Your Two Cents highlights some of the thought-provoking and interesting comments left by our readers.
And yes, there were moments that were not your favorites… Such as…
OH PLEASE, OBAMA…
Obama’s discussion was somewhat “flat” and seemed a little perfunctory to me. He said all the right things up until the very end.
His reference in his closing “speech” to the “scourge of AIDS” made me twitch just a little.
Having been raised a Catholic, the word “scourge” has deep-seated meaning that invokes horrible images. A scourge, by definition, is a punishment!
Considering that Mr. Obama is an otherwise intelligent, well-spoken and seemingly compassionate individual, I’m concerned that the use of this word indicates some subliminal issue with the subject of AIDS. To me, a very wrong choice of words.
Noel
BILL BLUNDERS
I am dismayed by [Bill] Richardson’s comments. He seems to be unaware of how inequality affects citizens of this country. He may represent change but its not for change in the right direction.
Justice
BILL BLUNDERS, PART 2
Oh, Lord! Could Richardson be more desperate? He pulls the “I’m Hispanic, vote for me” angle and then offers his “sympathy” to Melissa and her fight against breast cancer. He has no idea what he’s talking about when he’s asked whether or not homosexuality is a choice… This guy is totally unelectable.
Sonia
HILLARY’S HEDGING
Hillary … “I’m your girl” but can you step back and be president? Xena should remain a warrior, but not Queen! Her experience and strong voice has everyone’s attention. Her failure to apologize outright for her war stance reminds me of Bush. NO, NO… Don’t brush the same-sex [marriage] issue onto the states … They didn’t push civil rights onto the states. Nothing will happen until the federal policies demand equality for all. Using states rights are too convenient way of back peddling! Take a federal position!
BossKitty
NO FRIEND OF HILL
I was very upset and even a little hurt when [Hillary] said that the reason she is against gay marriage is a “personal issue” [or something like that]. That’s nice for her, she can feel anyway she wants about gay marriage, but it shouldn’t be about how she feels. It’s about being denied our right to marriage. She should put the people in this country and their rights above her own personal beliefs. GRAVEL ALL THE WAY!
Nikkie
Digg This
Thanks for the nice read, keep up the interesting posts.....
I Googled for something completely different, but found your page...and have to say thanks. nice read....
Enjoyed the post. I was a tad worried on how other people might take mine he he...Yeah, sometimes I can get paranoid...just a littttlllleee biiittt he he he.....
Please check out the following link on the HRC website that provides the candidates responses to the HRC questionnaire regarding equal rights for LGBT. One of the questions asked by HRC was if the candidates supported the Uniting Familites Act that would provide same sex couples with the ability to support their partner for permanant residency in the United States. Here's the link:
http://www.hrc.org/Template.cfm?Section=Home&CONTENTID=36930&TEMPLATE=/ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm
At least John Edwards has a very supportive wife - could this be of benefit? And Hillary has spoken in the past supporting at least the ~concept~ of gay marriage, while simply acknowledging the political impracticalities at present.
Step replies: Thanks, Shannon. One small correction - many of the so-called "blue states" are not on board with marriage equality; some have even banned civil unions & domestic partnerships.
I also need to correct something I stated in an earlier post. I mistakenly mentioned Rhode Island as one state whose residents would benefit from a federal civil unions law. Rhode Island does not have a state civil unions law, so I was completely wrong about that. I neglected to mention New Hampshire, which I believe has a civil unions law poised to take effect in 2008.
I also neglected to mention Oregon and Washington as states with domestic partnership laws, which may or may not put them in a position to benefit from a federal civil unions law, depending on how the legislation is crafted.
***
I agree that standardizing the most basic components of marriage law nationally is an idea with merit. In an age where many people travel extensively or move from state to state with families in tow as part of their employment, it's crucial that the laws be reliable and consistent.
Unfortunately, our opponents see the merit in this idea, too - which is why they attempted to pass a Federal Marriage Amendment. DOMA didn't (and couldn't) go far enough for them because of limitations on the power of federal government.
I unfortunately have to agree with Clinton that under our present Constitution, the regulation of marriage is a power reserved to the states. I don't like it, but it's unwise to ignore constitutional principles just because we disagree with the result in one instance.
Under the 10th Amendment, powers not delegated to the federal government are reserved to the states of the People. If we want to nationalize marriage law, we won't get there through the usual processes of lawmaking at the federal level because of this limitation. One option was to pursue court challenges based on substantive violation of due process and equal protection promised in the 14th Amendment, in hopes of a decision similar to the one that abolished restrictions on interracial marriage. We've so far been thoroughly rebuffed by the federal courts though. In my opinion, the legal arguments in our favor are actually fairly weak, since they rely on substantive interpretation of the Constitution and not a strictly literalist reading of it.
The alternative is for us to exercise the power of the People through the amendment process, similar to what opponents have already tried in their attempts to ban same-sex marriage. Such an effort is unlikely to succeed, since states' rights advocates would likely join with our opponents to defeat an amendment guaranteeing access to marriage for same-sex couples. For them, the issue of states' rights would be the overarching issue.
That pretty much leaves us right where we are now - having to pursue this one state at a time.
The democrats have a great opportunity to take the next presidential election... IF! IF! IF! they sponsor a candidate that the majority of the country can support. However, the leading candidates are a black man and a woman. There has never been a black president or a woman president. Why would the democratic party play the odds by pushing the envelope?
Face it...Obama is too green. And black.
Clinton is a woman -- with some political baggage and an agenda.
Seriously, the only likely candidate is Edwards. I think we could actually get some of the republicans to vote for him and I think he could appeal to both sides. I just wish he didn't sound like he just fell off a turnip truck. The southern accent does not help him.
It's no use saying that she should single handedly change public opinion about this issue. We will have a much better chance of changing public opinion if she gets elected.
What a difference it made in California where the Republican Governor refused to sign gay unions into law and in Massachusetts where the Democratic Goverenor helped defeat a ballot referendum on the issue, preserving gay marriage in the state. Wouldn't you rather have Hillary in the White House than Giuliani who wouldn't even attend the HRC forum on gay issues?
But until that happens, we should support Kucinich in the primaries. And if we do, maybe the idea that he is unelectable will be exposed as the lie that it is. He deserves our support at least in the primaries. There are only two genuine candidates who speak from the heart, Kucinich and Gravel. Both of them were totally enjoyable to listen to last night.
When I hear the big three (as they are being called) claim they don't support gay marriage for personal reasons, my response is that "I can't vote for you for personal reasons then." We need to stop being taken for granted. Which is the reality.
While I wouldn't suggest voting for a 3rd party in a general election (which would only help the GOP win again), I will vote for Kucinich is the primaries against the big three.... and hope others who see him as the most honest choice will do the same. We may be surprised at the outcome.
For pure honesty in their position, I have to go with Edwards. He's uncomfortable and that's ok. I don't expect someone who hasn't been around gays to be that comfortable. I DO expect honesty about the experience and I expect an expression of equality even though uncomfortable.
Clinton and Obama both struck me as plastic on gay issues... they're willing to charge up their credit cards with gay promises but can't, or won't, pay the bill when it comes due.
No need to express my satisfaction with the stances of Kucinich and Gravel. They're great for us but it's the real world... and that's really the issue. If anybody has pulled me closer to their camp due to this forum, it would have to be Edwards and Richardson for simply being honest and recognizing what's achievable. That choice question though...ugh!!!
For those who say Obama is not ready---look at what we have now! To me, Edwards was the most sincere of the top 3. I believed him. Clinton is smart, but disingenuous. She knows that having states decide the marriage issue is untenable. What is she willing to compromise to win...us? Gravel is a breath of fresh air.
I support Kucinich. I support the one who stands up for us uncompromisingly. I support the one who knew attacking another country unprovoked was wrong. ("No, seriously, why did we attack Iraq?") Whichever non-Republican wins the primary obviously gets my support for the election.
"And furthermore, his weird comment at the Howard University forum that he and his wife took an HIV test, a comment made in response to Joe Biden having pointed out that they both (candidates) have taken HIV tests reeks to me of some sort of discomfort with the whole topic of AIDS and homosexuality as it pertains to him."
- Thank you for reminding me. It was definitely "weird" and inappropriate, and I agree with your analysis.
I also agree heartily with Aireen. If you support Kucinich, VOTE FOR HIM!! Support him! Give him your time and your money! If everyone assumes he's not "viable", he won't be. If more people pull together for him, it will be a very different story. America deserves that different story.
www.kucinich.us
Hillary: BEST ACTING POLITICIAN
and for that reason alone, she has lost my
support, she sounds like she will say any-
thing to get your support, and then do what
"she" feels should be done, not the voters.
She is a "Bush Lite".
Obama and John were: OKAY
They almost came across like
they really mean it
Dennis and Mike: GOOD
but they are too far down the
list to win america over.
others: forget them, they seem like its not even
an issue to them.
He was doing his best to say what he thought everyone else wanted to hear, the only problem was that he was not answering any questions outright. He NEVER answered YES or NO, if he thought being gay was a choice. He back-pedaled the whole way around the issues that were brought up. As a matter of fact, alot of them did some back-pedaling, (there were only two that impressed me), but he was the worst of them all.
The fact that a federal civil unions law (which one can easily presume would be predicated on a state's recognition of a same-sex union just as federal marriage law is predicated on a state's licensing of a marriage), would not do squat for those of us who have the misfortune to live in states with amendments banning ANY recognition of same-sex couples regardless of the terminology used.
A federal civil unions law would only be useful to people in Vermont, Rhode Island, Connecticut and New Jersey, probably Massachusetts, and maybe California, Maine and Hawaii. But if you live somewhere like Michigan, forget it. Our only option is apparently to move to a friendlier state, which for me and my partner means abandoning two sets of elderly parents and ditching our careers at a time when we're nearing retirement. In other words, not an option at all.
Obama insulted our intelligence by trying to argue that civil unions and marriage could be made equal, and by accusing us of playing a game of semantics by insisting on the word 'marriage', when it is in fact people like Obama who insist we need a separate word for our unions who are playing the semantics game.
Edwards recognizes it was wrong to cite his religious views as a reason for opposing same sex marriage, but still expressed his opposition to it without giving a different reason for maintaining that position. It struck me as disingenuous.
Clinton is certainly the most polished of the bunch, but when asked to explain how she developed her position of supporting civil unions while opposing same-sex marriage, she answered that it was a 'personal position'. In other words, a total non-answer, in keeping with her statement in an earlier debate that presidential candidates shouldn't always say what they have in mind.
Richardson was probably the most honest of the same-sex marriage opponents, despite his gaffs. He was at least willing to give a reason - that he wants to pursue what is achievable, thereby implying that same-sex marriage isn't achievable. What these candidates don't get is that same-sex marriage never will become viewed as achievable without them having the fortitude to publicly support it.
Melissa Etheridge hit it on the head with her comment about the prior Clinton administration having courted us and then thrown us under the bus when continuing that support was no longer politically expedient. I expect we'd see the same from Hillary - I don't trust her at all.
I wish I could muster the kind of optimism engendered by Kucinich and Gravel about a campaign of love being able to enact change. But I think the non-answers and avoidance displayed by the frontrunners is enough to inform us of why it isn't going to be that easy.
Looks like Hillary will get the nomination, and if she does, I believe she'll lose the election. Independent swing voters generally don't like her, and she isn't electable without their support.
All in all, it would have been a disappointing forum, were it not for the fact that I fully expected it to be the usual game of distraction and avoidance - an expectationi the candidates largely fulfilled.
I'm grateful that they at least attended, and to those involved in putting this forum together for their efforts. But it appears that nothing has changed, and that it's not likely to anytime soon.
The only one with integrity was Gravel but he doesn't stand a rats ass chance so he has nothing to lose. Obama is green on other substantive issues like foreign policy and Clinton is a seasoned politician that tries to always say the "right thing" so that she won't lose a vote. That bothers me.
Poor Richardson is uncomfortable with the whole issue of gays. That was apparent from his body language and hesitation in responding. I was uncomfortable with his presence last night even though he makes good points about reality.
It will probably boil down to Clinton and Obama (if he would accept that position). The others, Edwards, et al., are already out in my opinion.
Then there is Biden and Dodd, the no shows, with schedule conflicts. Sorry boys but I don't buy that at all. That puts them out of my radar immediately.
Her best argument was being against something that she was once for (don't ask don't tell); which isn't even close to being one of the top issues in the gay community. She acted like she already won the forum before she even uttered a word. She looked confident, but that was it. I was very disappointed with her performance last night.
“Semantics may be important to some. From my perspective, what I’m interested (in) is making sure that those legal rights are available to people,” he said.
Is this statement not synonymous with telling a black person that they are going to get to their final destination, what does it matter where they sit on the bus!
Shame on Obama! It is this type of thinking that not long ago would surely have precluded him from even running for President. His parent’s surely lived under equal but different, perhaps he forgets where he came from.
If marriage is a religious institution why are gay tax dollars, or any other tax dollars for that matter, funding state and federal issuance of the licenses? You can be married without a religious ceremony; can you be married without a license (barring common law)?
People vying for our votes would like us to believe that it is going to just take a little time for the rest of the country to warm up to the idea of us having equal rights, in the meantime take what you can get and maybe someday in the future things will change. HOGWASH! If it’s wrong fix it!
If we had waited for the world to come around on unpopular issues, women would not be voting, nine year olds would still be working in factories, and blacks would still be sharecropping. No one waited for popular opinion on these issues, they were wrong and fixed, albeit later than it should have been, and those opposed to it had to deal with it.
I agree that Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel as strong, loving supporters, however, I don't find them as electable. I hope they continue in the background to promote progress for the LGBT community. We need support and value support from all levels of the community.
Bill Richards impresses me as someone who can get the job done, but can’t seem to communicate the journey. I found a significant lack of vision. I was also concerned about his use of “what’s achievable”.
The sermonistic oration by John Edwards regarding hate was uplifting and so true; however, it doesn’t make up for his current position on his “journey”. We all need to be fervent in our daily lives to ensure the hate never gets a stronghold on our society. Acceptance of diversity is the only respectable and logical approach in the world today.
Obama is a great speaker and was truly comfortable in this forum and community. Hillary is likewise sensitive to our issues. At this point, if it was just on LGBT issues, Obama would be ahead, but we all know the election has many more facets. So regarding the top two, I’ll keep watching the activities and support we get from both Obama and Hillary.
I would encourage the community to consider deeply what is acceptable “progress”, as it pertains to the “state of being united” between two persons. Please weigh carefully the value of 1100 rights afforded legally to “marriage”, as quote by Obama several times. As Sian commented earlier in this thread about the progress in the UK, perhaps we should be looking at a 2 step process of first gaining the 1100 rights, and then letting the everyday interactions between individuals actually merge the terms “Civil Union” and “Marriage”. I truly believe the merging would happen on it’s own, because it would be to much work for everyone to keep the two separated and because it would then be at an individual level and not an exploded political or media hype level. We’ve already seen the scourge that can happen when the term “Marriage” was used, the results of which put Bush in the Whitehouse. Let’s take a step back, get the rights and then worry about semantics. I truly believe stepped progress is “achievable”.
Since they all basically promised the same thing, the question we have to answer now is who we trust to be committed and competent enough to make these changes.
By the way, to the person talking about the immigration issue. The problem is that a CT civil union is not recognized by the federal goverment. If it was, the immigration issue wouldn't be a problem.
If you support NOT FOR PROFIT universal healthcare for you and your family,
if you support being able to marry who ever you choose with full right,
if you support the idea that peace makes more peace and violence makes more violence,
gosh darnit, if you support Kucinich then actually support him! MAKE YOUR OWN CHOICE, not what the media tells you to choose. thanks.
dennis4president.com
I meant to say in my previous post that I agree. The logical conclusion of Obama's argument is in fact that the States and USA should not be able to recognize as legal institutions anything other than civil unions. I fully support, as a straight man, the repeal of my own legal right to marriage. That said, I find this goal to be less attainable than full marriage equality, in name and all, which I'd also support. A sad truth, but taking "marriage" away from straight America is more threatening than anything you could possibly propose.
For what it is worth, when/if I marry, I want to see if it can be defined as a civil union, should that be all that gays in my state are entitled to.
Side note: Ground breaking debate, major props to HRC and Logo. One thing, can Logo PLEASE find a replacement for Jason Bellini. In the post show, he had no personality and looked like a dear in headlights. I swear I could hear the control room say- "so why don't you ask this question? Hello?" It reminded me of the way he interviewed Rosie. He always seems out of his league. The way he interviews and presents himself is so stiff. And if both news anchors used the word "toss" again I was going to scream! My two cents.
Unlike Obama, Edwards, and Clinton; Richardson had a reason other than homophobia to stick with civil unions instead of marriage.
I really didn't appreciate Edwards telling us to take our issues to the street. We've been doing that most of his life. Where has he been?
I think you're horribly misinterpreting the event here.
First of all, you can support Hillary all you want, but in my opinion she wasn't comfortable with the crowd, she just felt comfortable in feeling like she had their votes as part of her political strategy. And important distinction. As far as understanding LGBT issues, she wore as a badge of honor the point of "States rights!" After the State referendums in 2004 and 2006, I think that's an appalling stance to take. Progress in what few states have made provisions for LGBT union do little to apologize for the many more states that have made it written, codified doctrine to disallow such unions!
As for Obama, there is nothing at all disingenuous about his rhetoric. I know my saying so won't convince a single person, but he discussed these issues openly and in the same tone when running for the Senate in Illinois in 2004... I know, I attended many of the speeches.
As for using God and scripture as an argument, Obama did nothing of the sort. Obama used Constitutional law, and a separation of church and state, coupled with the (certainly questionable) opinion that most religious institutions view marriage as a religious institution to argue that the semantic understanding of the word marriage is all that separates him from Kucinich and Gravel. As far as God and scripture are concerned, Obama is a man of faith (certainly a boon in this election, especially when facing so many Republican candidates that have a hard time saying the same to the Christian electorate), but he belongs to a Christian faith that recognizes gay marriage. Can Hillary or Edwards say the same? Do either of them attempt to defend their stance on "marriage" as merely a difference of semantics and Constitutional law? The answer is no on both counts. Obama is the electable candidate (love Kucinich and Gravel as I do) that will do the most for the LGBT population. I hope you can come to see that.
I beg my LGBT friends to not vote for a candidate based on a single issue but look at the big picture. Hillary I felt answered all the questions without expousing religion into it and without a lot of avoidance like was found in Richardson's responses. I respect all of the candidates for coming out in a sense for us in this forum but I feel Hillary is our best bet.
I was really impresssed with Miek Gravel and if I felt he had a serioys chance I would work to see his candidacy through but I dont.
I felt Hillary was truthful to what she believes and very candid in regard to "Dont Ask, Dont Tell". It was her husband's idea and right at the time and we shoudl move on from it now.
Now I feel like it's their funeral.
Well, really?
My partner is not an American citizen. Our CT civil union does nothing for us in terms of immigration law (federal policy). We have thus been forced to move to London, in the UK. And, I am sure, we are not the only binational same-sex couple experiencing discrimination, discrimination so bad as to push us to live in a different country.
So, where are the equali rights?
Dr. Frank Valli
Having watched all the candidates speak I agree that Kucinich and Gravel are both great BUT clearly not electable. Obama impressed me with his down-to-earth approach to the issue of gay marriage/civil unions. Britain brought in Civil Partnerships in 2005 with very little fuss and ovrwhelming support from the community at large. The mainstream LGB community and the government here in the UK were pragmatic enough to realise that they could easily pass this legislation, which confers all the rights and responsibilities of heterosexual marriage, whilst trying to push through 'gay marriage' would cause much louder protests from religious groups. It is this legislation which allowed me to sponsor my partner for a visa. In the eyes of the law we may be Civil Partnered but in the eyes of just about everyone else we are married. When politicians now talk about increasing the rights and advantages offered to married couples they include civil partnered same-sex couples in that definition - even members of the right-wing Conservative Party do this.
I agree with Obama when he suggests that LGBT activists need to prioritise their battles - the emphasis should be on getting legislation in place which confers all the rights, priviledges and responsibilities of marriage for same-sex couples by whatever means. If this is in the form of civil unions, so be it. Arguments for full marriage equality can then continue but at least the civil rights LGBT couples will be protected by the law of the land in the interim.
On a personal note, I found Obama the most convincing of the big three - he seemed comfortable and confident with the issues at hand without appearing slimy or over-eager to impress like some of the other candidates. I know this is just a personal impression but that seems to count for so much when people choose for whom to vote.
Obama is a pompous disingenuous candidate with no breath of experience . He had the audacity to say to us he has spent his life working on our issues. Which is completely false. He also asserts he was the first to act on every issue. Just look at his comments on Pakistan and the tension he has caused from his comments.
He constantly refers to all the discrimination he has received as a black man. However,he neglects to inform us how he got into school and law school" affirmative action".He also cannot see the gay struggle for civil rights is the same struggle Black people faced during the civil rights. I agree that Aids is an important issue to the gay community. However, he takes advantage of his support to help Aids patients as a strictly Gay issue. To be factual the number one group who is presently becoming infected with Aids at the highest rate is straight black women . Obama knows this but instead of being honest he brags about his brave act of discussing Aids and making it appear his speech was for the Gay community. Moreover, his inexperience coupled with his narcism makes him one of the most unattractive choices we have. I am sick of his constantly espousing hope and scriptures instead of ideas and being informed on the issues.
Mike Gravel, these two gentlemen can we get any better! I think they both should run together for the presidency and vice presidency.
How informative both were in all aspects of what this nations needs, not only in the LBGT community.
Fighting for health care, marriage rights and more. Although i don't think that cannibis should be limited to people with just cancer or aids it should be available to anyone in need.