If there was any one issue that dominated the Presidential Forum, it was gay marriage. Each of the candidates weighed in on the issue, with Kucinich and Gravel the only two fully supporting same-sex marriage, and the rest insisting civil unions are good enough. Check it out:
Barack Obama:
John Edwards:
HOW TO EMBED VIDEO: See the small blue downward-facing arrow in the blue cube at the bottom of each video? Click that, then click “Embed.” Copy the code and post the video wherever you want!
Dennis Kucinich:
Mike Gravel:
Bill Richardson:
Hillary Clinton:
Posted: Aug. 10. 2007 at 2:59 AM EDT
Digg This
You can leave a response or trackback from your own site.
And 3, the most ridiculous...Pat complains that our candidates are afraid to bring religion into the presidential race...is he crazy???? That's all we've been hearing. Who goes to church, how often and which one and why. Hilary, obviously uncomfortable with religion, and very likely agnostic, is forced by her handlers to discuss her faith...and very unconvincingly (thankfully for me).
We need LESS religion in the public square. If you choose to live for a future life instead of working to make this one better, you are abstaining from your obligation to society, but that is your choice. Keep it to yourself, there are enough negative influences in society without religion. Anita R is dead wrong, this is NOT a christian nation...do YOUR homework...our founding fathers were mainly following the ENLIGHTENMENT. Do you know what that is? Let's just say they were freethinkers who came to the same conclusions I have--they may not call themselves atheists or agnostics..they made up a word less offensive...Deists. And they saved us from tirants that would claim we are a "christian nation" with the establishment clause. I was taught this in a public high school...where did you learn your version of history? I bet it was a church funded school, with their history of lies.
I wish the founding fathers could see us now...
How far we have come from the original spirit of our great nation. Religion belongs in the churches, not in my home. Not to say I do not believe in god, but god is love. Why do American brothers and sisters fight against each other with malicious intent?
What is same sex for us ?
i want to see him win the nomination more than anything else in the world.
However to make her point poinient:
If the Federal laws supersede the State's Sovereighnty to create and enforce laws, we could find ourselves heading down an ugly horrid path.
In another National Emergency, a threat to our National Security we could lose all rights to privacy to the degree that we all have a chip in our heads.
Example, we are now required to have RFID (radio frequency identification on our passport). Each state creates its own laws for a Drivers License or other ID. Let's say that the state lost that right over time due to states losing legal basis to sovereignty, eventually we will get another ambush on our personal privacy. The next level of technology is nano, that means chips the size of molecules. Who is to guarantee that miniscule chips do not become surveillance devices delivered to our blood stream by vacinations required by the Federal Government?
Owellian, well I think not. Civilization is a process which has been going on for millenia. Doubt it? Look at all the anthropology records. We live in groups, we communicate in community. We are communal. People think animals have no law and order. Watch the documentaries on wolves. You will be amazed that they have a system of regulating codes of conduct. Our Checks and Balances Systems are Not Perfect but they were devised by people who were leaving civilations - Kingdoms wherein the haves and have nots were divided by blood lines. One King might burp and conclude someone was going to kill him that day and give an order to kill all males over the age of ten (I jest). Truly there are horrific stories in history which demonstrate that a bad hair day for one Queen might be the end of another. To break that system of rulership by God's Son or Daughter, the top down model, we need all kinds of checks and balances. And, oddly enough the Founding Fathers argued over many ideas to reach agreements. And one arguement was that if there are minorities who are protected by law they will always challenge the majority in order to establish a more equal system. Yes, read the Federal Papers! That was said.
When the Emporor forgot his clothes and challenged the LGBT community, he was challenging minorities from every ethnic and racial diversity. He really did not know that he was setting the stage for battles to be fought for years to come. He triggered the conceptual framers' realization that protecting minorities actually equalize the power differential of the majority.
To make sure that the Founding Father's checks and balances resolve the issues, we must keep state sovereignty as a priority. If California is that only state in the Union who have laws that protect Sexuality then we will always be the wealthiest. Republicans, think on that.
there is more than one sin than homosexuality in that book....you should condem those as well, and STOP useing the homo passage as a plateform for your hate and bigotry !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Leviticus 18: 22
"You shall not lie with a man as with a woman. It is an abomination".
Leviticus 18: 1-20 deals with unlawful marriages, none of which include a man-to-man or woman-to-woman marriage. I would think God would have really put this one in if it meant so much to him, after all he goes as far as saying that you can’t take the nakedness of a woman and her daughter or her son’s daughter or their daughters daughter. Sound more like what he was saying was do not marry within your own family, which makes sense given the chance of genetic anomalies.
Now then, Leviticus 18:19 – 30 talks of sinful LUST and given the fact that it follows the laws of marriage directly, one can only assume that when married thou shalt not do the following examples:
Sleep with your wife within a certain number of days past childbirth. Interestingly enough it is long if she has a girl because the mother is considered unclean longer. In fact the mother cannot attend church for several months, don’t want to spread any of her un-cleanliness.
Have orgies with men or women
Sleep with you neighbors wife (husband)
Also:
Romans 1:24-27
Romans is rather interesting as well, verse 24 starts out by saying that “Wherefore, God also gave them up to uncleanness through lusts of their own hearts, to dishonor their own bodies between themselves”. Verse 25, again on lust, “Who exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature more than God.
Romans goes on to say that the lusting was so awful that woman were with woman and men with men. But in verse 31 God tells us why they are who they are and calls these lustful people “covenant breakers” – again enjoying the nakedness of someone outside his laws of marriage expressed in Leviticus.
1Corinthians 6:9-10 This scripture uses the term homosexuals, so you are wrong about that word not being in the Bible
Corinthians 6:9-10 talks of the unrighteous not inheriting the kingdom of God, specifically fornicators, idolaters, adulterers effeminate, nor abusers of themselves.
My bible doesn’t say homosexuals it says fornicators, which according to Exodus 22, which outlines the crimes against humanity and specifically in verse 16 states, “And if a man entice a maid that is not betrothed, and lie with her, he shall surely endow her to be his wife”, or else he is fornicating.
Again, seems to me God is speaking of lust outside of marriage.
1Timothy 1:10
Timothy 1:10 states “ For fornicators, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for kidnapers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine”.
Timothy is a warning about heresy in doctrine and life.
I like verses 5-7 specifically:
5 “Now the end of the commandment is love out of a pure heart and of a good conscience and of faith unfeigned.
6 From which some, having swerved, have turned aside unto vain jangling
7 Desiring to be teachers of the law, understanding neither what they say, nor that about which the affirm”
Rather poignant don’t you think.
I think that it is clear that God does not forbid marriage of anything outside your direct family and now given that I actually looked up all these verses, I will begin to pray for those who are keeping me from the righteous life God instructed us to have by being married.
I thought is only fair that I also state that my bible is The Scofield Reference Bible, Copyright 1909, 1917, renewed in 1937, 1945 and my edition is 1967.
The Bible clearly condones slavery. Do you believe in slavery? A lot of people that I have met have said, "Well, times have changed. It was okay then, but isn't now." I am interested in your opinion on this.
I am asking this question with sincerity and am interested to know your opinion. I am not asking you with negative intent or to stir up controversy.
Thank you for posting your opinions among people who may disagree with you. I have done the same thing in regards to my belief and supprt in gay marriage and it has been difficult.
Unless you’re some sort of language scholar, you’re not in a position to make such a statement with any credibility. In fact, even if you are a language scholar, spouting the idea that no single of word of the Bible was ever mistranslated calls into question your very credibility as a scholar.
Just because YOU believe there has been no mistranslation, and choose to deny that the words in the Bible have been “tweaked” in the past for political purposes, that doesn’t make YOU right. Who are YOU, anyway? Sorry, I’ll take the word of bona fide language and Bible scholars over some anonymous person on the Internet, and they don’t agree with your statements.
Anita R said: “Christianity is what this country was founded on.”
This is easily disproved. The founding documents – the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, make no mention of Christ whatsoever. The Constitution doesn’t mention God at all. The Declaration of Independence makes mention of “Nature’s God”; but this is a very generic reference to God, not a reference specifically to the god of the Christian faith.
The fact that many of the concepts upon which our laws are founded happen to be shared with Christianity doesn’t mean the law of this nation was founded exclusively upon them, nor even in the main. The best principles can generally be found to be shared amongst multiple philosophies. Christianity is not the author of our liberties, and the desire of some Christians to claim ownership of them in order to turn around and deny them to those they disagree with on religious matters says a lot about their character, or lack thereof. It’s truly disgusting.
Anita R said: “Candidates & anyone believing in God's word can & should use it when it comes to making laws.”
So you don’t really believe in the first amendment then, which says in part that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion”. This isn’t merely a prohibition on establishing a national religion (Christianity included, by the way). If the scope were intended to be that narrow, they would have said “Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of a religion.” Those few little words convey a huge difference in meaning. But they didn’t refer to a specific act establishing a national religion – they referred more generically to any act that attempts to insert religion into the law, on a very broad basis. Without that distinction, Congress could incrementally pass laws that establish a de facto national religion without declaring one outright. Without that distinction, Congress could dictate that we all are required to receive the Holy Eucharist once a month, for example. Fortunately, the prohibition on doing so is reinforced by the latter part of the amendment, guaranteeing the free exercise of religion, which implies within it the freedom not to be forced to practice someone else’s in conflict with your own faith. That isn’t to say Congress or the Executive have always upheld the First Amendment. Too often they’ve mocked its meaning through the advancement of selfish interests or by bowing to popular opinion – the latter being a mockery of the very concept of representative democracy expressed through a republican form of government guaranteed to us by the Constitution, instead of the mob rule of direct democracy.
Anita R said: “The right of Freedom Of Speech & Religious Freedom are just 2 of the things that make this country great.”
Unfortunately, some Christians overextend the concepts to excuse acts that infringe on these very freedoms for those who don’t share their beliefs. Needless to say, when I hear someone spouting that we’re a Christian nation and should be a nation with laws reflecting Christian beliefs, alongside quotes from Leviticus that appear to be calling for my death, I’m not inclined to shrug and say it’s not a threat to my existence – quite the opposite, in fact.
Anita R said in a later post: “I was only quoting what I read, not judging”.
Don’t insult our intelligence – you quoted what you did in order to support your passing of judgment. This business of “I didn’t say it, the Bible did” is really not a very clever deception, but an attempt at deception, nonetheless.
Anita, you’ve attempted to say that you’re not a bigot. But based on your own statements here, I’m not inclined to give you the benefit of the doubt. There’s a lot you’ve said that makes the hair stand up on the back of my neck, and little to nothing that makes me believe that as a fellow citizen, I can trust in your good will to respect and uphold my liberties and civil rights. Religious belief doesn’t protect anyone from falling into the trap of bigoted thinking. It more often foments it, since it starts from premises whose truth or falseness cannot be established. When you start from doubtful premises, you can only reach doubtful conclusions. When you cling to your own opinion and make the kind of incredible and unsupportable statements you have here, I’m afraid I can only reach one conclusion – that you are indeed so close minded and welded to your own belief and opinion that no amount of evidence contradicting them will make one bit of difference. If it walks like a duck...
Very well said. All of it. And thank you.
Also, if my post led you to think I was judging or that I do not love my fellow man & woman, then let me clarify.
I do follow (to the best of my ability) ALL the scripture in the Bible. I do love, I do forgive, & I do leave the Judging to Him. I do not pick and choose what I will believe & follow.
That is what is required of me.
Those things are taught to me in His Word.
I was simply quoting what I read, not judging.
We will have a very hard time in this world if we try to judge one another.
You could not be more correct, this election has many more issues that are equally important. The focus has to be on all of them to make an informed vote. That is our responsibility.
To do your homework:
thanks for the information, I didn't know that.........
No, I am not a bigot. I simply believe in the word of God. The Bible may be "just a book" to you but it is more to many people.
Just because my beleifs don't match yours doesn't make me a bigot or a bad person & vice versa.
If you can't communicate without insults, please don't communicate at all.
I am not asking anyone to go anywhere, I am voicing my opinions like everyone else here.
Nothing more.
You are the one who turned this into a conflict.
Maybe you should deal with the fact that not everyone is going to agree with you. That is the way of the world. We are only responsible for ourselves. My post was in response to Angel's post. It was nothing more. Stop trying to make it out to be more than it was. You will find yourself arguing alone.
Amita says:9:30 on 08/10
While I do appreciate the genuine effort put forth by many...some of the candidates regarding marriage....Melissa Etheridge for President, anyone?
"marriage = organized religion and church approval
civil union = governmental recognition and state approval."
I have to disagree with you, Butch. While you're obviously correct about civil unions, you're dead wrong about the term 'marriage'.
Marriage can indeed be viewed in the context of organized religion and church approval, but it is not exclusive to that context, and there are many people who reject the notion that it ever was. There isn't any strong evidence that any single religion can claim authorship or ownership of the institution of marriage.
Marriage as we know it in the United States is a hybrid. It has continued to evolve as a legal institution, while also being a religious institution for those who assign it spiritual meaning. But a marriage needn't necessarily be tied to matters of legality or spirituality to exist.
Marriage at its core is contractual in nature. It is the mutual, uncoerced agreement between competent adults to unite in the formation of a family unit. As such, it is a matter of liberty which requires neither the intervention of government nor religious entities to exist. That existence has obvious limitations, but the refusal of government or church to recognize a couple as married does not magically void the commitment they've made to each other.
The idea that marriage is strictly a religious matter is a deception promoted by religious leaders, who wish to make their control of it absolute.
I see no reason to oblige them.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yxshMiedhYM
For another side of Rep.Kucinich hear him "grill" Rumself over the Pat Tillman situation, as it relates to press strategies...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yxshMiedhYM
You are a bigot...plain and simple. This is not a Christian country, but a pluralistic country where all religions should be respected (as well as the right to have no religious beliefs). The Bible is a book, nothing more. It was written by men. If women had written it, I doubt it would be the same. Organized religion is corrupt; the leaders have all the money and power and the congregations have relatively little power or money in comparison. Anita, there is separation of church and state! Deal with it. Gays and lesbians have been around since the dawn of time and we're not going anywhere! I'm tired of asking for acceptance...I don't want it! As a taxpayer and law-abiding citizen, I demand respect and nothing less!
The Bible contains six admonishments to homosexuals and 362 admonishments to heterosexuals. That doesn't mean that God doesn't love heterosexuals. It's just that they need more supervision. ~Lynn Lavner
If I may point out, the bible is used for personal translation. Things can not be picked to be taken literally whenever they apply for the argument you have. You can not pick and choose things in the Old Testament and apply them to the New Testament as you see fit. If you were to equally apply everything from the words of Moses and Leviticus and David to the words of Christ, many would counteract the other. Interpretation of the Bible has been used since its origional inductions and many books of the Canon were left out after the Council of Nicia.
Also, with Church- this does not always signify Christian or Jewish or Islamic places of worship. It is VERY legal for Wiccans and Pegans to conduct hand-fastings. If someone would like to be "married" in the sense of a marriage license and perform a ceromy of there choice it is not for anyone to judge. The universal belief of any religion is the method in which one models and carries their own lives. I do ask you (in response that you claim yourself Christian) that you take Jesus words of love thy neighbor. It is not your place to judge.
While I believe that Gay Rights are VERY important in the future and always (and we as American LGBT's have come a very long way from that June night in 1969 in the throws of Stonewall) I do hope other questions also plague you during the electoin process. I hope that with this election we as VOTERS are concerned by more than if two men should be allowed to hold hands with the same vigor we expect two men to hold guns. If you are highly radical and straight and against gay marriage, a mother of a gay son or a member of the LBGT community (as well as a thousand other people that nouns do not let me define as easily) that you head both your own community but other issues as well. There is more to this country than LGBT rights and refusal of those rights.
My biggest prayer and thought is that with this election we remember more minorities and not just our own. We examine more issues than who sleeps with who. This election in won on merrit, the people's votes actually count and that we really pay attention to other things.
-I may be young and "curropted" by society, but I reside in Louisiana and I see nothing wrong with love or benifits in a country that taxes each citizen equally.
You are wrong. God's word is VERY CLEAR on the subject of same sex unions.
Nothing was ever "mistranslated". Just because you may not want to believe it, does not make it untrue.
Here are some Scriptures:
Leviticus 18: 22
"You shall not lie with a man as with a woman. It is an abomination".
Also:
Romans 1:24-27
1Corinthians 6:9-10 This scripture uses the term homosexuals, so you are wrong about that word not being in the Bible
1Timothy 1:10
Please look up Scriptures before you deny that they exist.
Christianity is what this country was founded on.
Candidates & anyone believing in God's word can & should use it when it comes to making laws.
The right of Freedom Of Speech & Religious Freedom are just 2 of the things that make this country great.
= = = =
= = =
= DK =
= =
= =
=
You gotta love this little guy.
Etheridge had a long-term partnership with Julie Cypher, which made headlines. During this partnership, Cypher gave birth to two children, Bailey Jean, born February 1997, and Beckett, born November 1998, fathered by sperm donor David Crosby.
In 2000, Cypher began to reconsider her sexuality and on September 19, 2000, Etheridge and Cypher announced they were separating.
the question is why if you're born that way as she said her partner had to reconsider her sexuality?
plus this country faces more critical issues such as war poverty crime etc you should be focusing about instead of diverting attention
civil union = governmental recognition and state approval.
I, for one, do not care if any church approves or disapproves of me and my sexual orientation. I do wonder though, if we continue to press for gay marriage instead of civil unions, will we be able to overcome the political pressure of organized religion AND would civil ceremonies be outlawed?
Actually, the federal government has no greater power to regulate civil unions than it does marriage, which was the point of my earlier post.
Hillary and the rest who are touting a federal civil unions law are practicing a major deception by omission - they're failing to explain what the limitations of such a law would be.
A federal civil unions law cannot mandate that every state must perform and recognize same-sex civil unions without running afoul of the same states' rights concerns that recognition of same-sex marriages has.
If you believe they're going to just eliminate the provision in DOMA that allows states to ignore each other's same-sex marriages and civil unions, you need to have a rethink. It can't be done without running smack into the brick wall of states with constitutional amendments banning civil unions and domestic partnerships. If you think those states are just going to roll over and play dead on the issue, then you need a reality check.
Hillary is not a "viable" choice for the democrats, and by time she's in office she'll be completely bought by special interests. Think she'll fix the health care system? She's accepted over $800,000 from the HMOs and insurance companies. Think she'll clean up Washington corruption? She's publicly stated that she'll accept money from any lobbyist willing to donate to her.
If you want a candidate that has the conscience and the passion to actually fight for you, please cast your vote for Kucinich or Gravel. Even Obama or Edwards...at least they refuse lobbyist money, and aren't lying to your face when they say they are the "people's candidate".
But my final opinion: I'm gonna keep my eye on Kucinich. I like him here, but there are a lot of other issues going on in our country and I want to be sure that he knows that and is going to do something besides improve gay rights.
-It warns against RAPE.
-It warns against using sex as a religious sacrifice.
That says nothing even remotely close to the 'immorality' of homosexual lifestyles.
Please look this up and educate people.
You know, I remember when we were truly a known, yet unspoken of, minority; when politicians would never dain to do what was done on National Cable TV last night. And yes, it is a great step forward.
But we must not let ourselves be dazzled by the spectacle and forget what it is that we as GLBT Americans want, deserve, and are entitled to ... RESPECT and EQUAL TREATMENT under the laws that govern all U.S. citizens.
I had for a time thought civil unions sounded pretty good. Until it brought to mind the treatment of blacks in the 1960's: separate water fountains, restrooms, sitting on the back of the bus, etc. And yes, it is a step forward, but not so when you consider what is going on right now with UPS on the East Coast: the state recognizes Civil Unions, but because it is not called "marriage", they can legally deny benefits to the partner of a GLBT employee.
As a Gay American, I am sometimes ashamed that some of my brothers and sisters can be so passe about a few crumbs thrown our way from those who claim to understand what it is we're fighting for, will say what we want to hear before the election, then turn around and do what they (not us) want done.
NOW IS OUR TIME.
The past few years have truly thrust us and our issues into the spotlight; our issues are being covered in every major media outlet, and no longer just for the "quaint" factor.
2 years ago our own Mayor Richard J. Daley was quoted on the cover of the Chicago RedEye as saying that he fully supports Gay Marriage, and I have been waiting for the rest of the turtles we elect to catch up to his mindset.
If we truly want a candidate who understands and respects us, we should support the one that supports us. I have been, and will continue to be, a lifelong Democrat (until a third party with true election potential develops), so whomever I vote for in November 2008 will NOT be Republican, but rather the person who holds the Democratic nomination.
But for the primary, my vote is with Dennis Kucinich.
He .. simply .. gets ..it. PERIOD.
And though he may not win the nomination, I intend to show him how much I value his support for me.
we pay taxes and why call it a free country if we have no right to marry.
I feel really betrayed!
I am seriously considering voting for Kucinich now, I need to do more homework.
How sad.
Obama, was my number two choice, he was just horrible too!
Question: Will civil unions become portable from state to state under a federal civil unions law, just like heterosexual marriages currently are?
Answer: Not without a major revision of the Defense of Marriage Act. It’s not enough to merely eliminate the clause that bans federal recognition of same-sex unions; one would also have to tinker with the language that protects states from being forced to recognize each other’s same-sex unions under the ‘full faith and credit’ clause of the Constitution. States with bans on any form of recognition for same-sex unions will likely fight such a change tooth & nail.
Question: How many states ban civil unions?
Answer: That depends on how you interpret the individual state amendments, but I’ve seen the number as high as 18 on some web sites – far more than actually recognize civil unions.
Question: How many states recognize same-sex civil unions?
Answer: Vermont, Connecticut and New Jersey. I think a civil unions law is set to go into effect in New Hampshire in 2008? There are a few other states that have some form of domestic partnership law or reciprocal benefits, but they vary in their approximation of marriage laws: California, Washington, Oregon, Maine, and Hawaii.
Question: Won’t a federal civil unions law trump the state laws that ban them?
Answer: Not without provoking a constitutional crisis surrounding states’ rights’ and limitations on federal power as engendered by the 10th Amendment. It’s highly unlikely that Congress would write the law in such a way that all states would be forced to begin performing and/or recognizing civil unions at the state level. Even if they did, such a law would be unlikely to withstand challenges to its constitutionality.
Question: Could my same-sex union still be provided federal recognition, even though my state doesn’t have a civil unions law?
Answer: Probably not. A federal civil unions law is likely to follow the same model as heterosexual marriage. A license for your civil union from your state government will likely be a pre-requisite to receiving federal recognition of your union. It is highly unlikely that the federal government will actually start performing civil unions. Instead it will most likely rely on state governments to provide the information that establishes the existence of a civil union, just as is currently the case with civil marriage.
Question: Does it really matter whether we call it ‘marriage’ or a ‘civil union’?
Answer: Yes, it matters a great deal. New Jersey’s implementation of civil unions, which are supposed to be equal in effect to heterosexual marriages, has turned out to be not so equal after all. Many businesses and other entities continue to operate under policies that only recognize marriage and not civil unions. The law hasn’t achieved what it was meant to.
Consider this: What is government licensing of marriage if not the business of providing CIVIL recognition to marital UNIONS? Had the government called its recognition of heterosexual marriage by the formal terminology of ‘civil union’, things would be a lot different. Terminology is key to a law’s implementation. Because ‘marriage’ is used as the legal term of choice instead of ‘civil union’, a situation has been created where using any terminology other than the word ‘marriage’ for the legal recognition of relationships ends up making those laws less than equal in their practical effects, regardless of the intent of lawmakers. You simply can’t make two things equal while calling them different names, as doing so actually promotes their unequal treatment.
The ones who are playing the game of semantics are the ones who insist that we need separate institutions with different names for equivalent relationships. Call them all marriages, or call them all civil unions, but please – call them all the same thing!
"Senator Obama, you stated civil union gives all the same rights as civil marriage so it is equal. Do you consider sitting in the back of the bus or drinking from the colored water fountain equal? You still get to ride the bus and you still get to drink some water. Your logic says it would be equal and fair."
I disagree.
Many politicians and voters shy from “gay marriage” because they don’t see LGBT people as having equal relationships. But if the community manages to get past other people’s homophobia and expectations and see that marriage can be devolved from a religiously-tainted institution into a non-religious, malleable institution under the guise of a union, much more will be accomplished for people that do not fit what others characterize as “normal”.
And it just so happens that now there is a lot of political support for civil unions. If the GLBT/queer community and its advocates are politically savvy, they'll run with what's advantageous now - for a better future. I deserve government and legal benefits as much as anyone else, but I’ll sleep easier without the government insisting on religious societal norms.
Politically, personally, spiritually and emotionally Kucinich matches the values of my family.
Anything less than full equality means little to me. My partner and I 'enjoy' domestic partnership benefits now, but we had to cancel the insurance coverage on me because the lack of marriage means paying over $1000 a month in additional taxes and benefit coverage.
Can Kucinich win against a moderate/conservative Republican? I don't know. But I'm so tired of voting for the candidate that offers me some hope of progress, amidst their rhetoric to maintain the status quo, that I can't face an election of choosing someone that does not fully stand with me and the needs of the GLBT community.
In the Democratic primary, unless Americans really wake up, Kucinich may lack the votes to move forward to face the Republican candidate, and we may still see an Edwards/Clinton/Obama in that role, but my presence in this election will be visible.
I'd like to believe that if Kucinich, in his campaign of love and fairness, would bring people out to the polls. I want to believe that a horde of typically non-voting Americans would run at the chance to bring a 'real' person into the White House.
As for the LOGO forum, my family and I were thrilled at this momentous occasion. We've survived on crumbs of notice for far too long and it was wonderful to have our issues take center stage.
All my love to the GLBT community,
JMB
Kucinich supports gay marriage NOW. Under a Kucinich Administration, the GLBT community will be viable - as in having a real opportunity to grow, thrive, develop.
Imagine what the GLBT community could be and do with the equal marriage fight resolved? Kucinich is our man, and I hope you will understand he is the ONLY viable candidate when it comes to really supporting us! Thanks. dennis4president.com
I'll vote Kucinich in the primary because ultimately I'm for nothing short of full marriage equality. But the fact that every viable candidate came out in favor of civil unions makes for us, in 2008, a win-win situation.
Relegating Gay people to a choice of a civil or no union denies us the hundreds of benefits enjoyed by heterosexuals! Allowing same-sex marriage is the ONLY remedy to this inequality. Senator Obama's continued evasiveness and specious argumentation will not win him many Gay votes!