- We have to burn down the school to save it? The really nice school?
- Hey Ben: Questions about tax amnesty
- US Rep. John Murtha, June 17, 1932 – February 8, 2010
- Getting Real Answers from Gubernatorial Candidates
- It is always a good thing when our government works well
- Courtfighter: Delaware County Judge Maureen Fitzpatrick A Bigot? You Judge How Often Bigotry Occurs In Media, PA
- We'll Get You Ready for State Budget Release Tuesday
- ONE Praises U.S. Treasury Announcement to Work with International Partners to Relieve Haiti’s Debt
- A giant toxic monster is coming your way OR no rigs before regs!
- We Need Immigration Reform Now! Why Stu Bykofsky got it wrong.
Which candidate should the gays certainly not vote for?
Submitted by joeln on Wed, 04/11/2007 - 5:22pm.
Bumped back up with special pride, today. -Dan
UPDATE:
Demonstration Outside of Tom Knox's Office Tomorrow
1717 Arch Street, Suite 3240
12:00 Noon, Thursday, April 12, 2007
Meet at LOVE Park at 11:45 to walk Over to KNOX for Philly Headquarters.
Unfortunately, given Mr. Knox’s non appearance at LGBT
related mayoral events and/or LGBT related community events, we, the
“Answers Now Ad-Hoc Coalition!” a coalition of concerned LGBT Voters
have little real understanding on his views of the LGBT community.
I just read the group interview in the PGN with the mayoral candidates, and I think that Tom “TV” Knox’s answers are too priceless not to make fun of. They used the questions from Liberty City’s endorsement questionnaire, a group I’m a member of, by the way.
When they asked Knox where he goes for advice on GLBT issues, Knox answers “I do business in the gay community. So why would I need an advisor.” Well, Mr. Knox, I’d like to explain to you why doing business doesn’t de facto make you an expert, but instead I’ll just ridicule your other answers. If you had a lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans or otherwise queer advisor, your answers to these other questions probably wouldn’t be so embarrassing.
For example, when the PGN asks you what you would do to reinstate the real-estate transfer tax exemption for same-sex partners, you said,
“I don’t know enough about the issue to answer that question at this time.”
Probably someone could help you with that—you know, like a glbt advisor?
Knox is excited about lobbying. It’s how he’s going to influence the legislature to pass marriage equality laws and expand glbt rights:
“I would lobby for the issue. You have to lobby to show the people of Philadelphia the light on these issues;” and “I would lobby.”
Lobby whom? How? They aren’t asking you if you would like to build a lobby, or make a TV commercial about a lobby. They are asking how you could use the power of the Mayor’s office to make change in the state.
But, folks, it gets better. Knox doesn’t know if he supports repealing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” Why, you wonder, well it’s because
“some people want it, but I don’t know if forcing people in the military to come out who don’t want to is a good thing.”
I’m glad Mr. Knox cleared that up, because I always thought the issue was that lesbians and gays in the service wanted to come out, but couldn’t or they’d be fired. Or that they wanted to be able to live open lives, but they couldn’t or they’d be fired. I never realized that repealing “Don’t Ask” forced people to come out. And let’s be honest, “some” of the people want it repealed are gays and lesbians. If only your gay advisor knew about “Don’t Ask.” Oh right…
Here’s another gem: when the PGN asked him if he would release the records related to the Nizah Morris case, a transgender woman found dead after she had received a “courtesy ride” from the police, Mr. Knox said,
“I’m not familiar with the case.”
But Mr. Knox, you do business in the gay community! How couldn’t you know?
Speaking of Knox’s breadth of knowledge about Philadelphia’s trans community, his answer to the PGN’s question if he would “revise the city’s healthcare plan to cover sex-reassignment surgery and other gender-identity health needs for city employees” is stellar. Knox said
“I don’t know. That’s a difficult question. If you go too far to one side on this issue, the other side suffers.”
Now here I am, with an M.A. in English, trying to figure out what the hell that means. Personally, providing for city employees health care needs is hardly “a difficult question.” But it’s that last sentence that’s stymieing me. Is he talking about sailing? Because I know that when you’re sailing, if you lean too far to the wrong side the boat could tip over. I’d love to understand what “too far to one side” means here and who “the other side” is. I’ve got a call into Knox’s gay advisor. I’ll let you know when I find out.
There was a pretty terrible response about protecting GLBTQ youth from extra discrimination in school, too, but I’m sure you’re all getting bored. So I’ll cut to the real gem in Knox’s interview: his response to the question whether he employs any openly GLBTQ (except PGN didn’t include the Q).
“Yes,” he said. “I have gays working both on the campaign and in the workplace. Gays tend to be studious workers [emphasis mine].”
Yes, we also tend to be clean, well-dressed, fussy, obsessed with small dogs and interior decoration; or, if we are gay women, we’re humorless, bad dressers, man-hating but cat loving…and so on. Studious workers?
But right…um, we are studious workers. I, myself, am extremely studious and dependable. So if you are looking to hire an (ahem) gay advisor, here I am! But remember, we don’t come cheap.
(DISCLOSURE: My boyfriend, Ray Murphy works for Fattah for Mayor. He also (unfortunately) co-edits this blog with Dan. Normally I wouldn’t pull an Elizabeth Taylor in Giant and try and participate in “men’s talk” about politics but when I read Knox’s answers, I really just couldn’t resist. For real: if you’re a gay, don’t vote for Knox.)
Maybe the funniest YPP post
Maybe the funniest YPP post in the past year (in a sad, odd, but really funny sort of way).
Mr. Knox did not attend
Last evening OutFront, the Black Gay Men's Leadership Coalition, Liberty City Democrats & the Philadelphia Log Cabin Republicans held a non-partisan Mayoral Forum. Mr. Knox did not attend. I don't think he's attended an lgbt event yet.
The press release below links to a great video which was part of the event - a fantastic cross section of the lgbt community discuss their hopes for Philadelphia's future.
(It's also available at google video:
The Pride of Philadelphia - The Next Mayor
Lien/Nibauer Photography, Inc. - 21 min - Apr 5, 2007
The Philadelphia LGBT community presents questions and concerns for the next Mayor.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3667600662201091802
But I think you have to download it - it's streamed at:
http://www.outfrontphilly.org/about/2007_mayoral_race_vid.html
For more information please call:
Robert K. Burns
216/798.8467
BGMLC – Politics & Leadership Committee Chair
Historic LGBT Mayoral Forum Brings Together People of Diverse Backgrounds and Three Major Mayoral Candidates
Organizers of Mayoral Race 2007: ''The Rustin Forum for Philadelphia's Future’’ were on hand yesterday evening, April 5, 2007 along with over 100 members of Philadelphia’s LGBT communities representing all walks of life. Also in attendance were Mayoral candidates, State Representative Dwight Evans, Congressman Chaka Fattah and former Councilman, Michael Nutter.
“ I am very pleased that three of the six major mayoral candidates understood how important it was for them to engage our communities in this important dialogue. I, as were members of our communities, very displeased that both Mr. Knox and Mr. Taubenberger were not be available to attend and that we heard nothing at all from Congressman Bob Brady about attending, said Peter Salometo, President of Log Cabin Republicans.
Among the highlights of the Forum was the premier video showing of "The Pride of Philadelphia: The Next Mayor Project" produced and directed by Chris Bartlett and Peter Lien. The twenty-minute, gender and racially mixed video showcased members of the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender communities discussing what the next mayor should do for members of the LGBT community and for the success of Philadelphia.
The Video is available at http://www.outfrontphilly.org/about/2007_mayoral_race_vid.html
“For the first time that I can remember there were LGBT people of all colors and hues sitting in one room speaking unapologetically with one voice about the needs of Philadelphia’s LGBT communities. Above all else, that is what I am most proud about”, said Robert K. Burns, Politics and Leadership Committee Chair for the Black Gay Men’s Leadership Council.
“The three candidates performed extremely well, they were well prepared and represented themselves to the community with dignity and respect, said, Kathy Padilla and Michael Williams, Co-Presidents of Outfront.
Held at the Foerderer Auditorium of Jefferson University Medical Center, the Forum was moderated by local radio personality Debra D’Alessandro, Host and Producer of Amazon Country, WXPN-FM. The Forum was organized by Liberty City Democratic Club, Outfront, Log Cabin Republicans and the Black Gay Men’s Leadership Council
“This has been a historic mayoral campaign for our community," said Micah Mahjoubian, Co-Chair Liberty City Democratic Club. "Three of the candidates for Mayor have now attended two forums on LGBT issues. It's clear that when we come together, with one loud and clear voice, the concerns of our community are heard. No matter who is elected on May 15th, it's clear it will be a new day for LGBT Philadelphians.
Not true, Kathy.
Tom hosted a LGBT Meetup last fall and attended the OutBall event. Maybe that's not enough for you, but let's at least keep the record, uh, straight.
Lord!
Could you be more,uh, annoying?
www.jameskenney.com
www.311forphilly.com
No Susan - it's not enough
If you're running for office - you really should attend politcal forums. Though I'm glad he attended a social event and actually met with some lgbt people at some time in his life - I don't think the standard for any community is - "hey - our guy met some of you people back in September - what the hell else do you want?"
Really - great way to step up to the plate there Susan. Want to try again?
Fascinating.
A candidate who actually supports full rights for the LGBT community - including marriage, which is a no-brainer - is ridiculed and scorned, while the longtime liberal-icon politician who draws the line at gay marriage isn't.* Can you explain to me how that works?
Look, Tom hasn't been out running for election for 20 years. He has some catching up to do. But for anyone to contend that he's not a viable choice for gay voters strictly because of his verbal clumsiness defies logic.
Why don't you try building bridges instead of burning them?
And by the way, Kathy, I'm pretty sure Tom's attended more forums than just about any other candidate. (Nutter might be tied.) And yes, every single group that sponsors a forum thinks THEIR issue is the most important one and gets their feelings hurt when a candidate doesn't show up, but there are only so many hours in the day.
*Apparently there are different versions of what happened with Mike Nutter, but the principle still applies.
Susan
This actually is your opportunity to invite people to cross that bridge instead of ridiculing their concerns.
And yes - you more than anyone should know that language matters. Why not just say you understand people have important concerns instead of belittleing them? That you look forward to addressing them and learning from people to improve your policy statements?
Again - this is your opportunity to step up to the plate.
Keeping Knox Straight
Come on, people, Susan's right. Tom Knox sees Will & Grace every night in syndication (Oh! That Jack is sooooo funny). And he watched the Oscars, which had a LESBIAN host and Melissa Etheridge won and kissed her wife. So totally. Knox knows the gays.
Give me a break. The record we should keep "straight" is his answers to those interview questions, which show that Knox is completely out of touch with the issues at hand in the lgbt community. Kathy's comments that she "[hasn't] seen such an uninformed response from a Democratic candidate on lgbt issues in 15-20 years" is what's at hand here, not whether or not he had some kind of contact with some gays months ago. Why not submit the Liberty City questionnaire and/or come and address the group, like Fattah, Nutter, Brady and Evans all did? Or go to the Rustin Forum last week?
Let me ask you something, Joel.
Do you have any idea how many questionaires and invitations we get every week?
And do you understand that as a newbie, non-incumbent challenger, our candidate is creating EVERYTHING from scratch? That we don't have years of experience and sound-bite-ready answers (already written by taxpayer-funded staffers) for everything? That when an elected official has an LGBT advisor, it's because We the People are paying their salary?
Of course you don't. My guess is, you don't especially care, either. Maybe you just have your own agenda, and Tom doesn't fit it. Oh well.
Is someone going to call shenanigans...
...on this answer?
From yesterday's Philadelphia Weekly:
Are you telling me that Trippi doesn't have any clue about how to answer to the issues of the LGBT community?
Second, let me set aside my follower of the race hat for a second and don my own worked for an outsider candidate hat to take umbrage at this:
Yes, a lot. And you're right, some go unanswered. But really, the Knox campaign had to realize that this was an important one, right? It doesn't take a member of the LGBT community to answer these questions. Most of the time, a low-level staffer can do the legwork to make a phone call, do the research and answer the questions, then his or her supervisor checks it over, the candidate gives it a quick read in the car on the way to some event or other, sign it and send it in. That can happen whether or not you're currently serving as an elected official. My colleague and I, who did these questionnaires, knew very little about LGBT issues before we got involved with our first campaign we learned... quickly.
I know I'm sounding hypercritical but if candidate Knox is going to use his "outsider" status as part of his appeal and his message (regardless of how many pictures of Tom with Bill Clinton and Ed Rendell are on the front page of his website), then it's only fair that we ask whether he's sooo much of an outsider that he's going to spend the first two years of his term making all of these mistakes. Regardless of who wins, this City needs to know that its next mayor can really hit the ground running when he's sworn in. A lot of these problems need to be fixed yesterday and we need to know that the guy fixing them won't be spending the first two years learning on the job (especially given how quickly those municipal contract negotiations are coming up).
He's been running in some form or another for over a year, I'd expect that his campaign would have the capability to answer a questionnaire properly. For my part, I'm not a big fan of his answers but there are plenty of people here who can talk specifically about Knox and LGBT issues. I'm more concerned with what this incident says about his preparedness to lead, his ability to pick the right people to do the job and, most importantly, how he'll communicate with the city and bring us all together once the campaign ads stop airing.
By the way, I know it's not Susan's job to fill out questionnaires or handle the schedule so none of this (including the "pick the right people" part) should be taken as an attack on her or her abilities.
My god... were you actually
My god, Susan... were you actually hired to HELP Knox's campaign?? If so, they should hide your blog passwords before you alienate any more voters.
Makes one wonder whom he'd hire if elected. Maybe Milton Street as enforcer of residency rules or Carol Campbell as compliance officer for campaign finance regulations.
Bless your heart!
You must be another law student.
Because I know a bad hiring
Because I know a bad hiring decision when I see one?
No...
Because you've convinced yourself you're right when you're so wrong, and go on the attack for no good reason.
First, I'm not a law
First, I'm not a law student.
Second, I'm not sure what it is you think I've convinced myself I'm right about.
And, third, "going on the attack for no good reason" is exactly my criticism of your postings.
Too far.
I'm sorry Joel, I think you're real great and studious and clean and fashionable and witty and tidy and all, but am I the only gay that thinks this character assignation on Knox is a bit overblown because he said gays were "studious"?
Now I'm a big supporter of Nutter, not Knox, and I would really love if all the Knox voters pushed the Nutter button instead of Knox, but calling someone homophobic because he's said something meant to be a compliment is over the line. Disagreeing with someone's politics is one thing, but pulling out this card is wrong and does nothing but ostracizes gay people in today's society. There are MANY candidates that neither returned a questionnaire or spoke at the Liberty City meeting. But unlike Knox, they also haven't contributed money to Liberty City. Maybe we should start by picketing them.
Basically, I believe this (political) attempt to hurt Knox's character, while effective in its (political) goal, IS bad for the gay community. If I think what Knox said isn't really that big a deal, than you know that most Philadelphia will think the same. Maybe not the people on this blog, but most everyone else.
We can't get all PC police every time someone in the spotlight says something a little off. Yea, I know there's prejudices out there, believe me. I get called fag by passing cars when walking down the street, or have a completely well intentioned stranger say it would be great to go shopping with me because they never know what is fashionable. I get it. But are we willing to push this as an issue in order to bring down a front runner in the mayoral primary in exchange for some of our credibility in this city? I think those chips are better saved for a more serious fight.
Now, I'm not saying Knox is great for gays. He's given money to Santorum, and that could be an indication of his politics. But maybe we should wait before pulling the anti-gay card until we have something a little more substantial than an unanswered questionnaire and an ill-advised compliment. He was after all, a host for Liberty City's fundraiser and he did answer questions for the PGN.
I know many think Knox would be horrible for this city for many reasons, I don't think homophobia is one of them.
All four other Mayoral
All four other Mayoral candidiates returned the questionnaire and attended the meeting. The rest is I leave between you & Joel.
I know.
Clearly he's not courting the gay vote. But frankly he's been a no-show at a lot of forums. His campaign strategy is to spend lots of money on commercials and buy people dinner. It's not what the other four are doing, but in his defense; it's working.
Again, I'm not saying LC should endorse the guy, hell, I'm not even arguing for people to vote for him (I'm not). I just get real nervous when gays use our limited political capital on something that (to me) doesn't really warrant it. Calling someone homophobic (or racist, or antisemitic) is a serious charge, that shouldn't be taken lightly.
Who's said that Knox is homophobic?
Charlie -
Where are you reading that someone has accused Knox of being homophobic? You're certainly the first in this thread to suggest that that accusation has been leveled against him.
Though I tend to agree that the public demo at his office is a bit over the top and a poor marshaling of resources.
you're right
I guess I equated the protest at his office with him being called homophobic. If the message of the protest is we want answers on your gay policies, then that actually seems somewhat reasonable.
and i thought i was making such good points too...
Which isn't the same
as noting that in a race where 21% can win - choosing to not court a voting block of 5% that is what - 90% Democratic, votes in at a much higher rate than the rest of the population and is involved in the electoral process at a higher rate than the rest of the population is the smartest strategy. The census bureau shows that 5% being larger in PA than the Latino community, the Asian community & the Jewish community (that's from the USA today religion chart.
wow
that's pretty priceless. you know, i've been feeling (slightly, mind you, slightly) bad for refusing to take knox seriously for so long. i've thought he was a moron ever since he littered my neighborhood with those freakin "stop the violence" signs over the summer. but now i'm feeling ok about disregarding him again.
thanks for taking a load off my mind! typing up that whole post was just so...studious of you.
Funniest responses to a question in that interview:
----
I support Michael Nutter for Mayor.
Damn
I got distracted. My "oh my god" belongs here too. Horrifying.
Dear Gaetano, if this doesn't somehow make it into the article about school reform in Citypaper, I am quitting the site.
Love,
Jennifer
What does this mean?
Does that mean that he does or doesn't support abstinence-only education? Does it mean that he didn't even understand the question?
Oh my god
Oh my god.
Jennifer
Great Post
It's not funny 'cause it's true.
I support Michael Nutter for Mayor
In fairness to the other four
I work for Fattah and I like his answers best. But, really all of the other three have great answers--more or less--in comparison to Knox. Though I think Nutter is the only one who is as good as Fattah.
However, if Knox really thinks gays are such hard workers--can he beat Fattah's two full time gay staffers?
Me and Micah have this joint locked down!
Even if you don't have staff
Even if you don't have staff knowledgable on the policy issues or the communities involved - wouldn't you seek advice from someone who does?
I sadly haven't seen such an uninformed response from a Democratic candidate on lgbt issues in 15-20 years. Mr. Knox needs to do some remdial work - and do outreach to the community.
While I agree that this is
While I agree that this is an illuminating set of answers, Joel's original post identifies the context as a "group interview," which gave me the impression of five candidates sitting in one room with the interviewer. But that's not at all what happened. From the front page of ePGN.com:
So while Fattah's answers may be best, he had the greatest advantage in composing them, and while some of Knox's gaffes are completely inexcusable, he and Evans were at the most significant disadvantage.
The questions
The questions in the piece were nearly identical to those they received several weeks earlier in the joint endorsement questionnaire of Liberty City Democrats & OutFront. 4 of the 5 candidates answered those questionnaires - Knox did not. So - while one might argue him to be at a disadvantage - it's would be one of his own making.
Hey Ray, I don’t even like
Hey Ray, I don’t even like Fattah and thought that he had the best answer.
Is the poster Joeln and your life partner one in the same? I was just wondering, cause I had no idea that he posted on here.
Great post Joel!
yes sir
life partner is a bit strong--he's my boyfriend though!
Another reason for same-sex marriage.
It will clear-up all this confusion about what to call gay couples. Life partner, husband, wife, boyfriend, finance, submissive bottom boy-slave, "friend"? I mean same-sex marriage will just clear this whole mess up.
Joel, you should post more
Joel, you should post more often.
---
http://benwaxman.com
I agree. Great
I agree. Great post!
Supporting Michael Nutter for Mayor
Don't Underestimate Dwight
I support Dwight and know of his support for LGBT issues for a very long time, way before it was politically advantageous to do so. He joined Babette early on in support of legislation and has slowly built support for our issues. He has the respect of many on both sides of the aisle and his "lobbying" would go along way. He will continue to have these alliances as mayor. I agree Nutter is very strong on the issues as well.
Current polls are disheartening but not definitive. Those who are up will go down and those who are down will go up. It is the nature of a campaign that has credible candidates. What we don't want to see is Knox maintaining his market-generated identity ... it is not genuine.
It will be a fascinating 40+ days.
Wow - Nutter opposes
Wow - Nutter opposes marriage equality. That's a big bummer. He apparently supports a non-marriage alternative of equal legal standing, but c'mon, we all know that separate but equal is doomed to fail.
Misprint
According to published reports elsewhere Mark Segal said that was a misprint and there would be a prominent correction. Michael's answer is yes, I was at the Liberty City forum when he spoke.
Misprint didn't appear online
I'd be absolutely delighted to find out I'm wrong on this. But I read about the misprint, in this post from The Next Mayor. The post says that the web site had it correct. Also, the misprint was reported as being in response to the follow-up question, "Do you support extending all the rights that exist for heterosexual married couples to same-sex couples?" In response to this question, Nutter responded "yes," but the print edition of PGN reported it as a "No."
I haven't seen it suggested that his answer to the first question, "Do you support extending the right to marry to same-sex couples?" was misreported. He was the only one of the five candidates who answered "No."
Editing to add, this sequence of answers is consistent with his answers to the Liberty City questionnaire.
2004 Timewarp
I guess you cannot make people support something they wont support. But, that is a pretty strange thing to read.
Has anyone heard Nutter's rationale?
For not supporting same-sex marriage? Not that I believe there really can be a rational rationale - but I want to know if this is based on religious beliefs somehow.
Will the "progressives" be jumping ship?
Nutter was asked about his rationale in the LGBT forum.
As Kathy notes above, Liberty City co-sponsored a mayoral forum on LGBT issues on April 5th. Dwight Evans, Chaka Fattah, and Michael Nutter were the only three candidates to attend. All three did very well, but it was clear that the crowd was a little surprised about Nutter's position on same-sex marriage. When the candidates were asked if they supported the right of same-sex couples to marry, Dwight Evans simply said yes. Chaka Fattah also said yes, and went on to explain that the love he has for his wife should not be treated any differently than the love shared between same-sex partners.
Nutter, however, stated he did not support the right of same-sex couples to marry, but rather supported civil unions. He then spent a few minutes talking about how the print edition of the PGN would be incorrect in its reporting of his position. The audience reaction to this answer was palpable, in fact, there were even some boos from the back of the room. Later in the evening, Nutter was directly asked by a member of the audience to explain his decision to support civil unions but not full marriage rights. Nutter did not explain his rationale, rather he simply reiterated his position that while he does not support same-sex marriage, he does support extending all the rights of marriage to same-sex couples through civil unions. Many of the attendees of the forum told me afterwards that they were surprised by his position--a position that sets him apart from the other candidates in the race.
If you are interested in reading the questionnaires submitted to Liberty City by the other Mayoral candidates, and the candidates for other offices up for election this primary, please visit Liberty City's website.
This is not an accurate account of what happened
I was there as well. Chaka Fattah did not say yes. He fudged his answer, but yes never came out of his mouth.
Second, Michael Nutter did point out that the PGN made a mistake in giving his position on this issue. The PGN will confirm that. Nutter recognized that the city cannot change the laws and allow gay marriage. That power belongs to the state. He did say that he supported something similar to what NJ does, which is civil unions.
Third, nobody booed Nutter. If fact, many in the audience were Nutter supporters, and already volunteering on his campaign. He pointed them out. When asked directly by a member of the audience to explain his position, Nutter actually got applause after his answer. He pointed out that he had always been a friend of the LGBT community, and the he was the one who introduced the Equitable Tax Treatment for Domestic Partners bill in 1998. He said the revised bill would be the first that he would introduce as Mayor.
After the forum, many people were impressed with Nutter. It's interesting how two people can be at the same forum and see different things.
Thanks for the alternate perspective
Maybe you can answer the question of what Nutter's rationale is for being opposed to same-sex marriage?
The earlier post indicated that he avoided answering that question, and your alternative perspective didn't dispell that interpretation.
Others have speculated about what Nutter's rationale might be; but as of yet, no one has answered the question.
From my understanding,
From my understanding, Nutter doesn't oppose same-sex marriage. I thought that he did answer it, at least better than Fattah did. Fattah did not answer the questiona at all.
Dwight Evans obviously gave the most straightforward answer, simply saying: "yes". Sometimes candidates can say too much, and not be as clear as they think. Nutter and Fattah could have simply said yes. Unfortunately, neither of them did. I think in giving a long answer, Nutter's point got left up to interpretation. I, for one, did not interpret his answer as saying that he opposed same-sex marriage. That would be against everything that he's stood for in his political career. Of all the candidates, Nutter has the most proactive record in promoting equal rights for the LGBT community.
Per the link, he was pretty
Per the link, he was pretty clear.
His response to liberty city's questionnaire was pretty simple.
Q: Do you support extending the right to marry to same sex couples.
Nutter: No
Doesn't mean he doesn't have a pretty good record on LGBT issues. But it is still, as you imply, a little surprising.
Still want to know Nutter's rationale
Interesting discussion about the issue of marriage rights versus civil unions; however, my concern is more whether Nutter's position in not supporting same-sex marriage is based on a religious philosophy or on some other rationale, which I might not agree with, but could at least conceive of as being "progressive."
I'm not sure how much Nutter's being elected as someone who doesn't support marriage rights for gays would have any real world significance in Philly. However, I would be pretty worried about someone being elected who thinks that lawmakers should craft laws on the basis of their religious beliefs.
So, I still want to know Nutter's rationale.
Religion is not a big deal in this election
I haven't heard much religion in this election. I heard the competition to get the black clergy endorsements. I heard Brady favors more "faith-based" initiatives. I have not heard of any candidates talking with a god. I don't see Nutter looking to entangle city government with religion. He was in City Council for 15 years and I haven't heard of him pandering to churches. I read about him pissing off a church over zoning because he wanted a revenue-generating, job-producing business at a site rather than some church who wanted to locate there.
I support gay marriage. (I think "partner" is an ambiguous and crappy term for life mates, but that's neither here nor there.) Nutter supporting everything-but-the-name civil unions is not a deal-breaker for me. First, he has a very good record supporting gay rights and working to implement changes. Second, it's rather a moot point at the city level. Third, I think he is such a better candidate than any of the others on almost everything else. Fourth, even though I disagree with Nutter's position, it's not hateful or too backwards; I mean, it's not like he supports teaching abstinence-only all education at any level.
DE, I disagree with (but partially share) your phobia of religious people. I believe in ethical, moral laws. My morality is not based on religion. I believe that it is wrong to kill people. Many people who share this view base it in part on religious teachings. I support strict separation of church and state, but will support politicians who have religious views. (Most do, but a non-theist member of the US Congress came out recently.) My problem is not with those who support good laws based on their religious beliefs; my problem is those who stupidly support stupid laws based on stupid religious beliefs.
----
I support Michael Nutter for Mayor.
Whoa, hold on there pardner
I'm not phobic of religious people. But I don't like the idea of a mayor who believes in basing legislation on his religious beliefs.
If Nutter disagrees with same-sex marriage for reasons I might see as "progressive," it wouldn't, in an of itself, be a deal-breaker for me.
However, if it is because of his religious beliefs (i.e., because he thinks that marriage is a sacred institution ordained by God to be between a man and a woman), it would be.
Need I repeat? That's why I want to know his rationale.
Pardner? I hardly even know 'er!
I don't understand your view. You don't need to repeat your conclusions; it's the reasoning I don't get. I disagree with Nutter's non-support of gay marriage regardless of his rationale. If privately he is a deeply religious man that is motivated to make Philadelphia a better place with policies that I think will greatly improve the city and 98% agree with, that's fine; I see no reason to suspect that he'd erect a cross on William Penn's hat. If he is privately an atheist like I am and motivated to do the same, that's even better. Either way, I think he is wrong on gay marriage and correct on almost everything else, and overall far more correct than the other four (or eight) candidates. I don't see his gay marriage non-support as an indication that secretly god is telling him to invade New Jersey; I just don't see any of your suspicions supported.
I think Rev. Martin Luther King had religious reasons for supporting and advocating all the changes he contributed to. I think he was a great man. Do you disagree with the civil rights movement because it was largely based on religious beliefs and supported by liberal Christian groups?
Do you hate Martin Luther King and all he did? Do you hate equal rights? Why do you hate 'Merica?I also have no idea what "progressive" means. I don't evaluate policies on whether they are "progressive"; I evaluate whether they are "good". I favor ethical, accessible, transparent, and responsive government, gay marriage, universal health care, equality, with liberty and justice for all. I think all of those are progressive, but support them regardless, even if a Republican supports some of those points as well.
In sum, I don't know Nutter's rationale, and don't see the relevance. I don't think you could clearly explain your reasoning for thinking that it is relevant. I don't think suspicion that Nutter is a religious nut is supported, and I think that there would be a plethora of support from his 15 years in City Council if he were a Bible-beater.
----
I support Michael Nutter for Mayor.
Whaaa?
First you think I'm phobic of religious folks, and then you think I suspect Nutter of being a "religious nut" and that I think he'd erect a cross on William Penn's hat?
I really must learn to be more clear in my posts. Let me try again.
There are a whole lot of people who are against same-sex marriage because it offends their religious beliefs. They might want someone who thinks that it's appropriate to base law on relgious beliefs to be their mayor. I don't want someone who feels that way to be mine.
Nutter, when asked to explain his rationale for not supporting same-sex marriage, went out of his way to avoid answering the question. That may not bother you. It bothers me.
So you think laws stemming
So you think laws stemming from the church-supported civil rights movement were wrong?
My "religious nut" statement was just speculation about how your view could be reasonable. It just does not make sense to me that you would think it would be wrong to enact laws that create "ethical, accessible, transparent, and responsive government, gay marriage, universal health care, equality, with liberty and justice for all" and sustainability if some support them based on religious belief.
In "The Corporation" movie, (if I recall correctly) there was a carpet company owner that is converting his company to 100% sustainable practices. He was motivated by his religious beliefs. Is that a good or bad thing?
----
Nutter supporting everything-but-the-name civil unions is not a deal-breaker for me. First, he has a very good record supporting gay rights and working to implement changes. Second, it's rather a moot point at the city level. Third, I think he is such a better candidate than any of the others on almost everything else. Fourth, even though I disagree with Nutter's position, it's not hateful or too backwards; I mean, it's not like he supports teaching abstinence-only all education at any level.
Googling for God
Just for fun, I ran some googles on some sites for god, religion, faith, etc. For example, google "site:phillyforfattah.com faith". I discovered Fattah supports a city-wide revival:
Fattah's website invokes faith stuff pretty frequently. Nutter's site had a few mentions; e.g., he said "God bless" at a speech. Evan's site was pretty devoid of religion. I didn't check Knox or Brady.
I mean, really, who cares about them here?----
I support Michael Nutter for Mayor.
Aardhart
As I see it, your partisanship is causing you to minsintepret what I've been saying.
I say that I want to know Nutter's rationale for not supporting same-sex marriage because my support for him might be contingent the rationale he offers, and you (1) say I'm phobic of religious people, (2) say I think Nutter's a religious nut, (3) say my opinion is completely lacking any logic, (4) post comments highlighting Fattah's references to religion to show somehow that Nutter may not be the only candidate that has religious beliefs.
Huh?
The civil rights movement was based in some religious philosophy, for sure, but it wasn't primarily an attempt to legislate religious doctrine. If you think that distinction isn't valid, then I guess you can go ahead and call me a hypocrite.
As I see it, the belief that same-sex marriage is immoral can only "rationally" be argued on a foundation of religious doctrine - either that or outright bigotry. I can conceive of other reasons why Nutter might say "no" when asked if he supports same-sex marriage, reasons which I might not agree with, but which are not based on bigotry or a belief that laws should be based on religious doctrine (see Alex's posts above).
In other words, there are viewpoints in opposition to (or at least question the wisdom of focusing on) legalizing same-sex marriage that aren't based on "morality," and that I can see as being consistent with "progressive" values (the reason why I put progressive in quotes is to indicate that I think the term is very imprecise but serves a purpose).
I assume that Nutter isn't a bigot. So I want to know if his reasoning is that same-sex marriage (as opposed to civil unions) is immoral, based on his religious beliefs. If that is the case, then I would view that as his wanting to legislate not from a basis of religious philosophy, but from the belief that civil laws should be made on the basis of religious doctrine.
If he has some other rationale, I'd like to know what it is.
It doesn't mean that I think that Nutter is a "religious nut." It also doesn't mean that I hate religious people or that I think all politicians should be atheists.
I don't think I
I don't think I misinterpretted what you said. Your concern is that a candidate might want to enact laws "on the basis of religious doctrine." Is that accurate? That is what I was saying all along, even if you didn't like my word choice or examples.
You can't argue or imply that Nutter has a moral objection to gay relationships or to legal protection of gay relationships. He fought for and help pass extending benefits to domestic partnerships of city employees.
The debate is not about morality, it is about semantics. It is as legally meaningful as a debate about whether Michael Nutter is black or African-American. There is no legal difference between NJ marriage and NJ civil unions.
And it's moot at the city level. Nutter has already demonstrated he would extend all protections that a city can.
----
I support Michael Nutter for Mayor.
Sorry Mr. Ferguson...I mean Aardhart
This is not a semantic conversation.
From the Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders website:
New Jersey's civil unions are among the best in the country, but they still don't address the issues of state-to-state rights. Further, using New Jersey law as an example in a conversation about Pennsylvania lawmakers is way off base--the issue in PA is not about semantics, it's about discrimination.
If you think it is about semantics--and that the word "civil unions" is going to fly with state reps when "marriage" won't, you are out of touch.
This is a moral and economic battle and we need a Mayor who will fight it and fight Harrisburg aggressively, without hedging.
Chaka Fattah has said that Philadelphia has been treated like Pennsylvania's bastard child for too long. Our city brings in the largest amount of revenue to the state's general fund and we are the driving force for the state's economy.
The state's refusal to grant marriage rights puts our city at a competitive disadvantage and we need a Mayor who can address that.
That all said, Nutter is not the problem here. I think his response was way too wonky and not in touch with what the question was really asking, but for LGBT folks, there's no doubt he would be an ally.
The real issue here is how incredibly offensive and off-base Tom Knox's comments were and I hope other LGBT candidates express their displeasure with him in the voting booth.
Mr. Murphy
That's one important reason why his non-support of gay marriage is not a deal breaker for me.
I think in NJ, the difference between marriage and gay marriage is legally semantics (since they are defined to be equal), but important semantics. Of the six advantages of marriage that you list, four do not apply to Massachusetts' same-sex marriages any more than they apply to NJ same-sex civil unions. In any case, I agree that there is an important difference (whether or not the difference is semantics).
I think there are probably some state reps where this statement is true. I am not familiar enough with our state legislature to handicap the likelihood, but my gut is that neither will fly at this point if they recently passed a DOMA and the state chose between Casey and Santorum. Personally, I support allowing same-sex marriage.
I am not Mr. Ferguson and don't get what that is supposed to refer to. If that was an attempt to destroy my anonymity, I ask that you don't.
----
I support Michael Nutter for Mayor.
Legal semantics
I don't think there is anything semantic about creating separate categories simply based on the gender combination of a partnership.
Civil unions are certainly a good first step. I think the ultimate goal should be complete equality. We really don't want to live in a society that has different set of terms for LGBT couples.
Part of being a political leader is having the vision and courage to stand for the right things. There is no reason that our local leaders shouldn't led the way for better policies on these issues. As one of the most progressive parts of the state, we have a responsibility to play a role in this ongoing fight.
Edit: The Ferguson reference was to Plessy v. Ferguson, which established the legal doctrine behind segregation. Ray has been hanging out with Gaetano and Dan too much.
---
http://benwaxman.com
What is "is"?
I'm not going to argue the semantics of semantics here anymore. As I wrote many times in this thread, I support same-sex marriage and view Nutter's non-support as a negative, but not a deal-breaker.
Thanks. I would have gotten Mr. Plessy, but there are too many other Ferguson associations in my mind to make the connection. I was thinking Turd Ferguson ... Chris "Jesus" Ferguson ... I just couldn't make the connection.
----
I support Michael Nutter for Mayor.
It would be funny if your
It would be funny if your secret identity was a professional poker player with a cowboy hat.
---
http://benwaxman.com
Actually, Aardhart
You completely misinterpreted what I said.
It isn't a matter of whether I like them or not. They're inaccurate. They don't reflect what I said. I never expressed anything remotely similar to calling Nutter a religious nut, I'm not anything remotely phobic of religious people, I have no particular problem with politicians having religous beliefs, etc.
.
I never tried to argue that he did. I simply said I wanted to know what his rationale is - and I'd like to know why he avoided answering that question even when pressed.
I guess you think I'm attacking Nutter? I'm not. I'm simply saying that I want to know what his rationale is for not supporting gay marriage. I suggest that it is your support for Nutter that leads you to conflate my questioning his rationale with attacking him.
Examples
My examples weren't necessarily intended to reflect what you said, and were intentionally extreme so as to not imply that they were.
As I posted before: Your concern is that a candidate might want to enact laws "on the basis of religious doctrine." Is that accurate?
Yup,
that's my concern. And until I hear from someone what Nutter's rationale is for opposing same-sex marriage, it will remain a concern of mine about his candidacy.
Without rehashing the entire
Without rehashing the entire thread: In Nutter's case, I don't think there is reason to be concerned that he would entangle religious doctrine in his governance, and I think that his 15 years in City Council gives enough of a record to confidently dismiss that concern.
On a completely separate unrelated note: my wanting to explore/argue/discuss/challenge the difference between an acceptable "wanting to legislate ... from a basis of religious philosophy" and an unacceptable "belief that civil laws should be made on the basis of religious doctrine" had nothing to do with partisanship or advocacy or supporting a candidate. It was/is purely a philosophical exploration. Arguing on the internet is like racing a friend down the street when you're both drunk: retarded, but it can be kinda fun. That said, I still don't see any consistent difference between acceptable/unacceptable use of religion other than "the law is good"/"the law is stupid". (I do, however, believe in bright-line rules against governmental endorsement of religion. It's bad)
However, I'm letting it go and suspect you are done with it as well.
----
I support Michael Nutter for Mayor.
Aardy, distinguishing between
"wanting to legislate ... from a basis of religious philosophy" and ""belief that civil laws should be made on the basis of religious doctrine" is an interesting distinction to me - and as such, your pressing me to be more precise is actually appreciated (although if you had done so without the defensive rhetoric for your buddy Nutter we could have gotten there more quickly).
I think it is an interesting question as to what is the real difference between civil rights legislation with roots in religious philosophy and legislation with roots in religious philosophy that bans same-sex marriage. Is it simply a matter of my subjective interpretation of "good" religious beliefs vs. "bad" religious beliefs?
I did give that question some thought. I'm not sure I have an answer. I tried to settle on the difference between religious philosophy and religious doctrine. As I'm trying to conceptualize it, loving fellow human beings and believing they should be treated equally is a philosophical perspective. Legally discriminating against homosexuals is antithetical to that philosophy -- and as extended to marriage in particular -- antithetically becomes an application of religious doctrine. The problem with that analysis is that laws and mores against homosexuality are pretty ubiquitous and not necessarily associated with specific religious doctrine. And believing that all people should be treated equally is not really a philosophy that is ubiquitous, and does tend to be associated with specific religious doctrine.
So, maybe my distinction is somewhat arbitrary, born out of a need to rationalize a purely subjective analysis. Well, hey, I never said I wasn't a hypocrite.
"(3) say my opinion is completely lacking any logic"
I'm glad that you appreciated the discussion. The only distinction that I could come up with was whether I agree with the underlying cause. Working to abolish slavery? Good. Working to protect innocent masses from genocide? Good. Working to create sustainable environmental policies? Good. Working to protect innocent frozen goo from potentially life-saving research? Bad. Working to protect ... um, um ... 'Merica (fuck yeah!) from the horrors of same-sex marriage? Bad.
You seem very focussed on shifting blame for something on me. You are not blameless. You initially ignored my "Your concern is that a candidate might want to enact laws 'on the basis of religious doctrine.' Is that accurate?" question, instead cherry-picking quotes that you could spin to score points against me. Was I really the one that prevented you from getting there more quickly? Throughout the thread you labeled me as partisan and spun my posts into ad hominem attacks that were clearly not intended. (I included myself as phobic of religious polititians. Is a candidate who unacceptably wants to enact laws on the basis of (unacceptable?) religious doctrine really much different than a candidate who is a religious nut? Maybe I am too free with the label, but I don't make the distinction.)
In the end, you went from expressing concern about (fearing irrationally?) a candidate "basing legislation on his religious beliefs" to trying (unsuccessfully?) to distinguish between "religious philosophy" and "religious doctrine", apparently abandoning "religious beliefs" altogether. You admit that the distinction you make may be completely arbitrary ("completely lacking any logic"?) and you admitted possible hypocracy. As you admitted to this realization that I had a point, you included a gratuitous shot at me again. I don't appreciate that. I am willing to engage in pointless philosophical arguments on the internet, but I would appreciate it if you refrain from the unnecessary and inaccurate patronizing ad hominem attacks on me, which you repeatedly posted while fooling yourself that you were on the high road.
Not shifting blame, Aardhart
But pointing out that you repeatedly mischaracterized what I was saying, and speculating that the reason you did so was out of a partisan interest in defending Nutter.
And interesting, that after claiming that you got my point, you managed to show that you still don't:
You may be phobic of religious politicians. I am not.
I wasn't irrationally fearing anything. I wanted to know what Nutter's rationale was for saying he opposed same-sex marriage. As it turns out, he "revised" his position. I still don't understand the rationale he gave for his original position, but at least he clarified that it wasn't his religious beliefs.
Nope. It's semantical, but I said "somewhat." I only point that out because it is characteristic of how you have mischaracterized what I've said.
If you don't like "gratitous shots" then you should avoid completely mischaracterizing what I wrote. If you slip up and do so and I explain that you have done so, you should just admit it an move on, rather than offer up a defense and then pile more mischaracterizations on.
Ok, this is way beyond stupid at this point. Take a parting shot if you'd like, but I'm out after this post.
you should avoid completely
I only ever "somewhat" mischaracterized what you wrote.
----
I support Michael Nutter for Mayor.
Same Sex marriage v Civil Unions
This is a legitimate question. What is the difference, legally, between civil unions and same sex marriage.
Same sex marriage is easier
To enact same-sex marriage, all you would need to do is to remove the word referring to gender in existing law. The political battle would be huge, but the actual policy making would be easier.
To enact civil unions, you'd have to go and look at every benefit that married people have--from transfer tax exemptions to custody rights to hospital visitation--and replicate those for same-sex couples. It would require a lot more research, a lot more law, and along the way lobbyists could try to pick and choose which rights married people get that civil union participants shouldn't.
For instance, auto insurers might want to prevent civil union law from allowing discounts that married couples receive. Passage of a civil union bill would be really tough for this reason--and the end result is that not all rights would be as likely to get extended to same-sex couples as a much simpler amendment to marriage.
OF course, PA state law prohibits changing the definition of marriage because we have a baby DOMA in effect, but this question was written by the Lib City endorsement committee as a sort of litmus test of candidates--it's asked of all row office candidates and council folk as well.
Easier?
I fail to see how attacking that one word within the current laws is easier than the multitude of tasks needed to enact civil unions that carry the same legal standing as marriage under the law. The problem is, in my eyes, the connection between religion and the institution of marriage, and I don't think that any amount of rational explanations is going to convince people to change their minds on this front. As it is tied in so closely with religion I believe that the state should keep itself separated from the matter, however I also believe that the state cannot endorse any religious beliefs, so I think that we should take marriage out of the hands of the state completely. I'm not sure what would have to be done to alter the laws in such a way, but my belief is that all life partnerships should be recognized by the state as civil unions first, and marriage should be considered by the state to be a form of civil union.
I guess the point I'm trying to make is this: if religious folks want the word marriage, let them have it. You can call my relationship with my wife whatever the hell you want, so long as I enjoy equal protections as those who see their marriage in terms of their religion. I believe that we are feeding into the divide and conquer strategy of the Right by arguing about a word instead of rights. All life-partners deserve equal rights under our non-religious laws. PERIOD. Call it "a bologna sandwich" for all I care, just so long as the government guarantees equal rights to all couples who engage in "a bologna sandwich" (including all insurance, tax, visitation, etc. rights that are covered under the current marriage laws)
I work for Damon K. Roberts in his run for City Council. Unless otherwise stated this and every comment by myself is the opinion of myself, and not of Damon or any other candidate, organization, committee, etc.
read more carefully
Alex, i agree with your sentiment, but the fact is that while we wait for this better alternative, you still get rights with your wife that I won't get when me and my BF decide to tie the knot.
Marriage is a right afforded heterosexual people under the law. It is also a religious rite, but the right established under law has nothing to do with religion.
So why is our legislature so full of punks that they won't take responsibility for fixing the laws they write?
Civil unions are a cop-out. They are a cop out at the rhetorical level, but more importantly they create a complicated legislative process to replicate the rights straights get, and not always with success.
In a state like PA, where lobbyist disclosure is a relatively new concept, i have no doubt that special interests would whittle away at a civil union bill and end up with a separate and unequal system of rights for same-sex couples--even if it's for economic rather than "moral" reasons.
While that may be preferable to what we have now, it is still not a good legal precedent to set up.
That said, again, the Mayor can only do so much, but it is a litmus test question for our organization.
Uh...
Look, I support equal rights under the law, and I also understand how fucked up the current situation is, but I fail to see how my response is a "cop out". If the word "marriage" is in the current law, then change that word. But don't simply attack those of us who are supportive of equal rights but who think that civil unions are a better alternative. You are going to have to persuade a lot of people, including a good number that live out in Pennsyl-tucky that something needs to change, and I cannot see how in our current political climate that going up against something seen by many as a religious institution is going to yield you anything other than disappointment and possibly setbacks. What I am trying to do is find a way to counter the arguments of the other side, and separation of church and state is the only avenue that I can think of to effectively counter the stupidity of religious groups who fight against equal rights for all.
Anyway, I'll stand beside all of my LGBT friends, family, coworkers, etc in their fight for equal rights, but I certainly don't think that the LGBT community has a monopoly on the tactics needed to reach our common goal of equal rights and protections for all under our non-religious laws. I doubt that the fight can be won in the way that you are setting forth, but whatever, if the line in the sand has to be drawn I stand firmly on the side of "gay marriage" and not the side of ignorance and fear.
And for the record, when I said "the state" I did not mean the State of Pennsylvania, but "the state" in the political science way (meaning the Fed all the way down).
I work for Damon K. Roberts in his run for City Council. Unless otherwise stated this and every comment by myself is the opinion of myself, and not of Damon or any other candidate, organization, committee, etc.
Alex, it wasn't personal
I wasn't saying that you were copping. Your position was clear and made sense. However, a lot of people who have come before Liberty City and have sought our endorsement have not thought the issue through: they just know civil unions is a way they can please some gays and not piss off too many non-gays. that's a cop out.
Ray Has A Point
The extent of the legislation required to enact civil unions could prove quite significant and burdensome. I agree with Ray's assessment and by way of another example, just look at property transfer and estate laws in Pennsylvania. Often the transfer of property between same sex couples is a nightmare and simply unfair. There are actually pro-bono seminars on this very topic to assist same sex couples in estate planning and the distribution of assets. Further, I was there on Friday night and I heard the exchange on this issue. I must admit, I was both surprised and dissapointed, when this came up. If what we are truly after is across the board equality of benefits for same sex couples, then enacting civil unions really is not the true answer.
Larry
marriage vs. CUs
Don't forget the federal rights that come automatically with marriage that you can't get with a Vermont or Connecticut or New Jersey CU. There 1100-something federal rights (or more? I'm recalling this from the 2000 Vermont CU fight)...especially regarding bi-national couples and immigration, this difference is really important.
(& thanks for all the compliments on my post.)
-Joel
Point of Fact
Joel,
Just so you know, the same-sex couples up in Massachusetts aren't given the federal rights of marriage yet. they're fighting for them, but they don't have them yet. Clinton signed the federal DOMA.
I don't usually post on this
I don't usually post on this subject because I believe the issue is laced with a number of pitfalls. But, I support marriage being an institution for everyone--no matter who they are, gay or straight.
Civil Unions, to me, may be a step in that direction--and a step that could happen sooner. I do not think it wise to hold out for something better to come along. However, I speak as a straight man who is able to marry. I would imagine that telling Rosa Parks that sitting in the middle of the bus as opposed to the back was okay likely would not have eased her pain any after that long day of work. And, it sure as hell should not have stopped the bus boycott.
As a people and society, we should always work towards full equality.
Understood
Two quick related thoughts:
1- there are folks who think the legal focus on civil rights in the 60's allowed real economic justice issues to continue to be swept under the table. The lesson I take from that is that waiting for a best-case scenario might be better than pretending we're equal. To some extent the representation gays have gotten from Will and Grace has made my life worse for instance...
2- the #1 issue a lot of gays want to marry is for health care benefits. If there was universal health care in this country, a huge impetus for the gay marriage movement would gone...
Don't knock Knox for not wanting to touch a touchy subject
It seems that sex hasn't played a role in phila politics like other cities. Candidates don't want to touch the subject with a ten foot pole. I made a post not to long ago about same sex marriages coming to Philly. Are candidates really trying to represent all walks of life in this city, and if so does that include gay, lesbian , transgender,etc?
These people are philadelphians that vote like the rest of us. Should their issues not be heard, shouldn't their vote count. And should a candidate be out casted at the voting booths for being gay, lesbian , same sex supporter? Will a candidate running for any office in this state be truly for same sex marriage despite their own personal beliefs and religion?
Junior Williams
juniorwililams007@earthlink.net
http://mycityscapephily.eponym.com/blog
Ignorance and lack of Knowledge goes hand and hand..
We live in a racist, homophobic city that takes slow baby steps when it comes to issues like this. It will take a long time before we take the time , understand, and learn about all walks of life. We are different but alike as people that have feelings ,compassion, and the right to vote. I don't know who homosexuals will vote for but I hope that they don't vote as a label. We need to destroy the labels and work on bridging the gap thats plaguing this city. The closer we get to educating ourselves, the better we will be.
Junior Williams
juniorwililams007@earthlink.net
http://mycityscapephily.eponym.com/blog
Marriage for Benefits????
So your saying Ray that the main issue in the gay community is health benefits, and if there was universal health the rush for marriage would decline? What about love , is there love in the gay community? I hope that wouldn't be the case. Lots of gay couples aren't just fighting for health benefits, I hope???
I'm for love for all. What you are or what label you carry doesn't matter to me. Whatever makes you happy , I'm happy for you. When will we ever get rid of the labels and see ourselves as equal?
Junior Williams
juniorwililams007@earthlink.net
http://mycityscapephily.eponym.com/blog
Love and Marriage
I think the point Alex makes above is that love can't be sanctioned by law.
Lots of gay people live in committed relationships and love each other.
This is a bit off-topic from politics, but I think people who are confident in their love--str8 or gay--realize that they don't need a piece of paper from the state for their love to be legitimate.
So, at the end of the day most people take advantage of their legal right to marry to obtain benefits, contractual rights, custody, etc. There are some who marry, under the law, to prove their "love" for their partner, but I imagine these are the folks who have a maturity level more comparable to Brittney Spears...
Not just love...
I'm not saying that this is just about Love, and I am talking about it being sanctioned by every facet of our society, including the state. When I decided to ask Amy to marry me, I did so for a few reasons: to commit to her, in public/in front of my friends and family/in the eyes of the state; to get her the benefits that are guaranteed by the law (even though we were already afforded the benefits from my job, I would have had to pay taxes on her tuition benefits if we weren't married). But the biggest part was the public declaration, the announcement to both of our families/friends that we should now be seen as one.
I just don't give a damned what it is called, or what some religious zealot or ignorant asshole thinks about it. If they don't like my relationship, they can either stfu about it or say something to my face, but under the law they should have no standing. If they want to claim that the title has any religious connotations whatsoever, and that this entitles them to tell me anything about my relationship (including which adult I can or cannot marry) than I want them to take that name and shove it. I'll take something different, just so long as I have all of the same rights as the religious folks do.
I work for Damon K. Roberts in his run for City Council. Unless otherwise stated this and every comment by myself is the opinion of myself, and not of Damon or any other candidate, organization, committee, etc.
That type of stance may be
That type of stance may be why there is so much fight against it.
You do have a LOT of people that believe in the sentimental and spiritual act of marriage, not the legal issues. For many people, the act of marriage is the ceremony, not the signing of papers. It is professing your love and devotion in front of friends and family. It just happens that you get paperwork done the same time.
Maybe when those people hear "we only want gay marriage for health insurance" it turns them off and makes it feel like an attack on the non-legal significance.
I would assume a better political track would be to go the opposite route. Getting on the soapbox to say "we are fighting to have the same rights as married couples because the government SHOULD acknowledge we love and are devoted to each other the same way as straight couples" would put you on the same level as opposed to looking like it being a platform for monetary benefits.
I would assume you would want people to identify with you, not be told their beliefs don't matter and only the tax benefits and health insurance do.
--------------------------------------------------
Staff member of Longacre for 5th Council District.
Oh no
Joel,
Sam Durso has decided this type of post is too much of an "easy way out." Sorry, but, until you tell us who and why you are supporting for Mayor, I am going to have to ask never to write something like this again.
Worst on gay issues supports same-sex marriage
I don't know why this thread was bumped. (I don't think Dan U-A supports Tom Knox for mayor.)
Does anyone else think it cool that the bad guy on gay issues in this primary: would support legislation requiring city contractors to offer domestic-partner benefits, supports extending the right to marry to same-sex couples, would lobby the state legislature on this issue, and employs studious gays both on the campaign and in the workplace. Isn't it cool that this is the worst there is in this race on gay issues?
----
I support Michael Nutter for Mayor.
Nutter Revises Position - Supports Marriage Equality
Mark My Words
By Mark Segal
PGN Publisher
© 2007 Philadelphia Gay News
Mayoral candidates: All for marriage
A funny thing happened on the way to getting last week’s and this week’s PGN to press. You might have noticed the correction on page 11 regarding a mistake we made on one of Democratic mayoral candidate Michael Nutter’s answers, but the answer to the question before it really had people talking.
It was a simple question — one that we at PGN knew the mayor of Philadelphia had no control over. But it was a question that would reveal the feelings of the candidates more than any other and the answers surprised even us.
The question was “Do you support extending the right to marry to same-sex couples?” We purposely did not say domestic partners or civil unions. And to our utter surprise, four of the five candidates running for mayor of Philadelphia said without hesitation, “Yes.” And we never saw it coming.
This is amazing. Can any one of you out there tell me another city in this nation, other than San Francisco, where that would happen? Of course you’re all wondering who the fifth candidate was that kept us from a perfect score. It was Michael Nutter.
In my 38 years of working with and educating elected officials on GLBT issues here in Philadelphia — yes, that’s correct, 38 years — I’ve been waiting for this day. And I really expected it to be this year and to have a private celebration. Now I could just sulk about the fact that not all of the major Democratic candidates supported marriage, or I could boast that the candidate I’m supporting (U.S. Rep. Bob Brady) was one of the “yeses” or I could even tell you about plans to test Pennsylvania’s marriage law, but that’s not for this column.
This column is about what our community needs and how we deserve a mayor that fully supports our rights, which includes marriage equality. So what to do? I know Michael Nutter. So I decided to give him a call and the opportunity to get off the hook. After all, I worked with Nutter to pass Philadelphia’s domestic-partner legislation — this is a man who believes in equality.
And, true to form, Michael was courteous and we got right to the point. He stated, “When that question was asked, I looked at it from the legal rights of the mayor. The marriage law in Pennsylvania is a statewide issue, not the mayor’s. That said, I support gay marriage in Pennsylvania.”
With that said, all major candidates for mayor of Philadelphia support marriage equality. Philadelphia’s GLBT community should take a bow and take pride that its years of work have paid off.
=
Thanks for posting
Kind of a strange revision (he initially said he is in opposition to same-sex marriage because he: "looked at it from the legal rights as mayor." Huh?).
Nonetheless, it's nice to know that all five candidates now say they support marriage equality.