News Tips?
-- tips@phblend.com

PHB Mobile


33|175:175

About
-- The Blog
-- Pam | My home page
-- Autumn
-- Daimeon
-- Julien
-- "Radical" Russ
-- Terrance

Contact the Baristas

The Blend Blogrolls

Activism


Best of the Blend
Blog Posts

Special Events and Interviews

Blend-o-licious endorsements...



The Christian Civic League of Maine's Mike Hein calls Pam's House Blend:
"a leading source of radical homosexual propaganda, anti-Christian bigotry, and radical transgender advocacy."

He is "praying that Pam Spaulding will "turn away from her wicked and sinful promotion of homosexual behavior." (CCLM's web site, 10/15/07)


Ex-gay "Christian" activist James Hartline on Pam:
"I have been mocked over and over again by ungodly and unprincipled anti-christian lesbians."
(from "Six Years In Sodom: From The Journal Of James Hartline," 9/4/2006, written from the "homosexual stronghold" of Hillcrest in San Diego).

"Pam is a 'twisted lesbian sister' and an 'embittered lesbian' of the 'self-imposed gutteral experiences of the gay ghetto.'" -- 9/5/2008



Peter LaBarbera of Americans for Truth Against Homosexuality heartily endorses the Blend, calling Pam:

A "vicious anti-Christian lesbian activist."
(Concerned Women for America's radio show [9:15], 1/25/07)

"A nutty lesbian blogger."
(MassResistance radio show [16:25], 2/3/07)


Pam's House Blend always seems to find these sick f*cks. The area of the country she is in? The home state of her wife? I know, they are everywhere. Pam just does such a great job of bringing them out into the light.
--Impeach Bush


who monitors yours Bevis ?? Just thought I would drop you a line,so the rest of your life is not wasted.
--"Joe"

Content © 2004-2008
Pam Spaulding

House Blend logo © 2005
Melissa McEwan

Photo of Pam Spaulding
© Judy G. Rolfe
All Rights Reserved.


SITE TERMS AND CONDITIONS
Support the Blend




An Online Magazine in the Reality-Based Community.


CNN/YouTube presidential debate open thread

by: Pam Spaulding

Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 18:45:00 PM EDT


[UPDATE: A full transcript is up. I'll have a wrap on the debate in another post.]

Anderson Cooper will moderate the event, which will be broadcast from The Citadel military college in Charleston, South Carolina starting at 7PM.

CNN journalists are screening the questions, rather than letting Internet users select them with their votes. Plus, candidates frequently handle questions from their constituents and from individuals in town hall formats.

But that's where the intimacy comes in, Cooper said, arguing the video format allows people to show a side of themselves that may be masked by the nervousness or rehearsed nature of town hall formats.

"What makes them so interesting is clearly they're very personal," Cooper said.

You all get to try out the new Blend chat room for play-by-play reactions to the Dem debate -- Blend Coffee Klatch (this link opens it in a smaller separate window). There's also a Pam's House Blend Facebook Group that you can join -- if you add the Group Chat application, you can chat in there as well.


UPDATE: Here, from PoliticsTV.com (which is uploading the Q&As as they are completed), the question from the Rev. Longcrier about marriage equality, and the response, first from John Edwards (left). On the right, another question on marriage equality, answered by Dennis Kucinich, Chris Dodd, and Bill Richardson:

 

***

CNN Internet reporter Jacki Schechner encourages folks to contribute post-debate video responses  at CNN's ireport (cnn.com/ireport).

***

And the John Edwards camp has announced that the former NC Senator will hold a 30-minute webcast immediately following the debate, taking questions submitted prior to and during the event. You can view the questions being submitted here. You can read more -- and watch the live event -- after the jump.

Pam Spaulding :: CNN/YouTube presidential debate open thread
"Debates too often do not provide voters with the type of comprehensive responses they want or deserve on important issues," said Edwards' spokeswoman Colleen Murray. "John Edwards has built a strong grassroots movement to change the direction of the country, and that will only grow by offering voters an active role in the debate process."

In the days leading up to and during the debate, people will be able to submit questions directly on JohnEdwards.com or by text messaging the word DEBATE to 30644. The campaign will also include questions from social networking sites such as MySpace, Facebook, Care2, and Twitter in a live feed on JohnEdwards.com.

By taking questions from third-party sites, a larger and more diverse audience will be able to participate in the live webcast. Many of these sites will also co-host the live webcast with Edwards, allowing their communities to view the webcast without leaving their own site. The post-debate webcast will air live on the following websites: the campaign website (www.johnedwards.com), Edwards' MySpace page (myspace.com/johnedwards), CommunityCounts.us , Ustream.tv, and Care2.com. Additionally, Edwards will answer the two videos on CommunityCounts.us that receive the most votes from its community.

This is hosted by USStream.TV:

***

And this is a great response to the fixation on hair:

***

You can view the videos of these exchanges above, but here they are from CNN's transcript:

QUESTION: Hi. My name is Mary.

QUESTION: And my name is Jen.

QUESTION: And we're from Brooklyn, New York.

If you were elected president of the United States, would you allow us to be married to each other?

COOPER: Congressman Kucinich?

KUCINICH: Mary and Jen, the answer to your question is yes. And let me tell you why.

Because if our Constitution really means what it says, that all are created equal, if it really means what it says, that there should be equality of opportunity before the law, then our brothers and sisters who happen to be gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgendered should have the same rights accorded to them as anyone else, and that includes the ability to have a civil marriage ceremony.

Yes, I support you. And welcome to a better and a new America under a President Kucinich administration.

(APPLAUSE)

COOPER: Senator Dodd, you supported the Defense of Marriage Act. What's your position?

DODD: I've made the case, Anderson, that -- my wife and I have two young daughters, age 5 and 2.

I'd simply ask the audience to ask themselves the question that Jackie and I have asked: How would I want my two daughters treated if they grew up and had a different sexual orientation than their parents?

Good jobs, equal opportunity, to be able to retire, to visit each other, to be with each other, as other people do.

So I feel very strongly, if you ask yourself the question, "How would you like your children treated if they had a different sexual orientation than their parents?," the answer is yes. They ought to have that ability in civil unions.

I don't go so far as to call for marriage. I believe marriage is between a man and a woman.

But my state of Connecticut, the state of New Hampshire, have endorsed civil unions. I strongly support that. But I don't go so far as marriage.

COOPER: Governor Richardson?

RICHARDSON: Well, I would say to the two young women, I would level with you -- I would do what is achievable.

What I think is achievable is full civil unions with full marriage rights. I would also press for you a hate crimes act in the Congress. I would eliminate "don't ask/don't tell" in the military.

(APPLAUSE)

If we're going to have in our military men and women that die for this country, we shouldn't give them a lecture on their sexual orientation

I would push for domestic partnership laws, nondiscrimination in insurance and housing.

I would also send a very strong message that, in my administration, I will not tolerate any discrimination on the basis of race, gender, or sexual orientation.

And the question to John Edwards:
QUESTION: I'm Reverend Reggie Longcrier. I'm the pastor of Exodus Mission and Outreach Church in Hickory, North Carolina.

Senator Edwards said his opposition to gay marriage is influenced by his Southern Baptist background. Most Americans agree it was wrong and unconstitutional to use religion to justify slavery, segregation, and denying women the right to vote.

So why is it still acceptable to use religion to deny gay American their full and equal rights?

(APPLAUSE)

EDWARDS: I think Reverend Longcrier asks a very important question, which is whether fundamentally -- whether it's right for any of our faith beliefs to be imposed on the American people when we're president of the United States. I do not believe that's right.

I feel enormous personal conflict about this issue. I want to end discrimination. I want to do some of the things that I just heard Bill Richardson talking about -- standing up for equal rights, substantive rights, civil unions, the thing that Chris Dodd just talked about. But I think that's something everybody on this stage will commit themselves to as president of the United States.

But I personally have been on a journey on this issue. I feel enormous conflict about it. As I think a lot of people know, Elizabeth spoke -- my wife Elizabeth spoke out a few weeks ago, and she actually supports gay marriage. I do not. But this is a very, very difficult issue for me. And I recognize and have enormous respect for people who have a different view of it.

And Obama said this:
COOPER: Senator Obama, the laws banning interracial marriage in the United States were ruled unconstitutional in 1967. What is the difference between a ban on interracial marriage and a ban on gay marriage?

OBAMA: Well, I think that it is important to pick up on something that was said earlier by both Dennis and by Bill, and that is that we've got to make sure that everybody is equal under the law. And the civil unions that I proposed would be equivalent in terms of making sure that all the rights that are conferred by the state are equal for same-sex couples as well as for heterosexual couples.

Now, with respect to marriage, it's my belief that it's up to the individual denominations to make a decision as to whether they want to recognize marriage or not. But in terms of, you know, the rights of people to transfer property, to have hospital visitation, all those critical civil rights that are conferred by our government, those should be equal.

Tags: , , , , , (All Tags)
Bookmark and Share
Print Friendly View Send As Email
what are they going to say in the logo forum?

Op, just caught only a moment of the CNN thing (too eaarly here on the left coast).  Caught Edwards saying he supports my second class citizenship, supports a caste system for relationships here in the US.

Kucinich (sp) is the only one who doesn't think I'm not much of anything.



ummm

"Kucinich (sp) is the only one who doesn't think I'm not much of anything."

 

Duh!  I see this as a no brainer on who to back.  Why should I feel like I should back someone who doesn't back me?  This sounds a lot like "battered wife syndrome"  We have been soooo beat up over that last decades that we seem to not know how to accept someone accepting us and actually advocating for us.  WAKE UP QUEER PEOPLE!! We actually have a candidate in OUR CORNER!!!!



[ Parent ]
Gay Marriage question

In short ...

 Edwards NOT for gay marriage due to his "emotional conflict".  Please!

 Obama NOT for gay marriage!

 Kucinich is the only one who is for gay marriage.

 

So much for equality for all.  This is so UN American if you ask me!

 



Hate to be a softee

1. But is there room in our pragmatic hearts to take Edwards' answer of "its tough for me"?

 

2. On a flip-side note, I feel some anger with the fact that I heard clapping when John said he was against marriage. You'll hear it when he's asked the question the second time with Cooper.

 

Take one of the above two concerns. Your pick! 

 

 



[ Parent ]
I actually heard some additional subtle movement

Edwards clearly said that as president he wouldn't let his personal religious beliefs get in the way of governing on the issue. That's not a direct statement in support of marriage equality, but it does make a clear delineation between his "struggle" and how he views his role as president, not as proselytizer-in-chief. It would be good to follow up with Dodd, Richardson and the rest of the "I personally believe marriage is between a man and a woman" crowd on this point.

The logical follow up, and I hope this is asked at the LOGO/HRC debate, is now that we've seen the utter failure of civil unions in NJ, does this have any impact on their belief that civil unions are a separate and equal proposition.



[ Parent ]
I noticed the same thing!

He could basically be saying, I personally have struggled over it because of my religious background, but I do not believe that my religious beliefs should ever be imposed - and I support full equality.

It is like he is speaking out of both sides of his mouth at once! He simultaneously told the anti-marriage crowd that he is personally opposed, while telling the pro-marriage crowd that politically, he may support it.

 



What the hell was I doing in Oaxaca in 1992, on the eve of the Zapatista revolution?

[ Parent ]
Then
why doesn't he just come out and say that.  I do recall a current president saying similar things about his faith vs. the office and look what we have now.  I guess I'm just not there yet with edwards and it has been a very emotional struggle.

[ Parent ]
Wrong questions being asked

We already know the answers the candidates will give to the SSM question.

Now they need to be pressed on the differences between CU, DP, Marriage, (in a handful of states) and the majority of states that have amended their constitutions.

Is that equal treatment?

What do the candidates think of the problems in NJ with their CU - specifically UPS limiting their benefits to spouses and excluding partners?  Is it acceptable that a SS couple with a CU in NJ that moves to NY has less status than they did, then the couple moves to MA and they have to get married because the CU is meaningless?

I could go on...and so could you all I'm sure.  I'm not even sure the scenario I just created is valid, but the point is that those are the situations we face by leaving it to the states and that is the bullshit that the candidates - as well as our hetero allies - need to face and speak to.

Push this to another level already.  Push push push.  Make them speak publicly about the inequality because they won't do it voluntarily.  At best broad generalized statements will be made  - like Kucinich makes.  Good for him for being smart about the topic.  Bad on the audience for thinking that a President can do it alone.  

Also - retire the Civil Marriage for everyone remarks.  Just forget it.  Yes, it is logical, but we are not starting civilization over again and its way too late to enact a change this sensible - esepecially because the current situation is used to keep SSM from happening.  That kind of change would help us and very few people are interested in that.



[ Parent ]
excellent
post!!!!

[ Parent ]
Obama
If I understood correctly what he said, he supports marriage equality at the state level i e. leave it up to the states.  Did anyone else hear this?

[ Parent ]
No, denominations

but that is what civil marriage is! You don't have to get the blessing of any church to get a marriage certificate, and many denominations will officiate gay marriages anyway. So how could denominations possibly be given the choice, unless gay marriage is legal? Nobody is suggesting that the Catholic Church, for example, should be forced to marry gay people... or Protestants for that matter.

So... does that mean yes?



What the hell was I doing in Oaxaca in 1992, on the eve of the Zapatista revolution?

[ Parent ]
I also heard it.


You can lead a fool to knowledge, but you can't make him think.  

[ Parent ]
I heard Civil Unions
The idea that Obama would support a "separate but equal" position is ironic. Civil unions are not civil marriage, sorry, nice try... next candidate please.

Steve

[ Parent ]
if so, he's mimicking Clinton

She says leave it to the states.

Meamingless.  Uttlerly meaningless remark.   

 



[ Parent ]
Agreed
Sounds like the '04 chant of "STATES RIGHTS!!!!" all over again. Next step, states rights to leagalize slavery.

[ Parent ]
Pressing Edwards and Obama on Gay Marriage
Oooooh snap!  Now that's a question (SC Rev. asks "Using religion to continue slavery was wrong, why is it still okay to use religion to deny gay marriage?")

Shorter Edwards:  "Personally gay marriage is icky to me, but I won't let my feelings influence my policy any more than my wife has."

Did Obama just say he'd make ALL unions - gay or straight - into civil unions, and then you can go to a church and get "married" if you want?  That's a damn secular thing to say, Senator, and I think I like it.  If I didn't mishear it as I was typing.

Liveblogging is hard.  Especially at my friend's apartment on a Linux box on an unresponsive keyboard as I look out over the Columbia River / Pacific Ocean here in beautiful Astoria, OR (home of "The Goonies" and "Kindergarten Cop"... oh, and some dudes named Clark and Lews did something here once.)

"If people let government decide which foods they eat and medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are the souls of those who live under tyranny." -- Thomas Jefferson


executive order?

Doubt that's what Obama said, but if he did, so what's he going to do?  issue an executive order to nullify all "marriages" and make them CUs?  doubt it.



[ Parent ]
It's important to note

that there is a secular thing called marriage. Just go to your county clerk office for a marriage liscence and you'll see. Just make sure who you bring with you :)

 

Because I feel sunny today, I'll say Karen in Kalifornia will probably have many volunteers to go with her to that county clerk office, don't you my lady?

 

he, he 



[ Parent ]
Darfur
Richardson: Been there.  "When is America going to start helping?"  Diplomacy... No fly zone... Caring about Africa, strategic interests are more than about oil, care about refugees... that's how we get our prestige back in the world.

Biden:  American troops - positively!  Same arguments against Milosevic.  Why Darfur?  Because we can.  Now!  2500 American troops can stop the genocide now.

Gravel:  Deeper than that - we haven't owned up to sense of global governance.  African nations are afraid of us.  Huh?

Clinton:  Acting instead of talking.  UN troops and African Union.  Divestment, get China involved.  American troops?  Nah, NATO, logistical support, no fly zone.  American troops in Darfur... NO.  We have to concentrate on Iraq and Afghanistan.

"If people let government decide which foods they eat and medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are the souls of those who live under tyranny." -- Thomas Jefferson


Iraq
Q:  How do we pull out now?  Are we watching the same war?  Sick of the war, innocent Iraqis dying.  How do we pull out now?  So chaotic... shouldn't we get them on their feet?

Obama:  I was against war.  There's no military solution to Iraq.  Tony Snow excused Iraqi legislature for August vacation.  Begin a phased withdrawal, diplomatic surge in surrounding region.

Biden:  We can't just pull out now.  Tell the truth.  Would take one year to get 160,000 troops out.  Separate parties, decentralized government.  Drawdown combat troops.  Tell the truth.

"If people let government decide which foods they eat and medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are the souls of those who live under tyranny." -- Thomas Jefferson


Iraq
Q: Politics before conscience?  How many more political games must Democrats play?

Clinton:  Thanks for your sacrifice... There is no military solution and Iraqis fail to try the political solution.  We're not getting answers, it's time for Republicans to stand up with us.

Kucinich:  Yes.  It is politics, the Dems have failed the American people.  They expected us to act.  Tell Bush no more funds for war, use money to bring troops home.

Dodd:  No military solution to civil war in Iraq.  No other war to convince Iraq unless we give timetable.  We're bogged down.

Richardson:  I believe we should bring all the troops home in six months.  War is quagmire.  Bring the troops home - no politics, get it done.

"If people let government decide which foods they eat and medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are the souls of those who live under tyranny." -- Thomas Jefferson


Deaths of Vietnam in Vain
Q: Defend your statement about deaths of Vietnam being in vain. 

Gravel:  Yes, it was deaths in vain in Vietnam.  You can go now and get Baskin Robbins in Hanoi and they have MFN trading status.  Only worse if more soldiers die in vain!

Obama:  When I send troops into battle, it will be under sound intelligence (Are the troops dying in vain?) I never think troops die in vain, civilian leadership must have plans for soldiers to win.

Edwards:  No, I don't think they died in vain.  What is going to be done to end this war.  While Iraqi parliament is on vacation, is George Bush on vacation?

"If people let government decide which foods they eat and medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are the souls of those who live under tyranny." -- Thomas Jefferson


Should women register for the draft?
Dodd:  I oppose a draft, but if we have one, then yes, be fair and register women.,  I favor universal service programs, more shared service.

Clinton:  Yes, I don't support a draft, but women should register.  We've had women combat deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan.  It is fair to call on every young American.  More universal national service.  Defer student loans for public service.

Obama:  Women should register - Tuskegee airmen anecdote...

Edwards:  Meet Tallie Barnes (?) fighter jet pilot sitting with my wife.

Gravel:  I'm the guy who filibustered to end the draft, thank you very much, so George doesn't have enough troops to invade Iran.

"If people let government decide which foods they eat and medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are the souls of those who live under tyranny." -- Thomas Jefferson


Muslim states vs. female president
Q: The Muslim countries think women are second class, so how would you be taken seriously by our enemies?

Clinton:  Thank you for your service (to be henceforth acronymed as TYFYS)  I've been there, done that, don't think anyone don't take Hildog seriously.

"If people let government decide which foods they eat and medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are the souls of those who live under tyranny." -- Thomas Jefferson


I wish my camera was working....
I would have asked, "Since most of you are/were senators and all support the repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" why haven't any of you introduced or sponsored a companion bill in the Senate to the Military Readiness Enhancement Act?"

"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." -- Thomas Jefferson

excellent, excellent question
let them put their pen where their mouth is.

Lurleen on Twitter

[ Parent ]
Funny,
How that was asked at the HRC/Logo debate ;)

"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." -- Thomas Jefferson

[ Parent ]
the marriage videos
did clinton not get asked any of these questions?

Lurleen on Twitter

Note to John and Elizabeth Edwards re: gay marriage

Stick it where the sun don't shine, you sanctimonious assholes.

 There, I feel better-ish already.

 Where do I send a love note to that awesome reverend?



I'm puzzled
why you want Elizabeth Edwards to stick it?  After all, she unequivocally speaks for full equality.  It's John Edwards who is the cowardly candidate, using his wife for cover. 

Lurleen on Twitter

[ Parent ]
He has no balls
I agree, John Edwards has no balls and to just come out and say what his wife knows. Me getting married to another man has nothing to do with their own marriage. Stop cowarding down to the religious base.

[ Parent ]
Explanation for Puzzled
It's good cop, bad cop. And it's bullshit. And Elizabeth Edwards should stop running around touting her husband as a feminist and insinuating that if she's liberal about gay issues that maybe he will be someday too. He's a loser

[ Parent ]
Very
good point Nancy!!!

[ Parent ]
i see what you mean.
[ Parent ]
Only one.
Only one of them saying it.

And that one not given much of a chance, not having much of a funding base.

They all spoke of *economic* and visitation rights.

*none* of them dealt with kinship.

Without kinship, it cannot be equal to marriage.

That's pathetic.

Truly pathetic.

http://www.dyssonance.com  Breaking all the rules...


OT new comments formatting

Apologies for the non thread comment here.

But does PHB now have some new formatting here in the post a comment area. Seems like if i

hit the space bar I am forced to double space.

Spreads stuff out............................................................................................. guess I can do this to keep from spreading out all over........................................

Then again I might forget....

don't worry I'll get used to it...

rant over

 

 

 



I had been planning to watch it.

Too fuckin' bad.  We got home from work today to find our garage, kitchen, and parts of our den and living room soaked from rain that streamed into the house.  We had over 4 inches and it must have fallen in about 30 minutes.

We had to disconnect the TV and get the stand off the "wet spot."  And we have a dying cat going on.  Fun times.

 

 



My sympathies

There's a lot of that going on these days.  My view has been that it's been kind of nice this summer (our house hasn't flooded so far), but what if it's like this next summer and the one after and the one after?

 So sorry about your cat, too.  Waves of sympathy.



[ Parent ]
The next politician who denies climate change

is someone whose lights I'm going to want to punch out.



Gay Marriage v. Civil Unions...
So, I watched the debate with great joy tonight...seeing so many importnat issues being addressed. I was pleased with most of the responses; however, the gay marriage stances were so upsetting...and ignorant, in my humble opinion. I just blogged/ranted about it on my blog, http://exexgay.blogspot.com , and actually just discovered this blog/thread. I'm really hoping history repeats itself on this one...and those dreaded "Liberal Activist" judges do the right think and act as a REAL Checks and Balances system to an apathetic Congress and American Public on the matter of equality in Marriage. I think that Americans and politicians are really over thinking this trying to appease the masses. The answer is simple...thanks to that little Constitution document thingy...you know, the 200+ year old document that has been blasted all to hell in the last 6 years by the current administration.

Citadel audience got it RIGHT on marriage

Go Know...even the youth at the Citadel get what equality is for LGBT Americans.BRAVO CITADEL!

Thanks to Kucinitch for his answer...he also recognises this is a matter of EQUALITY, not NEARLY EQUAL, while I respect Edwards and Obama...on gay marriage they don't get it. Richard's was at least honest in his response, he knew it was second best, but all he thought achievable.



The Marriage Question that should have been asked...
Senators Obama, Dodd and Edwards and Governor Richardson, you have stated that you oppose same sex marriage, but favor equality in the form of civil unions. My question to you is, that if the State of Virginia, whose misceganation law gave rise to the case ending interracial marriage bans, where to determine today that interracial couples should not be allowed to marry, but can be granted equal status to marriage via civil unions, could Virginia do so without violating the Constitution and if not, why since interracial couples would still have all the same rights they would have had under marriage? In short why is a separate but questionably equal institution OK for gay couples, but not for interracial couples?

GREAT question!
I think this should be the standard come-back question any time we hear the "separate but equal/state decision" response to any SSM question.

[ Parent ]
The BEST Debate Format - EVER!

I LOVED this debate FORMAT and I actually thought it would be lame ahead of time. Amazing. If you saw it, I am sure you know what I mean. I am a big fan and critic of political debates. Usually my favorite is either the neutral host (Jim Lehrer/PBS) style or the Town-Hall style, but this was the best of all worlds. Really. No beltway pundits or "journalists." Just real Americans. These were real folks that may not ever go out of their way to attend a public debate, submitting video from their homes and the producers selected what was best and most representative to show. 

Wow! Those ladies from Brooklyn asking about gay marriage. No "debate moderator" could ever possibly put real American faces on that question. You all know. I just really liked it. 



Clarification

I think Obama actually gave a "decent" attempt at the "gay marriage" question.  He said that he supports full equaltiy of benefits conferred by "marriage" through civil unions that are totally equal to marriage under the laws of the state.  He doesn't want to force a church to go against there religious beliefs or change their pre-marriage requirements.  This really isn't much different than how churches operate today anyway.  For example there are denominations such as the catholic church who have requirements couples must meet in order to marry in a catholic church. 

The crux of the problem is that opponents really don't want to let same-sex couples recieve the 1100+ benefits that are automatically conferred through marriage. 

To me though Obama's response was just a fancy way of skirting around the issue.  What ever "license" that is issued by a state should be the same license issued to anyone wanting to enter into a "legal union" recognized by the state.  It is then signed by the couple and the "officant".  You want to have a fancy wedding in the church of your choice then great.  There are plenty of churches that will perform same-sex union ceremonies.

One license for all period.

 



Obama's Answer

Obama's answer was B/S!  Leaving marriage up tot he states would not give us any of the 1,138 protections afforded heterosexual married couples by our Federal government.  The old "Leave it up to the states" line is crap, and I will not vote for a Democratic candidate who tries to spoon-feed us that crock! 

 When Mr. Obama went on to discuss religious ceremonies, he further danced around the issue of gay marriage.  As gay people, we are not trying to force churches to perform ceremonies.  We are just looking for equal access to the Federal rights. 

 I was not pleased with Mr. Obama's answer.



[ Parent ]
I'm with Steven
Bogus. Utterly bogus.

[ Parent ]
Churches still aren't forced to do anything!

This really isn't much different than how churches operate today anyway. 

Interracial couples still get to call their relationships marriage.  The churches can still opt to not perform the ceremony. 

Why should a gay couple have to go by a different word then?  Or better yet, if the churches are so afraid of being forced into performing a ceremony for a couple they think is an abomination, then why not make interracial couples have civil unions instead of being able to get married?



[ Parent ]
The point is, its a LEGAL issue.

Nobody expects a Church to issue a marriage license, now or in the future. It's government recognition at a Federal level that's important. I can get married today in Massachussetts, but still can't get Federal benefits...

For example:

  • Lesbian and gay families are denied the same benefits married heterosexual families receive under Social Security.
  • Lesbian and gay families are taxed for health benefits provided to their domestic partners, while married heterosexual families are not.  
  • After the loss of a job, lesbian and gay families are not guaranteed the opportunity to purchase continued health coverage for a domestic partner, although married heterosexual couples are.

 



Steve

[ Parent ]
Obama is the BEST candidate who doesn't support my equality...either.
I feel this is ANOTHER G*D DAMN election I'll hold my nose, vote for a Democrat, because they offer us scraps from their banquet table. CHRIST, i'm so TIRED of doing that AGAIN, since 1974 there has yet to be a Democrat I've voted for who stood up for LGBT Rights without some short-coming.

Paul Wellstone was my best hope once, but then he signed DOMA


Menu

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?


Report TOS Violations



Join the Blend Chat Room



Premium Sponsors



BlogAds






Search the Blend
Current site


PHB 2.0 Web
Search Blend 1.0 Archives
Ad Networks


BlogSheroes BlogAds


Miscellany

RSS Feeds

Subscribe with Bloglines

Visit NCBlogs


frontpage hit counter

Stats

Powered by: SoapBlox