It only proves that neither one is ready for primetime. They don't know how to respond to anything without consulting their handlers.

Bill Clinton sold us all out when he sign the marriage protection act and "don't ask dont' tell". This is why I voted for NADER and why Bush Won Twice. Can't the Dems get a clue?

The Dems take us for granted and slap us in the face with things like DOMA, DADT and separate but "equal" marriage laws. Truly sad that, effectively, we have nowhere to turn.

Julian & Bill - My thoughts exactly!

Republicans have an edge because they stand FOR something… they have the pleasure of knowing where to walk and knowing that millions will follow them blindly without reserve.

Democrats have a very bad habit of standing AGAINST something, but never standing FOR anything… they are constantly dancing about trying to grasp a hold of all the ‘free thinkers’ (like us) whose opinions are as varied as their geographical location.

Because republicans have a clear cut path (and following), it’s easier to set out specific opinions and not have too much to worry about. Democrats have to be very delicate about the situation. If they come out in TOTAL support for homosexuals, they will never get the majority vote and will never win an election … so they resort to a simple condemnation of other people’s comments (as in this case) so they can have a ‘greater acceptance’ ratio…

And I think that sucks like a cheap whore.

Eventually, I hope someone will be brave enough to actually stand up for me, knowing that they will not win the election, but doing it because it SHOULD be done.

But, it’s a process. First things first. Today is “don’t ask, don’t tell” which is a stepping stone to “free acceptance” tomorrow. I think we sometimes forget how hard it is to get equal rights in this country… as women and blacks are STILL working on it.

In the meantime… I am very disappointed that both democratic candidates didn’t try to make a stronger stand. I know that they are still better than the right (which is little consolation). I really anticipate that for now they dodge the question, and in 8 years (after they are elected) homosexuals will be better off than we are today.

And, that’s the burden of hope.

Why is this news???

Rudy in '08!!!

Any big studs here have a big stiff problem I could help them lick?

I am still having a hard time understanding why so many queers are falling in line behind Obama. I think he made it painfully clear how moral he thinks homos are when he said "personally, I do believe that marriage is between a man and a woman."Obama.Senate.Gov

Why is it that this story is always posted with Hillary's response first? I haven't seen Obama standing behind an HRC podium lately, have you?

HRC didn't comment on other people's morals or right to judge immorality, she reaffirmed that she supports the LGBT community. When realizing she may have been unclear, she made a concise statement on where she stands.
Obama made a witty statement that made it clear he does not believe Pace to be speaking from a place of any wisdom.
what more do you queens want?

To SethAPartner :

Yes, Obama has mentioned his PERSONAL views several times. What he does support it a civil union between same sex couples… and his main “problem” (if you can call it that) is that he wants it to be on a state level, not a federal level. The reason behind this is simple… several states accept same-sex civil unions, then the federal government would be forced to accept it… period.

He is actually presenting a very well thought out stair-step program for homosexuals and is a bit of an underhanded ‘jab’ at anyone who supports a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage (as the article you linked actually states).

So Obama said… plainly “I also think that we should create civil unions for gays and lesbians that allow them to have the same basic rights as all people, and I am disturbed by the anti-gay rhetoric, and this is an area where, for example, my church tradition, I think, has to deepen its understanding. You know, when we resort to attacks on gays and lesbians unnecessarily, to me at least that violates some of the central principles in Christianity, like the Sermon on the Mount."

So essentially, Obama wants a "separate but equal" solution. Odd coming from a man whose ancestors were considered just that. I guess every minority wants someone to spit on. As long as American GLBT's continue to allow religious types--whether Dem, or Repub--to dictate gay policies, you will never have equality.

uugh Paul... you're just being difficult. i HATE the seperate but equal idea... i want EVERYONE to fill out the SAME paperwork... no matter who they are.... that is my hope... but GETTING to that point takes a little effort, it's not just awarded automatically (unfortunately)

I didn't say I agreed with Obama, i just said he had a plan......

Dawster,

The point I was making is that Obama is personally against gay marriage. That isn't debatable. I have posted about this exact topic here).

I don't know where you got the idea that if "several states accept same-sex unions then the federal government would be forced to accept it". Several states DO recognize civil unions, and the federal government clearly DOESN'T recognize them. Ending that state right was the aim of the FMA to begin with.

Regardless, Hillary has been much stronger on GLBT issues. She has made her position on the issues clear. Just because Obama isn't saying anything doesn't mean you can ad-lib support.

SethAPartner... if more than 1/3 of the states accept something as "law" then the federal government must accept it... it's in the constitution....

you can ask for gay marriage and f you can find a church to support it you will get it... that's fine... but i'm looking at it from a different standpoint.

Hillary never spoke out against the ban of gay marriage, AND she never said that she would block the movement by congress to ban gay marriage... Obama did.

I would have voted for Hillary... only if she divorced Bill.