I agree. (0.00 / 0)

They both flubbed this big time.  And I agree again, say what you mean, but MEAN what you SAY.

---

by: icebergslim @ Sat Aug 11, 2007 at 16:26:02 PM UTC

Great post. (0.00 / 0)

Thanks for putting it all in context.

I blog on InnermostParts.org

---

by: Sayhar @ Sat Aug 11, 2007 at 16:35:59 PM UTC

What About Edwards (4.00 / 1)

Shouldn't Edwards be included here, too?

---

by: JoeCHI @ Sat Aug 11, 2007 at 16:40:50 PM UTC

Edwards Exclusion (0.00 / 0)

The msm has decided that this is a two person race.  The white woman against the black man.  Edwards can't get any coverage because the powers that be are most afraid of Edwards.

---

by: timeforchange @ Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 04:20:58 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Gay Political Suicide (0.00 / 0)

I don't understand why our Presidential candidates don't just say 'Yes, I'm for gay marriage'.  It's stupid.  It's irritating.  It's wrong, and it's politically unnecessary.

If you think that a Democratic candidate can support gay marriage and get elected to the White House, you're smoking something good!  Further, I wan't some of what you're smoking!  ;)

---

by: JoeCHI @ Sat Aug 11, 2007 at 16:52:10 PM UTC

Gay Political Suicide (0.00 / 0)

The Dems are trying to go after Republican voters because they feel their base is secure.  With the Christian Right to favor gay marriage is a deal breaker.

---

by: timeforchange @ Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 04:22:57 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

because gay marriage was (0.00 / 0)

such a vote-winner in 2004.

Not.

How is the Kucinich campaign doing today?

---

by: jforshaw @ Sat Aug 11, 2007 at 17:03:21 PM UTC

hedge funds (0.00 / 0)

I'm not surprised that you say this, considering that you think hedge funds should escape appropriate tax levels.

---

by: Matt Stoller @ Sat Aug 11, 2007 at 17:07:20 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

i don't think they 'should' (0.00 / 0)

I think that they will.

---

by: jforshaw @ Sat Aug 11, 2007 at 17:10:05 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

tax (0.00 / 0)

It's apparently impossible to create a tax system that is fair, I guess.  Let's give up on law, then.

---

by: Matt Stoller @ Sat Aug 11, 2007 at 17:29:17 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

sigh.. (0.00 / 0)

this will require a diary..

---

by: jforshaw @ Sat Aug 11, 2007 at 17:36:41 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Really? (4.00 / 1)

These are two very different issues, and I find it strange that you single out Clinton and Obama, when only Kucinich and Gravel support gay marriage. I know Sen. Obama (and believe Sen. Clinton) supports full, equal rights under the law, which is definitely not the status quo. I tend to agree with Sen. Obama that marriage is a religious pact, and what is important is that all people are granted equal rights under the law. Yes, Republicans are going to oppose them either way, but I think the fight for equal rights for every American has more of a chance of winning over opposing minds than explicitly fighting for gay marriage. But I understand and respect people that disagree, this is only my personal opinion.

Second - "Why is it so hard for Clinton or Obama to just argue for doing the right thing and to stop using taxpayer money to send young and black people to prison at disproportionate rates?"

I think you should provide Sen. Obama's position on mandatory drug sentencing re: crack v. powder cocaine, especially if you are opposed to it. From Lousiana Weekly, 7/9/07 -

"There shouldn't be a disparity," Obama said bluntly when asked his opinion about efforts to do away with drug-sentencing disparities for those convicted of possession of crack and powder cocaine. "Our criminal justice system has to be focused on fairness and justice. That means making sure that we punish crimes swiftly and significantly but also proportionately. To the extent that we can roll back some of these mandatory minimum laws that have such an opposite effect on first-time drug offenders...I think it helps to give people the kind of opportunities for second chances that are so critical for our development."

http://www.louisiana...

---

by: Ben Brandstrader @ Sat Aug 11, 2007 at 17:05:13 PM UTC

If your qualm was with the disproportionate rates... (4.00 / 2)

From Howard University Debate on 7/1/07 

  SEN. OBAMA: That the criminal justice system is not color blind. It does not work for all people equally, and that is why it's critical to have a president who sends a signal that we are going to have a system of justice that is not just us, but is everybody. (Applause.) And -- you know, this is something that I've got a track record working on at the state level, where a lot of the criminal justice issues come up.

  That's why I passed racial profiling legislation at the state level. That's why I passed legislation to make sure that we didn't have wrongful convictions.

http://www.talkleft....

---

by: Ben Brandstrader @ Sat Aug 11, 2007 at 17:08:41 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Pact (0.00 / 0)

I tend to agree with Sen. Obama that marriage is a religious pact

But he's wrong. Marriage is not a religious pact. I'm married, but I didn't get married in a church or by a priest or with any trappings of religion attached. My wife and I were married by a judge in his chambers in a civil ceremony. I'm not even slightly religious and I never have been.

Are you saying that athiests can't marry or something?

Those who have had a chance for four years and could not produce peace should not be given another chance. --Richard Nixon, 9 October 1968

---

by: darrelplant @ Sat Aug 11, 2007 at 17:59:59 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Absolutely not (0.00 / 0)

and congratulations on your civil marriage. However, it is my belief that to change the system, we must distinguish how marriage or unions are viewed through the prism of religion and under government law. I believe that the government must provide equal rights under the law to any adult couple which chooses to join in a union. I think a majority of Americans feel this way, yet when the term "marriage" is used with same sex couples, many tend to think of it in the religious context, and thus have conflicted feelings about the subject.

My personal opinion is that this is an area where the line between church and state has become extremely muddled and should be changed. I appreciate your response, and I would have been more clear had I said I believe "marriage is a religious term or a term with highly religious connotation." In the end, I think the government should not be involved (It's not like I look to my senators for marital advice), and agree that the Defense of Marriage Act should be repealed.

---

by: Ben Brandstrader @ Sat Aug 11, 2007 at 18:30:54 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Difference (0.00 / 0)

The only difference is a legal difference.

A marriage is a legal bond whose benefits are transferable between all jurisdictions. You can go anywhere within the US and your marriage is a legal bond.

Civil unions are only recognized by the jurisdiction in which they are performed, be that a municipality or a county or a state. Step outside of that jurisdiction and you no longer have the assurance that your union will be recognized.

Government recognition of marriage is the only thing that gives it any weight, no matter who performs it. The US government doesn't recognize polygamous marriages performed by the breakaway Mormon sects, no matter how "religious" they are or how much they might believe in the practice. If laws (i.e. the government) did not codify the rights imbued by marriage, marriage would have no legal standing.

So the idea that marriage should be divorced from government (and there's a whole thread you could follow about whether church or government should have the last say about divorce) just seems baffling to me. Churches can't give you legal standing in a custody battle or a property settlement. Those are legal issues.

I don't think anyone's expecting a church that doesn't want to marry gays or lesbians to be forced do so. But is someone gets married in a church that performs weddings for gay men or two lesbians get married in a civil marriage, they want the same rights to move throughout the US and have the rights accorded to married couples no matter where they go. That's not a religious issue. It's a civil rights issue. Civil unions don't cut the mustard because they are not recognized throughout the US.

Those who have had a chance for four years and could not produce peace should not be given another chance. --Richard Nixon, 9 October 1968

---

by: darrelplant @ Sat Aug 11, 2007 at 20:35:21 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

More rights that you can imagine (4.00 / 1)

That is a very good reason why civil unions will not do!!!  Most people think that there really is no big deal concerning the rights gained from marriage.  In fact, most gay people will tell you that they don't see the difference between civil unions and gay marriage.

I am in a same sex bi-national relationship, meaning I am American and my partner is Canadian.  We have been together for almost eight years.  We met while he was completing his Masters in the US.  After his student visa expired and work visa expired we were left with no other alternative but to leave the US and move to Canada.  You see, immigration is a federal issue, therefore civil unions would not have done anything for us.  If we were a heterosexual couple, we could have gotten married and he could have gained legal status in the US.  Insulting is the fact that there are American men ordering mail-order brides from Russia who gain US citizenship before my partner of eight years.

Therefore, I was basically forced to choose between my partner and my country.  How American is that?  In the process, America has lost two engineers.  This is more common than you think.  Personally, I know two other same sex bi-national couples that have emigrated from the US.  In those cases, the US has lost a doctor and a lawyer.

After leaving the US, I have come to a very painful conclusion.  Perhaps America is not the best country in the world.  "Home of the free"?  Just not true.  After moving to Canada I now know what the white heterosexual American male feel.  I am a first class citizen.

---

by: dstavro @ Sat Aug 11, 2007 at 23:46:28 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

GOP sandbox (0.00 / 0)

Could we as a party please stop playing in the GOP wedge issue sandbox.

Why so much coverage and dust up over Gay marriage and so little on the GOP's record, violation of the law, corruption, etc.  Why not go after the Republicans rather than do their work for them in trying to see which of our candidates will be the better supporter of gay rights.

Any Democrat will do a better job here than a Republican. That's because we support equal rights for everyone, not just for this group or that group.

If teaching is so easy, then by all means get your degree, pass your certification test(s), get your license, and see if you can last longer than the five years in the classroom 50% of those who enter the profession never make it to.

---

by: michael in chicago @ Sat Aug 11, 2007 at 17:07:16 PM UTC

Excellent point.... (0.00 / 0)

....everywhere I go in the blogosphere 'folks' are blindly using the ReThug Overton Window on EVERY GOTDAMN issue. I would like to most forcefully say....

Pull yer head out of yer ass and start THINKING ABOUT THE ISSUES INSTEAD OF PARROTING RETHUG BULLSHIT!

Peace, Health and Prosperity for Everyone.

---

by: ACitizen @ Sat Aug 11, 2007 at 17:48:06 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

GOP Sandbox (0.00 / 0)

The media calls the shots and gay marriage, haircuts and race is the issue.  Forget that we have two lost wars and an economy that is going into recession. Its how you stand on gay marriage and are you black enough.  They actually asked Hillary if she was black enough to be president.  As the British would say "Jesus Wept".

---

by: timeforchange @ Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 04:26:43 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I am all for gay marriage (4.00 / 1)

and in fact I worship with married gay people and work with married gay people.  But I think that this is religious fight,  not a political fight.  Without question, civil unions should be the law of the land--recognized everywhere.  But is it really our president's job to be out there lobbying churches to marry gay people?  I am not so sure.

BTW, Gene Robinson, the New Hampshire gay Episcopal Bishop  endorsed Obama.

---

by: aiko @ Sat Aug 11, 2007 at 17:33:15 PM UTC

Well that depends... (4.00 / 1)

I would agree if the government (including state and local) did not use the word marriage in any official context. Then we could all have civil unions and marriage would be the exclusive dominion of churches, etc.

But I do not think this is the case (correct me if I am wrong).

"Don't hate the media, become the media" -Jello Biafra

---

by: LandStander @ Sat Aug 11, 2007 at 17:53:06 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Great post (0.00 / 0)

Ne'er say a negative word against St. John Edwards.

Oh...Wait a minute...he doesn't support gay marriage either....

---

by: blueprint @ Sat Aug 11, 2007 at 17:34:08 PM UTC

Crack Cocaine is More Important (0.00 / 0)

I fully understand the angle the candidates are taking with the gay marriage issue. It is the safe stance, but one that supports the advancement of civil liberties for homosexuals (which is more important than the words we use). Crucify me if you want, but their collective stance on this is fine for now, and the word "marriage" will have to wait another couple cycles before it gets to be mainstream. Big F'ing deal.

But - Hillary's comments on drug law disparities are FAR more revealing than the marriage/civil union argument.

But we should ought to be able to get to 10-to-1 or something that would move us in the right direction.

What? 10-to-1? How can she admit that their exists unfairness under current drug laws, and then suggest that the solution would be to reduce the ratio of this unfairness? Unlike gay marriage, crack-cocaine laws are not a divisive issue among the general public. There is no need to 'meet in the middle' on this one. We can just scrap racially biased drug laws, thereby solving the problem entirely. This does not need to take generations! Why can she not admit this? Is there some hidden anti-crack lobby out there that I am not aware of?

"Don't hate the media, become the media" -Jello Biafra

---

by: LandStander @ Sat Aug 11, 2007 at 17:50:36 PM UTC

Big F'ing Deal (0.00 / 0)

Especially since it doesn't affect you personally, right?

If you think the only thing same-sex couples are waiting on is a word, you're sadly mistaken.  Where exactly are these "civil unions" that everyone keeps talking about as if they already exist--and already provide all the necessary rights, privileges, and protections that straight couples take for granted?

Civil unions are a reality in only a tiny handful of states, are of questionable effectiveness at delivering even the limited tokens of equality envisioned by the legislatures who enacted them, and are treated as if they don't exist by the federal government--which is the entity that administers all the really important areas of law that impact on couples' lives.

If there's one thing that all of us who participate online and care about the future of progressivism share, it's the idea that fighting on principle is always better in the long run--and often in the short run--than preemptively conceding defeat.  Why do so many want to make an exception when it comes to this issue?

---

by: Sportin' Life @ Sat Aug 11, 2007 at 19:12:31 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Kucinich said it (0.00 / 0)

I don't understand why our Presidential candidates don't just say 'Yes, I'm for gay marriage'.

Kucinich said it.

Those who have had a chance for four years and could not produce peace should not be given another chance. --Richard Nixon, 9 October 1968

---

by: darrelplant @ Sat Aug 11, 2007 at 17:55:52 PM UTC

It would help if people (0.00 / 0)

would stop calling it "gay marriage".  It's marriage equality.  That's all we are talking about here.

---

by: masslib @ Sat Aug 11, 2007 at 19:15:09 PM UTC

Why? (0.00 / 0)

Because gay marriage polls at about 35 percent at the highest.

And politicians are cowards that won't do anything unless it's  popular. Any of them would support it if it gets 50 percent or higher support in the polls. It's a public relationships battle.

Look, I want gay marriage too. I have uncles on both sides that are gay. My godfathers are gay. It infuriates me that they are denied basic rights. The bullshit that our candidates are spewing is horrible. And I want that shit to spot. However I think the way to fight that isn't yelling at them. It's yelling at the bigots who oppose gay marriage.

You're right though. Screw them all. This should be something they stand up on.

John McCain: Beacuse lobbyists should have more power

---

by: Populista @ Sat Aug 11, 2007 at 19:42:43 PM UTC

Here's a question (0.00 / 0)

Matt says

Look, my point on gay marriage is that it's a basic civil right and so throwing it under the bus is not to be done lightly.

26 states have amended their constitutions recognizing marriage as between one man and one woman.  If gay marriage is, and I agree, a basic civil right, what is the solution around that? 

I have never known the federal government to enact a law that would supersede any state's constitution.  (If I'm wrong, I'm happy to be corrected on that.)  So how can gay marriage be realized as a basic civil right?

---

by: corinne @ Sat Aug 11, 2007 at 19:52:23 PM UTC

Remember the 80/20 rule, and what priorities are! (0.00 / 0)

If you remember those two things, why in the world should someone be "for" gay marriage??

1.  Priorities this election -

a. Restoring the Constitution
b. Universal Health Care
c. Getting Out of Iraq.
d. Fixing the tax structure and revenues (and lessening debt)
e. Energy independence.
f. Global warming
g. Maintaining global leadership in cuttng edge tech
h. Restoring international partnerships, dealing smartly with terrorism, global challenges.
i. Reduce the "two americas", so that this new Gilded Age recedes, reduce the top 1% of our population holding 30% of the wealth.
j. Gay marriage.

2. Given that civil unions get you 80% of the way there, to impactful full equality, why is the world, would you, or anyone, want to spend that political capital on, I'm sorry to say, one of the less important priorities for this election (again, assuming civil unions get you most of the way there). 

Actually, what might be interesting, is you having a poll, on the top issues this cycle. 

But in this case, while I agree that gay marriage actually is a moral case, actually encouraging great moral qualities such as personal sacrifice, going beyond one's selfish interests, investment in family and community, there is a heck of a lot we need to do.

---

by: JC @ Sat Aug 11, 2007 at 21:48:57 PM UTC

Unclear previously (0.00 / 0)

I personally am "for" gay marriage, I really meant pushing gay marriage as a high political priority.

I believe there is a actually a very good religious case for gay marriage, as I alluded to -

Works against the selfish narcissism inherent in our culture - "I commit myself to YOU and only you, in sickness adn in health, for better, for worse", etc.

That's a very giving, bonding, message, in alignment with spiritual, religious, and community values.

Nevertheles, about the political capital question, I don't think it makes sense.  Let states work on this, see the beneficial effects as more and more people marry, then let it spread in that way.

---

by: JC @ Sat Aug 11, 2007 at 22:24:46 PM UTC

This is a pretty insulting posting, Stoller (0.00 / 0)

Yes, all of them need to come out for equal rights, including Mr. Edwards.

But your comment about sentencing is what is insulting to me, as it shows a complete Fox-esque insult to Obama's record on issues of crime and the rights of accused and convicted criminals.

Here in Illinois, Obama brought about a new law that requires that police interviews with suspects involved in capital crimes be videotaped, otherwise any evidence that comes of such an interview is inadmissable.  Given the history of torturing black men ( http://www.chicagore... ) to obtain confessions in Chicago, this is a vital law that Obama brought about.  How many politicians would stand up for criminals rights in this day and age? 

As Mr. Brandstader said above, Obama has come out for equalizing drug sentencing laws and striking mandatory minimums.

Have you forgotten Senator Obama's speech on urban poverty, and the "quiet riot" speech?  The one that the mainstream/white press attacked him for?  Do you realize that last week we were on the verge of a race riot in Lawndale (a neighborhood of Chicago - one of the neighborhoods that burned here in 1968, months before the DNC, and still one of the poorest neighborhoods in Chicago - also the neighborhood that Dr. King lived in for a while).  Obama is the only candidate that I am aware of who has made a major speech on the problems of urban poverty, and he got attacked for it by white reactionaries.  http://www.barackoba...
http://www.barackoba...

And here you call Obama out as though he has no interest in the subject.

Where's Edwards on scaling back or abolishing mandatory minimums?  Where's he at on police brutality and coerced confessions?  I'm by no means a hard core Obama supporter, but this post is just dishonest in only calling out Clinton and Obama, while ignoring Edwards and pretending that Obama does not care about the rights of accused and convicted criminals. 

---

by: Jerry 101 @ Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 03:43:39 AM UTC