Join 3,524 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


Refusing to be invisible
August 1, 2007 8:13 PM   Subscribe

VisibleVote08.com On Thursday, August 9th, at 9PM EST, the LOGO television network along with the Human Rights Campaign are going to host a televised forum with some of the leading Democratic presidential candidates for the discussion of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Trangendered issues. According to the network, if you are unable to see the program on cable, it will be available to you live via the special website. And as of August 2nd, surfers are invited to submit questions to be asked of the candidates live.
posted by FunkyHelix (27 comments total) 1 user marked this as a favorite

 
What? No Republicans?
posted by travis vocino at 8:27 PM on August 1, 2007


Perhaps they declined. You could always try contacting the LOGO network to inquire.
posted by FunkyHelix at 8:30 PM on August 1, 2007


My question would be how can anyone who at least pretends to be even slightly progressive and not an out and out bigot can not support the instant and irrevocable granting of human rights to each and every American in the form of equal protection under the law, as a start. I understand that somehow the right of any adult to marry any other adult (legally, equally) is somehow a topic worth weaseling over with people that have to pander to the broad swath of the American public, but I just like to see them squirm.

I have come to realize that this one issue - while not being paramount in terms of practical priority, considering the general state of my country- is a very convenient litmus test for the possibility that any politician can have my respect, not to say my vote... fucking two party system.

Fucking assholes.
posted by Divine_Wino at 8:31 PM on August 1, 2007 [7 favorites]


What? No Republicans?

If answering questions from snowmen degrades the office, can you imagine what answering questions from the LGBT crowd would do?
posted by Poolio at 8:36 PM on August 1, 2007


My question would be how can anyone who at least pretends to be even slightly progressive and not an out and out bigot can not support the instant and irrevocable granting of human rights to each and every American in the form of equal protection under the law, as a start.

This is why Obama is a joke of a candidate. How someone who was born in the Jim Crow era can waffle on basic human rights without blinking escapes rational comprehension.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 8:42 PM on August 1, 2007


This is why Obama is a joke of a candidate.

And Clinton?
posted by travis vocino at 8:49 PM on August 1, 2007


Clinton is just as bad, but she's playing the game to attract right-wing voters who are sick of Bush, so at least it makes sense in some warped way. Since Obama has nothing to lose and everything to gain, I don't know why he doesn't grow a spine and do the right thing.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 8:55 PM on August 1, 2007


Since Obama has nothing to lose and everything to gain, I don't know why he doesn't grow a spine and do the right thing.

IF (year>1994 AND politician.party="Democrat")
THEN DO (pander.totheright)
posted by Pope Guilty at 9:00 PM on August 1, 2007 [5 favorites]


how can anyone who at least pretends to be even slightly progressive and not an out and out bigot can not support the instant and irrevocable granting of human rights to each and every American in the form of equal protection under the law

Quite simply it comes down to basic beliefs. If you sincerely believe that homosexuality is a destructive sin then you certainly are not going to want the government to recognize (or dare we say "promote") that sin.

The question, which no one seems to ask, is if this belief is rational, worthwhile, and good for our country.

Personally I'm discouraged that so many baseless beliefs get a free pass by both politicians and the media, as if labeling something a "cherished belief" means that is forever beyond reproach.

There were a lot of "good Christians" in this country over the last 231 years (but mostly in the 18th and 19th centuries) who really, truly believed that there was a biblical justification for slavery and racism.

They were wrong then, they are probably wrong now.
posted by wfrgms at 9:12 PM on August 1, 2007


If answering questions from snowmen degrades the office, can you imagine what answering questions from the LGBT crowd would do?

To put Poolio's comment into context:
2008 Republican Field Shuns the Snowman
"If there is one emerging difference between the Republican and Democratic presidential fields, it is the way they are embracing — or keeping their distance from — the communications revolution that is bubbling through the campaign season.

On Saturday in Chicago, the leading Democratic presidential contenders will show up for yet another debate, this one in front of an audience of liberal bloggers. Senators Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton and former Senator John Edwards, among others, are on the bill of the second YearlyKos Convention, and the schedule calls for them not only to debate, but also to meet with bloggers to answer questions one-on-one.

The event follows the debate this month in which the Democratic candidates answered questions posed by YouTube users. The Republicans are, shall we say, a little more tentative about the new media world. CNN and YouTube are struggling to get the Republican field to agree to a similar debate; one date in September had to be scratched after Mitt Romney and Rudolph W. Giuliani cited scheduling conflicts.

Mr. Romney described some of the YouTube questions as demeaning, singling out a question on global warming from a snowman. For now, the Republican field seems content to stay on the traditional road. They are debating Sunday morning on national television (“This Week with George Stephanopoulos” on ABC News) from Iowa.

You can be sure there will be no snowmen asking questions."
posted by ericb at 9:24 PM on August 1, 2007


I really hope this becomes a moment where politicians are confronted with tough questions. I am afraid this will just become another instance for them to give answers that don't really say anything, though.
posted by piratebowling at 9:37 PM on August 1, 2007


Mitt "Flip-Flop" Romney: "I was for the gays before I was against them."
"Gov. Mitt Romney, the Massachusetts Republican who has built a presidential campaign on a broad appeal for conservative support, is drawing sharply increased criticism from conservative activists for his advocacy of gay rights in a 1994 letter.

Mr. Romney’s standing among conservatives is being hurt by a letter he sent to the Log Cabin Club of Massachusetts saying that he would be a stronger advocate for gay rights than Senator Edward M. Kennedy, his opponent in a Senate race, in a position that stands in contrast to his current role as a champion of a state constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage.

‘We must make equality for gays and lesbians a mainstream concern,’ Mr. Romney wrote in a detailed plea for the support of the club, a gay Republican organization.

The circulation of the letter by gay rights groups in recent weeks has set off a storm of outrage among social conservatives, and by Friday was looming as a serious complication to Mr. Romney’s hopes.

Aides to Mr. Romney, who did not dispute the letter’s legitimacy, said that the governor’s opinions on gay issues had not changed. They said Mr. Romney had always been an opponent of same-sex marriage, had always opposed discrimination against gay men and lesbians and had been consistent in his views about allowing them to serve in the military.

‘Governor Romney believes Americans should be respectful of all people,’ said Eric Fehrnstrom, his spokesman. ‘However, over the past four years as governor, Mitt Romney has not advocated or supported any change in the military’s policies and he has not implemented new or special rights in this area.’

Mr. Fehrnstrom, echoing the language that Mr. Romney has frequently used on the campaign trail, said Mr. Romney had been ‘a champion of traditional marriage’ and ‘fought the efforts of activist judges who seek to redefine marriage.’

Nonetheless, the breadth of the letter’s language and the specificity of many of the pledges stunned conservative leaders. Many of them had turned to Mr. Romney as a conservative alternative to Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, whose position on issues like abortion had been considered suspect.

‘This is quite disturbing,’ said Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, who had praised Mr. Romney as a champion of traditional values at the group’s conference in late September. ‘This type of information is going to create a lot of problems for Governor Romney. He is going to have a hard time overcoming this.’

Paul Weyrich, a founder of the modern conservative movement, said: ‘Unless he comes out with an abject repudiation of this, I think it makes him out to be a hypocrite. And if he totally repudiates this, you have to ask, on what grounds?’

The letter, and Mr. Romney’s effort to reconcile it with the way he had presented himself on the campaign trail, reflects what has been one of the central challenges facing him in his campaign: how to move from winning an election in one of the most liberal states in the union to becoming the presidential candidate of a party whose nominating process is dominated by social conservatives.

As it is, he has shifted his position on abortion rights. Last year, Mr. Romney wrote an op-ed article for The Boston Globe saying that his views had ‘evolved and deepened,’ and that he opposed abortion and thought decisions on its legality should be left to states.

The 1994 letter followed a meeting with the Log Cabin Club. Mr. Romney wrote, ‘I am not unaware of my opponent’s considerable record in the area of civil rights.

‘For some voters, it might be enough to simply match my opponent’s record in this area,’ he said. ‘But I believe we can and must do better. If we are to achieve the goals we share, we must make equality for gays and lesbians a mainstream concern. My opponent cannot do this. I can and will.’

Mr. Romney, recounting in the letter the promises he made in the meeting with the club, said he had agreed to help sponsor a bill barring discrimination against gay men and lesbians if he was elected to the Senate and to broaden it to include protections for housing and credit.

He said he supported the ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ military policy created by former President Bill Clinton, and described it as ‘the first in a number of steps that will ultimately lead to gays’ and lesbians’ being able to serve openly and honestly in our nation’s military.’

Rich Tafel, who was the executive director of the club at the time, said he was stunned by what he described as the contrast between how Mr. Romney came across in their meeting and how he appeared on the campaign trail now.

‘I’ve never seen anybody change like this,’ he said. ‘It really does concern me.’

Viewed from some angles, Mr. Romney’s positions on gay rights seem consistent. He still says he opposes discrimination against gay men and lesbians and he always said he opposed same-sex marriage.

But his emphasis has shifted in the last two years. As he moves into this new phase of his career, Mr. Romney rarely talks about the need to protect gay men and lesbians from bias, instead presenting himself as a conservative stalwart in the fight against same-sex marriage, arguing that legally recognizing same-sex unions endangers the cultural support for heterosexual families.

The doubts being raised could improve the prospects of two fellow Republicans who have been seeking conservative support in bids for the presidential election: Gov. Mike Huckabee of Arkansas and Senator Sam Brownback of Kansas." *
posted by ericb at 9:40 PM on August 1, 2007


is a very convenient litmus test for the possibility that any politician can have my respect, not to say my vote

So your not voting for any of the major Dem canidates then?
They all pretty much have the same stance on gay marriage.
posted by afu at 4:10 AM on August 2, 2007 [1 favorite]


Not to say my vote, big deal shit is at stake friend.
posted by Divine_Wino at 6:01 AM on August 2, 2007


I want to be proud of this, but we already know their positions on everything, and that few if any of them will expend any political capital at all on us, tragically. And if any of them go on about states doing things, and not feds, i'll reach thru the net and smack them myself.

I still have hope Edwards will "get there" with Elizabeth's and our help tho. There's no hope for Clinton or Obama--they didn't lift a finger for ENDA or Hate Crimes or anything as Senators.
posted by amberglow at 10:54 AM on August 2, 2007


Also, Hillary never lifted a finger to help here in NY either--with the court cases or in Albany. Never once.
posted by amberglow at 10:59 AM on August 2, 2007


this is far more interesting: Marriage is a labor issue--...This coming Tuesday, in Chicago, the AFL-CIO will be hosting the first in what will no likely be a series of Presidential Debates for union members.... Pride At Work, the organization that represents lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender working people, submitted several questions, but one has made it into the top ten final questions that may be asked.

The question regards marriage equality and an end to marriage discrimination in this country. ...

posted by amberglow at 11:02 AM on August 2, 2007 [1 favorite]


there was controversy about this LOGO thing too--they had Melissa Etheridge and Joe Solomonese of Human Rights Campaign as the only panelists originally -- and no gay journalists at all. (and now only 1)
posted by amberglow at 11:06 AM on August 2, 2007


Biden's strong on this stuff, he comes off sincere and sensible and I think coherent enough not to alienate the everyday guy who is freaked out by "the gays". Well, assuming the everyday guy can follow an argument.

Edwards had some impressive answers to gay marriage questions in the CNN/Youtube debate, though he didn't "get there", you're right, amberglow. I don't know if it's a good idea to "get there", though. America is not left-wing. There are swathes of the country which are hardly ready for race equality, let alone federally-okayed gay marriage. Small steps are better than no steps, and the unfortunate thing about the way democracy works is that you can't be too hasty... until you're voted in, and then you can invade whatever countries you want, apparently...

I think the best we can hope for is moderate, sincere honesty about the issue and the courage to stand up for the rights of gay people, which, it sounds like, a few of the candidates do have. We'll see.

The reality of politics sucks.
posted by blacklite at 12:30 PM on August 2, 2007


but America wasn't "there" for Brown vs. Bd of Ed, or interracial marriage, or even emancipation--America is never really "there"--unless officials are willing to step up and really lead. This is a prime test of whether these people are willing to step up for our rights--for all rights, really.

Small steps are no good for rights we all are entitled to. Euphemisms for marriage aren't either. State solutions are no good too.

I hope someone asks Hillary about all the money she's gotten from Fox--they've been demonizing us for years.
posted by amberglow at 2:14 PM on August 2, 2007


that reminds me--they better ask about the Supreme Court.
posted by amberglow at 2:18 PM on August 2, 2007


What? No Republicans?

Republicans were invited. Some of them declined, some of them didn't respond at all. (Just like with the Internets, if you close your eyes hard enough gay people don't exist.)
posted by alms at 3:38 PM on August 2, 2007


if you close your eyes hard enough gay people don't exist.

They have so many closet cases in their own party they probably figure they don't need to bother (McHenry, Dreier, McConnell, Foley, Schrock, Craig, Mehlman, ...)
posted by amberglow at 3:51 PM on August 2, 2007


there was other trouble about this forum too--originally the HRC only invited the top 3
posted by amberglow at 3:53 PM on August 2, 2007


Matt Foreman of NGLTF on the candidates: ... We need leadership. We need strength of vision. And we need to know that the promises of reform come from the candidates' understanding of LGBT people as inseparable from the national community in which we live. There can be no more equivocating or silence about the goodness of our personhood, our families, our relationships. Period.
posted by amberglow at 3:56 PM on August 2, 2007


so far: Obama-civil unions only, no marriage. And he's spinning like crazy.

Melissa Etheridge is a mistake--entirely.
posted by amberglow at 6:10 PM on August 9, 2007


"comparisons of victimology" ??? wtf?
posted by amberglow at 6:19 PM on August 9, 2007


« Older The Daily Telegraph's 50 must-watch web video clip...  |  Malaysia... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments