Hillary Clinton does not support equal rights for gays.

[bunnies]

Barack Obama does not support equal rights for gays.
John Edwards does not support equal rights for gays.

On equality, all three fail.

Everyone could parse and twist statements and/or events for or against each and every one of them. But at the heart of the matter, they are no different. On equality, all three fail.

Yes. Barack Obama gave an insane "ex-gay" a platform on which to speak. Yet on the other hand he convinced an anti-gay preacher to campaign for a relatively http://citizenchris.typepad.com/citizenchris/2007/10/big-tents-go-bo.html">pro-gay, candidate. Think about that. He made Donnie look like a fool, imho. Though I too was initially disgusted.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=2612368">Meanwhile, camp Clinton doesnt know whether legalizing gay marriage in NY would be a step in the right direction. And they also wont say if she would vote for or against the legislation. Same for Barack Obama. And according to http://www.nytimes.com/cq/2007/08/10/cq_3261.html">Hillary, Bill voted for DOMA so as not to be painted as pro-gay-marriage. Let us not take the chance that Democrats be labeled as the equal rights for all humans camp.

And then we have John Edwards. Champion of the poor. Champion of the oppressed. Who's religion leads him to struggle with the thought of a man marrying a man... or a woman marrying a woman.

No.

Either every human being gets equal rights or every human being does not. Again (imo) its not about gay or straight. Its about basic human rights.

And when it comes down to that basic fact. All three fail.

I will divulge the following here on DU for context and background on my opinion: I am a bisexual female who has had gay relationships as well as two "straight" marriages. My sister is a lesbian, and most of my best friends are gay men. My male significant other and I talked about seeking a civil union here in NH. But then we looked into it and realized we would be denied the basic rights of straight married people. Its disgusting. We STILL plan to seek a straight civil union. With FULL rights. We're willing to be this example. If 'marriage' = a religious thing, we dont dont want it. We are both atheists.

I dont care about the parsing of any candidates words. And I dont care what people interpret their actions to mean. What I care about is EQUAL RIGHTS for ALL HUMAN BEINGS regardless of sexual preference.

I stand with myself. I stand with my lgbt brothers and sisters. And I say... anything less than equal rights for all is bullshit.

[maddiejoan]

1. What is your opinion of Barney Frank?

[IndianaGreen]

6. Barney backstabbed the LGBT community by dropping the transgender from ENDA

and he caught a lot of hell from a lot of people for doing so, including many DUers.

[maddiejoan]

8. Thank you

exactly right. (but not most DUers BTW)

[bunnies]

12. Love him.

on edit: Im open to the possibility that there are things I dont know that might change my opinion.

[maddiejoan]

26. Does it change your opinion of him

that he didn't fight for equal rights for transgendered people when he advocated passing ENDA without trans-inclusion?

[bunnies]

29. Yes.

Absolutely.

I am for equal rights for all without exception. Equal rights for all human beings. Anything less is a disgrace.

[cboy4]

2. Elizabeth Edwards for President!!

(I'm hoping she'll be able to convince John) :)

[Chovexani]

3. I'm fairly well disgusted with everyone but Kucinich

I'm one of those radical queers who thinks the institution of marriage as it stands is an ass backwards relic of a less enlightened time, and monogamy doesn't work for me (I'm poly). That said, as long as there are rights and privileges being granted through this institution by the state, there is no reason why couples should be denied those rights and privileges because of something as asinine as the gender makeup of the relationship.

But even with my less-than-favorable view of marriage, I see how important it is to have the same access to these rights and responsibilities. Having a female partner with a lot of health problems has abundantly driven this point home to me. It makes me angry as fuck that I can drive up to Vegas for the weekend with my boyfriend and get hitched at Roscoe's Wedding and Chicken Shack and get all kinds of privileges for that union, but I can't marry my girlfriend, no matter how much I love her. I could put my perfectly healthy man on my insurance if we got married, but not the woman who needs it. All because he's got a wang and she doesn't. WTF.

It's the blatant unfairness of it all that kills me.

[bicentennial_baby]

5. Yes, yes, and yes...

:yourock:

:hug:

:loveya:

[IndianaGreen]

10. You better start voting RED if you want true equality for LGBTs

Homophobia and discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or identification are condemned by all socialists.

[Chovexani]

11. Then I could be a Euro Commie Dyke.

:P

[IndianaGreen]

13. I hear you...

We are still paying for DOMA and DADT.

:grouphug:

[zalinda]

28. Edwards wants same sex couples to have ALL

the rights that other couples have. The only stumbling block he has is with the word marriage, which is what most of the people have problems with. But, he says he's working on it.

zalinda

[Chovexani]

30. That's nice.

In the meantime I'll be "working" on my issues with candidates who advocate Jim Crow marriage.

[laconicsax]

4. Are non same-sex couples allowed to civil union?

The domestic partnership law in Oregon does not allow male-female couples to seek a domestic partnership. I'm curious if the laws elsewhere are different.

[greenvpi]

7. Wow, that's assbackwards

> does not allow male-female couples

You won't win support of the haters by taking rights away from them. Was the law written by an anti-gay Republican that wanted to turn the breeders against equal rights?

[Chovexani]

19. Do you not understand the difference between DP and marriage?

I'm not specifically familiar with the laws in Oregon because I don't live there, but domestic partnerships and civil unions are inferior to marriage. They don't grant all the same rights in most places, and even where they do, for the purposes of employer benefits, they don't count.

This is like white people in the Jim Crow South complaining that they can't drink from black water fountains or sit in the back of the bus.

[Bishop Rook]

25. I see it as more of a show of solidarity

I'm not interested in getting married until and unless we have full and equal rights in this country for LGBT citizens. I would consider getting a civil union/domestic partnership, even with lesser benefits and protection, as a show of solidarity with the cause.

[Chovexani]

32. I really appreciate that sentiment.

I wish more people would be willing to take that stand.

[bunnies]

33. Yes,

This is exactly why we are want a 'civil union' with FULL rights as an opposite sex couple. If "marriage" is a religious term, then we have no us for it. But we demand full recognition from the federal gov't. They have NO basis on which to deny us the right to enter a legal contact.

And having been "married" by a justice of the peace previously... I know damn well that "marriage" is merely a legal contact. When I filed for divorce... it didnt matter what sex I was.

An opposite opinion is discriminatory.

[Chovexani]

14. It really depends on the jurisdiction

The domestic partner law in NYC allows hetero couples to be DPs. My best friend and her (male) partner are both bi and opted for a DP instead of getting married as an act of solidarity. Unfortunately, there are still rights they don't get, but because he's a teacher for the city she's able to get insurance through his plan.

Trying to navigate the maze of legal red tape and BS is one huge reason why equal marriage is so important. My job offers domestic partner benefits but a couple must be legally registered, and no such laws exist in the state of Arizona AFAIK.

[bunnies]

15. In NH... at least as we've read the law...

does not prevent non opposote-sex couples from seeking a civil union. If they did... it would be discrimination as far as we are concerned. In the same way that gay couples cant be "married".

on edit: as not at. I messed up the title.

[sandnsea]

27. Because we have a marriage amendment in the constitution

I think they had to write the law that way to get around the Constitutional Amendment.

[laconicsax]

35. That amendment states

It is the policy of Oregon, and its political subdivisions, that only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or legally recognized as a marriage.

(link, Section 5a)

The Domestic Partnership law defines a domestic partnership as "a civil contract entered into in person between two individuals of the same sex who are at least 18 years of age, who are otherwise capable and at least one of whom is a resident of Oregon." (emphasis mine) (link)

The first section of the law describes its purpose as being to essentially create a separate but equal entity to marriage for same-sex couples. I always thought that separate was inherently unequal.

Doesn't the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment supersede any state laws or constitutions?

edit: mangled html

[MethuenProgressive]

9. k&r

Because GLBT rights are Human rights.

[terrya]

16. Yes....thank you.

I just sent a PM to a good friend of mine...saying some of the same things. Clinton, Obama, Edwards...they show up at a GLBT issues Presidential Forum several months ago...they say some nice stuff about GLBT issues and the GLBT community...they're all for us, yakedy, yak, yak, blah blah...and then they say they can't support same-sex marriage because...well, they just can't. And being told that they can't support secular legal equality because of religious reasons...well, fuck that.

Kucinich is the candidate who supports us, fully...but, let's face it, he will not be the nominee. So..we get the choice of these three in November.

It's getting thrown under the bus time again, folks. Lip service to us if they can be bothered to care about us at all...but, man, they'll expect our votes...and please, open those checkbooks, ok? Meanwhile, when we move into the White House...don't expect anything from us.

[bunnies]

21. Exactly.

Which is why painting one as more pro-gay than another is disingenuous. Theres a million threads bashing one and propping up another... but where it really matters, they are ALL the same. Sadly.

[Chovexani]

31. And you know that if the Dems lose the GE

It will be our fault and there will be fourteen billion threads blaming us. :(

[zalinda]

34. From the Edwards web site

Equal Rights for Same-Sex Couples

Edwards believes that all couples in committed, long-term relationships should have the same rights, benefits, and responsibilities, whether they are straight couples or same-sex couples. He supports civil unions to guarantee gay and lesbian couples the same rights as straight couples, including inheritance rights, hospital visitation rights, equal pension and health care benefits, and all of the 1,100 other legal protections government affords married couples. Edwards supports the full repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act. He also believes same-sex families should be treated in the same manner as other families by our immigration laws. Edwards believes the right president could lead the country toward consensus around equal rights and benefits for all couples in committed, long-term relationships and he opposes divisive Constitutional amendments to ban same-sex marriages.

[Bishop Rook]

17. K&R.

I'm an Obama supporter, but I recognize the shortcoming on the gay marriage issue.

I'm not sure I agree that all three fail, though. All three of them have very strong pro-gay and anti-discrimination platforms. All three propose a federally-protected civil union system which would be marriage-equivalent. It's not enough, of course, but it's still a dozen big steps in the right direction with any of those three candidates.

I was a supporter for DK back in 2004. From the start, I did not see this run shaping up any better for him than that one did, so I went with the best candidate I thought had a chance of winning.

All three of the top-tier Dem candidates would be a hundred times better for GLBT rights than any of the Republican candidates. We can't ignore someone who's 90% right simply because they're not 100% right, when we're faced with the alternative of someone who is 100% wrong.

[bunnies]

18. Perhaps my use of the word "fail" was a little extreme.

Probably "fall short" would have better aligned with my views. Its just so frustrating seeing some candidates painted as more 'anti-gay' than others... knowing full well that they all fall equally short on the issue of equal rights.

[Bishop Rook]

22. That has frustrated me to no end

People from the Obama, Clinton, and Edwards camps criticizing the other two on gay rights issues, when all three candidates' platforms are identical on those issues. Stinks to high heaven of hypocrisy.

[bunnies]

24. We couldnt agree more my friend.

:hug: Im sick of the bullshit.

[ZombieHorde]

20. K&R for sheer awesomeness!

[bunnies]

23. Thanks!

:toast: Heres to true equality. :hug:

[eridani]

36. Only Kucinich does that fully n/t