Edwards Supporters Question: His position on gay marriage?

[beyurslf]

I like Edwards and find him refreshing. What is his position on gay marriage?

[David__77]

1. He opposes recognizing it.

Along with the rest, by the way. Almost all say that they favor "civil unions," with the exception Lieberman. Sharpton and Kucinich favor same-sex marriage rights.

I would like more detail, however, on what Edwards would mean by "civil unions." Does this, for instance, mean an exact replication of marriage rights and responsibilities? It's unclear. Dean signed legislation granting civil union rights recognized by the state of Vermont as equivalent to marriage.

[beyurslf]

Well I won't be hung up by the semantics of the issue.

I suppose I should have said gay marriage and or civil unions... as long as they give the rights/responsibilities of marriage.

Anyone else know if this is what he supports? I can't find it on his website.

[AP]

4. Do get hung up on semantics. The right wing is controlling the terms of

this debate. Their framing the issue in terms of marriage, when it should be in terms of legal rights and benefits and fair employment and people forming strong economic units which increase their options in life and it should be about separating religion (marriage) and state (legal rights: employment benefits, inheritance rights, visitation rights, etc.).

[JohnLocke]

34. The right wing is framing the issue in terms of marrige and religion

The right wing is framing the issue in terms of marrige and religion when it should be in terms of legal rights and benefits (e.g., fair employment, benefits, inheritance rights, visitation rights, etc.)

[soleft]

3. Doesn't Dean want to leave it up to states to decide on "marriage"

while being in support of Civil Unions.

I would also like to know what Kerry's position on gay marriage with respect to states rights, AND

I'd like to know what each, Kerry and Edwards have said about the Constitutional amendment. Did each of them vote on DOMA?

[AP]

6. Not even states should be deciding who gets married. Leave it to churches.

The government should only be in the business of determining legal rights between individuals and between people are their employers.

However, I know that even the candidates aren't as explicit about this as I am.

[soleft]

10. Civil marriages?

[AP]

14. Any two people who want all the right we now confer on married people

should be able to enjoy the benefits (and the burdens). We shouldn't ask them to go to church too, or sit through a meanigless civil "CEREMONY," or have sex or anything to enjoy those rights.

Do you agree?

Why are we making it harder for committed people to have better, easier lives.

It's easier to form a business partnership than a private, personal partnership. That's wrong.

[RhodaGrits]

43. civil union license

I think the gov't should issue licenses for anyone to form a civil union w/ a partner and it can be performed by a registered rabbi, priest, pastor, minister, monk, priestess, judge, etc etc of your own choosing. If a group of whatever religious orientation wants to bless a union and call it marriage or if two individuals want to declare themselves "married" after a civil union is none of the government's business - or anyone else's for that matter. Aren't we supposed to support religious freedom and choice? The governments only concern is to assure equal rights under the law.

[AP]

56. No no no. The government should issue a license to any two people

who want it.

What does the government care if I go to city hall, register my license, and then never have a religious ceremony or any CEREMONY (ceremony, meaning "wasting your time standing around)? Why isn't it enough to just get the license?

The government is not in the business of mediating individuals' spiritual relationships. That's for religioun. The government should not rewuire anyone to be religious, and shouldn't engage in the sham quasi-relligious ceremony which judges and JoPs engage in (don't they have better things to do???? We're wasting tax money having them do this).

[RhodaGrits]

60. okay

I believe most people do want some kind of ritual or ceremony but that would be their choice and is a matter of their own spiritualism and beliefs. Thank you for this discussion.

[AP]

61. I agree that most people do too. But I congratulate Republicans for

making people think that way.

Read post 13 below. That's actually what most people could be convinced to think if we had the right president delivering that message.

And how do you turn that sentiment into policy that will make a difference in peoples' lives?

By NOT arguing this issue as being one of religion and marriage, but one of rights and duties (implicitly, church and state issue too).

Now, listen to the real audio link of Edwards talking about this.

Don't you think that's the direction Edwards is taking this?

[AP]

2. He wants same-sex couples to enjoy all the same LEGAL rights as

married people. In other words, he disagrees with Andrew Sullivan. He's not fighting to incorporate same-sex couples into the most conservative institution in America: the family, where one spouse works, and the other can't afford not to.

Another way to think about it: Edwards is for separation of church and state. He isn't interested in getting the government involved in deciding that church's decisions about what marriage means should be able to determine what legal RIGHTS people should get.

The direction this is heading is removing the government from the marriage business all together. No more wasting time and money on Justices of the Peace and governement-sponsored quasi-relgious 'civil ceremonies'. You get to pick a person (whether you're a same or opposite sex couple) and determine what legal relationship you want to have with that person.

If you want to get married in a church too, go ahead. That's not the governments busuiness at all.

Folks, read Lisa Duggan's The Twilight of Equality. You don't know it, but this is the most LIBERAL and PROGRESSIVE way to deal with this issue. If you're fightin with Andrew Sullivan to have gay marriages, but you're not talking about how families are fucked up because the government wants people as miserable as possible in as low-paying jobs as possible, with crappy benefits, then you're fighting on the side of the right wing.

[beyurslf]

8. That's what I think too personally.

The gov't should be doing civil unions for everyone and if you want married in a church go do it. If marriage is a religious institution, then the govt shouldn't be involved in it anyway.

I would be interested in their votes on DOMA too. And certainly their stance on the Amendment. We need a President who can public ally say he is against changing the Constitution this way. Hopefully, some of the spineless D's in congress will get behind him then. I think it is the only way to stop it from happening.

[AP]

9. Andrew Sullivan and the right wing totally own this issue and it's time

for Dems to reframe it. Edwards is reframing it.

I suggest everyone bookmark this thread.

It's going to be very important this year.

[MsUnderstood]

19. Will it be in the spotlight tonight

I have heard that Bush will have this topic in the State of the Union tonight. IMHO, that move seeks to reassure the ultra-conservatives while pulling in the moderates.

I don't think this should be the top issue. I think all of the candidates need to focus on the Bush WEB (War, Economy and Bullshit). Gay marriage and/or civil unions would be great--getting us out of Iraq and back to work would be better.

[NashVegas]

69. I Have One Wee, Wee Little Problem with That Argument

It's not a personal problem, so much as a major flaw in the argument itself:

atheists get married all the time.

[mohc]

5. Generally speaking.

Edwards' phrase has been "domestic partner benefits". Basically he believes the government has no buisness saying a straight couple has any more rights than a gay couple. The one area this is unclear on is as it relates to tax law. Hospital/prison visitation rights, health insurance, and the other standard rights extended to married couples he supports, but I am not sure he would make any effort to redefine how joint filing works for example.

Personally, this is very similar to my viewpoint as I see marriage as as religious construct. Being agnostic, I am not a pro-marriage person in the first place, so this probably skews my view of the issue. I am sure to someone who finds marriage to be an integral part of life this would be a harder position to reconcile with.

[AP]

7. Exactly. This is why Edwards is probably the most LIBERAL candidate on

this issue while SOUNDING like the most conservative.

That's why he'll win the south definitely, and why he should win on the coasts too.

[mohc]

12. Until last night

I was quite unsure of who I would be supporting this primary season. I was/am very opposed to our invasion of Iraq, but otherwise all the candidates line up pretty closely (aside from Joe). The past week or so I have been very impressed by Edwards message, and his showing last night gives me real hope that in January of next year, a Democrat will be in the White House. I am now giving serious consideration to helping out the Edwards campaign here in TN where an Edwards win is quite possible.

[AP]

17. Edwards needs to win in TN and he can win in TN.

Get involved today:

http://www.winwithedwards.com/index4.html#TN

[beyurslf]

13. I think that is a great position.

It takes the issue out of the church and makes it about being equal under the law.

I am not a big "marriage" person myself. Being gay and single, I have not given it much thought. However, with Bush and company pushing the issue and the threat of banning gay marriage in the Constitution, I decided it should be important to me. After all, maybe when I am 40, I will want to get married. :)

I say I don't get stuck on semantics for many of the reasons you say that I should. Maybe I just said what I meant poorly. I think the govt should be giving the same rights to people. I don't think it is all that important what we call that. Civil unions... marriage... it all can be the same.

I tested this on my mom who is one of the most open minded people I know. When you say to straight people do you think gays should have all the same rights as you... most people I know say yes (my mom did of course). When you get specific and say should gays be able to make medical decisions for their partners in emergencies or visit them in the hospital, most people would say yes (my mom did). When you say should the gov't treat gay couples the same as straight couples, most people say yes but maybe a little more hesitantly (my mom said yes easily). Then you say, should gays be allowed to marry. The yeses dive. My mom waivered before saying maybe but she thought civil unions were a better idea. I did this with a few people at work too who all call themselves gay friendly. I asked my mom what was the difference...
Her answer: "a civil union is something you do privately with family and friends... maybe in a park... maybe in a back yard... maybe at a gov't building (she didn't think of gay or gay friendly churches) but a marriage is in the church. i just can't imagine sitting in church and seeing two guys kiss."

That's what is came down to. Seeing 2 guys kiss in her church and she was against gay marriage.

[AP]

16. You're giving me goosebumps because this is the issue right here.

Do you see how the media and the republcians benefit so much by calling this issue "gay marriage" it totally frames the issue in way that causes people to rush to the poles. It guarantees nothing good will come out of this debate for YEARS. It allows Republicans to appear in the minds of people as "defending Ameircan values". Their values are greed, lowering wages, and making people miserable so they have fewer options and so they don't have the power to stand up to the people who are screwing them over.

It is time to reframe this issue. It's not about marriage. I could give a hang about marriage. It's not the government's business. Conferring rights, helping people accumulate wealth and poliical and cultural power IS the government's business.

Dems need to get smart about this issue, and Edwards is being VERY smart about it.

If he's the nominee I promise you the right wing is going try to make him look too conservative to liberals on this issue. Truth is, he owns the issue. He could be more liberal on this issue. And he dominates the discourse on it -- when asked, he makes it about rights and economics.

Don't trust any Dem to win on this issue if, when ask, you start hearing the worlds 'marriage" and "family" in the answer. That means Andrew Sullivan is controlling the dabate and the Republicans are winning.

[DuctapeFatwa]

11. He supports a sort of second class citizenship for gay couples

All of them do. It's the two-tiered system of equal protection under the law, and serves as an excellent rebuttal to those who suggest the US is a secular state.

[beyurslf]

15. How does he support a two tiered system?

Everything I have seen here says otherwise. What specifically does he believe that makes it a 2 tier system?

[AP]

18. If you think of it that way, you're letting Andrew Sullivan frame debate.

He supports these two tiers: (1) Church and (2) State.

He's working America towards a point where the government will not care about whether a church (or a JoP) married you when determining whether you get the legal benefits (and burdens) of marriage.

[DuctapeFatwa]

20. Nope. I'm framing it like it is. Why have the state sanction marriage?

If the reason is to do with property and taxes, then there is no need for a two-class train.

If the reason is to hardwire certain religious sects into the law, then why lie about it?

If "civil union" is all that and a bag of chips, how come nobody is suggesting that heterosexual marriages be "civil unions?"

[AP]

26. That's the point. Stop sanctioning marriage. Give people a set a rights...

...for which they can register.

I'll guarantee you a lot of same sex people are going to say the hell ( ;) ) with religion altogether if they don't need to get married to be "married" (ie, to get those rights.

That would freak the hell out of a right wingers, and that's why they want to frame it the way you do.

You do realize that you're playing right into Bush's hands by arguing it this way?

And I AM 'suggesting that heterosexual marriages be "civil unions"' !!!

Just because the right wing has dominated this debate until today doesn't mean that we can't start reframing it right here, today on DU in a way which will make a difference in people's lives way more effectively than the way you and Andrew Sullivan frame the debate.

[dsc]

27. Edwards is on the record

as saying that he wants to review which, if any, federal rights he wishes to give those partnerships. Has he done that review yet?

[AP]

29. Do you agree with Andrew Sullivan on this issue?

[dsc]

39. aren't you always the one harping on addressing messages

and not messangers. For the record my position is that I want all the rights that you take for granted. I would prefer to have it called marriage but realize that is unlikely to happen. I honestly don't know Sullivan's position but I think he wants the word and the rights.

[AP]

52. Andrew Sullivan embodies the RW strategy for winning elections on this

issue and making sure that same and opposite sex couples can't join together and act as successful combatants against the upward flow of economic, political and cultural power.

Sullivan wants people to be poor and in traditional relationships in which people can't assert political and economic power. And he REALLY wants this issue to fail in a way that helps Republicans get elected. Because what he's really afraid of is Democrats getting elected and doing all the other things to stop the transfer of wealth to the wealthy.

[DuctapeFatwa]

41. I think the Constitution frames it just fine

Equal protection under the law. Separation of church and state.

As long as you pander to the Christian Reconstructionists and the Rapture-Ready theocracy militia by setting up that separate waiting room marked "colored," or in this case, "homosexual," you are also laying the groundwork for additional legislation that will have some things apply only to "marriage" and other things apply only to "civil unions."

I believe in freedom of religion, and anyone who belongs to a sect whose doctrine precludes same-sex couples getting married should have to right to go and have a religious ceremony according to the doctrines and customs of that faith, but that should have NOTHING to do with the legal aspect of their "union," the provisions of which should be the same regardless of the gender of either party, in accordance with the constitution of the United States and the principle of equal protection under the law,

[AP]

54. People (regardless of sexuality) should only be required to file

with the government their intent to be bound to the benefits and burdens of the rights we currently confer to married people.

In other words, you just file with the government. There's a way to get this in increments, and arguing that the government should recognize gay marriages is not the way. You're arguing the importance of religion in determining what legal right the government confers upon you. So, step one is to expand the rights to everyone, so they way you're treated by the government is no different. Step 2: you say that you ne longer need any kind of ceremony to get married. You simply register with the gov't. Step 3: you say why don't we just streamline everything and let everyone register their relationships, since they're triggering all the same rights, and it'll make it easier to keep track of things.

Voila. You've gotten religion out of government and you've made a difference in people's lives by getting government INTO the places it belongs: mediating the LEGAL RELATIONSHIPS (NOT SPIRITUAL) BETWEEN PEOPLE AND CONFERRING RIGHTS UPON PEOPLE.

[DuctapeFatwa]

67. I think "increments" lost its appeal a generation or so ago, two for some

Roy wilkins died.

[AP]

71. Why are increments good when fighting Health Care industry?

But not when fighting prejudices?

[DuctapeFatwa]

76. They are not. You will find that nowhere have I ever suggested such (nt)

[DuctapeFatwa]

22. It's like separate but equal water fountains for whites and others

The tiers are state-sanctioned marriage for heterosexuals, state-sanctioned civil unions for homosexuals.

[AP]

25. It's about separating god/church from law/goverment.

[DuctapeFatwa]

37. On the contrary, it is about hardwiring certain sects into the law

Separation would mean civil unions for everybody, gay, straight, whatever, and marriage would be a religious ceremony separate and independent from any state-sanctioned contract.

[AP]

47. Do you have a problem with what you described (taking religion out ...

...as the measure of what triggers those rights, and then removing the facade of a religioun which is what the Justice of Peace ceremony is all about).

[DuctapeFatwa]

68. I have a problem with lies and bullshit, no matter the source

See post re: increments

[AP]

72. If you don't want to win the game, pursue this strategy and help

Republicans.

Why do you think Andrew Sullivan is selling these same theories?

[DuctapeFatwa]

77. I am not interested in games or theories. A two-tiered system is not

constitutional, whether you are proposing racially separated but equal schools or a colored waiting room of state-sanctioned civil partnership based on gender.

Ironically, this is as insulting to the "religious right" as it is to gay people.

If there are those whose faith includes doctrine on the subject of marriage as a sacrament limited to heterosexuals, they should be free to practice that doctrine within the structure of their religious institution, but if they ALSO wish to have a legally recognized partnership their obligation under the law, and the state's recognition thereof is NOT connected to their religious practice, to create any differences in any way, shape or form, including calling it a different name from the recognition of partnership between two people of the same sex is an offensive and condescending sop to those who believe that state and church should be one.

Unless and until such time as it can be demonstrated that gay people love each other less, or have less a committment to each other than their heterosexual brothers, there is no logical justification for a two-tiered system, and unless and until such time as the constitution is amended to create a second class of citizenship that will exempt certain broad categories of people from paying taxes and military service will you have a good argument for creating a second tier of recognition of the legal aspects of their partnership.

[JohnLocke]

35. Wrong.

See above post.

[DuctapeFatwa]

38. see post 37

[dsc]

21. Some answers for all candidates

These are from the hrc questionaire given before the June forum, which Edwards didn't attend. Note on copyright. I do not think this is considered copyrighted due to the fact they wish this stuff to be known.

http://www.hrc.org/Content/NavigationMenu/HRC/Get_Informed/Campaigns_and_Elections/Presidential_Candidates/Questionnaire_Responses/2004_Presidential_Questionnaire_Responses.htm


4. Currently, no state recognizes any legal form of marriage for same sex couples. Do you believe the civil institution of marriage (with absolutely no requirements imposed on religious institutions) should be made legally available to two committed adults of the same sex?

BRAUN: SUPPORT.

CLARK: OPPOSE
Comments: I support civil unions so that gays and lesbians have equality and full rights under the law. Families in the United States come in many shapes and sizes. Currently, most of our laws extend rights and responsibilities to only heterosexual families and explicitly exclude same-sex couples from enjoying those same rights and responsibilities. It is the best interest of our country to promote stable communities and families, this includes both heterosexual and same-sax families. Accordingly, I believe that same-sex couples shouldn't be denied rights to pensions, health insurance, family medical leave, bereavement leave, hospital visitation, survivor benefits, and other basic legal protections that all families and children need.

DEAN: OPPOSE
Comments: I believe in equal rights for all Americans. As Governor of Vermont, I was proud to sign the first civil unions law in the nation, providing legal recognition to same-sex couples. The federal government should recognize legal unions created by the state or other countries so that same-sex couples have the same access to the benefits, rights, and privileges provided to straight couples.

EDWARDS: OPPOSE

GEPHARDT: OPPOSE
Comments: I oppose civil marriages for same-sex couples.

KERRY: OPPOSE
Comments: While I do not support gay marriage, I support civil unions and I believe that gays and lesbians should have full rights and equality under the law.

KUCINICH: SUPPORT
Comments: Representative Kucinich believes that it is the prerogative of religious institutions to sanction only marriages they deem appropriate. He believes the civil law should treat heterosexual and same sex couples equally before the law.

LIEBERMAN: OPPOSE
Comments: I do not support gay marriage.

SHARPTON: SUPPORT
Comments: I believe in equal human rights, before the law, for all human beings, and race, gender, disability, class or sexual orientation should not be a factor under the law. Even though we live under the law in a secular democratic society, religious groups must still be able to maintain their spiritual and moral option to either give or withhold a religious or sacred blessing to such unions. However, the government should not have that option. It must affirm the human and legal rights of everyone.

5. If you do not believe that civil marriage for same-sex couples should be made available to same-sex couples on the same basis as opposite sex couples, is there any legal construct you do embrace that would extend legal recognition to same sex couples?

BRAUN: N/A, Supports full civil marriage
Comments: The concept of "separate but equal" was properly rejected as inherently problematic by the Supreme Court in the landmark school desegregation case, Brown v. Board of Education. While I applaud the Vermont civil unions law, I am convinced that ultimately inequities will arise if there is one set of laws governing marriage commitments for heterosexuals and another set of laws governing marriage commitments for homosexuals.

CLARK: SUPPORT
Comments: Yes, see answer above.

DEAN:
Comments: See answer to question above.

EDWARDS:
Comments: I support partnership benefits for gay and lesbian couples in committed, long-term relationships.

GEPHARDT: SUPPORT
Comments: I support civil unions for same-sex couples. I believe civil unions are the best way to provide legal recognition to the relationships of same-sex couples and guarantee their rights.

KERRY: SUPPORT
Comments: I support civil unions and believe that same-sex couples should be afforded the same rights and benefits as married couples.

KUCINICH: N/A Supports full civil marriage.

LIEBERMAN: UNDECIDED
Comments: As President, it would be my position that a state may adopt for itself any civil union law that it wishes.

I believe that the basic American ideals of fairness and equality demand that we end discrimination against gay and lesbian Americans. We need to take concrete steps to recognize legal rights of gay domestic partnerships, which is why I cosponsored the Domestic Partnership Benefits and Obligations Act to provide domestic partner benefits to federal employees.

I also believe that we must similarly evaluate the numerous other benefits, rights, and privileges afforded to married couples under federal law. The gay and lesbian community has raised a number of important questions about extending this broad range of benefits, rights, and privileges to same sex couples, and I intend to study them closely in the course of this campaign

SHARPTON: N/A Supports full civil marriage

6. If a state has taken the steps to recognize same sex couples (and their families) for purposes of state-based benefits, rights, privileges and responsibilities, should the federal government recognize the state's legal recognition of such couples and families for purposes of federal benefits and tax treatment?

BRAUN: SUPPORT.

CLARK: SUPPORT
Comments: I believe the federal government should recognize state approved civil unions so that same-sex partners have access to pensions, family medical leave, hospital visitation rights, and survivor benefits.

DEAN: SUPPORT
Comments: The federal government should recognize state sanctioned civil unions for the purposes of federal benefits and tax treatment.

EDWARDS:
Comments: I support the extension of partnership benefits to gay and lesbian couples in committed, long-term relationships.

GEPHARDT: SUPPORT
Comments: I support federal government recognition of state-recognized benefits for same-sex couples.

KERRY: SUPPORT
Comments: The aftermath of September 11th, in which same-sex partners were denied federal benefits, made it terribly clear that benefits for gay and lesbian couples and families that do not extend to the federal level are not enough. I support affording same sex couples and families the same basic rights, including access to pensions, health insurance, family medical leave, bereavement leave, hospital visitation, and survivor benefits.

KUCINICH: SUPPORT
Comments: Representative Kucinich is a co-sponsor of HR 2426, the Domestic Partnership Benefits and Obligations Act of 2003, a bill to provide federal benefits to domestic partners of Federal employees. Additionally, Mr. Kucinich supports the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). He believes the repeal of DOMA would set the groundwork to provide federal benefits to same sex couples who have already been recognized for state-based benefits, rights, privileges, and responsibilities.

LIEBERMAN:
Comments: I believe that each branch and level of the government should decide for itself which benefits and responsibilities to extend. Just as I don't believe it is appropriate for the federal government to tell states that they may not recognize civil unions or create similar arrangements, I don't think it is the role of the states to decide such issues for the federal government. With that said, I do believe that the federal government should take steps to recognize long-term committed relationships, which is why I cosponsored the Domestic Partnership Benefits and Obligations Act to extend to gay and lesbian federal employees the same employment benefits for their domestic partners that heterosexual employees have for their spouses.

SHARPTON: SUPPORT
Comments: Article IV, Clause One, of the Constitution - known as the full faith and credit clause - obligates states to fully recognize each others acts and proceedings, and Congress has never passed a law permitting states not to recognize certain "Acts, Records and judicial Proceedings" of another state. The Tenth Amendment states, in essence, if a right is not in the Constitution, it resides with the state or the people. It seems logical to me that the federal government should be supportive of local control (i.e., in this instance, state law).

7. Gay and lesbian Americans pay federal taxes. According to a 1997 GAO study requested by Judiciary Chairman Henry Hyde, there are over 1000 benefits, rights and privileges provided to married couples and their families in federal law. Same-sex couples cannot access such benefits, rights and privileges because same-sex couples are not allowed to marry in any state in the union. Do you support extending federal benefits, rights, privileges and responsibilities to same-sex couples (and their children) provided the partnership meets certain federal standards of commitment and mutuality of interest?

BRAUN: SUPPORT
Comments: In those states that allow same same-sex marriages or civil unions, I would require that a homosexual couple actually be married (or "unioined").

CLARK: SUPPORT
Comments: I believe same-sex couples deserve the same federal benefits, rights, privileges and responsibilities as opposite-sex couples.

DEAN: SUPPORT
Comments: I support extending federal benefits, rights, privileges, and responsibilities to same-sex couples. For example, I support the Tax Equity for Health Plan Beneficiaries Act. I also believe that Federal employees should authorized federal employees to designate a domestic partner as a beneficiary for purposes of health and other employment benefits. I believe that all Americans should be treated equally under the law and would seek repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act to make this possible.

EDWARDS: UNDECIDED
Comments: I support the extension of partnership benefits to gay and lesbian couples in committed, long-term relationships, and support a comprehensive review of the benefits you have mentioned.

GEPHARDT: SUPPORT
Comments: I support extending federal benefits to same-sex couples.

KERRY: SUPPORT
Comments: I support affording same sex couples and families the same basic rights, including access to pensions, health insurance, family medical leave, bereavement leave, hospital visitation, and survivor benefits. Additionally, I am one of six cosponsors of legislation to provide domestic partnership benefits to gay and lesbian federal employees.

KUCINICH: SUPPORT
Comments: Representative Kucinich is a co-sponsor of HR 2426, the Domestic Partnership Benefits and Obligations Act of 2003, a bill to provide federal benefits to domestic partners of Federal employees. Additionally, Mr. Kucinich supports the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).

LIEBERMAN: UNDECIDED
Comments: I decided to cosponsor the Domestic Partnership Benefits and Obligations Act after closely examining the employment benefits received by federal employees and concluding that it is time to end the double standard that currently exists. I have not had a chance to perform a similar evaluation of the 1000 benefits, rights, and privileges afforded to married couples under federal law. But I believe the gay and lesbian community has raised a number of important questions about extending this broad range of benefits, rights, and privileges to same sex couples, and I intend to study them closely in the course of this campaign.

SHARPTON: SUPPORT
Comments: Again, the same standard ­ equal protection under the law ­ should apply.

7a. Specifically, do you support the expansion of the Family and Medical Leave Act to cover domestic partners and their children?

BRAUN: SUPPORT
Comments: When I was a Senator, the very first bill I voted on—I was a co-sponsor—was the Family and Medical Leave Act. I believe it was a good idea then, and should be strengthened now. The reasons that FMLA was good policy for heterosexual couples are equally strong for homosexual couples. (In fact, because of the additional legal obstacles we require homosexual couples to navigate makes an even more compelling case for extending the FMLA to same sex couples.)

CLARK: SUPPORT
Comments: See above.

DEAN: SUPPORT
Comments: I often speak of the importance of parental involvement in schools and have pointed out that the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) should be expanded to advance this goal. I will work to ensure that the expansion of FMLA includes domestic partners and their children.

EDWARDS:
Comments: See above.

GEPHARDT: SUPPORT
Comments: I support expanding the Family and Medical Leave act to include domestic partners so they are not punished should they need to take time from work to care for a loved one.

KERRY: SUPPORT.

KUCINICH: SUPPORT.

LIEBERMAN: UNDECIDED
Comments: Same as above

SHARPTON: SUPPORT
Comments: The same standard ­ equal protection under the law.

7b. Do you support modifying the Social Security System to pay survivor benefits to the same-sex partners of gay and lesbian people?

BRAUN: SUPPORT.

CLARK: SUPPORT

DEAN: SUPPORT
Comments: I support extending Federal rights and responsibilities, including those under the Social Security Act, to same-sex couples.

EDWARDS:
Comments: See above.

GEPHARDT: SUPPORT
Comments: I believe the families of gays and lesbians who contribute to Social Security throughout their working lives should be afforded the same benefits that the families of heterosexual Americans receive upon the death of a spouse.

KERRY: SUPPORT.

KUCINICH: SUPPORT.

LIEBERMAN: UNDECIDED
Comments: Same as above

SHARPTON: SUPPORT
Comments: The same legal standard of equal protection should apply.

7c. Do you support fair and equal tax treatment of same sex couples on the same basis as married couples?

BRAUN: SUPPORT.

CLARK: SUPPORT

DEAN: SUPPORT
Comments: I support extending federal rights and responsibilities to same-sex couples. For example, I support the Tax Equity for Health Plan Beneficiaries Act. I believe that all Americans should be treated equally under the law and would seek repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act to make this possible.

EDWARDS:
Comments: See above.

GEPHARDT: SUPPORT
Comments: I believe the same tax treatment should be provided to same sex couples as married couples

KERRY: SUPPORT.

KUCINICH: SUPPORT.

LIEBERMAN: UNDECIDED
Comments: Same as above

SHARPTON: SUPPORT
Comments: Equal protection under the law.

7d. Many gay and lesbian people serve in the federal government but do not receive the same health insurance and other employee benefits of married couples. Do you support domestic partner coverage for gay and lesbian employees of the civilian federal workforce?

BRAUN: SUPPORT.

CLARK: SUPPORT
Comments: If Fortune 500 companies have adopted policies to permit employees to designate domestic partners to receive employment benefits, so too can the federal government.

DEAN: SUPPORT
Comments: Major U.S. corporations such as Boeing, Ford Motor Co., AOL-Time Warner, and other Fortune 500 Companies have adopted human resources policies to allow employees to designate a domestic partner as a beneficiary of health and other employment benefits. The federal government should do the same; I support enactment of the Domestic Partnership Benefits Act to establish this policy.

EDWARDS: SUPPORT.

GEPHARDT: SUPPORT
Comments: I support domestic partner coverage for gay and lesbian employees of the federal government. I am a cosponsor of H.R. 2426, the Domestic Partnership and Obligation Act, legislation to provide the same benefits to domestic partners of federal employees as are provided the spouses of federal employees. This would make the federal government a model for equality.

KERRY: SUPPORT
Comments: I am one of six cosponsors of legislation to provide domestic partnership benefits to gay and lesbian federal employees.

KUCINICH: SUPPORT
Comments: Representative Kucinich is a co-sponsor of HR 935, the Tax Equity for Health Plan Beneficiaries Act of 2003. This bill seeks to extend the exclusion from gross income for employer-provided health coverage for employees' spouses and dependent children to coverage provided to other eligible designated beneficiaries of employees.

LIEBERMAN: SUPPORT
Comments: Yes, I support extending domestic partner benefits to federal employees and am a cosponsor of Domestic Partnership Benefits and Obligations Act that would achieve it.

SHARPTON: SUPPORT
Comments: Equal protection under the law.

8. While 47 states allow gay and lesbian people to adopt children, some legislators are pushing to prohibit capable, committed adults from adopting because of their sexual orientation. As president would you support giving appropriate judicial authorities the full authority to make decisions on adoption based on the best interest of the child, without bans based solely on sexual orientation?

BRAUN: SUPPORT.

CLARK: SUPPORT
Comments: There are too many children who need loving homes and parents-- to prevent able, responsible adults from adopting solely because of their sexual orientation is wrong. I support giving judicial authorities the right to make decisions based on the best interest of the child.

DEAN: SUPPORT
Comments: Children need nurturing, supportive and committed guardians to insure that they are safe and healthy. If guardians meet these criteria, they should not be prevented from adopting children on the basis of their sexual orientation.

EDWARDS: SUPPORT.

GEPHARDT: SUPPORT
Comments: I support equal adoption rights. The focus must always be on giving the children who are waiting to be adopted the opportunity of stability in a permanent and loving family. To achieve this goal it is important to widen the pool of potential adopters to find suitable parents for children who are waiting to be adopted.

KERRY: SUPPORT.

KUCINICH: SUPPORT.

LIEBERMAN: SUPPORT
Comments: Yes, I believe that judicial authorities should be able to make adoption decisions solely on the basis of the child's best interests and that sexual orientation should not be a bar to adoption.

SHARPTON: SUPPORT
Comments: Equal protection under the law.

9. Would you support the Permanent Partners Immigration Act (H.R. 832) which would enable an American citizen to petition for immigration sponsorship for a same-sex partner, and the INS would treat the relationships between opposite and same-sex couples in the same manner under the immigration code?

BRAUN: SUPPORT
Comments: As a United States Ambassador, I know the difficulties immigration laws may impose on a loving and committed couple. There are enough obstacles for couples of differing nationalities without the arbitrary, discriminatory failure to recognize same sex couples.

CLARK: SUPPORT
Comments: I believe committed same-sex partners should be treated just as opposite sex partners under the law.

DEAN: SUPPORT
Comments: Current law authorizes family members of U.S. citizens and permanent residents to obtain immigrant visas, but the Immigration and Nationality Act's definition of family does not include same-sex partners. I support enactment of the Permanent Partners Immigration Act (H.R. 832) to add the term "permanent partner" to the statutory list of family members eligible to obtain immigrant visas.

EDWARDS: UNDECIDED.
Comments: I would consider such legislation.


GEPHARDT: SUPPORT
Comments: I am a cosponsor of H.R. 832, the Permanent Partners Immigration Act because I believe the measure helps end discrimination in our immigration laws.

KERRY: SUPPORT.

KUCINICH: SUPPORT
Comments: Representative Kucinich is an original co-sponsor of HR 832, the Permanent Partners Immigration Act.

LIEBERMAN: UNDECIDED
Comments: As with other federal benefits, I believe this is an important issue and I intend to consider it closely in the course of this campaign.

SHARPTON: SUPPORT
Comments: Equal protection under the law.



end of quotes

Comments it is clear that Edwards' position on this is significantly weaker than several other candidates. I also do not know what he decided on the issues he had to think about.

[dsc]

23. kick

kick

[AP]

28. HRC endorsed Al Damato over Chuck Schumer and I do not trust

their evaluation of the candidates. They put promoting business interests ahead of electing progressives. When Edwards answers this question (which he did live, right in front of me) he reframes the debate in terms of economic opportunity and rights and law and does not let the debate be framed in terms of "marriage."

More than any other candidate he has mastered the discourse on this issue and it will mean way more in terms of ending up at the right place on this issue.

I am not surprised the HRC doesn't get this.

[dsc]

40. they recorded his answers as he gave them

and while I also was unimpressed with that endorsement (to the point I quit giving them money) that doesn't make them utter liars. I have asked a simple question and would like a simple response. Has Edwards reviewed those rights, and which ones does he think I deserve? The HRC's history of endorsements and Sullivan's position are not relevent here.

[AP]

48. I think they're hostile to things that threaten consumption/corporate

America. Didn't they sponsor some "rainbow" event that was basically a parade of corporate logos? Didn't they get a lot of heat for that?

I also believe they have a couple Andrew Sullivan guys on the board.

Lisa Duggan's book talks about this.

I don't trust them to present this issue sensibly. It's not just transcribing responses. It's the way the whole thing is framed -- which is the way the right wants it framed: Marriage? How far are you willing to go.

When I listen to the Edwards speech and read the transcript below I hear a guy focused on the right part of this equation: legal rights and economic opportunity.

Did you read the post about the guy's mother's comments on this?

[dsc]

24. another kick

this is important and I would like to know what if any blanks have been filled in.

[in_cog_ni_to]

30. I just went to his web site to read his position on gay marriage

and I didn't see any on his site. I saw him in an interview over the weekend and he said he was against gay marriage. Is he for states deciding? :shrug: Or the church's and synagogues should decide? :shrug: Here's Clark's position.

http://clark04.com/issues/glbt/

http://clark04.com/articles/013/

[cthrumatrix]

31. so he doesn't have one?

[AP]

36. He doesn't have the same position as Andrew Sullivan.

DjTj's transcript is from the Q&A in the real audio link I provided below.

[in_cog_ni_to]

44. AP, go ahead and call me stupid,

but WHO is Andrew Sullivan?

[AP]

49. Here:

www.mediawhoresonline.com/roster.htm

www.andrewsullivan.com

[in_cog_ni_to]

53. Man,

he's in good company on that list. :scared: :(

[AP]

55. And the amazing thing is that so many democrats accept the way he

has framed the gay marriage issue without even asking themselves what he stands to gain by framing it that way.

[in_cog_ni_to]

45. I don't know.

I didn't see one posted on his web site. If it's not there, I have to assume he doesn't have a position or for some reason, doesn't have it posted. :shrug:

[AP]

50. His position is in DjTj's post

[AP]

33. It's all over his website. Not putting it under "gay marriage" is how he's

not letting Republicans frame the debate in a way which can't be won for Democrats. Did you read the post above about the mother's comments?

Edwards is all about economic, political and cultural power for EVERYONE, and reaching across gender, race, class, sexuality, religious and generational gaps.

If you want to see how JRE doesn't allow the issue to be framed in a way that will kill democrats, try this:

http://www.commonwealthclub.org/archive/03/03-12edwards-audio.html

It's in the Q&A at 17 minutes. Listen to him reframe the question.

[DjTj]

32. In his words:

http://www.votebyissue.org/primary/candidate.asp?cID=22


I support partnership benefits for gays and lesbians in committed relationships. While I personally do not support gay marriage, I recognize that different states will address this in different ways. I will oppose any effort to pass an amendment to the United States Constitution in response to the recent Massachusetts state Supreme Court decision.


I believe in equal rights for all, including the rights of gays and lesbians. Gays and lesbians should have the same freedoms and the same responsibilities as all Americans, and deserve to be treated with the equal respect.

I support legislation to end discrimination in employment against gays and lesbians and to punish hate crimes based on sexual orientation.

I also support partnership benefits for gays and lesbians in committed, long-term relationships.

While I personally do not support gay marriage, different states will address this in different ways, and I oppose an amendment to the United States Constitution in response to the recent Massachusetts state Supreme Court decision."

[TexasSissy]

59. This is the position of all the candidates, I think.

They approve unions, but not using the word "marriage." They can't approve of "marriage," or they won't beat Bush.

[AP]

62. The policy is the same for all. But the important thing: how do they frame

the issue.

Edwards more than the others reframes the issue as being about rights rather than about religion.

[dsc]

66. I don't see that to be honest

All I see him doing is making it part of a laundry list.

[AP]

75. it might be time to reasses political instincts.

Read Lisa Duggan's book. There's a lot of scholarship on this issue. Read it all. Read both sides. Think hard about it. Question what you think you know. Be suspicious of Andrew Sullivan. Be critical of HRC. (Look how they've let Republicans frame the debate on this so far.)

[David__77]

42. While I'm confortable with his position...

he's not the best on the issue. As a gay man, I will say that this is very important to me. I believe that Howard Dean will actively promote civil rights for lesbian and gay Americans, in a way we haven't seen yet.

[dsc]

46. I don't know what his position is

which bothers me a great deal. We elected one Southerner with an iffy record in this regard and it was OK. But only OK, Not great, awesome, or wonderful.

[AP]

51. His position is this:

http://www.votebyissue.org/primary/candidate.asp?cID=22

I believe in equal rights for all, including the rights of gays and lesbians. Gays and lesbians should have the same freedoms and the same responsibilities as all Americans, and deserve to be treated with the equal respect.

I support legislation to end discrimination in employment against gays and lesbians and to punish hate crimes based on sexual orientation.

I also support partnership benefits for gays and lesbians in committed, long-term relationships.

While I personally do not support gay marriage, different states will address this in different ways, and I oppose an amendment to the United States Constitution in response to the recent Massachusetts state Supreme Court decision."

[dsc]

57. My question still isn't answered

While states grant marriage licences there are a myriad of federal rights that thanks to DOMA aren't necessarily going to flow. I see nothing in this statement which contradicts the idea that he is reviewing those rights.

[AP]

58. I don't undertand your question.

There's alot that this statement doesn't contradict.

What do you think he is and isn't going to do?

[dsc]

63. What federal rights incident to marriage

is he going to give same sex couples? His answers both here and to the HRC reasonably lead one to ask this. Leaving it up to the states as he says here means that those rights won't be flowing.

[AP]

64. Equal Rights for all

Means that he thinks gays and lesbians are entitled the the equal protection under the laws guaranteed by the constititution.

So, any government action giving rise to federal jurisdiction which treats gays and lesbians differrently he would fight.

Where DOMA treats gays and lesbians differently, I presume he would have his atty gen fight to have it declared unconstitutional.

The president is lucky b/c family law is the domain of the states. So all he can talk about is federal rights. He's just given you the most liberal position possible without falling in to the trap set by Andrew Sullivan. He stayed focused on rights. He's not going to fall into the don't ask don't tell trap set for Clinton.

[dsc]

65. This isn't good enough

Assuming he somehow gets DOMA removed we still have not one state granting marriage rights. Unless he is planning on a federal law recognizing civil unions I would still have no federal marriage rights. No joint returns, no SS benes, no citizenship for a foreign nationals that marry Americans. To be honest I just don't think this man really gets this issue. Clinton didn't really fight for us when push came to shove and I don't think he will either.

[AP]

73. Did you hear SOTU? Doma is falling apart due to constitutional challenges

Edwards is saying in this response that he thinks it should.

If you want to fight this issue alongside Andrew Sullivan, you're going to lose another generation to a tide of Republican election winners who are NOT going to help you on this issue. They're going to preserve this issue so they can win as many elections on it as possible. (Again, did you listed to the SOTU? Do you understand what all these "values" based programs are leading to?)

If you want to see succes, it's insane not to go with Edwards's reframing of the issue so that it's about rights and about the consitutions, and not about marriage. Marriage isn't even with the purview of the federal gov't. But the consitution is, and it can tell the states what to do. And if it tells the states that it has to confer all the same rights, then it's up to progressive activists in the states to say fuck you to Andrew Sullivan and tell their state legislatures that they want the government out of the marriage business and they want to give it to the churches and the the government should have civil unions for everyone.

[Loren645]

70. I actually think this is a wedge issue. But the remaining candidates will

be asked about it (by the wedgie media).

[AP]

74. Edwards is out on the cutting edge of reframing this debate, and the other

candidates should take heed.

This is going to be one of the longest, sharpest knives in the Republican arsenal this year, and Democrats need to think REALLY HARD about it.

Taking Andrew Sullivan's lead is a recipe for DISASTER.