Twittering Visible Vote 08

Having a political moment

by j. brotherlove

For some reason I got the idea of twittering while watching Visible Vote 08 on Logo. While not as compelling as the YouTube/CNN debate, it was fascinating to watch six Democratic presidential candidates address LGBT issues in a one-on-one setting.

As an aside, all of the major Republican candidates were invited to participate in a similar forum; all of them declined. I’m sure some gay Republican has a reason why that’s not important. Good luck with that.

Each candidate had 15 minutes to answer questions posed by moderator Margaret Carlson (a former White House correspondent) and three panelists: Joe Solmonese (HRC), Melissa Etheridge, and Jonathan Capehart (Washington Post).

I have to admit, there wasn’t much in the way of groundbreaking answers. All candidates oppose DOMA & Don’t Ask Don’t Tell and support some type of civil union/same gender (gay) marriage. When the forum ended, Jenifer Hanen asked who I thought won the panel. After a breather, here are my overall impressions:

Barack Obama was first up and did a good job overall. I feel his heart is in the right place but I still question his level of experience. His answers were on target except when it came to the gay marriage issue. Like most of the candidates, Obama supports civil unions that carry “all the benefits of marriage” but doesn’t support calling it “marriage” due to its connection to religion. I accept that as his position but he stumbled a bit on stating it and didn’t use enough validation for those of us who don’t buy into being “separate but equal”. Obama excelled when Capehart asked about homophobia in the black community as if it doesn’t exist anywhere else.

John Edwards didn’t affect me strongly one way or another. He appeared sincere and gave solid answers. However, he also stumbled with the faith question as it relates to gay marriage. For a moment it seemed as if he was going to say he changed his opposition to gay marriage (stating he “understands” it). But did he veered back. He has to get better at answering the question, despite his answer.

Dennis Kucinich was a fantastic fresh breath of air. He is one of only two presidential candidates who fully support gay marriage. He’s for medicinal marijuana, frank sex education/AIDS prevention, and ending employment discrimination. At one point, Capehart asked: “Is there anything the LGBT community wants that you *don’t* support?” In the end, Kucinich is so progressive it’s hard to believe the words coming out of his mouth. Alec Mapa said watching Kucinich was like being in the presence of Santa Claus.

Mike Gravel was a treat to watch. Like Kucinich, he supports equal marriage for LGBT couples. He also has some radical ideas (seeing no reason “why you can’t go to the liquor store and buy marijuana”). However his progressive ideas plus his age (he was born in 1930) just doesn’t make him a viable presidential candidate for me (and yes, I’m aware that’s an ageist statement). Still, it’s refreshing to a straight white man of his age support GLBT coming out and asserting their rights.

Bill Richardson was the most surprising to me; and not in a good way. Richardson, the man who made the “maricon” reference on Imus, is pragmatic. He believes you need to build public support on issues that divide and prefers to focus on those that are “achievable” (which does not include same sex marriage). He got a couple of groans from the audience most notably when he stated homosexuality is a choice. I stopped listening to him after he said that.

Hillary Clinton was the finishing act for good reason. She is a polished politician, almost to a fault. Even when her answers weren’t what I wanted to hear, she knew how to deliver them in a way that made me go “well, okay.” When asked why she hasn’t introduced legislation to repeal Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell already, she blamed the Republican congress and President. She acknowledged Eric Alva in the audience (smart) and restated her position on allowing civil states to retain their jurisdiction over marriage. Even then, she used words like “respect” for differing opinions and “you’re doing exactly what you need to do and should do”. Sharp!

These unconventional forums and debates have made it easier to learn more about the candidates and I welcome them. I’m still developing my opinion of the candidates so I’m not sure who I’m voting for come election time. But I know it won’t be a Republican or Bill Richardson.

I find it funny that folks want to semantically separate a civil union from the word marriage. Here in the US, we mostly equate the act as religious, but in most European states you get married at the Mayor’s and only do a religious ceremony if you want to.

I had it out with someone in my apartment building this last week about this. He listens to too too too much right-wing radio and was spouting crap that was not even logical. So, I brought out the standard he was measuring & judging others by, the Bible. I opened it to the 10 Commandments and started reading them one by one, at the end of each one, I asked “So, have you committed this sin?”

He sputtered. He coughed. He grumbled. And then he laughed and got it, but not enough, as at the end he was still being an ass about the whole thing.

He won’t look at me or say hi now. Cause I am the Chick with the Bible… ;oD

Ok, on a less ironic note, I find it a wonder enough that folks are able to find someone that they love at the same time that that person loves them. If they are over 18, have at it, get married. Knock yourself out. Have a big party. Wear a great outfit. Have a feast. Laugh with joy.

Call it marriage.

Regardless of sexual orientation or whatnot, make sure to cultivate your marriage, weed, water, make sure the sun shines, laugh, and have a great big party with dancing at your 50th wedding anniversary.

;o)

Good job, J. This debate wasn’t available up here, but your summaries gave me a pretty good idea of how the entire thing played out.

Super well done on the twittering. I enjoyed it very much.

I find it very hard to have a conversation with someone who tells me he/she honestly believes that homosexuality is a choice. I know that’s very close-minded of me and that I should shut up and listen to their side etc etc but honestly, and I know this is going to come off as being extremely mean, at that point all I can think of is to get as far away from the stupidity as possible. Is it silly to say that I have zero tolerance for intolerent people?

As for Kucinich, I’ve never seen him say no to anything. He says all the right things at all the right forums but he’s so far to the left that he scares people. There’s no real way for him to get a foot in the door. Hell, he even gets me to wondering how in the hell we’d raise all the money to do all the things he envisions and I’m a bleeding heart liberal who wants to believe everything and anything is possible if we only just tried!! :D

Thanks Cecily and Michelle!

Congratulations Ms. Jen on grabbing that Bible! I find most people who use it to justify their position on gays and marriage have very little knowledge of everything that’s in the Bible. They’re just regurgitating the soundbites.

When you start to break it down, the Bible argument has many illogical twists and turns. Some of the contradictions are in the same passages Christians use to condemn homosexuality.

The bottom line is I don’t want anyone using their holy book to restrict my freedoms; it’s ludicrous and unconstitutional.

I find that debates are more useful when presidential candidates are talking about UNIVERSAL issues, not about discrepencies within a small group of citizens who so happen to be gay.

Share your love:

The ability to comment on this site is a privilege; not a right. Inflammatory, off-topic and ignorant comments will be removed. Basic XHTML is permitted (if you don't know what that means, stick to plain text).