Tuesday, April 10, 2007

Democratic Candidates Compete for Gay Support

Sometimes its frustrating being a gay democrat, until you look at the Republican candidates. Short of “gay marriage” all the Democratic candidates are courting gay voters and support our civil rights, while the Republican candidates (less and except Rudy Giuliani) are racing away from us.
I respect David Mixner and his decision to support Edwards..I’m still divided between Edwards, Obama and Bill Richardson. Despite all the media attention to the other candidates, Bill Richardson is the most qualified and experienced Democratic candidate (New Mexico governor, ambassador, secretary of energy, etc. etc..) and has a very good record on gay rights. I don’t understand why he isn’t raising more money and getting better poll numbers.

But despite the occasional timidity of Democratic candidates to fully support equal rights for gay people, their support for gay rights and the willingness of most of them to openly campaign for our votes distinguishes the Democratic candidates from the Republican candidates who are competing for the support of Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson and James Dobson!
-----

Edwards Touts Prominent Gay Supporters
April 10, 2007 9:25 PM EDT
WASHINGTON - Democrat John Edwards is touting prominent gay supporters who have signed on to his presidential campaign, including a former adviser to President Clinton.

Blogger David Mixner is one of 25 people listed on a news release that the Edwards campaign distributed Tuesday, along with a statement from the candidate saying he is honored to have the backing of so many respected gay leaders.

"They work hard every day to make our country a better place and I am proud to join with them to fight for equal rights for all Americans," Edwards said.

Edwards is making a push for gay support in the competitive Democratic presidential primary. In February, he came out in support of legislation that would end the "don't ask, don't tell" policy that prevents people who are openly gay from serving in the military.

But Edwards has competition for the gay community's support - Barack Obama's campaign has also said he is opposed to "don't ask, don't tell," as has Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's campaign. She also told the Human Rights Campaign last month that she wants a partnership with gays if elected president.

Clinton's husband, Bill, was president when the Pentagon instituted the "don't ask, don't tell" policy, which says gays may serve in the military only if they keep their sexual orientation private. The policy was a compromise that Clinton was forced to accept.

"Don't ask, don't tell" created a rift between President Clinton and Mixner, who raised millions for him among gay and lesbian voters but was later arrested in front of the White House in a protest of the policy. The two later said they patched up their differences and agreed to disagree on the administration's policy.

Mixner said he's supporting Edwards because he agrees with his position against the Iraq war and believes he would bring the troops home quickly.

Mixner said the Democratic candidates are roughly equal on gay rights issues and he also likes Edwards' focus on poverty and his detailed policy positions.

"I have supported the Clintons in every race they have run in the last 33 years since Bill Clinton ran for Congress up to Hillary's two Senate campaigns," said Mixner, who lives in upstate New York. "But I am baffled and concerned and frustrated with her position on the war."

Mixner said he hadn't told Hillary Clinton that he was changing allegiances, but his position has been clear on his blog.
javascript:void(0)
"One of the problems of that campaign is that it's very hard to gain access if you don't have a lot of money or aren't in the inner circle or I would have talked to her directly," he said.

The Clinton campaign did not respond to a request for comment.

---

3 comments:

aaronjasonsilver said...

Is marriage a religious institution?

I feel at times I am the only gay person that is not satisfied by the term “civil union”. To me it feels like a consolation prize given as a means of pacifying gays. Throw them a few crumbs as their used to and they’ll shut up. Truthfully, I hope that we gay men and woman will not stop at gay unions and go after what we deserve, gay marriage. I am saddened but not surprised that many gays are willing to accept second class citizenship after all it is what we are accustomed to. Our entire gay civil rights movement that is being courageously fought by a very few, has been about equal rights, not just some rights. This of course means marriage as well.
We should not be satisfied by civil unions. Unions are not equal. It’s unfortunate that this have become political as did the civil rights movement back in the 60’s. Even the politicians that are privately in favor of gay marriage are afraid to speak openly about it, with the exception of a few impassioned politicians that have a strong sense of integrity and a clear view of what is right and wrong.

We cannot look to the bible for any answers regarding equal rights. Those laws were written at a different time and for an ancient culture. It may surprise many to know that gay marriages were widely accepted by the Romans and the Greeks. We also must understand that many of the ancients were a very superstitious people that made many of their laws in regards to those superstitions. We therefore cannot be influenced by scripture. The many books within the bible vastly contradict themselves on many subjects. Which ones should we believe? Many religious institutions have the belief that sexual relations is solely for the purpose of procreation. This is an affront to childless marriages. Are they any less valid? Should they not have sexual relations even though they know it will not produce children? I wonder why God would make sexuality so very pleasurable if it were only for procreation. It wouldn’t need to be enjoyable. The mechanics of sexuality would be all that is necessary. Beside don’t we live in a country that has a law about separation between church and state?

Somebody please help me understand why marriage by many is considered a religious institution. For the sake of discussion I would like someone to tell me why atheists are then eligible for marriage? It seems to me that heterosexual marriages are afforded just about any opportunity and environment they choose to take their vows. Even those damned heathens.

Straight men and woman can choose a church marriage; they can get married underwater, on a mountaintop, by a justice of the peace or even by a ship captain. However, the most romantic and holy place I can imagine to pledge ones vows of love and fidelity, is driving through a drive-in chapel in Las Vegas, as one would order a family meal. Don’t get me wrong. I do love happy meals. The best part is, no one even has to bother to get out of the car. How can one compete with that kind of service? I’ve heard that they even change your oil, but that may be just hearsay.

Has it dawned on anyone that the constitution of the United States says very clearly that all people shall be treated as equal? There are no clauses added to that, such as, except gays. What was stated in that document then still rings very clear yet today and likely for many years to come. We don’t have to look too awfully far back into our history to find examples of how we ignored the constitution for selfish heterosexual Anglo-Saxon citizens so we could still own people. It wasn’t until the early part of the nineteenth century before woman were allowed to vote. Not so long before that, slavery was legal. It wasn’t until nearly fifty years ago that African Americans weren’t allowed to marry whites. If we are to learn anything from our nation’s history, we should then know that whenever we veer off from what that beautifully crafted document for whatever convenient reason, it is eventually overturned and changed for reasons of being fairer. I have still yet to hear a valid reason how gay marriage could negatively impact modern society. I’ve heard that if gays were allowed to marry it would have the potential of destroying traditional marriage. We only have to look at the statistics of the success of “traditional marriages to discover that more than half end up in divorce. Gays did not cause that. Fidelity within marriage has a terrible track record as well. Therefore I would truly like to hear some reasonable argument posed that would make sense why gay marriage ought not be allowed. Thank you, Aaron Jason Silver www.aaronjasonsilver.com; Fennville, Mi 49408 for more information on issues within gay culture please read; “why gay men do what they do”, an inside look at gay culture.

aaronjasonsilver said...

Dear Jim, I don't know if you would be willing to give me advice on how I make my own blog site more visible and therefore recieve more response. I am obviously not a technical wizard by any means when it comes to computers. My e-mails address is: asilver@wmis.net or aaronjason1@gmail.com. Thank you for any help. my best and great job you are doing. Aaron Silver

egalia said...

OT, but i wanted to make sure you know about the Liberal Conference in Nashville this weekend. Plus I have a free spot on the progressive blogging panel, if you wanted to fill it, conf. admission is free.

Also, I'd appreciate any help in spreading the word.

More info in the sidebar of my blog or scroll down for the post, or look up the Tennessee Alliance for Progress.

http://guerillawomentn.blogspot.com/