07/24/2007
Democrats Respond on Gay Marriage at the CNN/YouTube Debate
The Democratic candidates trotted out answers we've heard before on the question of gay marriage at last night's YouTube debate.
In the first question posed to the candidates, Brooklyn lesbians Mary and Jen asked if the candidates would allow them to marry.
KUCINICH: "Mary and Jen, the answer to your question is yes. And let me tell you why. Because if our Constitution really means what it says, that all are created equal, if it really means what it says, that there should be equality of opportunity before the law, then our brothers and sisters who happen to be gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgendered should have the same rights accorded to them as anyone else, and that includes the ability to have a civil marriage ceremony. Yes, I support you. And welcome to a better and a new America under a President Kucinich administration."
CHRIS DODD: "I'd simply ask the audience to ask themselves the question that [my wife] Jackie and I have asked: How would I want my two daughters treated if they grew up and had a different sexual orientation than their parents? Good jobs, equal opportunity, to be able to retire, to visit each other, to be with each other, as other people do. So I feel very strongly, if you ask yourself the question, "How would you like your children treated if they had a different sexual orientation than their parents?," the answer is yes. They ought to have that ability in civil unions. I don't go so far as to call for marriage. I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. But my state of Connecticut, the state of New Hampshire, have endorsed civil unions. I strongly support that. But I don't go so far as marriage."
BILL RICHARDSON: "I would do what is achievable. What I think is achievable is full civil unions with full marriage rights. I would also press for you a hate crimes act in the Congress. I would eliminate 'don't ask/don't tell' in the military. If we're going to have in our military men and women that die for this country, we shouldn't give them a lecture on their sexual orientation. I would push for domestic partnership laws, nondiscrimination in insurance and housing. I would also send a very strong message that, in my administration, I will not tolerate any discrimination on the basis of race, gender, or sexual orientation."
The second question, which I posted on Towleroad last week, came from Reverend Reggie Longcrier, to John Edwards — "So why is it still acceptable to use religion to deny gay American their full and equal rights?":
EDWARDS: "I think Reverend Longcrier asks a very important question, which is whether fundamentally -- whether it's right for any of our faith beliefs to be imposed on the American people when we're president of the United States. I do not believe that's right. I feel enormous personal conflict about this issue. I want to end discrimination. I want to do some of the things that I just heard Bill Richardson talking about -- standing up for equal rights, substantive rights, civil unions, the thing that Chris Dodd just talked about. But I think that's something everybody on this stage will commit themselves to as president of the United States. But I personally have been on a journey on this issue. I feel enormous conflict about it. As I think a lot of people know, Elizabeth spoke -- my wife Elizabeth spoke out a few weeks ago, and she actually supports gay marriage. I do not. But this is a very, very difficult issue for me. And I recognize and have enormous respect for people who have a different view of it."
As you can see, Edwards pretty much dodged the real question, however, Longcrier's question and Edwards' answer were both praised by Faith In America Executive Director Rev. Jimmy Creech.
Said Creech: "In answering Rev. Longcrier's question, Senator Edwards made an important commitment to not allow his personal religious beliefs to restrict the rights of any American. We congratulate him and encourage all leaders and candidates to give serious consideration to this issue and how they will represent the interests of this nation. Millions of gay Americans struggle every-day against the misuse of religion to perpetuate prejudice and inequality. These individuals don't just fight bigotry when they're denied the right to marry their partners, they combat it on the street, in the workplace, in their children's schools, and in every other aspect of their lives. Religion-based prejudices pervade and profoundly shape the daily experiences of these people and I'd like to commend my friend Rev. Longcrier for furthering the national dialogue for those and all Americas on this critically important subject."
According to a SurveyUSA Instant Poll, most thought Clinton "won" the debate, but Joseph Biden made a big impression with viewers as well.
Politics TV has the full debate, question by question.
Full debate transcript here.
YouTube video debate actually worked [nyt]
(video source: hrc)
Sphere: Related ContentPosted 8:40 AM EST by Andy in Bill Richardson, Chris Dodd, Democratic Party, Dennis Kucinich, Election 2008, Gay Marriage, John Edwards, Religion | Permalink
Like it?
Subscribe to FREE Towleroad daily headlines with our RSS feed!
RECENT STORIES:
In regards to Edwards, after he gave the answer you have listed, Anderson called on the preacher who asked the question in the audience who said he was not satisfied with the answer. Edwards then elaborated that as a President it is not okay to make natioanl decisions based on one's personal religious beliefs.
Posted by: ScottL | Jul 24, 2007 8:51:03 AM
can we make a concerted effort to stop calling it "gay marriage"? if we'd start saying just "marriage" and insist on that, we could break down people's words and intentions better, which is what we're trying to do here anyway. semantics matter in the debate, they force people to examine their beliefs and not use sleight of hand/mouth to get out of contradictory positions.
Posted by: cunning linguist | Jul 24, 2007 9:19:12 AM
Hooray!
Whether it be based on a cultural, traditional, religious, or biological viewpoint, most presidential candidates, with the exception of Dennis Kucinich, support equal rights for same sex long-term couples but they would NOT call it marriage.
This is, of course, as it should be.
If militant gays and lesbians would acquiesce to receiving the rights but dropping the marriage banner, they'd be equal. Congress can do this if they put their minds to it -- it doesn't even matter what the future president does (assuming his veto is overridden).
Posted by: Stephen | Jul 24, 2007 9:19:17 AM
re: Stephen. I'm not sure I follow.
It's ok to have the "rights" but not the label? why not? Assume for a moment, that the government (state and/or federal) wanted to expand the benefits of "marriage" but chose not to do the same thing for those other relationships. Poof - a state of inequality exists once again.
If everyone is entitled to the full fruits of what it means to be an American, then everyone should enjoy those fruits.
Posted by: hoya86 | Jul 24, 2007 9:46:27 AM
I am sick and tired of hearing about Edwards' "enormous personal conflict" over marriage because he was raised Baptist. Too many of us have been wounded by the Baptist church for me to give him a pass on that. Why does he have an "enormous personal conflict" with the idea of equality under the law for all Americans? If he truly believes, as he said, that it is not all right for a President to make decisions regarding individual rights based on his religious beliefs, why does he still oppose marriage equality?
Whatever ugly lessons Edwards learned growing up in a small town North Carolina Baptist church have no place in this important public policy debate. It's time for Edwards to grow up on this issue.
Posted by: sam | Jul 24, 2007 9:49:22 AM
we should have called it "domestic partnership" from the beginning. "Marriage" is a church sacrament, which explains why the hetties go so upset and besides we don't need to have anything to do with that. Civil union, domestic partnership, domestic registration, now that's more like it.
Posted by: the queen | Jul 24, 2007 9:57:18 AM
I largely agree with The Queen, but I think it needs to be taken a step further. If a heterosexual couple does not get married in a church (e.g., in Vegas, at a Justice of the Peace, in the "cheap showiness of nature", etc.), then I think their coupling must be classified as a civil union - with all of the same benefits of course.
I think if more people actually realized how many straight people in our country were not really in a religious "marriage", some minds could turn regarding the semantics of it all.
Posted by: Rey | Jul 24, 2007 10:03:57 AM
Stephen,
I am pretty sure that everyone on here knows your views on marriage vs. civil unions. Why do you insist on repeating yourself? Don't you have a nice garden to tend to? (Make sure to keep the annuals separate from the perennials).
Posted by: jmg | Jul 24, 2007 10:11:00 AM
Im pretty sure Obama had a response to this question too.....?
Posted by: Sean | Jul 24, 2007 10:14:49 AM
Rey makes an extremely compelling point. If straight people are so dead set against us using the term 'marriage' because what we are doing is nor a religious rite, they should be made to do the same thing. How many people do you know that got 'married' at city hall or by a judge? If millions of straight people were forced to give up the label of marriage, maybe it would make them think twice about what they are doing to us.
Posted by: MT | Jul 24, 2007 10:15:49 AM
I am soo very tired of Edwards and his "inner struggle" with gay marriage. Just give your same bullshit faith based answer you fucking twat! If the rest of the world turned gay tomorrow and the only way he could stay in the running was to change his answer about gay marriage, he and the rest of those bobble heads would do it in a heartbeat. Im glad that Kucinich and Richardson could give an answer without giving a "pitty party" personal bedtime story like Dodd and Edwards.
The argument that "marriage" is somehow beyond homosexuals is based on a pointless reason: the fact that one individual is male and one is female. In heterosexual marriage the government and church do not police whether couples are fulfilling there duties that differentiate them from gay couples. They do not have to give birth to or raise a child. They do not have to marry for love or even stay in this "holy sanctified" union for more than 24 hours. Heterosexuals need not be married in a church or be joined by a priest. They need only have one cock and one pussy that could be as old and useless as dirt.
If heterosexual marriages were undeniably different in function from those of a gay couple I might see the argument. But saying that something is too righteous and pristine (and in effect pointing out my filthy unworthiness) when it holds no weight other than a personal belief is a bigoted elitism that I would expect perhaps from a private club not the government.
Posted by: Toto | Jul 24, 2007 10:41:05 AM
If Edwards can't even swiftly deal with his personal conflict how can he be trusted with all the other conflicts a President will be dealing with...
Posted by: ZGL | Jul 24, 2007 11:14:13 AM
It will be great when all of the Debates are over and G.L.B.T. Americans can civilly-wed their partners under a President and Constitution that stands by all.
Posted by: Michael | Jul 24, 2007 11:40:22 AM
i am not one who has jumped on the bandwagon of any of the presidential candidates. i've been sitting on the sidelines observing and soaking it all in. i will say that out of all the candidates i am most impressed with edwards' position and passion. i'm not a one issue voter but his stance on marriage will keep me from supporting him in the primary. if he makes it to the general election, well, that's a different story.
my point is that, but for his marriage beliefs, i could be out right now going door to door, manning booths, putting up signs, talking up his run for the presidency and doing a lot of local groundwork and networking for him. but, alas...
Posted by: psgoodguy | Jul 24, 2007 11:41:15 AM
In response to Obama's answer on leaving it up to the churches to decide on marriage: churches do not issue marriage licenses to straight couples, the state does. If he wants it that way, then the state can give straight couples a civil union and then let them beg their church to allow them to marry. See how they like it. Also Obama did not answer why banning gay marriage is different than banning interracial marriage.
Posted by: Greg | Jul 24, 2007 11:43:13 AM
Edwards is a pandering fool.
Hiding behind the cloak of "my strongly held personal beliefs" is bullshit and he knows it.
Having said that, Obama's answer to the question wasn't any better. Watching him trying to tapdance on the head of a pin made me want to barf.
Posted by: Frank L | Jul 24, 2007 12:05:05 PM
Andy, please don't give Joe Biden any credit. The man, in essence, is the same as John "Pander Bear" McCain.
He sold his constituents out to credit card and debt companies. His idenitfication tag on TV needs to read (D - MBNA).
Posted by: Tread | Jul 24, 2007 12:15:03 PM
I don't buy this "baptist" upbringing internal struggle. The implication is that Edwards is conflicted because his religious upbringing equates gay relationships with sin. The New Testament condemns divorce followed by remarriage. Does he have a problem with the no fault divorce laws throughout the country? I suspect not.
Posted by: luke | Jul 24, 2007 12:22:47 PM
While marriage isn't the only issue that concerns me, Kucinich is the only one who is leading on this issue at all. The rest of the candidates are all fluffing it while trying to sound like they're not. Especially interesting is Obama supporting seperate but equal laws (notice--he's not suggesting the government get out of marriage completely). On this issue, Kucinich is the only one I could vote for without holding my nose.
Posted by: db | Jul 24, 2007 12:30:25 PM
Stephen,
As I pointed out to you in a response to one of your posts last week, the problem with gay people settling for equal marriage rights without the ability to use the word marriage is that without the word marriage we don't have equal rights. As UPS has eloquently pointed out through their refusal to grant insurance benefits to the partner of one of their gay employees, a civil union is not recognized in the same way a marriage is recognized. Without marriage, GLBT people and their citizens will continue to experience discrimination. If you can't see that then you are far more stupid than I thought you were.
xo,
peterparker
Posted by: peterparker | Jul 24, 2007 12:41:57 PM
"True Christianity does not support homosexuality. How then, can it ever support marriage of the same sexes?" -- STEPHEN (on the UPS thread)
There you have it boys and girls; our friendly neighborhood compassion troll finally let his true colors shine through.
Remember this statement every time STEPHEN comments. It helps to put his ad nauseam anti marriage equality rants into context.
Posted by: Zeke | Jul 24, 2007 1:11:59 PM
MARRIAGE AND RELIGION
American politicians need to be asked a simple question: is "MARRIAGE" a religious term or is it a civil, secular term. If it is religious, then the state, or the federal government, has no business issuing MARRIAGE licenses to anyone - straight or gay. It would violate the separation of church and state doctrine.
If MARRIAGE can be a term used to described an entirely secular, civil contract between the state and two consenting adults, then
politicians should tell the churches to back off.
Why is nobody bringing up this issue to the debates?
Posted by: ReasonBased | Jul 24, 2007 1:46:45 PM
Helloooo. Can no one read? Is no one listening? Edwards is the first and only to say he would do nothing as President to try to block gay marriage!!!! " I will not do that when Rev. Longcrier's suspicious question of Edwards ONLY is having its intended effect—distracting people from the fact that the other leads have the SAME personal position regardless of what denomination it came from. Stop taking the bait, and applaud Edwards for being the only lead to promise to SEPARATE his Church-based beliefs from his obligations as head of State. Paging Hillary, Barack, Bill R, Chris, and Joe!!! And when you get Barack on the phone, please ask him to stop talking out of both sides of his mouth about equality. He, better than anyone up there, should understand it's both a semantic and moral absolute. Civil unions are NOT equal to marriage no matter how many "rights" he checks off.
Posted by: Leland | Jul 24, 2007 1:55:09 PM
Peterparker;
As I have said on numerous occasions, IF the state or federal governments wanted to get civil union laws passed that afforded virtually all the same benefits, they could get it done. Drop the marriage banner and the road would be much further paved.
Zeke:
True colors? I thought my perspective on this was deduced by readers all along. Apparently not by you, however. While I love gays and lesbians, I don't agree that they can get married. I base that in part (largely) from a religious perspective -- but the debate can be made sans religion -- again, as I've posted (ad nauseum, correct?) on this blogsite.
Posted by: Stephen | Jul 24, 2007 1:57:29 PM
You are right about ONE thing, Stephen: you are nauseating. Make that a "nauseating bigot."
Posted by: Leland | Jul 24, 2007 2:05:16 PM
...BRAVO, TOTO...(see comment above), yours is the post du jour on this topic, well said...we're not in fuckin' Kansas anymore....!
Posted by: yeahisaidit | Jul 24, 2007 2:39:19 PM
by TOTO:
"If heterosexual marriages were undeniably different in function from those of a gay couple I might see the argument."
A same sex couple and a man and a woman aren't FUNCTIONALLY different? How is it that a same sex couple can produce offspring?
Posted by: Stephen | Jul 24, 2007 3:10:46 PM
Stephen: You're being intentionally obtuse or else you're just a big dumbass.
My dad married his new wife 3 years ago. I know for a fact that he no longer produces sperm and I'm fairly assuming that his wife no longer drops eggs monthly.
Why can they get married and I can't marry my partner? He and I have been together over 11 years; Dad and Wife only 4.
Posted by: Rey | Jul 24, 2007 3:24:02 PM
We've been down Towleroad with Stephen and his invincible ignorance before. No point trying to give him examples that so easily demolish his positions. He is our retarded Rainman who will just keep repeating the same thing no matter what anyone says. "Gay marriage is bad and these are definitely not my underwear." The difference is that the character in the movie was an idiot savant whereas Stephen is simply an idiot. By choice. Just leave him alone to watch Judge Wampler in peace.
Posted by: Leland | Jul 24, 2007 3:39:44 PM
The corporation of religion controls every aspect of our government. The money that it pumps into the pockets of greedy so called religious politicians is what's keeping gays in the sub human category. What happened to separation of church and state? I had a wonderful boyfriend who I would have loved to have married. He was so afraid how god perceived him. He thought he was cursed because he was gay. He worried so much about what straight people thought of him. He had no doubt in his mind that god did not love him. Well, I guess god loved him more since he downed a bottle of sleeping pills and never woke up. Sorry if I offend anyone, but religion is going to be the downfall of mankind, gay or straight. I don't want to praise and idolize something that hates me because I happen to love another man.
Posted by: Zazou | Jul 24, 2007 10:04:19 PM
Screw Edwards. I am tired of hearing my wife is for it but I am not but I am on a personal journey blah blah blah....
Why is this? To try and confuse? Maybe my wife will talk me into it in the future? (i.e. I will support it when the general populace does.)
Drop it. Edward's wife is not running for Pres., he is. Just come out and say you are not for it because you are a coward and it is politically expediant, just like most of the Dems.
Posted by: Mike | Jul 24, 2007 11:30:03 PM
I get poison darts hurled at me for the perspective I have on this topic.
Well if Bill Richardson, John Edwards, Barack Obama, Hilary Clinton and a long list of intelligent and influential people believe as I do (and they DO!), you can all refer to me as Rainman, troll or whatever other misnomer you want to apply.
Why don't you all fire off letters to these presidential candidates with the same words and tone you fire away at me?
I have examined my soul on this topic (as I'm sure the aforementioned have) and feel no conflict within my being.
Once again, if y'all drop the rant to have the push for equality called "gay marriage" (people of the same sex were not MADE to be married) you'd be alot further on down the road.
Posted by: Stephen | Jul 25, 2007 1:50:51 AM
If it's not called marriage then it's not really "equal" is it?
Posted by: lou | Jul 25, 2007 2:46:51 AM
can we all just agree that stephen is a total tool? perhaps then we can have a more reasoned and elevated discussion on the matter. i think that we all agree that the ideal is "marriage". but as the late, great molly ivins (that good old texas broad) used to say, "politics is half a loaf." should we approach this issue with an unyielding attitude? no. the worst of the dems running for office are, by leaps, better than the best of the repugs running for office. i think it better that we concentrate on getting a dem -- any dem -- elected prez. not one of them, to a man or woman, would veto a bill granting civil unions to gay or lesbian couples. i subscribe to the incrementalist point of veiw, which is that we win the war by winning the battles. in 2008, civil unions. in 2010 or 2012, marriage for same-sex couples. we should bide our time, lest we throw the baby out with the bath water.
Posted by: nic | Jul 25, 2007 3:41:53 AM
An article regarding the case against gay marriage, from, of all places, M.I.T. in Cambridge MA! (And it keeps religion out of the debate).
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1082190/posts
Posted by: Stephen | Jul 25, 2007 7:45:01 AM
stephen, the "article" you cite is an opinion piece written by a student for "the tech," a student newspaper at m.i.t. it does not have the imprimatur of m.i.t. as an institution. further, it was then posted at freerepublic.com, a right-wing blog that bills itself as "the premier conservative news forum." the student is merely regurgitating the same fatuous arguments against gay marriage we have all heard before. whom do you think you are kidding with this red herring? you're like the critter in the whack-a-mole game. you keep popping up only to get beat down again and again...
Posted by: nic | Jul 25, 2007 1:20:28 PM
We can get married. Everywhere in the country we can.
If we have the strength and desire to bond and commit to another, there are plenty of religious and secular important persons who are proud to officiate. We have communities to witness and celebrate. And we can have great parties planned to honor the most important aspect of marriage--that decision to bond and operate as a unit in the community.
There is no law that can "defend" marriage against that any more. We're too strong and have too much support.
What we are fighting for is the significantly more cut and dry and winnable issue: that the government should treat its citizens equally and must apportion benefits, rights, and responsibilities equally. When we talk about "marriage" we're giving it up to them and are asking permission for something we can already do and should be claiming as such.
The question should be, "My partner and i have had our marriage recognized and supported by our family, community, and the imaginary friend we pray too," what will you do to ensure that we can share the same rights and responsibilities as all other Americans?"
When posed this way, we don't have to hear about John Edwards confusion and lack of clarity. He can keep that at home and just deal with the issue of equal rights. And as we've seen in NJ, it's got to be marriage or it won't be equal.
(Optimally of course, strip marriage of all civil benefits somewhat preferred, but equality at least putting us all together in the same mess.)
Posted by: Mike | Jul 26, 2007 2:36:36 AM
Barack understands that religions DO have a right to their beliefs. However, Barack also understands that SOME religions accept gay marriage. Barack also says in his youtube debate that as a president he is not using his religous beliefs to deterimine law.
THE following are HRC statements the top three gave a few months ago:
Clinton says
""I would like to see federal benefits extended to
same sex couples that meet certain standards.""
""I support repealing the provision of DOMA that may
prohibit the federal government from providing
benefits to people in states that recognize same sex
marriage. ""
""I strongly support ensuring people in stable,
long-term same sex relationships have full equality of
benefits, rights, and responsibilities.""
Clintons above three statements have me concerned
she is side stepping in what she says as not
to commit to anything officially.
she would amend the provisions of DOMA in certain
standards. Her husband and her were the ones who got
us DOMA which Barack has wanted to erase ever since
the clintons had it installed as law. Barack obama
and John edwards want to repeal DOMA which is good for
us.
"Obama is the only candidate who supports long-term,
same-sex relationships regardless of length of time
those couples have been together.
Edwards
""I believe that couples in committed, long‐term
relationships should have the same rights,
benefits, and responsibilities, whether they are
straight couples or same‐Sex couples.""
Edwards above statement, is the only one in the area of
civil unions i am concerned about. Because straight
people don't have to be in long term committed
relationships to get married / civil unions.
However, edwards does want to repeal the DOMA bill
that the clintons levied on us in the 90's, which is a
good thing for edwards.
JOHN EDWARDS
http://a4.g.akamai.net/f/4/19675/0/newmill.download.akamai.com/19677/anon.newmediamill/pdfs/edwards.pdf
HILLARY CLINTON
http://a4.g.akamai.net/f/4/19675/0/newmill.download.akamai.com/19677/anon.newmediamill/pdfs/clinton.pdf
BARACK OBAMA
http://a4.g.akamai.net/f/4/19675/0/newmill.download.akamai.com/19677/anon.newmediamill/pdfs/obama.pdf
Posted by: DanielleClarke | Jul 27, 2007 1:38:52 PM
MAYBE OBAMA SHOULD BE ASKED ABOUT THE "JIM CROW" LAWS....
Posted by: alan brickman | Jul 28, 2007 8:57:48 PM