Friday, August 10, 2007

LOGO presidential debate - gay marriage.

Six of the candidates seeking the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination participated Thursday in a two-hour forum in Los Angeles devoted to issues of concern to gays and lesbians. The event — moderated by journalist Margaret Carlson was broadcast live on Logo, a lifestyle cable channel aimed at gay and lesbian viewers.

For anyone who missed the LOGO presidential debate you can watch it here.







The basic subject of the LOGO debate was gay marriage, non-discrimination, etc. This is what Law Digest says about gay marriage:

The legal issues surrounding same-sex marriage in the United States are complicated by the nation's federal system of government. Traditionally, the federal government did not attempt to establish its own definition of marriage; any marriage recognized by a state was recognized by the federal government, even if that marriage was not recognized by one or more other states (as was the case with interracial marriage before 1967). With the passage of the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996, however, a marriage was explicitly defined as a union of one man and one woman for the purposes of federal law. (See 1 U.S.C. § 7.)

However, many aspects of marriage law affecting the day to day lives of inhabitants of the United States are determined by the states, not the federal government, and the Defense of Marriage Act does not prevent individual states from defining marriage as they see fit; indeed, legal scholars have stated that the federal government cannot impose a definition of marriage onto the laws of the various states.

Kentucky Constitution, Section 233A: Only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Kentucky. A legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized.

Kentucky Revised Statutes
Section 402.005: Definition of marriage. As used and recognized in the law of the Commonwealth, "marriage" refers only to the civil status, condition, or relation of one (1) man and one (1) woman united in law for life, for the discharge to each other and the community of the duties legally incumbent upon those whose association is founded on the distinction of sex.

Gay marriage? It isn't going to happen in Kentucky anytime soon. I'd settle for the following for now (progress takes time):
  • A Kentucky law prohibiting discrimination in employment based on sexual orientation or gender identity.
  • A Kentucky law prohibiting discrimination in housing based on sexual orientation or gender identity.
  • A Kentucky law prohibiting discrimination in credit based on sexual orientation or gender identity.
  • A Kentucky law prohibiting discrimination in service based on sexual orientation or gender identity.
  • A Kentucky law giving me the legal right to visit my "partner" in the hospital.
  • The Governor, as well as the Kentucky House of Representatives and Senate to leave the issue of "domestic-partner" at Kentucky educational facilities alone.

For additional coverage about the debate visit InterstateQ.


9 comments:

peggy said...

I agree with you 100%. People do not realize that the issue of gay marriage must be fought with the state and not the feds. Great post.

I also do not care about gay marriage night now it seems like a long way off I would also agree with your list of things to settle for "right now" but I would also add Civil Union though I understand we are a long way off from this in Kentucky also.

Tom Clardy said...

I myself think that there are no reasonable barriers to gay marriage or any other equal rights. However, reason seems to clouded by passion. People and politicans are using "religious conviction" (well, a convoluted mix of biblical references and personal opinion)and "traditional values" (meaning a fictional Victorian value system)to block a reasonable legal approach toward equality - whether it be marriage or another right. Until society stops and says "Putting your passions and personal opinions/religious convictions/tradition aside, what are the rational/reasonable/legal barriers?"

I'm sure that people will discover that there are none.

Michael X said...

First, I want to reveal my basis: I am not big into pay for channels so that will limit exposure to LOGO. Second, I have the impression, however, in error, that HRC seems to appeal to more upwardly mobile gay folks. As with my first observation, when I see HRC I tend to tune out.

I did see some clips from same - if you want to call it a debate - because a debate has interaction between the participants....not the structure here.

My hunch is, that somehow, we are supposed to genuflect because this was billed as a "historic first." Perhaps, it was more about the spin that LOGO and HRC were trying to generate for themselves.

M.

Anonymous said...

FUCK the Human Rights Campaign, or HRC. The HRC is a patronage wing of the Democratic party, designed primarily to get its members jobs in future Democratic administrations or with Democrats on the Hill (even while Howard Dean treats them like the help).

Let is not forget, the HRC also supported Republican Senator Al D'Amato in the 1998 elections!

Ted said...

OK first and foremost: all hate mail can be sent to me directly at t_ted@comcast.net LOL
Observations thus far:
Unless I am understanding some of the feedback incorrectly we are being cautioned to be less passionate about our cause and I completely disagree. Passion has been the driving force that has set our country apart from any other in the history of the world. Passion is important on both sides of any issue! As far as Logo's coverage of the debate and offering them kudos for doing so, who the hell cares. I applaud that they did it. I don't care if it was a publicity stunt or not... no other network, public or premium has made it possible. No other network even gives us the time of day in elections, state or national... so thank you Logo. Thank you!!! Now for the HRC and let me quote as not get it wrong, "fuck the human rights campaign". What the hell is that? Fuck the HRC? What the fuck are you smoking? I don't care about the mistakes that have been made in the past, the HRC is fighting for the very rights that we're arguing about right now... so let's break it down. What are those rights? BASIC HUMAN RIGHTS!!! My Granddad always said to never look a gift horse in the mouth. My advice to all of you is just that... be thankful for the individuals, groups, organizations, candidates and whoever else is trying to make your and my life better!!!!
Now since I have criticized everyone here except Jordan, let me just say this: Jordan, Im not political either. If I were I would use this opportunity to encourage everyone reading this to support Barack Obama in 08 or Barack the Vote or something like that but since I'm not I wont offer my admiration, respect, hopefulness, insight or dare I say "passion" for Barack Obama!!! I wouldn't do that. That would be wrong!!!
Peace to all of you and have a great day and thanks for not hating me. :)
BARACK THE VOTE,
TED

SHELBY said...

I DON'T CARE WHO THE PRESIDENT OF THIS PLACE AS LONG AS GEORGE BUSH IS OUTTA OFFICE! OH AND TELL HIM TO TAKE THE HRC AND GOVERNOR FLETCHER WITH HIM. LMAO.

trent said...

i never heard of hrc until today so i guess their work is not that good. I agree with the comment from Michael X that HRC appeals to more upwardly mobile gay folks.

Martin Moore said...

I enjoyed watching the "debate" although it was more of an interview of the candidates. It allowed us to see more clearly what each candidate's beliefs are on this issue but we must look to see what their stance has been in the past as well.

I disagree that the issue of gay marriage must be fought at state level and not the federal level. I believe it should be fought at both levels. Federal politics are important because it creates the guidelines in which the states operate. If there had been a federal constitutional ban on same sex marriage a state could not choose to ignore that legislation. Even if an overwhelming majority of the state wanted it, it would be against the federal law and would never pass. We must work at all levels to ensure equality for all.

After watching what each candidate had to say about these issues I believe Mr. Obama was much more in-tune with equality for all than any other candidate. His record shows that he has worked on this issue and he doesn't wait to be asked about it before bringing it out to be discussed.
Mrs. Clinton is more of the "old school" type that will talk about it if it is the topic of discussion. I don't know how hard she would work to further the equal rights of the GLBT community. I liked President Clinton and thought he did a great job for our Country but didn't handle GLBT issues very well at all. I think with her it may be more of the same.
I don't like Mr. Edwards at all. He doesn't "believe" in gay marriage and says that he is for equality. How hard do you think someone is going to work for something they don't believe in? Plus he reminds me of a little smarter version of Dan Quayle.

I still haven't decided which candidate I will vote for because I like to see everything they say and do before making my decision. We do need to get a Democrat back in the White House or there can never be any change for the better.

Anonymous said...

I personally think there is nothing wrong with gay marriage because if you truely love some one you are willing to fight to get your right to marry that special someone. thats just my oppion.

Post a Comment

We value your feedback, ideas, and comments!

If possible, please leave a link to your website (Facebook, MySpace, or other) by selecting "Other" when leaving your comment.