious views as to why gays cannot get married, I say that religion causes more discord and trouble in this world than any one thing. Wars are fought in the name of God. Hate for others that don't subscribe to one's religious dictates dominate the lives of so many so called Christian folks. Even if you say I hate the sin not the sinner, you are imposing your beliefs on others where it is not wanted. So say out of my world, but let me have equal rights.
Perhaps the path we should be advocating is that ALL legally recognized spousal arrangements between two humans--of any gender combination--be given the title of "civil union." The word "marriage" would only come into play as a religious sacrament akin to baptism--at the discretion of a religious denomination.
http://www.richardsonforpresident.com/home
Right now we have a pres who misspeaks all the time and then takes actions that hurt our nation. Even if this guy misspoke at the forum, at least from the list below, he's taking actions that help our community. I'll continue to consider Richardson as the race unfolds.
1. Expanded anti-discrimination laws to include sexual orientation. [Senate Bill SB 28, 2003 Legislature]
2. Signed into law the state's first hate crimes legislation for acts including those based on sexual orientation. [SB 38, 2003 Legislature]
3. Provided state health insurance for domestic partnerships. [Executive Order 03 010]
4. Signed the Billy Griego HIV and AIDS Act, which was designed to ensure that consumers are the focus of the funding and services provided in all the state's HIV and AIDS cases. [Senate Bill 314, 2005 Legislature]
5. Created the state's first HIV and AIDS Policy Commission charged with reviewing and making recommendations on state HIV and AIDS policies. The commission also studies and makes recommendations on all factors affecting the
availability, quality and accessibility of health services for persons with HIV and AIDS. [Senate Bill 313, 2005 Legislature]
6. Called a Special Session of the NM State Legislature to push for Domestic Partnerships Legislation, among other issues, after it failed by one vote in the Senate during the Regular Session. Governor Richardson has pledged to push for the legislation again during the next Legislative Session.
After the love-fest with Kucinich and Gravel, Jesus H Christ himself couldn't have made a mark. The windows were steamed up after Melissa's greeting to Barack. She was "absolutely humbled" to be on the same stage with Obama (what has he done for her lately? What has he done for any of us?)
Melissa had an agenda from the get-go. The look on her face and the subtly shaking of her head let us all know that she disapproves of the Governor from her former home state. She had some problem with bugs that she's blaming on the Governor. She made a point of bringing that up too - I'm just glad that she's not turning this into a "one issue" campaign.
Richardson was caught off-guard by the question. I really don't think he understood it - it just didn't make sense to ask that question of someone with his track record. It's gay rights 101 - being gay or transgendered is NOT a choice.
I was disappointed by his answer. He's still the same guy with the same track record (which speaks for itself) and the same person who has been nominated for a Noble Peace Prize FOUR times (not as many Grammys as Ms Etheridge has, but it's still impressive).
So I was especially relieved to receive his clarification of his position and an acknowledgment of his gaff. Oh, btw, I will never ever buy another Melissa Etheridge song (she's still talented and a great performer, but I just feel her bias). Here is Governor Richardson:
"Let me be clear - I do not believe that sexual orientation or gender identity happen by choice. 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."
It's a civil rights issue - not a gay issue.
Richardson later elaborated in a statement issued by his campaign:
"Let me be clear - I do not believe that sexual orientation or gender identity happen by choice. But I am 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."
I will choose my candidate based not just on their appearance last night, (the majority refused to promise gay marriage rights, after all), but on all the political issues. So far I appreciate Richardson's stance of withdrawing all troops immediately from Iraq, which he outlines on his website: www.notroopsleftbehind.com (Love the name of this site, which shows some of Richardson's trademark humor, something missing from his demeanor last night!)
"Actually, there's almost certainly no small set of genes that force one to choose homosexual sexual preference. Almost all behavior (not just sexual preference) is a result of a complex interaction of genetics and environment."
We need to examine the institution of *heteronormativity*. I ask again, has anyone here read Judith Butler, Simone de Beauvoir, or Michel Foucault? Let's stop making this a question of "why is my sexuality 'alternative'?" but rather, "why is heterosexuality the assumed norm?" !
Given all of that, and not really faulting Richardson on that answer [YES, I am *proud* to be a lesbian and I would never *want* it any other way and I don't think it's all "biology" - and that is *still my civil right*], Kucinich is still the best candidate by far.
www.kucinich.us
>
You say that you can't support same-sex marriage because of your religious beliefs. But the sacrament of marriage is different than the civil right of marriage which by definition can only be given out by the government. They may go by the same name, but they are different institutions. Because of the separation of church and state, churches have the right not to recognize state sanctioned marriages in their church. Just like the catholic church will not recognize divorces.
So when you say that your religion prohibits same-sex marriage, that's fine but it has nothing to do with the certificate of marriage given by the state. You support giving all the same civil rights to LGBT. I inferred that you support civil unions (correct me if I'm wrong). The state-sanctioned marriages are exactly the same in every way to civil unions except for the name.
So, could you explain to me why you do not support extending state-sanctioned marriage to gays and lesbians? If you do have a problem with calling it by a name that has religious connotations to you, then are you also against extending state-sanctioned marriages to atheists?
Personally, I think using the word 'civil union' instead of 'marriage' is like saying that straight people are better than LGBT people. They give the same rights, so what is the point in creating two sets of legal documents - trust me the bureaucracy has enough forms to deal with.
He seems a likable guy but I wouldn't want to see him in the White House... far too much fertilizer!
Also, annoying when she condescended, laughed, and back-led him on his answer by saying, "I don't think you understood the question."
She and Margaret would do well to keep their own opinions to themselves.
Also annoying that HRC is pushing the marriage question. Remember, they don't speak for the entire community.
Give gay and straight couples who don't want to marry the same rights and privs as married people.
First, a gay or lesbian preference should be for the following answer: ``It doesn't matter if it's inborn or chosen.''
Why?
Suppose the answer given is that it's a genetically determined sexual preference. Immediately some people will view it as a kind of disability. Who needs that?
Suppose the answer given is that it's a chosen sexual preference. Immediately some people will say ``IF you've made your choice you should live with the consequences (which most of us do anyway).
Actually, there's almost certainly no small set of genes that force one to choose homosexual sexual preference. Almost all behavior (not just sexual preference) is a result of a complex interaction of genetics and environment.
But regardless, Richardson really stumbled tonight. His initial "it's a choice" answer seemed to me as though he misspoke, but he made no effort to correct himself.
It's almost hard for me to believe that he actually answered the question that way. I'm fairly sure that every other candidate interviewed tonight would have not hesitated at all in saying that sexual orientation is not a choice.
Sorry, Bill, but if you don't understand the fact that we're fighting for rights because it's who we ARE -- not who we chooose to be -- then you don't understand our fight.
The question posed was a question about basic respect. Some say it's more complex for them. Fine. But if he thought it was more complex than that, he should have said "It's more complex than that."
As far as I'm concerned, sexuality is not a choice. A lot of our problems in society stem from the entrenched belief that homosexuals consciously choose to which sex they are attracted in spite of traditional and religious views. How can Bill Richardson really be a partner to us if he doesn't even try to understand where we're coming from?
This man has a strong record of support. He should have said both. The nature-nurture question when it concerns behavior goes far beyond sexual proclivity and has always been correctly "both" or "neither by itself". I don't fault him for having come out "pro-choice" when faced with and either-or question.
O well, just a comment from a neutral guy which means hetro, but wants everybody to be happy in life as long as there are not killing anybody else
[Has anyone here ever read Judith Butler or Simone de Beauvoir or Michel Foucault? ;) ]
*I* don't think *my* sexual orientation is "in-born". It's *infinitely* more complex than that. The institution of *heteronormativity* is what really needs to be examined.
Kucinich is definitely the only candidate who has our back and the backs of every group lacking in privilege, including the poor and working classes. He is the *only* real "people's president".
he's done some good but is just not a President. i'd pick him over a Republican any day, but Clinton and Obama have a much better chance of not only winning, but of having an impact on the attitudes of the general public.
'Presidential candidate and New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson (D) said Monday the reason he has not called for the removal of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales is that the two both have Hispanic backgrounds.
[Richardson says] "The only reason I'm not there is because he's Hispanic, and I know him and like him... It's because he's Hispanic. I'm honest... I want to give him the benefit of the doubt." '