LGBT presidential forum is on now

( - promoted by David)

Interesting format — it’s one candidate at a time having a sit-down chat.  No time limits on questions, apparently, though presumably each candidate’s overall time on stage is limited.  It’s a refreshing change from 60-second answers.

Watch it here.

UPDATE: it’s done.  See Laurel’s excellent live-blog in the comments.  My take: no clear winner, except in the sense that Kucinich and Gravel obviously had a much easier row to hoe since they were virtually in full agreement with the panel and the audience.  Richardson did not do well — again, he seemed unnecessarily unpolished, and he badly booted the “is it a choice” question — despite his apparent change of position for the better on DOMA.  Of the top three, it seemed to me that all did well on everything but marriage, and all were weak in their inability to articulate why they don’t support it.

FURTHER UPDATE: I’m watching the post-debate coverage on Logo (kudos to Logo, by the way, for its flawless video stream).  I was particularly struck by one of the audience members who said that, of the top three, Clinton was the one who really seemed at home and comfortable, despite her disagreement on marriage, and the one who seemed like a leader; the other two, he thought, seemed out of place.  Ryan apparently didn’t see it that way.  Other views?

This post was originally published with Soapblox and contains additional formatting and metadata.
View archived version of this post
.



Discuss

52 Comments . Leave a comment below.
  1. Obama

    did well

    still can;t explain why the "m" word should be the sole reserve of heteros.

    • In fact,

      he can't even bring himself to admit that he's opposed to marriage.  At least Edwards was honest about it -- though for a second I thought Edwards might actually announce a change of position.

      • credible though

        i thought he was credible though in his presenting his reason d'etre as civil rights.  even if he isn;t for complete civil right s for all people.  odd.

    • bloggin Obama

      I actually wasn't plannig bloggin this thing, so my appologies for not covering Obama.  Not till he got going did I realize that the format would make this easy to blog. 

      I beleive that a video of the forum will be available at the logo website.  Catch up there on Obama and everything from the otehrs I missed.

  2. Edwards

    Obama got the race question.  Edwards got the Trans question.  Calls for ENDA.

    Seems to advocate for non-LGBTs standing up for equality/against bigotry.

    "I will not impose my faith on the American people".

    Joe Solmonese is doing an excellent job of holding candidates feet to the fire with follow-ups.

    Firmly against SSM, firmly committed to ending DADT.

    Addressing the audience - a sort of call to action.  Real change doesn';t start in the oval office.  you will make change along with the next prez.

  3. Kucinich

    "I represent mainstream america" :D

    Q: is there anything the LGBT community wants that you're against?  A: "no."

    Q:  why are you 1 of only 2 candidates who support SSM.  why do you think that is? A:  K is equating equality with love in a very touching way.  standing for SSM is standing for real equality.  quoting the declaration of independence.  the principle is very easy to follow.  ...the power of human love... 

    Q:  did you feel this was as mayor of cleveland.  A:  was attacked for being for gay rights, but it didn't matter to him.  take a stand to help each other evolve. 

    Q:  HIV/AIDS & cancer victims have benefited from medicinal marijuana.  should be available across country?  A: a matter between doctors and patients.  compassion requires that we support that.  we need to look at drug problems more as a medical and health issue rather than criminal justice issue.  i'm only person in race standing for universal health care - AIDS person or someone needing longterm care for whatever are covered.  advocates not-for-profit health care system.

    Q:  you're out of dem mainstream . how will you get elected?  A:  gave his anti-iraq pedigree, country moving towards him.  prez = you have to do the right thing from the first.  my candidacy transforming race.  i can't be bought.  "my heart is clean".  act from understanding and awareness of human unity.

    Q: how can you bring congress along on HIV ed funding?  A:  promoting sex ed., prez needs to embrace people with AIDS = nonprofit health care system.  prez needs to take this on without fear.

    Q:  ENDA  - what is hurdle to its passage?  A:  acknowledges barney frank, who has reintroduced ENDA.  kucinish lobbies other legislators to sign on.  help them understand that is one person can be descriminated against, anyone else can.  DPs: 1+1=0.  equal protection before the law.  equality of opportunity.  this is what it means to be an american.

    wrap-up:  i send you great love.  we need a prez ready to testify to that and lead by example.

    cheering applause, standing ovation

  4. I love the format

    I'm live-blogging it, too.

    Obama did well, but never really faced the challenging questions on marriage that Edwards did. Like David, I was hoping Edwards would shift when he was talking about how faith isn't a valid reason to be against same-sex marriage, but for whatever other reason he's still against it.

    Gravel, Richardson and Hill coming up.

    • me too!

      great format!

      i'm sorry only obama got the race question.  credit to edwards for bringing it up.  btw, when will anyone ever recognize out loud that there are other races besides b & w?  drives me crazy!

      • Are there

        Honest question here.  I asked a PhD candidate studying race relations in American history, and she told me that Hispanic, Asian, and Native American are all seen as "ethnicities", not races.  Which, to paraphrase Obama, doesn't make much difference when you're trying to hail a cab in New York City.

        sabutai   @   Tue 4 Dec 7:00 PM
        • i have a phd in being an american

          and i can say that anthropological hair splitting ("is it race or ethnicity?") is functionally meaningless in this country.  obama is right.  it makes little to no difference in the real world.

          notice how not only obama got a race question, but the camers only lingered on black people while he was on?  /eyes rolling/

  5. Gravel

    Q:  you are unusual for your generation of straight white men in supporting SSM. how do you speak to your geneeration to convince people?  A:  thanks harvey milk club and others for pressuring HRC to let him appear.  my generation - most of them are wrong.  reacalled as kid lots of homophobia around.  percentages improving.  5 years from now marriage will be non-issue in prez campaign.

    Q:  from AK, many gay people there? A: yes.

    Q:  put SSM up for popular vote it would win?  A: i think so.  some demagaguing the issue, but core of decency in americans.  me & dennis moving the ball down the court.  so ironic that gay community supporting people like hillary and obama.  marriage is about 2 humans in love.  if there's anything we need in this world is more love.  love or fear in human psyche.  we've been under fear for 50 yrs to support the military complex.

    Q:  why do you thinkg obama, edwards and clinton agead of you with gays?  A:  they're playing it safe.  i don't want the votes those 3 will lose for playing it safe.  a good poilitcian can tell you to go to hell and make you enjoy the trip. 

    Q: gay community debating did we go for SSM too soon?  A:  barney frank thought so, but i don't.  "m" has been misappropriated by religion.  when people telling you you can't be married, they're telling you you're 2nd class citizens, something is wrong with you.  no true.  leadership bring us forward to civil maturity.  havn't had much in last 50 years.

    Q:  look back, what have you dont to asvance LGBT rights that you're most proud of  A:  my 1st legislation as freshman in AK was for human rights commission in AK.  45 yrs ago!  if you sue your political capitol, you win, more comes your way.  loves bringing forth LGBT issues because shows how others are not leading.

    Q:  CDC almost 50% black & gay inner city people maybe HIV+.  what do we do?  A: we have to address the whole drug issue.  no diff betn booze and mj.  hard drugs - decriminalize, distribute by subscription and work on helping.  users should not be in prison.  prohibition was a disaster - we're doing it again.  war on drugs a failure.  drug was, not drugs ravaging cities.

    in closing:  i've worked on this and justice all my adult life.  you've got to assert your rights.  no one will give you anything otherwise.  i'll step forward with you.  "i need your support, and want it and beg it"

    • Gravel

      rocks.  I think he is a living legend (having experienced some of his leadership in Alaska).  He's more real than anyone who is out there on LGBT issues.  He stood up for LGBT rights before anyone even knew what LGBT rights even meant.  PS - I worked on an offshoot of the Human Rights Commission in Alaska with people who were heavily involved in those issues in the 70's!

  6. Richardson says repeal DOMA,

    and says he regrets his vote for it in Congress.  Had he said that before?

    • No, when interviewed by the Advocate

      He said he stood by his DOMA vote.

    • Richardson is totally whiffing again

      I can hardly bear to listen to guy.  It's like watching kids fall off the balance beam at the Olympics.  I'm just sitting here wincing waiting for more mangled syntax and incoherent responses.  I can't believe he's just said that homosexuality is a choice.

      • that clearly shocked Ethridge!

        However, in a way i don't care that that is what he thinks, since he believes in universal equality.  personally, it aint a choice for me.  but what if it were?  should it matter?  i dont think it should.

  7. Richardson

    Q:  SSM youtube debat - you said you'd focus more on "achieveable" tahn SSM.  when will it be achievable?  what will you do to make it achievable?  A:  we're on the path.  CU achievable w/full rights.  we need to redress gross imbalances of past.  I'd get rid of DADT, which didnt vote for.  repeal something i regret i voted for: DOMA.  no child left behind had initiatives that hurt diversity ed.  hate crimes laws achievale.  have to bring country to palce of public support.  i'm known for getting things done.

    Q:  what was it about 1996 that made it possible for you to vote for doma?  A: was chief deputy whip.  the objective them was to fight decimate constitutional amendment.  it was a cheap political trick.  prez must lead, but also must build public support.  recognizes that country is moving forward.  both guide and lead.

    Q:  Imus debacle.  should you be held accountable for using "maricon"?  A: sure.  i appologize.  i meant no harm.  look at my actions as governo.  passed hate crimes acts.  1st gove to include transgender.  passed DP, expansion did not get sdone int last session, will in next; appointed gay people to posts.  i've made mistakes, but look at what we've done.  human rights around the world.  HIV-AIDS.  fully funded in NM.  action speaks louder than words.  i've kept doma out of NM.  shouldn't that count for something? :)

    Q:  re: states moving in right direction.  if NM handed you marriage bill, would you sign it? A:  i'm pushing NM legislature to expand DP.  it's the same thing: what is achievable.  i'm in this business to get things done.  bring coalitions together.

    Q:  re-ask of last Q.  A: i'm not there yet.  NM isn't there yet.  country isn't there yet.

    Q:  current immigration laws separate s-s couples.  A: supports UAFA.  civil unions would take away this problem.  personal anecdote.

    Q:  is homosexuality a choice?  A:  a choice.  i'm not a scientist.  not an issue of science or definition.  i see people as human.

    Q:  when yo're bron that way, it's hard when your country says you're choosing.  A:  as hispanic i grew up people thinking i wa not equal.  i understand inequality.  every human being deserves same rights.

    Q:  people opposing equality say its a lifestyle choice so therefore you dont' get rights.  what do you say to thos epeople?  A:  it's not a matter of preferences, it;s a matter of equality.  strive to move country in direction of full equality for everybody.

    Melissa, I admire your cancer fight.

    look at my record, i've delivered.  id; do same as president.  how can we bring country toegher.  your accomplishments, not speeches will do that.  asks for support.

  8. Clinton

    Q:  you've said you'd like to repeal DADT.  since 2003 youve been on committee.  why haven't you done it?  A: we didnt have chance w/repub congress and bush.  with dem congress & prez we can move on that.  i came out against dadt in 1999.  transitional action.  at time was witch hunt going on.  recognizing eric alva.  15 yrs ago he could have been refused to serve, court marshled, accused of criminal action , etc.  at time, dadt was advance.  but not implemented appropriately.  used to discharge valuable members.  use code of military justice, judge people on conduce even handedly, not on status.  we'll lay gound work now, then when she's prez get it done.

    Q; what isa t heart of your opposition to SSM? A: think of it as very  positive about civil unions.  how we get to full equality is the debate we're having.  let states maintain their jurisdiction over marriage.  remember referenda 2.5 yrs ago. [but hill, they can't be passed twice! -LR].  stopping fed marriage amendment gave states room to make other arrangements.  repeal 3rd part of doma.

    Q:  sympathize w/ frustration w/states rights talk?  red herring. A:  absolutely.  respect advocacy you're waging.  impressed.  you should do it.  but...this has not yet been a long term struggle.  people in states moving much more rapidly than feds. fed amendment almost passed.  couldn't have defeeated w/out doma.  doma=protection.

    Q:  SSM repub wedge this time again?  A:  no.  i don't hear it.  don't see it.  because amendment was cynical ploy.

    Q:  we've been disappointed by bill.  broken promises.  what will you do different?  A:  don't see it that way, but respect that take on it.  was honest effort going on.  gingrich.

    Q:  why not be leader now. A:  i think i am the leader now.  not just laws, but persuasion, attitudes.  if i were in your shoes, i'd prob feel the same way.  but as prez i have opportunity to reverse concerted assault on people.  was demeaning, degrading, mean spirited.  that is over.

    Q:  frm joint chiefs said homosexuality immoral.  you didn't refute until criticize.  A:  mistake.  criticizing pace. 

    Q: put someone on bench known anti-gay? A: no!  against southwick.

    Q: told AFLCIO "im your girl"  same here?  A: i am your girl!

    country with it's flaws, but demonstrated resiliance and forward mvt.  want to be part of that. i come to these issues a friend of lot of members LGBT community.  american: these are our friends, childrens,etc.  it's very personal for me.  we wont agree on everything.  partners to make country little bit better, more progressive.

  9. My Grades:

    In terms of performance, having good positions and explaining the ones that don't jive well in the community...

    Obama: A- He did well tonight and came across well, despite not being 100% there on every issue.

    Edwards: B- (for not shifting totally, even when saying religion shouldn't influence the marriage debate).

    Clinton: C+/B- for many of the same reasons. Richardson: F. He totally dropped the ball.

    Gravel: B - he's there on many of the positions, but doesn't make himself come across well.

    Kucinich: A- He did almost as well as the AFLCIO debate, but seemed a lot less disengenous. Plus, I don't want to here 10 minutes of 'all you need is love,' I want to hear the about all the other reasons. Discrmination against glbt people has far larger dynamics than just love, though that's an important one.

    Honestly, I liked Obama the most tonight, but I'm still leaning toward Edwards.

    • Logo website

      Showing this poll after the forum: Who's your candidate?

      37% Barack Obama

      24% Dennis Kucinich

      20% Hillary Clinton

      9% John Edwards

      6% Mike Gravel

      4% Bill Richardson

      Thought Obama, Clinton, Kucinich and Gravel did well, even though Obama and Clinton aren't all the way there on marriage.  Richardson was painful to watch.  Missed most of Edwards' time - there was an Obama conference call after his segment that we joined. 

      • That doesn't surprise me

        Kucinich's rambling on about love is the kind of stuff that scares me away from any candidate and basically just confirms all of my former opinions of him - so I'm not going to consider him when it comes to election time. Don't show me the love, get to the numbers please. However, I won't lie and say that a lot of people in the last two forums (this one and the AFLCIO) aren't going to be swayed by his liberal - and mostly right - positions. It's just the Department of Peace crap that scares me off (hello, we have that already: the State Department). Don't be shocked to see his numbers temporarily rise as high as 5% in some places LOL. He did do very well in these two past debates, especially the AFL-CIO one.

        Obama clearly excels at this kind of forum, much better than he does squaring off in 60 second blurbs. When he gets going, he really gets going. He really got going tonight, which - based on those instapolls - was an opinion a lot of people shared with me tonight. He did the best in navigating the divergences of where he is and where the rest of us are at. There is common ground there, especially with the fact that you really do get the impression that civil rights will be one of his chief issues while President.

        Hillary wasn't bad... she just wasn't great. She had that one line that was like a knife through my heart (we haven't struggled long enough, apparently, because our movement is 'new.') Those kinds of lines, coupled with the fact that she really just isn't there yet, makes it so I'm not surprised she didn't do as well as Obama - even though Obama isn't quite as there yet either.

        Gravel did about as well as he can, given the fact that he's not a great speaker, but I'd never consider him based on the simple fact that he supports a national sales tax as the chief funding mechanism of this country. With that kind of position on an issue as important as that, I don't care what he supports when it comes to gay rights.

        • You're movement is new...

          it's not like societies around the globe haven't been marginalizing, terrorizing, or otherwise treating homosexuals like sub-humans for millennia...

          Oh wait.

  10. Clinton and DOMA part 3

    She again mentioned repealing part 3.  As far as I can find out, there are only 2 parts.  Just what part is she talking about? Anyone know?

    • Yes, here's what she means

      DOMA was enacted as Pub. L. 104-199:

      An Act

        To define and protect the institution of marriage. NOTE:  Sept. 21,   1996 - [H.R. 3396]

        Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, NOTE: Defense of Marriage Act.

      SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

        This Act may be cited as the ``Defense of Marriage Act''.

      SEC. 2. POWERS RESERVED TO THE STATES.

        (a) In General.--Chapter 115 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding after section 1738B the following:

      ``Sec. 1738C. Certain acts, records, and proceedings and the effect   thereof

      ``No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.''.  (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 115 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 1738B the following new item:

      ``1738C. Certain acts, records, and proceedings and the effect   thereof.''.

      SEC. 3. DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE.

        (a) In General.--Chapter 1 of title 1, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

      ``Sec. 7. Definition of `marriage' and `spouse'

        ``In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word `marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word `spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.''.

      [[Page 110 STAT. 2420]]

        (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 1 of title 1, United States Code, is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 6 the following new item:

      ``7. Definition of `marriage' and `spouse'.''.

      So, really, DOMA section 1 has no effect; the legally operative sections are sections 2 and 3.

      • Which is to say,

        she favors leaving the bit about states not having to recognize other states' actions intact, since she sees it as a way of staving off the federal anti-marriage amendment.  But she wants to get rid of the federal definition, since that prevents allowing federal recognition of state marriages or civil unions.

      • So, if I'm reading this correctly

        Other states would still be able to deny recognition to my SSM if section 3 of DOMA was repealed, but we might be able to enjoy some federal benefits currently restricted to straight marriages.

        • that's how i read it

          except i'd think that it would mean ALL fed benefits, not just some.  unless congress deliberately cherry pick. 

        • Yeah,

          I think that's basically right.  The thought, I assume, is that gay people should be able to enjoy all the state and federal benefits of marriage, and they should be able to do that by living in a state that recognizes either marriage equality or full-benefit civil unions.  She thinks that without DOMA part 2 the federal anti-marriage would have passed the Congress, and that would of course be a gigantic disaster that would eliminate any progress made in individual states.

          • doma heads off amendment

            i think she may be right that doma was partly protective against a federal amendment.  however, provided that we maintain dem majorities & have a dem prez next time, the risk of that amendment is over.  so why be timid and leave doma part 2 in place?

            • To keep Neanderthals at home

              By keeping part 2 in place, it may (a) helps hold off court challenges from being successful, and (b) helps keep Neanderthals from anti-gay states from taking the march to Washington.  Essentially saying to states: you don't want it?  Fine.  But you don't get to stop those states who do want it to get it.  It may help to keep the homophobes working on anti-gay issues within their state, and off the national radar screen.  If Part 2 goes away, then they work to eliminate gay marriage rights in all 50 states, not just in their own.

              I think eventually Part 2 needs to go, but I'm an incrementalist, and I'll take some gains with low risk of losing them over a big gain that I very well could lose as soon as 2004. Of course, all of this is easy for me to say, since I live in a state that does protect gay marriage, and I'm not gay.  My marriage rights and responsibilities don't hang in the balance. 

              • yeah, that's why i think

                some want to retain part 2 also.  but i'm not sure it's legit reasoning any more if we get a dem prez and congress.  after all, the fed marriage amendment failed even with Bush & His Repugs at full power.  it's deader than dead with a dem gov't.  the doma joke will be obsolete.

                yes, i know you're an incrementalist.  we all have our failings.  ;)  but seriously, i appreciate your honesty about realizing that it's easy for you to say.  because, yes, it is.  the calculation is completely different when you yourself are one of the bargaining chips.

                • That reminds me...

                  is there a single website where I can follow the incrementalist progress of gay rights?

                  I basically want a map of the 50 states, and I want to click on a facet [M/CU/CP, employment protection, etc] and see how many states are enlightened for each category.  Even better, some notes indicating the ongoing proposals, results of recent legislation and ballot initiatives, etc.

                  Does such a site exist?

                  P.S.  Thank you for appreciating my non-all-chips-in position without being condescending or acerbic about it.  Your reaction isn't always the one I get from my all-chips-in allies, and far more pleasant than some.

                  • websites

                    HRC.org has a state by state rundown of the various categories of endeavour.  ngltf.org has nice pdf'd maps.  Republic of T is creating a wiki hate crimes page, cataloging cases.  it is a work in progress.

      • titles matter

        thanks.  i didn't realize that the title counted as a section. 

  11. INSTANT REPLAY

    hey, on case anyone missed something in the live show, it's re-showing now.

  12. I like how Hillary

    does not frame other peoples opposition to marriage equality in religious speak.  I think we only serve to legitimate those who argue against equality on religious grounds when we adopt the concept that religious opposition is somehow acceptable.  Have the other candidates, aside from Gravel and Kucinich, oh and as of tonight, Richardson(yeah right), actually been pinned down on full repeal of DOMA as president, because I think they are all really only promising to repeal the third part, at least that is how I hear it.

    • $quot;This has not been a long term struggle yet.$quot;

      I can't believe she said that.  How obnoxious.  I wish Solmonese had followed up with "then how many years exactly must we suffer before we qualify for equal rights?".

      as for DOMA, that's a good question.  she's the only one i hear talking specifically about section 3.  the others just say "repeal doma" and don't elaborate, to my knowledge.

      • Well, I understand. She doesn't

        appeal to you.  I just don't see how anyone can claim they are going to work with Congress to repeal the whole thing if they do not support full major equality.  I think they all will repeal part III, but I think full repeal is primary speak unless you're actively supporting marriage equality. 

        • Sorry marriage not major.

        • At least,

          If you get them on the record, you have some leverage. Hillary Clinton has never declared to want to strip all of DOMA, so I can't go and write angry blogs saying she promised things she didn't deliver.

          Edwards, on the other hand, has promised to throw DOMA out. Therefore, if he backtracks, it will seriously come back to haunt him with a very angry constituency - one that votes!

          Furthermore, if Hillary's already compromising on half of DOMA, who's to say what her actual compromise will look like? I'd rather someone go into negotiations asking for everything and getting half, than asking for half and getting franks and beans. So, there is at least some measurable difference between wanting to get rid of DOMA in total, or just part of it, even from candidates that aren't for full marriage equality.

      • Now I remember...

        Why I rated her a C+

        That was as obnoxious as anything Richardson said.

        Gay rights has been a struggle for centuries - basically, as long as religious zealots and Christianists have been killing us.

        There were 2 things about that statement that bothered me though, which I talked more about on my blog.

        1. Even the modern gay movement has been going on for decades.

        2. Is it some kind of unsaid rule that minorities NEED to suffer before they get equal rights? We can't, oh, I don't know - try to work on civil rights before there are abuses? A preemptive strike on inequality? Shouldn't that, oh, I don't know... be the ultimate civil rights goal? Fix things before people are so pissed off that it becomes a massive friggin movement?

        No, Hill thinks that while we shouldn't have to suffer, we haven't sufferred long enough... thus, don't deserve marriage yet. That's the second - and most disturbing - thing I get from that statement. Otherwise, part 1 just speaks to her ignorance on the gay rights movement: most gay people are ignorant, so I can deal with that... but not with the fact that we haven't suffered long enough to actually deserve equal rights. I'm sorry, but I'd like my equal rights before I die... preferably while I'm still young, please.

        • Don't limit the scope

          religious zealots and Christianists

          Were only people in those two groups, gays would have had a much easier time throughout history.

        • I'm sorry...

          ...but I have to disagree. Mrs. Clinton was quite correct when she suggested that the gay political movement was new.  It has really only been in existence in the US in a quantifiable way for some 40 years and only about 20 with real traction.  I think the point that she was trying to make was that political change takes time and that sometimes patience is required.  I agree with that sentiment despite the fact that every disappointment or missed opportunity is painful to me in a real, personal way.  I don't believe for one moment that Mrs. Clinton was suggesting that gay people having to deal with prejudice and oppression was a new phenomenon.  I, for one, appreciate her honesty.  She cannot promise a huge leap forward right now (nor can any candidate) and she was honest enough to say why. 

          • 2 generations

            even if we take your approach to measuring the duration of the political mvt ub the US (it's been longer elsewhere), 40 yeas still equals 2 generations.  compare the the attitudes of any kis to their parents, and you'll see that major change can happen with each generation.  i don't buy her take.  besides, 40 years is the balance of my life, so to me the effort has always been ongoing.

            • 40 years is two generations, but...

              the people who were born 60 years ago [three generations!] are the ones who hold the most political power now.

              You're right, the younger generations are "over" homophobia for the most part.  But, the younger generations don't make up anywhere near a majority of those who can legally vote.

              Major change can happen in a generation, and attitudes about homosexuality have changed [majorly!] in one generation.  But, that generation doesn't have widespread political power yet

          • Relatively New in Mainstream Dialogue?

            Sure, that's true. I guess 40-50 years (closer to 50 than 40, sir) is still 'new,' but only in relative terms. It's older than a lot of people in this country, if not most.

            However, you have to ask yourself why it's new. The only reason why is because if, before the beginning of the movement, someone came out... they were sent to a hospital because they needed to be cured of their disease. Or they were killed by people who thought them perverts. Even African Americans weren't sent to hospitals because of the way they were born - now, many of them were killed, lynched, perhaps for something as measley as merely looking at a woman. However, at least they had a community, especially around their churches.

            Gay Americans were only recently able to establish those kinds of communities, one's strong enough that they could reach out from city to city. That's why our movement, compared to the Civil Rights movement, is new. It isn't safe to organize without those kinds of communities. If we could have organized a hundred or two hundred years ago, we would have done it... but back then, it was impossible.

            The civil rights disaster in treatment toward gay people has existed for centuries, which to me means the movement isn't new at all: only those who are ignorant of all that has happened to us since Christians took over the Roman Empire will truly think our movement is new. It's not new, it started the first day someone was abused merely for the fact that they were gay.

            • Sorry...

              ...but the political movement is not the same as the oppression that required it.  You are conflating mistreatment with political organization and it is disingenuous.  Mrs. Clinton made no statement contending that mistreatment of gay people is a recent phenomenon and that is what you are attempting to attribute to her. 

              Please make no mistake in presuming that I am unaware on any level of the long standing peril of gay people throughout the course of human history or that I am trying to excuse or discount such mistreatment.  I certainly am not and would never seek to do so. 

              Said mistreatment however, is not synonymous with organized political action taken up in opposition thereto.  In the US, such political action began in earnest after WWII and became substantial on a nationwide basis in the late 1960's, achieving considerable traction and influence in the 1980's. 

              If you have issue with Mrs. Clinton's statement vis a vis the length of time the political movement discussed above has been in existence and whether its relative duration should have any import in our current political climate I say 'good for you'.  However, your comments suggest in form and tone that Mrs. Clinton should be taken to task for denouncing the existence of gay oppression in the years that preceded political action.  Excepting your hyperbolic interpretations you have no basis for this position. 

              You do yourself a disservice by relying on distortion as the foundation for your argument.  I cocede that the plain meaning of Mrs. Clinton's statment, while not alarming to me, is worthy of debate and disdain by those who might find it offensive.  She simply didn't say what you attribute to her. 

               

              • You miss my point

                The mistreatment, or fear of it, was a direct cause of a lack of earlier political movement. I don't think you can discount a movement as being new when the only reason it is "new" (in your opinion) is because you'd instantly be locked up, or killed, if you outed yourself as a member of that minority. Furthermore, the very act of partaking in gay activities was - in a way - an expression of rebellion, so at best you can only say that the act of a complex organization was missing from a movement that, in many important ways, already existed.

« Blue Mass Group Front Page

Add Your Comments

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Wed 23 Apr 8:49 PM