That's why I opposed DOMA in 2006 when I ran for the Senate. That's why I am a strong supporter not of a weak version of civil unions, but of a strong version, in which the rights that are conferred at the federal level to persons who are part of the same sex union are compatible.
When it comes to federal rights, the over 1,100 rights that right now are not being given to same sex couples, I think that's unacceptable, and as president of the United States, I am going to fight hard to make sure that those rights are available.
A: It is my strong belief that the government has to treat all citizens equally. I don't think that the church should be making these determinations when it comes to legal rights conferred by the state. I do think that individual denominations have the right to make their own decisions as to whether they recognize same sex couples. My denomination, United Church of Christ, does. Other denominations may make a decision, and obviously, part of keeping a separation of churches and state is also to make sure that churches have the right to exercise their freedom of religion.
A: My view is that we should try to disentangle what has historically been the issue of the word "marriage," which has religious connotations to some people, from the civil rights that are given to couples, in terms of hospital visitation, in terms of whether or not they can transfer property or Social Security benefits and so forth. So it depends on how the bill would've come up. I would've supported and would continue to support a civil union that provides all the benefits that are available for a legally sanctioned marriage. And it is then, as I said, up to religious denominations to make a determination as to whether they want to recognize that as marriage or not.
A: Look, when my parents got married in 1961, it would have been illegal for them to be married in a number of states in the South. So obviously, this is something that I understand intimately, it's something that I care about. But if I were advising the civil rights movement back in 1961 about its approach to civil rights, I would have probably said it's less important that we focus on an anti-miscegenation law than we focus on a voting rights law and a non-discrimination and employment law and all the legal rights that are conferred by the state. Now, it's not for me to suggest that you shouldn't be troubled by these issues. But my job as president is going to be to make sure that the legal rights that have consequences on a day to day basis for loving same sex couples all across the country.
A: My attitude is if people are being treated unfairly and unequally, then it needs to be fixed. So I'm always very cautious about getting into comparisons of victimology. You know, the issues that gays and lesbians face today are different from the issues that were faced by African-Americans under Jim Crow. That doesn't mean, though, that there aren't parallels in the sense that legal status is not equal. And that has to be fixed. I'm going to be more sympathetic not because I'm black. I'm going to be more sympathetic because this has been the cause of my life and will continue to be the cause of my life, making sure that everybody's treated fairly and that we've got an expansive view of America, where everybody's invited in and we are all working together to create the kind of America that we want for the next generation.
A: The nation, I believe, is on a path to full inclusion. A president must lead that effort. In my judgment, what is achievable is civil unions with full marriage rights, with domestic partnership. I believe that's achievable.
A: I was the chief deputy Democratic whip at the time, and Clinton was president. The objective in passing DOMA was to fight a huge assault for a constitutional amendment in the Congress to ban gay marriage. It was sort of a cheap political way to decimate a bad initiative. I would repeal that horrendous initiative that I voted for and I regret now. DOMA would preclude a number of the full partnership rights that I want to see with civil unions.
A: Sure, you know, and I'm Hispanic. I felt the sting as a kid of being stereotyped. And I apologized but I meant no harm when I said that. It was, you know, one of those exchanges that I was caught off guard. No, I am not backing off. I apologize, but I think you should look at my actions and not words. Let me tell you what I've done as governor. You can talk about what mistakes people have made. I've made plenty. And I've probably said things that I regret across the board. But we should look at what we've done. I accept [responsibility] obviously -- but you should look at my record. Action speaks louder than words.
A: No. I did [call it last session].
Q: Oh, you did. And how did it go?
A: It didn't pass. We lost by one vote.
Q: So you didn't call a special session for same sex marriage because you can't get domestic partnership through. If the New Mexico legislature handed you a marriage bill, would you sign it?
A: I am pushing the NM legislature very hard to expand domestic partnership. It's a question of going through a path that is achievable.
Q: If the legislature hands you that piece of legislation, in your heart, where are you on that issue?
A: Well, you know, in my heart, I'm doing what is achievable. And I'm not there yet. And the country isn't there yet. New Mexico isn't there yet. We have to bring the country on. We have to move in the direction of making this happen. That doesn't mean that I'm closed on this issue. It means that you do what is achievable.
A: It's a choice.
Q: I don't know if you understand the question. Do you think a homosexual is born that way, or do you think that around seventh grade we go, "Ooh, I want to be gay"?
A: Well, I'm not a scientist. I don't see this as an issue of science or definition. I see gays and lesbians as people as a matter of human decency. I don't like to categorize people. I don't like to answer definitions like that, that perhaps are grounded in science or something else that I don't understand.
Q: Well, it's hard when you are a citizen of a country that tells you that you are making a choice when you were born that way.
A: As a Hispanic, I grew up with people thinking because of my darker skin and because I wasn't fully speaking English at a time, that I was not equal. So I understand that issue of inequality, and so across the board I've always felt that every human being desires the same rights.
A: (Pause).
Q: There's got to be something.
A: All I can say is, keep those contributions coming, you'll have the president that you want.
Q: I'll take that as a "no."
A: That's a "no."
A: Why do you think that is?
A: This is really a question of whether you really believe in equality. When you understand what real equality is, you understand that people who love each other must have the opportunity to be able to express that in a way that is meaningful, and that the state should not be intervening against people, the state should be there on behalf of people, to make sure that that love has a chance to be facilitated.
Q: So what you're saying is that Senator Obama and Senator Edwards, who sat here just moments ago both espousing equality--are you saying that they don't truly oppose same sex marriage, that they're just playing politics?
A: I'm saying that I stand for real equality and that this is really part of an American tradition because when you look at the founding documents, to me this is a foundational principle of who we are as a country.
A: Well, I prefer to think of it as being very positive about civil unions. You know, it's a personal position. How we get to full equality is the debate we're having, & I am absolutely in favor of civil unions with full equality of benefits, rights, and privileges. I want to proceed with equalizing federal benefits.
And I've also been a very strong supporter of letting the states maintain their jurisdiction over marriage. I want to repeal Section 3 of DOMA, which stands in the way of the extension of benefits to people in committed, same-sex relationships. I will be very strongly in favor of doing that as president.
I don't know that we could have defeated the Federal Marriage Amendment if we had not had DOMA. I mean, that is something that, you know, has provided a great protection against what was clearly the Republican strategy, to just cynically use marriage as a political tool.
A: It's easy to forget that just 2 years ago we were facing all of these referenda that were enshrining discrimination in state constitutions. Unfortunately, they passed. Now, we're beginning to see other states take different approaches, because stopping the Federal Marriage Amendment gave the states the breathing room to make different decisions.
Q: In the civil rights struggle, the same argument of states' rights issue was used as a red herring. Doesn't marriage as a states' rights issue resonate the same way?
A: Absolutely. But this has not been a long-term struggle yet, and I think the states are moving much more rapidly to deal with the inequalities than you would find at the federal level. The reason we were plotting strategy to beat the Federal Marriage Amendment is that we were worried it was going to pass. But I don't know that we could have defeated the Federal Marriage Amendment if we had not had DOMA.
A: Well, obviously, I don't see it quite the way that you describe, but I respect your feeling about it. You know, we certainly didn't get as much done as I would have liked, but I believe that there was a lot of honest effort going on by the president, the vice president and the rest of us who were trying to keep the momentum going. You know, I remember when I was running for the Senate as first lady marching in the gay pride parade in New York City, and to a lot of people that was just an unbelievable act.
Q: Why not be the leader now?
A: I think I am a leader now. But as president, I think I have an opportunity to reverse the concerted assault on people. It wasn't just on people's rights; it was on people. It was demeaning; it was mean-spirited. And that will end.
A: I would support them in every possible way, including on a personal and an emotional level, provide every bit of help and support that I possibly could in going through what they were going through. But the American people deserve to know, beyond your policy position, what your reaction is to it. Will you support them publicly? Are you willing to do what's right, under the circumstances? And I can tell you, I know in my heart and soul that I would. I've had similar experiences when I was younger on issues of race that were extraordinarily difficult in the place where I grew up, where I did what I believed was right, where my family did what we believed was right. And I think that's at least some indication of what I would do under these circumstances.
A: Well, I have to tell you, I shouldn't have said that, because I believe, to my core, in equality. It makes perfect sense to me that gay and lesbian couples would say, "Civil unions, great; 1,100 federal benefits, great; give us these rights, we deserve these rights." And they're absolutely right about that. But it stops short of real equality. And the only thing I would say about the faith question is I think from my perspective it is wrong -- because we have seen a president in the last six-plus years who tries to impose his faith on the American people. And I think it is a mistake and I will not impose my faith belief on the American people. I don't believe any president should do that. I believe in the separation of church and state.
A: I shouldn't have said that, because I believe, to my core, in equality.
Q: If it is not your faith, then what is at the core of that resistance? I know that you said you're on a journey, and I'm curious where and when you might end up on that journey.
A: I can tell you where I am. First of all, I think you deserve to know the truth, and the truth is that my position on same sex marriage has not changed. I do believe strongly in civil unions and the substantive rights that go with that. I believe we desperately need to get rid of DOMA. I think we need to get rid of "don't ask, don't tell." I think we need to get rid of those things. Today I believe in all these other things, but I do not support same sex marriage. All I can tell you is where I am today. That's the best I can do. You deserve to know that from me.
A: I live in Virginia now, but my heart is still in Alaska.
Q: Are there many gay people up in Alaska ?
A: My coterie of support within the Harvey Milk Club [a San Francisco-based GLBT support group] is the Alaskans that are in that club. They're in the audience right today.
A: Well, it's because they're playing it safe. They're not going to lose any votes over not being for marriage, whatever their excuses are. They're going to win. This is costing votes for us. I don't care. I don't want those votes. So you want to know the difference? A good politician can tell you to go to hell and make you look forward to the trip. We see a lot of that.
A: My first piece of legislation in the State Legislature was the creation of the Human Rights Commission of Alaska. I fought hard, I used political capital. And what I learned is that when you use political capital, more capital comes to you. The Human Rights Commission dealt with gays and dealt with the black community. That was my first accomplishment, and I felt it deeply.
A: About my generation, most of them are wrong. They're dead wrong. They're dead wrong. You know, when I was a kid there was a lot of homophobia around. I can recall when the gay issue was, what, 55% opposed, 40% for. And lo and behold, now if you're talking about the gay issue in general, it's probably 59% for, and the rest are in the dustbin of history. The same thing's going to happen with the marriage issue. I'll make you a promise. Five years from now the marriage issue will be a non-issue in the next presidential campaign. Just that simple.
Q: If you think it's changing so much, you could put gay marriage up to a popular vote and it would win?
A: I think so. I think that the American people are basically got really an underlying sense of values of fairness.
A: The marriage issue will be a non-issue in the next presidential campaign.
Q: If you think attitudes are changing so much, you could put gay marriage up to a popular vote and it would win?
A: I think so. I think that the American people are basically got really an underlying sense of values of fairness.
Q: Things have changed that much?
A: What happens is we had the leadership that demagogues the issue to a fare-thee-well, whether it's presidential candidates who can't quite get their arms around the marriage issue and, of course, will give you an argument. And it could be a real argument that it's their morality that doesn't permit it or it's a political argument. When people like myself or Dennis Kucinich move the ball down the court a little bit, that benefits the gay community. And it's sort of ironic that we see the gay community supporting people like Hillary, Obama, Edwards, who, for some reason, can't get their arms around marriage.
A: I know that Rep. Barney Frank initially said that they should have not gone for it. I disagree. But now he's changed his position. He feels that you draw a line in the sand by telling people that you can't use the word marriage, which, of course, has been misappropriated by religion. Go to the City Hall next time and look for where you go get your license. Does it say Gay Same Sex Union or does it say Marriage License Bureau? It says Marriage License. What you have to recognize is that when people are telling you that you can't be married, what they're telling you is there's something wrong with you, you're second-class citizens, and that's not so. You're not second-class citizens, and the sooner our nation matures to that level [the better]. Leadership is the task of bringing us forward to civic maturity, and we don't have enough of that leadership at the presidential level.
| |||
| 2008 Presidential contenders on Civil Rights: | |||
|
Republicans:
Chmn.John Cox Mayor Rudy Giuliani Gov.Mike Huckabee Rep.Duncan Hunter Sen.John McCain Rep.Ron Paul Gov.Mitt Romney Sen.Fred Thompson |
Democrats:
Sen.Hillary Clinton Sen.John Edwards Sen.Mike Gravel Rep.Dennis Kucinich Sen.Barack Obama |
Third Parties:
Green: Rep.Cynthia McKinney Socialist: Brian Moore Independent: Mayor Mike Bloomberg | |
|
Please consider a donation to OnTheIssues.org!
Click for details -- or send donations to: 1770 Mass Ave. #630, Cambridge MA 02140 E-mail: submit@OnTheIssues.org (We rely on your support!) | |||