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.


Thank you for posting this op, the way some DUers are exploiting lgbt rights to attack Bernie is despicable.

Is because in 2006, Congress was still voting on the Federal Marriage Amednment, to constitutionally bad gay marriage. All Sanders was saying when he said he saw it as a state issue was that he opposed banning it. Of course Sanders didn't see it as a state issue when he voted against DOMA.

You write, "Of course Sanders didn't see it as a state issue when he voted against DOMA."

I would say he DID see it as a state issue. The effect of DOMA was that the federal government would not recognize same-sex marriages that were legitimized under state law. It was a prime example of Republican hypocrisy -- they bleat about respecting states' decisions and about resisting a power-hungry federal government, but when their Christofascist contingent wants to use federal power in an area traditionally reserved to the states, they're all for it.

Sanders, on the other hand, opposed it. He was in the minority on the vote, and President Clinton then signed the bill. The effect was that the states' authority over the issue was significantly eroded. They could still recognize same-sex marriages for state law purposes, but those married couples would not be considered married for purposes of Social Security, federal income tax, etc.

Why do you say that Sanders didn't see it as a state issue?

Where DOMA allowed states to not recognize gay marriages from other states.

He could have stood on principle. Instead, it was reported that he took the tack that the Congress would pass it over his veto. Just like with DADT. I still voted for him the next time. I am a Democrat.

Poor writing on my part. Thanks for making this clear.

and the candidate replies that he supports CIVIL UNIONS.

When Jimmy Carter invoked states' rights on this exact issue, DU threw him under the bus.

Jimmy Carter was opposed to making same sex marriage legal nationwide, he deserved to be criticized.

Bernie, otoh, has always been an ally:

32 Years Before Marriage Equality, Bernie Sanders Fought For Gay Rights



But these are only very recent developments. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton may be champions of same-sex marriage now, but you don’t have to go far back to find a time when they weren’t. And hey, we’re 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

He did not favor marriage equality--if he did, he would have answered the question, Do you favor gay marriage for VT like MA has? with Yes, I do favor gay marriage like Massachusetts has.

Instead, he said "Civil unions for VT."

If he was opposed to same sex marriage he would have said so.

Like Hillary did.

Keep struggling with it--it will sink in, eventually.

He's a states rights kind of guy. On equality, on guns, on lots of things.

Speaking of states' rights on guns, your candidate was in favour of them too:

Let states & cities determine local gun laws

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 you’re 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 they’re going to try to impose, I think doesn’t 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[/div


You're welcome!

Who should we believe? Some blogger who made the unsupported claim that "as recently as 2006, Sanders opposed marriage equality for his adopted home state of Vermont" or actual journalists who did the research and came to a different conclusion?:

He did not support equality for VT in 2006.

He supported Civil Unions.

The video demonstrates that.

That's the author's point.

He never opposed anyone's civil rights, that's another reason why he's the better candidate.

Bernie is better on lgbt rights, abortion rights, the environment, he's anti-death penalty, pro-gun control, I can understand why you'd be envious.

Don't worry, Hillary's still evolving. Maybe she'll slide far enough left to compete with Bernie eventually.

Some of the denizens of our board would have made stellar lawyers. Google Racehorse Haynes' "dog bite" defense.

I will let you divine in service of which candidate it was.

Why do you think it is so difficult for them to concede their favorite candidate is imperfect like all candidates and what does it say about them and him?

Look at this thread... Are we really resurrecting the states rights argument? We might as well all be Paulians now:

The gay marriage and interracial marriage issues were decided on the basis that marriage is a fundamental right (Loving v. Virginia) and thus that right cannot be denied on the basis of race or gender.

But laws concerning marriage and marital rights, divorce, etc. are traditionally in the purview of the states.

As I pointed out in other posts, some states recognize common law marriages. Some don't.

California is a community property state (because we are told of our Spanish heritage). Other states, especially on the East Coast traditionally adopted laws that were strongly influenced by the English common law to govern property rights in marriage.

So marriage (civil as opposed to religious marriage) is a state issue, but marriage is also a fundamental right that under our Constitution and the 14th Amendment for starts cannot be denied based on race or gender.

Google it if my explanation is not acceptable.

And there is no contradiction between supporting gay marriage and accepting civil unions as a compromise measure. Many gay people entered into civil unions. Gay marriage is better and conforms to the requirements of our Constitution in my view. Hillary got herself in trouble on this because she strongly rejected the idea of gay marriage claiming that marriage is traditionally between a man and a woman because it is somehow a religious matter.

She was right about the tradition of marriage as a religious rite, but utterly wrong about the law as the Supreme Court correctly decided.

Marriage can be a religious rite, but the legal recognition of marriage is a civil, legal matter separate from the religious rite. Many people marry without a religious ceremony.

Bernie is not a lawyer. He should not be judged harshly if he was mistaken.

But Hillary is a lawyer. She should have known.

And marriage issues are normally a state matter.

I hope I have explained this well.

Please watch the video.

http://www.c-span.org/video/?c4548262/sanders-gay-marriage

Bernie answered very well and has consistently voted against any bill that would bar gay marriage.

Bernie definitively states that the federal government should not overrule states that adopt laws allowing gay marriage.

He was right on that. And consistently right. That is why he voted against the DOMA.

He was not running for a state office and said only that he supported civil unions in Vermont. That was a huge pro-lgbt statement to make at the time. The Supreme Court had not yet issued the decision that you so correctly quote.

Hillary on the contrary opposed gay marriage very clearly in a video that has been shown on DU.

if she supported gay marriage in New York and she said no.

Bernie Sanders was asked a very different question and gave a politician's answer but he did NOT say, for example, that "marriage is a sacred bond between a man and a woman" as Clinton did.

wholeheartedly. The SLATE writer is correct, though--he already had a great record relative to the rest of the field, so there is no need to gild the lily. His supporters (they don't help, they really don't, many of them) are doubling down and saying he didn't say what he said in 2006, and answering a question about supporting gay marriage for VT like they have in MA with "civil unions" is "not saying no!!!"

Further, to make matters worse, another proof being offered is a letter he wrote years ago (Let's abolish all laws dealing with ... sexual behavior...) that is so vague it could also be used by an enemy to claim he was all for child prostitution or all manner of unsavory/illegal activities:

http://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/bernie-sanders-was-full-gay-equality-40-years-ago

And then, the claim --by him--that he didn't have to "evolve" on the topic because he was already there:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/02/opinion/gail-collins-bernie-sanders-yells-his-mind.html

He wasn't already there--he was better than most, and that's not an issue anymore given the Supreme Court ruling. It's overstating the case, though, particularly since his position was--as late as 2006-- that it shouldn't have been a Supreme Court issue, but one for the states, and he favored civil unions for his state, not marriage equality.

http://www.c-span.org/video/?c4548262/sanders-gay-marriage

So, yeah, he was on the same page as both Rand Paul AND Jimmy Carter! Carter got thrown under the DU bus for that position, too...!

I don't understand the insistence to defend, either. The best answer is the truth--"He wasn't a hundred percent, but he was way better than most, for longer than most." That is a winning argument. And that's the point the SLATE writer (he's under the bus if you'd like to speak with him...) was trying to make. I am the first to acknowledge that HRC lagged on this matter--no, maybe not the first, she herself said it "Coulda been sooner." We live and we learn.

I just take issue with the suggestion that there is such a thing as a perfect candidate who has never trimmed his positions to make them politically palatable.

Just Correcting The Record!

If you are content in putting words in the mouths of your interlocutors woe be onto to me to deprive you of that pleasure.

I didn't put them in your mouth, you posted them.

In fact, many gay couples did exactly that in states in which civil unions were possible.

The fact that a gay couple entered into a civil union did not mean that they did not want to have a full-fledged civil marriage or church wedding. It simply meant that they accepted the civil union as a way to acknowledge their personal commitments to each other and to gain some legal recognition for that commitment.

There is no contradiction between accepting the opportunity of civil union and preferring the right to gay marriage.

There is no contradiction in proposing a compromise of civil union while believing in the justice of gay marriage.

No contradiction unless you specifically say as Hillary did that you prefer civil unions because marriage is a religious rite or something along that line. Sorry I am not quoting Hillary correctly but that is the gist of what she said.

For Hillary, in that speech, civil unions were preferable because marriage was for heterosexual couples.

If there is a video or report of Bernie clearly stating that, please post it on DU. I do not think you will find one. Bernie is a very liberal-thinking person and always and consistently has been. Ask someone from Vermont. Some have posted in response to this thread.

And he was asked about gay marriage for VT, like they have in MA. Specifically. In the context of a debate when he was running as senator.

He said he was in favor of states rights and civil unions for VT.

He wasn't proposing a compromise--when he said that, MA had marriage, and VT had civil unions already. The reporter asked him if he wanted marriage like MA and he said "civil unions."

It's getting tiresome repeating this--anyone can look at the video at the link and see it. http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2015/10/05/bernie_sanders_on_marriage_equality_he_s_no_longtime_champion.html

What right do you have to lecture anyone about support of same sex marriage?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x5739724#5740037

based on your repeated posting of that link, like you think you've got a "gotcha."

I'm for the same label being applied to all unions, regardless of the orientation of the participants.

I'm in favor of taking the religious component out of what is a contract between two people and the state.

Apparently--since you take issue with my views--you DISAGREE with what I said in that thread six years ago. That means you support the religious argument, then.



And this is -- what--the fourth time I've said this to you?


http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=652017

And unlike you I've never accused others of crying because they demanded their human rights.

Like I said, I'm glad I don't have to defend that comment.

If you disagree with me, you agree that religious marriage should be a feature of the federal government.

I do not hold that view.



http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=652017

with Sanders. That would not be acceptable say in a court of law because it is hearsay, a third party telling us what Sanders said. It is not a video or a transcript that we know accurately represents what Sanders said.

That SLATE piece reads like one of the typical hit pieces that people write against candidates that they don't like.

I want to see a full transcript of the conversation or interview in which Sanders is alleged to have said he did not want same-sex marriage.

Thanks.

have your answer.

You do understand the whole 'states rights' arguments? Sanders is saying he thinks VT should stick with what they voted for in 2000, not move forward to what MA had. And he said that in 2006.

If you expect a candidate to talk in negative terms during a debate you will have a long wait.

state laws allowing gay marriage.

It is worth listening to it again.

I hear better than I see, much better.

Thanks, but it is worth another listen. I listened to it twice. I am sure my understanding is correct.

I do not hear what you hear in it.

http://www.c-span.org/video/?c4548262/sanders-gay-marriage

I hear that Sanders supported Vemont's civil union law which had been passed at that time (and was a big move forward toward LGBT marriage) and also believed that the federal government should not overrule states that enacted gay marriage laws.

He did not say that he opposed gay marriage for Vermont.

Not at all. He simply said that he supported the civil union laws.

Context is important. Bernie was not running for the Vermont legislature but for a Senate seat -- a federal seat.

So Bernie simply did not comment on his opinion on the Vermont issue other than to say he supported what Vermont had done in enacting a civil union law. What the state did on gay marriage was not a relevant issue in the federal campaign except as Bernie properly responded to state that the federal government should not overrule state LGBT laws.

Bernie's stance on civil unions did not suggest that he disapproved of gay marriage.

It is perfectly coherent and consistent to favor civil unions as well as gay marriage.

that he thought that CU's were a doable thing and that as a "strategic matter" he supported CU's...none of that bombast like that "God in the mix" bullshit from his 2008 campaign

Thanks.

I think I should add that civil marriages were viewed by those of us who thought that gay marriage could never be accepted as a sort of compromise with those who would have liked to ban LGBTs altogether if that were possible. It was compromise.

Some of the same people who claim that Bernie can't be president because he can't work with others and compromise are now criticizing him for having supposedly supported civil unions at one time.

Either Bernie is stubborn and never suggested compromises or he is quite capable of compromising when it is reasonable to do so.

Again, there is a contradiction. Can Bernie compromise on an issue like gay marriage that he believes in and always believed in (since he very early on said he opposed laws against things like homosexuality and the prohibition on gay marriage is such a law) or not?

I think the facts show that Bernie not only supported fairness in our marriage laws with regard to gay people but also that he is good at compromising when he thinks it appropriate.

There just isn't much to criticize when it comes to Bernie. Many of us looked at his views and personality from different directions before supporting him. He isn't perfect. No one is, butt he is the strongest, best candidate out there.

It is the law of the land.

The SLATE writer's issue had to do with Sanders' averring that he was always "there," when the facts say otherwise. It's in the last paragraph of the piece posted in this thread.

He misunderstood what Bernie clearly said.

Bernie did not oppose gay marriage. He said it was a state issue, and that the federal government SHOULD NOT OVERRULE STATES THAT WANT GAY MARRIAGE.

http://www.c-span.org/video/?c4548262/sanders-gay-marriage

I hope that the author of that article listens to the tape again and retracts his piece on SLATE because I would not want him to be embarrassed for misrepresenting something Bernie said.

Thanks.

in which the Supreme Court correctly reasoned that marriage is a fundamental right that cannot be denied on the basis of gender. I may be paraphrasing the decision very loosely, but that is essentially what it amounts to. The precedent was among other things and way, way back, Loving v. Virginia, a case involving interracial marriage. This is a 14th Amendment issue.

http://www.c-span.org/video/?c4548262/sanders-gay-marriage

Thanks for transcribing the statement in the video.

Someone needs to contact SLATE and ask them to retract their article. It misrepresents what Bernie said and turns it around to claim he said the opposite of what he said.

This is swift-boating, Hillary supporters' style.

Swift-boating. Misrepresenting a statement on a C-Span video that can be verified easily by all in order to present a falsehood, a lie, as truth.

http://www.c-span.org/video/?c4548262/sanders-gay-marriage

Anyone who questions what I am saying may listen to the video themselves.

No way did he say what they're claiming.

We should use the transcript in any other threads where they make this claim.

The question was very clear (not sure why you're giving me the link I gave you...?).

The interviewers exact words:

Do you think the gay people ought to have the right to get married outside of Massachusetts?

He replied that he supported civil unions for Vermont (they had them for six years by the time he was saying this) AND that it was a 'states rights' issue.

There is no fiddle-faddling that.

The author's point was valid. Unfortunately, it's a point that everyone is missing, that Sanders does not need to overstate his case about his support, because he was ahead of the curve, generally, but by pretending he was further ahead than he actually was, he opens himself up to charges of puffery, at a minimum.

overrule states that allow gay marriage.

http://www.c-span.org/video/?c4548262/sanders-gay-marriage

He was talking about DOMA. The DOMA was an attempt to overrule states that allowed gay marriage.

Shall we take a poll and see what other DUers think Bernie said?

http://www.c-span.org/video/?c4548262/sanders-gay-marriage

I listened to it twice.

Jimmy Carter said the same thing and got tossed under the bus.

You forgot to include the bit he said about "civil unions" for VT. In response to a question about support for "gay marriage" like in Massachusetts.

Why is that? Hmmm?

You do realize that VT already HAD civil unions when he said this? For six years?

Point it out.

I made it easy for you, just copy and paste the words I transcribed where he said he opposes same sex marriage.

It takes you at least nine iterations--as we learned when you tried and failed to nail me because I was objecting to religious overreach in the entire governmental marital process---to take away the actual point.

You do know how to copy and paste, don't you?

he supports civil unions and that marriage is a states right issue. How many times do I need to repeat this?

He was directly asked if he supported gay marriage for VT. He refused to say yes. Why, if he supported it, could he not cough out that simple, easy three letter word? Please answer THAT question. Is he disingenuous? Was he afraid to say what he thought? What point are you making, precisely? He was certainly able to say he didn't support DOMA, why, then, was he afraid to say he supported 'the gay marriage' if he did, indeed, support it?

Now, if you can't take--like anyone watching the video without bias would-- from that the he was unwilling to tell that questioner that he supported gay marriage for VT in 2006, I can't help you. It's obvious what he was saying--he refused to affirm support for "the gay marriage," he stuck with the civil unions that already existed, he didn't want to rock the boat, he didn't want to stand behind the equality POV, he was content to let the status quo ride.

Unlike certain other candidates I could name.

A lot of people including me like this Pope although I am a Unitarian and was raised Methodiist.

Have you read his Encyclica on the environment.

With the exception of his view on abortion which is a major cause of the very excessive consumption that he criticizes, it is quite good.

I note that he is not pressing the birth control issue although he probably maintains the traditional Catholic stance on it, and that is a step forward.

But Sanders' wife, I have read, is Catholic.

He won't ever pander to the right wing Christians.

That's another thing I like about Sanders, he never opposed anyone's civil rights and he doesn't pander to the right wing religious whackjobs.

I have been to a same sex wedding at Yamashiro Hollywood that was presided over by a gay minister. When I lived in Orlando the minister put this message on the marquee:

There is neither Jew nor Gentile, gay nor straight, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

Not sure how you got that from my post.

But I do hold a grudge against people who stand on their religion to justify their bigotry.

As do I

only a couple of states allowed it.

Really this isn't rocket science.

Bernie voted against DOMA and for marriage equality in 1996.

in 1996 no states allowed same sex marriages so it wasn't because he didn't want the Fed to overturn anything. If he was so pro-gay marriage rights why didn't he just state that was the reason for it instead of him saying he thought it was a states rights issue. At the time he said it should be up to the states in 2008 masses amounts of Americans were being denied marriage equality.

He voted against DOMA in 1996 because he supported marriage equality.

His comment on the video in 2006 was about not wanting the feds to overturn states' decisions to allow same sex marriage - WHICH HE SUPPORTED WHEN HE VOTED AGAINST DOMA.

Now don't you think you should stick to what you know about Bernie instead of proving you know nothing about marriage equality?

Maybe go back to calling him a scheming little sneak?

He said he supported civil unions and that marriage is a state matter and that THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SHOULD NOT OVERRULE STATES THAT ALLOW GAY MARRIAGE.

His statement has been misrepresented.

Here is the video being referred to.

Please listen to it and carefully. I listened to it twice.

http://www.c-span.org/video/?c4548262/sanders-gay-marriage

a reference to Massachusetts at the time.

Until the recent Supreme Court decision, our law recognized marriage as a fundamental right but did not recognize gay marriage as a fundamental right. Therefore, at the time Bernie spoke, he was right. He was saying that DOMA which tried to deny to states the right to permit and recognize gay marriages was wrong. He voted against DOMA which supposedly defined marriage as only between a man and a woman if I am corrrct about that.

Bernie DID support gay marriage and did not support DOMA or the federal government's overruling states that instituted gay marriage.

It's complicated, but Bernie supported gay marriage in this video.

http://www.c-span.org/video/?c4548262/sanders-gay-marriage

Bernie is not a lawyer. Hillary is. She surely read Loving v. Virginia in some point at least in law school and knew that marriage is a fundamental right. It cannot be denied on the basis of gender and never should have been.

Bernie was cautious but he was on the side of gay marriage.

Listen to the video a couple of times and you will understand it. It's quite short.

This is the video that MaDem provided, and Bernie says NO SUCH THING IN IT.

http://www.c-span.org/video/?c4548262/sanders-gay-marriage

In fact, he says specifically that the federal government should not overrule states that do have laws permitting gay marriage.

The law at the time provided that marriage was a state matter except when it violated a fundamental right. The Supreme Court only recently ruled that gay marriage is protected as a fundamental right.

Bernie did not even suggest that he thought that states could deny marriage equality to same sex couples.

Please watch the video. That was not the issue, and Bernie was running for a federal office, not a state office, so he took a position on the role of the federal government with regard to same sex marriage and not so much on the Vermont state government position except to say he supported civil unions which was to say he supported the Vermont state law at the time.

It is a shame when a candidate's clear statements are misrepresented or twisted.

That is a form of Swift-Boating and it is quite reprehensible.

http://www.c-span.org/video/?c4548262/sanders-gay-marriage

back and forth on this today so my statement should not be taken as anything against Sanders.

This is the exact quote from the C-Span video:

So if a majority of states banned it which was the state of things when he made this statement...he was Okay with that? Sounds like he was either lying, pandering or triangulating.

Perhaps if you point out exactly where he said that he was "Okay" with "a majority of states" banning same sex marriage I can help you.

Is it his vote to oppose DOMA that's getting in the way of your claim?

when he said that he might have meant protecting the states that had gay marriage laws by that time.

But i think he was always for gay marriage not civil unions.

His vote against DOMA is proof enough for me that he supported marriage equality.

And the most important thing is that all of our candidates will fight to keep it legal.

Because voting against doma did not mean that you were for it necessarily. There were if i remember conservative legal scholars atvthe ti e who said Doma was not constitutional.

His support of the lgbt community in Vermont made him one of my early heroes.

Imo, anyone who claims he opposed same sex marriage is either delusional or dishonest.

the currently serving members of congress.

The 67 No votes were 65 Democrats, Bernie Sanders and one Republican, Steve Gunderson. In the Senate, no Republicans opposed it and only 14 Democrats voted no.

So it was good and courageous to vote No on DOMA. Joe Biden, a yes voter. Paul Wellstone whom many see as the best Senator ever a Yes voter. Most Democrats sided with every Republican but one to restrict the civil rights of millions of Americans. Bernie Sanders did not.

I have to assume you were not present at the time?

Marriage is a fundamental right. Loving v. Virginia. And it cannot be denied on the basis of race of gender. That is what the recent decision ruled. But in my opinion, gay marriage has always been a civil right. It just was not recognized as such. Religious marriage is up to the churches which are protected by the First Amendment's provision about freedom of religion.

Here is the video in question.

http://www.c-span.org/video/?c4548262/sanders-gay-marriage

In it Bernie stated that marriage is a state issue. (As long as it does not involve a fundamental right like the basic right to marriage, it is traditionally, but not necessarily, a state issue.) But then Bernie says that the federal government should not overrule Massachusetts' gay marriage laws.

Someone on SLATE apparently misunderstood or misrepresented what Bernie said and represented that Bernie said he was opposed to gay marriage in that video. He didn't. He merely said that it is a state issue and that the federal government should not overturn states' gay marriage laws.

There is a huge difference from a legal point of view in those two things.

Bernie is not a lawyer. Hillary is. She should have recognized the legal basis for gay marriage before making her speech about why she did not favor it. Bernie made no such speech. He said the federal government should not overturn states that allow gay marriage. He opposed DOMA and voted against it because he did not want to foreclose the rights of states to have gay marriage.

My understanding is that Sanders was always for gay marriage.