LOL.Yes, as a feminist that self questioning is second nature. I myself happen to think Clinton has supported issues that are important to me for her entire life and so I have to gravitate her way.
Funny story though, my mother-in-law who is the most wonderful mother-in-law ever is Cuban. She immigrated here with her family when she was young. My husband spoke pretty much all spanish when he was growing up and his cuban grandmother watched over him while his parents were working.
As you may know, many cuban immigrants are very very very angry about the Bay of Pigs incident and even those not born then have it instilled early on that you don't vote democrat because of JFK. At least this is what the family has told me.
Imagine my shock when my husband told me his mother is going to vote democrat for the first time and for Hillary Clinton. Someone could craft a very fine Star Trek episode based on my reaction. I swear I felt my molecules move around.

Okay, fine. If you are going to bring facts into the discussion ...

I like some of JE's positions, but do agree that he's a bit untrustworthy. The same can be said of both Barack and Hillary.

But Edwards is out of the running. Between BO and HC, I'll pick Obama any day. I really don't like Hillary.

I'm enough of a feminist to question myself about that ... and I'm enought of a feminist to know that my dislike for her had nothing to do with her sex.

This is a good election period!

1998-2004. Not a long time ago.
But I digress. Ghosthunters International is almost on so my intellectual stimulation will not be lacking this evening. Go Brian!

Addy:

I'm not sure what to make about Edward's sincerity. It's true that he didn't press this populist message when he was voting in the Senate.(And we need to have a thread about the language of populist -- Gotta?)

But that was some time ago, and I can't deny the power of change. He certainly speaks to truth these days.

Sincere or not, at least he is saying the right things.

Glad that you can understand the view that some of our politicians might believe but not much care. I think that most minorities understand that viewoint.

Oh, sorry.For some reason I had Eddie Haskell on my mind.
The issue you brought up of who would sell out gay marriage for political expediency. And the idea that Clinton and Obama might, because even though we have the dog whistle notion that they have no problem with gay marriage, they can't bring themselves to openly support it. Whereas Edwards response leaves us open to the idea that he could change his mind and support it as says he supports many populist notions so dear to our hearts.
Now do I believe him? I look at his actual voting record and say, meh. Not so much. He was no populist while he was in the senate. But, I guess I can consider that of the three, he is making the most noise about changing the status quo. And I assume this includes the rights of a large portion of the population finally getting basic rights everyone else takes for granted. He is certainly not relying on our "getting his real message" and that's a plus. I still have reservations about his sincerity though.

Your different point of view?

Explain what?

oh, sorry.

I hate to fuck with a person's point of view.

But you need to explain.

Bucky, I think you just talked me into a different point of view.
Cut it out.

Addy:

I completely agree with you. Your reading of the emotional response from each of the three candidates is, I think, very accurate.

And that is what really annoys me. Hillary and Barack both seemed, personally very comfortable with the idea of gay marriage. Yet they were still willing to sell me out for a few votes.

John Edwards cames across as personally uncomfortable with gay marriage, but open to the idea of changing his opinion. He wasn't selling me out for politics that he disagreed with, he was selling me out because he he couldn't see my point of view.

I can change a man's point of view. A person who can see my point of view but doesn't care, well, that's hard to change. People like that are just asses.

Not to be argumentative Bucky, but he seemed genuinely uncomfortable with gay marriage. Obama and Clinton struck me as unlikely to give a shit. But that's just my take on it.

eve you are funny. You really need to make them aware of this awesome idea on the boards. I'm sure they will take it well. ;)

Eve: You hit it on the head. Edward's answer seemed genuine (is that possible with a politician ... particularly one who is a lwayer?). the answers from H&O were very poll tested.

As for the boob job ... NOOOOOO. Of course, I like a man's chest, so perhaps I'm not the best voice to listen to on this ... but NOOOOOOOO.

addy, I will check out some marriage boards. Sounds like a hoot. I'm already gleeful over saying I want a money dance and buy your own booze. I think they will love my idea of everyone paying extra $$ for the toasts to the bride and groom so as to pay for my pre-wedding boob job.

Back to gay marriage. I remember now the candidates being asked about it. Even though I was very uncomfortable with Edwards answer, I liked it better than H and O. His was honest and not disrespectful. I like both H and O, but I thought their answer was very opinion poll certified.

He or she, the leader, is not coming. And I wouldn't trust them if they did. We have strong progressive people in the senate and they can't make much headway against the herd. What it would take to do so is more power than I want to give anyone. In the end, we take the rights we want and society gets used to it. Eventually.

Addington, she may have since criticized DADT. Not sure as I don't hang on every word. Still ... her inability to find admit to any small fault with the policy ... in front of an audience of gay men and women ... was telling, I thought.

And yes, they do take our votes for granted. We are the anti-choicers of the left. They know that no matter what they do, the right will always be worse so we don't really don't have much choice but to keep our dollars and our votes to ourselves. Which is increasingly the sentiment among my friends.

And I agree, Bruce. The Dems haven't been that supportive. I think that most of the dems area personally supportive, but are afraid to step up and take a stand.

Where are the leaders? Not just on gay issues. Where are the leaders? Who is going to step up and take a stand and move people forward?

Oh that's weird buckminster. I read your story about the three daughters as an eve comment so have actually been responding to you about it the whole time.Sorry eve, if I seemed demented. This is what happens when I stop drinking in the afternoons.

Bruce, thank you. I love this conversation we're having and appreciate it more than you know.

Al Gore continues to impress me for the most part. I think the 2000 Al Gore was too constrained by politics to really speak his mind. I think supporting gay marriage back in 2000 would have probably cost him a few more states and he would have actually lost the election.

The current Dems aren't exactly the greatest supporters of gay rights, but they of course are head and shoulders better than any of the Republicans. I really think that within the next one or two presidential elections we'll actually have a Democratic party platform that supports full equal rights for gays and lesbians.

Even Conservatives are starting to realize that gay marriage isn't a threat to them but that the mismanagement of our country and the economy will really hurt them. The social conservative issues are going to take a back seat as the economic reality of living under Republican rule sinks in and hits them where it really hurts.

Addy, that was so sweet, thank you!! Bucky, I agree wholeheartedly. Things change. Get some perspective, people (not you people, the ones we're talking about)

Funny, I got the distinct impression that she has since faulted don't ask don't tell. But, as you say, none of them has answered in a way that works for me. Do they take our votes (women AND the gay community) for granted? I believe they do.

Addy: As a gay man, it was all rather difficult to watch. I think that you nailed it for me with your comment: "Edwards lost me. He made it sound like it was icky to him but maybe his wife could convince him."

The thing that I liked about it was that small open window that maybe his wife could convince him. Here was someone I disagreed with, but perhaps he was open to changing his mind. That resonated with me.

Both Hillary and Barack were very firm in their opinion: Civil Union, Yes; Gay Marriage, No.

I was bothered by Hillz inability to entertain any criticism of Bill's policies and admit that "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" wasn't working. Yeah, she's been somewhat supportive of gay civil rights ... as long as she doesn't have to go out on a limb and risk anything.

As for Barack, I appreciated his talking about his real support of legislation that helped the GL community (that's GayLesbian, not GottaLaff!). Still, his statement that marriage could only ever be between a man and a woman -- centuries of history and all of that -- disturbed me. Here's a thought, Obama, black men were slaves for centuries, so you really shouldn't start talking about standing on historical social contructs. If you want to go down that path, you'll be just as much of a social outcast as I am. More so, 'cuz I'm white and can passs if I have to.

I know you like to play tough and all Laffperson, but you are too sweet to alienate anyone. Anyone worth it that is.

I meant to ask, did my previous comment alienate anyone? I've been trying so hard to avoid that.

I really hope the sarcasm is loud and clear. It kinda ruins the intent if it's not.

Oh lord eve I finally got it! LOL.

You know guys, we all have our favorite candidates etc..and things can get a little heated. But you haven't seen controversy, greed, backbiting and sheer depravity until you have been on the wedding boards. I highly recommend them for a view into the world's underbelly. And eve, a big part of what goes on there is conversation over what is traditional and what is not, who should do this who should do this.
If you want some fun, register and tell everyone you are doing the money dance on your wedding and it's going to be a pay as you go bar (no host?). It would be so worth it.

ceremoonies ... or ceremonies.

i don't think she was worried about that whole Wash Post Moonie stuff.

Just a typo.

Perhaps I need to stop commenting.

That story would have made more sense if I hadn't somehow erased the important bit:

I asked what was wrong and she told me that she didn't know how she and her husband were going to pay for three weddings. You have to know that Lisa was from a well-to-do Houston family and had NOT married into money but was still cognizant of proper social protocol. I told her that maybe she would get lucky and they would be lesbians. She didn't miss a beat and responded in all of her gloomy sincerity, "yeah, but we'll still have to rent out the entire country club for their committment ceremoonies."

I'm sorry, I can't comment on any of this. It might alienate the Commenters.

lol on the wedding planning.

I am reminded of a woman I worked with a few years ago. Very nice. Loved her. After much effort she had triplets -- all girls. One Monday after she had returned from her sister's wedding she was depressed and forlorn. I asked what was wrong and she told me that she didn't know how she and her husband were going to pay for three weddings. You have to know that Lisa was from a well-to-do Houston family and had NOT married into money but was still cognizant of proper social protocol. She didn't miss a beat and responded in all of her gloomy sincerity, "yeah, but we'll still have to rent out the entire country club for their committment ceremoonies."

See Bucky, this is another time that Edwards lost me. He made it sound like it was icky to him but maybe his wife could convince him. With Clinton, I got the strong feeling she disagreed with Don't ask Don't tell and would change it, Obama struck me as less annoying on it than Edwards, and more straightforward than Clinton. So I liked his response the best. Then came the "ex-gay" minister and I had to go to my default poll, Clinton. Kucinich just isn't going to be in it so while he actually spoke to what I believe, it's not in the cards.
Two mother in laws. Holy crap I didn't think of that eve. I, of course, am going to be a wonderful mother-in-law. At least that will be my opinion. I'm sure my husband will be rolling his eyes alot.

Don't know how many of you saw the "gay debate" from last fall that featured a panel asking question of the dem candidates (no republican candidate would agree to participate).

None of the leading candidates would endorse marriage for The Gays. (As I recall, Kucinich and Richardson did.)

I had really mixed feelings about it all after the "debate," which was really a series of one-on-one interviews with three panelists.

All three leading candidates (cann I still call Edwards a leading candidate?) expressed their discomfort with gay marriage, but were firm in their support for gay civil unions. Clinton was the most flippy-floppy to me as she tried to defend Billz disastrous don't-ask-don't-tell-cuz-it's-gross policy while still supporting the right of queers to not be lynched.

Barak wasn't much better, but he did point to his long and ongoing support of gay rights legislation. And then the next week, he held a fundraiser with one of the country's biggest ex-gay "god can cure you of the evil of homosexuality" black ministers.

Edwards was my favorite response of the Big Three, when he stated that he thought that The Gays should be able to have their little ceremonies but that it woouldn't be a marriage because his religion just see it that way. He did point out that his wife disagreed with him and was a firm support of gay marriage but that he just wasn't there yet.

I liked Kucinich and his "gay marriage is a-okay by me ... have you seen my hot young wife" attitude. But he's got zero chance of winning the primary, much less the general.

Haven't followed the link yet, GL -- it's so much more fun to comment before you know the facts, you know. But I'll check it out.

:-)

addy, lol on the wedding planning. You made me think about something. I've had two mother-in-laws, one great and one who is not so great. But didn't have them at the same time. Woe to the girl who marries the guy with two moms.

Okay, I'll say it just to be silly and tease you.

It will alienate the voters.

You know, the knuckledraggers, the half-wits, the hide me under the bed the commies are coming types, the I'm okay with it as long as they don't act gay around me voters, the next it will be man\woman married to chinchillas! voters. Those guys.

Me, I'm all for it. Question is going to be though, and this will topple otherwise stable worlds, whose family pays for the wedding?

Yes, yes, Eve! Why won't anyone have the balls to commit to saying that gay marriage is A-OK!? Why is that so hard?

And anyone out there who answers that with the usual "it'll alienate voters...blahblah..." Don't wanna hear it. ; )

Love that Al! Have Edwards, Clinton, or Obama said they will support gay marriage? I am thinking they support civil unions, whatever that means.

I know know a few marriages that aren't so civil.

Bucky, follow the link. It refers to his past stance on this.

Well, you knew GottaSetMeOff, that I'd have to chime in on this one.

WOW!

I want to say -- but I'm terribly old and my memory is faulty -- that he has mostly been a little iffy on gay marriage heretofore. But I could be completely wrong.

Glad to see that he asks the question: "I don't understand why it is consider by some people to be a threat to heterosexual marriage..."

'Cuz let me just say that if your "one man, one woman" marriage is going to fall apart because a couple of 'mos declare their love for each other and exchange rings in a very fashionable yet understated ceremony, then it really isn't much of a marriage to begin with. And the queers are really the least of your problems.

Ya know?

We need more like this.