As shown in this AP AOL news wire, here are the Dems you really should be supporting. Howard Dean needs to make up his mind:

WASHINGTON (July 16) -- The leading Democratic presidential candidates support gay couples having the same legal rights as husbands and wives, but stop short of saying they have a right to marry.

Most of the White House hopefuls attending a presidential forum hosted Tuesday by the Human Rights Campaign - a leading gay advocacy group - expressed their support for gay civil unions.

Only three candidates - Al Sharpton, Carol Moseley Braun and Rep. Dennis Kucinich of Ohio - said federal law should approve same-sex marriages.

The comments of the top candidates did not go over well with some in the crowd. The audience hissed when Sens. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut and John Kerry of Massachusetts said marriage is a right reserved in America for men and women.

``Marriage has a special status in our culture, our society, our history,'' Lieberman said.

Despite the differences over gay marriage, the Democratic presidential candidates agree with most of the policy positions of the Human Rights Campaign. They expressed support for anti-discrimination laws, hate crimes legislation, increased funding for HIV/AIDS research and treatment, and federal domestic partnership benefits.

But the issue of gay marriage is sure to dog the candidates - both the Democrats and Republican President Bush - in next year's election. Elizabeth Birch, executive director of the Human Rights Campaign, said the group also would invite Bush and other Republicans to future forums.

Several congressional Republicans, led by Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., have called for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriages. Bush has said ``marriage is between a man and a woman,'' but he has sidestepped the constitutional amendment issue.

Vermont is the only state that has a civil-unions law giving gay couples the same legal rights as married couples - a law signed by former Gov. Howard Dean, one of the presidential contenders to address the forum. Dean said civil unions, in the absence of marriage, give gays legal rights, such as health benefits, inheritance, child custody and hospital visitation.

Under tough questioning from moderator Sam Donaldson, Dean said extending marriage to gays is problematic ``because marriage has a long, long history as a religious institution.''

But Sharpton said simply granting civil unions is a form of discrimination against gays, ``like saying we'll give blacks or whites or Latinos the rights to shack up, but not marry.''

Same-sex marriages are legal in Belgium and the Netherlands, and Canada's Liberal government announced last month that it would enact similar legislation soon. Dean and Rep. Dick Gephardt of Missouri were asked if they would recognize those marriages if the couples immigrated to the United States. Although Dean did not answer the question directly during an interview last month on NBC's ``Meet the Press,'' he said he had come to the conclusion that they should be recognized.

So did Gephardt. ``I think the federal government should conform its laws as quickly as we can to recognize whatever relationship - civil relationship, civil union, gay marriage - whatever is accepted and put into law in states or foreign countries,'' he said.

Gephardt told the audience about how he and his wife had embraced their daughter, Chrissy, when she announced a year and a half ago that she was leaving her husband because she was a lesbian. He drew applause from the audience when he said he and his wife had joined PFLAG, which stands for Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays.

Appearing with Gephardt at a news conference following the forum, Chrissy Gephardt gave her father credit for favoring other rights for gay couples even though she disagrees with his position on marriage.

``I've talked to him about it all the time,'' she said. ``I'm definitely a proponent of gay marriages.''

Two of the nine presidential candidates, Sens. Bob Graham of Florida and John Edwards of North Carolina, did not appear at the forum.

I haven't even decided if I support "Gay Marriage". :confused:

Maybe it's because I'm 43 and getting impatient, but I think this would happen much quicker if it went through the "Gay Civil Union" route first. I know the arguments against that thinking, but I would like to see results quicker and would consider it a first step (a HUGE first step) towards "marriage". Right now I really want Gays to have the benefits and rights that come with marriage, even if it's called a union.

I frankly would prefer Gay Marriage NOT be a 2004 Presidential Election issue due to the timing (the natural backlash to the Supreme Court ruling and our neighbor Canada's Gay rights progress). Not to mention NBC is now planning to air an episode of Bravo's Queer Eye for the Straight Guy due to it's enormous response. wink

It will only hurt W's opponent in the end if it's made an issue, IMHO. The world doesn't have to hold it's collective breath to know how dubya feels about it.

I think it just becomes a wedge issue within the Democratic Party, a Party that desperately needs to come together and bring a viable candidate to the table.

I don't understand you when you say "Howard Dean needs to make up his mind".

I mean..... He is the only person in the country who has signed into law Civil Unions giving gay couples the exact same rights and priviliges as a het marriage.

let me state again, there is no difference between the civil union and marriage. just that one is called a union and the other a marriage. It's like the difference between "raisin" and "dried grape" they're the same things.

[ July 20, 2003, 08:59 PM: Message edited by: ung ]

I agree with Ung.

Further, if folks are going to limit their support for candidates based on one issue -- something I don't think is very smart, but it's up to you -- please try to do research on what the candidate really says and does about the issue rather than taking the AP spin.

The reason I threw my support very early on for Dean was because of his positions on the health care crisis in our country, how and what he wants to do about it, how it can be paid for etc. etc. It also does happen to be quite nice regarding his position on civil unions. Agree with other posters that you should not limit yourself to supporting someone solely based on one position.

Interesting article about Dean in Newsweek last week. Nice to see he's not a total left-wing kook; some of his thoughts are downright libertarian. I also didn't know he and W are both recovering alcoholoics, among other similiarities.

Feeling Dean's Pain

Dean is not an alcoholic. You would never see him in an AA meeting.

He simply quit drinking for the same reason I did; He didn't like how he behaved while drunk. I quit drinking, cold turkey, for the same reason.

I was in Napa valley last week and went to a couple of wine tastings at the vineywards (a sip here and there, 4 sips in all) I didn't have a relapse. Because I am not addicted to alcohol. Same with Dr.Dean.

Not everyone who abstains is an alcoholic.

Most gay people I know still feel somewhat ambigious about gay marriage. Civil Unions with full inclusive rights, yes! but calling it marriage suggests to some that we're imitating an archaic heterosexual constraint. Personally, I feel that any gay couple should have the option to legally secure their union. But, if many gay people are still on the fence about his, how can we expect the country to find their way towards making gay marriage legal. It certainly shouldn't be a litmus test for candidates at this time.

I agree.

Those gays who are wanting to beat candidates over the head for not endorsing use of the term "marriage" need to reassess what is important and what is window dressing.

Let's not kick our allies in the teeth simply over semantics.

None of the candidates you cite are electable, not even close.

I got civilly united in March 2001, thanks to Howard Dean. We think of it as "married" even though we realize the difference. I would like to see our union recognized all over before trying to cross the bridge of calling it "marriage" and ensuring its failure.

And I'm loving Dean the candidate.

I truly believe that legal recognition of our relationships is the most important right to achieve in order to say we have "won." I do believe that we should have full gay marriage, in all rights and responsibilities.

I nevertheless support Dean because 1) he did sign into law the only system that allows equality in legal relationship recognition 2) he is not afraid of, and has in fact made a centerpiece of, his support of that bill and 3) I really don't think the name matters.

Let's face it, we have gay marriage in this country today. It may not be legally recognized, but when two people get up in front of God and Country and announce they will be together for the rest of their lives, that they love one another and want to take care of each other, and they make that announcement with the full support of family and friends - it's a marriage.

I say let's get the civil unions legal (and Dean says no matter how states grant equality, or what they call it, the federal government should recognize it as akin to marriage) across the land, and within a generation the distinction in language will be forgotten - it will be "marriage" for all.

I'm with Ung, CPT and others on this one. Full legal equality, no matter what it's called, is critical. And if homosexual Americans go to Canada to be married, those unions should be recognized here by EVERY STATE and Commonwealth in the United States. Dean is the one candidate who's put his career on the line for us to ensure that at least one state does.

I have to say, however, that even if Joe Lieberman got the nomination, which appears unlikely, I just might vote for him (rather than abstain, unless a Green, Reform or other party candidate were in the race) because I find the current pResident too inept to merit even a nanosecond of consideration. But in the best of all worlds, Dean will be the candidate, with Wesley Clark as VP.

Also, whatever Dean's past drinking problems, he does not have a DUI, as W does. For whatever reason this never gets mentioned, but W has an SEC sanction as well as the DUI, both of which are criminal violations. No Democrat could get even a shred's credibility if she or he had the same--and before anyone mentions Al Sharpton, the man wasn't even credible in New York State elections!

[ July 21, 2003, 02:34 PM: Message edited by: fantomas ]

Yup. Equality is the ticket. If it's recognized by the state between op-sex it should be the same for same-sex. If they say it's a religious institution only, then the state should be neutral about it and not make a reference of any kind toward IMO.

As quoted in the article "Under tough questioning from moderator Sam Donaldson, Dean said extending marriage to gays is problematic ``because marriage has a long, long history as a religious institution.''

Marriage is marriage is marriage. In other words, it sounds too religious to Dean for us to be given that right. So we have to settle for union because that doesnt tip off Pat Robertson's radar. Thats what I call political pandering.

His career isnt on the line signing a law into effect in one of the most liberal states in the entire country. Also, as stated by another poster, unions only give the gay people of Vermont the rights of marriage. You leave Vermont and you have nothing elsewhere. Hell even know if you went up to Canada and actually got married youd still not be seen as a couple in this country.

So its fairly hypocritical for you all to now say you dont want gay marriage and will settle for a civil union just to be content. Oh and possibly one day be given the right to be seen as a couple. Why still settle for 2nd best in the face of equality?!

I like the term HRC is using, \"civil marriage\", which clarifies the matter without "pandering" to the religious.

I like "civil Marriage", God knows you don't see many of those in the hetero world.