07/10/2007
Democratic Presidential Candidates to Have First-Ever Gay Debate
The Human Rights Campaign's Joe Solmonese and Melissa Etheridge will question Democratic candidates in Los Angeles in a first-ever debate on gay issues, sponsored by LOGO and HRC. It will take place on August 9 and be broadcast live on LOGO as well as stream live at their website.
According to 365gay.com, "the panelists in a statement said they plan to cover a range of issues including relationship recognition, marriage equality, workplace fairness, the military, hate crimes, HIV/AIDS and other important issues."
In addition to questions from Solmonese and Etheridge, others will be able to participate by submitting questions through LOGOonline and HRC.
Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, and Barack Obama have all confirmed they will take part in the debate.
UPDATE: Chris Dodd, Mike Gravel, and Dennis Kucinich have climbed on board.
Posted 5:55 PM EST by Andy Towle in Barack Obama, Democratic Party, Election 2008, 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.
HRC: Rosie O'Donnell would have been a better choice for moderator.
Posted by: bullydawg | Jul 10, 2007 11:28:33 PM
PLEASE again Leland with his knee jerk off comments about HRC (Champagne Fund?!!?) you really ARE still living in the 80's buddy.
No matter what HRC does your old as piss addled brain spits out the same crap. AS for total waste of gay dollars why don't you take your venom and use it to defeat our communities real enemies...seriously a good therapist will help you lose your hard on for HRC bashing and help you with your Andrew Sullivan loving Chris Crain fetishim.
And maybe the grass roots organizations of the gay community would be more effective if you put your money and your mouth where your arthritic fingers so carelessly continue to bore the hell out of logic and reason.
Mary get a grip, move on, find a new song...
Posted by: MCnNYC | Jul 10, 2007 11:32:07 PM
Having had the pleasure of interviewing Melissa Etheridge on two different occasions, I can say that she is more than qualified to be part of this debate. She is a marvelous, passionate woman who "came out" at the zenith of her career, and she's never looked back. She inspired many lesbian women to do the same. Those who cast stones at her because she's a celebrity should look in the mirror and ask " what have I accomplished?" Probably not much...
Posted by: Paul Peterson | Jul 11, 2007 12:19:14 AM
In this instance, I don't care that Melissa Etheridge isn't a journalist or politician, as if there is any virtue to either of those professions in this day and age. All I care is that she is a smart, caring, passionate, well-spoken and honest person who is deeply involved with gay rights. I am ecstatic that she's one of the moderators.
Posted by: Perceive | Jul 11, 2007 1:05:35 AM
I've never felt as alienated from the "Gay rights cause" then i have after reading this. I'm not really interested in all of the candidates bending over backwards to say the broadest thing possible to please the HRC... and even worse, Melissa Etheridge. Since when is a musician the moderator for a debate? They'll just avoid the questions like they have been already, and the HRC and Melissa Etheridge will praise their "bravery." Step forward or step back, i can't decide.
Posted by: JoshEV | Jul 11, 2007 1:17:44 AM
The HRC is a front for Log Cabin Republicans. They're the most corporate sucking queers in all the land. It's because of the HRC that we STILL don't have queer equality in the U.S.
Posted by: C Balls | Jul 11, 2007 1:28:36 AM
The HRC is an east coast, in-bred urban gay elite cocktail club, sucking up to fame, power and fortune, jetting from coast to coast without a clue as to what gay lives are like out here in the hinterland nor a prayer about ever learning how to take up THEIR cause or hear their voices. What HRC wants is the right to take their expenses off their taxes and to ensure that gay rights never breeches the wall of inequality. OUR issues? They aren't any different than "straight" issues. A job you can't be fired from for reasons unrelated to performance, healthcare, education, decent, safe communities to live in. Freedom to marry another consenting adult without governmental interference. The right to have some fun and enjoy life without some moralistic jackass in your face. If one could point to anything HRC has actually accomplished in actual gay rights, well I'd be happy to send them some MORE of my money.
Posted by: WoodyCPM | Jul 11, 2007 1:42:13 AM
I don't care if it's Melissa Etheridge or The Flying Nun who asks the questions as long as the right questions are asked. What's important is to ask these candidates, 'If you become president and if you support a ban on Don't Ask Don't Tell for example, what are you going to do about it? Will you issue an Executive Order overturning the discrimanitory policy and allow gays to serve openly in the military or will you wait for a consensus in the congress and senate to do it? That's where you'll see who really supports gay rights. Hillary Clinton needs to be asked why she waited years to speak out against her husband's caving into the GOP about his Don't Ask Don't Tell law too as well as does she agree with his Defense of Marriage Act. Don't castigate the questioneer. Let's see what they ask first.
Posted by: Steamboater | Jul 11, 2007 4:21:05 AM
With Melissa Ethridge as moderator I've little faith this will be a debate of substance (can you say 'softballs'?).
The rhetoric will be shallow and talk is cheap.
Bottom line: We'll hear platitudes with an edge to them, but nothing of substance will come out of this.
Posted by: Stephen | Jul 11, 2007 4:35:07 AM
Why not Rachel Maddow of Air America? A lesbian and Rhodes scholar and incisice commentator?
HRC continues to be such a huge embarassment.
Posted by: Michael | Jul 11, 2007 6:14:33 AM
Why is it the Self Hating right is ALWAYS out to Destroy anyone and everyone that doesn't go along with their line of thinking.
Reading some of these notes makes one wonder about people the right is under this mysterous delusion that you have to have a degree oops now it must be a specialty no no it must be all the above with intense research and national and international credentials. What the hell gives.
Understanding the right not being able to think because they have not been given the permisssion to do so, they should not talk to people they do not know or people from other religions unless supervised by adults. My self I want my grand children to watch these debates if they are 13 or over and I want them to discuss it with me and their parents at the dinner table. I do not want them associating with the RIGHT or the CHRISTIANS both who are VERY EVIL SELF SERVEING and SELF HATING. I want my grand children to be able to except people for who and what they are not what some GAESTAPO NAZIS republican chrisian groups says they should be.
So let the debates and talks begin let there be a new beginning in this country and get rid of the TRASH that is there now.
Posted by: DDA | Jul 11, 2007 6:27:10 AM
More bla bla bla from the big guns....
Kucinich '08
Posted by: Cynthia | Jul 11, 2007 7:42:18 AM
Who knew that questioning why Melissa Etheridge is part of this qualifies as pissing and bitching? Well I'm properly chastised. This is a wonderful event and I can't wait to see it.
Posted by: James | Jul 11, 2007 8:19:47 AM
PATHETIC THIS SITE TAKES WHAT IT WANTS AND IF IT DOES NOT LIKE WHAT YOU SAY IT DOES NOT POST IT
Posted by: lisa V | Jul 11, 2007 8:38:01 AM
I don't mind Melissa Etheridge... I like her music sometimes. I also don't mind HRC, even though I usually don't think they're terribly effective. The fact that the main presidential candidates for either party are participating in a debate about GLBT issues is wonderful and a sign of great progress.
That said, I don't think it's a good idea to have Melissa Etheridge moderate the debate. There is enough blurring of the lines between politics and low-brow entertainment. Putting an entertainer with a clear and unapologetic bias in this kind of position is not a good way to ensure honest and equitable debate about any subject, and plays right into the hands of the Republicans who love to tell their loyal little sheep that Dems are beholden to "the liberal entertainment media elite" (whatever that means).
I just think the presidency is a serious issue, and that the moderators selected by either party should have gravitas and credibility. (I know, I live in a dream world.)
Posted by: Brian | Jul 11, 2007 8:55:06 AM
sad there's not a dynamo "out" there more journalistic than Etheridge, and too bad no-one watches Logo... but keep your eyes on the ball here...
the concern must remain on the questions posed by the HRC.
the questions must be direct and cover gay issues both national (hate crimes, DADT, marriage, etc) and also INTERNATIONAL... the HRC needs to ask why if the U.S. throws its bully weight around the world, why Washington never speaks up and positions itself regarding foreign execution of gays ?!
Posted by: A.J. | Jul 11, 2007 8:57:36 AM
First: Lisa V....this site does post what you say, as long as you are articulate and within the boundaries of constructive conversation.
Second: History is being made folks. Human beings by our very nature are not perfect. HRC, The Task Force, GLSEN, the ACLU,GLAAD, and a myriad of other organizations and their dedicated employees and volunteers, do not wake up each day trying to figure out how to makes things worse for GLBT peoples. They, as we all do, make mistakes and I do not agree with all of their stategies, but they do work hard to help advance dialogue and keep our issues in front of the decision makers, while trying to pass laws, legislative initiaves, and ordinances that help us all.
Let us not forget that just a mere 15 years ago we were all battling to just get HIV/AIDS on people's radar screen to try and save a whole generation of gay people, let alone human rights for GLBT people.
May I suggest that each of you who finds fault with a particular organization's approach, style, and efforts volunteer your time to helping that organization implement a vision that is more consistent with your views to attain full human and constitutional rights at the local, city, state, and national level for all GLBT people's.
Your energy, smarts, wo/man power, and time is what all of these organizations need most (yes they want money too...but the other needs are more important).
It is each of us helping in the trenches, on the phone, in the streets, and at events where we all can make a true difference and only then can we be more helpful guides to the decision makers at places like LOGO and GLAAD, HRC etc...
A debate with 3, to date, of the leading contenders for President of The United States speaking about GLBT rights is long overdue, BUT it is here! What we do with this momentum is for us now to act upon.
May I suggest writing a brief note to Brian Graden (LOGO) and Joe Solmonese (HRC) thanking them for working hard to make this event happen, and if you disagree with some things about the debate let them know! I am sure they would love to hear from you.
Knowing what is right is reserved for those who only see their way as the way, and those are the people we should fear, pursuing what is right in conjunction with the efforts and spirit of others is perfect.
Respectfully submitted,
Chip Arndt
President, Freedom Democrats
Posted by: Chip Arndt | Jul 11, 2007 9:16:20 AM
Funny...I don't think HRC will ask my questions at the debate ....
-Would you support legislation that would compel the FBI and other agencies to release any and all documents concerning monitoring of AIDS, LGBT and leather/sm activists organizations from the 1930s through the 1990s?
-Would you support oversight of the National Endowment for the Arts, the Library of Congress and the Smithsonian for fair and equal funding of LGBT artworks and historical issues for education of the general public?
-Would you support legislation creating a national community standard for obscenity in order for online vendors to be able to sell LGBT and leather/sm related publications and materials to adults in certain Southern states which effectively ban using such sales and prohibit freedom of speech for certain sectors of the LGBT community by using "community standards" of obscenity?
-Would you support economic isolation of countries with extremist governments that actively disregard the basic human rights of LGBTs?
-If you support the full integration of LGBTs into the military, would you support the removal of Pentagon administrators and military leaders who would refuse to implement this policy?
-A large number of LGBTs and others in this country prefer to remain single. What would you propose as the next president that would make tax codes, employment and other facets of American life fairer and more equitable for single adults?
-Democratic leaders have made many promises to LGBTs in the past about hate crimes legislation, workplace protection, integration of LGBTs into the military, freedom of speech issues, and the rights of LGBTs to enter into marriage. After so many promises and so little progress on these issues by Democratic leaders in Congress or the Executive branch over several decades, why should an LGBT vote for you or donate to your campaign based on your position on these issues?
Posted by: coolcatdaddy | Jul 11, 2007 9:18:47 AM
Very good Chip. Yes, we have come a long way in 15 years. Many of my friends who have died over the past 15 years would NEVER have thought that we would be having this debate on a national level. We owe it to our past to look to the future. This is when it can make a difference. By banding to together for a common goal...equality! And to those who are eager to criticize Miss Etheridge have not seen her talk in public and debate the issues dealing with our struggles. And why not blur the lines of entertainment and politics? If Reagan can become president, if Fred Thompson can run for president, if Sony Bono can become mayor, if anyone who is dedicated and smart and cares about the world can run for office, I think Milessa can debate a few hard questions! The big question will be the answers that are given by our candidates. BTW... you will NEVER see this debate with the Republicans.
Posted by: tommy | Jul 11, 2007 10:09:55 AM
It's ridiculous that we are not "allowed" to complain about the poor choice of moderator for this historic debate.
The debate is indeed historic, and this lame choice of moderator lessens its impact and makes it into a trifle. That is something worth "bitching" about.
Rachel Maddow. Ann Northrop (now SHE would be a kick ass moderator). There are better choices than a politically active musician.
I somehow don't see NBC CBS or ABC picking Bruce Springsteen to moderate their debates...
This is simply an entertainment ploy to rack up gay votes, and from the looks of the comments here, it's working.
Posted by: Gregg | Jul 11, 2007 10:45:24 AM
Okay, we now know that Gravel (and Kucinich?) was not invited to the debate because, according to HRC, his campaign fundraising isn't up to snuff.
How do you expect to get anything out of the candidates at this debate if the 3 annointed participants all have basically the same positions on gay rights? Wouldn't the conversation be a little livelier if it involved a candidate or two who actually support full equality?
Funny, I suspect if NARAL were hosting a debate among the Republican candidates, Giuliani would be the first person to get an invitation.
Posted by: 24play | Jul 11, 2007 10:47:19 AM
24Play - I believe you answered your own question. "How do you expect to get anything out of the candidates at this debate if the 3 annointed participants all have basically the same positions on gay rights?" This debate isn't about revealing anything new. It's smoke an mirrors, sadly set up by HRC, to garner gay votes without giving us real substance.
The debate would definitely be more interesting, and more of a true 'debate' if we we witnessing a range of viewpoints. Don't expect to see that though. Not with the "hard hitting" Melissa Etheridge at the helm.
Holy cow - what a joke.
Posted by: Gregg | Jul 11, 2007 11:05:25 AM
How about hoping that questions will get wheel's turning and people thinking. The past presidential debates have made the candidates think through their positions and develop them into something worth voting for. If nothing else this debate is for the candidates. They need to recognize what they are saying when they deny equality, and that people are paying attention. I hope to see some of them recognize the need for further equality then just a civil union law. Maybe this can be achieved by asking the candidates the difference between saying civil union and separate but equal.
STOP BEING SO NEGATIVE!
Posted by: Matthew | Jul 11, 2007 11:34:32 AM
Would all you whiney babies prefer The Log Cabin Repugs?? Geeze!
Posted by: Sandy | Jul 11, 2007 11:46:17 AM
Oh, look. Chris Crain just pointed out that this "historic" gay debate is not "one step forward" as so many of the grateful posters above have claimed, but actually TWO steps back:
http://citizenchris.typepad.com/citizenchris/2007/07/historic-presid.html
Whiners: 1
Kumbaya-ers: 0
If HRC wants to take even a baby step forward with this event (not easy to do since showing it only on LOGO is so limiting), they should cancel Solmonese and Etheridge make two out, gay journalists (perhaps one from mainstream media and the other gay media) moderators. That's the only way this could be considered a step forward.
And, of course, they have to invite all the presidential candidates from both parties.
Posted by: 24play | Jul 11, 2007 12:17:20 PM