Monday, August 13, 2007

What Is Your Position On Gay Marriage?

Six of the Democratic candidates for president discussed issues of importance to homosexual Americans and their answers were rather predictable. The stand-out, as always, is Dennis Kucinich, the Democrat who unequivocally supports the rights of homosexuals to marry.

One panelist asked Kucinich how he could possible have become so evolved while a member of Congress.
To me, who cares? It really doesn't matter. Every one of us taking a stand has the potential to help any one of us evolve. That’s the gift we give to each other.

I do know that I have ever before heard a politician speak so eloquently!

When Kucinich was mayor of Cleveland, he was attacked for hiring a police chief who was sympathetic to gay rights.

The others, especially the front-runners, all had completely unacceptable responses.

New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson:
I’m not a scientist. I don’t see this as an issue of science or definition. I see gays and lesbians as people. I don’t like to answer definitions like that that are grounded in science or something else that I don’t understand.

The Governor doesn't understand things that are grounded in science, or other messy complicated arenas that require him to think.

Clinton described her opposition as "a personal position," adding that marriage laws should be determined by state legislatures.

I hope all my gay and lesbian friends are paying attention. Personally, Sen. Clinton is opposed to gay marriage. It's not a political issue for her. Deep inside, she is personally opposed to gay people marrying! I think Hillary Clinton might actually be the most homophobic of all the candidates; yet, she enjoys unparallelled support from the gay and lesbian community.

Clinton, Edwards and Obama all have the same position: they are opposed to gay marriage. They have some pretty language about civil unions, but they think gay people are not equal to straight people when it comes to legalizing relationships. They think gay people in a relationship are not as important as straight people in a relationship. They oppose gay marriage.

Repeat after me: Clinton, Edwards and Obama oppose gay marriage.

Say it again.

Now say it aloud.

So, if you are gay and you plan to vote for one of these three, then you are voting against yourself. You are voting for a homophobe who has no interest in protecting your constitutional rights as a free, tax-paying Americans.

On the other hand, Dennis Kucinich offers unwavering support for gay marriage.

Repeat after me: Dennis Kucinich supports gay marriage.

Repeat it again.

Now say it aloud.

Very good.

Maybe now you understand that Hillary is against gay marriage.

Read about it further:

Six Democrats at Candidate Forum Wear Shades of Gray on Gay Marriage

Visible Vote 08


Dick Mac Recommends:

A People's History of the United States
Howard Zinn


3 comments:

Liz said...

I come from a secular country. The M word is something that comes from religion, a word intrinsically associated with being in a place of worship before God and exchanging vows.

What does that have to do with 2 people being joined in the eyes of the law? To me, that is what matters. I have no problem with people refusing to allow marriage while recognising civil unions.

Steps forward sometimes entail temporary steps back. Would you rather battle because of the word marriage for another couple of decades or accept civil unions as they are now?

You're right that the senators personal feelings about the M word means they object to it on religious grounds. That's a shame but church and state are (supposed to be) separate so who cares if they are bigots towards the idea of gays being joined in a church if they favour legal equality? I care about the law, not the inner moral core of the candidates in regard to this issue.

We have civil unions here. Everyone is happy! No-one feels cheated because the word marriage has not been included in the text of it. Getting hung up on the M word is cutting your nose off to spite your face. Advances in civil rights happen in small steps, gradually, not giant leaps.

Mark Rabinowitz said...

EXCELLENY points, Liz!

dogyear said...

I'm with Liz. It's a word - "marriage". In my opinion, and perhaps some research could back this up, I believe that "marriage" was specifically established a long time ago to "bless" the union of a male and female as they were deemed fit to procreate. "Marriage" is absolutely a religious institution, and not a secular, social one. Yes, in this modern day we associate "marriage" with any ol' legalized union. Most of our parents are/were "married", and just about every heterosexual couple we know looks forward to marriage.
But considering my opinion on the original intent of "marriage", and taking into account the legal benefits that come with it. I am 110% supportive of my government having a position against allowing homosexuals to marry, but to give us exactly the same rights as a "married" couple.

What do I want? I want to be the primary person in my lover's life when he is sick and dying in the hospital. I don't want to be kicked out for not being "family". I want to have no threat of my family or his trying to claim rights to our home or possessions if one of us dies. I want tax benefits. And - I want to legally adopt (I live in FL and I cannot).

"Marriage" is a word. Why should we care if we can have "civil unions" instead of marriage? How does this affect you? Just take one for the team and consider the benefits of "civil unions" being exactly the same as "marriage". Our government cannot tell religion to condone homosexual marriage, but they can tell the nation that from a federal standpoint, we ARE equal citizens by granting "civil unions".

Please, let us see t he benefit in these positions of democrats, and not cherry pick their beliefs if those beliefs ARE in line with our needs. And, again, our needs are not "marriage". Our needs are the rights and benefits that come with it.