Just 67 members of the House and 14 Senators (including our own Senators Kerry and Kennedy) had the cojones to vote against the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996, so Bill Richardson’s vote in favor isn’t a surprise. What is disappointing is to hear him stand by that vote a decade later in an interview in the May issue of The Advocate. It’s tough to support full equality for gays and lesbians and win nationally; I get that. But I’d find at least a hint of recognition that we’ve been tossed under the bus more attractive than Richardson’s self-congratulatory riff on how pro-gay he is. (“I’ve got the strongest record of any governor in protecting gay rights.”) I’m glad he wants to be among the friends of the friends of Dorothy, don’t get me wrong, but his record can’t but suffer by comparison to Deval Patrick’s and Eliot Spitzer’s unequivocal support for equality.
before the election. happily, all indications are that he is working diligently to protect equality. i guess we’ll know the truth in due course.
I heard Deval speak at the Boston Bar Association dinner a few weeks ago, and his statement of support for marriage equality could not have been clearer. Combine that with Martha Coakley’s speech at the Mass. Lesbian & Gay Bar Association dinner on May 11, and it’s like breathing fresh air for the first time in years.
“I believe in full equality for gays and lesbians*”
*some restrictions may apply. see federal DOMA and your state constitution for details.
<
p>
Pam has put up Edwards’s answers to the HRC questionnaire. On federal DOMA he gives a really strong response
It’s great for what it is in comparison to Richardson. But I see these problems:
He’s not talking about federal CU’s, which as anthony has hyper-vigilantly pointed out, are just not do-able, relationships are not in the federal domain at all. It would be great if he would clarify what he’s thinking for us though. I think he’s talking about repealing DOMA so that the federal government can recognize state CU’s. But repealing DOMA will be a non-starter if it means South Dakota has to recognize Massachusetts marriages. It will lead to a huge backlash and the FMA, which as proposed will also rule out civil unions. As much as you profess to hate DOMA, without it there would be no SSM in Massachusetts today, because it would have taken all of two minutes to enact the FMA. DOMA was an essential law to take a small step in a small liberal state.
The only way to repeal DOMA is to turn Mass marriages into civil unions, and only if those civil unions are not “marriage in all but name”. We could repeal DOMA if we had a national egg and sperm law and an affirmation that all marriages have conception rights. That would force states to turn same-sex marriages and their “all-the-rights” CU’s into CU’s that gave all the rights BUT conception rights. South Dakota might accept those CU’s if marriage were preserved in a principled and permenant way.
And who knows how he feels about gay people. The way I see it, he is just trying to mealymouth his way to the election, and is very likely going to resolve his purported “struggle” afterwards by evolving a pro-gay marriage position. He really should explain exactly what the difference would be between marriage and civil unions. Otherwise, he’s not convincing anyone of anything and only seeming like a slimeball to everybody. If his polling says people are satisfied with his equivocations and unprincipled compromise, I think that’s just because lots of people are unprincipled equivocators themselves. Some core constituency to seek.
First, marriage and conception rights have nothing to do with each other. Gay people in Massachusetts have been able to have kids – and even concieve – for far longer than we’ve been able to get married. Over 1 million people in this country are the biological sons or daughters of at least one gay parent.
<
p>
Secondly, in what world would the FMA been enacted if DOMA weren’t in place? No, what’s far more likely is that gay people in this country would have full equality FULL EQUALITY full equality if DOMA didn’t exist right now. They’d have to go to Massachusetts for their marriages to be legal, if other states didn’t jump on the bandwagon first, but there would have been nothing to stop them from marrying here and having it be valid anywhere else in this country. DOMA is one of the few reasons we don’t have full equality – it both prevents gay marriages in Massachusetts from obtaining federal benefits (taxes, pensions, etc.) as well as from having their marriage valid in any other state. Mind you, I’m fairly certain DOMA is unconstitutional, but with this inept, far-right Supreme Court, we’ll probably never find out.
<
p>
It needs to be repealed and the fact that Edwards has called for that should be applauded, even if rhetorically he’s saying it in a wishy-washy way. Richardson needs to come around on this issue, because I’d love to support him, but I refuse to do that if he supports DOMA. It’s that clear and simple.
So if he wants to repeal DOMA so that civil unions can be recognized then Massachusetts has to step back from marriage. Otherwise, he’s saying that he’s for SSM, because as you say, repealing DOMA would mean SSM across the country if SSM remains in Massachusetts.
And I think it’s been pretty well settled that DOMA is what enabled a state-by-state roll-in of SSM/CU. Not all of the votes for DOMA were anti-SSM votes, many were strategic pro-SSM votes. The reason we don’t have an FMA already in place is because other states aren’t forced to recognize SSM.
And marriage and conception rights have always been one and the same, and are only in danger of being seperated. All marriages have a right to conceive together, and are given that right the moment they say “I do.”
where is this right written down?
It isn’t written down, it’s always been understood as what it meant to be married. Marriage has always made conception of children legal, moral, ethical and approved. There were times in the past when the state sterilized people or did not let people marry, but the Supreme Court made a series of decisions that established that those violated a “basic civil right to marry and procreate”. Most recently Lawrence v. Texas affirms that marriage is about the right to conceive together.
He favors repealing DOMA, which would mean a civil union would be valid anywhere in this country… as would a Massachusetts marriage. He’s not saying he is for marriage equality, but in effect that’s what repealing DOMA would do.
<
p>
I can’t keep engaging in these conversations with you, Mr. Howard. I’m sorry to inform you, but your incessant rants are no longer quaint. They’re now annoying, homophobic and HATEFUL. I don’t care what David, Charley or Bob would say, but they’re no different than if I were to call you a homophobic asshole who needs to frakking get a life. Of course, “personal attacks” aren’t allowed, so I’d never really call you any of those things – even if you’re somehow allowed to say that I’m unfit to be a parent.
Okay, this troll is getting engorged on the feedings he is receiving. Strange how the more Laurel, Anthony and now you yell at him, the more prolific he is.
<
p>
On the other hand, points for the use of frakking in a comment.
respond to him any more. he does, however, spend a lot of time dogging my posts. i’d like you to take an honest look at his last diary to see all the different people who did respond to him, or wrote in that diary. you will see that anthony, Ryan and myself were not the major responders. why do you lay blame with the queers? still just can’t get enough of that piling on? like to poke other people’s bruises? did you weigh in with the editors about your annoyance with this idiot queers/homophobotroll problem as i requested? have they responded as to why they can’t bare to ban a homophobotroll, whereas they’ve banned Repugnant Republican Radio Idiot, who was annoying but not a blatant homophobe?
This has to do with civility, not “blaming the queers”. Trust me, if I wanted to “pile on” the way you accuse me of, there’d be no doubt that’s what I was doing. If we had this dynamic going about casinos, I’d feel the same. Heck, I still have people who stalk my posts and shell me with personal insults. I’m still learning to ignore them.
<
p>
We’ve had trolls like jdhaverhill disappear, and others I can think of (but won’t name in case they’re lurking) who’ve given up the ghost. As for the editors, none of them are here at the moment. It’s their decision what to do about Howard, and the people he attracts. If you’re asking my feeling, I’d say give Howard and anthony a stiff warning, and then next time it’s over.
How do you manage to keep forgetting what the issue is there? You’re fit to be a parent. What I say is that none of us are should be allowed to attempt to conceive using any method except joining our gamete to someone’s of the opposite sex.
<
p>
As to Edwards and DOMA, that is what I was saying! It is Edwards who makes no sense, because you can’t both favor CU’s and want to repeal DOMA as long as MAssachusetts has SSM. If he wants to repeal DOMA without figuring out some way to revert MAssachusetts marraiges to CU’s, then he is for SSM. So when he says he’s for CU’s, he means in Massachusetts. Either that or he’s lying about being wanting to repeal DOMA or not being for SSM. But if he’s not lying, then he wants to come up with a way to change Massachusetts to CU’s, and the egg and sperm law would be a great reason for him. Then we could stop genetic engineering and cloning and preserve natural conception rights.
<
p>
No need for any of you to respond if you’re just going to misrepresent my position and ignore my points.
<
p>
Remember, none of you has a viable plan to secure equal protections for gay people in this country. My plan actually fits in with what the candidates say they support, yours just ignores reality.
Would repealing DOMA mean CU’s would be recognized by other states? What if that state didn’t have CU’s? Would they be recognized as RB’s or DP’s if that state had those but not CU’s? I think the other states would have to have equivilent CU’s to recand repealing DOMA would mean Massachusetts SSMs would be given full faith and credit as marriages. But CU’s might not translate to anything. That’s why I am suggesting these “everything but conception rights” Civil Unions, they could be a consistent model of CU that could translate from state to state. That’s what NH should have just created, but they can go back and change them when we do the Egg and Sperm compromise.
Did anyone happen to see this piece. If true, this is really disappointing and sad. Other than affect the way I view Edwards stances on GLBT issues, if true, this would really make me question whether he is a legitimate leader for this country. How can a man who is attempting to represent the Democratic party, let alone a man who claims he is a populist (and possibly even a lefist) within that party, utter what really comes across as, well, as bigotry quite frankly.
<
p>
http://www.washblade…
This interview was held eight years ago — before the equal rights movement for gays had reached critical mass. And it has nothing to do with his proposed policies, but rather his personal feelings. And it’s related by serial loser Bob Shrum.
<
p>
Personally, my first reaction to the SJC ruling was to oppose it, until I thought about it. One of the reasons that opponents of same-sex marriage are on the ropes in this state is that many, many people have seen the reason in equal rights over the last decade. Senator Edwards may well be one of them. I’m inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt here.
Scathing piece! I’m not at all bothered by a statement like “I’m not comfortable with those people” made almost 10 years ago if I see substantial evidence that the person’s eyes have since opened. But Edwards has nothing substantial to show, as far as I am aware. That is why I asked the question above about all the nice things he said he supports on the HRC survey – will he actually act on them, or is he just pandering the gay dollar/vote? With all I’ve seen over the years, I assume the latter until proven wrong. Edwards has some proving to do.
For a little balance, let’s look at a Repub’s ramblings on the subject…
AP There is just so much to laugh at there, I don’t know where to begin. Lessee…
<
p>