U.S. Senate Candidate Charlie Crystle To Support Same-Sex Marriage

[srpantalonas]

November 11th, 2003 Lancaster, PA—US Senate Candidate Charlie Crystle today released an extended statement on the issue of same-sex marriage, taking a bold position in a conservative state known for its anti-gay legislation and the homophobic, mean-spirited, anti-gay statements of Senator Rick Santorum. “Rick Santorum represents the worst of the Republican Party and the neo-con movement. His anti-gay statements are a clear attack on good, tax-paying citizens of this country and represent either Rick’s deep emotional confusion about homosexuals or his outright disdain for all people, the Constitution, and the basic tenets of freedom in America” said Crystle.

(continued)
http://www.charliecrystle.com

[WillParkinson]

1. Good for him!

Pity he probably won't get elected.

[mmm]

2. Goodbye Charlie

if you want to be sure to not get elected, this is
a good way to go about it.

[srpantalonas]

3. I have more faith in people than that

People are tired of politicians who don't stand for anything or only tand for things when it's politically expedient. People want principles-based candidates, and you can't selectively apply principles and have them mean anything. Want a living wage? You must accept same-sex marriages. Want no discrimination based on race? You must accept same-sex marriages. Applying the principles of economic, social, and civil justice and equality of opportunity for all evenly across all issues, a candidate has a chance of getting elected for taking a consistent, princples-based approach. You may not agree with all of the outcomes, but you can count on the consistency. But you're right--this stance will define the candidacy.

[davidinalameda]

4. good for him yes but...

as a gay man, I know that people aren't ready to accept gay marriage

as much as I hate to say it, we need to get civil unions in place first and then go after full marriage benefits

[Freddie Stubbs]

6. Some states maybe,

but not Pennsylvania.

[Desperadoe]

5. That's no bold

It's political suicide in Lancaster. I know.

[srpantalonas]

7. not suicide--politically risky, but...

I still think people will recognize a pattern of principles-based positions and solutions to problems, and that they want that more than the politician who squirms around each issue to fit the popular opinion--like Specter does.

[Frodo]

8. Is this our candidate to go after Specter?

Do we have a backup plan? This seems to accomplish two things:

1) Give Specter an opportunity to look more conservative than he is - thus placating the right wing in PA that wanted to go after him in the primary.

2) Ensures that Crystle can not win a statewide race in PA. AND forces any other Democrat to address the issue (either falling in the same pit or damaging a portion of our base).


3) 1+2= PA is no longer a "toss-up". It's "Leans Republican" now unless Crystla is not our main candidate (especially if Morrill is running again as a Green). Wasn't Joe Hoeffel getting into this one?

[beyurslf]

9. Why do we have to call it "marriage"

What's wrong with civil unions that bestow all the rights and responsiblities of marriage? Marriage should be a religious term and the state should sanction civil unions for everyone.

[Frodo]

10. Because it was already called "marriage"

Nobody invented the word "marriage" to put down the gay community. It was already there. "Civil Union" is the new word we came up with to provide marriage benefits without the political suicide of giving them "marriage".

It is equally suicidal (perhaps more so) to try to re-label millions of married couples as "civil unions".

We wouldn't win a single state.

[NewJerseyDem]

11. Hoeffel is running

Joe Hoeffel is favored to comfortably win the primary over Crystle.

[srpantalonas]

12. Overreacting

Semantics matter, and maybe it's a question of semantics,but all marriage laws are around the word marriage, meaning all rights, obligatoins, and responsibilities are legislated under the term marriage. If "civil unions" contained the same rights, responsibilities and obligations, I'd have no problem supporting them.

When supporting fundamental fairness makes a candidate unelectable, it's a sad day fo America. Supporting that fairness across all issues makes it a winning play.

[Frodo]

13. Yes, semantics matter

And even if the aspects of "marriage" and "civil unions" are defined the same, a significant majority is against offering "gay marriage" but a good block of those same people WILL support "civil unions".

Call it a "distinction without a difference", but I say the "difference" is that people will elect a candidate that uses one term for his position and will NOT support a politician who uses the other. So the race would be over before it got started.

Luckily, I've learned that this was not our best horse in the race.

[srpantalonas]

14. method to the madness

I wouldn't make your mind up so quickly. It's a long way to the primary...