Chris Dodd: amend DOMA to allow federal benefits for civil unions

a step in the right direction,

but "it ought to happen" is still totally non-committal.  how about "i'm going to make it happen" with the same convistion hillary stated "i'm in this to win".

Click HERE and sign up: Campaign For Military Partners.

Lurleen on Twitter.

---

by: Lurleen @ Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 22:04:32 PM CST

Yes, definitely a step in the right direction

Cool!

Agreed the way he worded it was non-commital.  Kerry in the same way is in favor of medical marijuana (at least, as a senator from Massachusetts he is in favor of it......)

---

by: oddjob @ Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 22:44:45 PM CST

[ Parent ]

buisness as usual

Exactly, business as usual.  How about a quote like "I think its should happen"?  Even that would be non commital although slightly stronger....you're right I;'m not quite ready to send money to the Dodd campaign.

---

by: Karen in Kalifornia @ Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 23:13:35 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I AGREE

but I'm not really sure the difference between should and ought is really significant enough to draw a line between them. That he didn't say "I think" well he was talking and, to my ears at least, the "I think" was implicit. But it was business as usual and it doesn't make me want to jump onto the Dodd bandwagon as yet.

Great, gutsy question from the interviewer though.

---

by: Alan down in Florida @ Sat Feb 03, 2007 at 11:18:00 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Amended to allow civil unions?

While same-sex couples who are legally married are SOL?  Nice try, Senator, but try again.

"Our Liberties We Prize and Our Rights We Will Maintain" -- Iowa state motto

---

by: Sportin' Life @ Sat Feb 03, 2007 at 00:04:46 AM CST

I'd question him further...

...and not assume that he means that legally married same-sex couples are SOL.

It may not be all the way there, but he's has the next-best position to Kucinich that I've heard so far. I want to like John Edwards but I can't support him until he supports me. I think he has some likelihood of being swayed, with Elizabeth and Cate telling him what to do. Clinton will throw us under the bus in a second, and Obama can't reconcile our rights with his religion. I haven't heard the positions of the gentlemen from Iowa and Alaska yet, both of whose names I cannot conjure up at this moment but I will surely remember as soon as I hit the post button.

---

by: one jewish dyke @ Sat Feb 03, 2007 at 00:57:33 AM CST

[ Parent ]

other Dems

Former Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack and former Alaska Sen. Mike Gravel. I don't recall offhand what their positions are.

---

by: Pam Spaulding @ Sat Feb 03, 2007 at 05:54:06 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Candidates coming out of our ears

I'm happy that this time other candidates aren't steering clear of Iowa due to Vilsak's run.

I don't know his postion on marriage equality, he loses a point with me for opposing but signing English only rather than vetoing and being overridden. He gains for his executive order to restore voting rights for felons who have served their sentences.  I didn't know until recently that he was head of the DLC.

I've never gone to any campaign event, but since they are making the effort to come here I suppose I might go to a few to ask a question or two.

---

by: Charles @ Sat Feb 03, 2007 at 09:48:38 AM CST

[ Parent ]

I'd question him further and not assume that he means that legally married same-sex couples are SOL

True and I'm glad he's raising that bar, if only slightly; however, this (your statement) does make me realize that he, like many of the other candidates, probably don't get the complexities of CUs vs marriage.

---

by: callie @ Sat Feb 03, 2007 at 07:36:18 AM CST

[ Parent ]

I AGREE

but, as we find out on an almost daily basis, I don't think there is anyone who can truly understand the complexities of CUs vs. marriage because there is such a patchwork of different wordings in different states which, if for no other reason that, is why it is imperative that this issue be resolved on a federal level as opposed to the cop out of leaving it to the states.

---

by: Alan down in Florida @ Sat Feb 03, 2007 at 11:23:33 AM CST

[ Parent ]

the important thing

is that Dodd had an answer to a direct question on DOMA. All the candidates who say they support CUs should expect this and other similar questions in this cycle on specifics of how CUs will achieve equality.

---

by: Pam Spaulding @ Sat Feb 03, 2007 at 05:57:49 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Yes, I see your point, Pam

At least they are being asked questions and giving answers--rather than being allowed to hide behind "leave it to the states."  That's an achievement right there, and it may be a worthy and realistic goal for this election cycle just to educate the media and the voters to the point of demanding positions that are not contradictions in terms.

So, maybe I'm too negative, but here are the reasons for my lack of enthusiasm:

Chris Dodd voted in favor of the DOMA.  It was an act of political cowardice on his part (and on the part of a lot of people).  It doesn't impress me now to have him talk about "amending" it, as if it was an acceptable vote in the first place; the bill just needs some tweaking.

"Gosh, maybe we should look at this," is nice.  But Dodd is a Senator, and the new session of Congress is starting now.  So where is his bill actually addressing policy?  It doesn't exist.  We're not being offered anything here other than rhetoric, and as long as that's the case, I want rhetoric that expresses what I actually believe in.

"Our Liberties We Prize and Our Rights We Will Maintain" -- Iowa state motto

---

by: Sportin' Life @ Sat Feb 03, 2007 at 14:02:40 PM CST

[ Parent ]