Clinton and Obama on Equal Marriage Rights

Earlier in the primary season we wrote an article about the various candidates' position on marriage rights.

At the time, there were six candidates. Now (with the exception of Mike Gravel, who is now running as a Libertarian and is still 100% supportive of full and equal marriage rights for LGBTQ people) there are three.

First, straight (no pun intended) talkin' McCain is all over the map but he makes it absolutely clear that during his presidency he will never sign a bill granting marriage rights, nor will he allow LGBTQ couples to have access to the thousands of federal rights and benefits that marriage would provide:

• On July 14, 2004, as the Presidential election was heating up and the Repugnicans were using the marriage issue to get votes, McCain said this: "The constitutional amendment we're debating today strikes me as antithetical in every way to the core philosophy of Republicans" and he voted against it.

• In 2005, when Republicans in Arizona decided to amend their state's constitution to ban equal marriage rights, McCain said he "supports an initiative that would change Arizona's Constitution to ban gay marriages and deny government benefits to unmarried couples."

• In March of 2006, as he was gearing up for his own run for the presidency, McCain told the now deceased Reverend Jerry Falwell that he would support a federal constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman if a federal court were to strike down state constitutional bans on gay marriage.

Recently, both Clinton and Obama have restated their positions on the issue:

At an LGBTQ fundraiser in NYC last month, Obama told a group of about 125 gay men and lesbians that he did not think it was “politically feasible” to secure marriage rights for same-sex couples in the country at this point. However, Obama did say that although he understands that LGBTQ people want full marriage rights, he favors civil unions for now but will leave open the possibility that his position might evolve in the future.

And just a few days ago, Clinton made clear her position. Like Obama, Clinton does not support full marriage rights. And she believes specific marriage laws should be left up to individual states to decide upon. However, Clinton promised that if she is elected, she will "defend gay rights and eliminate disparities for same-sex couples in federal law, including immigration and tax policy.

We think it is a clear that whether or not Clinton or Obama is elected president in 2008, in addition to fighting for a more equitable health care system, better education policies, more stringent EPA standards, etc., both of them will also be open to granting federal rights and benefits to LGBTQ couples.

The bottom line?

Vote for the Democrats in November!

A Tiny Ripple of Hope

Forty years ago today, in 1968, Martin Luther King Jr. was assassinated in Memphis Tennessee. All across America, cities were burned as hundreds of of Blacks -- angry and frustrated over the loss of their beloved leader -- lashed out against years of injustice and bigotry.

That night, in one city where violence was expected but did not erupt, Robert F. Kennedy, gave an unplanned, unwritten and amazing speech calling for calm and understanding at a time when fear and anger abounded. Kennedy pleaded with the mostly Black crowd not to resort to violence and to instead pick up the baton that King had handed to them in order to continue his work for peace and racial and economic justice:

"It is from numberless diverse acts of courage and belief that human history is shaped. Each time a man stands up for an ideal, or acts to improve the lot of others, or strikes out against injustice, he sends forth a tiny ripple of hope, and crossing each other from a million different centers of energy and daring, those ripples build a current that can sweep down the mightiest walls of oppression and resistance."

In other words, one small, seemingly insignificant act, word or event can start a revolution.

Over the years -- especially after Ronald Regan began to dismantle the social safety nets that were constructed to protect the poor, elderly, the children, the disabled, etc. -- we've wondered when Americans (as Tracy Chapman predicted) would finally rise up against injustice:

"Poor people gonna rise up
And get their share
Poor people gonna rise up
And take whats theirs"

With the economy spiraling downward, an illegal war raging in Iraq, record job losses, foreclosures at an all time high, a crisis in health care and education, with criminals holding the highest offices in government with little or no outcry or oversight from Congress and the media, finally and at last, we're talkin' about a revolution.

By "revolution" we do not mean a gigantic social conflagration. We are not advocating a violent revolt. Instead, we dream of a revolution resulting from an ever growing dissatisfaction with an oppressive status quo. This dissatisfaction (we hope) will exert so much pressure on the political and economic system that is currently so incredibly unjust that it will crumble from the force and the numbers of those who are no longer willing to accept systemic injustice.

Are we seeing that revolution now? Is the Obama candidacy an example of a new kind of revolution? How else to explain a phenomena whereby millions of poor and disenfranchised American's have pooled their otherwise paltry economic resources to support a grassroots candidate who has managed to become a front-runner in a race for the highest office in the land?

Especially when you consider the odds against such a thing happening.

Of course there are those who believe that Obama's campaign is not actually a "bottom-up" phenomenon. They suspect that there is a nefarious and powerful force that has propelled Obama from obscurity to top-ranking presidential candidate in just a few short years. Others believe Obama is beating Hillary Clinton in the primaries because the media and his supporters are misogynistic. Some believe Obama supporters have been mesmerized by his Svengali -- or even Hitleresque -- orating skills.

But in order for the above to be true, Jimmy Carter, Teddy Kennedy, Bill Richardson, Alice Walker, Caroline Kennedy and many other thoughtful and intelligent folks (including us) would have to be duped or in on the conspiracy. I can assure you we are not misogynistic, mesmerized or hypnotized, nor are we part of a grand conspiracy.

Could it be that voters are so accustomed to powerful political parties -- with the help of big corporate money, easily hacked-into voting machines and the media -- choosing our candidates for us that can not bring ourselves to believe in a real grassroots revolution?

After 7 years of Bush saying and doing whatever he wants while Congress and the media say and do nothing, American's may be suffering from "battered spouse syndrome."

Perhaps we have come to believe we deserve another abusive, political party annointed candidate who will rearrange a few chairs and perhaps do a few things differently but who will ultimately still be accountable to the big donors and party fat cats who paved his or her way to the presidency.

But what if a candidate manages to rise up from the grassroots -- supported by a majority of the people -- to overcome the party machine and win?

Will we join the revolution or belittle it?

The Bottom Line

Whoever gets elected as President in November, each candidate must first win their respective party's nomination.

John McCain has made it over this hurdle and is now wandering the globe making gaff after gaff with virtually no opposition.

And although Clinton and Obama must first wrestle the nomination from the other, both would be well served to spend the next few weeks or months talking about themselves, their positions and policies as they also highlight the problems with McCain.

After all, the whole point of an election is supposed to be about giving voters time and information that informs us about each candidate so that we can make the best decision.

So, shut up already about what is wrong with the other Democrat!

Tell us what you will do about the economy, the war(s), health care, the environment, our infrastructure, Social Security, Medicare, education, LGBTQ equality, and on and on and on...

The bottom line is this -- we need a Democrat elected as President in November.

Period.

Cherry Picking the Facts

We are finding the controversy over Jews and Obama quite baffling.

To prove that Obama is anti-Semitic, folks are pointing to the expressions of some of his supporters (Reverend Jeremiah Wright and Louis Farrakhan) as well as the family lineage and past statements of some members of his foreign policy advisory team such as Merrill McPeak and Robert Malley.

The problem is, cherry picking the relative anti or pro Jewish stance of a candidate's supporters can cut both ways.

For every news article, editorial and blog post that claims to "prove" Obama is anti-Semitic or will govern in a way that harms Israel, there are equal numbers that say the opposite.

What about the fact that Obama's campaign advisor is David Axelrod, a Jew from Chicago who has been with him since his days as a civil rights organizer on the streets of Chicago?

And did you know some of Obama's closest friends are Jews? According to Obama's Chicago neighbor Rabbi Arnold Jacob Wolf:

"Many people remain concerned that Obama isn't committed to Israel. Some want him to fall in line behind the intransigent, conservative thinking that has silenced Jewish debate on Israeli policy and enabled the Bush Administration's criminal neglect of the diplomatic process.

Clearly, though, anyone who thinks Obama waffles on Israel hasn't been paying attention. In 2007, he spoke to AIPAC about "a clear and strong commitment to the security of Israel." Today, his website states clearly that America's "first and incontrovertible commitment in the Middle East must be to the security of Israel."

For my part, I've sometimes found Obama too cautious on Israel. He, like all our politicians, knows he mustn't stray too far from the conventional line, and that can be disappointing. But unlike anyone else on the stump, Obama has also made it clear that he'll broaden the dialogue. He knows what peace entails."

And were you aware that leaders of most major Jewish organizations such as the Anti-Defamation League, the Orthodox Union, B'nai B'rith, etc., have come out and said they do not believe Obama is anti-Semitic?

Rather than spending all of our time trying to paint Obama as the candidate whose foreign policy will be harmful to Israel, lets work together and get a democrat elected in November.

As long as Democrats and Progressives are busy bashing Clinton and/or Obama we allow John McCain to sail on to victory. And lest we forget, that really WILL be harmful to Israel.

John McCain is a warmonger. He doesn't know anything other than war. As long as bombs , armies, occupations and threats are the first tools we reach for when building a Middle-East foreign policy program, the more likely we will be to see the real destruction of Israel.

In fact, one of McCain's most ardent supporters -- Reverend Hagee, whose stated desire is to see Israel engage in an apocalyptic nuclear war with Iran -- is calling for that very thing. Watch:



And for the record, there are articles and posts online right now that claim Hillary Clinton is affiliated with anti-Semitic supporters and advisers and that her church is leaning in that direction.

The point is, with the advent of the Internet, we can find an article that supports any view we wish to espouse -- whether positive or negative -- about a particular candidate.

And where does that get us?

John McCain, that's where.

We're Not So Different