04/27/2007
Democrats Direct Debate Spite Toward Bush, Not Each Other
Last night's Democratic debate was largely unremarkable and absent any fireworks save for plenty of criticism of George W. Bush and the war in Iraq, and a few amusing rants from former Senator Mike Gravel. Gay marriage and civil unions did enter the dialogue near the end of the debate, when Brian Williams tossed out this question to Connecticut Senator Chris Dodd:
WILLIAMS: Senator Dodd, the state of Connecticut has legalized civil unions for gay people. Tell me, is there a difference between gay marriage and civil unions?
SEN. DODD: Well, I always begin this question, Brian, by asking people to consider what they would do in the case of their own children. I have two very young daughters who one day may have a different sexual orientation than their parents, how would I like them treated as adults? What kind of housing, what kind of homes, what kind of jobs, what kind of retirement would they be allowed to have? I think if you ask yourself that question, you come to the conclusion that I hope most Americans would: that they ought to be able to have those loving relationships sanctioned. I'm proud of the fact that my state has done so. I'm proud of the fact that Governor Lynch in New Hampshire is going to sign legislation which makes that possible. I believe that civil unions are appropriate and proper. I don't support same-sex marriage. And the distinction there, I think, is one of more what's available, what the traditions are, and the -- over the years. But basically that's a distinction I make -- strongly support those civil unions."
Debate Transcript [nyt]
Posted 10:15 AM EST by Andy Towle in Barack Obama, Chris Dodd, Democratic Party, Election 2008, Gay Marriage, Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, News | Permalink
Like it?
Subscribe to FREE Towleroad daily headlines with our RSS feed!
RECENT STORIES:
Comments
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
What the hell is the hangup with these morons? Oh they support "civil unions" blah blah blah, but "marriage" oh heck no!
BEWARE OF THE WORDSMITH!
If any legislation for civil unions, domestic partnership laws, et al say ANYTHING even remotely different other than stating the ridiculously obvious (man/woman, man/man, woman/woman) then it's not the same thing as marriage, not an acceptable solution, and while it may be a foothold in the future for equality, it is STILL HORSESHIT.
It's like your mother saying to you in regard to you and your siblings, "I love each and every one of you...just differently."
Posted by: FizziekruntNT | Apr 27, 2007 10:30:16 AM
Is the entire debate really because politicians are avoiding a tricky situation between legislating issues to religious institutions? Isn't a male/female marriage required by law to be registered with the government anyway? So what's the diff?
Posted by: FizziekruntNT | Apr 27, 2007 10:39:08 AM
oops, meant to say "between legistlating issues to religious institutions and remaining (and this is a joke) separate as in "separation of church and state"?
Posted by: FizziekruntNT | Apr 27, 2007 10:40:42 AM
Ah...snow white and the seven drawfs. I watched a little bit. Yes I know Bush sucks and I know we need to get out of Iraq. Can we talk about any of your other positions or plans for America?
Posted by: Matt | Apr 27, 2007 11:49:05 AM
This is the best we're going to get in this election—as morally and politically and intellectually dishonest and repulsive as it is. Our focus for the moment should be on the states and Congress, and once a Dem is elected, go after them on the issue again. Forcing them now again and again to state that they support even this limited right is to inflame the religious nazis even more and guarantee votes for a Repug. DO YOU WANT EIGHT MORE YEARS OF A REPUBLICAN IN THE WHITE HOUSE? For make no mistake, any Democrat with a chance is better than any Republican, both for gays specifically and Americans, and, in fact, the world, generally. If you still have any doubts about the alleged most gay-friendly of the Repugs, Rudy Slipperiani, check the thread below about his latest step backward further to The Dark Side. Two days ago it was "All Democrats Will Cause Americans to Be Killed By Terrorists." Now it's "I now believe even civil unions will destroy straight marriage."
He, McCain, Romney, ALL of the Repug candidates clearly think they can use the homohating religious nazis to keep the White House. Why should we be so stupid as to make it easy for them?
Posted by: Leland | Apr 27, 2007 12:08:15 PM
Watching Gravel was fantastic. Loved it!
Posted by: Aaron | Apr 27, 2007 12:40:28 PM
god that pant suit is terrible.
Posted by: adam b | Apr 27, 2007 2:49:05 PM
Watching Mike Gravel was amazing. What I wouldn't give to see him and Cheney in a belligerent old man off.
Posted by: darktruth | Apr 27, 2007 5:31:53 PM
Has anyone considered that no one can stop gay marriage? Right now in this time and place (yes, even Georgia) I can have any type religious (or non) ceremony I wish to saction my marriage to someone of the same sex. No one can stop that.
What we, as gay people, are sadly lacking are the rights that heterosexuals receive upon having said ceremony. All 1,100+ of them.
They've already lost the fight against gay marriage- they never had a chance as it wasn't in their power to deny anyway- NOW we want the rights that go with it.
Posted by: Dean | Apr 27, 2007 11:37:29 PM