Which Democratic candidate will be best choice for LGBT community?

[IndianaGreen]

Interesting how this political season is beginning to turn out as we approach the holidays. John Edwards is still personally conflicted over LGBTs, unable to support marriage rights for gays. Obama is supporting "ex-gay" homophobes that believe that sexual orientation is a choice like choosing what clothes to wear in the morning.

Then there is Bill Richardson who at least was honest enough to reveal the depths of his ignorance when he said being gay was a choice.

Dennis Kucinich is great in his positions on LGBT rights, but they are fairly recent positions, like his support of abortion rights.

Mike Gravel takes a libertarian position on LGBT rights, pretty much like Ron Paul, but neither him nor Paul are going anywhere but home after the primaries are over.

Biden and Dodd, I don't know much about their positions on LGBT rights. I do know where they stand on the war and on the Constitution, and that's good enough for me to support either one for President, but LGBT rights...

Hillary Clinton. I know many LGBTs that are head over heels about Hillary. Perhaps they see something in her that I don't.

Since this is my poll, and I am asking the simple question as to which Democratic candidate will be best choice for LGBT community, I will have to vote taking a lot of factors under consideration. This is not a question of who will end the war the fastest, or who would make the best President (any Democrat would be an improvement over Bush or the rest of the GOP field), but which candidate will be best for the LGBT community.

I cast my vote for Hillary Clinton. If she puts her mind to it, she can bring about equality under the law to LGBTs. I don't know if she will, but she is the one candidate that has the wherewithal to bring about the sort of changes that will make our society an inclusive and caring society.

Who is your choice and why?

[Colobo]

1. Why Clinton and not Obama?

Let's talk about their records as public servants and not about gospel singers.

[Colobo]

2. Here's Obama actual record on Civil Rights

http://ontheissues.org/2008/Barack_Obama_Civil_Rights.htm

[IndianaGreen]

7. I know a lot about those Black churches

When our legislature was debating passing an amendment to the state constitution declaring marriage being between "a man and a woman," several Black pastors (some of which were Democrats) came out and spoke out publicly against LGBTs. Their speeches were full of ignorance and intolerance, but they all agreed that homosexuality was a personal choice, and a sinful choice at that.

Obama's denomination supports marriage rights for LGBTs, as does my rabbi and his branch of Judaism. Yet Obama does not even support his own church on full equality for LGBTs.

Obama's latest support of a man that publicly advocates "changing" gays leads me to belief that deep inside Obama thinks that being gay is a choice of man, not nature.

Hillary has a lot of baggage, but she also brings a lot of strength to the table. I think that Hillary will repeal the horrendous "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" and that she will do considerable damage to the GOP. Anything that damages the GOP is good for the LGBT community.

I don't think Hillary has any baggage when it comes to accepting LGBTs. The only question is how far she will go in advancing an agenda of tolerance and inclusiveness.

[emilyg]

9. Good post.

[Adelante]

3. I just don't think there's significant difference on the matter nt

[NMMNG]

4. Kucinich

Hands Down

[terrya]

5. On the face of it, Kucinich.

He is in favor of same-sex marriage. The three top candidates aren't. And that's something to seriously remember. And I like Hillary Clinton, but she has been very reluctant to oppose the "Defense of Marriage Act)", which is a BIG problem with me. I was burned by one of the Clintons as President...let's just say I don't entirely trust her about certain issues relating to the GLBT community and our concerns. I hope I'm mistaken in that mistrust.

I hope Elizabeth Edwards works harder on her husband on same-sex marriage. Time will tell.

Obama...well, recent events are a problem. He knew the reaction of this community and...well, we've seen the results, haven't we?

As far as issues relating to the GLBT community and which candidate would be the best choice, based on his views, it has to be Dennis Kucinich.

[calteacherguy]

6. Obama. He's reaching out to change hearts and minds. nt

[dsc]

8. I don't have one

for many of the same reasons as you enunciated. I had high hopes for Obama but those are pretty well gone. I was high on Richardson but he is terrible on the trail. Kucinich made a very opportunitistic switch which I have no idea the sincerity of. Gravel is a non option. I probably will end up with Edwards in hopes that his outspoken wife will be his version of Elenor Roosevelt.

[IndianaGreen]

10. At least Edwards doesn't ignore Elizabeth like FDR did Eleanor

Eleanor Roosevelt fought very hard to get her husband to bring about an end to segregation. FDR was afraid of breaking up the Democratic Party.

I concur with what you say and I share the hope that we are not thrown under the bus again by a Democrat.

[dsc]

12. The sad fact is that Richardson has a really good record on gay rights

but he is just terrible on the stump, in debates, and in interviews. He was my first choice but I fear he would lose due to his inability to articulate his vision.

[CTyankee]

26. The 2 biggest things I didn't like about Bill Clinton was his support

for the death penalty and the Don't Ask don't tell policy, altho in the latter he seems to have been boxed in by the Republicans early on. He was set up and at the time didn't have the expertise to deal with those scumbag Repukes. They knew they were framing him and he panicked and went to that disastrous policy. I still blame him, tho; he should have figured they'd do it to him!

I cannot see John Edwards leading (or following) any anti-LGBT campaigns. For one thing, the political landscape has changed since 1993. The religious right is tired of the political wars. Their movement has burned out the witch hunters. They are spiritually empty from the experience and they know it. I'm not saying there still isn't prejudice against gays, just that the movement has a new breed of leaders who haven't experienced what they thought they would in their persecutions.

Maybe I hope too much for John Edwards. I think he is a decent guy and his wife is absolutely fabulous. But if he fails, I will support HRC and watch her very closely...

[daninthemoon]

11. This is another of many issues that Kucinich is way out in front on.

He is the best on any issue you can name.

[sandnsea]

13. Which one is confronting ignorance

and which one gives lip service to progressive issues.

Hillary could make a difference, if she chose to, you're right. But she won't, and in your heart you know that.

Obama will make a difference because he won't run from any controversy. The change will come from talking about the things that the DLC leadership has preferred to sweep under the rug. I don't understand why liberals don't get that.

[ruggerson]

15. Easy for you to trust Obama on this

you're straight. You have nothing to lose.

[cuke]

21. As a somewhat straight man, I thnk you're being unfair

Many hets have family members, friends, and other loved ones who are gay. We do so have something to lose. Something very important to us.

PS - I know you didn't mean it that way and I do get your point. I just wanted to point this out

[ruggerson]

22. Well it was meant specifically for her

she has, um, issues about this whole subject.

[Cameron27]

14. I think this is a question for the LGBT community

so I'll hold my vote.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

17. No, vote away. (There is a gay-only poll in the LGBT forum, though)

[MethuenProgressive]

16. k&r

:kick:

[flpoljunkie]

18. TPMCafe gay poster said it best about his continued support for Barack Obama...

http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/cscs/2007/oct/26/how_obama_lost_me_and_the_presidency#comment-309617

Terje wrote on October 24, 2007 8:39 PM:

As a proud out gay man and a long time Democratic and queer activist, I find myself unable to become as worked up around the issue of gospel singer Donnie McClurkin’s inclusion in an Obama concert as many of my colleagues have.

McClurkin’s bizarre views on the subject are anathema to anyone who cares about equality. Clearly he is a troubled man whose personal struggles with sexuality have caused him to adopt a hateful message. How sad for him, and how unfortunate for all of us that he chooses to spout his hateful speech in public. If McClurkin were running for President (or any other office), I would be working hard to defeat him.

If the Obama campaign had invited him to speak about human sexuality, or appointed him to an advisory committee on human rights, or otherwise given him a platform for his views, I would be as angry as so many others seem to be.

But McClurkin isn’t supporting the campaign as a spokesperson on these issues – he’s singing gospel songs. As it happens, Donnie McClurkin is a talented gospel singer with a huge following, especially among a subset of religious African-Americans. His participation will attract a large number of Democratic voters who are attracted to his voice, not necessarily his viewpoints (which presumably he won’t be given the opportunity to voice at the concert). I’m pleased that those attending the concert will also hear an openly gay minister speak – not something that usually happens at a gospel concert. Talk about a teachable moment.

Like it or not, any candidate for President needs the support of millions of people who have dramatically different viewpoints on a large number of issues. Rejecting support from all who disagree (even on a fundamental issue) makes it impossible for any candidate to effectively reach the broad spectrum of the American voting public.

Is every candidate for President suddenly going to be held accountable for the views of all their supporters? Will entertainers, politicians, community leaders, bloggers, activists and others who are asked to lend support to a campaign be excluded for holding viewpoints that will be offensive to some voters?

If that is the test, I’m sure we can find plenty of other outrageous examples of homophobic, racist, sexist, anti-Semitic, classist, ageist, xenophobic or similarly offensive statements by supporters of other candidates as well. Do we really think Hillary Clinton has never invited an outspokenly homophobic minister to share the stage, or that they weren’t invited to the Clinton White House? Are we sure that none of John Edwards southern supporters haven’t uttered homophobic statements before (or voted for hate inspired legislation)? For that matter, what are we too make of the fact that Hillary’s number one supporter gave us DOMA, DADT, and cost lives by refusing to lift the ban on needle exchange? Should I refuse to vote for her because of the hateful things Bill did for political expediency?

For me, the issue isn’t the viewpoints of those who sing at candidate events, it is the positions and record of the candidate themselves.

Barack Obama’s record on gay and lesbian issues is clear and consistent. He speaks out loudly and unequivocably on these issues, and his legislative record is clear and without flaws. (And for those white liberals who are somehow convinced that all religious African-Americans are fundamentalist bible-thumpers, it is worth pointing out that Obama belongs to the United Church of Christ, an emphatically progressive church that fully supports gay rights - including marriage.)

With the sad exception of the marriage issue, we are fortunate that all of the candidates for the Democratic nomination are taking clear positions in support of lgbt Americans. Barack Obama’s policy positions and record in this regard are second to none of the major candidates.

I continue to support Barack Obama because I believe that he is the best candidate for the office. He is uniquely suited to restore America’s place in the world, and to change the political dialogue at home. In the end, I believe Barack Obama will be the best President not just for glbt equality, but for all Americans, and the world.

I realize that this may put me in a distinct minority among many who are blogging on this subject. I respect the viewpoints of those who have a different opinion than I do, but I wanted to share my perspectives on the topic.

Terje Anderson
Montgomery, Vermont

(Terje Anderson is the former Executive Director of the National Association of People with AIDS, and a long time activist on queer and HIV/AIDS issues at the local, state, national, and international level).

[AtomicKitten]

19. thanks for posting this

My community of LGBT friends here in SF agree with this piece, and I am beginning to wonder if the sustained outrage here at DU has more of a partisan political bent to it.

[JackBeck]

20. I wonder if this poster is aware that McClurkin isn't the only bigot performing.

And how Obama's response to Imus was world's different.

[IndianaGreen]

28. Or that McClurkin campaigned for Bush in 2004 on an anti-gay message

Still, I found Terje Anderson's views interesting and I respect him for the way he expressed them. But he is WRONG!

[seasat]

23. Richardson has a great record on LGBT issues

He voted against don't ask don't tell while in the house. He pushed through a hate crimes bill in NM that includes GLBT. He issued an executive order giving partnership rights to LGBT state employees. He came one vote shy of getting a domestic partnership law passed in NM. He defeated a DOMA type act in NM by refusing to sign it unless it also provided domestic partnership rights. He is now calling for the repeal of the DOMA. He has also stated that he would not assume the honorary chair of the Boy Scouts due to their anti-gay stance if elected. His misstatement at the LOGO event was defended by Barney Frank:
[br />

"Governor Bill Richardson's apology for the mistake he made in saying that
sexual orientation is a choice did not surprise me, because he has been a
strong supporter of our right to be treated fairly throughout his public career.
It is especially relevant that he voted consistently on our side from the
start of his Congressional career in the 1980s, when the issue of LGBT rights
had far less support even from Democrats that it has today.

I regret Gov. Richardson's misstatement - as I sometimes regret one or two
of my own - but his error in the pressure of a debate should not detract from
his very strong record in defense of equality for all Americans, including
those of us who are gay, lesbian, bisexual or trans gender."

[IndianaGreen]

27. Thank you for posting Barney Frank's statement on Richardson's LOGO faux pas

I'll admit I wasn't aware of Richardson's support of LGBT issues, particularly in the middle of the misnamed "Reagan Revolution."

[bigwillq]

24. DK!

:bounce:

[IndianaGreen]

30. Without question! But Dennis, Gravel, and Ron Paul won't be there at the end of the race.

Soooooo, that means we have to pick a candidate that has a reasonable chance to be competitive.

[goodgd_yall]

25. If the question were which candidate is best on LGBT issues

I'd say Kucinich, but "best choice for the LGBT community," to me, means more issues than LGBT issues. I'm affected by health care, social security, the Iraq occupation, potential war with Iran, just like anybody else.

I support Edwards at this point because he is the best compromise when I consider all these issues.

[IndianaGreen]

29. Edwards brings a lot to the table, and he best understands labour issues

I think he still has issues on a personal level with LGBTs. If one really thinks that LGBTs are entitled to full equality under the law, why deny the right to get a marriage license? It is a contradictory position, one which I think may have more to do with Edwards' religious views than anything else.

As to the war, I truly think Edwards fumbled the question about still having troops in Iraq by the end of his first term. Edwards should have broken cleanly from the "occupation forever" position taken by Hillary and Obama.

On the whole, I wouldn't have to watch Edwards like hawk were he elected President of the United States, that's how much confidence he inspires on this Bidenite. Hillary I would watch like hawk!

[goodgd_yall]

31. "Occupation Forever"?

I thought Edwards did break cleanly from HRC and Obama. I believe he said that he would leave only troops to protect the embassy. I believe he also said he would leave some combat forces in nearby countries, like Kuwait. Hillary and Obama want to leave a smaller number of combat troops in to fight "Al Qaeda" (which I think isn't much different from what we're doing now---just fewer troops) and with HRC's signing on to Lieberman/Kyl, I also think she could use the threat of Iranian activity in Iraq (whether true or bogus) to continue to leave troops in Iraq.

Clarify?