Not clear on Clarks position regarding same sex marriage

[Powerlock]

Hi all,

I have just read the official Clark site and his statement on GLBT rights.

He says that he believes "marriage" should be up to churchs.

So I am assuming he is not for same sex "marriage". But does he support civil unions? And if so to what extent? Would he veto something like DOMA if it ever crossed his desk? Would he actively support civil unions while in office? Or would he not object to them, but not really try to rally american support for them either?

Thanks for any info.

[Dookus]

1. he has said

he believes gay couples should have exactly the same rights as heterosexual couples. He refuses to get drawn into the controversy over what to call it. He says marriage is for churches to decide, but the government ought to grant equal protections.

[Powerlock]

2. Excellent

Sounds like a decent candidate from what I have read.

Although I support Kucinich I am under no illusion that ultimately I will need to support either Dean or Clark. Apparently within the next 3 months.

As this is Clarks position, and from what else I have read, I will be glad to do so.

[Kathleen04]

3. Clark has said..

that he's for equal rights under the law for GLBT couples. He's resisted using terminology like "marriage" or "civil unions", insisting that he's for equal rights, regardless of what name you may want to put to it.

If you can, see this post-debate appearance on Hardball with Chris Matthews if you can:

On edit: My original link didn't work, but go to:

http://www.us4clark.com/mediaclips.html

It's found half-way down the page and it's labeled "Hardball interview after the Des Moines, IA debate.
MSNBC (11/24/2003)"

Also, see:

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

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

[Dookus]

4. Thanks Kathleen...

Yes, Powerlock, go view that clip. I think you'll be well-impressed by Clark's position. Hope to see you in the voting booth next November!

[Kathleen04]

6. you're welcome, Dookus

:)

[White Mountain]

5. No surprise

Clarke waffles again. Which church should it be up to? The Episcopal Church, the Mormons or Jerry Falwell.

[Dookus]

8. you

seem to be missing the point. He's not specifying a church.

[White Mountain]

11. Right

Which means we will have a myriad of views... which is in essence no view. His answer was a non-answer. Typical Clarke. Dean ANSWERS, Clarke stutters.

[Kathleen04]

12. Umm..

I think you need to research Dean a bit more, because he has a similar position.

[Name removed]

18. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[QC]

10. Civil marriage is not a religious sacrament.

Government is not in the sacrament business. Sacraments are "up to the churches." Civil marriage is a government function.

[Clark Can WIN]

15. This is the exact point of seperation of church and state

each church should have the right to marry couples as they see fit. No law should interfere with that.

All committed couples should have equal rights under the law. No religion should interfere with that.

You see? No waffles here. Sorry to dissapoint you.

[Clark4Prez]

19. No, its called the Constitution

The First Amendment to the Constitution prohibits government establishing religion.

It is unconstitutional for Government to tell churches what sort of ceremony to perform. The issue is about rights of individuals, which Clark supports. Two gay people under the Clark administration would have the same rights as two straight people.

As for waffling, it's not a waffle, because Clark doesn't waffle on the issues (spare me the Iraq War bobble from the first day of the campaign), unlike some other candidates that must do much back peddling almost daily. Lose the hate, you'll see the truth much clearer.

[For PaisAn]

7. Section of transcript from Hardball

MATTHEWS: We’re back with General Wesley Clark. By the way in the middle of the audience is the general’s wife, wonderful wife Gert (ph). There she is. Right in the middle. And there, my wife is on her right.
Although she may be on her left, for all we know.
Let me ask you about, since we’ve brought up marriage here, on gay marriage, I asked you a couple of weeks ago about this, it’s a domestic issue. You want to talk domestic issues?
CLARK: You’re going to go back to gay marriage again?
MATTHEWS: I just want to ask you if you believe that gay people should be out, able to have marriages or something else?
CLARK: I think they should have exactly the same rights that every other American has.
MATTHEWS: Should they get a marriage license? Should they get a marriage license?
CLARK: You’re talking about a...
MATTHEWS: The Supreme Court of this state has specifically said that the legislature, as we call the great and general court of this state, is required, mandated by the courts under the constitution of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts to write legislation allowing gay couples to apply for and receive marriage licenses. What is your opinion on that, General?
CLARK: My opinion is that I was ready to answer the question before you asked it a second time.
(LAUGHTER)
I want to get more questions in here. Now on gay marriage, I think that gays and lesbian couples need exactly the same rights as every other American, right of joint domicile, survivorship, inheritance, putting people on the same insurance policies. But the word marriage...
MATTHEWS: Separate but equal?
CLARK: ... the word marriage, that’s up to the church, the synagogue, the mosque, and it’s up to the state legislatures. So I’m in favor of civil unions, but ...
MATTHEWS: How about civil marriage?
CLARK: Civil unions is the term, and then it’s up to the states or the churches to whether they label that a marriage. I think the issue is equal rights..
MATTHEWS: So you don’t have an opinion, any state can do what it wants?
CLARK: ... under law.
MATTHEWS: Civil marriage or not?
CLARK: Equal rights under law.
MATTHEWS: Separate but equal?
CLARK: Equal rights under law.
MATTHEWS: Separate but equal?
CLARK: Equal rights under law.
(APPLAUSE)

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3660578/

[Bill of Rights]

20. I've been around a LONG time

as a lesbian. And this presidential primary race is much different in terms of how GLBT are treated. Every candidate has taken a stand with us. Semantics between players means LITTLE!!!!

[Brian_Expat]

9. Clark's position is identical to Dean & Kerry

Yes to civil unions, leave "marriage" name up to states.

[cavebat2000]

13. Dean supporter here

You are correct. The two candidates positions are almost identical.

[maxr4clark]

14. Dean and Clark and Kucinich and ...

ALL of the Democrats are united on the basic idea that this is a civil rights issue, not a Christian issue. Let's not make hay for the Republicans by quibbling about specific details, when the Republican alternative is gross intolerance.

[TexasSissy]

16. Clark has pinpointed the problem that some people have ....

with gay "marriage." Some people have a problem with the word "marriage," while possibly not being against some sort of legal gay union. They want to leave the word "marriage" as meaning a union between a man and a woman. In fact, I looked up the word in my dictionary, and it is defined as a union between a man and a woman.

So to allow gay "marriage" would mean changing the definition of the word, and a lot of people don't want to do that. They want to keep the word sacrosanct. But a lot of people recognize the gay union problem in not having the tax break of the lower married federal tax rate, estate laws, etc. So they're okay, or at least not opposed, to legal unions that fix those inequities.

Clark is being sensitive to those who have a problem using the word "marriage." If a state wants to call it that, fine. If a state doesn't want to call it that, but call it something else, fine. It's the legal rights and the legal union aspect that he is supporting, whatever you want to call it. He's saying that the name of the union is unimportant.

And for this time and place, that's probably the most that can be accomplished by gay rights' activists. People are going to end up calling it marriage, anyway, and the definition will ultimately be changed in dictionaries, after people start using it to include gay unions.

[Toucano]

17. From HRC candidate survey:

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?

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.

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?

CLARK: SUPPORT
Comments: Yes, see answer above.

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

The summary is helpful too.

http://www.hrc.org/Content/NavigationMenu/HRC/Get_Informed/Campaigns_and_Elections/Presidential_Candidates/Questionnaire_Summary/Candidate_Questionnaire_Summary.htm

[donco6]

21. The real issue is the civil/legal issue . . .

. . . the religious issue is moot, IMO. Once the civil union is granted (as it will be one day), we can go to a number of churches to have a ceremony, just like straight couples do.

Example: Back in my fundie days, I worked for a large fundie church. Straight couples would come, wanting this church to marry them. The church would ask them some questions about their beliefs, and if they didn't line up, the CHURCH WOULDN'T MARRY THEM. They would have to go somewhere else. It didn't matter that the government would legally recognize their marriage; the church still had the right to deny them a ceremony. They're not just discriminating against gays - they're discriminating against anyone who doesn't believe the way they do. And SO WHAT!!?? Let them - I don't want to associate with them anyway.

Conversely, when civil unions are approved, my partner and I will be able to go to a Unitarian church, an MCC church, probably an Episcopal church, etc. to have a ceremony. My point is: Why on earth would I want to go to a church that didn't support me in the first place? Why even argue about whether this church or that church should support gay marriage? Some churches already do! Skip the others - they'll NEVER accept the idea.

[Lefta Dissenter]

22. Perfect Post! (eom)

[Northwind]

23. Not clear on Clarks position regarding same sex marriage?

Don't worry about it, neither is Clark. Until his handlers tell him what he thinks, anyway.

[Dookus]

24. What color is the sky

in your world?