Pro Gay Marriage Dems.... Who are you supporting?

Hello all, been a while. I am a vet of the 2004 Kerry v Dean DU fighting. Couldn't bring myself back into the fight until now.
After a bit of lurking I think I have to jump back in! :hide: Be gentle.

The gay marriage fight was big here 4 years ago. I'll be up front. I'm an Obama Mamma.
I'm also pro gay marriage. I also noticed none of the Big 3 have GLBT issue sections on their sites and all seem to be against gay marriage (Obama for civil union, not sure about HIl and Edwards on civil union)

So I wonder who Pro Gay Marriage Dems are supporting.

By the way, please provide evidence that your candidate is pro gay marriage if you are going to make that claim.

Thanks guys, We'll see if I'm glad to be back.

Kucinich Gives Spirited Defense of Gay Marriage
Democratic Hopeful Chides His Rivals for Equivocating
by Carla Marinucci


Pointedly criticizing the major Democratic presidential candidate for failing to support same-sex marriage, Rep. Dennis Kucinich said Tuesday in San Francisco that the matter is a "fundamental civil rights issue ... that shouldn't even be a close question.''

"I can't, for the life of me, understand why I'm the only one who's taking this position with such emphasis,'' Kucinich said following a speech and question-and-answer session at the Palace Hotel sponsored by the Bar Association of San Francisco. "We have to be courageous in protecting people's rights ... and I don't think people should expect any less from a president.''

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/1217-07.htm

I like Kucinich, I think he keeps the others honest. He certainly has focused the discussion to the left. It's funny I think he has less support this time vote wise, but more people agree with him. He seems less wacky this time. People are just moving closer to him on the issue. This one not excluded.

which he may very well do, I don't know. IIRC correctly, he and Gravel are the only pro gay marriage candidates. Gravel ain't gonna last, either.

As it appears to be the norm, the LGBT community will get collectively screwed over again.

Just like he did in '04. He's stubborn, and his campaign isn't costing him a whole lot, either.

Plus, he's unopposed back in OH-10 right now, so he doesn't have much to lose.

Support Obama, Dennis? After throwing LGBTs under the bus and STILL not apologizing? Then smearing both Gore and Kerry? Fuck that.

won't answer directly.

Why aren't you concerned Obama will screw over gay people again if it's politically advantageous?

Isn't that why he screwed over gay people on the campaign trail concerning McClurkin?

How am I supposed to trust Obama?

And how do you trust Obama?

Can you answer this?

I completely disagree with him on this issue. I think events since 2004 have made gay marriage closer to reality, but I think it's going to be a fight. But I believe that when my children grow up it will be legal. I find the following to be true.

:) Repubs do not have the votes to ban gay marriage federally under a Dem president or a Repub president.
:) The votes exist to overturn Don't Ask Don't Tell under a Dem president.
:) Obama supports Civil Unions. I think civil unions are a slippery slope (good thing) to gay marriage.

As for Obama, I guess I'm not sure what he will due if handed a gay marriage law. I just have a hard time believing he will veto it. How could a civil rights attorney veto such a law. He would not be making law. So how could he publically go against it without destroying himself politically. He would damage civil rights overall. I also think that it won't matter eventually how the President and senate thinks of it, the Supreme Court will eventually see that it is unconstitutional to prevent gay marriage. The only thing that will matter in the end is a candidates support of a anti gay marriage amendment.

Don't you think?

I'm asking what makes you think he won't screw over the LGBT community concerning other issues if he thinks it's politically advantageous to do so.

He obviously felt it was politically advantageous to embrace a notorious homophobe, because he ignored pleas to not do so.

So it all comes down to trust.

And with all due respect, you haven't explained why Obama can be trusted in light of how he behaved with McClurkin.

Furthermore, you are aware, aren't you, that both Hillary and Edwards support civil unions?

I do remember that when pushed Edwards did not change his stance on gay marriage over the last 4 years. So to me he has a history of not changing his stance with regard to this, but honestly if presented with a law that legalizes I can't see him vetoing either. The only one I see possibly making a move to veto would be HIl. I think she is pretty well proven to make very political choices in her actions. I can see her saying something about it not being time or something.

As far as Obama. Honestly I can't give you some rock solid proof reason why I trust him on this issue. Honestly I question him in that regard and I am very disapointed that he did not denounce McClurkin. I guess I just haven't seen him to make many "politically advantageous decisions". In fact most arguments against him have been that he says and does things that seen wrong politically. But he sticks with it.

The truth is that I intend to keep believing that now is the time to legalize gay marriage. I think Obama is the best person in the bunch to take that fight to. That's where I am.

He never embraced McClurkin as a homophobe. He embraced him as a christian singer.

He never lied or flipped on his positions of gay rights, so why do you say he can't be trusted?

All of the candidates support civil unions.

homophobe.

Seriously.

She got a high-profile endorsement from one bigot and hired another one to do consulting for $10000 a month.

Why does she get a free pass to screw over gay people? You think Darrell Jackson, the homophobic consultant, isn't advising her on how to get out the homophobic vote?

Why were there only 14 GLBT protesters at the gospel concert if it was that important?

I've read a lot of posts against Obama on this matter and almost none against Hil and Edwards. I just wanted to know where people who care about this issue stand on who they are supporting.

We've been through this.

And certainly you're not judging the importance of an issue based on the number of activists who show up, are you?

Because they weren't as outraged about McClurkin as you thought they should be. I'm pretty sure you're the one. In that case, you're saying there are only 14 of them in SC. That's why I brought that up.

And it's not apples and oranges. If you're only going to criticize one candidate for publicly associating with a homophobe, when you've been made aware that he's not the only one doing it, then that's an indication that this is more about trashing that candidate than it is about the issue.

you asked a majority of your friends, who are activists, whether they'd even heard of the McClurkin incident, and you said they hadn't.

And then I responded how can someone be a real gay activist if you can't even follow a scandal that was all over the news.

And there is actually a difference between associating yourself in public with a notorious homophobe during a campaign event, who claims homosexuality is evil, versus having someone work quietly behind the scenes on a campaign.

I don't condone hiring homophobes, but there is a remarkable difference, which is why it's apples and oranges.

For $10000 a month, no less. You really think that?

Do you really think it's better to have an ongoing relationship with a bigot advising you, probably on how to get bigots to vote for you while pretending to support the GLBT community, than it is to have some idiot get up and sing a few songs at a concert and have nothing to do with him again?

You know, McClurkin wasn't picked because he was a homophobe, it was because he's a popular gospel performer. And while I'm sure Jackson wasn't hired because he's a homophobe, I suspect his views will have more of an impact on how Clinton does things than McClurkin would ever have on Obama. Just a thought.

I'm concerned that all of the candidates won't fight for GLBT rights.

But,

I trust Obama because I believe him when he says he will fight for civil unions. I also believe that he will eventually fight for gay marriage.

I trust him because I've seen his record on rights for all people.

I also don't believe 'he screwed over gay people' regarding McClurkin. If you disagree, please tell me why.

regarding McClurkin?

He absolutely betrayed us.

Listen, the only thing worse than a homophobe is a gay homophobe.

These people are extraordinarily dangerous because when they make comments like homosexuality is evil, and homosexuality can be cured/is a choice -- straight people think, "oh, well if some gay person like McClurkin thinks this way, then my view that homosexuality is a choice or that it's evil must be justified. After all, even gay people think so...."

Obama embraced a dangerous person, despite the gay community practically begging him on hands and knees not to do so. Why should he be rewarded for that decision?

As for your comment that you believe Obama will eventually fight for gay marriage, I don't buy it. I believe Obama's emphasis on his faith will interfere. He's already said he believes marriage is between and man and a woman.

I think John Edwards is much more likely to support equal marriage in the future because his wife (who's beloved in the gay community, BTW) and his daughter, both support it. And if anyone can convince him, I think it's Elizabeth.

She told him not to vote for that and it didn't make a difference.

I prefer a candidate who says exactly what he thinks and doesn't use his spouse for an attack dog or to give himself plausible deniability.

Do you understand that's what he's doing? When he doesn't have the guts to say something, he just sends Elizabeth out to do it. It's really disgusting.

about Obama, and jumped on Edwards and his wife instead.

Edwards isn't the one who effed up. It's Obama.

None of your accusations against Edwards are substantiated.

You make it sound as though Obama is somehow better than Edwards on gay issues, and that's ridiculous.

They both stand for the same things.

And when all things are equal, I prefer the person who's more trustworthy.

And that's NOT Obama. He fucked up, so now he pays the consequences.

He should have known better. Right sandnsea?

Obama's positions on GLBT rights are as good as anybody's except for Kucinich and Gravel. Obama and Edwards want a full repeal of DOMA whereas Hillary only wants to repeal part of it.

I didn't support the McClurkin thing but I can live with it as long as Obama is solid on the issues.

I asked what makes you believe Obama won't change his mind about his positions if it's politically advantageous?

If he's willing to embrace a person (in defiance of the gay community at large) who refers to homosexuality as a curse, and preaches that it's a choice, why should gay people trust him?

That's terrific that you're able to "live with it," but what makes you think he'll remain "solid on the issues?"

The McClurkin incident isn't enough to make me believe that he will shift his positions on GLBT rights. If it is for you then I won't try to persuade you otherwise. Support who you want to in the primaries.

If Obama is the nominee I hope you will be supporting him. He will certainly be better on GLBT rights than any of the Republicans.

It's very disappointing to me, not just as a lesbian but as a human being, that marriage equality is even under discussion in a supposedly advanced nation in the 21st century, but then again, this nation still hasn't elected anyone other than a white, ostensibly straight, male for president. Pathetic.

I can say that every single Democratic candidate is miles ahead of any Republican candidate on the issue of gay rights. I will support the Democratic nominee in the general election. I won't have the opportunity to vote in a primary until the decision has essentially been made (North Carolina is a late primary state), but if I were voting today I would vote for Kucinich, Biden, or Edwards.

Born straight. Maybe next time. Just an issue I care about. I think also in my lurking lately there are many people who seem to suggest that they cannot support this or that candidate because of their stance on this. This confuses me since none of the Big 3 are talking about it. So I guess I want a better sense of how people are really thinking of voting. I can certainly understand your questioning of my motives here, but I assure you that there is no argument for gays to take a back seat in this election from me.

4 years ago we fought about this a lot here at the DU. In the end, Bush's cheating stopped the possibility of federal legality. I am however pleased with some states progress, I like this footing better than the one we (by we I mean those of us who believe in a more prefect union and equality for all) had last time.

lol

:hi:

yea, DK also rocks. lol

:pals:

I like Obama's position - civil unions as a path to gay marriage.

to gay marriage or are you puting words in his mouth?

The last I heard, Obama said marriage is between and man and a woman.

there is absolutely no evidence of what he is implying - in fact its just the opposite.

gullible gays who don't do their homework.

what am I 3/5 a human? He really should know better than to use that type of wording - even worse is believing a human does not deserve the exact same rights as yourself.

Clinton.

Why is that?

embrace a notorious homophobe are haters?

I'm 99.99 percent sure my candidate is Edwards.

on a reality TV show.

I have to admit, his supporters have added to my distaste for the man.

http://www.johnedwards.com/iowa/issues/lgbt/index.html

The Rights Of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual & Transgender Americans
"LGBT Americans are entitled to equal respect and dignity under our laws. Discrimination is morally wrong. All Americans should have the same freedoms and the same responsibilities." -- John Edwards

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

Workplace Discrimination
Workers should be judged by the quality of their performance, not their sexual orientation or gender identity. While in the Senate, Edwards cosponsored the Employment Non-Discrimination Act. He also believes that stronger enforcement is necessary to prevent employment discrimination by federal agencies.

Military Service
Edwards opposes the current "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy on gays and lesbians serving in our military. The military ought to treat all service members equally and in a way that promotes national security, without regard to their sexual orientation.

Adoption
Edwards believes that gay and lesbian parents should be able to adopt children just like any other parents. There are over 120,000 children waiting for homes in our nation's foster care system. Adoption placements should be decided by judges and adoption agencies based upon the best interests of the children. Both members of a same-sex couple raising children together should be able to form a legal relationship with their children.

Hate Crimes
Everyone is entitled to live in dignity without fear of violence. We should strengthen the ability of law enforcement to investigate and prosecute hate crimes based on race, gender, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, disability or gender identity. While in the Senate, Edwards cosponsored legislation to give law enforcement agencies the tools they need to investigate and prosecute hate crimes.

HIV and AIDS
The loss from HIV/AIDS is almost beyond understanding. Edwards believes we have a moral imperative to do much more, and do it much better. He is the first presidential candidate -- Democratic or Republican -- to propose a comprehensive strategy this year to stop the HIV/AIDS epidemic at home and around the world, building on his plan for true universal health care with specific proposals to expand Medicaid to cover HIV-positive individuals before they reach later stages of disabilities and AIDS and increase support for the Ryan White CARE Act and HOPWA programs. He will also fight the disease in the African-American and Latino communities where the harm is now greatest and employ science-based prevention strategies -- including comprehensive, age-appropriate sex education and harm-reduction programs that provide high-risk individuals with access to clean syringes.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Doesn't change that he is not pro gay marriage. But maybe he is likely to be swayed. We'll see.

he's stupidly hung up on the word "marriage" like a lot of other people, although I do believe he's "swayable"

From the site:

He supports civil unions to guarantee gay and lesbian couples the same rights as straight couples, including inheritance rights, hospital visitation rights, equal pension and health care benefits, and all of the 1,100 other legal protections government affords married couples.

Guess I should look more carefully

http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/lgbt.pdf

Support Full Civil Unions and Federal Rights for LGBT Couples
Barack Obama supports full civil unions that give same-sex couples equal legal rights and privileges as
married couples, including the right to assist their loved ones in times of emergency as well as equal
health insurance, employment benefits, and property and adoption rights. Obama also believes we need
to fully repeal the Defense of Marriage Act and enact legislation that would ensure that the 1,100+ federal
legal rights and benefits currently provided on the basis of marital status are extended to same-sex
couples in civil unions and other legally-recognized unions.
Oppose a Constitutional Ban on Same-Sex Marriage
Obama voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment, which would have defined marriage as between
a man and a woman and prevented judicial extension of marriage-like rights to same-sex or other unmar-
ried couples.
Repeal Don’t Ask-Don’t Tell
Obama believes we need to repeal the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy. The key test for military service
should be patriotism, a sense of duty, and a willingness to serve. Obama will work with military leaders
to repeal the current policy and ensure we accomplish our national defense goals.

http://www.joebiden.com/issues/?id=0024

http://www.ontheissues.org/Joe_Biden.htm#Civil_Rights

78% from Human Rights Campaign indicating pro gay rights record.

I promise you that no matter what happens, things will be better for gays when we have a Dem in the white house and stronger majorities in Congress. I'm very confident of this. No Dem would even consider stopping anything any state would do to advance civil unions or marriages or domestic partnerships or whatever. That's where it will happen, on the state level.

http://www.issues2000.org/2008/Bill_Richardson_Civil_Rights.htm

Bill Richardson on Civil Rights
Democratic Governor (NM)

Won't accept honorary chair of Boy Scouts due to gay issue
Q If you're president of the United States you're automatically honorary chairman of the Boy Scouts of America. In light of that organization's position on sexual orientation, would you accept that position?
A: No, I wouldn't. Because I think, as president, I would commit myself, number one, that I will be a leader that prevents discrimination on the basis of race, gender and sexual orientation.

Source: 2007 Democratic primary debate at Dartmouth College Sep 6, 2007

Focus on achievable civil unions as a path to full inclusion
Q: In response to a question on same sex marriage at the CNN-YouTube debate, you said you would focus less on marriage and more on what's "achievable" in terms of rights and responsibilities for same sex couples. When will same sex marriage be achievable
A: The nation, I believe, is on a path to full inclusion. A president must lead that effort. In my judgment, what is achievable is civil unions with full marriage rights, with domestic partnership. I believe that's achievable.

Source: 2007 HRC/LOGO debate on gay issues Aug 9, 2007

Voted for DOMA, but now regrets vote; repeal it
Q: In 1996 why did you vote for DOMA?
A: I was the chief deputy Democratic whip at the time, and Clinton was president. The objective in passing DOMA was to fight a huge assault for a constitutional amendment in the Congress to ban gay marriage. It was sort of a cheap political way to decimate a bad initiative. I would repeal that horrendous initiative that I voted for and I regret now. DOMA would preclude a number of the full partnership rights that I want to see with civil unions.

Source: 2007 HRC/LOGO debate on gay issues Aug 9, 2007

Included transgender in hate-crimes law
Look at what Bill Richardson as governor has done.
I passed a hate crimes act that was based on non-discrimination I was the first governor to include transgender.
I also passed domestic partnerships avoiding discrimination. I'm the only governor that called a special session to expand domestic partnership.
I've appointed Cabinet members that are gay and lesbians. All through my administration I have been inclusive of the lesbian/gay community.
Source: 2007 HRC/LOGO debate on gay issues Aug 9, 2007

Apologizes for "maricon" comment; but look at the record
Q: As a guest on the Don Imus show, "Imus in the Morning", in March 2006, you were asked by Imus in a gag if a staffer was a "maricon," which is Spanish for "faggot." In your response, you repeated the epithet. But you've since apologized and now you question the timing of this issue coming up. Do you not believe that you should be held accountable for repeating that word?
A: Sure, you know, and I'm Hispanic. I felt the sting as a kid of being stereotyped. And I apologized but I meant no harm when I said that. It was, you know, one of those exchanges that I was caught off guard. No, I am not backing off. I apologize, but I think you should look at my actions and not words. Let me tell you what I've done as governor. You can talk about what mistakes people have made. I've made plenty. And I've probably said things that I regret across the board. But we should look at what we've done. I accept obviously -- but you should look at my record. Action speaks louder than words.

Source: 2007 HRC/LOGO debate on gay issues Aug 9, 2007

The country isn't there yet on gay marriage
Q: You said you're calling a special session for domestic partnerships in NM....
A: No. I did .

Q: Oh, you did. And how did it go?

A: It didn't pass. We lost by one vote.

Q: So you didn't call a special session for same sex marriage because you can't get domestic partnership through. If the New Mexico legislature handed you a marriage bill, would you sign it?

A: I am pushing the NM legislature very hard to expand domestic partnership. It's a question of going through a path that is achievable.

Q: If the legislature hands you that piece of legislation, in your heart, where are you on that issue?

A: Well, you know, in my heart, I'm doing what is achievable. And I'm not there yet. And the country isn't there yet. New Mexico isn't there yet. We have to bring the country on. We have to move in the direction of making this happen. That doesn't mean that I'm closed on this issue. It means that you do what is achievable.

Source: 2007 HRC/LOGO debate on gay issues Aug 9, 2007

Homosexuality is a choice, but it's not an issue of science
Q: Do you think homosexuality is a choice, or is it biological?
A: It's a choice.

Q: I don't know if you understand the question. Do you think a homosexual is born that way, or do you think that around seventh grade we go, "Ooh, I want to be gay"?

A: Well, I'm not a scientist. I don't see this as an issue of science or definition. I see gays and lesbians as people as a matter of human decency. I don't like to categorize people. I don't like to answer definitions like that, that perhaps are grounded in science or something else that I don't understand.

Q: Well, it's hard when you are a citizen of a country that tells you that you are making a choice when you were born that way.

A: As a Hispanic, I grew up with people thinking because of my darker skin and because I wasn't fully speaking English at a time, that I was not equal. So I understand that issue of inequality, and so across the board I've always felt that every human being desires the same rights.

Source: 2007 HRC/LOGO debate on gay issues Aug 9, 2007

Full civil unions with full marriage rights
Q: Would you allow us, , to be married to each other?
KUCINICH: Yes. Gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender should have the same rights as anyone else, including a civil marriage ceremony.

Q: : You supported the Defense of Marriage Act.

DODD: ought to have civil unions. But I believe marriage is between a man and a woman.

RICHARDSON: I would do what is achievable. What I think is achievable is full civil unions with full marriage rights. I would also press for a hate crimes act in the Congress. I would eliminate "don't ask/don't tell" in the military. If we're going to have in our military men & women that die for this country, we shouldn't give them a lecture on their sexual orientation I would push for domestic partnership laws, nondiscrimination in insurance and housing. I would also send a very strong message that, in my administration, I will not tolerate any discrimination on the basis of race, gender, or sexual orientation.

Source: 2007 YouTube Democratic Primary debate, Charleston SC Jul 23, 2007

Diversity isn't just talking points; it's facts of life
Q: Is race still the most intractable issue in America?
A: Leading on the issues of race is about being authentic, about speaking honestly. Race is a major issue in this country, and the next president has to talk about it. Race is not just passing new laws. Race is not just naming solid Supreme Court justices. Race is also dealing with bigotry and racism that exists in this country.

And I believe very strongly that the next president is not just going to have to pass laws and take the steps necessary to reaffirm affirmative action and take steps to make sure that our schools are integrated, but also the next president is going have to lead and speak passionately about a dialogue among all people.

And I believe very strongly that issues of diversity, for me, the first Latino to run for president, aren't talking points; they're facts of life.

Source: 2007 Democratic Primary Debate at Howard University Jun 28, 2007

For hate crimes law, domestic partnerships, civil unions
Here's what I would do. I would do what I did as governor of New Mexico. One, I would move in the Congress for a hate crimes law. I would have domestic partnerships. I would have civil unions. I would initiate laws that practice non-discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. I would get rid of "don't ask, don't tell." I voted against it as a congressman.
Source: 2007 Dem. debate at Saint Anselm College Jun 3, 2007

Let gay and lesbian servicemembers serve openly
In Richardson's first term as Governor, he threatened to veto a New Mexico DOMA-type law, unless it was enacted alongside civil unions. (It was never necessary.) He is also for letting gay and lesbian servicemembers serve openly in our Armed Forces, and said so during the "Don't Ask/Don't Tell" debates in the 90's. He extended civil rights laws to homosexuals and transgendered people while Governor of New Mexico.
Source: Campaign blog www.BillRichardsonBlog.com Jan 28, 2007

Added sexual orientation & gender identity as NM civil right
You don't get better than Richardson on gay issues, and again he's not just talking the talk; he's walked the walk. In his first term as governor, he led the state from nowhere to being ranked among the best in the nation on gay rights protections:
He signed legislation expanding New Mexico civil rights laws to include sexual orientation and gender identity (which only 3 other states included).
He signed a hate crimes law that included actual or perceived sexual orientation and gender identity.
He signed an executive order in 2003 extending health insurance and other benefits to the same-sex domestic partners of NM state employees.
He's on record backing full-fledged civil unions and opposes state-level constitutional amendments banning gays from marrying.
While in Congress, Richardson backed military service for out gay men and lesbians. That means he was anti-Don't Ask, Don't Tell when it was very uncool to be.
Source: CitizenChris blog on TypePad.com Jan 21, 2007

Defeated DOMA in NM by tying it to civil union legislation
Richardson's negotiation savvy the difficult issue of marriage equality for same-sex couples. Richardson opposes gay marriage, but when the New Mexico legislature began pushing a "Defense of Marriage Act" in 2005, Richardson said he would veto it unless the DOMA was enacted alongside civil union legislation. Richardson's position wasn't just expedient, it was fairly principled and would satisfy any but those with a gay marriage litmus test. The DOMA effort failed.
Source: CitizenChris blog on TypePad.com Jan 21, 2007

Voted for federal Defense of Marriage Act in 1996
Richardson's record isn't unblemished. He voted for the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996, and I couldn't find any statement since recanting that support. Even with such an impressive record on other gay issues, Richardson will need to explain his position on DOMA to gay Democrats.
Source: CitizenChris blog on TypePad.com Jan 21, 2007
----
The above is from an objective third party.
To read what his official site has to say:
www.billrichardson.com

the only Democratic candidate who is unequivocally pro gay marriage. No pussyfooting around with "civil unions" for gays/lesbians and civil "marriage" for straights -- just straight ahead marriage and all the same civil benefits for everyone.

Hampshire Freedom to Marry Coalition

N.H. Gay Group Endorses John Edwards

One of New Hampshire's leading gay rights groups has endorsed former North Carolina senator John Edwards for president. The New Hampshire Freedom to Marry Coalition cited Edwards's commitment to equal rights and fighting discrimination in all forms, according to a press release.

"We took a long look at all of the candidates, we met with many of them, and in our judgment, John Edwards's sincere commitment to battling discrimination and ensuring equal rights for every American is unparalleled," the group's executive director, state representative Mo Baxley, said in the release. "He and his wonderful wife, Elizabeth, have spent their entire lives fighting for those without a voice and standing up for what is right. John Edwards will be the kind of president we can trust to stand up for everyday Americans."

The coalition quotes Edwards as saying he supports the repeal of the military's ban of gay service members as well as the full repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act. He also quoted as saying he would expand hate-crimes legislation and prohibit job discrimination against LGBT workers. The coalition acknowledges that while Edwards support civil unions for same-sex couples, he is not in favor of same-sex marriage.

But, on the issue of gay rights, they're all very good.

What state can I give a :thumbsup: to?

My partner and I were the fourth or fifth ones married.

Now you get all the joys as the rest of us. Honeymoon period, the ups and downs, seven year itch!. Good luck to you and your spouse. Do you guys want to have children. Just think of the story you can tell your grandkids! Revolutionaries!

Biden on Gay Marriage:

Civil unions ok; gay marriage is probably inevitable

Q: In November 2003, you were asked, "Do you believe gay marriage is inevitable?" And you responded, "I'm not sure. I think probably it is."

A: Well, I think it probably is because social mores change. But I don't think the government can dictate the definition of marriage to religious institutions. But government does have an obligation to guarantee that every individual is free of discrimination. And there's a distinction. I think government should not be able to dictate to religions the definition of marriage, but on a civil side, government has the obligation to strip away every vestige of discrimination as to what individuals are able to do in terms of their personal conduct.

Q: So New Hampshire coming out in favor of civil unions is OK by you?

A: Yes. Yes, it is.

Voted NO on constitutional ban of same-sex marriage.

And I hate when people use the term "gay marriage". That implies that marriage is inherently not for LGBT people. Marriage equality is what we're after.

Language is important.

It's all just marriage to me. "gay marriage" to refers to the effort of legalization.

And it's for a reason. The way we frame these things is important.

Marriage equality.

This is about Hope and the future, not fear and the past

I refuse to vote for anyone in the primary that is not for 100% Equality.

.mcclurkin -- was unforgiveable.

I'm not a fan of Hillary, but at least the right doesn't appear to like her. She's my second to last choice.

Tell me where you are coming from.

and the safety of brothers sisters.

you say -- and other straight folk -- and even lgbtq folk -- that you are ''for'' marriage equality -- but if you embrace a man who embraces donnie -- and he did -- and he actively courts people who are a threat to me -- i have to really wonder about your ''support'' for the issues that gay folk are concerned with.

but i'm a suspicious soul when it comes to straights.

If I saw him as embracing him, would not support him. I have friends who do not agree with me on things (lots of issues). If I chose to push them away for those things eventually I would have no friends. Over time those friends have slowly turned more liberal. I think setting a good example for people works. I guess I do not see him (obama) as a threat. I can't change that I am straight. i do not have to agree with you about Obama in order to care about this issue. Not fair to make that judgement.

people -- straights in partucular -- liberals straights specifically -- talk a good game when it comes to lgtbq folk.

if you walked in our shoes -- you'd see this a good deal differently -- but you're secure in your straightness -- and smug in you ''liberal'' stand.

i have none of those advantages -- i buried a partner due to the neglect of insurance companies -- witnessed horrifying failings of our hetero dominated culture when it has come to gay friends who were physically assaulted.

i see a guy who wants to be my ''friend'' and leader embracing a guy like donnie -- i walk away.

you have a good deal less to lose.

I assure you that i am not smug in my "liberal" stand. I feel very uncomfortable with the idea that we even have to discuss this subject. It's wrong that there is not a candidate that can win that is strong in this subject of equality. I imagine that there must have been signers of the constitution that must have felt like huge hipocrits calling blacks 3/5 of a person while espousing equality in the constitution. I understand that you have reason to not trust other people, but I think that change has to happen and when it does, it will be the change that matters and not small minded people like McClurkin.

...to support same-sex marriage openly. All of the others are willing to waffle on this last safe bigotry.

I don't believe Edwards when he says he opposes same-sex marriage--I'm just disappointed that he's pandering in that particular manner.

n/t

should be left up to the states, not the federal government.

Edwards personally supports civil unions, not gay marriages, but he thinks the decision with regards to either should be up to the states.

I am supporting the only candidates who has always cared about this issue - Hillary Clinton.

I'd support Kucinich without question.

There's little difference b/t the others on this.
Obama has the McClurkin thing against him, but Edwards has the "I don't know any gay people and the only one I met made me uncomfortable" thing against him. Clinton seems to be getting most of the LGBT support and she marched in a gay pride parade, so I'd go with her 2nd.

and Clinton only wants the second part. So Id give Edwards a one up on that - same as Obama - Id put Clinton at least 4th in the list if not further down.

I'd forgotten about that.

Marriage isn't the only issue important to me as a lesbian. Edwards' comment that hormone treatments should be covered under health benefits because it's a "matter of equality" tells me all I need to know about him. He has said "he isn't there yet" on marriage. Edwards has created himself as a candidate always moving further to the left, which, shows the ability to grow and change as well. It's also a smart political tactic.

Edwards voted for the IWR, but now he says if he were president he'd pull out the troops. Edwards says he's for civil unions, but I believe he'll "get there" once he's in office and support gay marriage.

Obama on the other hand has actually said "I believe marriage is between a man and a woman." He will never get my vote.

I don't believe Clinton will do it because it's not politically advantageous and she's been moving to the right for years.

Kucinich is not going to be the nominee. I'm also pissed that he actually directed his voters to Obama who I distrust immensely.

Here's what he said in 2004 when campaigning for Kerry "We both believe that marriage is between a man and a woman."
Before that, when running on his own, he didn't even support civil unions. He didn't think we were ready for it.

I guess you'll never vote for Edwards now.

Edwards has never pandered to the religious right. I will never trust your candidate. You can send me quotes of things Edwards used to believe all day long. My own mother and father USED TO BELIEVE marriage was between a man and a woman.

Your candidate doesn't admit errors and he doesn't change--although it's hard to tell sometimes because he doesn't have a platform really.

It's your candidate's job to win my vote. He made a choice. He lost it. Deal with it.

Edwards evolves; Obama evades.

of Edwards supporters when they say they're not supporting Obama for whatever reason and it turns out their guy did or said the same thing.
Sorry if I embarrassed you.

Marriage isn't our only issue.

It just happens that I am an Obama supporter. Just being upfront about that. Honestly, people's responses about Edwards have made me more comfortable with him.