Posted on 08/10/2007 8:42:55 AM PDT by HoosierGirl25
Six Democrat candidates for President stepped cautiously onto a Los Angeles stage last night. Two of them -- Ohio Rep. Dennis Kucinich and former Alaska Gov. Mike Gravel, were a bit more comfortable than the others, being the only ones who have declared themselves in favor of gay marriage. The other four -- Sen. Hillary Clinton (NY), Sen. Barack Obama (Ill), Sen. John Edwards (NC), and Gov. Bill Richardson(NM) -- cautiously framed their responses proving that brevity is not only the soul of wit, it’s sometimes a pol’s only camouflage.
The Dems succeeded last night only in muddying their already confusing positions on the “gay rights” agenda their party claims to embrace.
The first presidential debate held exclusively to discuss gay and lesbian issues was co-sponsored by gay rights activist group the Human Rights Campaign and LOGO, a gay television channel which live-streamed the debate on its website.
The participants hoped to be embraced by an increasingly vocal but nevertheless small group of voters. The Democrats wanted to contrast their openness (code word for liberalism) with the Republican candidates who uniformly refused to participate. Last night’s audience held only 200 people, which is reflective of the small homosexual population in the US. According to a CNN poll, only 3% of voters in 2006 identified themselves as gay or lesbian. Through their political activism, the minority group wants to claim to have a bigger influence than its numbers would otherwise prove.
(Excerpt) Read more at humanevents.com ...
Just as they found them.
I think they came confused... and left worse.
The fact that presidential candidates would appear before a group that defines itself by sexual perversion is just amazing.
And the GOP GLBT debate is scheduled for..............?
Hopefully, it depends on winter weather conditions in hell.
“Ugh! Vote for me even tho you are so....icky”
LOL!
It was Hillary’s husband who signed the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996.
Could somebody tell me what either a state or the FedGov believes marriage to be? I did a search and all I came up with was same-sex marriage and civil union BS.
Hey HoosierGirl25 you wouldn’t happen to be in Indy would you?
Might check out Advance Indiana blog (advanceindiana dot blogspot dot com) - he’s a gay rights Log Cabin Republican. So why should we give a special recognition to people who only register 3% on the population scale?
“The fact that presidential candidates would appear before a group that defines itself by sexual perversion is just amazing.”
Isn’t that the truth!
Time machine must have malfunctioned. I am obviously NOT where I meant to go.
And also Kos. Weren’t they all, however, afraid to appear on FOX?
Massachusetts recognized gay marriage. Vermont does civil unions.
San Francisco was performing gay marriages but they were deemed invalid.
Indiana for one does not recognize gay marriages nor civil unions. It’s law now and it’s trying to get put on the ballot as a constitutional amendment.
We’re talking about a bunch of folks that confuse and exit for an entrance.
Confused is as confused does!
Was Margaret Carlson the interviewer at this gay event? I saw a glimpse of her last night, but I didn’t know if it was this event.
“3% of voters identified themselves as gay or lesbian”!?!
Whatever happened to the Kinsey 10% or more???
Why does anyone even bother with a group that tiny?
Would this then allow her to grab some Roosevelt (Eleanor) estate trust money? :)
Senator Clinton, in honor of the ‘journalist’ who asked whether you are ‘black enough’ to serve black Americans, let us get straight to the point:
Senator Clinton, are you GAY ENOUGH to serve gays as our President? Well?? Are you??
Shrillery replies: “Of course, just ask Janet Reno or any of my girlfriends!”
Log Cabin... an interesting euphemism for the fudge tunnel!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.