2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumSLATE: Bernie Sanders Claims He’s a Longtime Champion of Marriage Equality.
Its Just Not True.http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2015/10/05/bernie_sanders_on_marriage_equality_he_s_no_longtime_champion.html
....Sanders is not quite the gay rights visionary his defenders would like us to believe. Sanders did oppose DOMAbut purely on states rights grounds. And as recently as 2006, Sanders opposed marriage equality for his adopted home state of Vermont. The senator may have evolved earlier than his primary opponents. But the fact remains that, in the critical early days of the modern marriage equality movement, Sanders was neutral at best and hostile at worst.
Like his current Senate colleague Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio, Sanders deserves credit for opposing DOMAthen a popular measure with bipartisan supportwhile a member of the House of Representatives in 1996. But Sanders efforts to parlay this vote into indisputable proof of his marriage equality bona fides ring hollow in light of his statements at the time. Explaining his vote in 1996, Sanders chief of staff declared that it was motivated by a concern for states rights, not equality. Explaining that he wasnt legislating values, she noted that Sanders believed DOMA violated the Constitutions Full Faith and Credit Clause by allowing one state to refuse to recognize a same-sex marriage performed in another. Youre opening up Pandoras box here, she said at the time. Youre saying that any state can refuse to recognize the laws of another state if they dont like them. ...... Ten years later, Sanders took a similarly cautious approach to same-sex marriage. In 2006, he took a stand against same-sex marriage in Vermont, stating that he instead endorsed civil unions. Sanders told reporters that he was comfortable with civil unions, not full marriage equality. (To justify his stance, Sanders complained that a battle for same-sex marriage would be too divisive.) At the time, he also opposed a federal anti-gay-marriage amendmentbut so did his Republican opponent for the Senate seat, Richard Tarrant, who also supported civil unions. With a wide lead in the polls and little at stake, Sanders declined to differentiate himself from his opponent by taking the lead on gay rights.
Earlier in his political career, Sanders was even more indifferent toward gay rights: As mayor of Burlington in 1990, Sanders told an interviewer that LGBT rights were not a major priority for him. Asked if he would support a bill to protect gays from job discrimination, Sanders responded, probably not. That was 25 years ago. Sanders has, no doubt, come a long way since then: The senator endorsed Vermonts successful Marriage Equality Act in 2009 and has cheered the Supreme Courts marriage rulings. And he is co-sponsoring the Equality Act, a sweeping federal LGBT rights bill that advocacy groups place high on their post-marriage agenda.
Still, Sanders exaggeration of his marriage equality record is strange and unwise. If Sanders were honest about his evolutionand, yes, it was an evolutionthen he could still brag about supporting marriage equality long before his chief primary rival. Instead, he has attempted to reframe his somewhat tepid support as vociferous and unabating. The LGBTQ community can surely forgive Sanders less-than-spotless record on gay rightsbut that process can only begin once hes honest about it. And in the Democratic candidates race to secure the gay communitys vote, honesty has been in surprisingly short supply.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)And which of these articles does his opinion refute?
But these are only very recent developments. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton may be champions of same-sex marriage now, but you dont have to go far back to find a time when they werent. And hey, were happy to have their evolved support.
Not only did Sanders vote against the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996 which defined marriage as between one man and one woman, signed into law by then-president Bill Clinton an unpopular position then a look back at Sanders political career shows consistent support of the gay rights movement. Even when it was more than just unpopular, it was downright controversial.
In our democratic society, it is the responsibility of government to safeguard civil liberties and civil rights especially the freedom of speech and expression, Sanders wrote later in a memo. In a free society, we must all be committed to the mutual respect of each others lifestyle.
...
It is my very strong view that a society which proclaims human freedom as its goal, as the United States does, must work unceasingly to end discrimination against all people. I am happy to say that this past year, in Burlington, we have made some important progress by adopting an ordinance which prohibits discrimination in housing. This law will give legal protection not only to welfare recipients, and families with children, the elderly and the handicapped but to the gay community as well.
http://www.queerty.com/32-years-before-marriage-equality-bernie-sanders-fought-for-gay-rights-20150719
Of course, Clinton has since evolved on LGBT rights, as many have. That's wonderful. But the problem is, she only came out in support of marriage equality after it was not politically risky to do so. In fact, by 2013 - the year Clinton announced her full support for marriage equality - Democratic support for same-sex marriage was the norm, not the exception.
On such an important moral issue that affects my life and the lives of thousands of other Americans, making decisions in this manner is rather despicable. Additionally, Clinton's habit of doing what polls deem politically popular is the reason why so many voters find her inauthentic. Now, if Clinton were the only option for the Democratic presidential nomination, I would understand why we should support her despite these flaws.
But she isn't the only option.
Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, the longest-serving Independent in the history of Congress, is also running for the nomination. And unlike Clinton, his record on LGBT rights is historically excellent.
Sanders voted against DOMA, one of the few members of Congress to do so, at a time when such a stance was not politically popular. Four years after DOMA passed, Sanders helped champion Vermont's decision in 2000 to become the first state to legalize same-sex civil unions. This set a national precedent for LGBT equality achieved via legislative means. In 2009, when Vermont became the first state to allow marriage equality through legislative action rather than a court ruling, Sanders expressed his support once again. Truly, Sanders has been a real leader on LGBT rights, even if this leadership isn't recognized in the way that Clinton's current support is.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/scott-novak/on-lgbt-rights-bernie-lea_b_7662682.html
Todays Supreme Court decision was a monumental moment in American history, as it guaranteed the right for gays and lesbians to get married and established full marriage equality.
Many politicians offered their words of support, including President Obama and Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton.
Yet it is important to remember that Obama and Clinton both opposed marriage equality as late as early 2012. It is a testament to the work of thousands of activists over decades that the political class was pulled towards supporting equality.
There is however one prominent politician who did not wait so long to call for full gay equality: Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT)
In a letter he published in the early 1970s, when he was a candidate for governor of Vermont from the Liberty Union Party, Sanders invoked freedom to call for the abolition of all laws related to homosexuality:
http://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/bernie-sanders-was-full-gay-equality-40-years-ago
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) said Saturday he has been waiting for the nation to catch up to his support for same-sex marriage.
Sanders remarks come a day after Fridays landmark 5-4 Supreme Court ruling legalizing same-sex marriage nationwide.
He argued he was well ahead of the historic decision, unlike Hillary Clinton, his main rival for the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination.
...
Sanders at the time served in the House of Representatives, which voted 342-67 in favor of DOMA. The Senate voted 85-14 in favor, before former President Bill Clinton signed it into law.
That was an anti-gay marriage piece of legislation, he added of the law that defined marriage at the federal level as the coupling of one man and one woman.
Sanders on Saturday praised Americans for creating greater opportunities for same-sex couples. Fridays Supreme Court ruling, he charged, was not possible without national pressure for gay rights.
No one here should think for one second this starts with the Supreme Court, Sanders said.
It starts at the grassroots level in all 50 states, he said. The American people want to end discrimination in all its forms.
http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/246370-sanders-i-was-ahead-of-the-curve-on-gay-rights
Most Americans now support legally allowing gay and lesbian relationships, same-sex marriage, and personal marijuana use after decades of shifting public opinion. But one Democratic candidate for president, Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont, was calling for many of these changes decades ago.
In a 1972 letter to a local newspaper which was recently resurfaced by Chelsea Summers at the New Republic Sanders wrote that he supported abolishing "all laws dealing with abortion, drugs, sexual behavior (adultery, homosexuality, etc.)" as part of his campaign for Vermont governor:
These stances were far removed from public opinion at the time, according to Gallup surveys on marijuana and gay and lesbian rights. In 1972, 81 percent of Americans said marijuana should be illegal which suggests even more would favor the prohibition of more dangerous drugs like cocaine and heroin. In 1977, the earliest year of polling data, 43 percent of Americans said gay and lesbian relations between consenting adults should not be legal, while 43 percent said they should be legal.
...
But it took decades for the American public to come around to majority support on these issues: It wasn't until 2013 that a majority of Americans supported marijuana legalization, the early 2000s that most consistently responded in favor of legal gay and lesbian relations, and 2011 that a majority first reported backing same-sex marriage rights.
Sanders has carried many of these positions to this day. He was one of the few federal lawmakers to vote against the Defense of Marriage Act, the federal ban on same-sex marriages, in the 1990s. And while he told Time's Jay Newton-Small in March that he has no current stance on marijuana legalization (but backs medical marijuana), he characterized the war on drugs as costly and destructive.
http://www.vox.com/2015/7/7/8905905/sanders-drugs-gay-rights
Now that he's officially announced he will seek the Democratic nomination for president and challenge Hillary Clinton, Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders will be talking about his positions on major issues on the campaign trail, and one very big issue he has championed for years is gay marriage. Sanders, unlike some of his potential Republican opponents, seems like he would not turn down an invitation to a gay wedding (and he might actually get invited to one).
In 1996, then-Representative Sanders voted against the Defense of Marriage Act, which barred recognition of gay marriage at the federal level (DOMA was ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in 2013). Sanders' and his home state of Vermont were the first to legalize same-sex unions in 2000, at first recognizing them as civil unions. Gay marriage has been legal in Vermont since 2009, and as The New York Times reported, Vermont was the first state to pass legislation in support of same-sex marriage, rather than in reaction to a court ruling.
On Tuesday, as the Supreme Court took up the issue of gay marriage, Sanders issued a statement on his website reaffirming his support, saying gay Americans in every state should be allowed to marry.
Of course all citizens deserve equal rights. Its time for the Supreme Court to catch up to the American people and legalize gay marriage.
http://www.bustle.com/articles/79951-bernie-sanders-views-on-gay-marriage-show-hes-been-a-supporter-for-a-long-time
Bernie Sanders, the longest-serving independent member of Congress, is officially seeking the Democratic nomination for president in 2016, the Vermont senator announced in an email to supporters this morning.
"People should not underestimate me," Sanders told the Associated Press in an interview that broke the news of his candidacy Wednesday night. "I've run outside of the two-party system, defeating Democrats and Republicans, taking on big-money candidates and, you know, I think the message that has resonated in Vermont is a message that can resonate all over this country."
The self-described "Democratic socialist" wants to challenge the business-as-usual trend of big money in politics that he says dominates the current candidates including Hillary Clinton.
The thrust of Sanders's campaign thus far like his political career as the mayor of Burlington, Vt., 16 years in the U.S. House of Representatives, and the past seven in the U.S. Senate has focused on supporting working-class Americans through elevated taxes on the wealthy and correcting income inequality "which is now reaching obscene levels," he told the AP.
But Sanders has also been a steadfast and reliable supporter of LGBT equality, supporting the Employment Non-Discrimination Act when it passed the Senate in 2013 and even calling on President Obama to evolve already and support marriage equality in 2011. He's a cosponsor of the federal LGBT-inclusive Student Non-Discrimination Act and has consistently voted against bills seeking to amend the Constitution to ban same-sex marriage, while cosponsoring a bill that would repeal the remaining portions of the so-called Defense of Marriage Act. Sanders has a perfect score of 100 percent on the Human Rights Campaign's latest Congressional Equality Index.
http://www.advocate.com/politics/election/2015/04/30/bernie-sanders-most-lgbt-friendly-candidate
MADem
(135,425 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)I watched this for like the fifth time and I still must have missed it.
MADem
(135,425 posts)Start at the 35 second mark. "I was a strong supporter of civil unions" is what he says in response to the question "Do you think people should be allowed to get married outside of Massachusetts?"
"I believe the federal government should NOT BE INVOLVED IN OVERTURNING Massachusetts or any other state...I think the whole issue of marriage is a STATE ISSUE."
Those are his words.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)Hillary states that exact thing? He never does.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)Marriage used to be considered a state law issue.
Some states allow common law marriages to be recognized by their states. Some don't.
Stating that same-sex marriage is s state issue would not indicate that a person opposed same-sex marriage. It would merely suggest that the person saying that understood the prevailing national understanding of the law of that time.
You could be in favor of same-sex marriage and yet say that marriage is a state issue.
There is no contradiction in holding both views.
It's a matter of logic.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)"Then the "marriage" people cry. I say make everyone get "civil marriages."
Yes, it is a word game, but all this shit is a word game.
The real key is the RIGHTS, and for the rights to be equal for all, they can't be separate. And a civil marriage should be a civil right! What people do after they jump through that hoop is up to them and their favored religious institution."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x5739724#5740037
You in May 09, saying it's all a word game and using "quotes" around the word marriage. I guess you think your word game 'civil marriage' is a better game than 'civil union' but I do not see it that way.
Support and exploitation are not the same things.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)thesquanderer
(11,955 posts)but I would not assume that MADem is a he.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)None of us know if we're telling the truth.
thesquanderer
(11,955 posts)"Gender: Do not display "
so I did not want to assume anything, especially considering that the name would appear to be pronounced "Madam"
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Half of DU thinks I'm a guy.
Nice of you not to assume, and smart - it can get one into trouble.
MADem
(135,425 posts)jfern
(5,204 posts)He just might not have clearly stated he was in favor until 2009. Much better than Hillary who was still an opponent until early 2013.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)Last edited Tue Oct 6, 2015, 01:27 AM - Edit history (1)
http://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/bernie-sanders-was-full-gay-equality-40-years-ago
Todays Supreme Court decision was a monumental moment in American history, as it guaranteed the right for gays and lesbians to get married and established full marriage equality.
Many politicians offered their words of support, including President Obama and Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton.
Yet it is important to remember that Obama and Clinton both opposed marriage equality as late as early 2012. It is a testament to the work of thousands of activists over decades that the political class was pulled towards supporting equality.
There is however one prominent politician who did not wait so long to call for full gay equality: Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT)
In a letter he published in the early 1970s, when he was a candidate for governor of Vermont from the Liberty Union Party, Sanders invoked freedom to call for the abolition of all laws related to homosexuality:
Notice that not only did Sanders call for gay equality and an end to the drug war, he also talked about the need to tax corporations, end unjust overseas wars, heal the environment, and empower working people. If nothing else, Sanders has been extremely consistent.
pnwmom
(108,925 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Ed Suspicious
(8,879 posts)"right" on people. Let's abolish all laws dealing with abortion, drugs, sexual behavior (adultery, homosexuality, etc.)" is inconsistent with gay marriage? I guess that he wants to abolish all laws concerning homosexuality, he may not be explicitly endorsing gay marriage specifically, but his is definitely endorsing the idea that the government has no place to deny the marital union of homosexual partners.
You guys look fucking ridiculous reaching like this. What a waste of time and effort it is to have to constantly shed light on your specious, shadowy, bullshit.
pnwmom
(108,925 posts)this statement of his cannot be said to mean more than it says.
Abolishing laws dealing with sexual behavior isn't "inconsistent" with gay marriage. But it also doesn't automatically lead to same-sex marriage. Not even in Bernie Sanders's publicly stated opinions.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)riversedge
(69,731 posts)linear fashion. such as opposition to discrimination of sexual behaviors has often lead to such laws with civil laws put in or domestic partnerships laws. Politicians tend to take the less radical approach--especially in the early stages. They evolve--some faster than others. But both Sanders and Clinton did evolve. [the bid issue is that Sanders supporters keep saying Clinton evolved but as the OP points out so did Sanders} In the end--this evolution is -------- Great for all of us.
deadlinetony
(48 posts)Typical of Clinton supporter.
Where does Clinton stand on gay marriage? Opposed to it until 2013 when it became 'CONVENIENT' to support it.
Winner: Bernie
DanTex
(20,709 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)DanTex
(20,709 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)He wasn't opposed to same sex marriage.
This has all been covered before Dan, keep up:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=592436
DanTex
(20,709 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Pre-emptive: Sanders doesn't have a problem with LGBTers
Since the man's social justice bona fides are being turned into a weakness by surrogates, and we've been treated to his vast problems with African Americans, women, and now Latinos, I just wanted to get out in front before you see someone like Joe Solmonese on TV telling everyone that Bernie Sanders doesn't care enough about LGBT people.
Bernie Sanders is one of the finest politicians in American history when it comes to LGBT rights. His opponents cannot even compare themselves or their records with a straight face.
So before we experience yet another part of the Democratic coalition divided up as a weapon instead of a valued community, I just wanted to note that Sanders will never have a problem with the LGBT community.
We owe him a lot of gratitude for sticking up for us when it was not the easy or popular thing to do.
36
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251563640
MADem
(135,425 posts)a STATES RIGHTS issue.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Come up with a new argument because this one was debunked already:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=592436
MADem
(135,425 posts)It all worked out at the end of the day, but he was supporting civil unions when he said that--not marriage--for VT.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)MADem
(135,425 posts)he favored FOR VERMONT. He didn't mind if those people in Massachusetts got married, because he saw it as a States Rights issue--but for Vermont he supported civil unions.
It's his words.
From his mouth.
On that video.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)That was the claim the blogger and you made now back it up with some facts.
MADem
(135,425 posts)A civil union is not marriage.
A civil union is a LESSER accommodation.
Marriage for heterosexuals/civil unions for homosexuals is separate and unequal.
He supported CIVIL UNIONS for VERMONT. He was running to be the Senator from Vermont when he said this, in 2006.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Where has Bernie Sanders ever said he didn't support same sex marriage?
MADem
(135,425 posts)He answered that he supported CIVIL UNIONS.
It's on the video.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)uponit7771
(90,225 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)MADem
(135,425 posts)that it was a STATES RIGHTS issue.
You don't know as much about your candidate as perhaps you need to know.
AMERICABLOG breaks it down:
Mark Joseph Stern took some heat on Twitter yesterday as one does when criticizing Bernie Sanders for pointing out that while the senator claims to have been a longtime supporter of marriage equality, he went through his own evolution on the issue. As Stern notes, while Sanders was one of only 67 members of Congress to vote against DOMA in 1996 (342 ayes), he justified his vote as an issue of states rights. And when he was asked about marriage equality in 2006, he again said that he opposed overturning same-sex marriage in Massachusetts because marriage is a state issue. Thats what it is, while preferring granting same-sex couples the right to civil unions because fighting for marriage would be too divisive. Per Stern, Sanders also said he would probably not support a bill protecting LGBT workers from job discrimination and didnt consider LGBT rights a major priority as Mayor of Burlington in 1990.
....So Sanderss relationship with LGBT issues has always been a twinge political. He seems most comfortable on the liberal side of whatever the spectrum of politically viable options allows, and hed rather make noise elsewhere. In that sense, he really hasnt evolved. Its not news that social and cultural issues arent a major priority for him; hes always been laser-focused on economic inequality, which he has sometimes prioritized to the point of creating blind spots elsewhere. But I think its also fair to say that Sanders has never been bad on LGBT rights relative to those around him given the political realities he faced at the time. ...
http://americablog.com/2015/10/is-bernie-sanders-exaggerating-gay-rights-record.html
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)MADem
(135,425 posts)FAILED. to. answer.
Anyone can listen to the question, and his answer, and draw their own conclusions. You are apparently having a tough time appreciating the obvious. Since you're a fan of bloggers, here's another gay blogger's take on the story:
http://www.joemygod.com/2015/10/06/salon-questions-bernie-sanders-marriage-equality-record/
And you can keep doing a happy glad dance and pretending that he didn't avoid/duck/deflect the question--he did not answer the reporter on the "gay marriage" legislation introduction at all, and he has said, over and over--from his own mouth--that he favored STATES RIGHTS on this issue.
STATES RIGHTS is how the southerners justified slavery. It's the antithesis of a "northern European socialist" perspective, which tells us that Sanders isn't "all that" on those issues either. It's becoming pretty apparent that he is "states rights" on issues of personal relationships and behaviors, and he's "YAY FED" when it comes to social programs.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)MADem
(135,425 posts)...and he said he supported civil unions.
He was asked if he'd introduce federal legislation on behalf of SSM...
...and he said it was a STATES RIGHTS issue.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)MADem
(135,425 posts)for discussion?
Chitown Kev
(2,197 posts)I have researched this issue.
Bernie may or may not have supported (or opposed) same-sex marriage in 2006...he didn't say...so I think that it's equally as disingenuous to say that Sanders opposed marriage equality in 2006 as to say that he supported it...we don't know how he felt about the issue personally...all he says is that he supported Vermont civil unions when they were established in Vermont in 2000.
FWIW...I actually don't mind Sanders' 2006 answer all that much
MADem
(135,425 posts)characterization of Sanders that he was "for" equality from the get-go, when what he was "for" was civil unions for VT, equality for MA, and for states that didn't want it, well, that was their business. He comes right out and says he favors a STATES RIGHTS approach.
He wasn't for federal recognition at all.
The author expresses himself pretty clearly in the essay.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)That's what the blogger said and yes, the lie is pretty clear.
MADem
(135,425 posts)131. "as recently as 2006, Sanders OPPOSED marriage equality for his adopted home state of Vermont"
View profile
That's what the blogger said and yes, the lie is pretty clear.
That's the truth.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)That was the claim that was made and that you need to back up.
MADem
(135,425 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)MADem
(135,425 posts)union" answer, that's not enough for you?
You expected him to launch into a rant about how he opposes gay marriage in VT? During a senatorial debate?
You keep on keeping on.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Wasn't your candidate the one who "launched into a rant" about how she opposed same sex marriage?
MADem
(135,425 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Your candidate is on the record opposing same sex marriage.
Over and over again.
Where is your thread calling her out?
MADem
(135,425 posts)Agschmid
(28,749 posts)And that seems to be an accurate characterization here.
Unfortunately.
MADem
(135,425 posts)that issue--"coulda been sooner," most certainly. Definitely not "ahead of the curve." She had catching up to do.
You're missing the writer's point, STILL. It's not about his "evolving," Evolving is great--evolving is better than not evolving. it's about his insistence that he was more "there" than he actually was. Sure, he was better than most, but he wasn't as good as he claimed. That's what the SLATE writer is noting. When people do the Brian Williams on where they were and how much they were doing it, it leaves a disconnect. It's ... inauthentic.
Chitown Kev
(2,197 posts)Sanders was asked something to the effect of whether he supported the extension of same-sex marriage rights beyond Massachusetts...he did not answer that specific question...or rather, he said that it was a states rights issue.
He didn't say whether he supported OR opposed same-sex marriage rights for Vermont.
MADem
(135,425 posts)VT, not a generic question. VT had CUs--they'd had them since 2000. The questioner was asking if he felt it was time for an upgrade, he wasn't asking a generic question. It's obvious that he wasn't ready to say he favored equality for VT--he was sticking with the status quo.
Chitown Kev
(2,197 posts)over and over and over again and I listened to it very carefully...I even did a thread on it long before this Slate columnist...and got much of the same reaction that you are getting here, I might add.
Sanders said that he supported CU's when they were adopted in Vermont 2000 ( he had to be dragging kicking and screaming to go on the record even in 2000)
As to the question he is asked, which is about "the extension of same-sex marriage beyond Massachusetts" and all of the benefits, he simply says that it's a state issue. He neither supported or opposed same-sex marriage in that 2006 debate...or rather, he wasn't willing to go on the record one way or the other about that.
MADem
(135,425 posts)That is the question he was asked.
He replied that he supports civil unions and that is a states right issue.
Jimmy Carter was flung under the bus here for having the exact same POV. The point the writer was making--that the acolytes refuse to acknowledge--is that Sanders was not always "for" marriage equality. He was for letting the states do whatever they wanted--hell, the opposite end of the spectrum on that score is "covenant marriage" where no divorce is allowed.
He was reading from the same page as Carter in 2006.
Some people get a pass, some don't.
Chitown Kev
(2,197 posts)(and have said as much) about this...and I've been saying...I think that our difference here is very minor.
MADem
(135,425 posts)are not 'excoriation,' they are more like a small caution.
There is no need for this candidate to gild the lily--he's way ahead of most if not all on this issue.
thesquanderer
(11,955 posts)I may be seeing your posts in the wrong order, I think we've gotten past this, but again, he replied that he supportED civil unions (i.e. in 2000).
And again, he did not say it is a "states right" issue, he said it was a "state issue" -- as I mentioned earlier, it's a relevant distinction because of the additional baggage that comes with the phrase "state's rights" -- and he was correct, it was indeed a state issue. As I said elsewhere:
Do you think that was an unreasonable (or anti-gay-marriage) position?
MADem
(135,425 posts)and he said this AT A DEBATE with that guy in 2006. He was being asked to differentiate himself from that rich guy--and he declined to so do. "Civil unions" was viewed by many as a way station enroute to equality. His 'civil unions' position was the exact same as his opponent's.
He beat that guy like a rented mule--two to one in the vote count and he took every district save one and a half -- the electoral map looked like a mini-me of Nixon v. McGovern. It was an opportunity to move the ball down the field and he did not take it.
As for your quote, yes, it IS an unreasonable position. Let's flip the argument the other way. If it's "OK" for the STATES to legislate marriage, then the states could legislate mandatory (not optional--and three states actually do have this crazy shit) "covenant marriage." All I can tell you, if you don't know what it entails, is look it up. Would you like to live in a state that mandated that, and prohibited "regular" marriage? Because The Bible, and all?
And the way you advance a national conversation is to introduce "pointless legislation." Good grief, DU was all aflutter when Kucinich proposed a "Department of Peace." That had as much chance of happening as me starting as the Patriots new QB.
Sanders had an un-catchable lead, he could have planted a flag on this issue easily and still won by a country mile. He could have easily said "Sure, I will introduce legislation," or he even could have said, "Hell, that's not going to have a prayer of passing, because we in VT are ahead of many of our counterparts across the nation, but I would be pleased to see VT introduce marriage equality while we wait for sanity to percolate across the nation."
There are so many ways to handle it. He just handled that question badly. It's not the end of the world, and he was still miles ahead of many, but that is a clear case of "less than" full-throated support. It also is a stance in very sharp contrast to the whole "northern European socialism" vibe that is put out about and by him. Why is it OK to raise taxes on people to pay for services but not OK to insist that everyone across the nation enjoy equal access to marriage? It's kind of like "Do as I say" about this thing, but about this other thing, hey, states, you're on your own.
I am a realist and I understand that things like equality and weed DO happen "state by state." Expressing approval for that approach, though--like Jimmy Carter did--will get you a trip and a sharp kick under the bus. UNLESS your name is Sanders--then you get "Stop talking bad about the Bern!!!" when no one is 'talking bad,' least of all the author of the piece, he's just telling the truth about how that question was handled and what it illustrated.
Sanders handled that question horribly. By saying he was for the "states rights" approach, he was saying, Well, you're a lucky duck if you live in MA, less lucky but still not bad if you live in VT, and if you live in one of those fundy places or if you want full marriage equality...? You need to move. To MASSACHUSETTS. Because I work in DC, in the federal legislature, and I am NOT gonna help you get that equality when it comes to wedded bliss.
It was, plain and simple, HORRIBLE optics through the long lens of history, if one is going to insist that they were always in the equality corner--and the Senator is affecting an "I was THERE!" attitude on this matter. He was absolutely "ahead," but he was not "there." That is what the writer is pointing out--that there's no need to gild the lily and pretend he was more invested than he actually was.
He evolved too--he didn't have as much evolving to do as most, but he evolved.
thesquanderer
(11,955 posts)re:
That's the way our system is set up. When it comes to marriage, the states can do anything they want; and the only way to stop them is to challenge the constitutionality of what they come up with.
In fact, Congress DID try to address marriage on a federal level, with DOMA... and sure enough, THAT was found unconstitutional.
I will grant you that DOMA had not yet been found unconstitutional in 2006... but from the very article we've been discussing, Bernie seemed to believe it was unconstitutional on the day it passed. So then how could he reasonably have been expected to turn around in 2006 and say he would try to pass the kind of legislation he had already claimed was unconstitutional (i.e. not within the purview of the powers the constituiton grants to the federal government, something that should be left to the states)? His answer was simply consistent with his previously held positions.
Which brings me right to your other statements,
...He could have easily said "Sure, I will introduce legislation,"
Considering his position on the constitutionality of DOMA, wouldn't it have been hypocritical?
As for the rest of your post, I agree he didn't handle it as well as he could have, and I said as much in other posts. I can't speak to the Jimmy Cater analogy, don't know anything about it. And I wish you'd stop using the loaded "state's rights" phrase when talking about the 2006 video, because he did not use that term, which has unfortunate additional implications.
But I'm glad to see that, at this point, we at least are finally agreeing on most of the facts, even if don't necessarily have the same opinions about some of those facts. That's progress.
MADem
(135,425 posts)was consistent on his view about the states' rights to decide what marriage is...but is that a GOOD THING, really?
Like I keep saying, the rights of persons can't be left up to the whims of sometimes mouth-breathing states. The federal government needs to lead on these issues.
We could use an Equal Rights Amendment to the US Constitution, too, so that half our population will no longer be treated as second class citizens.
I wouldn't leave "rights of women" up to the states, either.
I am using "states rights" because I want to invoke and evoke a specific image--the image of a state feeling free to deny a person their full personhood, because of an element of their being. With slaves, it was skin color, with gay people, it's their orientation, and with women, it's their gender. When a politican says leave it to the states, that is what is meant--that the state has a RIGHT, separate from the federal government, to decide how they will treat their citizens. When it comes to human rights, I don't think states have that right. They can decide when liquor stores are opened, and they can force you to sit in your car while someone else pumps your gas, but they should not be able to deprive you of human rights--and when people are treated differently, and made to feel inferior, that is what is happening.
thesquanderer
(11,955 posts)re:
Whether it's a good thing is a whole other discussion, but as I understand it, it is the way it is. In terms of marriage laws, the states can do what they want up until the point the court says that what they want is unconstitutional. Congress has little-to-no authority in the matter, constitutionally.
MADem
(135,425 posts)That's where the whole "issue for the states" argument fails--the state is making one person in our nation "lesser" than another person in our nation--and doing it based on that one person's orientation and nothing else. And by going along with it, and endorsing the state's "right" to make that decision, that's agreeing to that state of affairs.
This isn't like saying "No marriages will be performed on Wednesdays in this state." That kind of law affects everyone equally. They're saying "You, there--yes, you! You and your fiance can't get married--because of who and what you are." Agreeing to letting the states do that is just bogus.
It's a bad position to take, from that perspective alone.
thesquanderer
(11,955 posts)the solution is for the Supreme Court to rule that state law to be unconstititutional. That's our check-and-balance for that. That's not an argument for taking the power away from the state and giving it to Congress.
MADem
(135,425 posts)individual rights. They MUST speak--early and often.
If the states think there is overrreach, and object to the "interference" of the federal government with regard to the states' 'right' to discriminate, they can go cry to the Supreme Court and see how well they do there.
But justice delayed is justice denied.
thesquanderer
(11,955 posts)Though the fact that Bernie Sanders may not agree with you on that from a constitutional or governance perspective is really a different (albeit tangentially related) issue than his support for gay rights.
MADem
(135,425 posts)and being pragmatic. Like a politician will do.
That flies in the face of the whole "unscripted, uncalculating, straight-shooting, non-political" meme, though. He does look at optics. He does consider how a stance on an issue will "read" -- even if, up to now, he's only had to worry about how it will "read" to a crowd of 630K caucasian Vermonters.
As I've said, he wasn't "always there." That's fine--a lot of people weren't, either--they did that horrible thing, they EVOLVED...too.
He was ahead of the curve, certainly, but by overstating the case, he leaves himself open to charges of insincerity/pandering. That's the point the writer of the article is making, not that he was 'anti-gay' or anything of that nature.
thesquanderer
(11,955 posts)Yes, he's a politician, playing the art of the possible, and being pragmatic. We have both said some similar things in other posts, and we both agree that that's fine. A politician who cannot do that cannot accompish anything. He pushes the line only as far as he feel he can push it--which is pretty darn far--and no further. To take him to task for that is to wish him to be unelectable and/or ineffective.
But it seems to me like people are creating impossibly high bars. He has to live up to a "non-political" meme that is not of his making? He's great at speaking off the cuff, but does he fail the "unscripted" test if you ever see notes in his hand (yes, I've seen them), or if he (gasp) were ever to use a teleprompter? I hope he never goes swimming because people will say he failed the "walk on water" test.
In an era where most politicians are lucky to not be caught in major flip-flops (or outright lies), it seems ridiculous to take Sanders to task for statements that are, at best, rounding errors by comparison. When you reduce multi-faceted positions to the required political rhetoric and catchphrases you need to get people's attention and win elections, nobody expects those catchphrases to accurately sum up every last nuance and detail of the position. But the gist is there.
And as I talked about earlier, I see more of Stern possibly over-stating Sanders' position (perhaps to make it easier to knock down) than I do Sanders over-stating his own case.
MADem
(135,425 posts)Evolving is ok for my candidate, it's flip flopping for the other side.
Changing one's mind is evidence of growth for my candidate, it's flip flopping for the other side.
It's not that big a deal if my candidate shifts position, it's flip flopping for the other side.
And you can take the word "flip flopping" out, and substitute the more aggressive "lying," or "bullshitting" or "being hypocritical," or the more sedate "overstating."
When primary season is over, this will hopefully stop.
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)Try coming to the big table when you're ready.
MADem
(135,425 posts)You show your hand when you get personal.
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)MADem
(135,425 posts)That writer is not a blogger. But hey, "nice try..."
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)I get that it's kind of embarrassing to have 20 people completely repudiate what you're hawking, but that's on you, not on anyone else.
MADem
(135,425 posts)When all else fails, GET PERSONAL! Drag out the personal characterizations, with no regard for their veracity!
No one is "repudiating" anything I've said. "Nanny nanny boo boo/lather/rinse/repeat" is what it is... and nothing more!
thesquanderer
(11,955 posts)At least not in that video. He said, "I was a strong supporter of civil unions." He did not say he *favored* them. If you're going to parse his words to try to discern an underlying additional meaning, you need to at least get the words right. "Favor" means "prefer" and that is not something that he said here. It may or may not have been his position, but it's not the word he used here.
More to the point, one can obviously be a "strong supporter of civil unions" and still not actually be against gay marriage. A decade+ ago, many gay activists were strong supporters of civil unions, not because they were against gay marriage, but because they thought civil unions were a more immediately acheivable goal. For example, see http://www.sevendaysvt.com/vermont/gay-rights-activists-committed-to-moving-beyond-civil-unions/Content?oid=2128715
In Vermont, "We've taken a breather from the civil-union debate and are now ready to open the {marriage} conversation again," says Beth Robinson, chair of the Vermont Freedom to Marry Task Force. "The world has changed so much since 2000," the year of the civil-unions debate
...
Exit polls in 2004 showed 40 percent of Vermonters favoring marriage, 86 percent supporting civil unions, and only 2 percent opposed to either.
Note that since the numbers add up to more than 100%, obviously many of the people supporting civil unions also supported gay marriage. It is ridiculous to say that support for one means you couldn't have also supported the other.
Now let's look at exactly what was asked in that video, and exactly how he answered.
The question was a compound question with numerous points. He was asked, "do you think that gay people outght to have the right to get married outside Massachusetts, be able to file joint federal income taxes and so forth; if you do, would you sponsor legislation to that effect" etc.
By saying "I was a strong supporter of civil unions" (note the past tense), he is pointing out that he had *already* long made clear his support for things like the ability to file joint federal income taxes, which was part of the question.
By saying (as he does later in the answer) "I believe that the federal government should not be involved in overturning Massachusetts or any other state because I think, Stuart, the whole issue of marriage is a state issue," he is answering the question about sponsoring legislation (as a U.S. Senator) to legalize gay marriage nation-wide, saying essentially that he would not sponsor such legislation and that he does not think that is appopriate to legislate that issue at the federal level. And constitutionally, he is correct. It was not up to the Congress to legislate gay marriage into or out of existence. It was up to the states to do it, and if it were disputed (as it was) then it would be up to the Supreme Court. In fact, that's how it played out, and nothing any U.S. Senator could have introduced was going to change that either way. No U.S. Senator ever introduced legislation to mandate gay marriage in all 50 states, it would have been a pointless thing to do. So his answer was an honest, realistic, and practical one: no, he would not introduce such legislation.
Yes, it would have been better if he had said, not only should the federal government not try to overturn the Massachusetts law permitting gay marriage because it's not their purview, they should also not try to overturn the law because it's a darn good law. I think it's a safe bet that that's what he believed (based on his general voting record and rhetoric over the years). But it was probably smart politics to not include that in this particular answer in 2006.
I think the worst thing you can say about this video is that he danced around his personal beliefs about gay marriage, never actually saying whether he was personally for or against it. But you know, he's still a politician, and the goal here is to win the debate/election. The goal is not necessarily to reveal every nuance of your opinion about something, especially in a format that limits the time you have to explain something. So I would say his answer was truthful, but we can't assume it was necessarily complete. Really, when a moderator asks a question with numerous parts, it is extremely rare that a candidate actually specifically addresses every last phrase within the question.
Regardless, if you're going to compare records in terms of championing gay rights, I don't think anyone can argue with a straight face that Bernie isn't ahead of Hillary on this one.
SunSeeker
(51,378 posts)It's an equal protection issue. It was on that basis that the Supreme Court struck down gay marriage bans.
Yes, you can be for gay marriage and civil unions, but that was not what he was asked. He was asked if he supported gay marriage. He was not asked if he supported civil unions.
thesquanderer
(11,955 posts)First, he never said it was a states' rights issue. He said it was a state issue. That's an important distinction because the phrase "state's rights" has its own set of extra baggage.
And he was absolutely correct that it was a state issue, in the context of the question, which was whether he would sponsor legislation in the congress to give gay people the right to marry. But that could not be done at the congressional level, it could only be done at the state level.
That was his answer, that he would not sponsor a federal bill to mandate gay marriage because that's the role of the states, and he was correct. It does not mean he was against gay marriage. Actually, in this part of the answer, he also made it clear that he felt it would be wrong for the federal government to try to stop Massachusetts from permitting it, so to that extent, he showed he clearly was not philosophically against gay marriage.
As to your second point, yes he was asked if he supported gay marriage, and he didn't directly answer that question... though as I said, it was clear that he had no issue with the Massachusetts law, which can be seen as a sideways "yes" answer. Regardless of whether you agree with that, though, the lack of a direct answer does not imply the answer is no.
Again, he said he supported (past tense) civil unions. He was talking about his support for Vermont's civil union laws in 2000, which was a pioneering, groundbreaking effort at the time. That answered the question about federal benefits and the like, and was not necessarily being presented as an alternative to supporting gay marriage, which would be a more logically reasonable reading if he had used the present tense. Understand, the questioner asked 4 questions before he could answer anything... basically:
Q: Do you support gay marriage? Do you support allowing gay couples to file join taxes and the like? If so, will you sponsor legislation? And should we repeal DADT?
He did not answer them in the order asked. First he answered about DADT. Then he mentioned civil unions. If he had said "I support civil unions" (present tense), you'd have a decent case for that being a reply to question #1 (as well as #2). But since he put it in the past tense ("I supported civil unions", referring to his 2000 efforts), that only directly answers #2, saying that in fact, he is already on record for having supported such things as the fiing of joint tax returns (an answer that also served to generally reinforce his LGBT bona fides). It doesn't say anything either way about his feelings about gay marriage that day, it looks more like he ignored that part of the question.
As I said, it is extremely rare that a candidate actually specifically addresses every last phrase within the question, and his answer could have been better. But it's a big stretch and a very subjective reading to look at this video and say that he is against gay marriage, even if he is not making a forceful case for being for it. His boasting about his support for the 2000 civil unions law ("I supported civil unions" is simply not the same as saying that he's against gay marriage. You're choosing to apply that answer to a specific portion of a 4-part question without indication that that was his intent, and when in fact the tense of the answer even argues against it being applied that way.
Put differently:
"Q: Do you support gay marriage? A: I support civil unions." is sensibly interpreted as "I do not support gay marriage."
However:
"Q: Do you support gay marriage? A: I supported civil unions." is practically a non-sequitor. Heck, you could even stretch it the other way and say it means, "Hey, I supported civil unions when almost no one else did... of course I support gay marriage!" (No, I'm not arguing for that as the best interpretation, either.)
Now add the fact that it was not a simple question and answer as above, but rather a long multi-facted answer to a 4-part question. Is it really sensible to selectively apply that portion of the answer to the part of the question you want to apply it to, and assume that must be the only/correct reading, especially when it's not even supported by the grammar, and when it can so easily be read differently?
SunSeeker
(51,378 posts)You are trying way too hard. At some point, even under your scenario, he supported civil unions, then evolved into supporting gay marriage, which was the point of the OP article.
thesquanderer
(11,955 posts)re: "even under your scenario, he supported civil unions, then evolved into supporting gay marriage, which was the point of the OP article."
Really, I can't imagine anyone taking Bernie Sanders to task for supporting civil unions in 2000 on the basis that he should have been supporting gay marriage instead. Is that your position, are you actually criticizing him for his 2000 support of civil unions?
As I said earlier, it is silly to say that support for one means you couldn't have also supported the other. Many activists were supporters of civil unions, not because they were against gay marriage, but because they thought civil unions were a more immediately acheivable goal, so support for one didn't necessarily mean you didn't also support the other. As also evidenced by the poll numbers I posted, where clearly lots of people supported both, in the same poll.
Support for civil unions simply does not equate to being against gay marriage. And bragging that he supported civil unions in 2000 does not prove that he did or did not support gay marriage in 2000, in 2006, or today. And the only way you get to "did not" is by choosing to change the tense of his answer and then selectively apply it to the portion of the question you choose to apply it to. To me, that's the tortured interpretation!
If you watch the video and want to say he didn't clearly come out in favor of gay marriage when given the opportunity, fine, I'll give you that. But to watch that video and come away thinking that he was actually trying to say that he was against gay marriage is a real stretch, IMO. He certainly didn't criticize MA for doing it.
MADem
(135,425 posts)That's when he was making those comments. VT went to marriage equality three years after this video.
VT approved civil unions in 2000. When he was speaking about them, they'd been 'law of the land' in the state for six years already--he wasn't breaking new ground.
thesquanderer
(11,955 posts)Yes, the video was from 2006; and in it, he says he supported civil unions, referring to what he had done in 2000. At least that's what it sounded like to me.
MADem
(135,425 posts)it would have been a bold statement. But CUs were a staple of VT culture and had been for six years by the time he said that. In 2000, supporting CUs was brave. In 2006 it was like saying "Water is wet."
thesquanderer
(11,955 posts)These aren't bold statements, but they are statements of fact.
First, a technical correction: I just went back to listen again, and although I had the tense right, he didn't say (as I put it) "I supported civil unions" - rather he said "I was a strong supporter of civil unions." It doesn't change any of my points, but I wanted to mention the exact wording.
But back to the question at hand, he didn't mention years, but he was indicating his long time support for gay rights. He said "I was a strong supporter of civil unions" (referring to his actions in 2000, even though he didn't state the year), followed by "I voted against the DOMA bill" (referring to his actions in 1996, even though he didn't state the year). This sentences were not attempts to be bold, they were putting forth his record. Reminding people that he took these positions is not the same as saying water is wet.
MADem
(135,425 posts)change. It's a duck. It walks, talks and quacks like one. He didn't want to deal with the Big M on that debate stage.
thesquanderer
(11,955 posts)It's all the other parsing, the selective quoting and "wishful" interpretation to turn that debate response into something more than ducking, that I find bothersome. That and this implication that, if he's at all politically adroit, that means he's insincere. Which really is a catch-22, kind of saying, "In order for us to not give you a hard time, you must show that you don't have the skills needed to be elected or to govern."
To your exact point here, I think it squares just fine. This is how debates work. The moderator asks a question, if you're lucky the candidate actually directly answers at least part of it, and then s/he typically riffs on the topic in general. In this case, he specifically addressed much (if not absolutely everything) in the original 4-part question, and then talked about his support for gay rights in general, reminding people of his 1996 DOMA vote and 2000 support of bringing civil unions to VT. I don't see any issue there.
MADem
(135,425 posts)It's the overstatement that is at issue, and that is really all the writer was saying. That he didn't need to gild the lily in the first place.
thesquanderer
(11,955 posts)He's in a debate. Why wouldn't he boast about his record?
There is no "overstatement" in his reminding people that he voted against DOMA (in 1996) and that he supported the civil union laws (in 2000).
There is no issue that HRC has tons of foreign policy experience. Would it be a mistake for her bring up her secretary of state experience, if a debate moderator asked a question about foreign policy? A candidate isn't limited to bringing up only things that he thinks the listener is unlikely to already know. A candidate is not limited to only making comments that s/he thinks will be controversial.
To me, this is a real "grasping at straws" argument.
MADem
(135,425 posts)remarks he has made in interviews and that his surrogates tout incessantly. It's the same kind of petit-hyperbole as the "I marched with Martin a half century ago."
If we're going to give one candidate a pass for evolving, we need to share the wealth on that score.
thesquanderer
(11,955 posts)In that reading, it's arguably not an overstatement at all.
Which in turn demonstrates how so much of this is about interpretation, which is what weakens the argument. No one seems to be finding actual, direct word-for-word quotes of Bernie, with context, making the claims--or the contradictions--that Stern accuses him of. They all seem to be "interpretations" -- he said X but that meant Y, or he said X and that meant not-Y. It's apparently not so easy to find exact quotes with context, along with other quotes (or actions) that truly fundamentally contradict them.
I think this other comment of mine also applies here:
thesquanderer
(11,955 posts)as a secondary thought to my previous reply, if he wants to use his DOMA vote as evidence for support of SSM in 1996, I think he's entitled to that, even if Stern feels that the reasons for his vote are ambiguous.
And seriously, does anyone really think he made that vote begrudingingly? That he really wanted to vote against SSM, but felt that he couldn't do so for constitutional reasons?
And getting back to the idea of rhetoric, even *IF* you feel he wasn't providing all the support he could have in 1996, and that maybe he was only 95% rather than 100% "there" in 1996, is it really wrong of him to say he was "there"? Especially when his main opponent was 0% there, i.e. was actually cheerleading for the opposite side? As I basically said in the other message, political speak and rhetoric does engender some simplification. Martin Luther King didn't really have to say... "I have a dream! Okay, well not really a dream, because technically I'm awake, but it's kind of like a dream."
MADem
(135,425 posts)That was the reason for his vote.
The whole point of the article was that he didn't need to gild the lily because he already was better than most.
It's like an abolitionist claiming that they wrote the Emancipation Proclamation. Being an abolitionist is plenty good enough.
thesquanderer
(11,955 posts)Not given: That was the sole reason for his vote. Or that he thought gay marriage was a bad idea.
To make those claims, you're back into going beyond his actual words into reading desired interpretations into what he did or did not say in order to make a point.
There's nothing wrong with his taking credit for that vote. It is indeed the vote he cast.
Going further, Stern himself says, "Perhaps Sanders team used this states rights rationale to limit backlash from anti-gay voters. That would be a perfectly acceptable tactic, since his votenot his explanation of itis what matters most."
Yes, Stern goes on to say, "Still, if thats the case, then Sanders should be honest about it." But 20 years later, really, what is to be gained by doing that? Those who are against him could just as easily come back and say, "Sure, you say that now, but why should we believe you? Maybe you're just trying to score political points in today's more gay-friendly environment." Stern has set up a no-win scenario here.
Maybe he will come out and say something like that, maybe he won't. But unless he can point to other documented statements from 1996 to back it up, it's not going to change anyone's mind.
MADem
(135,425 posts)MADem
(135,425 posts)First, write down the QUESTION he was asked.
Second, write down the ANSWER to that question.
Third, read the article that writer authored, and take note of what he actually is saying. He's not "comparing records" -- of course Sanders has a good record. But what he also has is a little hyperbolic BSing going on with his assertions that he always gave full throated support, when this video plainly shows that he played the politician, ducked a question, and refused to say if he supported "the gay marriage" for VT.
Love the way everyone is throwing this guy under the bus--when he was dissing Clinton, everybody loved him and no one tried to call him a blogger!
thesquanderer
(11,955 posts)What you ask me to do ("first" and "second" is basically what I did in post #194.
And as you can see there, I *agree* with what you say (in "third" , that he ducked the question!
As I said in post #202,
See, up until now, you didn't say he ducked the question in that exchange, you said that he came out against gay marriage. That's where I thought you were wrong. In order to get there, you were taking too many liberties with what he actually said, quoting him as saying "I favor civil unions" (#138) and "I support civil unions" (#87), neither of which he actually exactly said, and interpreting his answer as to mean he was actually against gay marriage (in posts #87 and #119) as opposed to not clearly taking a position either way, ducking it as you say now. So we are much more in agreement now!
Getting back to your "third," then, yes, I did read the article. I wish he had sourced some of the things he had put in quotes and attributions because sometimes people put in quotes something the person did not exactly say. And of course, context matters, and even if the quote is accurate, you might not get the full meaning without the context... and obviously people writing with an agenda often take something out of context for exactly that reason.
An additional weakness of the article is taking something his chief of staff said about DOMA (again, missing an actual attribution so you can't check the exact words!) and assuming that person got Bernie's thoughts about it exactly right. BTW, the author's "get out of jail" solution for Bernie on this is disingenuous. The author says,
He goes on, "In 2006, he took a stand against same-sex marriage in Vermont, stating that he instead endorsed civil unions." Again, no attribution. If he's talking about the video, you and I already agree that he merely ducked it there, rather than taking a stand against it. Then the author continues taking about things "Sanders told reporters" but again, with no attributions, little in the way of actual quotes (just a couple of words), and no way to check context. For example, even if he did indeed say in 2006 that he was "comfortable" with civil unions, did he actually say something to the effect of "but not full marriage equality" or is Stern making the mistake some people here have made that someone in favor of civil unions can't possibly also be in favor of marriage equality? No context, no sourcing, we can't tell.
Here's the thing: I would agree with the author that Sanders has not always "championed" gay marriage as strongly as he might have. But I take issues with a lot of the author's supporting arguments, as you can tell. Heck, I'm not even sure I buy the premise in the headline, that Sanders actually "claims hes a longtime champion of marriage equality" so maybe it's a straw man argument from the start, knocking him for not being able to back up something he never actually said in the first place. Because there's no attribution for that, either. I google'd the berniesander.com site and sanders.senate.gov for the words "champion" and "marriage" and didn't find something that said that. His fact-based LGBT issues page at https://berniesanders.com/issues/fighting-for-lgbt-equality/ does not make that particular claim. Is it possible the author of the article over-stated Bernie's claim specifically for the purpose of trying to knock it down?
The closest thing I found was this from http://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/sanders-on-gay-marriage-time-for-supreme-court-to-catch-up-to-the-american-people -
As a side thought, there are certainly people who have long championed gay rights without necessarily having long championed gay marriage.
Here's another piece about the Stern article which I think makes a good point, from http://americablog.com/2015/10/is-bernie-sanders-exaggerating-gay-rights-record.html - he says
Finally (!) another side note... you and Stern both made mention of "state's rights" but nowhere in this conversation do we see that phrase actually being said by Sanders. Getting back to the video at least, as I mentioned in post #194,
If you actually read all this, thanks!
MADem
(135,425 posts)Sanders' COS (a "her" I am pretty sure, at the time, was his wife Jane. She has worked for him off and on down the years.
I'm pretty certain that quote is available in one of the VT papers--a lot of them that have to do with Sanders have been scanned and put on line, but they have yet to be digitized.
I think he was ducking the question and doing it deliberately. How hard is it to answer a question as to if you'll support marriage equality at the federal level with legislation with something other than a YES or NO? It's a YES/NO question--and he replied by saying marriage is a matter for the states. That comment means that he believes it is a states rights issue. It doesn't mean anything else. You can change that "baggage" into an overnight case by removing the "rights" word, but the end result is the same--the states decide if gays are treated like all the other people, or like "Less Than." Just like the slaves. That is a harsh assessment, but we know it's the truth. The end result IS the same.
He also defended his down-vote for DOMA with the same reasoning--it's a matter for the states.
As I've said, the south averred that slavery was a matter for the states, too. I happen to not agree with that--when it comes to rights of persons (be they slaves, or gay), I think the federal government needs to speak with one loud national voice. Trying to parse between "states issue" and "states rights" is a nonstarter. A "states issue" is one that the states are allowed to decide. This was Jimmy Carter's POV, and he was thrown under the bus for it here--and I was tossed under there with him for saying that he's an old guy and he's evolved way more than anyone could expect, and the tipping point has been reached, anyway, so his POV doesn't matter. Didn't help ME to be nuanced.....but "Bern" gets a pass!
My personal views on this issue go much further, actually--I think all "marriages" should be civil--and if people want religious "marriages" they should be arranged privately. I am a fan of separation of church and state. Our system is too entrenched, though, so we are unlikely to see what is the paradigm in many other countries.
A "political" approach is a pragmatic one--but it takes away from that "authenticity" that Sanders is supposed to possess above and beyond all those other awful politicians. I think, what AMERICABLOG is saying, is that he's just like the rest of them--only not as well known.
They continued on with this assessment:
In that sense, he really hasnt evolved. Its not news that social and cultural issues arent a major priority for him; hes always been laser-focused on economic inequality, which he has sometimes prioritized to the point of creating blind spots elsewhere. But I think its also fair to say that Sanders has never been bad on LGBT rights relative to those around him given the political realities he faced at the time.
Its useful to note that Sanders just went through a similar critique of his record on racial equality. Sanders (more accurately, Sanderss supporters) made a big deal out of marching with Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and working with the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee, touting both as evidence that he was with it on present-day issues pertaining to racial justice. To which the Black Lives Matter movement said, in effect, Dude, that was fifty years ago. Where are you now? Marching with Dr. King is great, but it isnt a platform in the 21st Century. What was radical in the 1960s is now mainstream Democratic politics today; if your campaign rhetoric assumes that isnt the case, its fair for the activist wing of the progressive movement to assume youve stopped pushing.
thesquanderer
(11,955 posts)That's what I said from my first post in the topic. We may disagree on some of the implications of that (like whether or not political pragamatism is necessarily a bad thing in this case), but at least we agree that's what happened, which, again, is much better than when you seemed to be saying he wasn't ducking the issue but actually saying he was against gay marriage! As I posted in my other reply, it's good that we are at least coming together on what the facts are, even if some of our perspectives/opinions about some of those facts differ. Thanks for the thoughtful replies.
MADem
(135,425 posts)To clarify, though, I never thought he personally was AGAINST gay marriage. I think he's very agreeable when it comes to issues of personal freedom.
I agree, in fact, with most pundits, who believe that these 'personal freedom' issues are not his "priority" and that he is "focused like a laser beam" on economic/worker issues. I think he made a 'calculation' when he offered that answer. He didn't take an opportunity, but he knew it wouldn't cost him if he didn't. He's a politician, like everyone else--and that's the real take-away.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)2009-
"Here's the truth--equality is going to have to come from We, The People, and that means it's got to come from the STATES, not the Federal government. If you are expecting Congress to pass an "Equality" law without at least half the states (and they'd better be the Big Population ones, too) having equality laws on their books, well, dream on. They won't do it. Don't shoot the messenger."
www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=221x131236#131240
"Certainly, the states--all of them, pretty much--would have to go to the new paradigm.
Otherwise, we're stuck with these enclaves, like VT and eventually NH...and states with differing views like MA.
Once there's critical mass, then the federal aspect kicks in. It doesn't happen overnight. Hell, this country couldn't even pass the ERA." 2007
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2316458
What's consistent here is the lecturing and the use of caps for STATES but not the point of view so much.
I'm sure you can parse and excuse and claim context and all that. You used to do lots of material about 'civil marriages' in which you'd say 'it's all word games' and declare that the churches should get to say marriage while everyone else would say 'civil marriage' and all would be well. Straight folks trying to figure this out were a trip. But you managed and that's all that matters.
It would be best for those outside of minority groups to not attempt to tell members of minority groups what their own history is and how they should proceed. This is a lesson some supporters of each of the two major candidates need to learn swiftly and learn well. As it stands I'm starting to look forward to hearing from O'Malley in the debates.
MADem
(135,425 posts)the reality.
I personally believe that ALL marriage should be civil (still), that religious marriage should be privately arranged, and everyone across America should be afforded equal protection under the law. But in 2009 that was The Impossible Dream. The only way to knock down the walls was state-by-state. The same thing will happen with marijuana laws, it'll be state-by-state and all the old stoners will be very old before it's a federal thing (if they live to see it). This country STILL hasn't passed an ERA, and I would like to see one before I die.
If you are saying this "It would be best for those outside of minority groups to not attempt to tell members of minority groups what their own history is and how they should proceed." then you must agree that Sanders shouldn't have overstated the case about his history and involvement with the issue. He can't say "I was there" if he was being pragmatic, parsing, telling the questioner at that debate that it was an issue for the states and he didn't support federal legislation for marriage equality. In sum, he WASN'T there. He was being what he was, and what he is--a politician.
MrMickeysMom
(20,453 posts)Smell the roses...
workinclasszero
(28,270 posts)Bonobo
(29,257 posts)"There is video" --Yes, of Sanders admitting he voted to overturn the reprehensible CLINTON DOMA and admitting that he supports civil unions.
None of the supposed quotes in this blog post are sourced.
As Abraham Lincoln famously said: "Don't believe everything you read on the internet."
jfern
(5,204 posts)MADem
(135,425 posts)Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Bonobo
(29,257 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Puglover
(16,380 posts)but her supporters made me turn to Bernie.
Icing on the cake here.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)deadlinetony
(48 posts)"Don't believe everything you read on the Internet"?
Ok, link?
MADem
(135,425 posts)Civil unions--not marriage equality.
So, you see--not "bullshit." His words.
13. Bullshit.
View profile
"There is video" --Yes, of Sanders admitting he voted to overturn the reprehensible CLINTON DOMA and admitting that he supports civil unions.
None of the supposed quotes in this blog post are sourced.
As Abraham Lincoln famously said: "Don't believe everything you read on the internet."
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)MADem
(135,425 posts)CIVIL UNIONS.
They are not the same thing.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)MADem
(135,425 posts)I don't think you'd get a good reception from many people if you tried to sell that argument, though.
He was asked if he supported "gay marriage" and he said he supported "civil unions."
concreteblue
(626 posts)As a casual observer sometimes poster, you are grasping at straws, friend. And it smells of desperation........
MADem
(135,425 posts)No need to "wow"--it's right there on video for you to see.
Fairgo
(1,571 posts)The point was made. The refutation followed. The rest is just a pantomime of motives.
MADem
(135,425 posts)He was asked if he'd sponsor federal legislation for marriage equality, he said he likes civil unions and that marriage is a 'states right' issue.
In other words, no, he won't sponsor that federal legislation.
His stance is the same as Jimmy Carter's on this matter--and Carter got ripped to shreds here for his POV.
Leaving marriage up to the states? In some wackadoodle places, you could end up with mandated covenant marriage (which is actually available in three states in USA).
SunSeeker
(51,378 posts)It is like this exchange:
Q: Is your name John?
A: My name is Joseph.
Sure, he didn't actually use the word "no, " but his response meant no by asserting a different name.
MADem
(135,425 posts)A basic rule is to say what you are 'for' rather than what you are against. And he was 'for' civil unions--which Vermont already had since the year 2000 (they didn't get marriage equality until 2009).
MA had marriage equality, and the question was framed to ask him if he would support that for VT as well.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)You are making the same mistake as the author who lied when he said "as recently as 2006, Sanders opposed marriage equality for his adopted home state of Vermont".
SunSeeker
(51,378 posts)Otherwise, he would have just answered "yes" to the question.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)What part of the video did you see him say that?
SunSeeker
(51,378 posts)Why did he respond by saying he supported civil unions?
Your argument lacks logic and ignores universally understood language inferences.
But hey, at least you're kicking the OP.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)And with your candidate's history of opposition to lgbt civil rights I wouldn't be so happy about kicking this thread if I were you.
When the day shift comes in and sees how another minority was exploited by HC supporters the fall out will be epic.
SunSeeker
(51,378 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)SunSeeker
(51,378 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)MADem
(135,425 posts)I think the flag plant on this rather pathetic hill is especially amusing. I guess if I don't specifically tell you that I'm not going to give you a milion dollars, that must mean that I AM going to give you a million dollars! Check your bank statement, now!
SunSeeker
(51,378 posts)And so nonsensical:
Q: Are you going to give me a million dollars?
A: I'll give you ten dollars.
Q: Great! That means you're giving me a million and ten dollars!
one_voice
(20,043 posts)I really do. this is how I described him to my parents--they weren't sure who he was--when he's done speaking you'll want jump up and say amen.
I'm so glad it wasn't you that introduced them to Bernie.
thesquanderer
(11,955 posts)This was not the yes-no question-response you're making it out to be. Please see my post #186.
SunSeeker
(51,378 posts)He was asked if he supported gay marriage. If he did, his answer should have been a straightforward "yes." Instead, he said he supported civil unions. Also, him raising states' rights to justify his position was a protection of gay marriage. The equal protection clause is what protects gay marriage. "States' rights" implies the state has a right to not allow gay marriage and the federal government cannot interfere with that. See my post 191 in response to your post 186.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Not terribly surprising, though.
MADem
(135,425 posts)parsing the living git-go out of candidates' comments (and I've seen plenty of that here in the last few months) that we might as well be a bit even-handed about it. Should your candidate pass muster, and get the nomination, do you think the GOP would play nice about this? Hell, they'd be taking out ads in the ADVOCATE and running that video on LOGO around the clock.
As the article indicates, Sanders was ahead of the curve. He doesn't have to misstate his level of commitment, though.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Are you even aware of what you're doing or do you just run on reflex now?
MADem
(135,425 posts)You can vet your candidate now, or you can vet him later--but he WILL be vetted.
The writer makes the point--that many here don't want to see, recognize, or accept--very clear:
...Sanders exaggeration of his marriage equality record is strange and unwise. If Sanders were honest about his evolutionand, yes, it was an evolutionthen he could still brag about supporting marriage equality long before his chief primary rival. Instead, he has attempted to reframe his somewhat tepid support as vociferous and unabating. The LGBTQ community can surely forgive Sanders less-than-spotless record on gay rightsbut that process can only begin once hes honest about it....
The "run on reflex" comment was just rude. If you don't want to discuss the topic, don't--flinging snark at me is unnecessary, and reflects more on you than me.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)If you really don't realize that you are spending this whole thread trying to attack sanders through weak attemots to make his early 2000' support for civil unions into a negative, then I can only conclude that you really don't put much rational thought into these posts, and are just running on pure impulse.
MADem
(135,425 posts)The article is actually quite nuanced. It's not "angry" at Sanders' timing on coming around to gay marriage--the article, in fact, says he was ahead of his opponents.
What the article challenges, though, is this wrong idea that he was a full throated supporter of gay marriage from the get-go, when he plainly wasn't.
The writer provides proof of his assertions, in the form of quotes and a video, and finishes up thusly:
Still, Sanders exaggeration of his marriage equality record is strange and unwise. If Sanders were honest about his evolutionand, yes, it was an evolutionthen he could still brag about supporting marriage equality long before his chief primary rival. Instead, he has attempted to reframe his somewhat tepid support as vociferous and unabating. The LGBTQ community can surely forgive Sanders less-than-spotless record on gay rightsbut that process can only begin once hes honest about it. And in the Democratic candidates race to secure the gay communitys vote, honesty has been in surprisingly short supply.
JackInGreen
(2,975 posts)Riding 'HomophobeSanders', it's a tired horse ladies and gentlemen but oooh, they're flogging it good. We'll see em next time on leg FOUR after, or, WITH 'RacistBernie' 'SandersNRAconnection' or 'SocialistsCantWin'. And we go on with the race.....
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)MADem
(135,425 posts)JackInGreen
(2,975 posts)Put down your racket, until then I'll bat those poop-covered nuggets you call birdies back over the net as hard as I can with a and a and a .
MADem
(135,425 posts)And ... revealing.
JackInGreen
(2,975 posts)It's like being a cat watching the spin cycle, round n round n round n round. What am I revealing from a reference to a cute antiquated game played by dopey people in summer clothes.....or in our case an old volleyball net and 4th hand rackets....revealing? Step within my tent, said Lydia, I'll show you the valley of kings. That shit, me in freund, was revealing.
On edit: SHIT. did you see the Volvo sticker on my notes? The latte stain? Foiled by my habits AGAIN!
MADem
(135,425 posts)Hmmm. OK, whatever you say, I suppose.
JackInGreen
(2,975 posts)While you suppose I'll repose and wait for your next service
MADem
(135,425 posts)JackInGreen
(2,975 posts)I'm answering bullshit with bullshit, questions? Ask the cows ass.
passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts)They'll still be beating a dead horse!
merrily
(45,251 posts)REASON FOR ALERT
This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.
ALERTER'S COMMENTS
Ugly, ugly comment--accusing a DUer of being a homophobe.
the Jury voted 1-6 to LEAVE IT.
Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: NO, the comment was directed at the OP's view of Sanders, which is an outright fabrication. Maybe if people stopping used gay people as a weapon, things would get better for us. We are people, not an issue!
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: It's accusing a Slate of accusing Sanders of being a homophobe, and saying its in a long line of anti-Bernie slanders.
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Alerter misread (or something) "homophobe" refers to a DU libel about Sanders
deadlinetony
(48 posts)....or heading to a mucilage factory?
Puzzledtraveller
(5,937 posts)Is Sanders not allowed to change like the majority of the country has?
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Puzzledtraveller
(5,937 posts)moobu2
(4,822 posts)Do you know if weather-vane-Bernie changed his position again or what?
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)moobu2
(4,822 posts)by the time Bernie Sanders stated that position 29 states had passed voter approved bans on same sex marriages in the states constitutions and same sex marriage was only legal in a few state then. I dont know the number but it wasn't many.... Bernie Sanders was Okay with that situation becasue he thought it was a states rights issue.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)That was the claim:
moobu2
(4,822 posts)and that his positions on same sex marriage was derived from his states rights position. Same thing with his opposition to DOMA. Bernie Sanders said he thought DOMA violated states rights. He evolved on the issue later I guess.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)I must have missed that part, where in the video was it?
workinclasszero
(28,270 posts)because it applies to evolving Bernie too!
MADem
(135,425 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)MADem
(135,425 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)MADem
(135,425 posts)You're welcome to your opinion but it is not controlling.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)It happens.
MADem
(135,425 posts)because I won't accept your "interpretation" of Mr. Sanders' very plain comments in a video.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Where is your proof of that?
MADem
(135,425 posts)I've answered your questions, the answers are not going to change with repetition. All you're doing is kicking the thread.
You're free to do that, but I'm not going to respond to duplicate questions from you.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)And I want this kicked, I love the smell of desperation coming from a supporter of the only candidate who was opposed to marriage equality until 2013.
murielm99
(30,659 posts)she is mocked here for "evolving."
What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Thanks for playing!
riversedge
(69,731 posts)for the common good of all. A big Congrats to both of them--and to all that evolved on this important issue. In the end it is good for all Americans--and for Democrats.
If someone asks you if you want the chicken, and you say "I want the beef" one would assume that you don't want the chicken.
For some reason, when Bernie is asked "Do you support SAME SEX MARRIAGE" and he replies "I support CIVIL UNIONS" there are some here who insist that does not mean that he doesn't support the same sex marriages, because he specifically--in a debate format, no less--didn't speak in negative terms.
It's quite interesting to see the thought process. It's also interesting to see the excoriation of the author of this piece, who is a gay man.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)he was elected to the House.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Unsourced quotes, bald faced lies...I'm surprised it was posted here like it was factual.
The only part that's right is MADem's comment:
MADem
(135,425 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)MADem
(135,425 posts)whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)SoapBox
(18,791 posts)Same old, same old.
Just try'n to run Bernie down with the same old blah, blah, blah...thank goodness he's no Weathervane and doesn't have to "evolve".
MADem
(135,425 posts)azurnoir
(45,850 posts)Betty Karlson
(7,231 posts)Speaking as a gay man, could I just say I'm fed up with any efforts to use my rights as a campaign gimmick?
My concerns with Mrs. Clinton are that she only started supporting my rights when it became politically unsafer to do so than safe to avoid doing so? My rights were a leadership issue. Obama failed that leadership at times, Clinton failed it all the time. As for Sanders, he may not be perfect, but he was miles ahead of either where I was concerned.
O and by the way: until 2002, I myself was a proponent of civil unions, because internalised homophobia told me that any love I might feel wasn't worthy of the name marriage. So for Sanders to hold the same position at the same time is hardly a discredit to his character.
MADem
(135,425 posts)candidates on LGBT issues. Don't make the error that so many make here, that if "Bernie" is critiqued for his conduct, that this means that the writer is "in the tank" for Clinton. This guy has ripped Clinton, and others, too.
So--whatever. There's no need to be defensive. Words have meaning, facts are important. If he's not vetted now, and he makes it through the gauntlet, Bernie WILL be vetted later, and not by Democrats, either.
How lovely that you were a proponent of civil unions in 2002, but this debate took place in 2006, four years after you "evolved." And, he has an easy two to one lead in the polls--he could have safely sketched out a bolder position, but he chose not to, instead, hanging his hat on the States Rights argument.
Betty Karlson
(7,231 posts)an ally?
If so, I expect he'll vow to do everything he can to stop Clinton from getting the nomination. If even Sanders has a question mark over his head because of support for civil unions in 2006, I'd hate to imagine the author's assessment of Clinton's 2008 "marriage is between a man and a woman" nonsense. We definitely don't want to see her vetted on gay rights, do we? That would be brutal.
MADem
(135,425 posts)He doesn't have a problem with the late arrival, he has a problem with the "I've been with you since the beginning" claims.
He vets them all--he has given Clinton shit, too. Anyone can read his work--he's done quite a few articles for SLATE.
The pushback here is something, though. He said what he said.
Betty Karlson
(7,231 posts)The focus back then was on legalising love.
How many allies were advocating for my right to be married in 1995?
The focus back then was on preventing Clinton's DOMA, and DADT, and the rest of the hysterical pushback of the days.
How many allies were focusing on marriage rights in 2004? It was Bush's constitutional anti-marriage amendment that was excercising the LGBT community at the time.
When was Sanders out of step with the general focus of the LGBT community?
The author is entitled to expect a saint when bold claims are made, but I for one will settle for a man who stood with the general focus of my community time and again. And I'll allow a bold claim about it.
MADem
(135,425 posts)asked in that particular Senatorial debate.
He was beating his clumsy opponent by more than two to one.
The author notes that he could have afforded to be brave, and say, in response to the question he was asked, that he supported gay marriage like in Massachusetts. Instead, he said he supports civil unions for Vermont, and he said that the issue of marriage is a states rights issue--just like Jimmy Carter said a while back.
The author is not "expecting a saint." He expects an honest response when he's asked about these things--sort of like "coulda been sooner."
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)That's what was being discussed in that video.
The author of that blog is lying, he claimed that "as recently as 2006, Sanders opposed marriage equality for his adopted home state of Vermont." which isn't true.
Jimmy Carter believed that same sex marriage shouldn't ever be a federally protected right which is completely different from what Bernie was saying.
You know this and yet you continue to make false claims.
Your exploitation of lgbt rights is pathetic.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)MrMickeysMom
(20,453 posts)... from a woman who allows her philandering husband to wander all over. What kind of model is that for a child?
Somebody using a spatula around here? This recipes requires some flipping over and over and over....
Fearless
(18,421 posts)That's not a call out either, just public knowledge.
Bernie has supported LGBT people since the 1960's.
Full stop.
Hillary has supported them since what last year??
Full stop.
End of story.
MADem
(135,425 posts)Jimmy Carter, like Bernie Sanders, was on the "States Rights" train -- in Jimmy's case, regarding Texas's acceptance of gay marriage. He invoked their right to decide--just like Bernie did in the video at the OP.
My view was that he's come a long way for a 90 year old man, and he's still evolving. I wasn't going to excoriate a former Southern Baptist born in the 1920s for not quite having the bubble on this issue. I felt confident that, because we were at that tipping point where most states are favoring gay marriage, that TX wasn't needed to tilt the argument in the Supreme Court. I'm happy I was correct.
It's plain as day, my POV, and easily researched.
Full stop, end of story!
Thank you so much for bringing that up so I could clarify the matter --your post was a call out, despite your protestations... but never mind.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Bernie was specifically speaking about not wanting states's decisions to legalize same sex marriage overturned.
Can you be any more disingenuous?
Fearless
(18,421 posts)For the record I didn't say I agreed with the block.
The issue at hand is that you're causing a ruckus here too. Why?
The point of view on Sanders' LGBT support you presented is false. The blogger is flat wrong. It's nothing personal against you, it is about the blogger and the fake story they concocted.
MADem
(135,425 posts)stance on equality? A writer who has had plenty to say, not favorable, either, about other candidates as well?
Damn--a "ruckus?" REALLY? A "RUCKUS?"
Good grief.
This is a forum, not a group. You can't "block" me here.
And you're trying to admonish me for POSTING AN ARTICLE about a candidate in the GD-P forum?
How very odd that you'd even say such a thing. How very odd that you'd call me out on my block, and then toss me that ambiguous "For the record" comment now.
smh.
Should I "Watch what I say, watch what I do?" Only Happy-Happy-Glad-Glad posts allowed?
Anyone can read the piece, watch the video, and draw their own conclusions. No need to censor it by accusing me of "causing a ruckus."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
96. You were blocked for causing a ruckus in the group.
View profile
For the record I didn't say I agreed with the block.
The issue at hand is that you're causing a ruckus here too. Why?
The point of view on Sanders' LGBT support you presented is false. The blogger is flat wrong. It's nothing personal against you, it is about the blogger and the fake story they concocted.
Fearless
(18,421 posts)It's inaccurate.
MADem
(135,425 posts)smh!
Fearless
(18,421 posts)I asked why and why you posted a false article.
MADem
(135,425 posts)deadlinetony
(48 posts)I have to take it for what it is -- a hit piece.
Sorry, but it is what it is. And that's a ancient horse you've been beating there... he's already skeletonized.
MADem
(135,425 posts)the pushback here from people who refuse to listen to what a gay writer is saying--actually saying, not what they "assume" he is saying--is interesting. Sanders was asked a precise question. He provided a precise answer--in 2006.
840high
(17,196 posts)Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)didn't support gay marriage until, like close to yesterday or something.
mentalslavery
(463 posts)and weak attacks such as this just make this bern man smile.....starting to feel like 08 all over again......isnt it....you can feel the bern......you can feel it coming for ya.......
SunSeeker
(51,378 posts)He invoked states' rights as his excuse for voting against the Brady Bill.
Weird, because it is Southern racists who are most associated with asserting "states' rights," having historically invoked states' rights in trying to avoid federal civil rights legislation.
You don't see a lot of progressives asserting states' rights.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Q: Do you support the DC handgun ban?
A: I want to give local communities the authority over determining how to keep their citizens safe. This case youre referring to is before the Supreme Court.
Q: But what do you support?
A: I support sensible regulation that is consistent with the constitutional right to own and bear arms.
Q: Is the DC ban consistent with that right?
A: I think a total ban, with no exceptions under any circumstances, might be found by the court not to be. But DC or anybody else [should be able to] come up with sensible regulations to protect their people.
Q: But do you still favor licensing and registration of handguns?
A: What I favor is what works in NY. We have one set of rules in NYC and a totally different set of rules in the rest of the state. What might work in NYC is certainly not going to work in Montana. So, for the federal government to be having any kind of blanket rules that theyre going to try to impose, I think doesnt make sense.
Source: 2008 Philadelphia primary debate, on eve of PA primary , Apr 16, 2008
http://www.ontheissues.org/2016/Hillary_Clinton_Gun_Control.htm
And she was against same sex marriage (which does make her a bigot, imo - not a racist like in your comparison, but a bigot nonetheless):
Bernie on the other hand, never opposed anyone's civil rights.
You're welcome!
SunSeeker
(51,378 posts)You dishonestly claim claim "Hillary asserted states' rights" when she did no such thing. She never even used the term, which has a very specific legal meaning and historical connotations. The title of the exchange does not appear to be her words, but the site author's title of the exchange: "Let states & cities determine local gun laws." Either way, that line does not amount to "invoking states' rights." States rights' implies limitations on federal government authority, which is not what Hillary said.
Sanders on the other hand explicitly invoked "states' rights" to attack the Brady Bill. I consider the Brady Bill a civil rights bill. I consider my right not to be shot to death a civil right.
And if Hillary was a "bigot" for supporting civil unions over same sex marriage, then so was Sanders, since he supported civil unions, like she did, before similarly evolving.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Be specific.
How does what she said differ from what Bernie said about background checks re: the Brady Bill?
No, Hillary was OPPOSED to marriage equality, watch the video - it's very clear.
Bernie never opposed marriage equality. Ever.
So she WAS a bigot who believed marriage was between a man and a woman - she said that.
Find me a comparable quote where Bernie says that lgbt people should be denied their civil rights and you might have a leg to stand on.
And while we're on the subject of civil rights, why do you support the pro-death penalty candidate?
Do you not believe that prisoners have the right to not be executed by the state?
Are you aware of the fact that the death penalty is inherently racist?
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)Start with his party, end with his plans, and nothing he says ever quite adds up.
LostOne4Ever
(9,267 posts)[font style="font-family:'Georgia','Baskerville Old Face','Helvetica',fantasy;" size=4 color=teal]Simply put:
Bernie and O'M both have impeccable records on LGBTQ issues, and the moment someone tries to claim otherwise it is safe to say they are trying to gaslight you.[/font]
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)The op - a straight male - fails to see why this kind of tactic is so offensive to those of us who have to fight for our rights and depend on our allies to stand beside us, not use us to attack their candidate's opponent.
LostOne4Ever
(9,267 posts)[font style="font-family:'Georgia','Baskerville Old Face','Helvetica',fantasy;" size=4 color=teal]I find it especially infuriating when they try to defame people who actually were allies and act like we don't know who was there when it mattered most.
Bernie was always there on the right side of the issue, and trying to make it like he wasn't is shameful.[/font]
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)He just keeps doubling down and claiming the author of the blog is right - even though he has absolutely no proof of the things that he says about Bernie in that hit piece.
MADem
(135,425 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)No where on that video does Bernie say he opposes same sex marriage.
Keep exploiting lgbt rights for Hillary after you've been told it's offensive.
MADem
(135,425 posts)factual.
Go play the video again--take note of the question he was asked.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)This is just another issue to be exploited by you, you never took an interest in Bernie's support of lgbt rights before now.
In fact you were blocked from the lgbt group for defending Jimmy Carter's opposition to same sex marriage, weren't you?
So it's just a game, points to be scored, last words to be had.
I see you, and so do others.
MADem
(135,425 posts)Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)pure hard facts involved in the piece and he has not even bothered to get that right. So his report asserts as facts things which are not facts, this is a proven. He even asserts as facts easily checked facts which most professional writers would check just to keep their credibility intact.
Here's an article from the Advocate, just to demonstrate that people can be gay and write differing opinions, meaning not all gay opinions are correct opinions. At least my source gets basic facts right.
Is Bernie Sanders the Most LGBT-Friendly Candidate?
http://www.advocate.com/politics/election/2015/04/30/bernie-sanders-most-lgbt-friendly-candidate
jfern
(5,204 posts)And then whine when someone attacks their awful candidate on the issues.
cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
Gothmog
(144,005 posts)djean111
(14,255 posts)to me.
I guess DU has just become sort of an experimental bullshit OP headline against Bernie farm. Sort of a balloon festival.
This crap won't sway a Bernie supporter one little bit. And hilarious, really, to think that anyone swayed by this would think the Hillary is BETTER on this issue. That's ridiculous.
Sniper fire, war, TPP, cluster bombs, fracking, more H-1B visas.......someone is smoking something, if they think anything they dredge up from their feverish imaginations can get me to support a candidate who stands for this stuff.
MADem
(135,425 posts)There is a video in the article that shows Sanders, during a Senatorial debate, being asked if he favored gay marriage for VT like they have in MA.
His answer was that he favors civil unions.
djean111
(14,255 posts)speech. meant for every gay person in the country. And, despite Obama's directive, I am not a one issue voter, and I was merely giving the reasons why.
I am, actually, appalled that Obama would tell people to be one-issue voters. First, didn't we all get lectured on being "purists"? Or does that only go one way. Second - saying don't vote for a Dem based on one issue - oh my! whatever happened to that lesser evil thing? And that goes for any feverishly imagined or tortured screed that Hillary is better than Bernie on LGBT rights. Methinks that stuff won't work here at DU, where we have access to teh Goggle and teh internet.
MADem
(135,425 posts)djean111
(14,255 posts)Bernie is. I sincerely doubt the article was dragged over here to merely be helpful.
No one is buying it.
MADem
(135,425 posts)in this thread were cheering this guy just a short while ago--it's amusing how many of them don't realize it).
The point of the article can be found in the last paragraph. Read it, or don't. The understanding is there, if you want it.
riversedge
(69,731 posts)Armstead
(47,803 posts)It is possible to disagree with his strategies for advancing that right, but please show me where he has actively come out against it and said it is not appropriate because the Bible did not condone it.
riversedge
(69,731 posts)point A to Point B --which is not always linear. Both finally got there. and granted Sanders got there first. That is not the issue for me but fact that they did arrive at Point B.
MrMickeysMom
(20,453 posts)Armstead
(47,803 posts)It's funny that when Sanders does things that go against the conventional wisdom, he's branded as a wild-eyed fringe radica who couldn't possibly get elected because he a RED who is TOO FAR LEFT.
Bu when he takes positions that are clearly progressive, but are within the general parameters of the debate at the time, he is a sellout and a liar and a hypocrite.
Overall, Sanders was way ahead of almost every other politician on the issue of full LGBT rights, including marriage. He DID stand against DOMA when otehr politicians -- including HRC -- were saying "No,no,no that goes against the Bible."
At time when Sanders made that statement on the video, he was totally on the more supportive progressive side of the issue. That was a time when civvil unions were still controversial and gay marriage had been considered a longer range goal in the distant future on a national level until Massachusetts opened the door -- and the gradual state by state adoption seemed like the most realistic path to many. And courts seemed to be the most likely avenue to support that.
So, although he was not banging the tale for same-sex marriage, Sanders was clearly being pragmatic and pushing in that diretion.
l
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)mak3cats
(1,573 posts)restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)since there are really no good policy positions they can criticize him on, now they have resorted to out right lies and fabrications. This is good news. The reality of an impending Sanders presidency is starting to sink in, and it is causing great fear and desperation in camp inevitable.
wow I had no idea that they truly realized the depth of his support, and the reality of the trendlines working in his favor and not hers. This is good. It means people are getting it.
President Sanders. Has a nice ring to it.
Evergreen Emerald
(13,069 posts)The hypocrisy here is palpable. Had Clinton stated that she was for civil unions, this place would be in a frenzy regarding her obvious opposition to marriage equality.
When Sanders says it, his words are given the best possible interpretation. People read into things that are not there--but to justify his stances rather than attack.
It is time to take off the bernie-goggles and look at reality. He is a good candidate. He is not perfect. Clinton is a good candidate. She is not perfect.
The argument that he has not evolved on any stance, makes me think of George Bush.
tularetom
(23,664 posts)Selective parsing seems to be a skill set shared by Clintons and their hysterical fans.
Response to MADem (Original post)
thesquanderer This message was self-deleted by its author.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)No where does Bernie say he opposes same sex marriage, it is obvious that he was referring to not letting the feds overturn states who legalized same sex marriage.
MADem
(135,425 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)IF you can't we're done here.
Because if you can't that means your claim is false, the blogger at Slate lied and it's another hit piece being used to exploit lgbt rights and swift boat Bernie on DU.
MADem
(135,425 posts)Interesting how you skipped that part.
The key part.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)MADem
(135,425 posts)his answer.
What was he asked about, again? What did that reporter ask him, again? Hmmm?
Yeah, "we're done here" .... because the question that was asked puts the answer in a very different light.
thesquanderer
(11,955 posts)See post 219
There MADem seems to finally recognize that the video does not actually indicate Sanders was against gay marriage, but rather that he ducked the question, avoiding saying whether or not he supported gay marriage. I think that's a fair assessment here, that when asked, he chose to neither come out clearly for or against gay marriage, but instead to duck the question. There is a hint of "for" in his acceptance of it in Massachusetts, but he doesn't exactly give it a ringing endorsement, either. At any rate, ducking the question is a much more sensible interpretation than saying he was against it, and I was glad to see MADem shift gears a bit here.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)That is the false premise he has been defending for days.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)You totally nailed it in every post!
thesquanderer
(11,955 posts)MADem
(135,425 posts)And frankly, if this guy was so full-throated in favor of marriage equality, why didn't he SAY SO?
He was asked a question ABOUT it--and he ducked, dodged, and weaved.
Like a POLITICIAN.
Really. I think trying to parse out support for marriage equality out of that question-and-answer exchange in that 2006 video IS a bridge too far.
This is Mister "Plain Spoken." Mister "No Bullshit." Mister "Say What You Mean."
So why didn't he do that?
I think he made a political calculation, and he didn't want to commit to public support for gay marriage. He regarded civil unions for VT as "good enough." Did he do some polling? Or was he just lazy on the issue and didn't want to put himself out there as he cruised to victory? And it was a cruise--he stomped his opponent.
Ducking a direct question on gay marriage and deflecting to support for civil unions sounds to me--and like most people who are honest about what they are seeing in that video--as something less than "full throated support for marriage equality."
That's the point that the author was making.
thesquanderer
(11,955 posts)re:
I agree, the support for marriage equality in that answer is very weak (basically saying nothing more about it than he's fine with MA having it). OTOH, I likewise think that trying to parse out OPPOSITION to marriage equality from that exhange is a bridge at least as far, and that's the position of many of the earlier posts in this thread, from you and others, which is what brought me into the conversation. I'm glad we seem to have gotten past that.
re:
Again, I agree that the exchange shows less than full throated support for marriage equality. The place this part of the argument somewhat loses me is that I have not yet seen evidence that he ever CLAIMED such full-thriated support for it. As I said in an earlier post, is it possible the author of the article over-stated Bernie's claim specifically for the purpose of trying to knock it down? I won't repeat it all here, but I talked about this in more detail in post #228, about halfway down, starting with the paragraph that begins, "Here's the thing."
MADem
(135,425 posts)made.
It's like saying "Don't tell me, I wrote the book." Only he didn't write the book--he read it before most people, but he didn't write it.
He just didn't have to overstate the case. Everyone has evolved on this issue--even some of the Republicans have gone from "Fuck no" to (whine/sigh) "It's the law of the land."
It's an unnecessary exaggeration, and certainly, he's not the only one who has done this kind of thing--but he's going to get scrutiny for it, too, same as anyone else who overstates or exaggerates.
thesquanderer
(11,955 posts)The full quote (according to the Stern article) was:
Im not evolving when it comes to gay rights. I was there!
He didn't say gay marriage.
As I said in an earlier post, "there are certainly people who have long championed gay rights without necessarily having long championed gay marriage."
But here is how I would say he did not need to "evolve" - Then and now, he has consistently been at the left end of whatever the then current spectrum of reasonable possibilty has been. In that respect, no evolution occurred or was needed.
wyldwolf
(43,865 posts)... people suddenly agreeing with States Rights in election seasons.
And, yeah, it bothers me about ANY candidate.
MADem
(135,425 posts)on this issue, right here on DU. Hated! Dark-sided! Under the bus with him!!!!!
It just depends on who you are, you see. "Feel the Jimmy!" doesn't cut it, I guess...?
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)MADem
(135,425 posts)It's nice to know that you are protective of politicians who duck the question.
We'll have to keep that in mind any time you get critical because an answer isn't to your liking.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)MADem
(135,425 posts)You can't, because when he was asked a question about supporting gay marriage and federal legislation for it, he couldn't/wouldn't/didn't say YES.
workinclasszero
(28,270 posts)on a supposedly liberal democratic forum, eh?
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Q: Do you support the DC handgun ban?
A: I want to give local communities the authority over determining how to keep their citizens safe. This case youre referring to is before the Supreme Court.
Q: But what do you support?
A: I support sensible regulation that is consistent with the constitutional right to own and bear arms.
Q: Is the DC ban consistent with that right?
A: I think a total ban, with no exceptions under any circumstances, might be found by the court not to be. But DC or anybody else come up with sensible regulations to protect their people.
Q: But do you still favor licensing and registration of handguns?
A: What I favor is what works in NY. We have one set of rules in NYC and a totally different set of rules in the rest of the state. What might work in NYC is certainly not going to work in Montana. So, for the federal government to be having any kind of blanket rules that theyre going to try to impose, I think doesnt make sense.
Source: 2008 Philadelphia primary debate, on eve of PA primary , Apr 16, 2008
http://www.ontheissues.org/2016/Hillary_Clinton_Gun_Control.htm
And what's strange is watching the supporters of this woman pretend that Bernie didn't support lgbt rights:
workinclasszero
(28,270 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)DianeK
(975 posts)desparation...pity them
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)Put another way, anyone, ANYONE who accuses Sanders of being anti-gay marriage is a LIAR, a worthless person who is trying to deceive others. Got it? Get it.
PowerToThePeople
(9,610 posts)Nothing to see here.
Trashcanning this POS.