Dem Candiates to Debate Gay Issues on Live TV

[innerSpaceman]

Viacom's Logo TV (aka Teh Gay Channel) will air a live debate August 9 between Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, John Edwards and Christopher Dodd on gay issues.

Bill Richardson and Dennis Kucinich have not yet responded to the invite; Joseph Biden has declined.


Unsurprisingly, no such Republican candidate debate is likely. Mitt Romney said no, and there's been no response to the invite from McCain or Giuliani.


The event will take place in Studio City, so if anybody wants to try and wangle a way into the live studio audience ....?




It will be interesting to see how far the candidates are willing to go in statements supportive of gay rights. Yes, I'd like some pandering, please. :D

[Capt Jack]

Viacom's Logo TV (aka Teh Gay Channel) will air a live debate August 9 between Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, John Edwards and Christopher Dodd on gay issues.

before I go on, I want to say Im totally serious...


what 'gay issues' arent issues for us all? (beyond perhaps the recognition of gay marriage)

[innerSpaceman]

um, adoption rights (which, due to the backlog of kids needing homes, has been legalized for gays in many states that have hypocritically passed Constitutional Amendments banning gay marriage).

Er, anti-discrimination laws for housing, employment, etc. Hate crimes legislation, to name a few off the top of my head.

[JWBear]

before I go on, I want to say Im totally serious...


what 'gay issues' arent issues for us all? (beyond perhaps the recognition of gay marriage)

Honestly? This is like asking African-Americans what "black" issues aren't issues for everyone.... Or asians, or hispanics, or women. All minority groups have issues that only affect that subgroup. Gays and lesbians are no different.

[Morrigoon]

I think he was being supportive and suggesting that gay issues do affect us all.

[Alex]

Yes, I'd like some pandering, please. :D

And pandering, I have no doubt, is what you'll get.

I know there are gay issues, but so far as would involve being president it doesn't seem to me that there are enough questions that could be asked to make for a very long or interesting debate when by agreeing to be there the candidates are already saying "yes, I'll support your side on that."

Question 1: Do you think that traditional assumptions of what the word "marriage" means should be updated to include homosexual parternships?

Question 2: Do you think that homosexuality should be a protected class similar to race, gender, and religion?

Those two questions cover pretty much everything Steve mentioned.

The answers to the first will either be:

"Yes" or "No, but I think civil partnerships identical in every way but name should be implemented."

The answers to the second will all just be yes. So my expectation is that this debate will just be variations on Question 2 asked over and over again, interspersed with "Here is a random question that will allow you to offer up any witticisms about the Republicans that your staff writers may have prepped for you."

This isn't to say that I think those answers are wrong, just that I don't think such a debate will be interesting in any way beyond what is knowable from the fact that it is happening. To the degree that sex, religion, and gender are protected classes I think homosexuality should be equally protected (though there are ways in which those classes are protected that I disagree with; I oppose hate crime legislation for example but if it is going to exist then homosexuality is just as worthy as religion).

[Prudence]

I think Capt Jack is speaking in more general terms. They're issues for all of us because they reflect society's willingness to treat different categories of people differently. Are there really issues that only affect particular minority groups? The right to marry the adult of one's choosing, regardless of gender, race, or sexual orientation doesn't potentially affect everyone? The right to be considered for employment based on one's objective qualifications and not subjective biases doesn't potentially affect everyone? The right to justice applied blindly and without regard to race, sexual orientation, income, or political affiliation doesn't potentially affect everyone?

[Capt Jack]

Honestly? This is like asking African-Americans what "black" issues aren't issues for everyone.... Or asians, or hispanics, or women. All minority groups have issues that only affect that subgroup. Gays and lesbians are no different.

and I dont doubt this for a second. it really is merely for my own information. I was just having a hard time recalling (from my own white-hetero subgroup standing) what issues they might be. I didnt mean to imply in any way that they shouldnt be addressed. merely exposing my own ignorance in order to rectify it.

I forget sometimes living here in SoCal, that life here isnt the norm for the rest of the country, let alone the world.

[alphabassettgrrl]

All I can say is that I am *very* glad that random chance led me here to SoCal when I needed a liberal more accepting environment.

I'd definitely like a little pandering from the candidates.

[JWBear]

and I dont doubt this for a second. it really is merely for my own information. I was just having a hard time recalling (from my own white-hetero subgroup standing) what issues they might be. I didnt mean to imply in any way that they shouldnt be addressed. merely exposing my own ignorance in order to rectify it.

I forget sometimes living here in SoCal, that life here isnt the norm for the rest of the country, let alone the world.

Ahhhh... Got it.

IsM pretty much answered it. I just wanted to add that there are still a lot of places in America where you can get fired, lose your home, or face violence because you are gay; and where the police and courts still will look the other way when it happens.