Kos has knocked both candidates on this. Here are both headlines:
Hillary unable to say homosexuality isn’t “immoral”
Obama also can’t say: “Homosexuality is not immoral”
Hillary said “I’m going to leave that to others to conclude,” and while Obama answered “no,” he did so through his press guy, and not in person.
I don’t think it’s important for Democratic candidates to believe homosexuality is “moral.” I think it is more important for Democratic candidates to believe in full civil rights for gays and lesbians.
It’s like Dan Savage said:
No one has to like homos. You can sign off on full civil rights for gays and lesbians without having to think we’re nifty or be all that comfortable with the idea of sharing a locker room with us. (Hell, I’m sometimes not comfortable sharing a locker room with other gay men.) The gay and lesbian civil rights movement would make more strides if we could separate the issue of liking us from the issue of not discriminating against us.
[…]
No one wants to change your mind about homosexuality. You can think we’re naughty, you can think we’re sinful. And you know what? You can sign off on granting us our full civil rights, tolerate our living openly, marrying, having families—and go right on hating us! Heck, you can go right on trying to talk us out of being gay.
So, I think the question put to both Obama and Clinton is a poor one, not to mention irrelevant.
Man I would just love to see the Pukes campaign on “morality” in ’08!!!
Warmongering!
Torture!
Corruption!
Lying!
Investigations!
Indictments!
Convictions!
Ah, yes … morality indeed.
Viaduct to Come Down By 2012
The Fishwrapper reports that a Tuesday meeting between Gov. Gregoire, Mayor Nickels, County Executive Sims, and legislators produced an agreement to begin work on the north and sound ends of the AWV, to tear down the elevated structure by 2012, and to postpone a final decision on what will replace it until after the 2008 election.
“The Gay question” as it is presented is through and through a distraction as the right uses it in this day an age. It is really quite inflammatory to even ask the question, let alone irrelevant. In my mind it is not that different from the infamous and so called “Jewish question” of times past. And we all know how that turned out. Clinton and Obama need to be clear on this point. They should state without equivocation that their camapigns will not tolerate baiting questions such as these. This kind of question is in bad taste and immoral. The best, only appropriate response Obama and Clinton could provide is a dismissive “are you fucking serious?” and then proceed to ignore the interviewer for the rest of the interview.
The right has nothing left but distraction. If they run on the issues, they lose. If they run on character, they lose. If they run on fear, sometimes they win, so they run on fear all the time.
I think a reasonable argument can be made that Karl Rove’s decision to fire the eight U.S. Attorneys was to try to scare the survivors into filing thin or false cases against Democrats for corruption. Rove is convinced that the 2006 election was about scandals, not about the war, and if he can force the U.S. Attorneys to start political witch hunts against Democrats, they can re-take Congress. Rove spent ten years corrupting the judicial system in Texas, and he thinks by doing the same nationally, he can create the mythical permanent Republican majority.
I think we should write new laws that make it illegal to discriminate against gays, but totally legal to discriminate against Publicans.
Roger Rabbit @ 2
Does that mean that Dino Rossi will be making the decision on the Viaduct come January 2009? Or will lame duck Christine Gregoire try to finally make a decision after the voters boot her out in November 2008?
Rino Lossi? In 2008? Ha ha ha ha ha!
dino who?
what?
Dems just passed health care for children – go – run for the win in 08
and the mask will not work twice, “oh, I am not running on that issue” – christ what leadership
tired sneering/leering faker, get off the stage dino
The problem is, she goes to a joint meeting of HRC and The Task Force pandering for their endorsements, knowing it would mean millions of dollars and votes and then says that the morality of our sexuality is for others to decide? It would be one thing if she had simply said this before the meeting. Now she looks like the fence-straddler she is trying so desperately to be so that “middle america” will like her.
My youngest brother is gay, and I don’t think he’s immoral. The religious right needs to get a grip on the reality that there is a percentage of people who are gay, it has always been part of the human make-up, and it will continue to be.
With all of these questions, I think what’s the most important for an elected official is that they believe in protecting the rights of others. If they want to personally believe abortion is wrong, or homosexual behavior is wrong, or . . . I can live with that, as long as they protect the right of others to make a different moral decision on those questions. Of course, if they say that, they’re saying the morality on those questions is different from, say the morality on murder.
I don’t think we do ourselves (the left) any good when we make our morality the litmus test.
bj
PS: But, that being said, I think the problem with this questions is that there’s little doubt in my mind that both Obama & Clinton think that homosexuality is really none of their business, and have no problem with it at all. Given that, refusing to answer the question is pandering, which is just annoying.
@11 bi
RIGHT!
If progressives degenerate into litmus test politics we will end up as the sinister (as opposed to dexter) reflection of what has happened t the Publicans.
I am a Jew, an aetheist and rather antiChristian. But, I respect believers, try to live within Jewish ideals, and work hard at learning abut others. I also believe in the tradtional concept of marriage. Still, I am utterly bewildered about why anyone would care what I do with anyone else in the bedroom.
I fail to see how anyone can NOT admire any family as close as the one Dan Savage described in his recent book. Obviously these guys deserve full civil rights. It is even more obvious that they are a wonderful couple and we are lucky to have them as part of the Seattle community. Even writing the last sentence seems stupid! Why should anyone have to say such a thing?
That said, I do not believe in changing the definition if marriage. As a Jew, I celebrate our traditions and see the mixing of the genders as something unique. I do not see how the continued recognition of this institution diminishes the rights OR the respect I feel for Dan ‘s family.
Personally, I go much further. My tradition within Judaism accepts polygamy. I enjoyed reading about polyandrous societies in pre-columbian America and hold a grudge against the Church for destroying that tradition. I know brother-sisters that love each other and live together. As long as no one is hurt, why not celebrate all of this?
Let me stretch the limits one step further. I even respect people who choose to be nuns and priests. Their sexual lifestyles are as abhorrent to my own as possible. I would be hugely upset if one of my kids decided that they were called to don the color or veil! But, my opinion would in no way relevant me for voting for a devout catholic able to separate his or her beliefs from public office and that includes choosing Rossi in the last election.
Am I a bad person for not believing that Dan’s relationship should not be called a marriage?
Freddy Says @ 8
“Dems just passed health care for children – go – run for the win in 08”
Another bunch of bullshit, if I ever heard it! I actually took the time to READ the bill in question — SB 5093.
Right now, the State provides health insurance for children in families up to 250% of the Federal Poverty Level. It has been this way for years, the same under the 2003 budget proposal adopted by Gary Locke and Dino Rossi.
However, SB 5093 does not add a single child to State medical coverage during Gregoire’s tenure as Governor. At best, it is POSSIBLE that children in the category from 250% to 300% of Federal Poverty Level will be added to State medical coverage, starting in January 2009.
In a really cynical Democrat twist, SB 5093 says that this coverage will be expanded only if the Governor certifies that there is enough money in the state budget remaining to cover children in the 250% to 300% of FPL category — i.e. in the 2007-2009 biennium that runs from 07/01/2007 to 06/30/2009. And Mrs. Gregoire doesn’t make that determination under SB 5093 until after the November 2008 Governor’s election!
So this is cynical BULLSHIT that the Democrats are passing, so they can say they actually did some good things when they have to face the voters again in November 2008.
They will claim credit for getting the gasoline tax hiked in 2005, so that the Viaduct can be replaced — even though Mrs. Gregoire isn’t going to make any decision until after the November 2008 election.
And they can claim credit for expanding State medical coverage to children in moderate income families (250% to 300% of FPL), even though Mrs. Gregoire isn’t going to decide whether there is really enough money to do this until after the November 2008 election.
“U.S. Attorney Matt Whitaker said McCoy [a gay Democrat Iowa state senator] attempted to extort money from Reid Schultz, owner of a home security business in Des Moines, and an employee, Tom Vasquez.
Whitaker said the business was planning on selling security systems for elderly adults throughout Iowa. McCoy is alleged to have demanded money from Schultz and Vasquez and threatened to have their status as a Medicaid vendor pulled if they didn’t pay.
McCoy accepted $2,000 in payments between Dec. 29, 2005, and March 24, 2006, Whitaker said. The money was provided by the FBI as part of an undercover investigation.”
http://www.gazetteonline.com/a.....e=printart
So what would Hillary and Obama think about all of this? Do they think it is immoral for government officials to extort money for themselves by threatening to take away government contracts? Will the immorality (or not) of extortion become a key issue in the upcoming Iowa Democrat caucuses? How about the immorality of taking $100,000 in bribe money, and having the FBI find it in your freezer?
Dick Pope @ 14:
C’mon, get in the realiby based world. For every “gotcha” you point out of a Dem, we can point to a convicted FELON in your camp, and not run out of convicted FELONS, buddy boy.
You wanna have your candidates run on their moral clarity in ’08. Have at it. That’s a fight I know the Dems can win hands down.
I hope and pray you numb nuts will pull the moral clarity card in ’08. Run the ol’ playbook from the 90’s.
That dawg don’t hunt with the voters anymore.
Dumb ass.
Lib @ 10
Well-stated. Dispassionate analysis still has its place, even if screaming provides more entertainment.
GBS @ 15
Corruption tends to pervade politics and is no respecter of parties or ideologies. We could probably use more felony convictions of corrupt politicians from both major parties.
This story is interesting, mainly because state senator Matt McCoy is claiming that he is being persecuted because he is gay and a Democrat. In reality, I am sure there is highly credible evidence gathered by the professional FBI agents — probably the victim was wired, the extortion money marked, so forth and so on.
Rather than condemn one of their own for disgracefully using his legislative seat to “shake down” a business owner, Iowa Democrat leaders are trying to link this somehow with the current controversy involving several U.S. Attorneys being released from their duties after completing the four year terms to which they were appointed.
It was inappropriate to aggressively and repeatedly ask Hillary and Obama about their personal moral and religious beliefs. Rather than asking Hillary and Obama about the morality of personal conduct and religious beliefs, it would be much more appropriate to ask them about the morality of government corruption.
We are electing a new President next year. It is not important for she or he to have particular moral views on private personal conduct. On the other hand, I would strongly want he or she to believe that government corruption was immoral, regardless of whether it was committed by friend or foe.
As for the “dumb ass” label, Sen. McCoy certainly seems to merit this. Committing a major federal felony just to shake down $2,000 from somebody? If you try to extort money from someone, even a small amount, they get pissed off and go to the FBI. If he was smart, he should have found someone willing to give him a large bribe — say at least $20,000. There is more money in bribery than in extortion, and much less chance your partner in bribery will squeal to law enforcement than will your victim in extortion.
Not to mention that government corruption is just plain illegal — and immoral. Regardless of the private personal conduct by the government official who is breaking the law.
For every story allegedly involving a Dem by Pope-A-Dope, one of the state’s worst lawyers and pertpetually rejected political candidates, I could post three about a Publican crook.
Where the fuck do the bible-thumpers come up with these guys?
http://news.aol.com/topnews/ar.....0000000001
Religion has been the cause of more war, pain and suffering than anything else on this planet.
I’m also not crazy about a litmus test as to whether a politician thinks homosexuality is “moral” or not. I’m very concerned with where they stand on gay civil rights issues, including marriage equality, and yes — I suppose it would be nice if more politicians would stand up and say “I don’t think being gay is a sin” (if in fact that’s what they believe). But let’s face it — doing so might needlessly cost them the votes of a lot of evangelicals when their personal beliefs on what is a “sin” really aren’t relevant to policy.
Part of why Gen. Pace is taking so much flack is that he offered up his personal beliefs, based on his “upbringing”, as a reason why gays shouldn’t be in the military. It was pretty clear to a lot of people that his personal beliefs just weren’t relevant to the discussion.
Honestly, I’d have some respect for a politician who believed for religious reasons that homosexuality was a sin (though I’d certainly disagree with them on that), yet understood that we don’t live in a theocracy and that his/her interpretation of scripture is not a valid reason for denying gays and lesbians full civil rights (including marriage).
Imagine if Tony Campolo were to run for office. He believes homosexuality is a sin, but when he discusses the topic of homosexuality he spends most of his time criticizing religious conservatives for their mistreatment of gays and lesbians. He doesn’t believe homosexuality is a choice, and believes that in most cases the orientation cannot be changed. He believes in a form of marriage equality (he thinks the state should issue civil unions to all couples, gay and straight, and leave the word “marriage” to the churches). I’d hate to see a politician like him, who has taken a lot of heat from evangelicals for his views on homosexuality and who would in all likelihood advocate policies friendly to gays and lesbians, be blacklisted by liberals because he couldn’t honestly say he doesn’t think homosexuality is “immoral”.
Am I a bad person for not believing that Dan’s relationship should not be called a marriage?
I have no reason to think you’re a bad person, but I wonder if you’ve fully explored how your (and society’s) unwillingness to call Dan’s relationship a marriage has the potential to hurt him and his family.
“Marriage” is an institution that is internationally recognized and has been around for millenia. A couple married in one country is considered married in almost every other country. There is no doubt as to what it means legally to be married.
“Civil unions” are a relatively new construction and are state-specific. A civil union issued in Vermont has uncertain (if any) legal standing outside of Vermont. State civil unions cannot conver any marriage rights issued by the federal government. (It’s true that, due to the federal DOMA, a same-sex marriage doesn’t have federal legal standing either. However, I believe the federal DOMA is unconstitutional and would likely be found so if challenged, provided Bush hasn’t too thoroughly stacked SCOTUS with right-wingers).
To me, there really is no valid reason for creating a two-tiered system. If “marriage” and “civil unions” aren’t legally equivalent, it’s discriminatory on its face. If they ARE equivalent, what is the point in the separate institutions other than to take a slap at gays and say “Well, okay, you can have legal rights, but we want to make it clear we don’t consider you to be as good as straights”. Either way, the two-tiered system is wrong in my view.
Many people have strong religious feelings about the word marriage. To them, I just ask that they separate LEGAL marriage (which is the only thing our policy makers should be concerned with) with religious marriage. Churches, synagogues, and other houses of worship are free to set their own policies as to which couples they will marry and which they will not. But the government is vested with providing equal rights to all, and bans on same-sex LEGAL marriage discriminate against gay and lesbian citizens.
Just trying to answer your question — I hope I haven’t offended you.
Dick Pope @ 17:
Sorry, didn’t mean to convey the wrong message about my “dumb ass” comment. It wasn’t meant for State Senator McCoy, it was directed at you.
My bad.
While some form of corruption exists in both parties, the only party in which it is pervasive and at unprecedented levels in the Republican Party. The motto “Culture of Corruption” was not slapped on the Republicans by the Democrats.
Nope, the Republicans EARNED that moniker.
In fact, the culture of corruption is so rampant that the company Dick Cheney still gets checks from is moving it’s headquarters from Houston to Dubai. I suppose they want to be closer to the bin Laden family.
This is so blatant that anybody who doesn’t believe that Bush and Cheney were willing to spill the blood of American soldiers so that they may personally profit from the oil fields of Iraq are only fooling themselves. In addition to Halliburton moving closer to their Muslim masters of terror, they also get to avoid paying their fair share of US taxes on gains made by no bid contracts and avoid the reach of the American justice system. The Bush administration is orchestrating legislation moving through the Iraqi parliament to give control of 17 oil fields to foreign oil companies. Gee, do you think Halliburton Dubai will be involved?
Given just that, you still want to discuss Obama’s and Hillary’s position on morality in government?!?!?
“I would strongly want he or she to believe that government corruption was immoral, regardless of whether it was committed by friend or foe.” Richard Pope @ 17.
Richard Pope, just so there is not confusion, you, sir, are a royal dumb ass and a hypocrite.
Wow Moonbat!s Voice of Chalk Scratching’s post is about Obama and HRH HRC. It’s about what they say that should matter to libtards, not what we on the right say. Dems your candidates. Dems your problems not ours!
Dis ain’t about us. It’s about Dem! HRH HRC loves to obfuscate!
@21 Laura in WA
No offense.
First, I am not sure why you think the word marriage is internationally recognized. The USA does not recognize plural marriage or the ESSO from Swweden.
Second, I agree with you that the bigotry against gay couples is wrong, but calling a same sex relationship marriage will not change that.
Third, problem solving is not as simples as redefining terms .. except in Orwell’s world of 1984. The simplest issues here are legal, not prejudicial and those can be fixed in several ways. Each person should have the right to assign next of kin rights just as we have the right to assign a right of attorney. A simple next of kin law extracts the issue from the “marriage” conundrum.
Fourth, and most relevant to my point, whatever you want to call it the relationship of man to woman is clearly different in many ways than any other possible relationship. This fact is recognizable even in the behavior of non human primates (as is the existence of gay coupling). While there is immense variation, the generality that men and women have different behaviors is as clear as the difference in genitalia.
Having an institution … call it whatever you want, that recognize3s this unique relationship makes sense. Not calling it marriage is a form of Orwellian newspeak.
So let me counter your concern for Dan and his spouse. Why should we recognize their relationship by depriving male/female couples of a name for what THEY have?
It is much simpler to do what France does and invent a new relationship that encompasses all forms of pairing, recognizes all of us (including brother sister and non-sexual pairings) to assign next of kin rights and leaves the issue of marriage alone. In fact, the French have largely abandoned “marriage” since most straight couples prefer the simpler process anyway. I suspect the same would happen here.
I’ve got this strong urge to bitch slap reporters who ask the wrong people the wrong questions. Want to know if something’s moral? Ask a bishop or a philosopher, not a general or senator.
“In fact, the French have largely abandoned “marriage” since most straight couples prefer the simpler process anyway. I suspect the same would happen here.”
In a vengeful way that would be quite delicious….civil unions being the death of marriage.
SeattleJew @ 24:
One could argue that you are messing with language just as much as Laura, but I’ll let it lie.
What we seem to all agree on are the following:
1) There should be a civil ceremony that grants next of kin rights, hospital visitation, ma/paternity leave, immigration rights under family reunion, and all the other rights big and small that are granted to married people. This ceremony should be granted to partners regardless of the gender of the respective partners.
2) Whether or not a given church or synagogue or temple chooses to recognize a given set of partners for a religious ceremony is the business of that religion. If I ever choose to join a particular church, temple, or synagogue, my thoughts on whom I think it is and is not appropriate to marry will be voiced. Since I am not active in any such organization now, it’s none of my damn business.
p.s. to Pud,
The original question is “gotcha” journalism at its worst. On the Republican side, this is a settled issue. Homosexuality is immoral. The last (R)s who think otherwise (Main Street Republicans, remember them? Government should be small and unobtrusive) have been carted off to the old folks home years ago.
Democratic voters are divided about 50/50 on this issue. Answer either way, and you risk leaving a lot of votes on the table over what is in the big scheme of things a really trivial issue.
I’m not a journo, and am not in the habit of grilling presidential candidates, but I could put an R in a similar bind pretty quickly:
“Senator/Governor/Mayor/Citizen, please share your feelings about the personal possession of automatic weapons with silencers and Teflon-coated bullets”
No matter how insane the question, no R running for office wants to have a sound bite that shows her supporting gun control in any way, shape, or form. It’s ideological and electoral poison.
jsa @ 27
we do not quite agree.
1. I do not think a ceremony needs to be required. By the way the captain oif any vessel can, I believe, marry ANYONE simply by entering in the log of her/his vessel.
2. I am not sure that we should not recognize heterosexual marriage as a distinct entity in the law because of the very real gender issues. I guess the question would be are there special legal issues that apply to marriage as oposed to same gender pairings? If one passes a simply next of kin law, are there other reasons the sate needs to be cogbnizant of marriage or is this a social issue only?
3. The immigration issue is very, very thorny. Obviously this even true for the current law but it gets much worse if you a;;ow anmyone, irrespective of gender AND sexual tastes, to declare smeone else a spouse.
Imagine the amrket for spouses! San’t you see the ads in mexico … for 10,000 get citizenship in the USA! What a mess this would be!
Tied up in all this is an unspoken issue …. is SEX part of the definition of marriage? Can two priests “marry” under an open law? How long do they need to remain married before they can bring a spouse in? What evidence of intercourse dl they need to provide? . This is one reason I think I would rather get the next of kin thing done first and then solve issues like this later.
By the way, I assume you, like me, support polygamy/polyandry? What about large plural communities like the ones we had in the sixties? Imagine the immigartion chaos if we recognized plural marriages?
Again, the simplest answer is not necessarily the best. IMHO, a simple next of kin (NOK) law that allows/requires each of us to choose one person as a NOK would go a long way to assuring that everyone has equal rights while leaving some of the other issues alone. Even in plural marriages, it is perfectly reasonable for the sate to say we must each have one person as our NOK. The law could recognize marrioage as being a default NOK, but recognize a list of ther parings as well … brother sister included.
jsa
errrrr
I simply do not see what moral tastes have to do with his issue. I personally consider lying immoral. Yet, I would not want a president who did not lie. I am much more interested in what a person would do in office than whther they bekieve that sodomy is in good taste.
Why be judgemental?
Imagine the amrket for spouses! San’t you see the ads in mexico … for 10,000 get citizenship in the USA! What a mess this would be!
That market already exists. Both formally and informally. Go to the less fun parts of the world, and a US passport equates to members of the appropriate sex throwing themselves at you in the hopes of winning the marriage lottery.
If you’ve ever been through the process of getting a visa for a foreign spouse, the ladies and gentlemen of the State Department are the final arbiters of whether your marriage is or isn’t legitimate. Depending on the country of origin, they frequently get very skeptical of these marriages. I married in Taiwan, which is pretty rich. The process was 99% automatic. Go to the Philippines or Vietnam, and there will be a strong presumption by the embassy staff that your marriage is bogus until you prove otherwise.
Further, Canada already does have a law like this. You don’t even need to be married to a Canadian, just partnered. Whatever that means. It’s not a ceremony, just a state of being defined by shared bank accounts, joint leases, and a documented history of cohabitation.
Alas, the Mexican food here in Vancouver still blows goats.
By the way, I assume you, like me, support polygamy/polyandry?
I believe people have the right to do whatever they like to be happy so long as it does not impinge on my right to be a funless bastard.
I am not convinced that there is a legal interest in recognizing group marriages though. Assuming a mixed-gender communal living arrangement, five units of two provides the same legal rights and protections as one unit of 10. How the beds are arranged is a question for interior decorators, not for the state.
I spent many, many, many years in the military and quite frankly I don’t give a damn if a person is gay or not. This is not a comment designed to please anyone because I am not concerned about others opinion regarding my opinions. An opinion is nothing more than a personal observation and everyone is entitled to one. What I have noticed is that heterosexuals commit more crimes than homosexuals. There are few crimes committed by gays other than screwing each other which, as far as I am concerned, is their problem not mine. My ONLY concern is whether they can do the job and if they can’t, then like others who can not perform….KICK THEM OUT!!!!!
So far as the morality of homosexuality…Hell, even the homosexuals know it’s immoral. However, because they have become very, very large voting groups who are actively involved in both local and national politics, what politician is going to publicly condemn them? Would you, if you really wanted to win an election?!?!
@Average
I had the same experience in the USN under Nixon. We had many gays and noone really cared, except when someone used homosexuality as an excuse for an early out.
As to morality, the problem here is WHOSE morality. In my moral system sodomy is of no interest. The Greeks and Polynesians celebrated it. nuff.
Your gal Hil will say anything to get elected.
It doesn’t matter anyway because she and the other Dems can change whatever they say and all is fine.
The bottom line: It’s doesn’t matter what your candidiate(s) says or does, just so you get a Dem into the White House in ’08.
I am Republican – I lie, steal and cheat when I’m not being a family man (fat whore) or a crying hypocrite. A self righteous bastard that I am with my head burried in the sand.