Who was best tonight on Gay marriage?

[LWolf]

They didn't all answer the same question, but I've <snipped> what I could find:

From the transcript:

<snip>

QUESTION: Hi. My name is Mary.

QUESTION: And my name is Jen.

QUESTION: And we're from Brooklyn, New York.

If you were elected president of the United States, would you allow us to be married to each other?

COOPER: Congressman Kucinich?

KUCINICH: Mary and Jen, the answer to your question is yes. And let me tell you why.

Because if our Constitution really means what it says, that all are created equal, if it really means what it says, that there should be equality of opportunity before the law, then our brothers and sisters who happen to be gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender should have the same rights accorded to them as anyone else, and that includes the ability to have a civil marriage ceremony.

Yes, I support you. And welcome to a better and a new America under a President Kucinich administration.

(APPLAUSE)

COOPER: Senator Dodd, you supported the Defense of Marriage Act. What's your position?

DODD: I've made the case, Anderson, that -- my wife and I have two young daughters, age 5 and 2.

I'd simply ask the audience to ask themselves the question that Jackie and I have asked: How would I want my two daughters treated if they grew up and had a different sexual orientation than their parents?

Good jobs, equal opportunity, to be able to retire, to visit each other, to be with each other, as other people do.

So I feel very strongly, if you ask yourself the question, "How would you like your children treated if they had a different sexual orientation than their parents?," the answer is yes. They ought to have that ability in civil unions.

I don't go so far as to call for marriage. I believe marriage is between a man and a woman.

But my state of Connecticut, the state of New Hampshire, have endorsed civil unions. I strongly support that. But I don't go so far as marriage.

COOPER: Governor Richardson?

RICHARDSON: Well, I would say to the two young women, I would level with you -- I would do what is achievable.

What I think is achievable is full civil unions with full marriage rights. I would also press for you a hate crimes act in the Congress. I would eliminate "don't ask/don't tell" in the military.

(APPLAUSE)

If we're going to have in our military men and 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.

(APPLAUSE)

<snip>

EDWARDS: It's not. I mean, I've been asked a personal question which is, I think, what Reverend Longcrier is raising, and that personal question is, do I believe and do I personally support gay marriage?

The honest answer to that is I don't. But I think it is absolutely wrong, as president of the United States, for me to have used that faith basis as a basis for denying anybody their rights, and I will not do that when I'm president of the United States.

<snip>

COOPER: Senator Obama, the laws banning interracial marriage in the United States were ruled unconstitutional in 1967. What is the difference between a ban on interracial marriage and a ban on gay marriage?

OBAMA: Well, I think that it is important to pick up on something that was said earlier by both Dennis and by Bill, and that is that we've got to make sure that everybody is equal under the law. And the civil unions that I proposed would be equivalent in terms of making sure that all the rights that are conferred by the state are equal for same-sex couples as well as for heterosexual couples.

Now, with respect to marriage, it's my belief that it's up to the individual denominations to make a decision as to whether they want to recognize marriage or not. But in terms of, you know, the rights of people to transfer property, to have hospital visitation, all those critical civil rights that are conferred by our government, those should be equal.

[realisticphish]

1. They all seem reasonable

I like Obama's last paragraph. I do have a problem with the civil union vs. marriage nonesense; legally, it's the same (or would be, according to the candidates) so why call it differently?

[LWolf]

2. They all seem reasonable, but which is BEST?

A discussion of civil unions as a substitute, or a clearcut "Yes, I support gay marriage?"

[realisticphish]

9. I suppose the latter

though I did find Richardson's rationale interesting, if not entirely convincing

[MalloyLiberal]

3. Kucinich of course. But Edwards.

Edwards was honest.

Obama pandered about a church. Bullshit. Edwards is for civil unions, just like Obama. There is no distinction.

[calteacherguy]

7. I don't believe Edwards was honest for one moment.

It's nothing about his "faith." He is pandering to people for whom their faith makes it an issue.

[MalloyLiberal]

10. bullshit

He's clearly not for it and never has been.

Elizabeth and his daughter is. Stop with the crap. And at least he answered. Obama danced around it. Hillary and the rest always dance.

Only one that didn't dance besides Edwards was Dodd. And Kuicnihc, who support.

[frogcycle]

4. does nobody get it that

states issue marriage certificates and/or civil union contracts (should be ONLY the latter and then we would not be having this conversation)

The president has nothing whatsoever to do with it. There is no federal marriage. the president could not allow those two women to marry, could not veto if a state did.

Sure, people want someone sympathetic as leader. But is that not really like the "who would you rather have a beer with?" I want someone who will restore our form of government, and our stature in the world.

[pnwmom]

13. There is the Federal Defense of Marriage Act,

which means that even in the states that allow marriage, such as Massachusetts, married gay couples would not be eligible for Social Security. Have you forgotten that?

[frogcycle]

24. right

i did
what was I thinking?

fed doesn't marry people, but does acknowledge some marriages

it is crap. needs to go away

If fed won't recognize some state-sanctioned marriages, they should not recognize any

in addition to SS there is also joint tax returns... what else?

[pnwmom]

28. There is also the issue that states are free not to recognize

each other's lawful gay marriages, but they are required to recognize each other's straight marriages.

[frogcycle]

33. got it

I feel so...so... oblivious

Despite that, what I said still holds: neither states nor fed have any business enacting laws and policies based on religion. And marriage is a religious institution.

Suggestion: in states where "civil union" has been made legal, straights should start opting for it and not "marriage." Might this maybe reduce some of the stigma? And at the same time point out the absurdity of the whole thing?

[calteacherguy]

5. Kucinich. And Edwards sleazy, pandering "faith" answer makes me want to puke.

:puke: Edwards

[TankLV]

11. Obama and Edwards serious lacking in their responses...

They have been condemned for their more candid answers in a less guarded circumstance...

NO to RELIGIOUS INTOLERANCE!

[chookie]

6. Gravel is the most vocal advocate of gay marriage

People just don't get it that he is very progressive.

It is a very important issue for him, and he is WAY out in front of all the other candidates.

Despite all he has done to support and promote this cause, they keep him out of the conversation. Why?

Gravel himself answers it this way: "Ironically I think the real reason why HRC didn't invite me is that I'm too vocal in my advocacy of gay rights. None of the top tier candidates would have been comfortable facing an opponent who consistently points out their refusal to embrace true equality for gays and lesbians."

[LWolf]

8. He wasn't given the chance to answer tonight.

Which is irritating, to say the least.

For a debate to be legitimate, every candidate must get equal time, and every candidate has to get a shot at every question.

[Laughing Mirror]

20. Like Sharpton the last time

The civil rights candidate, the most progressive candidate who was the first to come out for complete LGBT equality.

It's good to know about Gravel. Thanks for informing.

[IndianaGreen]

12. When Kerry was waffling on this issue in '04, Dennis was for gay marriage rights

Dennis is still for marriage rights!

LGBT community should stand with those that stand with us. Dennis opposes DOMA and Clinton's horrible "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," and he has been consistent on this issue without the benefit of running polls and focus groups like "She Who Shall Not Be Named."

[dsc]

36. He hasn't been consistent on that issue

He was in favor of DOMA when he ran for Congress in 1996 (it passed while he was campaigning). He made no discernable effort whatsoever to repeal either DOMA or DADT during his career in Congress until after he announced for President. He is right now, but consistent, no.

[TheDonkey]

14. Kucinich obviously but Obama delivered the goods as well

stated wholeheartedly that he is for 100% rights for gay Americans that hets get with marriage. Even Edwards seemed to agree but was more emphatic in his rejection of marriage that got an applause >_<

[Moloch]

15. Kucinich was the best..

I was really impressed by his answer and it really felt like he thought of gay marriage as a VITAL issue.

Edwards was by far the worst, he just used it as a point to bring up his religion, which he did for most of his answers.

[Warren DeMontague]

16. Let's see. Dodd: Doubletalk. Richardson: "Realist" Doubletalk. Edwards: Really Asinine Doubletalk.

Obama: Eloquent doubletalk, but Doubletalk nonetheless. In fact, by deliberately flogging the lie conflating "marriage" performed by churches and what is undoubtedly the civic institution of marriage (should straights get "civil union" certificates from city hall, too?) , his is perhaps the worst, if for no other reason than you know he knows better.

Kucinich is the only one who has it right. Again, another reason to vote for the guy.

[LWolf]

26. Good interpretations, lol.

I agree. :thumbsup:

[Milo_Bloom]

17. Edwards' answer is pretty disgusting.

"do I personally support gay marriage?

The honest answer to that is I don't."

The big difference between what Edwards and Obama said is right there. Edwards, pandering to the fairy tale crowd, exposes his personal belief on how other people should live their lives. He graciously tells us that it is not the right of the president of the US to restrict these rights; however, he doesn't say what action he would take to stop a state of municipality from taking away those rights.

Obama makes it clear that all rights should be equal and then basically says he is not going to force a CHURCH to recognize a marriage, but he makes it clear the government will have to.

[MonkeyFunk]

18. Kucinich was best, of course.

it's not even debatable.

[Laughing Mirror]

19. The only answer to this question is Kucinich

If you answered any of the others you are lying to yourself.

[Hollow Shells]

21. Kucinich

No one else even came close. Kucinich is the obvious choice on gay marriage, the environment, the war on drugs, social services, Iraq, and abortion. He's the candidate we want. I am confused as to why any other candidate gets support.

[insane_cratic_gal]

22. Did Hillary not answer?

I missed this portion of the debate, all of those comments are very telling about the candidates, what did she have to say?

[LWolf]

27. She didn't answer.

I scrolled through the transcript to see if it came up anyplace else for her, but didn't find it.

[sandnsea]

23. Does passing laws factor at all?

Or is action not really the issue.

[Solon]

25. I would imagine that, in the case of Kucinich and Gravel, they would pressure Congress to...

at least rescind DOMA and then use the Justice Department to make sure the "full faith and credit clause" is properly enforced.

[LWolf]

29. The questions didn't refer to laws,

but to the intent of the candidate. :shrug:

The DOMA wasn't asked about specifically, for example. None of the candidates referred to it in their responses. Of course, the "top 3" weren't in congress at that time to vote on it. Dodd, Biden, and Richardson voted for it, Kucinich and Gravel weren't in Congress to vote.

I guess someone could have asked specifically about the DOMA instead of more broadly about support of gay marriage.

[OHdem10]

30. Edwards was the honest and sincere,

He could therefore be trusted to do what is achievable.

[Warren DeMontague]

31. Try this: "I honestly, sincerely don't think black people and women deserve equal rights"

Hey! Points for honesty and sincerity, right?

:sarcasm:

[Warren DeMontague]

32. Delete. Dupe. nt

[Hollow Shells]

35. Kucinich was honest, sincere, and ethical.

To bad Edwards missed that ethical part. To have a President that believes that gays are less equal than straights is not a good thing for the gay community, equal rights, or the standard of ethics some of us expect from our government.

[LBJDemocrat]

34. Either Edwards or Obama

They essentially said the same thing.

[xchrom]

37. first -- just to qualify -- i have no dog in

the primary hunt.

but kucinich gave the best answer.

my note to the other dem candidates is this.

if you stop and think about -- kucinich's answer is the least assailable -- except with the most irrational and frightening rhetoric.

if dems would stop stepping away from certain arguments -- they would get ahead of the republick party and their divisive tactics.