Richardson Clarifies Gay Gaffe

Too little too late Bill. You blew it and yes we will remember it. I had some hope for you but last night cemented what I knew to be true. You are insecure and your machismo relly came through. You’re like a person who claims they were drunk after they used the N word and looks for forgivness.

I thought you might be the man in the bunch of candidates and could tell people you’re sick of gay issues, you’re sick of insecure straight men, you’re sick of this discussion, and gays have every right to marriage. End of discussion. What a dream I was having.

You just handed Hillary all the gay votes buddy. Pull out now will you!

Oh read this before you do. I would love to hear what you think of what this guy says.

Why do we continue to waste these candidates time on gay marriage? We all know their answers. What would have been more interesting would have been to turn the tables and have gays discuss with them marriage of different sex couples.

Why wasn’t there any discussion, when Obama said marriage is religious, about removing the government from being involved in marriage at all? If marriage is religious why are there tax breaks? What happened to the seperation of church and state? Why didn’t anyone point out that the state should only be involved in granting civil union certificates not marriage licenses (similar to France)? We need the government out of marriage and leave that to religious institutions and the government involved with the granting of civil unions only. This way no religious group has a right to say who should not be allowed the various tax benefits for being in a committed relationship.

Why wasn’t there any discussion about lowering the divorce rates among different sex couples? Would the candidates favor limiting the number of marriage certificates that one could be granted? Would they be willing to impose a one marriage certificate law? For any future relations, (post divorce) previously married parties would enter, they would be granted civil union certificates. If it is the same as marriage, different sex couples should be fine with this and this way those who stayed married to their original partner would rightfully have the words marriage applied to their relationship. It would make marriage special and extremely unique!

Are the candidates open to raising the marriage age to let’s say 25? This would substantially cut down on diviorce. This would cause some religions problems. They oculd continue to offer marriage but the couples would not realize any of the benefits from the state until they reach 25 and were still married.

Why didn’t anyone ask the candidates about changing the divorce process and making it much harder? Divorce only helps to encourage promiscuity among married people (see Rudy Guiliani and third wife Judi). Would the candidates be willing to begin charging substantial fees for divorce proceedings to lessen the burden on tax payers? Currently all tax payers pay for someones divorce through the money that the courts receive and the cost is becoming a huge burden fincially. Why should I have to pay for the proceedings for some different sex couple who were never comittied in the first place. All this is is special rights that they want the electorate to subsidize and approve. Special rights are wrong!

Would the candidates be willing to begin enforcing the laws for adultery? Would Ms. Clinton be willing to have her husband do time for his adulterous actions? I would have loved to have heard her answer on this.

In some religions if a couple cannot procreate they are denied a marriage. Would the candidtaes be willing to campaign for those who cannot procrate to only get civil unions as well? Why do elderly couples who marry need marriage rights? They aren’t breeding and will have no children. They should be fine with this and accept a civil union form of relationship. It is the same as marriage right?

Where do the candidates stand on this concept of “blended families?” Why does society have to acept these “new” set ups? I thought you were to remain committed to your spouse and do everything you could to raise one family not a few? Isn’t that polygamy? Why do people who make commitments to each other and then raise a family have to explain why Johnny in their kids class, has two daddies who each have had their way with his mommy and mommy perfers a new daddy or in some cases both? What about those of us that stay committed to their original partner? What do the candidates have to say about this? Will first grade reading include “Johnny’s Mom Has Three Daddies with extra kiddies”?

It is time for the gay and lesbian community to change the debate. The debate should not be on gay marriage but who is allowed to be married and strengthing the current marraige laws. I think if we begin to change the dialogue, many individuals might begin to reconsider their opposition to gay marriage when the validity of their own relationship and status as well as benefits would be called into question.

Finally, to have people who want this discussion to go away to win the election have no morals at all. When society begins to treat a class of people differently it can only go down hill from there. In 1933, Hitler got the German people to treat a certain type of person differently and enacted laws to support that. It was wrong then and many people died becasue they remaind silent. I want a candidate who can say what they truly beleive and not what some poll or adviser says is what people want to hear.

He need’nt have to clarify as it would not make much diffrence to his single digit dormant ratings.

This is a super-long response to the superlong comment by Bunky (comment #2)

First, as a disclaimer, I happen to be a Republican and am one of those wishy-washy “okay, we’ll allow civil unions, but not marriage” types. I apologize beforehand for anything in my response that angers you. I was also born and raised in NYC and happen to actually like Rudy, so I also apologize if I defend him later on to your disliking. Also, sorry for the rambling.

Okay, here we go…

Upfront, I would like to say that I applaud the fact that you actually seem to understand that one of the underlying causes of some people’s reluctance to approve of gay marriage is that many people believe that marriage should lead to procreation. While this may be an unfair view, it is a widely held belief nevertheless. In undergrad, I took a sociology class about families, and when the professor asked all the students to draw a picture of one, it invariably had two or three children (and a dog too!). He went on to say that most people are under the impression that a family consists of children, and that often when a young couple are married, relatives will ask “when are you starting a family?” To many, marriage is not merely an end state, but a first step in a process, with the next step being procreation. My professor went on to say that young couples should answer “we’re already a family, just the two of us.” While that had an impact on me, I remain of the opinion that a family includes children.

I found some of your information quite interesting. The fact that some religions do not allow sterile individuals to marry, that’s news to me. I will say that if gays and lesbians aren’t allowed to marry because they cannot procreate, I would support only civil unions for sterile people are well. here’s the slight problem though. I happen to be a lawyer (i’ll admit i had horrible grades, but I passed two bars miraculously). In my first year advocacy class, my fake client was someone who was as drug addict who’s spouse went for an annulment due the drugs. New Jersey law allows annulment on that basis, saying that drug addicts cannot have sex (what anti-drug propaganda!) and therefore cannot fulfill marriage duties. I demanded an investigation, saying it wasn’t proven my client couldn’t “perform.” My professor said that the law doesn’t work that way. It is a presumption on the books that drug addicts can’t perform. That’s it. There are no individual investigations. That would be too burdensome for the court. Likewise, I believe the same could be said about sterility. Add to that new medical marvels of boosting sterility, and I doubt courts are going to touch something like that. It’s an interesting idea tho.

As for the elderly, I actually believe there’s no real reason for them to be married. (unless it’s one of those cheesy re-marriages like “will you marry me? again?” i guess that can be an exception.) It’s mean, but I’m a Republican, remember?

As for blended families, yes, it’s true that some conservatives consider blended families as “sequential polygamy” (as opposed to simultaneous polygamy). I actually see that argument. But nevertheless, I’m tempted to allow it. Your suggestion that perhaps a second marriage should only be deemed a “union” is an interesting twist. Frankly, I think it makes some sense. One question is this: would an offspring resulting from a “union” (which would otherwise be called a second marriage) be treated the same as from a marriage? Let’s not call them bastards now, cuz I would kinda cringe at that. I mean historically speaking, one of the main reasons people got married was so their children wouldn’t be bastards, right? I guess lovechild isn’t quite as offensive as bastard. Also, if one defines marriage as the first step in creating a family, I can’t see how you can deny a marriage certificate to a second marriage, especially if they plan to have children. What if there were no kids from the first marriage? Does that mean that a second marriage can now be entered into? I dunno. It’s all too confusing now. I guess I would say I would agree to a second marriage only being called a union if perhaps the second marriage were people in their elderly years. (going back to what I said above)

As for courts charging more for divorce, that is an interesting idea also. Although, courts are a public service. Invariably, there will always be some people who use public services while others pay for it. Childless people constantly complain that their taxes support school systems while people who actually have kids are given tax breaks! How fair is that? Courts play a role in society so disputes are settled without fistfights (hopefully). As such, it is the the burden of society, as a whole, to pay for court systems.

Next, as for the Rudy and his three marriages (third time’s the charm!), I’ll say I’m okay with it. Although, many conservatives do in fact think it should be much tougher to get a divorce. There’s even some kind of special marriage in Texas and other Southern states (i forget what the program is called), where it’s superhard to get a divorce and you have to go through like years of counseling to try to work things out before you can actually get a divorce. For me, divorce is acceptable, although not preferable. I believe in gay and lesbian civil unions because I believe in the premise that in the end, people cannot control who they love. It just happens. That’s what makes it so magical. So I also believe that a married man can fall out of love with his wife and fall in love with another woman. It’s just out of his control. Perhaps you are right in that a second marriage should only have status as a union, but I still think divorce should be allowed.

Finally, I know your questions were all rhetorical and you weren’t actually thinking someone would be mean enough to actually agree the statements, right? How could someone agree that sterile people shouldn’t get married? Or that second marriages should be unions only? Or that blended families are bad? Well, I actually do agree with those. (or, at the least, I see the argument). And I think a lot of conservatives actually believe those too. So in reality, the people that need to be convinced that gay marriage should be allowed, they’re not going to be convinced by all those things you brought up. I consider myself a moderate. God only knows what a real conservative would think.

They asked him 3 times, once saying “let me finish my question” and then again by saying something about “let’s clarify”. He certainly should have picked up that something was wrong!

Richardson got his foot caught in his mouth and wasn’t even able to wiggle it free. Richardson even stumbles over things he has conviction about! Some of his responses show a complete lack of understanding and it seems that he is attempting to answer the questions in these debates based solely on polls. (Ex. 1-Point plan to get out of Iraq???) The electorate is not stupid enough to fall for that. He hasn’t a prayer for the presidency.
Whether or not gay marriage is achievable has nothing at all to do with what is going on. The fact is, people are being denied civil rights. It would have been completely unacceptable for politicians to say that racial integration “is not achievable in (year x)” and therefore we should advocate the denial of civil rights until this time. This is absurd. What is hidden under all of this nonsensical talk is homophobia and ignorance–PLAIN AND SIMPLE. That’s why Richardson still has no clue even after his campaign staff told him he shouldn’t have responded that way. I’m voting for someone who can think for themselves.

If he said the Gay (aka Homosexuals) was a Choice I might of Voted for him. Romans Ch. 1 + book of Leviticus

A series of gaffle…showing the sole of his shoes in a meeting with Sadam….very poor manner for a so-called ambassador; then, trying to show how tough he will be with Cuba; should move with the Republican party.

Richardson really put his foot in his mouth. I do not think gay people should trust him about gay rights. My own feeling is that gay people do not choose to be gay. Considering the discrimination against gays in our society, I cannot see someone opting to face more difficulty in life by choice. It makes no sense to me. I think people are born gay.

One day medical science will probably unlock the answer(s) to why some people are gay.

I do understand why the Democrats do not want to come out in favor of gay marriage right now. It will kill them at election time. I do understand that gay people want the same rights and are frustrated/angry by the Democrats’ hesitation.

There probably will not be an end to discrimination towards gay people until attitudes change, and changing attitudes takes a long time.

There is no question in my mind that Governor Richardson was the loser at the debates. Listening to all the candidates who were there talk about gay marriage made it clear to me that gay marriage will not happen on a national basis in this country any time soon. The best we can look forward to is Federal civil unions legislation, as well as anti-discrimination laws in housing, employment, military service etc). But how many House and Senate Democrats and Republicans from the Old South would support abolishing the Defense of Marriage Act and Don’t Ask, Don’t tell? I’d say very few Democrats and probably no Republicans. You want marriage equality? Move to Canada.

Who the Hell cares if they were born that way or choose their lifestyle. The question is, do they have rights? Of course. Should they be allowed to marry? Absolutely not. “Civil partnership? OK.

I think that this is a tempest in a teacup–the truth about Bill Richardson is what he has done for all minorities in New Mexico–he stands for equal rights for all people–the important word is equal–he is also the only candidate on either side who would not arrive in DC with a train load of baggage and a plane load of lobbyists clamoring for his attention.

I voted for and worked for both Clinton/Gore campaigns–but I never felt comfortable with the DLC leading our party so far to the right–they called it reaching out or to the center–but it was all bad for the country and the party–

I remember how the party told Gore they wouldn’t support him in 2004 because –they didn’t want to put the country through a replay of 2000–even though the people wanted Gore to run again.

So why are they ordaining Hilary,who will arrive in the general election with boat loads of baggage?? I think it all goes back to those same old centrists who want the corporate hold on DC to continue. Why has the party supported this obscenely costly and way too early campaign?? I think it has cost the country more than dollars–but our attention is on debates like this one when out country and the worlds fate rests on who we put into DC.

This is the most important election of our lifetime and we have to put a candidate who can win and also can lead from the moment they arrive in DC. At this time there is only one person who can hit the ground running and that is Bill Richardson.

Perhaps you bloggers should check out your facts before you begin to spin the latest negative put out there by what we now have to call our press.Isn’t there room for checking what a candidate stands for before blindly attacking??

Just remember the swift boaters before you begin to attack.

Americans are against gay marriage and against gays and will fight them ’til the end.