Richardson: Regret that we didn’t talk about global warming, or education. I hope you’ll ask me about that.
Iraq is not just an Iraqi solution, it’s a middle eastern solution — involves Syria, Iran. I know that if we had talked to North Korea sooner, we would have had a solution earlier. Politics and diplomacy is personal — it’s how you relate to another human being.
[Now he’s relating the story of his visit with Saddam Hussein when he secured the release of a couple of detainees.]
I’d be ready to meet with just about anybody, without preconditions, but let’s have an agenda. No meetings just for photo ops. I would meet with North Korea in order to talk about their getting rid of all their nuclear reactors. In exchange, they get aid, food, and energy assistance.
Iran: he’s unpredictable, but I’d open dialogue with the Iranian people. Businessmen, students, clerics — there is a moderate movement in Iran.
Q: Who would be your “Bill Richardson”?
A: I offered it to Biden in the last debate, but he turned it down. Most of it would be the Secretary of State — only a few special envoys. But we have to stop outsourcing diplomacy (e.g. having China take the lead on N. Korea). And I’d do a lot of it myself — I’d be my own Bill Richardson.
Q: Are you willing to challenge enormous entrenched economic power in America?
A: Public financing. Achievable? Not sure. Worth trying. Build a citizen corps of activists to lobby Congress. E.g., on energy: need an Apollo-type program that involves everyone.
Q: why a federal balanced budget amendment?
A: I’ve done it 5 times as Governor. And when you balance the budget you’re growing the economy. Deficit spending hurts the economy.
Q: why can’t I fly without disrobing?
A: security is important, but we have to be more customer friendly. We have to protect ports, subways, but not at expense of customer friendly.
Q: regarding education: any response from other candidates on scrapping NCLB?
A: My solution on NCLB. I dealt with it for five years. It’s got to go. It is flawed in that one size fits all testing doesn’t deal efficiently or fairly with all kids — disabled, learning English, autistic, are all treated unfairly. Also, NCLB doesn’t emphasize teacher training. We pay them garbage. My minimum wage for teachers: $40,000 to start. Best federal role is a partnership with states. Also: have to reintroduce art, music, dance in the schools. Also: one year of service to your country (including working in inner city, serving in military, etc.) and we help you with student loans.
Q: mass transit — what’s the strategy.
A: Answer is not just putting more money in. My solution to a lot of things is public-private partnerships. Gov’t should work with private sector, foundations, 501(c)(3).
Q: give me your vision.
A: this race shouldn’t be about who has the most money or the most political pedigree or the most glamorous or the biggest rock star. It’s about who has the experience and vision to restore America’s reputation around the world. My vision is that government can be a catalyst for change. American people are very ready to sacrifice — they want to be inspired. I bring experience to make that happen — I’ve done is as Governor, and as a diplomat. Who 1: can change the country: 2: has the experience, and 3: is electable.
Q: what about the faith-based initiative?
A: Won’t dismantle it, but be sure there’s no bad science, and in awarding of grants, politics and ideology don’t trump science; won’t wear religion on my sleeve. They have to compete like everyone else.
Q: on water policy.
A: in NM, our problem is that we have no water. There is no national water policy, and we need one. Create within Dept. of Interior, a cabinet-level water department. Encourage compacts between water-producing and water-needing states. Answer is leadership — not just an issue for the west, it’s the whole country. Need a water summit for all the states to develop national water policy.
Q: how to help veterans?
A: 1: appoint a credible veteran to be secretary. 2: biggest problem is post-traumatic stress disorder. Mental illness, depression, PTSD have to have parity with other illnesses in this country. 3: every vet gets a hero’s health card — any vet can get health care anywhere they want.
Q: Employee Free Choice Act?
A: I’ll be a pro-union president. I’m for EFCA, card share. Best public employee deal in the country is in NM, and I negotiated it. You need a president who knows how to get things done.
Q: gay rights — what will you do?
A: As Governor, I took far-reaching steps, and I’ll do it as president. 1: promote civil unions with full marriage rights. 2: promote hate crimes act — and it will cover trans-gender. 3: I’m the only Governor that called a special session on domestic partnerships. 4: I will lead — I will push these things. I’ll get rid of DADT.
Q: Immigration.
A: Five things. 1: more border security — more agents, detection equipment. But not the fence — makes no sense, and it’s not going to work. 2: punish employers who knowingly hire illegal workers. 3: foreign policy. Say to president of Mexico: help your people — give them jobs. 4: set up a legalization program — Kennedy/McCain approach. You can apply for citizenship, on conditions: [he rattled them off too fast]. 5: raise quota on legal immigration. It’s more bureaucracy, expensive, messy. But there are no acceptable alternatives.
[Richardson’s internet director just tried to stop the event. Richardson said “Joaquin, I’m at 13%. I’ll take a few more.” Much laughter.]
Q: AIDS policy — allow access to drugs before people get sick?
A: Yes. Also have to embrace some unpopular programs, like needle exchange, easier access to condoms, more research. We don’t focus on prevention in this country. I’d get rid of junk food in schools; mandatory PhysEd; smoking bans. The key is research. We have no strategy for Alzheimer’s, which is 33% of Medicare costs.
Q: public financing. Do you support the Durbin/Specter bill?
A: Yes. I’m for it, but I also did it in NM. Our judges and certain other officers are under public financing. But have to be practical — it doesn’t always generate public support because it’s about you paying for my TV ads. We should combine private with public financing.
Debate over taking money from lobbyists is a silly debate. Is it wrong to take money from Sierra Club lobbyists? I’d rather focus on getting it done, instead of taking pledges. We must update and be realistic about the existing system.
Q: your attitude on bilingual and ESL?
A: You should learn English to get a green card. Don’t support “English Only” movement, because that promotes divisiveness.
Q: What’s the role of faith in governing?
A: I don’t wear my faith on my sleeve. My sense of social justice comes from being Catholic, but I annoyed my bishop by being pro-choice. I’ve worked with churches to raise minimum wage, protect against predatory lenders, etc. We shouldn’t be ashamed to talk about what we believe, but religion shouldn’t be a big factor in determining public policy. E.g., stem cell debate — religion shouldn’t dictate science policy.
Q: ONE organization: how to reduce poverty through education?
A: My foreign policy will say, first, we’re rejoining the international community.
Have to rejoin NATO, UN. International poverty policies should shift foreign aid towards human needs, rather than “budget support.” Current aid policies promote debt in foreign countries. Support microlending. New programs to help build an Arab middle class. Use internet to communicate with young people in Muslim world — Radio Free Europe is outdated. Reducing international poverty is a key part of my foreign policy.
so when I heard
<
p>
<
p>
I was surprised. So surprised that I turned to google. This article claims that Alzheimer’s accounts for 17% of Medicare costs, but it’s a shoddy looking [albeit recently written] article that doesn’t cite it’s source. According to the Alzheimer’s Association, $91 billion was spent on beneficiaries with Alzheimer’s and other forms of dementia, and Harvard says that Medicare spent $330 billion in benefits in 2005. Those two groups seem likely to be good at telling the truth, and that gives us an upper bound of 27.5%, since it includes all forms of dementia, not just Alzheimer’s.
<
p>
Alzheimer’s is an enormous single cost for Medicare, but I wonder where Mr. Richardson is getting his numbers — I can’t seem to find or generate numbers as high as his.
How many times did he say “Here’s what I’d do. [holds up fingers] One…”? I’ll put the over/under at 9. Have his advisors despaired of breaking that habit?
<
p>
I wish someone else in the primary were willing to talk about education.
Bill Richardson makes some excellent points on Iraq. He knows the region and has dealt with this kind of thing before. I urge all bloggers to look at this man. Just because he says “pull out now” doesn’t mean he is speaking with a misinformed tongue. He has been UN Ambassador and a diplomatic troubleshooter, and from what I have read for his plans on Iraq-myself being a very adept student of foreign policy, what he says might be able to work.
<
p>
You have to think-is leaving 80,000 residual forces in Iraq while surrounded by an insurgency, with the possibility of perm. bases “in country”, is that really the right thing to do? While the other candidates do make a point-you have to think-there are no best choices on this war-only bad and worse ones-if I were President, I would opt for the bad choice.
<
p>
And it’s not just pulling all troops out-his plans lay out other points, i.e., all-Muslim peacekeeping force, security conferences, reconciliation, etc. This guy knows what he is talking about.
Nice job, David. You must be a lightening typist!
<
p>
I really like how he emphatically holds good science above religion, politics and ideology, and says that his personal religion is neither anything to be ashamed of, nor an important factor in making policy.
<
p>
But then he drops the CU stink bomb.
We all know that CUs are inherently unequal to marriage, even at the state level. If gay people were deemed equal, they wouldn’t be forced into (and heteros wouldn’t be legally kept out of) ghetto institutions like CUs & DPs.
<
p>
It leaves me wondering. If his reasoning on marriage isn’t faith-based, what can explain refusal of real civil equality for LGBT citizens? The options I see are
1. Unrealized personal bigotry
2. Political spinelessness
I don’t like either of them, but if it’s not one, I can’t see how it can’t be the other.
Laurel, I fully support marriage equality, but if we want to vote for a candidate supporting marriage equality in November 2008, we’re voting Green….maybe.
<
p>
I doubt that Clinton, Obama, Edwards, and Richardson are all bigoted against GLBT folk, which leaves…
<
p>
“political spinelessness”
<
p>
I define spinelessness as not doing something you could for fear of a small or unlikely political penalty. But I doubt that the reaction to a national candidate embracing marriage equality would be small, and I do count it likely. Massachusetts is an unusual haven for marriage equality, much more so than the states we need to win next November.
<
p>
As far as I can tell, you can have a president who supports civil unions, or a president who doesn’t. A leader who is friendly to gay rights, and one who isn’t. One who accepts GLBT folk as full members of our community, and one who doesn’t. Marriage equality isn’t on the national radar screen. We may not like it, but that’s the truth.
maybe it’s because they are not top-tier candidates, but i hear not one negative word from dems or independents or libertarians or even repubs about Gravel’s or Kucinich’s uncompromising civil rights stances. sometimes people create their own nightmare where none really exists. you know, the boogeyman. i think this is one of those times. someone who takes command of the issues and acts like a leader will not lose because of their pro-equality stance. why? because people highly value a firm, principled approach. second, because ultimately, it isn’t a deal breaker for most americans. they will not vote against a candidate who they otherwise like just because that candidate stands for equality for all citizens. so, no outs for our dems. not from me, anyway.
Nobody cares about Kucinich’s, Gravel’s, or Paul’s opinions because they aren’t viewed as legitimate contenders. Just like nobody gave a flying fridge about Dean’s role signing civil unions into law…until he had a good shot at winning the nomination.
<
p>
Part of “acting like a leader” is accepting the faith of your followers that you will win the fight, not just lose in a dignified way.
[where blue is defined as “voted for Kerry for prez”]:
<
p>
Minnesota (10)
Michigan (17)
Wisconsin (10)
Pennsylvania (21)
New Jersey (15)
Delaware (3)
<
p>
This list is likely not exhaustive, but you’re already at 76 EVs.
Red states a pro-gay marriage Democratic nominee for Pres might win…
<
p>
New Mexico (5)
Nevada (5)
<
p>
This list is exhaustive, and they’re only there because they were so close, have been blue in the past, and are in the more libertarian west.
Think I’m wrong? Make the case. I chose blue states that were fairly close in 2004 and tend to have a large middle class and/or a large working blue collar [union] segment — folks who are, at best, live and let live… but many who support government expenditure/support on health care/education/labor but could care less about civil rights, the environment, or other progressive causes. This is based on my experiences only, not on any particular data, so take it as you will.
<
p>
Which will be better for GBLT rights from 2008-2012 and beyond? A Democratic president who will expand the rights for the GBLT community and help bring them closer to all folds of society, or a GOP president who’d sooner throw you in jail for what you do in the privacy of your own home?
<
p>
It’s a journey, and the destination won’t be reached in one step. I hope we keep taking steps quickly, but I believe that we’ve got to keep stepping forward, even if those small steps don’t get us to the end in one go. Younger people are far more likely to support equality; they’re becoming a larger share of the electorate every year. As more states allow CUs and DPs, more neighbors of GBLTs will realize that their neighborhood didn’t turn to hellfire and brimstone, and anti-gay rhetoric will turn them off instead of turn them out.
<
p>
Keep fighting for our leaders to take long strides, and to take them quickly. You’re helping, because you’re reminding other progressives that the cause is always there, and that it’s always worth fighting for. You’re also helping to stretch the window of reasonable ideas leftward, making less bold proposals like CUs go from crazytalk to reasonable in a very short time, and making former seemingly responsible legislation on bedroom behavior appear for what it is: none of the government’s business. Keep fighting the fight, especially in the primaries, but please don’t get discouraged when no front runner — or his or her supporters — are as far along on the journey toward equality as you are. Many haven’t had the advantages of being part of a supportive community that includes GBLT members as important equals. Many haven’t lived in a state that recognized GBLT community members as full partners in marriage, or even as sorta-kinda partners in civil unions and domestic partnerships. Many were raised with hatred in their hearts, and those hardened hearts will take many years to soften, if ever. Keep fighting the fight; we’ll get to equality but only if we continue to fight for gains, and if we seize those gains when the opportunity arises.
Geez, stomv. I mean, raj is operating on European time, and I have 3 weeks before I have to be back at work, but what’s your reason to be posting here in the dead of night?
<
p>
Anyway, don’t forget that Michigan and Oregon also passed referendums against gay marriage in 2004. While things may have changed to some degree, I wouldn’t guarantee a sea change.
<
p>
To observe this in the reverse — say a Republican came out for lowering the minimum wage. Is that leadership, or political suicide?
Or even in tUSA for that matter? I’m actually in Asia for a while this summer, doing some work and some research.
<
p>
I [thought I] included Michigan in my list. I avoided all three left coast states because I don’t have as good a feel for them culturally. My list wasn’t meant to be exhaustive.
<
p>
As for the reverse: yeah, I think if the GOP candidate said “I’m going to reverse the minimum wage hike — $5.15, suckas!” that he’d lose in a landslide. Voting against increasing the minimum wage is far more palatable to most than voting to decrease it.
I’m currently posting from Germany, which (MESZ=Mittel Europa Standard Zeit) is EDT+6
they are an interesting case. althought hey passed an anti-equlaity amendment a few years ago, they just signed DPs into law. the state is not as far gone as one might prefer to imagine. same for CA.
I appreciate your remarks. However I must ask, where did you get your lease on the crystal ball? You know we would lose these state JUST because of a call for full citizenship for LGBT citizens how? I am from Michigan , and I have family living a long time in NJ. NJ we would not lose. MI we would not lose. I know, MI is not so obvious a winner, since they passed their amendment a few years ago. But it is also a state that is suffering by it’s industry moving out of state and overseas. If a candidate had something intelligent to say about the economy and recovery, that would trump all, easily. As for the others, I won’t venture to count votes as you have because I have no personal knowledge there.
<
p>
A point to remember: in the last election, Kerry/Edwards were disgustingly mushy on civil rights, giving Bush room to play the firmness of belief, and fear & loathing cards. The leading dems are doing the same thing kerry did. If we lose, it won’t be because they spoke of civil unions, it will be because when they did, they did so in patently illogical double-speak, with the smell the fear rather than conviction coming off them.
I’ve got family all over NJ, and have for many years. The Dems are barely getting MI’s EVs now, and there’s no question in my mind that gay marriage is going to lose more current voters than gain current non-voters.
<
p>
My [general strategy] opinion is shared by many around here, and by all of the 4 front running Democratic candidates. Maybe we’re all wrong. Maybe a front runner could take a stance on full marriage equality that was so inspiring, so brimming with obvious fairness, so softening of hardened hearts that they’d gain more votes than lose, statewise.
<
p>
But if you’re wrong, not only does GBLT not get any advancements over the next four years on a national level, but education, the environment, labor, womens rights, will all lose ground, both in the near term with an unsupportive veto happy president, and in the long term with conservative judges. You think another couple of Alitos are going to help GBLT rights over the next 50 years? How about a SCOTUS judge or two that a Dem nominates? It’s as if you’re willing to cut off your nose to spite your face, and I just don’t get it.
to spite my face? did i say i’d never vote for any of these benefactors of institutionalized bigotry? nice assumption on your part, thanks! i’m pointing out a grave shortcoming in the potential next leader of “the land of the free*”. you do the same with coal. others do the same with other issues. i’m not a republican toeing the “11th commandment”. i believe things can only improve after acknowledging the problems, not pretending they don’t exist.
<
p>
*some citizens excluded
By advocating that the Democratic candidates for president should be supporting full marriage rights for GBLTs, you’re advocating a strategy that would result in a Republican president 2008-2012.
<
p>
That’s advocating a strategy that would cut off your nose to spite your face, no? It’s not merely about who you’ll vote for — it’s about spending your time advocating for a top down change that will lose instead of bottom up change that will make progress toward eventual GBLT marriage, one step at a time.
cause the automatic win of republicans? sheesh!
Your advocating is either effective or it’s not. If it is, then advocating for the Democratic candidate to run on full marriage rights is effective, and increases the odds that the candidate will do so and lose, or your advocating isn’t effective, and you’re merely spinning wheels.
<
p>
So, which is it? Are you an effective advocate or not?
Are you an effective advocate or not?
<
p>
…Laurel is advocating, but GLAD has done yeomans’s work. They are New England Gay and Lesbian Advocate and Defenders (GLAD)–the people who got Goodridge through the SJC, and (I believe) they have been supporting Arlene Isaacson in her work on Beacon Hill. (GLAD should not be confused with the national organization GLAAD, which has a similar name.) GLAD has been working with state gay rights operations in New England for equal rights for gay people.
<
p>
Not so oddly, the ADL (Anti-Defamation League) has also expressed favor of equal rights for gay people. Why? Because equal rights denied one person means that equal right for all are in jeopardy.
i along with many other progressives have been pushing for honesty and fairness in our government. what has been the result? at this point, each and every dem candidate knows they must at least address the issues openly, even if disingenuously or weakly. this week they will all attend a public forum on LGBT issues. has this level of sincerity and attention to the issues happened in the past? no. would it have happened if the pressure wasn’t constantly on to be true to our Constitution and sense of fair play? absolutely not. i’m surprised that you don’t recognize bargaining and application of leverage when you see it.
<
p>
I recognize it, and I continue to encourage you. But I also try to recognize overplaying the hand and misjudging national sentiment, which is why on gay marriage I advocate winning from the bottom up — working within city councils & mayors and state leges & governors first, so that we can get more than 2% of states with marriage and more than 12ish% of states with any M/CU/DP before we go for 100% and go down in flames.
If MA taught me anything, it was the value of working locally. I am with you 100% on that approach. I just add to it working top-down too. Since Congress can’t institute marriage equality, but only block it, I am not afraid of pushing hard top-down. The repubs failed to pass a federal constitutional amendment even while at their zenith. It has no chance while dems are in the majority. Further, dems know that they cannot afford to enact other anti-gay legislation. And there is no push to at the federal lever anyways. Just the opposite – I think that enough are neutral or willing or genuinely desirous of improving things for LGBT citizens, but won’t stick their neck out without leadership from the president & speaker. So, this is why I have no fear in pushing the dual approach. I do understand your more pragmatic approach – it makes sense too – but I am tired of waiting, and I really see no danger in keeping the pressure on the whitehouse hopefulls.
and understood.
Let’s take the example of Stephanie Herseth (Sandlin), one of the first candidates elected thanks to a netroots push during a special election.
<
p>
Herseth, of course, is the Democratic representative for the state of South Dakota — and also the youngest woman in the House. She is also the granddaughter of a SD governor, and of a SD secretary of state.
<
p>
You can imagine where I’m going with this. SD has a wacko GOP governor, voted 60% for Bush in 2004, and a 10% GOP registration advantage. The GOP holds a 20-15 advantage in the Lege, and those 15 Dems aren’t exactly liberals. As well know, voters tossed out the Den Senate leader Tom Daschle three years ago, and Senator Tim Johnson’s hospitalization is probably benefitting his re-election bid.
<
p>
So, would you ask Herseth to change her stances on gay issues and show leadership? Do you think the probable consequences are worth it?
in a state I know nothing about. Well, I do know that they rejected the draconian forced-birth law. So even in SD the GOP has its limits, I guess. But, so, I’m not going to bite, not knowing the details. It is obvious that within-state dynamics are different for each state. Some approaches work better in some than others, and in differing order. You aren’t trying to hold up SD as a microcosm for the national election, are you? If so, sorry, but I’m going to have to laugh now.
I gave you plenty of information on South Dakota. It’s an overwhelmingly Republican state by any measure, and has banned gay marriage and adopted DOMA. Yet it has a Democratic representative elected at least partially due to being a scion of a prominent political family. I’m asking quite simply, do you think it is in the long-term interests of gay rights to have Herseth come out strongly for gay rights?
<
p>
And this is not a microcosm of the national election, but a situation faced by Boyda, Shuler, and dozens of other Democratic politicians.
how. things. work. in. SD. What else can I say? All I can venture to guess is that it couldn’t hurt for her to be on record as openly gay, openly in favor of fairness and equality for gay people. Then she needs to do what we all do: break down barriers one at a time by working directly with her colleagues on whatever legislative issues are at hand. Introduce pro-LGBT legislation, knowing it will fail, as a means of starting dialogue/education process. I really don’t know what more you want me to say. If I am missing some point you’re trying to make with your SD scenario, please just point it out to me.
Laurel, I was just trying to see where exactly our opinions diverge on the topic of “leadership” in LGBT issues. From what I can tell, you believe that saying that one is “openly in favor of fairness and equality” (which I’m guessing means equal marriage) is a political winner universally, even in South Dakota, and other Republican hinterlands. Introducing pro-LGBT legislation which you expect to lose, will further open up dialog. I’m not exactly an expert on South Dakota, but I have trouble thinking that Herseth would survive such an action, and the Dems would lose a seat we’re not likely to get back anytime soon.
<
p>
Applying this across the Democratic legislation, I can’t imagine the majority surviving if the caucus were to engage in the actions you describe.
you said you were not setting up a parallel with the federal situation, bugged me for an answer to a question in an arena i know nothing about, then turn around and draw those federal parallels. wtf?
<
p>
you accused me the other day of being only after agreement, not dialogue. i wonder if you got the two of us confused? it looks like here you were just trying to figure out how to slam my fingers in the window. you say you don’t know much about SD either, but then decide that your opinion on how my plan would play out is the correct one. well done, great powers of reason! nice dialogue!
<
p>
go entrap someone else, k?
His point is that there are dozens of House seats like this, and more than one Senate seat like this.
<
p>
The Dems have some seats in very GOP territory, for a variety of unusual circumstances. If those Dems start beating the GLBT rights drum, they’ll lose their seats. Then, the Dem leadership will have less strength, and the progressive Dems will have fewer votes on all legislation.
<
p>
SD doesn’t represent the complexities of the USA, but neither does Massachusetts or even New England as a whole.
sabutai was dishonest about the scope of his question. then he basically said “um, no you’re all wrong because i say you are even though i know nothing about the particulars either.” do you find credibility on that kind of reasoning?
<
p>
i do not believe in using state-level reps as models for what is happening with presidential candidates. show me a reasonable example where this has been shown to be a legit comparison.
I very much agree with your conception. But I’ll merely remind you that even in conservative countries like the Netherlands (yes, the people there are very conservative) and Belgium, same-sex marriage did not come about initially. There was a span of about 10 years between their CUs and them deciding that it was silly to have two separate regimes that were identical. And that’s what caused them to get rid of CUs and provide for same-sex marriage. I suspect that, given a chance that will also happen in at least some states in the US.
<
p>
In the US, it took 60 years for people to realize that separate-but-equal in racial matters was inherently unequal, and even after Brown vs. Board of Education many people resisted. Remember Louise Day Hicks of the white Southie race riot fame?. Don’t expect a revolution in opinion regarding same-sex marriage in the US anytime soon.
<
p>
Although this should be long past (channeling John Howard of the sperm and egg thing–remember him?) many people still consider marriage the state’s imprimatur on engaging in sexual activities. I’m sure that many people in the USofA know that this isn’t really true, but they would like to believe that by not allowing same-sex couples to marry, they would not have sex with each other–or that the sex would be “illicit”. It’s the silly fantasy that more than a few of them want to believe.
<
p>
I would not write Richardson off merely because of his stance on CUs vs. same-sex marriage.
i agree with that. The Hawaii SC ruled way back in 1993 that prohibiting gay people from marrying each other was in infringement on their rights. The Vermont SC ruling, which ushered in the newfangled CUs, happened way back in 1999. the country has been embroile din this process for a long time. the time is now for our dem candidates to take a principled stand.
<
p>
it is a bit problematic to compare the US to european countries, since in those countries marriage law is done at the federal level.
In 14 years we’ve gone from no possible CUs/DPs to CUs and DPs in less than a dozen states, marriage in one.
<
p>
Now, in 2 years you think this nation would support marriage in all 50? Honestly, even with a president who supported it, I don’t think you’d get the votes in the House or the Senate yet. That there isn’t even CUs/DPs in their constituencies — or in many cases state constitutional amendments banning gay marriage — ought to serve for a proxy of how their constituents feel on the issue.
<
p>
So, lets keep supporting the idea, and keep winning converts.
You have made it clear that you are gay. Where is your sense of need to stand up and do something about the current situation? Talk smack to Laurel all you want, but at least she is doing something about it rather than simply talking. If all we do is talk rather than act, yes things won’t change any time soon.
Talk smack to Laurel all you want…
<
p>
…is supposed to mean. But, if you noticed, she pretty much agreed with my assessment of the situation. Laurel @ Sun Aug 05, 2007 at 12:06:23 PM EDT
<
p>
She was correct that the situation in the US is not directly similar to the situation in Europe (marriage in the US is a state matter, and the federal government piggy backs on the state determinations) but in Canada it’s a mixed bag.
<
p>
On the old NYTimes gay rights board, there were a number of Canadians who were posting, and it was a bit confusing. But there seems to be a mixed role there between provinces and the federal government.
Seemed kind of rude to me, and that was the smack talk I mentioned. Sometimes when someone starts off like that, it sets the mood for the rest of the post, and if you were trying to agree with her, the words are less heard.
<
p>
Thanks for clarifying your point.
…I’ve used the “earth to….” as a humorous introduction.
and she’s no stranger to this thread or this blog.
<
p>
Why not let her stick up for herself? She’s more than capable.
…a vehement advocate on even the correct side of an issue needs to be tempered with a reminder of reality.
<
p>
Laurel is a vehement advocate. More power to her.
thanks stomv, yes, i can stick up for myself. however, as the saying goes, i’m not an island. or at least, i prefer not to be when i don’t have to be. so john, i appreciate your post on my behalf. thanks to you also.
“there seems to be a mixed role there between provinces and the federal government.”
<
p>
In Canada, marriage like most social policies is strictly the domain of the provinces. As with the US, some areas (Quebec and Ontario) were more open to gay rights than others (the Prairies). However, the Canadian Supreme Court ruled in 2005 that a ban on gay marriage violated the Charter of Rights.
<
p>
Free votes in the national Parliament on the issue under the Conservative minority government end up favoring the rights of same-sex couples to marry.
Democrats in a particular state can select whatever bigot they want to represent them at the national level. But it isn’t required that Democratic activists at the national level support them. Therein lies the difference.
<
p>
The latter was Kos’s failing, as far as I’m concerned. He supported the anti-LBGT bigot Herseth knowing that she was an anti-LGBT bigot and he acknowledged that. As far as I can tell, he’d sell his mother down the river if that would get a Democrat elected to Congress. He sure did with gays&lesbians. After elected, Herseth (I’ll refrain from using the “b” word–the one that ends in “itch” to describe her) voted in favor of the Federal anti-Marriage Amendment.
<
p>
I have no use for Kos whatsoever.