[QUOTE=ArchiveGuy]
Obama also clarified his position, too:A shame that they both couldn’t say it outright, but it’s still more than any Republican running for office has done so far.
[/QUOTE]
Well Rudy is weaseling as much as possible on it and Pro-Choice, but considering the audience he has to play to as a Republican candidate I don’t think he has much choice. I do tend to expect a little better from the Democratic candidate.
Jim
[QUOTE=Marley23]
Bill Clinton’s “triangulation” on these issues - mostly the Defense of Marriage Act, but also Don’t Ask Don’t Tell - pissed me off big time, and I was an apolitical 14-year-old when it passed. I had a feeling he was selling out people who supported him.
[/QUOTE]
Absolutely. I was a strong supporter of Bill Clinton in his initial campaign for president, and when I voted for him I vowed that his presidency would stand or fall in my eyes based on whether he followed through on his campaign promise to end the ban on gays in the military. We know how that turned out. I hated “don’t ask, don’t tell” then, and I am just as opposed today. As if I needed another reason not to support Hillary.
He must either be a former Senator or a state Senator, since WY’s Senators are Craig Thomas and Mike Enzi.
I think you’re thinking of Mark Warner, though it’s easy to confuse the two. (John Warner is up for reelection next year, though nobody knows whether he’s going to run. Mark Warner was Governor until Tim Kaine, his Lieutenant Governor, was elected in 2005.)
[QUOTE=Captain Carrot]
I think you’re thinking of Mark Warner, though it’s easy to confuse the two. (John Warner is up for reelection next year, though nobody knows whether he’s going to run. Mark Warner was Governor until Tim Kaine, his Lieutenant Governor, was elected in 2005.)
[/QUOTE]
Oops. Yes. Sorry. Got all my Warners confused in the dank recesses of my noggin.
[QUOTE=Marley23]
Democratic politicians in general have been cowards on gay issues for years. Not every single one, but many of them, and certainly the major presidential candidates. They’ve punked out the entire gay marriage issue - they want the courts to rule in favor of it or the people to vote against it, anything so they don’t have to take a position that somebody won’t like. It’s pathetic.
[/QUOTE]
It is pathetic, but not too surprising. Gay marriage was a polarizing issue in the 2004 presidential race (and I think it was an important factor in the results). Personally, I would prefer a candidate that takes a clear stance on each issue. Voters should be smart enough to know that no one candidate will be an exact match with them and that they’ll need to compromise and get the best fit.
What confuses me slightly is why so many politicans are attempting to appear gay friendly at all. On one hand such a politico could potentially tap into the votes of tens of millions of gay people nationwide…but on the other hand they could create a massive backlash in the general population. Is the zeitgeist moving so quickly? I mean, we seemingly had a referendum on gays in 2004 and the subsequent gay marriage proposals which failed in several states. We’ve seen dozens of states write DOMA language into their constitutions or have defined marriage as a union between a man and a woman, period.
So what’s up?
[QUOTE=jsgoddess]
Oops. Yes. Sorry. Got all my Warners confused in the dank recesses of my noggin.
[/QUOTE]
Yacko is the smart one, Wakko is wacky and hungry and Dot is the cute one. 
[QUOTE=CaveMike]
Gay marriage was a polarizing issue in the 2004 presidential race (and I think it was an important factor in the results).
[/QUOTE]
I don’t remember if the statistics bore that out. The topic is polarizing, but the Democrats were weak and handled it poorly. The ones who were weakly opposed to gay marriage didn’t convince anyone. The ones who looked like they wanted to back it but wouldn’t, for fear of losing votes, ended up alienating their supporters.
[QUOTE=mstay]
What confuses me slightly is why so many politicans are attempting to appear gay friendly at all. On one hand such a politico could potentially tap into the votes of tens of millions of gay people nationwide…but on the other hand they could create a massive backlash in the general population. Is the zeitgeist moving so quickly?
[/quote]
Some of us straight people care about these issues, too.
[QUOTE=Captain Carrot]
I think you’re thinking of Mark Warner, though it’s easy to confuse the two. (John Warner is up for reelection next year, though nobody knows whether he’s going to run. Mark Warner was Governor until Tim Kaine, his Lieutenant Governor, was elected in 2005.)
[/QUOTE]
Actually, it was John Warner who publicly disagreed with Pace about the immorality of gay men and lesbians.
And I’d just like to note, in reference to DADT, that the US military, in order to fill its ranks, is offering more moral waivers than ever before. Apparently, the armed forces think it’s just dandy if you’ve robbed a liquor store at gunpoint, but goes apeshit if they think you have teh butsecks.
Somebody’s moral compass is a bit off, but I don’t think it’s the homosexuals’…
[QUOTE=jayjay]
And I’d just like to note, in reference to DADT, that the US military, in order to fill its ranks, is offering more moral waivers than ever before. Apparently, the armed forces think it’s just dandy if you’ve robbed a liquor store at gunpoint, but goes apeshit if they think you have teh butsecks.
Somebody’s moral compass is a bit off, but I don’t think it’s the homosexuals’…
[/QUOTE]
Gay is the new litterbug.
[QUOTE=mstay]
What confuses me slightly is why so many politicans are attempting to appear gay friendly at all. On one hand such a politico could potentially tap into the votes of tens of millions of gay people nationwide…but on the other hand they could create a massive backlash in the general population. Is the zeitgeist moving so quickly? I mean, we seemingly had a referendum on gays in 2004 and the subsequent gay marriage proposals which failed in several states. We’ve seen dozens of states write DOMA language into their constitutions or have defined marriage as a union between a man and a woman, period.
So what’s up?
[/QUOTE]
It’s moving pretty quickly, and it’s really hard to accurately judge just where the center is on the issue. I think there’s a large number of Americans who have accepted the idea that gays deserve equal rights and protection intellectually, but haven’t accepted it emotionally. Which is why we get these crazy polls that show that most Americans oppose gay marriage while supporting civil unions, which is a fundamentally irrational position. And more and more Americans are realizing this, and coming over to the pro SSM side. The wave of anti-marriage legislation seems to have broken at Arizona, which recently became the first state to defeat one of these bans. Hopefully, that’s the start of a trend, but it’ll be a couple years before we can say for sure. Politicians hoping to operate on a national level are having a hell of a time striking the right balance of acceptance and homophobia, so they don’t alienate too many people on either side of the debate. I suspect that their concern for their legacies is a factor, as well: if the culture shifts radically in the next fifteen years, some of these statements could come back and bite a Senator in the ass. So it’s not surprising (although still disappointing) to see the Democratic frontrunners holding their comments until they got a better idea of which way the political wind is blowing.
[QUOTE=Miller]
I suspect that their concern for their legacies is a factor, as well: if the culture shifts radically in the next fifteen years, some of these statements could come back and bite a Senator in the ass.
[/QUOTE]
Exactly. Nobody wants to be 2050’s version of George Wallace or Bull Conner. But nobody wants to be 2050’s version of John Brown, either. They’re trying to thread a narrow path.
Still, it hardly seems like the simple acknowledgment that homosexuality isn’t immoral would be so radical. Must be an election cycle…
[QUOTE=Miller]
It’s moving pretty quickly, and it’s really hard to accurately judge just where the center is on the issue. I think there’s a large number of Americans who have accepted the idea that gays deserve equal rights and protection intellectually, but haven’t accepted it emotionally. Which is why we get these crazy polls that show that most Americans oppose gay marriage while supporting civil unions, which is a fundamentally irrational position.
[/QUOTE]
FWIW, this is pretty much me at this point. I’m not anti-SSM, but I’m not out actively endorsing it either. Hey, if you can make headway with a guy like me, there’s hope for your cause yet. 
[QUOTE=Captain Carrot]
He must either be a former Senator or a state Senator, since WY’s Senators are Craig Thomas and Mike Enzi.
[/QUOTE]
He was a United States Senator for 18 years. Enzi is his successor. Simpson is more of a libertarian than a conservative. One of my favorite quotes from anyone is from him:
Any education that matters is “liberal.” All the saving truths, all the healing graces that distinguish a good education from a bad one or a full education from a half empty one are contained in that word.
And about his own party, he said:
I’ve been a Republican all my life. They’ll never throw me out. But they have an amazing ability to “eat their young”. They will give each other the saliva test of purity every once in a while, and then they lose. And then they just sit around and bitch for four years. It’s a fairly fascinating party.
Why can’t people like him run for President? […sigh…]
I can’t for the life of me think of a better reponse than Hillary gave.
At least for a politician who actually expects to get elected.
Really, you’d have to be dumber than a brick wall to just come out and say: “Gay marriages? I’m all for it!! Let’s redesign the flag with rainbow stipes instead of red ones!”
[QUOTE=What Exit?]
Well Rudy is weaseling as much as possible on it and Pro-Choice, but considering the audience he has to play to as a Republican candidate I don’t think he has much choice. I do tend to expect a little better from the Democratic candidate.
Jim
[/QUOTE]
Rudy’s problem is that he’s not used to running in national elections and I don’t think he realizes the scrutiny he’s going to be under or how some of the things he’s said in the past are going to come back and bite him in the ass.
Here’s Rudy speech supporting public funding for abortion.
I don’t know why Democrats are held to a higher standard but I suspect it’s true.
Of all of the candidates, the two Democratic candidates for president are the only two that came out with anything remotely resembling supporting gays in the military and they’re the ones criticized.
[QUOTE=SHAKES]
I can’t for the life of me think of a better reponse than Hillary gave.
At least for a politician who actually expects to get elected.
[/QUOTE]
Who is going to be persuaded to vote for her based on what she said? The conservatives who think she’s actually pro-gay and just shifting her position, or the liberals who feel let down by her stalling?
[QUOTE=Caridwen]
Of all of the candidates, the two Democratic candidates for president are the only two that came out with anything remotely resembling supporting gays in the military and they’re the ones criticized.
[/QUOTE]
We’ve learned not to expect much from the Republicans. Of course, we’ve also learned not to expect very much from the Democrats, but at least there’s hope there.