Candidates' Positions on GLBT Issues
It's Tuesday, January 8, and that can only mean one thing in New Hampshire: the first in the nation primary! For the past several (well, many) months, candidates have been campaigning across the state, meeting with the people of New Hampshire and making their cases for why they should be the next preisdent of the United States. It's been an exciting campaign season, but within the next 24 hours we'll know which candidates New Hampshire would like to see competing in the fall election.
I thought I wouldn't really be doing my job as the blogger on GLBT issues if I didn't write a quick post about the candidates' positions on issues important to our community. I won't go into all of the specifics, but a great and comprehensive document on each of the candidates' positions can be found at the following link, put together by the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force. It provides the candidates' stances on issues such as HIV/AIDS prevention, "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," transgender-inclusive hate crimes legislation, and same-sex unions.
When it comes to the Democrats, there aren't too many glaring differences among the remaining candidates. Of the six remaining, Mike Gravel and Dennis Kucinich support marriage equality, with Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, Barack Obama, and Bill Richardson supporting civil unions for committed same-sex couples. All of the Democratic candidates support the repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" and expanded hate crimes legislation to cover GLBT individuals.
On the Republican of things, there are some major differences between the candidates. The way I see it, the differences are mainly whether you believe the federal government should be telling people who they can love and marry, or if the states should be writing their own marriage laws. Rudy Giuliani, John McCain, Ron Paul, and Fred Thompson oppose the Federal Marriage Amendment, which would amend the Constitution to ban same-sex marriage. On the other hand, Mike Huckabee, Duncan Hunter, and Mitt Romney all support a federal marriage amendment to ban same-sex marriage. On the other issues of importance to the GLBT community, the Republican candidates don't rank so high. Out of the field, only Rudy Giuliani would support limited rights for committed same-sex couples.
No matter how you vote, I don't endorse voting simply on a single issue, especially not in this election year. Consider the above if GLBT issues are important to you, but with issues like healthcare, immigration, the war in Iraq, and education in such dire need of attention, make sure you view each candidate on the whole when you make your decision. I'm proud to be from a state that listens carefully to what each of the candidates are saying, and votes its conscience at the end of the day. I'm really looking forward to seeing what pans out tomorrow.
Now, just one more thought before I get some sleep. No matter what you do today, be sure to get out and vote too!
Government out!
I agree with you. The government should not be telling me that I can't marry my dog! It might be strange to you, but I love my dog and she loves me and we want to get married! There was a time when people thought homosexuality was wrong but now it is celebrated. There is coming a time when people won't frown on my loving relationship with my dog and bestiality will no longer be counted as perverse. Besides, my dog really needs health insurance.
Re: Government out!
Hi Freedom Hill,
Interesting argument, and thanks for your post. I would point out, though, that dogs, or animals of any kind, cannot enter into legally binding contracts such as civil unions or civil marriage. They also cannot give their consent to getting married, whereas adult men and women can.
I think it's truly sad when individuals try and equate homosexuality to bestiality, since the two are not similar in any way, shape, or form. I take a bit of offense, to be honest. What I'm talking about when speaking about civil unions or civil marriage is having access to the same rights and responsibilities granted to my heterosexual friends, family members, and neighbors. Just like they have the ability to marry the person they love (so long as they are human, over the age of 18, and not related by blood), I would also like that chance.
~Justin
HaHa
Justin,
I think Freedom Hill is being a huge wise butt! Disregard these kind of comments...Any yo-yo knows that marrying their dog is ludicrous, of course leaving millions of dollars to a dog is kooky too...but truthfully, I think Freedom Hill was being sarcastic....Hang in there Justin! Your rights are just as good as anyone else's:)
So, when is the wedding?
Tracy M
Re: HaHa
Hi Tracy,
Thanks for your comment, and I definitely agree about Freedom Hill. Yeah, I read a story a few weeks back about someone who had left a large fortune to his dog after he passed away. I guess the dog will be eating gourmet for years to come? ;)
No wedding date yet, haha. When the time is right, though, it's something I'm looking forward to.
Hope you're having a great New Year so far!
~Justin
Interesting?
Several areas where I think your argument fails...
1) I think it is sad that you would compare marriage to a civil union. You've said that marriage for homosexuals is based on love. My dog demonstrates that she loves me by her actions. Love is demonstrated with action and not just words. I can say that I love my dog and beat her...does that mean I love her? No, my actions speak louder than my words. Her actions speak louder than her bark. She has demonstrated that she loves me over and over and over.
2) Where oh where does it say that the parties have to be human, over the age of 18 and not related by blood? What authority are you citing when you mention the parameters of marriage? You and the glbt society have challenged the original parameters of marriage. Why can't I challenge your parameters and marry my dog?
3) Marriage based on "love" is your definition - you decided that. Therefore, marriage between a homosexual couple and marriage between a man and beast are similar because they are based in love. You just can't stand the thought of bestiality and therefore you despise me. You're not tolerant.
Re: Interesting?
Hi Freedom Hill,
1) Civil marriages and civil unions are not 100% equal, but they are both legal recognition of committed relationships between two people. Civil marriages carry a bit more weight in terms of recognition and in the rights they bestow, hence why the GLBT community would like marriage equality as opposed to a separate and unequal institution. In order for a marriage to take place, both parties must consent and enter into a legal contract. Since animals cannot voice consent (just because a dog wags its tail does not mean it loves someone), they cannot enter into contracts and give consent to a marriage.
2) The information I referred to comes from New Hampshire marriage law, which can be found at the following link. It states that "Individuals under the age of 18 may not marry in New Hampshire." Also, "cousin marriage" is not allowed in the state. Animals, unfortunately, are not included in the civil marriage legal system. Humans are, hence why GLBT human beings are making the case for marriage equality.
Also, the original parameters of marriage have been challenged many times before. Originally, it amounted to men more or less owning their wives. It changed over time to be an equal partnership. Also, originally people of different races were not allowed to marry. Luckily, people saw the error in those ways, and now people of different races can also get married.
3) To follow your logic in the first half of your point, it would seem that you are also suggesting that a marriage between a heterosexual couple and marriage between a man and a beast would be similar if based on love. I don't see how an animal's love can be quanitified, however, so it's hard to argue that a man/beast relationship would be mutual. Since heterosexual/homosexual pairings between human beings have the capability of being mutual relationships, marriage should be open to them. You're putting words in my mouth for the latter half of your third point, and also personally attacking me. Not very much appreciated.
~Justin
I just hope that most will listen to their hearts today and not be so focused on something that they may regret later as we've seen several times before. Change takes time. And it takes even longer if you have no real direction nor if you have the experience or know-how to execute that change. People, please do not disillusion yourselves with false hope. Pray for strength, you will need it, because if you vote the wrong way, you will only make it easier for the opponent to slither in and steal the whole thing again. God bless You All.