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!

Video: AL Gore Supports Equal Marriage Rights

Draft Gore for President!

Rubbing Our Noses In Heterosexuality

Recently we found the following arguments against equal marriage rights:

1. Homosexual sex is not natural. Men and women are born with “fitting parts” that prove God intended for the male part to enter the female part.
2. Gay rights activists are rubbing our noses in their sex lives.
3. If gays are allowed to marry, heterosexual marriage will be less meaningful.
4. Heterosexual marriage has been around a long time which proves it is valid.
5. Gay marriage should be decided by people not the courts.
6. Gay marriage is not supported religion.
7. God abhors gay sex.
8. Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay or send a message that it is OK to be gay.
9. Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy sexual behavior.
10. Gay marriage will change/destroy the foundation of society.

A careful reading of the arguments leads to the conclusion that, in general, opponents of equal marriage rights reduce our relationships down to one single factor -- S-E-X.

They do not conceded that we have rich, full, multi-faceted lives together that are not so different from the lives of heterosexual couples.

We love, we live, we work. We have children and grandchildren. We pray, we play, we pay taxes, get sick and we die.

All we want is to have the legal rights and protections that will allow us to care for our family. Period.

Perhaps the best way to illustrate the absurdity of the arguments put forth by anti-equality opponents to turn the tables on them.

Imagine opening the social pages of your local newspaper to find this announcement:

John and Anne Richards Celebrate 50 F*cking Years with Family and Friends

At the Jamestown Inn on November 12 more than 100 friends and family joined John and Anne Richards in celebrating 50 f*cking years together.

Special guest was Anne’s father Henry Smith, who turned 100 years old last May. Henry and his late wife Joyce f*cked for over 60 years before she died in 1986.

Hosts were the couple’s three children and their f*ck partners, Mark (Loretta) Richards, Kelly (Alex) George and Katie (Brian) Gill.

John Richards and Anne Smith were united in legally sanctioned f*cking on November 9, 1957, at St. Anthony’s Catholic Church where guests witnessed their vows to love, honor and f*ck from that day forward.

The couple retired 10 years ago and now enjoy traveling, playing golf, spending time with their children and grandchildren and -- of course -- f*cking as often as their health permits.

Imagine if all relationships were reduced to their sexual component. Not a pretty sight.

We're tired of having our noses rubbed in the legal rights of others while they are denied to us because a few powerful folks are sexually perverted and in dire need of therapy.

Barack Obama Embraces IN-Tolerants

This past weekend, Senator and Democratic Presidential candidate, Barack Obama, campaigned in South Carolina -- on what was billed as his "Embrace the Change" gospel tour that included gospel singer and renowned homophobe, Donnie McClurkin.

Despite being informed about McClurkin's anti-gay rhetoric prior to his tour, Obama apparently weighed the pros and cons and determined that he needs the support of the bigots to offset Clinton's ever rising poll numbers.

In a recent Advocate article, Obama tried to justify his decision to campaign with McClurkin by first stating that he was only recently made aware of the singers homophobic sentiments and second, by claiming that he is not responsible for the comments and expressions of every celebrity who endorses him.

True 'nuff.

However, there are ways to get support for your cause without depending on those whose personal demons keep their minds and closets shut tight.

Many Christian groups and other organizations that promote Civil Rights for Black Americans and other People of Color also support rights for LGBTQ people.

But one poll shows that Obama's cowardly choice to stand on a stage with McClurkin may be strategically wise:

"...new data show that in the key Electoral College states the endorsement of gay rights groups hurts a candidate much more than it helps.

Quinnipiac University polls of voters in Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania -- the big three Electoral College swing states -- found voters by large margins more likely to see the endorsement of a gay rights group as a reason to vote against, rather than for, a candidate."

Still, it would be nice to see a candidate risk it all to stand up for what he or she believes is right. Maybe -- just maybe -- that person would be rewarded for their honesty.

Or NOT.