Watching the Dems try to out-gay each other.
After I read that Andy was going to be liveblogging the Democratic Candidates' LGBT Issues Debate, Missy and I decided to go to Pi and watch it. The bar was pretty full, though not totally uncomfortably packed. Good to see. They streamed the feed from Logo's website and had it up on the big screen. We found a spot in the back of the room and, aside from this queeny personal space invader, we were able to see just fine. The crowd got restless and it was a little hard to hear towards the end.
I guess I didn't read up very well on the format. "Debate" implies that all the participants are standing around together, are asked the same questions, and have the opportunity to respond directly to each other. Instead each candidate had 15 minutes onstage by themselves. Ultimately I liked that format better. The panelists' questions were tailored to the candidates, while still giving each one time to give their stump speech (and time to stumble over themselves).
I was pleasantly surprised to see j. brotherlove live-Twittering as well. It actually helped to follow along and crystallize the whole thing, because with the noise in the room I couldn't always hear. And we had to leave early to go to a Fringe show. His thoughts and Andy's thoughts are pretty similar to my own. Kucinich is the shit, but is way too far to the left to ever get elected. Bill Richardson was meh. Mike Gravel is an old white guy. Barack Obama was mostly good, but not perfect. Hillary Clinton was the most polished and played the best politician. John Edwards didn't quite make his message clear and needs more practice.
Andy's got more blog reaction at Minnesota Monitor. Malinda Lo covered it at AfterEllen. DiversityInc asks Which Democrat offended LGBT voters? Who won the debate?
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Watching the Dems try to out-gay each other..
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.swirlspice.com/mt4/mt-tb.cgi/4774
Poor Bill Richardson. I had to laugh when M.E. was like, "Maybe you didn't understand the question..."
I do think his response was pure cluelessness, not his real opinion. I wish he'd gone "I have no idea! Leave me alone! Aieee!"
If all these candidates that say that they're anti-gay-marriage and pro-civil-union with full/equal benefits actually mean that they're pro-civil-union because they support separation of church and state and that everyone would have to get civilly-unioned and then have the option to get married in a church in a ceremony that carries no legal weight, then they should say that. But none of them do. Everybody's trying not to piss off folks by actually saying that because it would be construed as them saying they'd do away with marriage.
Otherwise, it's separate but equal. And while if that's all I had available to me I'd take it, it's not fair.
Although... if we revise the system such that the marriage license is the actual "you are now civilly unioned" document and no reverend/priest/celebrant/ordained-on-the-internet person is doing anything by the power vested in him/her by the state of Minnesota or wherever, I'd be fine with that. As long as I can get that, too.
Maybe it's because I'm an atheist, but the xtians getting all mad about the "sanctity of marriage" has always confused me. My cousin got married by a JOP, which is what I understand a civil union to be (I could be wrong), but we all say that she and her husband "are married."
Is it just terminology?
I mean, if one church's pastor/reverend/rabbi/whatever is ok with it, and it carries no legal weight, who are the rest of the xtians to judge? The baptists don't get to decree that the catholics aren't allowed to pray to saints, so why should they get a say in this? You don't like it, join a church that doesn't allow it. Voila. Sanctity.
married by a JOP, which is what I understand a civil union to be
That's my understanding.
The religious meaning has been glommed onto/merged with the legal definition. So now they're intertwined, and they need to be undone. As it stands, the religious ceremony carries legal weight, though there are alternative avenues (but only for straight people).
haha, out-gay each other, lol
haha, out-gay each other, lol
It's true!