Last night’s CNN/YouTube presidential debates may have been the gayest political debates since – well, ever! We’ve never seen a network allow so much time to be spent discussing the dirty homos and their political inclusion. Although, it is CNN, the gayest of all the news networks.
Regardless of CNN’s sexual proclivity, the network – and voters – kept the democratic candidates on their toes with a slew of lavender-hued queries. Above, Presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich hits the ball out of the park while discussing gay marriage, telling a lesbian couple he would allow them to marry:
…If our Constitution really means what it says, that all are created equal, if it really means what it says, that there should be equality of opportunity before the law, then our brothers and sisters who happen to be gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgendered should have the same rights accorded to them as anyone else, and that includes the ability to have a civil marriage ceremony.
It’s especially powerful coming from his little bobble-head.
Chris Dodd did well, too, again turning the question around to discuss his two-year old and five-year old daughters (whose existence really boggles the mind – go Dodd!). Dodd wouldn’t want his little girls discriminated against, you see, so why would he discriminate against the gays. Voters eat that shit with a spoon.
How about we take this to the next level?
Our newsletter is like a refreshing cocktail (or mocktail) of LGBTQ+ entertainment and pop culture, served up with a side of eye-candy.
Meanwhile, New Mexico governor Bill Richardson got real about the ever-contentious issue, saying, “I would do what is achievable.What I think is achievable is full civil unions with full marriage rights. I would also press for you a hate crimes act in the Congress.” He also pledged to take down “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”.
But, wait, there’s more…
John Edwards has often used his Southern Baptist background to defend his offensive stance on gay marriage. Bless Reverend Reggie Longcrier of Hickory, North Carolina for posing this question to Mr. Edwards:
Senator Edwards said his opposition to gay marriage is influenced by his Southern Baptist background. Most Americans agree it was wrong and unconstitutional to use religion to justify slavery, segregation, and denying women the right to vote. So why is it still acceptable to use religion to deny gay American their full and equal rights?
That’s a more well-rounded question than most journalists could muster. One wonders if Reverend Longcrier had some help from the man upstairs, whomever that may be…
Edwards handled Longcrier’s query like any good politician: skirting the issue. Moderator Anderson Cooper took Edwards to task – as did Longcrier, who “happened” to be the in the audience – and Edwards finally answered thus:
It’s not. I mean, I’ve been asked a personal question which is, I think, what Reverend Longcrier is raising, and that personal question is, do I believe and do I personally support gay marriage?
The honest answer to that is I don’t. But I think it is absolutely wrong, as president of the United States, for me to have used that faith basis as a basis for denying anybody their rights, and I will not do that when I’m president of the United States.
Edwards has never been high on our list of preferred candidates, but we’ve got to say his answer resonated. Unlike so many of his peers, it actually sounded – gasp – honest! Incredible.
Meanwhile, Barack Obama answered a similar question (although they used the interracial marriage comparison because, you know, Obama’s black), telling Cooper and the rest of America that he’s primarily concerned with equality under the law.
…We’ve got to make sure that everybody is equal under the law. And the civil unions that I proposed would be equivalent in terms of making sure that all the rights that are conferred by the state are equal for same-sex couples as well as for heterosexual couples.
Now, with respect to marriage, it’s my belief that it’s up to the individual denominations to make a decision as to whether they want to recognize marriage or not. But in terms of, you know, the rights of people to transfer property, to have hospital visitation, all those critical civil rights that are conferred by our government, those should be equal.
Alright, well said, although we’re not sure how much we trust you Mr. Obama. We’re still feeling you out. And, we think, you’re still feeling us out…
For a full transcript of the debates, click here. It’s some good, good reading. Perfect for that post-lunch break, if you know what we mean…
cjc
Awww, Kucinich. I respect him highly, even if the only place he could be president is on Planet Claire.
Paul Raposo
“do I believe and do I personally support gay marriage? The honest answer to that is I don’t.”
I get a real kick out of Edwards; he supported and continues to support the philandering Bill Clinton, yet opposes marriage for monogamous gays.
Mr. B
Dear, hopeless Mr. Kucinich. I did have the pleasure of sitting a table over from him at a vegetarian restaurant in Cleveland. He was with his very lovely wife, who has an impressive history doing relief work in Tanzania and some other places.
Leland Frances
ARGGGGGGG! [tearing hair out]!!! Are dead brain cells the NEW “gay plague”? Kucinich is achieving nothing but giving the childish “all or nothing” queens and Lesby Anns an excuse to throw their vote away on him or not vote at all. That REALLY worked for us in 2000/2004 didn’t it?!
It’s absurd [and a bit suspicious—it’s more likely he “had some help” from an Edwards opponent than the any man/woman/beast “upstairs”] for the Rev. to single out Edwards. All but the grinning loon from Alaska and the Munchkin from Ohio have the exact same position he does on marriage and for the same reason. Ya think Obama opposes gay marriage because he read about it on the back of a pack of instant oatmeal? It all comes from religion, and, in fact, of the leads, Obama, based on all of his references to god, religion, ministers, churches, etc., in his book and elsewhere, is the one to suspect ACTUALLY opposes it on religious grounds rather than Richardsonian political practicality.
And fucking Christ of the Andes, will someone PLEASE pie the Rev. Obama the next time he shits another one of his intellectually dishonest “separate and unequal” lines. What a LOAD!!! All the more insulting because it comes from the mouth of a man of color whose different race parents could have been sent to prison had THAT law not been overturned. If YOU don’t get it, Bitch, then what’s the Rev. Longcrier pot-shotting Edwards for?
I’ll support any Dem over any Repug, but I, too, distrust Obama, and Edwards is the only one so far to explicitly state that his adminstration would not involve itself in any effort to block gay marriage regardless of what he personally believe and why.
dce1
Its interesting CNN decided not to direct the gay rights question to Mike Gravel- the most pro-gay rights candidate in the ring. Watch what happens at the HRC forum when Gravel has the opportunity to discuss the ‘real’ morality of gay marriage.
stonerboy711
I thought it was interesting that they directed specific questions towards long-shot candidates. It was as if the “main three” told CNN in advance what they wouldn’t want to answer in exchange for being in their debate. They also knew that Anderson had little time to make them actually answer a question so they ended up skirting the questions even after he called them on it. What a joke. You Tube should be ashamed that it got played like a fool!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! They totally lost their “semi-cool factor” – welcome to corporate Amerikkka.
BillieXX
Paul,
While you may trust Edwards you have to admit this much: there is no Dem candidate with a shot of winning who supports same-sex marriage.
Iddybud
I’m pro-gay marriage, pro-gay-family. Even with John Edwards readily admitting that he is still on a faith-journey toward understanding, he is telling you he will enhance and defend all of our civil rights. He may not be a lover of gay marriage, but he’s a lover of the rule of law. I support him because I believe. in my heart, that he wouldn’t let you down. I think you already understand that the hardest part of the job is to convince your state legislatures to support your case on gay marriage. Root out discrimination where you live. Grassroots, grassroots, grassroots. Local politics count for so much when it comes to this issue. I may be a heterosexual, but I’ve been with you every step of the way. And will be. That said, I regret to see John Edwards’ political stand on the issue misunderstood.
underbear1
“it’s not the hateful epitaths of our enemies, it’s The SILENCE of good friends”~MLK
I was appreciative of Kucinitch’s answer, and even MORE APPRECIATIVE of the youth in the Citadel audience for their supportive applause, they will one day CHANGE this blatant bigotry in America, even if Hillary, Barack, Bill and John….WON’T.
Iddybud
I just wanted to add that I think this is a great site and that I plan to put a link to it on my own blog.
Jude
underbear1
Queers may have to hold our noses this election and support the BEST of the candidates who won’t stand up for our EQUALITY, that doesn’t mean we can’t be saddened, or angry that we don’t have the viable candidate we would want.
I understand the reality of bigots still having a small majority on the marriage issue, but SOON there will come a tipping point when older bigots die off, and appeal to younger progressive voters will make this year’s COWARDICE STAND not pay off anymore. I doubt I’ll live that long, but it’s coming.
Paul Raposo
What LGBTQ voters need to remember is the prez has zero power about policy, save his/her veto power. The House and Senate have all the power and if you have a wishy-washy prez who won’t whip his people into supporting equal marriage, American gays won’t even get civil unions, so much as marriage. That’s why when these candidates hem-and-haw about equal marriage, they’re sending the wrong signal to their party and giving them carte blanche to waiver on equal rights. The House and Senate make the laws, the prez signs them. If we don’t have a strong voice fighting for equal marriage, it will not happen.
Tony9978
So Edwards says he will not deny anyone the right to marry. I think what he is means by that is he will remain nuetral with the issue. This will lead us and our cause absolutly nowhere. If we are voting for Edwards, isn’t that the same as voting for a neutral Republican?