Our Democratic Presidential Candidates on Gay Rights

An historic moment occurred the other night when HRC and Logo got the Democratic Presidential candidates together to question them on their positions on a host of gay rights issues. This has never happened before in a presidential race, and the outcome was very enlightening. Be sure to check out the video of the candidates here. The reason this debate is so important to me, is that somehow, I will have to distinguish between these candidates that are all basically the same. And these are the issues that are incredibly personal to me, so it's a good start.

I heard about the forum the next morning on NPR. My alarm woke me up to Barack Obama explaining why he supports civil unions, but not civil marriage (a position almost all the candidates have). Barack Obama supports full civil rights for gays and lesbians. He believes civil unions will be equal to civil marriage. But for him “marriage” can have religious connotations. For him, it's just a matter of semantics. He says semantics may be important to some, why not say it’s important to him? Because if it is just semantics, then why would it hurt to give us marriage instead of unions? Listen to yourself, Barack. Another little thing that pissed me off, was that he believes this isn't the time to fight for marriage rights. We should be focused on other more concrete civil rights issues like ending discrimination in the workplace, etc. The real issues with day to day consequences as he sees it. He doesn't believe our inability to marry one another and have the over 1,000 rights associated with marriage has day to day consequences. What's wrong with this picture?

Unfortunately, Hillary Clinton did no better, which is a shame. Frankly, I'm leaning toward voting for her, but sometimes she makes it hard for me. Her position is much less eloquent and frankly, misguided.

What she says here is that the states should continue to decide for themselves if they will allow gay marriage. Any idiot can see this is NOT in the best interests of gays and lesbians. Basically, she's saying it's okay that gays and lesbians won't know from state to state what level of rights they have. One state can have marriage, like Massachusetts. The next could have civil unions, like Vermont, and the next after that could have the klan, like any state in the south. Give me a break. She actually points out that many states outlawed any type of union for gays and lesbians, but then overlooks that fact by saying some states have taken a different position. How can this be okay? What is she smoking? Also, she doesn't suggest repealing DOMA altogether, but just the part that says states may not acknowledge the rights of other states.

This is a huge set back in my support of Hillary. While Barack talked in circles about semantics, he's at least consistent in his support that gays and lesbians need full equal rights in our society, not just state by state. If the country were completely (or more so than right now) in favor of gay marriage, you'd see all these politicians change their tunes.

Let me leave you with words from my favorite candidate who, sadly, will never get elected, Senator Mike Gravel who seems truly sincere in his support for gay marriage.

At least I get to hear these words of wisdom during the campaign. I'll be sad when we don't hear from him any longer after the first primaries are held and he drops out. Stay strong Mike!