Which Dem candidates are the best on gay equality?

[Brian_Expat]

My take as a gay man. Keep in mind that this is a relative ranking -- even the "poor" tier outdoes a typical Republican by an order of magnitude.

Top tier of the Democratic field (excellent marks):

Howard Dean -- signed and campaigned on the Civil Unions bill rather than wait until after the election. Won a contentious election with a right-wing opponent well-funded and a left-winger running to his left. Put his money where his mouth was and did what was right, passing the first ever partnership bill AND educating the populace on it.

Dennis Kucinich -- unabashed supporter of full equality across the board. Strong supporter of ENDA in Congress.

Carol Moseley Braun -- unabashed supporter of full equality across the board.

Al Sharpton -- unabashed supporter of full equality across the board.

Second tier of the Democratic field (fair marks):

John Kerry -- voted against DOMA in the mid 1990s, but opposes federal recognition of same-sex unions. Has not adopted a consistent position on the Permanent Partners Immigration Act. Strong supporter of ENDA. Supported Don't Ask, Don't Tell -- a bad policy.

John Edwards -- has not adopted position on the record re: DOMA. Weak support on federal recognition of gay relationships. No real gay outreach. Supports ENDA.

Dick Gephardt -- voted for DOMA. Has wavered on support for ENDA. Does not support the Permanent Partners Immigration Act. Has not adopted a consistent position against Don't Ask, Don't Tell. Supports gay adoption equality.

Wesley Clark -- Supports DOMA. Originally supported Don't Ask, Don't Tell -- has wavered on it and finally settled on strange "Don't Misbehave," which is an emulation of the British policy. Hard to say how that would work in the USA since Britain offers legal gay partnerships on a federal level and the USA does not. Recently came out in support of hate crimes legislation including GLBT people. Declared support for gay adoption in HRC survey. Has not publicly stated support for ENDA, though has taken stance supporting including gays in CRA (which would accomplish same end). Has not publicly stated support for the Permanent Partners Immigration Act.

Bottom tier of the Democratic field (poor marks):

Joe Lieberman -- Co-sponsored DOMA and favors "strengthening" it. Supports DADT. Supports hate crimes law inclusion, supports gay adoption but believes that heterosexuals should "get priority."

Comments welcome if you disagree or have extra information that updates/changes this.

Edited to reflect recent platform changes by Clark.

[Cheswick2.0]

1. Thank you

That is more detail than I knew about the different candidates. This is an important issue for me. My best friend's son is gay. He is a spectacular young man and I think he deserves the same rights any other teenage can look forward to in life. I worry about him and other young people like him. It is time for society to change on the issue of Gay rights.

[Brian_Expat]

3. I agree

I'm biased, of course, being a gay expat. ;-)

The notable thing to me was the lack of progressive stance by Clark on gay rights. I cannot support him in the primary because of this. Lieberman never even had a chance.

I don't believe Clark can truly get a unified party behind him without supporting at least basic equality.

The other candidate who disappoints me is Gephardt. He has a lesbian daughter, but doesn't believe she should have the same rights as everyone else.

[NashVegas]

12. Clark

From the interviews I've seen of him, I got the exact opposite impression.

[maddezmom]

Clark has stated

~snip~

Ban discrimination based on sexual orientation. We should make sure that the Civil Rights Act bans discrimination based on race, religion, sex, national origin, and sexual orientation.

Strengthen federal protections against hate crimes. No one in this country should be the target of violence because of their appearance, religion, or sexual orientation.

Protect all families. Families in the United States come in many shapes and sizes. Currently, most of our laws extend rights and responsibilities only to heterosexual families and explicitly exclude same-sex couples from enjoying those same rights and responsibilities. It is in the best interest of our country to promote stable communities and families - this includes both heterosexual and same-sex families. Accordingly, I believe that same-sex couples should not 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.

~snip~

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

[Tinoire]

46. If only any of that were true!!

why do you suppose it is that all we have behind Clark are a bunch of empty words? Where are all the big time Gay Rights activists? Had Clark done anything for Gay Rights within the military community we would have heard oh himlong ago but we are only hearing of him now that the PNAC crowd has realized we're so onto them that they think they can throw a Trojan Horse into this race and that dumb liberals won't even notice.

Please! Had Clark been so Gay rights, all those gay soldiers who served under him would NOT have been so callously tossed out; he would have been trumpetted LONG ago.

[Brian_Expat]

50. My opinion

These issues would all be cleared up if Clark took the NGLTF, HRC or other gay org's survey on gay issues. All the candidates should do so ASAP if they're serious on gay equality.

[Jerseycoa]

99. Here you go

http://www.glbtforclark.org/files/HRCQ_Questionnaire_Final.doc

[LiberalBushFan]

59. what are you talking about???

links related to the "callously tossed out" gay soldiers? Or any link relating to his treatment of gays in the military?
Could you please clarify all your ridiculous statments without PNAC PNAC PNAC? Thank you.

[Tinoire]

89. without PNAC PNAC PNAC? Thank you

Why don't you try doing a little research? Too difficult? Let me HELP you get started...


He resigned as managing director of merchant banking for the Stephens Group Inc. in March 2003 after a 3 year stint there before going on to CNN when he was already examining running for President.

Gen. Wesley Clark Resigns From Stephens
ArkansasBusiness.com | February 28, 2003
http://bellaciao.org/en/article.php3?id_article=377

He resigned from Acxiom AFTER the scandal broke about Acxiom selling the information about Jet Blue's passengers to HomeLand Security.

He still serves on the boards of directors of

Sirva Inc. of Westmont, Ill.
privately held Time Domain Inc. of Huntsville, Ala.
Messer-Griesheim
Entrust Inc., an Addison, Texas, (Internet-security company),
Time Domain Corp. (a Huntsville, Ala., advanced wireless-technology company)
WaveCrest Laboratories (closely linked with US Military & Industrial Complex) (think he's the Chairman there)

Also is Senior Advisor for the Center for Strategic International Studies
http://csis.org/scholars/alpha.htm#c http://www.csis.org/

Those are the ones that are talked about. Untalked about are these:

National Endowment for Democracy (currently implicated in the Venezuelan Coup Scandal for having financed the oppostition to Hugo Chavez) which Ronald Reagan started in the early 1980s to promote American values abroad. Also on the board Frank Carlucci, Carlyle fame, Morton Abramowitz, Vin Weber, Evan Bayh http://www.ned.org/about/who.html

Markle Foundation Task Force on National Security in the Information Age http://www.markletaskforce.org/bios.html (Scary group with intimate ties to the Saban Center (Daniel Pipes)

trustee of the International Crisis Group http://www.intl-crisis-group.org/home/index.cfm

Anyway this article from the Wall Street Journal covers a few of those boards:

Pentagon Ties Boost Clark's Business
Retired General Helps Firms Navigate Homeland Security and Defense-Procurement Maze By Jacob M. Schlesinger and Sara Schaefer in Washington and Greg Hitt in Little Rock,Ark.

Wall Street Journal, 9/18/03

IN ANNOUNCING his presidential campaign, Wesley K. Clark promoted himself as the candidate best qualified to prosecute the war on terror. As a businessman, he has applied his military expertise to help a handful of high-tech companies try to profit from the fight. Since retiring from a 34-year Army career in 2000, Gen. Clark has become : chairman of a suburban Washington technology-corridor start-up, managing director at an investment firm, a director at four other firms around the country and an advisory-board member for two others. For most, he was hired to help boost the companies' military business.

http://bellaciao.org/en/article.php3?id_article=377


Yes we are being bamboozled BIG TIME, but it's not in the Dean campaign.

Who so well represented corporate interests when he waged an obscene, illegal war agaist Serbia because it stood in the way of the West's grand scheme to integrate the Balkans into an economic model in which the region's economies would be subordinated to Western corporate interests. Who bombed and destroyed the entire country so Soros and his friends could get their hands on the socially owned firms that belonged to the people of Serbia?

Which candidate is being pushed on us by the DLC, well known for and very open about the corporate ties and interests?



economic blockade, debt interest elevation, "liberalisation" of neighbourhood economics, exploitation of compradore, separatist, terrorist and illicit drug-traffickers, cluster bombs and depleted uranium coated shells, to achieve their war objectives

Clark sat on the board of some of the world's most dangerous corporations while he was making his stunning journey from Republican friend of the neo-cons to the recent metamorphosis into a Democrat.

These companies and George Soros, Carlyle Group, don't represent transnational corporate interests. This is a much bigger danger than Dean's medium-level pandering to a few corporations.


Stephens Group Inc. (BCCI fame)

Acxiom (the company was recently caught selling information about Jet Blue's passengers to HomeLand Security and for whom Clark was quite a lobbyist)

Sirva Inc. with its wholly owned company SIRVA Relocation that has as its main function in over one hundred countries, the relocation of entire firms and industries overseas
Time Domain Inc. and its invasive RadarVision through-wall radar
Messer-Griesheim
Entrust Inc. (whose CEO is co-chair of the Corporate Governance Task Force and works with Homeland Security)
Time Domain Corp. (a Huntsville, Ala., advanced wireless-technology company)
WaveCrest Laboratories (Green but emphasis is on marketing to the military and law enforcement) because "there are lots of places like tight alleys in urban areas where you don't want to be in a Humvee, which is big and noisy," said General Clark, the company's chairman.
The electric bike is light and simple, he said. "You turn the handle, and it just scoots. There's no sound. Just acceleration and speed. Just a shoosh on the pavement."

Senior Advisor for the Center for Strategic International Studies
http://www.csis.org/ a Right-Wing think tank which has been very close to Bush on matters dealing with Iraq & Afghanistan. They're like a who's who of the whatever neo-cons aren't in government and has a Board of trustees who's members proudly sit on boards of Halliburton, Hunt Oil, National Petroleum Council, American Petroleum Council, General Electric, special counsellors to Reagan, and what the hell is Sam Nunn up to with the Nunn-Wolfowitz-Task Forces for Hughes Electronics? I should have guessed. DLC. Media Transparency has quite a run-down on this organization
http://www.mediatransparency.org/all_in_one_results.php?Message=CSIS

Grants are from the exact same major donors as the National Endowment for Democracy (see below)


Then we have my real favorites:

National Endowment for Democracy (currently implicated in the Venezuelan Coup Scandal for having financed the oppostition to Hugo Chavez) which Ronald Reagan started in the early 1980s to "promote American values abroad" by destabilizing progressive movements/governments, especially those with a socialist or democratic socialist bent. Also on the board Frank Carlucci (Carlyle fame), Morton Abramowitz, Vin Weber (original PNAC signatory), Evan Bayh http://www.ned.org/about/who.html

Here are the National Endowment for Democracy's major/majority donors:
Sara Scaife Foundatation financed in turn by Mellon Industrial, at one time its largest single holding was stock in the Gulf Oil Corporation. Richard Scaife is the 38th richest man in America. Scaife has been a leading financier of New Right causes. The Sarah Scaife Foundation is considered to be one of the top 4 conservative foundations. He's known as the Right's Founding Father.

www.mediatransparency.org/funders/scaife_foundations.htm

The Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation one of the country's largest and most influential right-wing foundations. Its targets range from affirmative action to social security, it has seen its greatest successes in areas of welfare "reform" and attempts to privatize public education through the promotion of school vouchers.

The overall objective of the Bradley Foundation is ... laissez-faire capitalism: capitalism with the gloves off. (...) supports right-wing groups such as the Heritage Foundation, source of policy papers on budget cuts, supply-side economics and the Star Wars military plan for the Reagan administration; the Madison Center for Educational Affairs, which provides funding for right-wing research and a network of conservative student newspapers; and the American Enterprise Institute, literary home of such racist authors as Charles Murray (The Bell Curve) and Dinesh D'Souza (The End of Racism), former conservative officeholders Jeanne kirkpatrick, Jack Kemp and William Bennet, and arch conservative jurists Robert Bjork and Antonin Scalia. <snip / this just goes on and on sending CHILLS up my spine>

http://www.mediatransparency.org/funders/bradley_foundation.htm

http://www.mediatransparency.org/funders/john_m_olin_foundation.htm

The Smith Richardson Foundation: active in supporting conservative causes... one of the countries richest families. Funded the early "supply-side" books of Jude Wanninski and George Gilder. Board of Directors include Ben Wattenberg (right wing, radical Free Market, Senior Fellow at American Enterprise Institute, maker of the right-wing PBS show "Think Tank", Senior Editor of The American Enterprise Magazine[br />
More: http://www.mediatransparency.org/funders/smith_richardson_foundation.htm




Markle Foundation Task Force on National Security in the Information Age http://www.markletaskforce.org/bios.html (Scary group with intimate ties to the Saban Center (Daniel Pipes)

trustee of the International Crisis Group http://www.intl-crisis-group.org/home/index.cfm

Anyway this article from the Wall Street Journal covers a few of those boards:

Pentagon Ties Boost Clark's Business
Retired General Helps Firms Navigate Homeland Security and Defense-Procurement Maze By Jacob M. Schlesinger and Sara Schaefer in Washington and Greg Hitt in Little Rock,Ark.

Wall Street Journal, 9/18/03

IN ANNOUNCING his presidential campaign, Wesley K. Clark promoted himself as the candidate best qualified to prosecute the war on terror. As a businessman, he has applied his military expertise to help a handful of high-tech companies try to profit from the fight. Since retiring from a 34-year Army career in 2000, Gen. Clark has become : chairman of a suburban Washington technology-corridor start-up, managing director at an investment firm, a director at four other firms around the country and an advisory-board member for two others. For most, he was hired to help boost the companies' military business.

http://bellaciao.org/en/article.php3?i




While Clark does not describe himself as a Democrat, he leans liberal on domestic policy.

<snip>

Others, however, say Clark's strengths could trump the field. Morton Abramowitz, a State Department veteran with whom Clark worked in Kosovo, called Clark "a fighter, a determined battler" and said Clark's military experience gives the general an advantage in an area in which the other Democratic candidates are "woefully deficient."

Abramowitz: Others, however, say Clark's strengths could trump the field. Morton Abramowitz, a State Department veteran with whom Clark worked in Kosovo, called Clark "a fighter, a determined battler" and said Clark's military experience gives the general an advantage in an area in which the other Democratic candidates are "woefully deficient."

"He comes as a commanding figure," Abramowitz said. "He's run things. What has Joe Lieberman run?"

Abramowitz dismissed the idea that it is too late for Clark to consider a run for president in 2004.

"Late? So was Ulysses S. Grant. So was Dwight Eisenhower," he said.

Gen. Clark's Next War: Conquer the Democrats?
By E.J. KESSLER
FORWARD STAFF
http://www.forward.com/issues/2003/03.01.31/news6.html

[Brian_Expat]

91. What does this have to do with GLBT issues? n/t

[Justice]

104. Nothing, It is Just The Standard Reply

by some people to every post where Clark is mentioned. They think it sways opinion - but now we know that negativity does not sway opinion - and we know these replies are planned and intentional!

Sigh.

[exclark4dean]

8. Howard Dean (our next prez) rocks the pink triangle

Go Dean Go !

My first post !

I was supporting Wes Clark, but I am now convinced Howard Dean is the ONLY DEM who can win ! I hope Clark will still accept the VP !

[kerry-is-my-prez]

I would put Dean on the tier below. He doesn't deserve to be w/Kucinich

He didn't support the Gay Unions bill at first but did go along with it once the bill was passed by the Vermont Supreme Court. At the time, he was going round the state telling folks he was only doing it because the Vermont Supreme Court made him do it. When he signed the bill - it was behind closed doors with 15 staff members present.

Where he went right: he did sign the bill instead of requiring a study to be done first. He didn't back down after he signed the bill.

Other things that make his support questionable:


http://www.tompaine.com/feature2.cfm/ID/8387
And in an appearance on Meet the Press in July of 2002, Dean said that he would "absolutely not" favor a national law establishing such unions. When host Tim Russert asked why not, he said that each state must come to "grips with civil rights" in its own way.

-snip-

Asked again for a distinction between gay rights and abortion rights, Dean replied, "Because we have national law that says that abortion is a legal right and that women are entitled to make their own decisions about that." But that’s exactly what gay-rights advocates hope for -- a national law that entitles gay couples to make their own decisions about important matters in their lives.

-snip-

Russert raised the matter again when Dean appeared on his program on June 22 of this year. Again, Dean claimed to support equal rights for gays and, yet, argued that the federal government should not interfere with states’ decisions on this issue. Interestingly, he said he would oppose legislation like that passed in Canada, which recognizes gay marriage.

[LiberalBushFan]

2. any links?

Re: your Clark comments
what's so strange about "Don't ask, don't misbehave"? It's what they use in Britain. If he says he'd favor "don't ask, don't tell" over "don't ask, don't misbehave," how does he support "don't ask, don't tell"? He DID say, I think, that he wouldn't force the military to accept his solution but would rather let them decide, but to say he supports "don't ask, don't tell" is twisting.

[Brian_Expat]

5. "Don't Misbehave"

What's that mean? To many commanders, "don't misbehave" could mean "don't be with your partner."

There's no need to change the policy -- just cover gay people under the same laws that govern heterosexuals, with a condition allowing gay people to be in an on-base LTR with a partner (just as married couples are permitted on base).

Links are hard to find, I collected this information over several months' time. Campaign web sites are a good start, but you won't learn much about Clark's, Lieberman's or Edwards' stances from their sites. All three also seem very uncomfortable about addressing gay issues head-on, which is a bit of a red flag for me personally.

[WildThang]

98. misbehave?

"don't ask, don't misbehave"

How is that defined? Is sex for gays "misbehaving"?

[Clark4Prez]

4. Clark's position

Here is Clark's statement you can find more at

http://glbt.nyforclark.com/


Ban discrimination based on sexual orientation. We should make sure that the Civil Rights Act bans discrimination based on race, religion, sex, national origin, and sexual orientation.

Strengthen federal protections against hate crimes. No one in this country should be the target of violence because of their appearance, religion, or sexual orientation.

Protect all families. Families in the United States come in many shapes and sizes. Currently, most of our laws extend rights and responsibilities only to heterosexual families and explicitly exclude same-sex couples from enjoying those same rights and responsibilities. It is in the best interest of our country to promote stable communities and families - this includes both heterosexual and same-sex families. Accordingly, I believe that same-sex couples should not 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.

Give federal employees the right to name same-sex partners as beneficiaries. Major U.S. corporations have adopted human resources policies that allow employees to designate a domestic partner as a beneficiary of health and other employment benefits. The federal government should do the same.

Ensure that everyone can serve. I believe that the military needs to rethink the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy. It does not serve this country to discriminate against people who want to serve in our armed forces. I would ask the military to craft and implement a policy that ensures that everyone who wants to serve their country is permitted to do so with honor and dignity. I would ask the military to look seriously at the British policy, which prohibits sexual misconduct by both heterosexuals and homosexuals. I would then submit the new policy to Congress to replace the current "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" law.

Ensure access to affordable health care, including AIDS/HIV Services. My health care proposal ensures that all Americans would have access to affordable health insurance - and sets aside funding for public health programs to improve prevention and treatment of HIV/AIDS.

As President, I will fight for the civil rights of all Americans. That includes lesbian and gay Americans

[Brian_Expat]

10. Interesting

So Clark supports hate crimes laws, civil rights protections, and sorta-kinda doesn't object to partnership laws (though it doesn't really seem as though he'd push forward with partnership laws himself). That would vault him into the "fair marks" category from my perspective.

However, if he's serious, he should post his stance on gay equality on his web site like all the other candidates. It's nice to have a "sub site" with a gay group supporting him, but I will only support a candidate who supports me. That means putting it up front on his main site, IMO.

Kerry also voted for and supported "Don't ASk Don't Tell." He's now calling for its repeal.

[LiberalBushFan]

13. it IS on his web site (see posts below) n/m

[Democrats unite]

15. Check my link it is from his official website.

Still don't see any links from you though.

[Clark4Prez]

17. It is also on his main site

I missed that, here is the link:

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

This is an article from the Gay City News (only the first four paragraphs are quoted because of the rules, the link has the whole thing)


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

Gay City News
Volume 2, Issue 49 | December 4-10, 2003

By Wesley Clark

The ink was barely dry on the Massachusetts State Supreme Court's gay marriage decision, and the Republican Party was trying to use it as an election year issue to divide Americans. But this issue should not be a polarizing one. There's no reason why we shouldn't treat all Americans equally no matter what their race, religion or sexual orientation. That's why I welcomed the Massachusetts court decision with open arms.

I remember a conversation I had with a fellow Army officer a few months ago. He hadn't thought through my position supporting equal rights for gays. I asked him, "If you had a gay child, would you love that child as much as your other children?" And he said, "Yes, of course." And I asked if he would want his child to have the same rights and opportunities as every other child. And again he said, "Yes, of course." When we look at it in human terms, we recognize that this issue is about how we want our children to be treated. In America, every child should be equal in the eyes of the law, period.

Throughout the course of American history, too many groups have struggled for equal rights and opportunities. Growing up in Little Rock in the 1950s, I saw first-hand how wrenching the fight for civil rights was. In fact, I went to school for a year in Tennessee because they had closed the schools in Little Rock.

In too many ways, the struggle for equal rights is still on-going. Today, one of the frontlines in the civil rights struggle runs through the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) community. We must always stand by the principle: every American should enjoy the exact same rights as every other American.

[blm]

6. For a gay man you know little about gay advocacy over the years.

John Kerry was the FIRST Senator to draft a gay friendly bill in 1985 and advocated for gays to serve OPENLY in the military and even testified in front of a congressional committee hearing on it and very few backed him up. Clark was one of those few.

He also helped draft the Hate Crimes bill.

I say you go back to square one and study your candidates and their real history on this issue. I think you are dangerously uninformed. Dangerous because you are spreading incorrect information.

Kerry has the LONGEST gay advocacy record of all the candidates, and yet you choose to slander him.

[Brian_Expat]

11. "Slander"

I am taking an objective look at the candidates based on their positions as of the election. That's not "slander."

If you can cite areas where I am incorrect, I welcome corrections, but Kerry's not going to win gay votes by accusing me and other GLBT people of "attacking" him.

[blm]

28. You were wrong about Kerry so wrong is not objective.

In fact, your tone was dismissive in regard to Kerry and I find that shocking for anyone who professes to be concerned about gay issues.

From 2002:

Three-Term Senator Has Stellar Record
October 27, 2002
Human Right Quarterly
By Mark Shields

Kerry: For the Record

Workplace Discrimination:
Co-sponsor of the Employ-ment Non-Discrimination Act, a bill that would ban workplace discrimination based on sexual orientation.

Hate Crimes:
Co-sponsor of a strong hate
crimes prevention measure, the Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Act.

HIV/AIDS:
Co-sponsor of the Early Treatment for HIV Act, which would expand Medicaid to people living with HIV, and supports science-based prevention programs.
Gay Civil Rights Bill:

Authored the Senate version of the Civil Rights Amendments Act of 1985,a comprehensive gay civil rights bill that would have covered discrimination in employment, housing and credit.

Born in a military hospital in 1943 to a World War II serviceman and his wife, John Kerry has had a lifelong affiliation with the U.S. military. As a decorated veteran of the Vietnam War, Kerry made a distinctive stand in support of gays in the military during early '90s hearings before the Senate Armed Services Committee.

"I think that any American ought to be able to serve their country if they are physically qualified and able," said the Massachusetts senator in a recent interview with HRC Quarterly. "There were gay people who served in Vietnam. There were gay people who served in World War II, Korea and World War I — and great acts of heroism have been per-formed by people who are gay."

Kerry is among the early front-runners in the bid for the 2004 Democratic presidential nomination. A Yale graduate, Kerry was elected lieutenant governor of Massachusetts in 1982. He was elected to the Senate in 1984, and has consistently supported, sometimes at great political peril, civil rights for the gay community.

In addition to his support for gays in the military, he was one of only 14 senators to vote in 1996 against the anti-gay Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA. "I thought it was rank gay bashing; it was pure political exploitation," said Kerry.

Today, Kerry supports the idea that gay and lesbian relationships should enjoy rights and privileges equivalent to those of marriage. "I'm for civil union and partnership — and I would make sure that every federal entity works to make those provisions available," he said.

Kerry says his record over the years on a range of issues sets him apart from other candidates. In 1985, he authored the Senate version of the gay civil rights bill — a measure that, if passed, would have covered discrimination in employment, housing and credit. His average score on the Human Rights Campaign's congressional scorecard, begun in the 101st Congress, is 96 percent — with a perfect score for the last four congresses.

[Brian_Expat]

42. What specifically have I said that is inaccurate?

I am going specifically by Senator Kerry's votes, as well as his official platform positions on gay issues. Support for ENDA is admirable, but that's across the board for all the Democrats running. Ditto for hate crimes, now that Clark has updated his platform. I don't think my ranking of him is unfair, unless you can indicate areas where he has updated his stances.

I like Senator Kerry and think he is good on gay issues. But remember this is a RELATIVE ranking of Democrats on their declared stances vis-a-vis gay issues.

[blm]

51. Because Kerry DRAFTED the damn legislation

and was doing so back in 1985 when NOONE would join him.

He ADVOCATED for gays to serve openly in the military so why say he's just in support of DADT when Kerry has congressional testimony on record advocating for gays to serve openly?

Kerry was LEADING the Senate in advocating for gay issues and YOU dismiss him as someone who passively voted here and there.

[Brian_Expat]

54. That's very admirable

But only one issue. I am evaluating candidates across the whole range of issues important to GLBT people. I cannot, unfortunately, rank a candidate based just on one issue.

[blm]

61. so you didn't read his HRC record?

This is insane. NOONE would give Kerry "fair" marks on gay issues. NOONE.

[Brian_Expat]

65. If you disagree. . .

Please contrast his record on the specific issues to other candidates, including Dean, Kucinich, Moseley Braun, and Sharpton in the top tier.

My primary criterion for placing him in the second tier is that he opposes marriage equality. I would have put Dean there too, except that he pioneered civil unions and took on the right wing to do so, which I believe qualifies him as a "marriage supporter."

[blm]

73. The Vermont Supreme Court RULED civil unions were legal

and Dean had the choice of which bill to sign, marriage or civil unions and he chose civil unions.

He didn't PIONEER the legislation.

Kerry gets FAIR marks from you when he was the one PUSHING to allow gays to serve openly in the military in front of a congressional hearing? When he was the one to draft antidiscrimination legislation in 1985? When he was the one drafting the Hate Crimes bill? When he was the one drafting the AIDS legislation?

[Brian_Expat]

78. Dean had other options

Many of Dean's people urged him to wait until after the election to sign the bill (which was possible).

Dean definitely took a huge political risk in embracing the bill and moving forward with it, IMO. That's a pretty big point in his favor.

[blm]

80. and you still ignore Kerry's lengthy record

of advocacy.

[Brian_Expat]

83. I don't ignore it

I just don't believe it's quite as strong as the top tier. That DOESN'T mean I don't think Kerry is a strong candidate or secure in his beliefs. I happen to think that he, Dean and Kucinich have the strongest history on actually standing behind their platforms. I just don't think he's quite as progressive on gay issues as the top tier.

I am a former Team Kerry guy and have voted for him as Senator and believe he's done a wonderful job, so please don't assume my take is an "attack" on Kerry.

[blm]

88. I support Kerry and Kucinich

and Kerry's record on this issue is much more consistent than Kucinich's even. DK only recently came round to loosening up on gay issues because of his strict Catholic upbringing and constituency. That's something about him that I understand completely and never held against him and thankfully he has come around.

[Brian_Expat]

90. Kucinich

I hope he's absolutely serious in his platform because it is the best overall one for gay people of any of the candidates. He has made some major changes to his viewpoints in the past, most notably on abortion.

I don't think his changes on gay rights are all that dramatic, contrasted to Al Gore, for instance (or Michael Dukakis from campaign 88 for that matter!) He does go further than any other well-funded candidate on that front, and it seems to be working for him.

I am an admirer of his (and Kerry's too!) Please don't assume I don't think Kerry would make an excellent prez.

Sheesh, I had no idea this thread would be so divisive -- I almost apologize for asking the question, except that it's important that people know where candidates REALLY stand on these issues, since the GOP will attribute the same stances to anyone they run against and cloud the issues.

[blm]

95. Well, it's important to further gay advocacy efforts

to recognize those who have led the way for MANY years. To diminish them in ANY way is just wrong, because some of them did it for all the right reasons and political calculations be damned.

[Northwind]

96. As a helpful hint

The member you are currently discussing Kerry with has a history of lambasting anyone who does anything less than accept Kerry as the second and-much-more-liberal coming of the Christ.

[blm]

77. But he believes in federally recognized civil unions

even where Dean said it's a state's rights issue.

[mikehiggins]

82. Golly, fella, you really got to read the whole thread

The problem with Kerry and Clark is that their last names are not spelled Dean.

Once that is clear the intent and content of this thread becomes quite transparent.

[Brian_Expat]

84. That's unfair

If my purpose was solely to put Dean above everyone else, I wouldn't also be strongly supporting other gay-friendly candidates on their records and platforms, including Kucinich, Moseley Braun and Sharpton.

[mikehiggins]

101. Unfair?

You list four candidates in the top four. Three of them have little if any chance of success. One is the reputed frontrunner.

I started out reading this thread with the thought that this was an interesting topic and worth pursuing. However, the impression it has left with me is the one I posted above.

If Kerry's name was spelled DEAN, he'd have scored a lot higher.

[Brian_Expat]

106. I'm sorry you've chosen to attack me rather than discuss the issues.

You are not going to win GLBT votes for your candidate(s) by doing that. Winning our votes requires providing information, correcting errors, and being open-minded, giving us reasons to support your candidate(s) rather than impugning our motives.

[dsc]

14. You may wish to check that one yourself

Lieberman has been advocating since the early 1970's.

[blm]

41. so was Kerry in the early 70s...

it has been a longterm commitment for him and that's why he advocated for gays legislatively as soon as he took office in 1985.

[Brian_Expat]

43. Be specific

This is about specific issues. If I am incorrect or incomplete, please point out where I have been so and add information -- this is why I started this thread. We need to learn more about where candidates stand on these issues, since all the media is talking about is marriage (which is important but not the end-all-be-all).

[blm]

53. again

Kerry: For the Record
Workplace Discrimination:
Co-sponsor of the Employ-ment Non-Discrimination Act, a bill that would ban workplace discrimination based on sexual orientation.
Hate Crimes:
Co-sponsor of a strong hate
crimes prevention measure, the Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Act.
HIV/AIDS:
Co-sponsor of the Early Treatment for HIV Act, which would expand Medicaid to people living with HIV, and supports science-based prevention programs.
Gay Civil Rights Bill:
Authored the Senate version of the Civil Rights Amendments Act of 1985,a comprehensive gay civil rights bill that would have covered discrimination in employment, housing and credit.
Born in a military hospital in 1943 to a World War II serviceman and his wife, John Kerry has had a lifelong affiliation with the U.S. military. As a decorated veteran of the Vietnam War, Kerry made a distinctive stand in support of gays in the military during early '90s hearings before the Senate Armed Services Committee.
"I think that any American ought to be able to serve their country if they are physically qualified and able," said the Massachusetts senator in a recent interview with HRC Quarterly. "There were gay people who served in Vietnam. There were gay people who served in World War II, Korea and World War I — and great acts of heroism have been per-formed by people who are gay."
Kerry is among the early front-runners in the bid for the 2004 Democratic presidential nomination. A Yale graduate, Kerry was elected lieutenant governor of Massachusetts in 1982. He was elected to the Senate in 1984, and has consistently supported, sometimes at great political peril, civil rights for the gay community.
In addition to his support for gays in the military, he was one of only 14 senators to vote in 1996 against the anti-gay Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA. "I thought it was rank gay bashing; it was pure political exploitation," said Kerry.
Today, Kerry supports the idea that gay and lesbian relationships should enjoy rights and privileges equivalent to those of marriage. "I'm for civil union and partnership — and I would make sure that every federal entity works to make those provisions available," he said.
Kerry says his record over the years on a range of issues sets him apart from other candidates. In 1985, he authored the Senate version of the gay civil rights bill — a measure that, if passed, would have covered discrimination in employment, housing and credit. His average score on the Human Rights Campaign's congressional scorecard, begun in the 101st Congress, is 96 percent — with a perfect score for the last four congresses. 

[dsc]

47. Lieberman did so as the State Senate Leader

in CT. I don't think anyone, except possibly Braun, has that kind of record.

[Dookus]

7. From Clark's website

Statement on GLBT Issues

Ensuring each and every citizen's ability to reach his or her full human potential

Today, America faces serious challenges. Meeting the challenges of our time demands three things: new leadership, new ideas, and a new spirit of service. I've served this country alongside the most talented men and women in the world. To fulfill our country's full potential, we must nurture every person's abilities regardless of his or her individual characteristics, such as race, gender, religion, or sexual orientation. We are all Americans. Therefore, I am calling all Americans to find a way to serve with a new, inclusive spirit of patriotism. We cannot reach our full potential by discriminating against people because of their sexual orientation. To encourage all Americans to actively participate in our democracy, I would:


Ban discrimination based on sexual orientation. We should make sure that the Civil Rights Act bans discrimination based on race, religion, sex, national origin, and sexual orientation.

Strengthen federal protections against hate crimes. No one in this country should be the target of violence because of their appearance, religion, or sexual orientation.

Protect all families. Families in the United States come in many shapes and sizes. Currently, most of our laws extend rights and responsibilities only to heterosexual families and explicitly exclude same-sex couples from enjoying those same rights and responsibilities. It is in the best interest of our country to promote stable communities and families - this includes both heterosexual and same-sex families. Accordingly, I believe that same-sex couples should not 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.

Give federal employees the right to name same-sex partners as beneficiaries. Major U.S. corporations have adopted human resources policies that allow employees to designate a domestic partner as a beneficiary of health and other employment benefits. The federal government should do the same.

Ensure that everyone can serve. I believe that the military needs to rethink the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy. It does not serve this country to discriminate against people who want to serve in our armed forces. I would ask the military to craft and implement a policy that ensures that everyone who wants to serve their country is permitted to do so with honor and dignity. I would ask the military to look seriously at the British policy, which prohibits sexual misconduct by both heterosexuals and homosexuals. I would then submit the new policy to Congress to replace the current "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" law.

Ensure access to affordable health care, including AIDS/HIV Services. My health care proposal ensures that all Americans would have access to affordable health insurance - and sets aside funding for public health programs to improve prevention and treatment of HIV/AIDS.
As President, I will fight for the civil rights of all Americans. That includes lesbian and gay Americans.


********************

I'm a gay man - that sounds pretty good to me.

[Democrats unite]

9. What a bunch of bullshit!

Good reason why there is no links.

Lets set the record straight (no pun intended).


Statement on GLBT Issues

Ensuring each and every citizen's ability to reach his or her full human potential

Today, America faces serious challenges. Meeting the challenges of our time demands three things: new leadership, new ideas, and a new spirit of service. I've served this country alongside the most talented men and women in the world. To fulfill our country's full potential, we must nurture every person's abilities regardless of his or her individual characteristics, such as race, gender, religion, or sexual orientation. We are all Americans. Therefore, I am calling all Americans to find a way to serve with a new, inclusive spirit of patriotism. We cannot reach our full potential by discriminating against people because of their sexual orientation. To encourage all Americans to actively participate in our democracy, I would:

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


I guess this blows you post right out of here.

[Brian_Expat]

18. Congratulations to Clark

For coming up with a policy on GLBT issues at last. Please see my other posts to see my take on them.

It is also not productive to attack me for talking in a neutral tone about candidates' records on the issues. Link, inform and update me, don't attack me.

[Name removed]

21. Deleted message

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

[Brian_Expat]

24. It is new from Clark

Clark's positions on GLBT issues are apparently very, very recent. As of November, he didn't have a section on his web site and did not have a clear platform.

Don't attack the messenger here, especially since I am not your enemy.

[Dookus]

22. well....

We get unhappy when people misrepresent our candidate's position. I don't know where you got your information, but I found it easily by going to www.clark04.com , clicking On the Issues, then clicking GLBT Issues. Two clicks.

[Brian_Expat]

25. As noted. . .

This is a very, very recent update. As of a few months ago, when you clicked on "On the Issues," it led to a page that said "Under Construction." Clark has also declined to answer surveys from the HRC and NGLTF, the two gay advocacy groups in the country, so there's naturally less detailed information on him than on other candidates.

Clark supporters seeking support within the GLBT community would do well to encourage Clark to answer the HRC/NGLTF surveys.

[bhunt70]

33. well as long as you hold the other candidates to the same scrutiny...

I don't have a problem with your opinions. I think they are misguided but I can't change that. You either take the man at his word or not. Yes issues page was under construction for a while, but it wasn't specific to his GLBT ones. They were made more streamlined for easier use.

[Brian_Expat]

39. I don't understand the personal attacks

I am interested in electing a president who is best on gay equality. Whether that man is Humpty-Dumpty or Clark or Dean or whoever makes little difference to me. I am going by the HARD PLATFORMS here.

That consists of two things -- prior history with gay issues, and formal platform positions. Clark has updated his platform since I examined him last, hence the edits.

Specific criticisms or corrections are welcome regarding individual issues like ENDA, PPIA, DOMA, DADT, etc. These are the hard issues I and most other gay people are focused on.

[Democrats unite]

37. CLark just started running a couple months ago!

So whats your point?

[Brian_Expat]

44. I now have his platform, and have updated accordingly Thanks! n/t

[Democrats unite]

49. No you have not!!!!

You still say he is for don't ask don't tell and he is not! Read the information!

[Brian_Expat]

52. No I have not

I have stated he is in favour of replacing DADT with "Don't Misbehave." Read again carefully.

[Democrats unite]

56. He never supported don't ask don't tell

Please supply a link that showed he ever did. You can't!

[Brian_Expat]

64. Not everything I know or have is supported by an Internet link

I do know that Clark and a number of other prominent Democrats (including openly gay Barney Frank) supported DADT. Clark also wavered on his position on repeal, first calling for full repeal, then reversing, then advancing the new "Don't Misbehave" proposal.

To have supported DADT is sub-optimal, but not the end of the world.

[Democrats unite]

68. Thats because you know nothing.

eom

[Brian_Expat]

72. Uh, thanks, I guess.

So much for trying to learn! I guess this issue is still too difficult for some people to talk about.

I would like to thank the more mature candidates' supporters for offering corrections and additions without personal attacks (is that how you're "uniting Democrats" btw?). I mean, I've gotta tell you folks, this is the first time I've had someone accuse me of not being gay! Maybe my closeted heterosexual side is coming out? :evilgrin:

[diamondsoul]

143. Uh, no he didn't.

Wes Clark opposed DADT even while in uniform, thanks. He was one of the most outspoken high-ranking military members to do so.

While I don't agree with this "Don't misbehave" business, it's patently false to claim Clark ever supported DADT.

Additionally, John Kerry's lengthy record on GLBT issues is one of the things that puts him quite high on my list of preferred candidates. Howard Dean doesn't even run a close second to Kerry on this topic!

Still of them all the one who ought to be on the top of your list and isn't is Dennis Kucinich.

[maddezmom]

58. he supports gay adoption among other things

In addition, Clark believes that adoption decisions should be based on the best interest of the child and that preventing qualified gay and lesbian people from adopting children is wrong. He also supports the Permanent Partners Immigration Act (PPIA) which would bring same-sex couples on par with opposite-sex couples for purposes of immigration law.

from http://gaytoday.com/events/111303ev.asp

[Democrats unite]

40. Ask and you shall receive...

Just goes to show, you don't know what the hell your talking about.



http://gaytoday.com/events/111303ev.asp

[maddezmom]

45. great article on Clark

glad to know he support gay adoption. :)

[Brian_Expat]

60. This is another recent change

Last time I checked, Clark had not completed an HRC survey.

Look, attacking me for trying to get the facts isn't helpful. Your animus towards Dean is clouding your thinking, and it's up to you to help get the facts out on your candidate.

I have updated the post again to reflect Clark's responses to HRC's questionnaire.

[maddezmom]

63. thank you :)

[corporatewhore]

16. hello kucinich the only one who wants to give us full marriage rights

and wont dance around it

[Brian_Expat]

19. This is true

Kucinich is the only candidate who supports complete equality. I rank Dean highly only because he went to the mat for us.

[SahaleArm]

107. Did he really go to the mat?

Would Dean have done anything had he not been forced into the choice? VT supreme court mandated equal rights so the options were either marriage or civil unions. He chose the latter and is not in the same league as Kucinich. He certainly didn't go to the mat for anything.

http://rutlandherald.com/vtruling/story8.html

http://rutlandherald.com/vtruling/1weekdec.html

[Brian_Expat]

109. In my opinion, that's not an accurate summary

A bit of background -- in 2000 I didn't know who Howard Dean was, but I campaigned for him and learned about him in 2000 during his election after he signed the civil union bill. I know the situation on the ground and it wasn't a simple case of "he was forced." I spent every weekend for months commuting from Boston to Vermont to campaign and organize for Dean as the symbolic candidate representing civil unions.

Dean had many options in dealing with the bill other than signing it and campaigning for it:

Firstly, he had the option of not signing the CU bill until after the election, refusing to address the issue or even lying.

Secondly, he had the option of agreeing with Ruth Dweyer, his conservative opponent, and launching an impeachment of the Supreme Court justices who made the ruling and get it overturned immediately.

Thirdly, he could have pushed for an amendment to the Constitution (which would have taken some time), and then revoked the law after two years and run on that.

Fourth, he could have complained he was "forced" and pledged to overturn the bill after he got re-elected.

His choice to run with civil unions and make them the centrepiece of his campaign took tremendous guts.

For all the people who pooh-pooh him on this front, I have to ask if you were there and saw all the "TAKE BACK VERMONT" signs. Did you sit in on the town hall meetings where the Christian Coalition showed gay porn videos and said that this is what gays want to do to kids?

Were you there when Dean had to wear a bulletproof vest? Or when old ladies came up to him in the middle of the campaign and spat "you fucking queer-loving son of a bitch" at him?

Did you read the letters to the editor calling for violence against homosexuals? Did you listen to radio shows calling for the state logo to be changed to "two men kissing and cornholing each other," as one state legislator (and senior DEMOCRAT) said?

I was. I gained tremendous respect for the man in Vermont based on how he acted in this incredible situation, and that definitely influenced my present opinion of him today, no question about it. When I heard he was running for President, I wasn't sure at first, but ended up moving to his campaign after a few disappointments from Kerry.

Did Dean go out and initiate the civil unions debate? No -- but it was thrust upon him, he picked up with it, and navigated the state through an incredibly difficult time AND educated voters on the bill to the point where a majority by the end of the campaign supported the bill. He helped bring pro and anti people together and converted a lot of "antis" to "pros."

Howard Dean is a man to whom gay and lesbian families owe a great deal, as an articulate mainstream voice for tolerance and equality in what was one of the most divisive civil rights battles of the latest 20th century. Whether or not he's the nominee, he should NOT be tarred as someone who "went with a court decision."

That's an insult to him and to gay people everywhere, like insisting that John Kerry took the "easy route" by supporting non-discrimination legislation because he was from a "safe state."

Whatever else you might think of Dean, his record on standing up for gay people in civil unions is clear, and those civil unions made huge strides possible, including California's recently-signed DP registry and the gay marriage rulings in Canada.

[dsc]

115. Thank you

Marvelous post.

[SahaleArm]

116. Let's look at the four options...

(1) Firstly, he had the option of not signing the CU bill until after the election, refusing to address the issue or even lying.

The abrupt and private nature of the bill signing - an event that is usually marked with much fanfare and media glare - surprised many State House observers and came just 24 hours after the House gave the bill its final approval.

Dean told reporters he chose to forego the traditional ceremony because he wanted to "extend a hand" to those who believe the law is misguided. He said he feared that any show of victory would further alienate those opponents by sending an "us vs. them" message - where "us" won.

...

Others, however, said Dean's move reflected a certain discomfort with the legislation and robbed gay and lesbian couples of a symbolic moment of celebration. The governor quickly shot back when a reporter asked if the decision to quietly sign the bill into law sent a message that gays and lesbians were still considered second-class citizens.

"I can't imagine any governor in this country who would take the position that I have taken on this bill. In fact there hasn't been one," Dean said. "But I also think it's important to acknowledge there are two very strongly divided sides in this debate and I think sometimes signing ceremonies take on the trappings of triumphalism. That was not appropriate in this case."

http://rutlandherald.com/hdean/6633

This was a controversial bill and to his credit Dean helped draft and sign the legislation bill with fellow legislative officials. To say he was championing this legislation before the Supreme Court decision would be disengenious. What was the timeline given by the Vermont supreme court? Could he have waited a year?

------------------------------------------------------

(2)Secondly, he had the option of agreeing with Ruth Dweyer, his conservative opponent, and launching an impeachment of the Supreme Court justices who made the ruling and get it overturned immediately.

What does this gain him if does this? I would guess less ammo against Dwyer in the 2000 election but also less support and possible backlash?

For Governor Statewide
Dean, Howard Democrat 148059 50.45%
Dwyer, Ruth Republican 111359 37.95%
Pollina, Anthony Progressive 28116 9.58%

He still easily beats Ruth Dwyer with a majority of votes with the progressive candidate getting 10%, Vermont's political system isn't black or white.

------------------------------------------------------

(3) Thirdly, he could have pushed for an amendment to the Constitution (which would have taken some time), and then revoked the law after two years and run on that.

(4) Fourth, he could have complained he was "forced" and pledged to overturn the bill after he got re-elected.

Not sure what either of these options gain him with the Vermont electorate...

[dsc]

117. He had to have over 50% or he would have lost

the House of Reps would have voted Dwyer in. He won that election by less than half of one percent.

[SahaleArm]

119. The same house of reps that passed the civil unions legislation?

Can you quantify that with something tangible?

[dsc]

121. No the Republican one that got voted in

and then voted to repeal it.

http://www.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/11/02/vermontgovernor.ap/

MONTPELIER, Vt. (AP) -- Vermont's race for governor may be decided not by the voters on Tuesday but by the Legislature in January.

Democratic Gov. Howard Dean is locked in a bitter three-way race, facing fierce criticism for signing the state's landmark law allowing gay couples to form marriage-like civil unions.

Under the Vermont Constitution, if no candidate gets at least 50 percent of the vote, the new Legislature selects the governor. And the new Legislature is likely to have a decidedly unfriendly cast because of the backlash against civil unions.

Which means that Dean could win the popular vote and still lose.

"I think the goal is to win, but I think it's really important that I get 50 percent because the Legislature is clearly going to be more conservative," he said. "I don't think the majority of Vermonters want the Legislature to decide this race."

end of quote

and the House was Republican, as predicted, after that race.

[Brian_Expat]

125. Not even that article captures the atmosphere

It was a truly hopeful time to nurture that little spark of potential that was civil unions, but it was also hugely frightening. The backlash in Vermont was immediate and real, and the Christian Coalition and other groups poured millions of dollars and thousands of people into lashing up hate.

Howard Dean was the embodiment of what they were fighting against. He took that role, he didn't shirk what was right, and he risked it all. I have HUGE respect for that. So should everyone else who is serious about gay equality issues.

[Brian_Expat]

122. The House was under the same court order

They passed CUs after a contentious debate. Many did so under protest, claiming it was the "lesser of two evils." Had Dean wanted to overturn the ruling and impeach the justices, he would have had support in the House.

The pooh-poohing of the civil unions thing is a sleazy tactic that makes me very angry -- not as a Dean supporter, but as a gay man who saw hope for equality for the first time in America as a result of it.

Boiling it down into a court ruling implemented under duress is such an unfair tarring of the incredible struggle that lots of very brave people went through in order to safeguard this tiny spark of equality and not let the well-funded legions of hate destroy it. The pain, the hard work, the fear, and the right-wing backlash are burnt into my memory. Sometimes I still have nightmares about it.

I am sure Dean does too, having had to don a bulletproof vest and listen to anonymous callers tell him they "knew where his children went to school."

In that battle over equal partnerships, heterosexual, moderate, brusque Governor Howard Dean was our voice. Did he rush forward and volunteer up-front? No. Did he accept the challenge with grace, dignity, resolve and aplomb? Absolutely. And because of him, GLBT families everywhere moved closer to equality. And we haven't forgotten that -- even if some of us support other candidates in the primary.

[dsc]

124. It should also be noted

that the House was significantly more Conservative and Republican after the 2000 election and that house got to pick not the old one.

[SahaleArm]

126. Source? n/t

[dsc]

128. Post 121

eom

[Brian_Expat]

129. Me :)

The Democrats lost a lot of House seats in the election -- most of the seats lost were pink tutu Democrats who didn't strongly support and argue for the legislation. The returning House had a Republican majority and would have been more than willing to impeach the SC along with a big chunk of remaining Democrats if Dean had permitted it.

Further, Dean was instrumental in vetoing Republican efforts to water down civil unions into "registered partnerships" that anyone could have entered, with fewer rights.

[SahaleArm]

130. Would "registered partnerships" have passed Supreme Court Muster?

I still have a hard time with Dean because of his willingness to bow down to states rights on pretty much every difficult question. He's used it with health care, right-to-work, civil unions, etc. Will he push for federal-level civil-unions to insure nation-wide advantages on income, inheritance, and benefits? Maybe it's just me but the way he answers direct questions comes off a bit dodgy, like he'll push for legislation only if it's forced on him. The states rights thing bugs me a bit as well, Republicans used the argument during the civil rights era.

[dsc]

131. He said on both Larry King LIve

and on MTP that he would press for federal recognition of the rights you mention and make states do something but let them call it what they wish. One site for his position on this is www.hrc.org and you can look at a summary of or the questionaires themselves.

[SahaleArm]

132. Dean falls back on states rights an awful lot.

To me it comes off as someone who doesn't want to take a stand, just sitting on the fence waiting for popular opinion.

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?

How can this happen without federal changes to income tax laws that would add 'civil unions'? Or laws that would equate marriage with civil unions for such a purpose. Most of the other candidates gave equally dodgy answers so Dean isn't alone. Only Kucinich, Sharpton, and Braun would push for outright federal equality of marriage or civil unions.

On Edit

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

[dsc]

134. wrong on several counts

First both Kerry and Dean have said federal rights should acrue to same sex relationships as has Gephardt. Lieberman would do it case by case.

Second there are several ways to get the IRS thing to work without calling it civil unions. The easiest that I could think of would be to have the state issue a certificate or licence to all couples which would entitle them to the federal rights. CA would call it Domestic Partners, MA may call it marriage, VT civil unions and other states other things.

[Brian_Expat]

138. The problem is the federal DOMA

As long as DOMA is in place (and it is unfortunately supported by a lot of powerful Democrats including Hillary Clinton, Al Gore, Joe Lieberman and Bill Clinton), we cannot get equalization of benefits at all on a federal level, period. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise -- you cannot be in favour of the federal DOMA but also in favour of "equalizing rights and responsibility."

DOMA precludes recognition for immigration, tax or other purposes. It would have to be repealed or heavily modified from its present form.

[SahaleArm]

139. How does that work if marriage and civil unions remain seperate...

at the state level and the federal form only says marriage? There is a definite disconnect that hasn't been answered. Right now the answers look ok on paper but the legal questions are just starting to be asked. Is there a legal document or assessment that can can verify your position?

[Brian_Expat]

142. That's the $1 million question

If Massachusetts delivers marriage (as expected), then the question becomes the constitutionality of DOMA and the constitutionality of offering benefits to some people but not others even when they're married under the same system.

If CUs remain "separate but equal," the federal law would need to be modified to equalize benefits and responsibilities and DOMA would have to be modified or repealed.

Either way, DOMA's got to go. If the former happens, it will probably be stricken by the Supreme Court. If the latter happens (i.e. Mass goes for CUs and their Supreme Judicial Court OKs that), then the second point will have to happen.

Either way also, the GOP is planning a huge anti-gay campaign similar to what happened in Vermont, with a constitutional amendment attached. It's scary. :scared:

[Brian_Expat]

136. Marriage is a two-fold thing

On the federal side, you've got immigration, disbursements like Social Security, and federal recognition of spousal relations for court testimony. On the state side, you've got most of the other benefits.

On the federal side, DOMA blocks the feds from providing any benefits to gay couples. Most US states have DOMAs too.

In order for marriage equality to happen on a federal level, two things must happen. DOMA must be repealed, and the federal government must pass, either piecemeal or at once, laws equalizing tax, pension, testimony and immigration rights.

In order for marriage equality to happen nationally, one of two things must happen -- a state must issue marriage licences and have people married there return to their home states and sue for recognition of their licences under the "full faith and credit" clause of the US Constitution; or every state in the union must pass some sort of civil union/marriage law.

The former is more likely to happen on a state level, which is why the GOP passed the federal DOMA (which was signed and advertised by Bill Clinton in a tremendous betrayal, and also supported by Wellstone and other prominent Dems). That law declares that states are exempted from the full faith and credit clause when it comes to gay marriage -- but it's probably unconstitutional.

Because of this, the GOP is pushing for a constitutional amendment to make it so that gay people have no constitutional rights to have their marriages or civil unions recognized. This amendment would also overturn tens of thousands of existing marriages and registered partnerships and would also permanently ban DP benefits, same-sex couple parentage, and a number of other family life issues.

[SahaleArm]

140. As I suspected - Even without DOMA there needs to be explicit...

federal legislation recognizing equal rights for civil unions across federal law; these things are never implicit, especially when dealing with taxes, benefits, surviorship, adoption, etc..

[Brian_Expat]

141. That's right

This is why DOMA opposition is so core to a serious candidate who claims to want to equalize benefits. It also means that a presidential candidate cannot really do anything to "bring marriage equality" through gay marriage or civil unions other than support efforts to overturn the DOMA and pledge to lobby for and sign equalizing benefits either as a single bill or as several bills.

It's tough and the GOP isn't making it any easier. They're also planning a major anti-gay grassroots campaign and the Democrats' grass roots (i.e. the Dean, Clark, Kucinich people) will have to swing into action on this and other issues. This is why constant fighting isn't going to help the candidates -- if we don't get behind a single candidate after the nomination and turn back the GOP, they'll get emboldened.

First down will be gays.

Then come womens' reproductive rights.

Then affirmative action and the Civil Rights Act.

[Brian_Expat]

133. They would have

Even if they wouldn't, a separate case would have had to have been filed and heard in order to get another court order striking them down.

[Brian_Expat]

120. Dean chose to run with the legislation

Once the house passed it, he signed it -- in private, to avoid a complete fracturing of the state, which was split down the middle on this bill.

His decision made him the only presidential candidate who I am aware of who has had to wear a bulletproof vest in public because of his support for gay people. He received death threats against his wife and children over this campaign. This issue made his life a living hell and rather than run away or hedge his bets, he tackled it head on and did the right thing.

Lesser men, including Bill Clinton, let us down over lesser issues, like DOMA and gays in the military.

You can cite a few articles from his critics, but I was one of the gay and lesbian advocates who was THERE.

I tracked the Christian Coalition campaign buses to churches and told those churches they couldn't legally support a political campaign.

I went from door to door and handed out flyers in CUs (and got threatened).

I watched the campaign unfold from Burlington to Brattleboro, and it was Dean who took the issue by the horns, dealt with it fairly, and then helped heal the divisions in the state by not signing the bill with a big to-do.

I admired his honesty -- even when he said he was "uncomfortable" with the situation and the idea of gay people marrying. He made the right decisions, stuck by them, and put his political career and LIFE in danger to do what was right. By doing so, Dean received tremendous support from the GLBT community nationally, and it was our support that helped him get started in his campaign. Gay people, including folks who support other candidates, respect Dean for what he did for us and the important role he played in the history of equality.

[SahaleArm]

123. I am not as familiar with the inside story...

since I wasn't there; from the outside all we get is filtered information. Thanks for the low-down though.

[Brian_Expat]

127. Please let other people know what you've learned

Regardless of where you stand on Dean, it's important that people understand the tactics the right wing used in 2000 in Vermont. They will try it again with this anti-gay Constitutional Amendment and regardless of who the Dem nominee is, our nominee WILL be targeted viciously by them.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

145. Your characterization is just not in line with reality, sorry.

You state that your support and knowledge of Dean came after he signed the civil unions bill. Here are some articles from Vermont's gay press that were published before that.

Supreme Court Says Yes to Equal Rights
Legislature ordered to extend marital rights, benefits, and obligations to same-gender couples.


All of the rights and benefits of marriage must flow to gay and lesbian couples in Vermont. In eloquent and forceful words, the Vermont Supreme Court overturned decades of discrimination on Dec. 20 and ordered the state Legislature to fix state law.

<snip>

Elected leaders are trying to figure out their options and all of them, from the governor down, seem to have latched on to the court’s suggestion that domestic partnership might be legal.

“The Legislature will pass a domestic partnership bill and I’m comfortable with that,” Gov. Howard Dean said.

Now that is a stirring statement of advocacy! :eyes:

What was more interesting was what he was not comfortable with.

“It makes me uncomfortable, the same as anybody else,” Dean said of gay marriage. “The 4,000-year-old tradition of heterosexual marriage being an institution is something I think you have to respect. I think there are a lot of people in this state who are uncomfortable about the concept of gay marriage.”

There are thousands more who are not uncomfortable and at least some legislative leaders said they would be willing to consider enacting a marriage statute.
http://www.mountainpridemedia.org/jan2000/news_scyes.htm

He puts a chummier face on it, but morally, Howard Dean's position (especially to the degree expressed by his Attorney General's brief which could only be described as homophobic) is no different from his opponents'. While their positions might be summed up as, "We're not sure we like you enough to afford you the same rights and responsibilities as everyone else in our civil society," the Governor's position is "I'm not sure you're worth the price to my re-election campaign."

In the interview the Governor stated, "Since nothing is going to happen on this issue in the legislature until the court speaks there's no particular reason for me to take a public position on it." His attempt to link whether he makes his positions public to the actions of other branches of government is illogical and insulting. Failing any sense of responsibility on his part, the insistence of OITM and its readers' voting power should give him the "particular reason" he needs to decide to make his position public. Would environmental groups accept a refusal to take a position on clearcutting, NARAL a demur from supporting or opposing abortion, or even Wall Street a "no opinion yet" on capital gains taxes?
http://www.mountainpridemedia.org/jul98/deanoped.htm

[NewJerseyDem]

66. Braun supports gay marriage

and so does Al Sharpton.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-11-19-braun-usat_x.htm

Candidate says she favors gay marriages
By Andrea Stone, USA TODAY
WASHINGTON — Comparing laws against same-sex marriages to those that once barred blacks from marrying whites, Democratic presidential candidate Carol Moseley Braun said Wednesday that she favors gay marriage. She said it was preferable to civil unions that do not "carry the same prerogatives and legal rights as marriage does."
"People should not be discriminated against in the exercise of their civil rights, and the right to marry who you want to marry is one of those rights," Braun, 56, told USA TODAY's editorial board a day after Massachusetts' highest court recognized a right for gays to marry. The issue has potential to rival abortion as a dividing line in next year's elections.

Telling of an aunt who wed a white man in the 1950s, when many states outlawed such marriages, Braun said, "Interracial marriage was regarded with much the same hysteria years ago as gay marriage is today."

[Brian_Expat]

76. That is actually more correct than my statement.

The only three candidates who support full legal equality for gays and lesbians are CMB, DK and AS.

[bhunt70]

20. please update your post on Clark

since it has been shown many times in this thread that his actual views are not what you posted.

[Brian_Expat]

27. I will update the post. n/t

[Brian_Expat]

23. Something interesting

Gay people are very very VERY wary of candidates who take unclear positions because we are often the first people sacrificed for political convenience by politicians who "softly court" our support. Bill Clinton's support for DOMA and DADT is a great example of this. Even Paul Wellstone supported DOMA -- something I found unforgivable.

People who are attacking me for posting my opinion should understand that I am going on information as I find it. If candidates have changed their position, post the information and I'll incorporate it into the analysis. Personal attacks on me and other gay people, who are wary based on real history, aren't going to help your candidate.

[bhunt70]

26. thats cool but

the information is right there on clarks website and has been for some time.

Here's the info though in case you missed it.

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

[Brian_Expat]

32. I'm telling ya

This stuff is all new to me -- and I've been keenly interested in Clark's stance on these issues. I've edited the post to include this info, but this information is certainly NOT long-term stuff. The only GLBT stuff I was aware of from Clark before was a press release reacting to the Massachusetts court ruling.

Thanks for updating me -- other candidates should point out unique things too. Clark's stance on the CRA is intriguing.

[Tom Rinaldo]

29. I accept your sincerity

And I accept why this is such an important question to you, but also for all of America. However it would be a show of good faith, or better yet, simply accurate reporting, if you incorporated the new infomation people have provided you with regarding Clark's positions on this matter. I'm not asking that you support him over another more favored candidate, it that is indeed the case, just that you attempt to be fair and accurate when you summarize the views of candidates.

[Brian_Expat]

34. I've changed the post. Thanks for the info! n/t

[deminflorida]

30. Note: If you don't support a candidate that can beat Bush....

your going to have to live with a constitutional amendment banning same sex marriages, period.

It's coming buddy, it's at the top of ole Bush boy's list.

Also please note, although I'm not gay, three of my best friends in High School were..one has now passed on due to Aids, he was one of the most intelligent and warmest people I've ever been associated with. So don't think I'm bashing anyone here, the Republicans turned their back on this epedimic years ago, I remember. I grew up during the Reagan and Bush years.

[dsc]

31. Do you have the vaguest idea

just how contemptuous you sound in that post?

[deminflorida]

38. I believe that from a Dean supporter....

anything for a bash.

[Brian_Expat]

48. That's a sad state of affairs, if true

If you truly believe that, without knowing me or other Dean supporters, and assume that I would sell out my community for political gain, then I feel sorry for you.

You DO understand how insulting that is to me personally, don't you?

[dsc]

57. You are contemptuous

and frankly if your candidate gets the mod you and several other clark posters will be why I won't work with any clark supporters. I watched him tonight and liked what I saw but thanks to people like you I almost said forget it why should I watch.

[deminflorida]

92. This makes me think Naval warfare....

i.e. desperate people jumping from a sinking ship.

[Brian_Expat]

94. A shame

I think it's a shame that we cannot have an examination of the issues and learn from each other without the "candidate wars" breaking out. In order for anyone to have his "guy" (or "gal") win, he's going to need the support of all these other people he's attacking.

Look beyond the primaries.

[Brian_Expat]

35. A presidential candidate

Cannot beat an anti-gay amendment, just lobby members of congress and the state legislature against it.

A Bush victory or defeat means little in implementation of the anti-gay amendment, which is supported by Republicans and a number of Democrats alike, and will be attempted to be passed regardless of who is in 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue.

What is Clark's position on the DOMA Amendment? I assume he is opposed to it because of his paper on the Massachusetts Ruling, but I haven't seen official material.

[Clark4Prez]

55. Don't constitutional admendments have to voted by the states?

I believe that 30 states have to ratify any amendment to the constitution. The last time someone even tried it was ERA, and you know how that went, so I am not too concerned about that.

It is one of those "safe" positions, settle only for a constitutional admendment and you know it will never happen, the GOP makes the right wingers happy while not completely alienating the Log Cabin Republicans.

[dsc]

69. It is 38 but not as hard as you might think

due to our party not having power in some states where we normally could count on no ratification this would be a closer call than you might think.

The only states that I am certain wouldn't ratify are the New England states except New Hampshire. (that is 5). HI, IL, CA, and WI. That is 9 and we need 13. There are some possibles out there but I wouldn't count on it.

[Brian_Expat]

85. Keep in mind

Opposition to an anti-gay amendment would also come from the right wing. There are lots of "libertarian republicans" who would view this as an overriding of "state's rights" and oppose the amendment for that reason. One of the most prominent is Bob Barr.

[dsc]

97. Bob Barr opposes this?

I need to see a link.

[Brian_Expat]

102. From The Advocate's interview with Bob

http://www.advocate.com/html/stories/898/898_barr.asp

Pertinent clips:

Why do you oppose the proposed amendment to ban same-sex marriage?

I hold the Constitution in highest regard and I don’t like to see it trifled with. I’m a firm believer in federalism. Even though I’m not an advocate for same-sex marriage, I want the states to decide the issue.

. . .snip. . .

But for a lot of people, it’s not that easy to just get up and move across the country to achieve the same rights as everyone else.

You’re right from a perspective of fairness and everybody being treated the same. But I think the founding fathers really saw the strength in diversity of opinion. That’s why they gave the states so much leeway in making their own decisions. We might end up with a patchwork of laws across the country. Even though I don’t endorse same-sex marriage, I’m willing to live with that.

You don’t seem as angry at the prospect of gay marriage as you once did.

Maybe I’m a mellower guy as I age. You’d have to ask my wife. I’m not a supporter of same-sex marriage, not then and not now. But perhaps being concerned about the erosion of the right of privacy and civil liberties has sensitized me. Since 9/11 the threats have become very real. I have seen very bad things happen to individuals when the government wields too much power over them.

Lots of conservatives are opposed to the federal government getting more power or overriding state jurisdiction, and marriage is very much a state thing in their eyes. The GOP is far from "unified" on this issue, and lots of nervous liberal Republicans like Susan Collins and Lincoln Chaffee are also unlikely to support it.

[dsc]

108. As I live and breathe

I must say I thought pigs would fly out my ass before Barr did this.

[LiberalBushFan]

36. Just for fun

I decided to check if your Lieberman info is an inaccurate as your Clark info (despite not being even close to a Lieberman supporter).
Here we go:
Despite the praise for Kerry and Kucinich for supporting ENDA, you left out the fact the Lieberman is a co-sponsor of ENDA.
http://www.joe2004.com/site/PageServer?pagename=ii_recordgaylesbian
As for "supports DADT":
Lieberman opposed DADT, and he “absolutely” would include gays and lesbians among his nominations. “My administration will reflect the full face of America, the rainbow.”
http://www.wcmediagroup.com/article-34939.html
You might want to double-check your whole list.

[Brian_Expat]

67. I have updated the record accordingly

Lieberman indeed voted against DADT in 1993, but has given inconsistent responses to his POV on it since. He is also a co-sponsor of ENDA, I will add that information as well.

[Name removed]

62. Deleted message

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

[Brian_Expat]

70. OMG

So now I cannot be gay, because I am not familiar with every aspect of Wesley Clark's constantly changing campaign platform. I've edited the posts whenever I get new information, but I am "filthy."

Well, all I can say to that is :wtf:

[Democrats unite]

71. Gay people don't bash and tell untruths to gay friendly people

NUFF SAID.

[Brian_Expat]

75. Outrageous!

I am embarrassed for you, stooping so low. You should be ashamed of yourself and I suspect that Wesley Clark would be ashamed of you too.

You can learn more about me here, if you're inclined to:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=105&topic_id=581427

[Dookus]

74. that's not fair, either...

I give him the benefit of the doubt.

But the simple truth is, there will not be ANY difference between Clark, Dean, Kerry, Gephardt or Edwards in what they actually accomplish.

In fact, you still have Clark on the second tier - but what specific GLBT issue does he disagree with Dean on? Or Kerry?

Any dem President will oppose a defense of marriage amendment, they will all support ENDA, they will all support some form of Civil Unions, they will all support hate-crimes legislation.

Now... what they support and what they actually do differs. Presidents have nothing to do with constitutional amendments. If the Dems take the house, they'll probably pass ENDA and hate crimes. If the Repubs stay in charge, they won't pass.

Only Lieberman may differ from the pack - in a negative way.

[dsc]

79. wrong on two counts

Edwards has not said he would do anything for civil unions and Lieberman has.

[Brian_Expat]

86. True

But. . . Lieberman's position has morphed quite a bit around these issues. He seems to be in severe conflict between his religious beliefs and political beliefs on gay equality.

[Dookus]

87. I said there'd be no difference

in what they accomplish. I believe that's true.

Civil Unions WILL be decided by states and eventually the courts. ENDA and Hate-Crimes legislation will happen or not depending on the makeup of congress.

Any Dem president will sign ENDA or Hate-Crimes.

You may be correct about Lieberman - he may well have the same exact effect. I was thinking more of his support of DOMA, but it may not matter if he were president.

[Brian_Expat]

81. I think this is more or less true. . .

The thing that is important for me as a gay man is whether the candidate will be a "strong supporter" or "weak supporter" when in office. Clinton/Gore were the latter in my opinion. The thing I use to evaluate a candidate is whether (s)he's got a record of standing up against the GOP as well as how progressive (s)he is on the issues.

From that viewpoint, I'd say Dean, Kerry, Kucinich qualify as "strong" (i.e. they will stand firm on their declared platforms based on their prior actions).

[askew]

93. Thank you.

Thanks for the quick summary of each candidate's positions on G&L issues. I wish someone would do this for other issues also.

[Jerseycoa]

100. Please edit

>Recently came out in support of hate crimes legislation including GLBT people.

He declared on September 17, put a staff together, and responded to the HRC before October 13. His GLBT policy was posted to his site within weeks of his announcement. "Recent" -- misleading.

>Has not publicly stated support for ENDA, though has taken stance supporting including gays in CRA (which would accomplish same end).

"As President, I will support the enactment of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act to remedy the gap in federal law to bar employment discrimination based on sexual orientation." - HRC Questionnaire

>Has not publicly stated support for the Permanent Partners Immigration Act.

Yes, he has. See HRC Questionnaire.

[Brian_Expat]

103. Cannot edit, it's past the "time window." Readers, please see prior msg!

More detail about Clark's stance on GLBT issues in the above post.

[IndianaGreen]

105. Excellent summary on the issues, Brian_Expat

Dennis Kucinich is far in front all the other candidates on giving full equal rights to GLBT Americans.

I will point out that all of the Democratic candidates are parsecs ahead of Bush when it comes to gay rights and women rights.

[WiseMen]

110. Dean In Middle Tier. Signed Civil Unions under pressure, and barred camera

[dsc]

111. of course your computer editted this

that he signed a gay rights bill, an anti hate crimes bill, permitted joint adoption, gave benefits to domestic partners all without pressure. Damn those editting computers.

[Brian_Expat]

113. It's hard to address gay issues "without pressure"

Anyone who is evolved on gay issues (virtually every Dem except perhaps Lieberman) gets a LOT of pressure from anti-gay groups and also advocates for equality.

[dsc]

118. But for DOMA

Lieberman has a terrific gay record. He is better than Gephardt over time though even currently.

[Brian_Expat]

112. See my post #109 for the story on the "forced to sign" thing

It's a completely untrue characterization of the situation. I was there. I know.

[WiseMen]

114. Will Take Your Word For It. Was most Interesting story I heard. . .

[knight_of_the_star]

135. My personal opinion on this issue in THIS ELECTION

If this were any other year, I would be rooting for the guy (or girl) who comes out the biggest in favor of equal rights, but knowing Rove and Co. this could be spun into an issue more divisive than anything else that they have in their little bag. Sadly, this one will have to wait another two years, as much as I hate to say that, because in my view pagan rights get setback when gay rights do, but this just isn't the year for it.

[Brian_Expat]

137. We're not being given a choice

The Republicans and Bush in particular are declaring war on gay people as their campaign strategy in 2004, and if the Democratic party abandons us, I for one will abandon the Democratic party. Once they're through with us, they're going after women and minorities.

[diamondsoul]

144. Then you should be backing

Kucinich NOW. He wants DOMA gone and federally recognized same-sex marriage, period. This is a guy who has already been through the fires for the people he's pledged to serve, and he's fully prepared to do it again and again and again.