The Vote Has Been Rocked
Here’s a few random quotes from the debate that I liked :
- KERRY: I say to you, this president has made our military weaker by overextending them, and he has in fact made America less secure by conducting an arrogant, blustering, unilateral foreign policy that has put America in greater danger, not less.
. . .
LIEBERMAN: What I would do today — and again, we can look back — Bush made this so difficult by alienating most of the rest of the world, for reasons that aren’t even related to Iraq, by pulling out of the global warming agreement internationally, by pulling out of arms control treaties, by not getting into the International Court of Criminal Justice, for having no plan for what to do when Saddam fell.
. . .
KUCINICH: Under my administration, I intend to take the following steps to get this American economy moving….Number five, get the National Aeronautics and Space Administration involved in developing new energy technologies, new environmental technologies.
Now, I’m all for developing new energy technologies, but what does that have to do with aeronautics or space?
Next to the confederate flag issue, the next big issue in my eyes was equal rights for gays and lesbians. As Kyle pointed out in comments, Dean dodged a pretty embarrassing quote by highlighting his record in Vermont :
- COOPER: You talked earlier about what you did in Vermont regarding civil unions. And you’ve also been quoted as saying, quote, ‘that gay marriage,’ quote, ‘makes me uncomfortable, the same as anybody else.’
I don’t know if we have it. We had a photo from The New York Times this Sunday, two guys who went — oh, we don’t have it — anyway, two guys who went up to Canada to get married. What about that makes you uncomfortable?
DEAN: You sound like Tim Russert. I said that, the day after the Supreme Court decision, or the day of the Supreme Court decision.
Look, when I signed the civil unions bill, I didn’t know anything more about the gay community than I did 25 years earlier. I did it, not because I knew a lot about the gay community, it was because I believed every single American deserves equal rights under the law, not just the ones you play golf with or you live next door to, but every single American deserves equal rights under the law.
So, you know, I have come to know the LGBT community over time because I signed the first equal rights under the law bill for gay and lesbian Americans.
Now while I don’t agree with Dean on this one, I think his views on gay rights are pretty much in line with the mainstream. Joe Rospars did a good post on this a while back at NotGeniuses that explains what I’m talking about here :
- When I was visiting my family in New York recently I asked my mother a question. I don’t know if she’d want me to relate this to our literally tens of readers, but I’m reasonably certain that she’s not among them so I’ll go ahead.
I asked her if she supported gay marriage and she said, “No,” and got a pained look on her face. She’s always voted Republican, though she’s of the more moderate Northeastern kind.
Then I asked her if she thought gay people ought to have the right to enter into some kind of legal arrangement through which they enjoyed the rights to hospital visitation, tax arrangements, inheritance, health insurance, and everything else, with their partner as married people do. She said, “Oh, absolutely.”
Simply put, I think most Americans, while they’ll support “equal rights” and “civil unions”, aren’t willing to support “gay marriage”. Considering that we’re up against Republicans who are openly hostile to homosexuals in almost every way, I think civil unions is a damn good compromise.
Like with the previous grilling, Dean’s answer was evasive and just plain crappy. He should have said something like this :
- Yeah, I made that statement. I’ve been up front about my positions about this, but let me make it clear. I don’t think marriage is any of the government’s business. Whether it’s between a man and a man, or a man and a woman, it’s not the business of anyone sitting up here who you choose to fall in love with. But when it comes to committed relationships between two people, I think it’s pure bigotry to keep gay and lesbian couples from enjoying the same rights of inheritance, housing, pension, custody, and more that heterosexuals do. That’s why I supported civil unions in Vermont and I stand before you tonight as the only person on this stage who has actually signed a civil unions bill.
What I found a little more odd was Clark’s lukewarm opposition to “don’t ask, don’t tell” :
- QUESTION: What’s your personal comfort level with homosexuals? And do you have any gay friends?
CLARK: The answer is, I do have gay friends. And there are gays who serve in the United States armed forces, and they do a very good job. But when they are — when they acknowledge who they are and their sexual preference, they leave. So I’ve got a very good comfort level with it.
CLARK: I think everybody deserves the right to serve. And when I’m president, I’m going to make sure that we treat every man, woman and child in America with dignity and respect. And that includes the opportunities to serve in the United States armed forces.
COOPER: Let me ask a follow-up then. Did you ever serve with soldiers who knew were gay? And did you ever turn anyone in?
CLARK: Never turned anybody in. But I had people who came to me after they had turned themselves in. And it’s a very sad thing because a lot of these people wanted to serve, but they just had a conflict between what they felt on the inside…
COOPER: Are you saying ‘Don’t ask, don’t tell’ works?
CLARK: I don’t think it works everywhere. I’ve seen it work in some units, but I get a lot of reports where it doesn’t work. And I think it depends on the service, it depends on the unit. I think it depends, to some extent, on the commander.
And so, I think the policy, as I’ve said, the policy needs to be reviewed because there are so many indications that it’s not working. I think you start a review with the presumption that it isn’t. And let the armed forces leadership go back through it and give us a better policy so that every American who desires to serve can.
What the hell?! So he comes out as a supporter of the gay/lesbian community, but then says that “don’t ask, don’t tell” just needs to be reviewed?? Screw that. Anyone willing to take a bullet for this country deserves to not be treated like a criminal for being upfront about their sexuality. John Kerry made this point clearly with this answer :
- KERRY: There is a cemetery, the congressional cemetery in Washington D.C. where there is a tombstone. And the tombstone says, ‘My country gave me a medal for killing a man and gave me a dishonorable discharge for loving one.’
So when it comes to the GLBT community, none of the front runners are perfect, but they’re all better than what we’re stuck with now. Like I’ve said previously, let today’s Partial-Birth Abortion Bill signing serve as a shining example of what happens when we’re unwilling to compromise a little and lose sight of who our real enemies are.
23 comments
Copy link for RSS feed for comments on this post
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
this dean and gay rights issue is such a (pardon me here) hand job.
when he was on meet the press russert asked him why in an election year he signed such a contraversial bill as the civil union act and he responded, “because it was the right thing to do.”
if only russert had pressed him. i want to know why he talks about this like he had the courage to do what was right. bullshit! he didnt even want that bill to pass the state assembly. it only did because a gay (republican, mind you) state representative made an impassioned plea to the state legislators on the floor of the capitol. and dean only signed after hours of cloed door negotiations.
so, if dean’s gay politics are different than yours, greg, but more in lockstep with most of americans, i can only assume he is in that lockstep begrudginly.
which leads me to the point that although i respect you have to have the people behind you to win, dont you also have to be a leader? what about taking this country to the next level? i mean, if the internet were around 50 years ago greg i hope that if the candidate you backed fo pres only partially backed rights for blacks and only begrudginly you would be a little more critical of him/her than, “Now while I don’t agree with [candidate X] on this one, I think his views on gay rights are pretty much in line with the mainstream.”
Comment by josh — November 5, 2003 @ 6:37 pm
i mean, if the internet were around 50 years ago greg i hope that if the candidate you backed fo pres only partially backed rights for blacks
There are enough huge differences between equal rights for black people in the 50’s and gay marriage now that I’d be opening up a huge can of worms even addressing this point. Although I see what you’re getting at, I think the two are so radically different that the two are practically incomparable.
Gay Marriage isn’t going to happen in the next four years. It sucks, but it’s true. All the polls I’ve seen about this issue show that a majority of Americans don’t support gay marriage, but they do support civil unions. That’s the same position of all the candidates except Kucinich (who has no chance of winning).
When I say that Dean’s positions are in tune with the mainstream, what I mean is that his positions are acceptable enough by average Americans that they make him more electable and make it more likely that they’ll be enacted. And that’s the ultimate goal here.
As much as I’d love to throw my support behind a candidate that’s in favor of gay marriage, we still have to realize that a gay marriage bill will have to make it through a Republican-controlled House and Senate. It ain’t gonna happen. Civil Unions, on the other hand, stand a good chance.
Looking past the primaries, what are our alternatives? Well, we can either unite behind a candidate that supports some gay rights or one that’s openly hostile toward homosexuals.
In some ways I’m optimistic and other ways I’m pragmatic about this whole thing. I’m optimistic that the deeply-ingrained, religiously-fueled homophobia of the people in the baby boomer generation (from which all our candidates stem from) seems to be fading. But I’m also pragmatic in that I’m afraid that unless everyone on the left can come together behind a candidate who can really communicate with mainstream, undecided voters (as well as frustrated Republicans) that we’ll be stuck with another four years of Bush.
Comment by greg — November 5, 2003 @ 7:00 pm
“There are enough huge differences between equal rights for black people in the 50’s and gay marriage now that I’d be opening up a huge can of worms even addressing this point. Although I see what you’re getting at, I think the two are so radically different that the two are practically incomparable.”
But this IS an equal rights issue, just as it was in the 50’s. I realize that what is being fought for in each case is different – blacks weren’t fighting for marriage as they already enjoyed that right, while gays enjoy rights now that blacks didn’t then – but I think you have to agree that the attitude of equal rights is what inspired reforms for blacks in the 50’s, what inspired feminist reform in the 70’s, and what will hopefully inspire reform for gays and lesbians in the future. And if you can’t call civil unions “separate but equal,” then what can you call it?
Comment by Kyle — November 6, 2003 @ 2:06 am
Well, since you brought it up, the reason that a “separate but equal” solution would be a good compromise is because right now gays have nothing.
I totally agree that this is a civil rights issue and it should be addressed like one, but just because you and I agree doesn’t mean that it’s going to get done. The fact is, we still live in a largely intolerant society and without significant support nothing’s gonna get done.
This NBC/Wall St. Journal Poll from PollingReport.com is a good example of what I’m talking about :
“Do you favor or oppose allowing gay and lesbian couples to enter into same-sex marriages?”
Favor – 32
Oppose – 51
Depends – 4
Not Sure – 13
“Do you favor or oppose allowing gay and lesbian couples to enter into legal agreements with each other that are not marriages, but that would give them many of the same legal and financial relationships as married couples?”
Favor – 53
Oppose – 34
Depends – 2
Not Sure – 11
In a perfect world, everyone on the right and the left would agree that gay people are as entitled to be married as anyone. But it isn’t a perfect world. As far as politics are concerned, powerful people who support civil unions but oppose gay marriage are some of the best political friends we’ve got. It’s counter-productive to call them for their bigotry when the alternative is people like the Bush Administration who openly support constitutional amendments to “protect marriage”.
Comment by greg — November 6, 2003 @ 3:00 am
Actually NASA is the perfect place to funnel money for energy research. NASA developed fuel cells for the lunar module. They have developed nuclear batteries for their probes (voyager 1 was launched in the 70’s and it’s battery will still run until 2020). They are experts on using solar power (how do you think the satalites get their juice?). If NASA where to build any kind of long term space base it would need reliable nuclear power, which is something we need more of on earth. NASA is the perfect place for that kind of research.
Comment by andrew — November 6, 2003 @ 7:10 am
i guess i’m a little uncomfortable about how many people seem far to willing to compromise. democrats have been screaming “compromise!” since the second the supreme court handed the white house keys to this moron.
and it is a civil rights issue on par with the civil rights movement of the 50’s and 60’s. and i wasnt around back then, but i’m sure there were those in the democratic party back then that made similar compromise arguments. i havent seen polling from that era but i’m sure that the issue among whites was pretty unpopular.
thank heavens there were those in the democratic party who would not compromise.
Comment by josh — November 6, 2003 @ 8:57 am
I’ve already weighed in on my thoughts on gay marriage/civil unions. I actually think that there has been a difference between all the civil rights movements since the fifties. The difference between the civil rights movements of the fifties is that that movement sought to right the wrongs of reconstruction where the majority had only begrudgingly admitted that blacks but tried to strip their rights to the bone. In the seventies, women were already privy to those rights but were trying to overcome a cultural inertia which defined them as inferior. But this was more inevitable because women are actually a majority, not a minority. Anytime a majority mobilizes, it can win its issues (note the Republicans, today). The gay marriage issue is a little different from even the womens’ movement issues. It’s a movement whose members don’t want to be defined by who they are but who want to define who they are and don’t want to be discriminated against because of their decision. This is really only a subtle difference, but it has major implications for society. The previous movements spoke to the dignity of humans saying that whatever condition you’re born into will have no effect on your dignity as a human being. The new movement speaks to the liberty of people, asking that whatever kind of person I choose to be, I should be entitled to the dignity I was born with.
The reason gay marriage is such an inflammatory issue is that a good number of Americans view it as immoral and don’t feel they should have to support something they view as immoral. That’s true. The way to end that is education. The reason that people who have no religious problem with gay marriage find it problematic is just that they don’t see it as conducive to producing a normal, functioning family. They see gay marriage as a destructive force in our society. The last group of Americans who have a problem with gay marriage are people who cringe at what is popularly known as the “ick factor” of gay sex. Of course, all sex carries an “ick factor”. Consider your parents having sex, and you’ll see what I mean.
I think that it’s ok to carry two conflicting views on the subject. For me, there’s an ick factor, but that doesn’t mean that I don’t agree with the idea of civil unions. I think allowing gay marriage will open a can of worms that will explode this country. What happens, for instance, when a church turns down a gay couple’s request to be married? Lawsuits?
Comment by Earnest — November 6, 2003 @ 9:37 am
Churches are private organizations, they can pretty much do what ever they want. The same way the boy scouts can get away with not having gay scout masters and augusta national can get away with having no women members.
Education is the key to this issue. People have to be educated to understand that being born gay is no more of a choice then being born black or white. You don’t choose to be gay. Every study done proves more an more conclusively that this is a bilogical thing. If people understood that then they’d be much more willing to accept equal rights for gays.
Comment by andrew — November 6, 2003 @ 9:58 am
I am aware of recent studies regarding the maleness or femaleness of the brain, but I’m not aware of any study which proves homosexuality is innate. The key to changing people’s thinking is in pointing out the productive, contributive effect homosexuals have had on our society.
Comment by Earnest — November 6, 2003 @ 10:39 am
Here’s a study of one, then: my homosexuality is innate.
Comment by Kyle — November 6, 2003 @ 10:43 am
There have been quite a few studies that show that homosexuality is innate. In fact if you believe ex Soviet doctors, experiments were done there creating trans gender and gay children by zapping them with certain hormones at various stages of their fetal development. Of course all those studies were highly illegal, and you’re never going to find published results of them. But there have been qutie a few recent studies that all point to homosexuality being innate. There’s no sense even arguing that it is a choice now.
Comment by andrew — November 6, 2003 @ 11:07 am
As you know, science is based on the idea of peer-review, and popular theories concerning genetic predisposition to homosexuality from the 1990s have been debunked. Differences in the chemical composition of the person (levels of testosterone/estrogen) have been shown to have an effect on the composition of the brain, but there is no repeatable study which has shown a cause/effect relationship between genes and sexual orientation in humans. If there were, we would not even be having this discussion.
I realize that sexual orientation goes straight to the heart of who someone is. Like religion, creed, and in some cases occupation, it forms the core of a person. That is the reason we should be accepting of homosexuality and bring that acceptance into the mainstream.
Comment by Earnest — November 6, 2003 @ 11:20 am
Do you really think that kids who are beat up for being gay are making a choice to be that way?
I don’t get why you’re unwilling to accept the word of, y’know, actual gay people on this.
Comment by Kyle — November 6, 2003 @ 11:40 am
“i guess i’m a little uncomfortable about how many people seem far to willing to compromise.”
while i understand greg’s points- small compromising steps toward a greater goal of defeating the enemy. i am growing increasingly sick of this compromise attitude as well. i don’t think that’s how the enemy works (except in the case of them compromising over arnold- but that was all a puppet-show anyway). i really don’t think that any significant changes in history have happened through compromise. maybe ross would know more about the history than me. but i’m pretty sick of compromising myself. i’ve said it before- i think there has to be some more revolutionary changes made in this country, today. the sides are already polarizing- the ignorant, moderates need to be shaken out of their comfort level.
there are so many democrats out there that believe that candidates like kucinich are the best choice, but they are too afraid to take a chance on him. i think that if everyone who was afraid to take that risk, would get behind him- he would be the front-runner. but maybe i’m wrong… maybe the democrats are even too scared of how progressive and liberal a candidate like kusinich is.
i admit i don’t know enough about politics, but i know what i feel on a gut level- and i don’t feel like compromise is the answer. it pisses me off to constantly see all the moderate democrats tearing down and making fun of someone like kucinich.
and as for the gay rights issue… in your post, you talk about how “don’t ask dont’ tell” is bullshit, but then you back the compromising ideas of civil unions? aren’t civil unions the “don’t ask don’t tell ” answer to the issue? that’s bullshit. i understand your point of it being easier to pass a civil unions bill than gay marriage. but that is once again compromise in the form of a slap in the face to the gay community the same way that the “don’t ask don’t tell” rule was.
when you compromise- everyone feels like they sort-of win, but no one really does. and it doesn’t solve the problem, it just perpetuates is so that someone else will have to deal with it in the future. just like bush talking about backing hydrogen fuel as opposed to developing the hybrid technology that we already have- that’s his compromise to somewhat appease the environmentalists, while not actually having to do anything himself.
Comment by tom — November 6, 2003 @ 12:19 pm
That’s because there is no gay gene. Being gay isn’t genetic. Now I have read quite a few reputable studies that show that people who identify themselves as homosexuals have brains that operate differently than those that identify themselves as straight. The same way that people who are trans gendered have brains that operate differently. It has also been proven that a developing brain will develop differently under different levels of hormones. Therefore it it is a pretty safe assumption that a certain deffecincy or surplus of hormones could have the affect of creating a fetus that develops a brain wired for homosexuality. The problem is we have no idea what could cause a mother to have different hormone levels while she is pregenat. Is it genetic? Is it enviornmental? Is it a gene that is only activated by certain things in the enviornment? Does it have to do with hormones in food and milk? That’s alot of variables to control.
It’s also going to be nearly impossible to ever study this. How do you control all those factors? Even if you could you would have to study tens of thousands of pregnant women and their hormone levels during their pregnancy and then study their children for decades after their birth to see how they developed. All without letting the participants knowing what you are studying thereby tainting the results. The only other method would be to create gay babies by experiment. That’s hardly ethical.
Of course then you run into the problem of how to fund such a study. Most science funding in one way or the other comes from the government. Not many politicians are going to come out in favor of funding a study that tries to prove that being homosexual is biological. Especially when said study is very expensive and very difficult to pull off.
Instead we’re left to just draw some logical conclusions. From all we know about brain development and the differences in brain function between men, women, straight, gay, and trans-gender people it is a safe assumption to assume their or biological effects to why these differences come about. Of course their is simpler logic. Why in their right mind would anyone choose to be gay?
Comment by andrew — November 6, 2003 @ 12:31 pm
Can someone please tell me the diference between a civil union and gay marriage? all marriages are civil with (if one chooses) a symbolic (ie. meaningless to the state) religious wedding… besides a different status, are there different rights conveyed???
Comment by Erin — November 6, 2003 @ 12:41 pm
Not really. It’s all semantics.
Comment by andrew — November 6, 2003 @ 12:49 pm
it is semantics… and that’s possibly what is the most frustrating part about it. that’s what makes it a “seperate but equal” issue. the opposition just refuses to accept the idea of gays being married. they’ll allow it, but they don’t want to ackowledge it. just like the “don’t as don’t tell” policy. it’s bullshit.
“white” water fountains were basically the same as “black” water fountains in the 50s. but the very fact that there is a seperation is what makes it so goddamned offensive.
i think they should be forced to deal with it. instead of this compromising bullshit.
Comment by tom — November 6, 2003 @ 1:18 pm
there are so many democrats out there that believe that candidates like kucinich are the best choice, but they are too afraid to take a chance on him.
I think the Democrats that actually take him seriously think that his policies are too reactionary to ever get him elected, much less get passed through a Republican Congress.
i am growing increasingly sick of this compromise attitude as well. i don’t think that’s how the enemy works (except in the case of them compromising over arnold- but that was all a puppet-show anyway).
Don’t be nieve enough to think that big business, the religious right, poor white people, and libertarians have the exact same agenda. They don’t and their views often overlap because of it. But the reason they get their way more than ours is because they realize they can get more of what they want by working together than bickering among each other. That’s the kind of comprimise I’m talking about. You may see it as selling out, but unless you’re willing to comprimise some of the time, you’re going to lose all the time.
i really don’t think that any significant changes in history have happened through compromise.
What about the Constitution?
but that is once again compromise in the form of a slap in the face to the gay community the same way that the “don’t ask don’t tell” rule was.
Are Civil Unions a bigger slap in the face than the Defense of Marriage Act?
Comment by greg — November 6, 2003 @ 1:32 pm
“Are Civil Unions a bigger slap in the face than the Defense of Marriage Act?”
I’d like to go further and ask: We do all realize that currently, Gay Americans outside of Vermont have nothing right now, right? NO-THING. Not even the right to be there when your partner is sick.
If they have nothing, and Civil Unions are essentially the same thing as a marriage, and the fact is that you can get a civil union and call it whatever you like to your friend, and the only thing preventing alot of people from accepting civil unions is that you are getting hung up on the word marriage, then I don’t see what the harm is in making this compromise in order to enact incredibly revolutionary and completely unprecedented social changes. It’s not wrong to try to make it just a little easier on the squares who aren’t quite ready to call a Gay relationship a marriage.
Sure, it would be great if we could just override the people who feel differently, but we can’t. And don’t forget, there is currently nothing for gay Americans right now, nothing. Going from nothing to almost everything isn’t a compromise, it’s a pretty big success.
The fact is that 20 years ago having this conversation might get you drummed out of politics entirely. Now we have several politicians who are talking openly about their support of Gay Americans. And furthermore, most of America supports a legal arrangement that is in everything but name, a marriage.
So please try to give these guys the benefit of the Doubt before resorting to calling them sellouts. They’re trying, and we’re all trying. But it’s not going to happen overnight, unless we’re willing to go to civil war. Which I’m pretty sure I’m not. At least not now.
Comment by Ross Angeles — November 6, 2003 @ 2:04 pm
I’d also like to point out that is you have a civil union, you have more legal rights than a heterosexual couple who chooses not get married. Of course, I do understand that the heterosexual is far more unlikely to be rejected by the families of both partners than the homosexual couple would be, so don’t think I’m glossing over the sacrifices that must be made to be openly gay. Please believe me when I say that I understand fully that being openly gay is in many ways taking your personal safety into your own hands, and that’s something that Heterosexuals outside the Middle East (where you can be killed for kissing before marriage) really don’t have a full understanding of.
I’m merely stating that, under the law, a gay couple in a civil union would have more visitation and property rights than a heterosexual couple living together who chooses not get married, even under most states’ common law statues.
Comment by Ross Angeles — November 6, 2003 @ 2:12 pm
the opposition just refuses to accept the idea of gays being married. they’ll allow it, but they don’t want to ackowledge it. just like the “don’t as don’t tell” policy. it’s bullshit….i think they should be forced to deal with it. instead of this compromising bullshit.
And how do you suggest we make them “deal with it”???
You call comprimising “bullshit” as if liberals have been comprimising all along. But the fact is, for the past few years liberals haven’t been able to agree on anything. That’s the bullshit here.
I’m not saying that liberals should be comprimising with Republicans, but rather with each other and undecided voters.
Look at what’s been happening in this country for the past three years. Environmental regulations have been gutted, Constitutional protections have been stripped, and yesterday the president signed the first federal restrictions on abortions since Roe. vs. Wade. And all this happened because liberals of all stripes are to too goddamned arrogant or stupid to get along with each other.
The majority of Americans support liberal policies, but they keep electing Republicans. You can blame big business or the media, but the biggest reason is because Republicans don’t shoot themselves in the foot. They agree to disagree because they know that’s the best way to get what they want and the unprecedented success of the Bush Administration’s radical right-wing policies is the proof.
Comment by greg — November 6, 2003 @ 2:12 pm
“But the fact is, for the past few years liberals haven’t been able to agree on anything… And all this happened because liberals of all stripes are to too goddamned arrogant or stupid to get along with each other.”
Comment by Ross Angeles — November 6, 2003 @ 2:29 pm