speak louder than her words at the time? Is it all actions that matter or words? Or is it one rule for Hillary and one for Bernie?

But go ahead, someone will probably post the facts, I am not going to waste time frankly.

I KNOW where he stood on this issue, not just 20 years ago, but longer than that.

You won't win points by trying to undermine your candidate's opponent.

The way to win points is to tell people about where SHE has stood on major issues.

That's why I love being a Bernie supporter. All I have to do is point to his long, consistent record on almost every important issue.

I won't ever have to try to defend him on the issues.

I got tired of doing that. It's exhausting. So now we have a candidate with a record which is the best argument against all these attempts to justify someone else's candidate.

Hillary has a lot of strengths. Why don't you focus on them instead of attacking Bernie?

which is my point. Did you even bother to read any of the Congressional record that I supplied. Person after person after person said they weren't going to vote for DOMA but also opposed marriage equality. Again, Kerry in 2004 reiterated his position of just that. Now, maybe Sanders actually favored marriage equality then, maybe he didn't. I think it is a perfectly valid question. Especially since we are holding Clinton to the standard that voting against something isn't good enough, you must also utter the correct verbage.

in Platitudes & Poetry, in fact he's never been caught or accused of Smoke & Mirrors and that's a Fact .

In 2004, she voted against an amendment that would have banned marriage equality. While doing so she made clear she didn't support marriage equality. We are told, repeatedly, that that means she is untrustworthy on LGBT issues. We are also told that Sanders favored marriage equality back in 1996 because he voted against DOMA. But I am asking why he cast that vote? Many of the people who did so made it clear they didn't favor marriage equality but also opposed DOMA. So I am asking just what words he said, since again, when it comes to Clinton, that seems to be what we use to judge.

CIVIL RIGHTS FOR THE LGBT COMMUNITY. ALWAYS. Including the RIGHT TO MARRY the people they love. What is so hard about that? Didn't YOU support that decades ago? I know I did. It's a GIVEN for any LIBERAL.

You seem shocked to learn that people ALWAYS supported this right. Why are you so shocked? I am SHOCKED that any Liberal had to evolve on such an basic RIGHT.

Now where did your candidate stand on the issue, say a couple of years ago?

so no it wasn't a given for liberals. again, and I supplied a link to back this up. NOT ONE STRAIGHT CONGRESS PERSON WHO OPPOSED DOMA stated that he or she did so due to favoring marriage equality. Not a single, solitary one. Sanders apparently neither spoke nor submitted remarks for the record. So again, do you have any contemporaneous proof that Sanders cast that vote because he favored marriage equality and not simply because he opposed that law? A whole bunch of people opposed that law despite not favoring marriage equality.

It's easy to say I voted for or against something, but sometimes there are reasonings for votes that when looking at just the voting record, doesn't give a full picture.

Even Hillary's speech in 2004 regarding a constitutional amendment against gay marriage, which she was not in favor btw, her reasoning for her position harkened back to the reason DOMA came to be in the first place.

Which was a push to amend the constitution to ban gay marriage.

People insist on living in a bubble.. throw out one liners with no context and this how memes are started.

So, thank you for bringing this up.

I have a question that I have not seen discussed. In 1993 (when he was in the House) he voted against DADT. Have you seen a discussion about that vote?

Thanks in advance.

There's no way you can sell DADT as a gain for gay servicemembers.

I have less than no interest in your opinion on anything.

My guess is that in addition to DADT he had problems with the level of military funding (being too high). Many people voted for the military funding bill which included DADT (such as Kerry and Kennedy) even as they found DADT to be a problem. Others voted against the entire bill. It should be noted that many conservatives voted against this bill as well (my guess being DADT was too liberal for them and that the bill's funding level was too low).

been an accident.

There was an amendment that added DADT to the military funding bill which was opposed by him and lots of other liberal Congress people. It also wasn't Clinton's preferred option but he agreed to not veto a bill containing it since it was the best he could get. Sanders and all of those liberals and Clinton clearly wanted gays to serve openly. The vote on the whole bill is where his vote is different from lots of other Democrats. That vote may have entirely been, for him, about DADT. I frankly doubt it, since he has been opposed to high levels of military spending for years. I would think that opposition played some role in his vote.

attended a one day seminar in Willmington that was put on by Michelle Benecke CEO and founder of the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network. It was for attorneys who were working with gay and lesbian service members. (Note: I am not an attorney but my partner was so I got to attend.) Most of the out gay and lesbian attorneys in NC were in attendance. You probably know most of them.

Anyway, the point of the program was to explain the new policy and how to advise gay service members about how to meet the new guidelines for service while gay and explain their new rights. Also, the marine who came out on national tv in support of Bill Clinton during his campaign (think his last name started with an E) attended one session. Michelle, Sgt. E and all of the attorneys were over the moon with excitement about the new policy. Little did they know that it would be misused at the hands of the Joint Chiefs.

My point is that a vote against DADT in 1993 would not have been considered a positive.

ETA: I have seen it posted on DU that his 1993 vote was pro-gay.

the entire bill.

If you find it SO EASY to not only forgive someone who OPPOSED marriage quality, but to laud them as a champion, a hero of the cause, then why even bother to look into this issue?

Would it not be enough for you that Bernie says he is for marriage equality now?

"Or is it one rule for Hillary and one for Bernie?"

but I also think that we should honestly report what people did. Over and over again, it has been posted here that Sanders favored marriage equality back in 96 while that evil woman Clinton didn't. If he did, fair enough, but if he didn't then the record should be corrected.

and not marriage equality. No one, no one on earth, reading that in 1972 would have suggested that those words meant that. That is why the words abortion, adultery, and drug use are put there. It is also why they mention behavior. It is also why they mention eliminating laws and not passing them. Marriage equality would have required the passage of laws not just the removal of them.

the last one doesn't mention Sanders. The first one, is no different than the letter and just goes to show that rawstory needs to hire better journalists, or at least better editors. Again, no person who knows even a little about the history of LGBT issues would think for a moment that such a letter written in 1972 was intended to, or did, show that its author favored marriage equality. Sodomy laws were a big issue back then (they still were decades latter when SCOTUS finally removed them in 2003) and were considered part of the package of issues mentioned in that letter (laws against drug use, adultery, and abortion). The middle one tells us what we already know. Frankly I have no problems with him opposing marriage equality in 96 or 2000 (if in fact he did oppose it then). He did the right thing both times regardless of his position on marriage equality. My only point is that if we are going to contrast him to other candidates as having supported marriage equality it would be nice to know he actually did.

emphasis and the fact that 'marriage equality' is not on his lips. Briggs Amendment is in the speech, which was about firing all the gay teachers and their allies.
The times then, they were not our times Itoday. It is self indulgent for straight people to wallow in a fantasy that they were debating marriage equality 40 years ago. We were still being jailed 40 years ago, CA had laws against gay sexual activity until 1975. Think about what that means. It means straight society was in fact arresting us but you claim straight society was actually debating our full civil rights!

Harvey, two years after CA legalized homosexuaity:
http://www.danaroc.com/guests_harveymilk_122208.html

But to be fair, the very fact that Bernie was taking such strong stances back then is a pretty good indication he did not have to evolve as much as others. The frowny face I put in the post you responded to was because no acknowledgement is given for his strong stance even as far back as the letter.

I have felt so happy for the SC decision. I have posted more about it on my Twitter page than here. Here I have often been considered racist and anti-gay. I don't always know the correct terminology. Now someone is angry with me because I am trying to understand bigtree's concern. I respect him a lot, but when he is demanding something that there is really no answer to it frustrates me.

You said:

We were still being jailed 40 years ago, CA had laws against gay sexual activity until 1975. Think about what that means. It means straight society was in fact arresting us but you claim straight society was actually debating our full civil rights!

Presenting it as it is presented here demonstrates a lack of interest in the actual issues at hand. Note, straight people are here yapping at gay people about gay history. Think about that.

equality the day he heard of the idea I'm sure, that's who he is and why I support him. But in 1972, when he spoke of 'abolishing all laws dealing with sexual behavior' including homosexuality, he was speaking about repealing actual laws against homosexuality which existed and were currently enforced all over the country. I would rather that straight people not let themselves believe that in 1972 'gay rights' meant 'supporting gay marriage' when what it meant was supporting not locking us up and not firing us from jobs.
CA was the first State to actually repeal those laws and they did so in 1975. Note that in repealing those laws against homosexuality, a right to marriage was not created. No one was even talking about it. It was illegal to have sex, so we were not in fact calling for marriage rights as yet. 14 States had those laws on the books until 2003 when SCOTUS ruled in Texas v Lawrence.

So Bernie is definitive the candidate with the best LGBT record, no doubt about it at all. He's also not supporting 'gay marriage' in that letter. He's telling other Americans to stop arresting us for existing and meeting.

I find that offense if you haven't guessed.

was talking about in that letter. Revising important history is not acceptable. Bernie's position at that time was sterling, but same as Harvey Milk, his position was not about same sex marriage it was about laws which punished us, not rights which had not been extended to us.

What I am saying is not a bad thing about Bernie. Bernie was ahead of his cohort by miles. That is why he is my choice for President. However, in that letter he's not talking about marriage equality. Because no one was.
Presenting it as it is presented here demonstrates a lack of interest in the actual issues at hand. Note, straight people are here yapping at gay people about gay history. Think about that.

and gay will be making history by standing up to the DNC who is behind this pea picking scrutiny .

Another straight'splainer.

it'. And I find it offensive that there are people here, see the OP, who are LAUDING someone as a champion of this issue, who up to just a couple of years ago believed strongly that to allow this to happen, would be an assault on the institution of marriage' meaning she played NO ROLE in this victory. Neither did Obama. The people who finally won this right were the activists who never gave up fighting, who took the issue all the way to the SC, people like BERNIE SANDERS, whose integrity is being questioned in this OP, who was among a VERY FEW to vote AGAINST DOMA, while the people, Hillary and Obama who are being lauded for their 'evolvement' played no significant role in achieving this victory. None, in fact both probably helped delay it.

and he also ordered the feds to stop defending DOMA. To argue he delayed this day is frankly very unfair. BTW Sanders didn't take anything to the Supreme Court. I would also think Hillary has something to do with Bill's choice of Ginsburg.

Nothing anyone says you matters because your mind is made up/

marriage equality is Satan's idea. You are straight and support anti gay clergy. I am speaking strictly of our history that you should know. If you knew it, perhaps you would not promote anti gay preachers you dig.

It is important that straight folks understand what Bernie was talking about and not revise history.

country NOT to use that power I can't help you. Do NOT tell ME what I support. I will tell YOU.

Ths Pope is the first to attack the bigoted right wing 'catholics' in this country for their 'obsession' with women and gays and has told them they have no right to judge anyone.

THAT is progress which is obvious to most people. Especially now that those same right wingers who at one time were able to use their religion to influence voters to put them in power. As they did with Kerry. THAT POWER HAS BEEN TAKEN AWAY FROM THEM BY THIS POPE.

Just as those who supported marriage early even though they were very much in the minority and often risking their political careers for doing so, took the first steps towards victory, this Pope has taken the first steps that it is within his power to do, by attacking those who spread hatred and fear.

He has paved the way for more progress. You don't want to admit that, that is right. It thrills me to see Santorum no longer able to use the Pope to spread his hatred.

that Bernie wrote in post #5.

there is no reasonable way to say it does. It refers to removing laws against sodomy and adultery, not to marriage equality. Any one who knows anything at all about the history of LGBT history would know that.

"Sanders has a long record of support for the right of gays to marry. In the House, he voted in 1996 against the so-called Defense of Marriage Act, which barred federal recognition of gay marriages. The Supreme Court in 2013 struck down part of that law as unconstitutional.

In Vermont, Sanders supported the state’s 2000 civil unions law and the 2009 law legalizing gay marriage."

http://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/sanders-on-gay-marriage-time-for-supreme-court-to-catch-up-to-the-american-people

First, many opposed DOMA but also opposed marriage equality. Was he one? second, many supported the civil unions law and opposed marriage equality (Howard Dean would be an example). Was he one? I do appreciate the info though.

was WAY ahead of his time on this issue. The earliest public record shows that Bernie was for FULL equal Rights, ALL Rights for Gays is from 1970!

Now, compare that to Hillary who waited until 2012 when it was relatively safe to do so before she evolved on the issue.

I hope people keep bringing this up because it gives us a chance to show just what a great president Sanders is going to be.

He has shown consistent good judgement on almost ALL of the important issues facing this country for DECADES. Never worrying about political fallout.

He supported Jesse Jackson's run for the WH and was one of only TWO white elected officials to do so.

So keep on asking even AFTER you have been told the facts, because I for one will take every opportunity that is provided to highlight the difference between Sanders and every other candidate in this race.

He has the qualities needed to be the leader this country needs right now.

He has been RIGHT on most major issues and voted that way.

He has the FORESIGHT to see the disasters that would be created by voting FOR issues, such as the Iraq War, the Patriot Act. Gay Rights, against all Trade agreements that have devastated the working class in this country and the list is too long for this post.

He has the GOOD JUDGEMENT to put his FORESIGHT into action even though most of his colleagues refused to support what was clearly right many times.

AND he has the COURAGE to do what is right, even if he is the only one to do so.

THAT is what I want in a leader. I see no other candidate who can match his record on these essential qualifications to be the President of this country.

It is completely true that he - in 1996, was not arguing for gay marriage. In fact, he was arguing - incorrectly, but sensibly in 2004 for civil unions with the complete federal rights of marriage - which would have required a huge package of legal changes wherever marriage was mentioned. His problem was that he thought the word marriage, which is a sacrament in addition to everything else it is, was a stumbling block for too many people. He had a very good record - among the best - on civil rights, including gay rights. (This includes being one of the first to argue that the military end discrination - including appearing as a witness before a Strom Thurmond committee where he disputed Thurmond's claim that no gays had ever served in the US military.)

Incidentally, in calling for full federal rights in 2004, he went further than any previous candidate and neither Obama or Clinton went further. One reason was that it would have made it harder to win - especially in 2004. Not to mention, he refused Bill Clinton's advise to back a whole series of gay bashing amendments that were on various state ballots by the Republicans mostly to get out the evangelical voters. (It is interesting that we know this from Clinton, not Kerry, who immediately rejected it.)

nor did I back then except for the incident where he endorsed a prop 8 like measure in MO which he later reversed himself on. I am just pointing out that one could vote as Sanders did and be against marriage equality. And we don't know anything of the sort from Clinton we know it from someone who wrote a book and claims Clinton said it. To my knowledge Clinton has not addressed what advise he did or didn't give to Kerry.

Bernie ' s votes, which really did come with some risk. Kerry was the only Senator up who voted for it and he was racing a tough race. Leahy, who ran that year, voted for it . Therefore you can't say it was a Vermont thing.

As to the 2004 story, the source was Clinton arguing that had Kerry listened to him he would have won. It was well reported in 2005.

To me, the difference with both Kerry and Sanders vs the Clintons is that they do have histories where they did do things that were not popular , but which they thought right. The Clintons were more cautious.

his opponent was well known as being pro gay and campaigned for the gay vote and was on the record as opposing DOMA. Nor am I diminishing his or Sanders vote. I am simply saying the same standard should apply there as to Clinton in 2004. And certainly before one says Sanders supported marriage equality back in 1996 it doesn't seem unreasonable to ask for an actually speech where he did that. He might well have, I don't know, but yes, I think it is perfectly fair to ask if he did or he didn't. Again, I went to the Congressional record, I posted my link to said record, and I pointed out exactly and precisely why I was asking. Every single solitary straight house member who spoke and who voted against DOMA also stated that they opposed marriage equality. It seems to be a fairly reasonable question to ask if Bernie felt the same way.

As to the Clinton thing. My problem with that quote both then and now, is that we have only the writer of that book's word for it. Kerry didn't say it happened, Clinton didn't say it happened. Only this writer says it happened. BTW here is a small list of the unpopular things Clinton did as President. Opened up every government job beside the uniformed military to LGB people. Attempted to let LGB people serve openly in the military. Passed NAFTA (not a great thing in my opinion but it wasn't popular). The war in Bosnia. I could go on.

about it in the past. DU literally lionizes some of the DOMA yes voters. Paul 'I voted for DOMA' Wellstone is regularly presented as THE Progressive Icon, he is an avatar, a sig line, he is a hero on DU. Voted yes on DOMA.
From 2012, the way Straight Democrats actual deal with DOMA yes voters:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021629539#post13

Not your question but the question of who was right or wrong at the time.

The Clintons at the time were clearly way ahead of the nation when it came to gay rights. Bernie at the time was a house member. House members do all kinds of crazy shit and no one notices. To pretend what he did at the time is somehow comparable to what Bill and Hillary did in the white house is comparing apples and oranges.

I like them both and understand that this is a struggle to try to woo voters in the primaries the whole thing is nothing more than political posturing. Both camps have a long history of support for LGBT and there is no reason to think either camp will change that.

He opposed the discriminatory act, when so many supported it, including the Clintons.

Now it appears you have two distinct standards. Clinton is judged by her words and not her vote. Sanders by his vote but even asking what his words were is out of bounds. So which is it?

I don't have the book but here is an excerpt from a review:

I don't see him saying "I favor marriage equality" or words that are similar to that. He does associate himself with Frank's and Gunderson who both did favor marriage equality. Again, he might well have been fully in favor but he doesn't quite say so here. He, instead, uses the same reasoning that many opponents of DOMA such as Kerry and Conyers did.

for not being specific enough about all issues, while the candidate of choice is praised for evolving, despite documented video evidence of her supporting discriminatory laws. smdh.

but what I am saying is that if supporters of a candidate are going to say that his vote in 96 should be credited as being in favor of marriage equality as opposed to opposition to DOMA then yes, I think the words "I am in favor of same sex marriage" should be produced. Especially when every single straight Congressperson who opposed DOMA who did give a speech explicitly stated that they didn't favor marriage equailty but did oppose the law (just like Hillary did in 2004 when she voted against the Constitutional Amendment but stated she didn't favor marriage equality). It is you who is advocating for two sets of rules. When it is Hillary only her words matter and not her vote, but when it comes to Sanders it is only the vote matters and how dare you ask what his words were.

you clearly support Clinton, and have every intention of voting for her. This is why you continue to rationalize her position as you criticize Sanders on his.

I am asking what he said then. Again, you, not I but you, claim along with many supporters of him that he favored marriage equality back in 1996. I don't think it is in any way, shape, or form, unfair to ask for evidence that he did that. Now imagine for a second a world in which Clinton didn't say what she said but merely voted against the amendment and supporters of her said well she supported marriage equality back in 2004. You would, with justification, say prove it. That is all I am doing, and so far I have heard nothing but name calling and whining in response. That speaks volumes and the sound it is making isn't pretty.

one way or the other. I don't live in VT nor do I have lexus nexis so frankly I was asking. It is too bad you apparently don't care if people find info or ont.

You're assertion that I don't care if people find info or not is ridiculous.

hint, I didn't drive to DC.

every Friday from 12-1 EST answering unscreened questions. Why don't you call the show, and ask Senator Sanders for his opinion directly?

http://www.thomhartmann.com/radio

Bernie is outstanding on civil rights issues across the spectrum. ALWAYS HAS BEEN.

Nothing to see here, folks.

When Bernie supported LGBT rights, he stood up and whispered..

When Hillary supported LGBT rights, she stood up and roared.

Bernie voted!!!! WOOHOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Hillary - marched in gay pride parades, gave the same rights as everyone to LGBT while at state, has always been supportive of gay rights (civil unions with full rights, unlike the republicans). Always against a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage.