Mos, Marriage and Choice

last night six of the eight democratic hopefuls took the stage in what was billed as an "unprecedented" event. an lgbt forum televised for the first time. two hours devoted to issues that most effect the lesbian, gay, transgendered and bisexual community. the result was merely a rehashing of ideas and views that any casual follower would already have known.

okay, well, yeah....it's true. the candidates were more confusing than usual last night as they were actually pressed on their views.

perhaps it is my adoration for the man-on-man love that makes me take last night so personally. i know where the candidates stand. i know where my beloved hill stands... yet i still found myself somehow disheartened by last night's results.

quick scorecard: all candidates present support gay rights. four of the six support civil unions (clinton, obama, edwards and richardson). two support gay marriage (the lovable kucinich and that rascally gravel) and one still thinks homosexuality is a matter of choice (you broke my heart, richardson. you broke my heart).

background: i was hosting an official/unofficial hillary watching party. six individuals present: two fags, a dyke and three breeders. the breeders offered little. the lesbian wishes it had only been us mos.

the lez and i fully support clinton. my gay friend went in supporting edwards but quickly reneged his endorsement. edwards, while i thought was perhaps the most eloquent last night, seemed to be suddenly backing full-on gay marriage... my friends and i sat forward in our seats. i actually uttered the words, "is he about to come out in support of gay marriage?" but then edwards quickly reminded the audience: "i do not support gay marriage." he was still on civil unions... but why? never a clear answer. however, i give him points for coming right out and saying it.

obama danced around and around the subject but ultimately came to the same conclusion: civil unions only. why? again - who could tell?

kucinich and gravel promised everything the crowd wanted.... much like dennis did at soldier's field. but why not? these two candidates really have nothing to lose. and i swear kucinich must have been high. what was with all the love talk? i felt like i was watching a self-help book come to life. oh - and gravel may have helped himself by suggesting that mos could get their weekend supply of ecstasy prescribed by their general practitioner.

richardson.... i can't even talk about it. see for yourself: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xc4vz7hqE2Q

hillary. she floats like a butterfly, stings like a bee.... my previously edwards-friendly friend started with a "my god, she's intelligent." but somewhere...hill lost my friend. and he went off (as he is prone to do). i think it was her insinuation that the lgbt community has not suffered long enough. i took her comment more as an indication that the gay marriage fight is still young and there is a long way to go before america gets there.

so where did hillary end up? civil unions, of course. but why? once again a real reason was never given.

in a feeble attempt to back my girl, i will say that hillary had to spend much of her time defending her husband and his policies to a wounded melissa ethridge.

but what was most interesting last night - to me - was the discussion that was sparked between me and my friends. three of the top-tiered candidates all support the same outcome: civil unions. so why did my one gay friend become enraged at hillary and decide on obama, when my lesbian friend continued to stick with our girl?

i think the answer is rather cynical but somewhat simplistic. i say this now with no intended condescension towards my friend... but he simply doesn't understand politics. he is learning and he will admit that he doesn't pay attention as much as some of us (probably a good thing) and that he has just recently started following politics at all.

i wish i could be an idealist like my friend...but i'm a realist. (dammit.)

i understand the need to make it through the primaries and into the general election. i understand the need to watch your dialogue and position yourself accordingly. hell, look at #43. he positioned himself as a "compassionate conservative" in the 2000 election but quickly emerged as a far-right-winged devil once in office.

what i'm trying to say is that i understand the desire for gay "marriage" in the lgbt community. but i'm also aware of where we're at as a country. a cnn/opinion research corp poll released yesterday found that a 57% of americans oppose same-sex marriage. 43% oppose both same-sex marriage AND civil unions.

one of the things that obama said that i loved - but on which he didn't go far enough - is that the word "marriage" has been taken over by religion. it's true - and that's why people have a problem with gay marriage....they see it as something religious. by extension - they see homosexuality as a sin and unworthy of this religious status. anyone who says they love gays but don't believe in gay marriage... i'm sorry but don't peddle that bullshit my way. they clearly think we're unworthy of god (i.e. second class citizens) and therefore less than them in His (capital H) eyes. of course, i don't believe in god so fuck 'em all anyway... but my friends do so i fight for them.

having said all of this..... i'll take the civil unions. sue me! i want the rights... we deserve equal rights - plain and simple. give me the rights and i'll fight for the word later. we deserve marriage - but i can live without the word right now... i don't get as hung up on semantics if the word in question is keeping us away from equal rights.

is it separate but equal - yes. but fuck it - at least give us the same rights.... the word marriage will come, i think.

of course....this all starts with getting a president elected that believes in civil unions.... therefore we need someone electable.... (there's that word...yet again!) and again - i just think hillary is the most electable and i think she'll fight for us. she can't give us marriage... she knows that. the cnn poll knows that.

but at least she'll give us the same rights.............

once last thing - and i've been saving this since wednesday when i first found it on politico:

quinnipiac university polls of voters in florida, ohio and pennsylvania -- the big three electoral college swing states -- found voters by large margins more likely to see the endorsement of a gay rights group as a reason to vote against, rather than for, a candidate. that is especially the case among independent voters -- often the key to winning these critical states -- and much more so among men than women and republicans than democrats.

so....gravel and kucinich can go on and on about the lack of courage of the other candidates... but i guarantee you they've seen this poll - out before the debate last night. sure...it may not be much, but at least they were out there fighting for the endorsement of the human rights campaign - a gay rights group. they may have been playing it safe for the general election - but at least they were there. and at least they'll take the country in the right direction concerning gay rights should they make it to the oval office.

and i'll take that over four more years of the fucking republican party anyday.

e.