Human Rights Campaign Forum

[Teacher4dean04]

If you missed it, it's worth the watch!

http://www.hrc.org/speakingofequality/index.asp

If you don't have time, this sums up the candidates' views on gay rights nicely:

http://www.hrc.org/congress/votrecrd.asp

[Teacher4dean04]

1. Opps second link was wrong

This is the one I meant :crazy:

http://www.hrc.org/campaigns/2004/candidates/quest_summary.pdf

[JI7]

2. i thought all did pretty good

i thought it was good. it gave them a chance to lay out their own positions, then be challenged on it by sam donaldson who did a very good job. sam donaldson asked them good questions based on their positions . it wasn't just an issue of whether you are for it or against it, but also , why, and how do you plan to do it. it also allowed us to focus on the candidates and their own positions independently of the other candidates.

[gottaB]

3. thanks for linking to that

How I percieved the candidates' postitions:

Kerry talked about the American view of marriage and how he would work to see that change--eventually. Basically he supported equal rights and privileges but wouldn't push states to legitimize gay "marriage." Overall he seemed polished, not afraid of his record and confident that he could lead.

Kucinich supported gay marriage on moral and patriotic grounds. He wasn't shy, and he was unequivocal.

Braun made the point, somewhat tortuously, that gay marriage was already the law of the land as she interpreted it. However she was unclear about how she would get the courts to adopt her interpretation. Her own story of having been married to a WASP raised questions from Donaldson about what she would actually do to guarantee equality in all 50 states, which she didn't directly answer, because she had to go back and clarify a distinction between the clerical mechanics of handing out marriage licences, which is a matter for state governments, and the constitional provision for equality under the law. Her concreteness on the issue was personal and legal rather than political, which gave an impression of where she was coming from and how she would make decisions, but not how she would lead.

Dean took a forceful stand on the issue without coming off as hostile, which is exactly what he wants to be doing. He drew a sharp distinction between marriage and civil unions. Donaldson pressed him on the notion that marriage is solely a matter of religious institutions and not secular authorities. Dean stumbled over the inconsintency in the distinction he was making, but then went on to make the strong argument that he was for equal protection under the law, and whatever the states want to do, whatever they want to call it, it doesn't matter so long as they find a way not to discriminate against gay couples. Dean also had an answer on the position of Canadian gay marriages: they should be recognized. Finally, Dean made a point of calling for a repeal of Doma (the Defense of Marriage Act). (Kerry and Moseley Braun had voted against it, Lieberman and Gephardt and Graham had voted for it.)

Lieberman bluntly said he opposed gay marriage, but then he talked about civil rights and principles of equality. He seemed to be supportive of civil unions, but heck, I don't know quite where he stands. Was that the point? I don't think I heard him explain how a person who holds the prinicples he espouses could have voted for DOMA.

Gephardt didn't exactly oppose gay marriage. Rather he argued that it was not something he would force on the American people. "Civil unions are the way to go" he said. I got the impression he would show leadership on narrowly defined issues of equal rights and benefits, but would shy away from direct confrontation with religious conservatives. At least on a symbolic level. Gephardt stressed making real, if slow, progress on human rights. He didn't mention DOMA.

Sharpton, wow. Al Sharpton was clearest and most impassioned in his support for gay marriage. He's the clarion voice for social justice, but he just doesn't come across as presidential. He talked about the vital role of activism in the achievement of human rights, and, partly in repsonse to what he'd do in the White House, said like "I'll be leading the march on myself." :) He presented a good case for casting a protest vote, reminding us that eight out of the nine were not going to win. The implication being that you should vote for the one who best represents your views, and make the Democrats the party that represents all the American people, the real people, he said.

Sorry to be redundant. I'm sort of writing to clarify things in my own head. Anybody still reading? This was a decent platform for comparing the candidates, but the underlying issues are still somewhat fuzzy to me. I'd like to know how others viewed it.

[LWolf]

4. I just got done viewing it.

You summed it up pretty well.

A chance to see and hear 7 of the 9 state their positions and respond to questions. Watch it!