HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Gender & Orientation » LGBT (Group) » Bernie Sanders 2006 - I o...

Fri Feb 5, 2016, 12:35 PM

 

Bernie Sanders 2006 - I oppose Gay Marriage

Once again our rights are being used as a political football, by both the left and the right. While late support is better than no support, the difference in timing by Clinton and Sanders as to when they "evolved" on whether gay Americans were worthy of equality isn't as sharp as Sanders and his supporters now portray it to be


But when Sanders was asked by a reporter whether Vermont should legalize same-sex marriage, he said no. “Not right now, not after what we went through,” he said.

That same year, Sanders was asked in a debate during his first run for the Senate about a Massachusetts state court decision that legalized gay marriage. The debate moderator wanted to know if Sanders thought the federal government should overturn that decision. He responded by talking about states’ rights, which is an argument often used by politicians who have argued against federal recognition of gay marriage as well.

“I believe the federal government should not be involved in overturning Massachusetts or any other state because I think the whole issue of marriage is a state issue,” Sanders said in the 2006 debate.


http://time.com/4089946/bernie-sanders-gay-marriage/

36 replies, 4277 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 36 replies Author Time Post
Reply Bernie Sanders 2006 - I oppose Gay Marriage (Original post)
dbackjon Feb 2016 OP
nichomachus Feb 2016 #1
dbackjon Feb 2016 #2
Fearless Feb 2016 #12
Betty Karlson Feb 2016 #7
dlwickham Feb 2016 #3
xocet Feb 2016 #4
dbackjon Feb 2016 #5
xocet Feb 2016 #6
Smarmie Doofus Feb 2016 #8
dbackjon Feb 2016 #9
Fearless Feb 2016 #11
dbackjon Feb 2016 #14
Fearless Feb 2016 #16
Post removed Feb 2016 #21
Fearless Feb 2016 #24
highprincipleswork Feb 2016 #28
Warren DeMontague Feb 2016 #29
Fearless Feb 2016 #10
dbackjon Feb 2016 #20
Fearless Feb 2016 #23
Bohunk68 Feb 2016 #34
Bagsgroove Feb 2016 #13
dbackjon Feb 2016 #15
Fearless Feb 2016 #17
dbackjon Feb 2016 #19
Fearless Feb 2016 #25
Smarmie Doofus Feb 2016 #18
Bagsgroove Feb 2016 #22
Fearless Feb 2016 #26
Hydra Feb 2016 #27
Hissyspit Feb 2016 #30
HassleCat Feb 2016 #31
m-lekktor Feb 2016 #32
berniepdx420 Feb 2016 #33
Smarmie Doofus Feb 2016 #35
LostOne4Ever Feb 2016 #36

Response to dbackjon (Original post)

Fri Feb 5, 2016, 12:38 PM

1. Read your own quote

He said "not right now." This in in contrast to Hillary's blanket condemnation of same-sex marriage as being against the laws of God and nature.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nichomachus (Reply #1)

Fri Feb 5, 2016, 12:41 PM

2. They both evolved

 

He opposed it until 2009.


He opposed a Supreme Court ruling making it legal nationwide.

Under a Sanders Court, I still would be denied marriage equality.



And can you provide a source for your claim?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dbackjon (Reply #2)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 02:33 AM

12. That is false.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nichomachus (Reply #1)

Sat Feb 6, 2016, 03:47 PM

7. "not right now" is very different from "never, because marriage is between man and woman"

 

Let's face it: Clinton has had a problem with gay people. She was horribly wrong, and prejudiced. She was on the wrong side of history for too long.

(Sanders, by contrast, was always sure to listen to the HRC and other gay rights advocates on how to help them.)

And since I can't find a single photo of Clinton with a gay family, I very much doubt that her problem has gone away. She is just trying to hide it by giving gay people (separate) frames in her carefully triangulated campaign videos.

(Sanders, by contrast, had his picture taken with a bear couple - one in a dress - right after his campaign announcement.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dbackjon (Original post)

Fri Feb 5, 2016, 01:00 PM

3. Thanks for posting this

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dbackjon (Original post)

Fri Feb 5, 2016, 01:44 PM

4. Did he actually state what your title indicates that he said? If so, can you provide link, please?

n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to xocet (Reply #4)

Fri Feb 5, 2016, 02:24 PM

5. It's right there in the OP

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dbackjon (Reply #5)

Fri Feb 5, 2016, 07:52 PM

6. Sorry. That is not what the text in the OP reads. Please provide a link to Sen. Sanders saying

exactly (i.e., verbatim) what your title claims he says.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dbackjon (Original post)

Sat Feb 6, 2016, 08:20 PM

8. Did he say "Marriage is a sacred bond between a man and a woman."

 

Or anything that implied or suggested that lgbt relationships were intrinsically less worthy than those of straight people?

If he did, please provide a link... otherwise you should seriously consider deleting this entire thread.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Smarmie Doofus (Reply #8)

Sat Feb 6, 2016, 09:31 PM

9. It's right there in the link

 

Sanders opposed gay marriage.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dbackjon (Reply #9)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 02:32 AM

11. He DID NOT. He supported PRESERVING MARRIAGE EQUALITY IN MASSACHUSETTS

In 2006 the federal amendment murmur was going through Congress. The actual amendment was not yet tabled. WE COULD HAVE LOST EVERYTHING if we as a movement pushed for federal recognition in 2006 BEFORE the country was ready.

WE THE LGBT MOVEMENT used the states rights argument to PRESERVE our gains in 2006.

Bernie Sanders was following OUR lead.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fearless (Reply #11)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 02:00 PM

14. States rights is a right wing argument

 

Trying to justify something that cannot be justified

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dbackjon (Reply #14)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 02:02 PM

16. States rights is the argument the LGBT movement used to protect itself

Your generalizations are not only errant but absurd.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fearless (Reply #16)


Response to Post removed (Reply #21)

Mon Feb 8, 2016, 03:03 AM

24. This is false.

Also see post 23.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Post removed (Reply #21)

Mon Feb 8, 2016, 03:11 AM

28. Unfortunately it is your argument that is hard to understand, because it doesn't hold up.

 

Nowhere in anything you have posted is there anything that says Sanders "opposed" gay marriage. Those are your words.

Perhaps you oppose gay marriage.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dbackjon (Reply #14)

Mon Feb 8, 2016, 03:21 AM

29. So because "States Rights" are bad, we should let the feds arrest medical & recreational pot smokers

in states that have legalized it?

News Flash: That's "STATES RIGHTS", Jack.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dbackjon (Original post)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 02:30 AM

10. Jesus fucking Christ how many times do I have to explain this fucking statement???

The LGBT movement in 2006 DID NOT want a federal marriage amendment to come up... It had ALREADY BEEN PROPOSED and not yet tabled. WE... THE LGBT MOVEMENT... used the states rights argument to PRESERVE the gains we made because we could LOSE EVERYTHING if we moved to the federal level too quickly. Bernie Sanders was following along with that path WE were taking.

FULL STOP.

Any questions?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fearless (Reply #10)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 03:14 PM

20. You were clueless you have no idea what was going on into thousand six we'd already gotten married t

 

There was no threat of the federal marriage amendment then as there was a 1996


Sanders oppose gay marriage in Vermont he opposed Dona only because of the states rights issue


How fucking hard is that to comprehend that get off the blind center support him look at reality

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dbackjon (Reply #20)

Mon Feb 8, 2016, 02:18 AM

23. That is false.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dbackjon (Reply #20)

Mon Feb 8, 2016, 07:34 AM

34. I was opposed to DOMA, having helped organize just a few years before

the March on Washington for our rights. I saw it as a travesty and a pandering to the right wing. The excuse that the Rethugs would have come back with something worse is buying into the Clinton "we can't do it" bullshit. They would've easily passed DOMA over his veto. Hillary went along with it while Bernie voted against it. How hard is that to comprehend?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dbackjon (Original post)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 01:03 PM

13. Does it matter that much when people "evolved?"

I remember the gay marriage question being asked to the Democratic primary candidates as a group during a 2008 debate. At the time the field included Obama, Clinton, Biden, Dodd, Edwards and Kucinich. With only one exception, they all said no. They supported "civil unions" but not marriage. That was the standard Democratic party compromise position at the time. (The only exception in that debate was Dennis Kucinich.)

Sanders saying "not right now" is not at all the same as saying "I oppose gay marriage." Using that as the headline for this thread should qualify someone for a job at Fox News.

But in the end it doesn't much matter who got there first. The country got there before any of our "leaders." All of them (excepting maybe Kucinich) have been following behind public opinion on this.

I'm a Sanders guy, but on gay issues I don't think there'd be any difference at all between Sanders and Clinton. On the other hand, the difference between either Democrat and any Republican would be huge. I hope to be able to vote for Bernie in November, but I'll have no problem pulling the lever for Hillary if it turns out that way.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bagsgroove (Reply #13)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 02:01 PM

15. And that was my point

 

Both used to oppose it

Both now support it

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dbackjon (Reply #15)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 02:03 PM

17. Bernie did not oppose equal rights for lgbters.

You are wrong. You are shilling for Hillary and making up false smears to make her look better.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fearless (Reply #17)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 03:12 PM

19. He most certainly did

 

Just because you want something to be that doesn't mean you can rewrite history

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dbackjon (Reply #19)

Mon Feb 8, 2016, 03:04 AM

25. False.

And see post 23.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bagsgroove (Reply #13)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 02:41 PM

18. Seems to me that's not the question.

 

>>>But in the end it doesn't much matter who got there first.>>>>

It's not a question of chronology.

It's a question of principle.

OP makes a scattered case that Sanders wavered in his support for "gay marriage" at various points in time for .... what the article itself describes as........ essentially *tactical* reasons. ( "Not right now." Not after what they'd , i.e. Vermont had "just been through."

Nowhere... not in the article OP links to, nor anywhere else.... does he provide a link or a quote that indicates that Sanders.... UNLIKE CLINTON... was philosophically and ideologically opposed to marriage equality. Ever.

"I believe marriage is a sacred bond between a man and a woman." Clinton said it, apparently believed it ( maybe still does but won't say it out loud.) and reiterated it periodically.

Sanders said nothing of the kind, as far as I know. Ever. ( Hence the request for a link.)

OP.... whether he/she realizes it or not... is putting forth a false equivalency argument.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Smarmie Doofus (Reply #18)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 04:30 PM

22. I'm mostly with you here, I think

As a question of principle, I agree with you. A candidate who changes positions is suspect not because they've changed their mind, but when it appears that their "mind change" is simply a matter of political positioning. And there's no question that Bernie moving from "not right now" to support of marriage equality is nothing like the politically convenient evolution Hillary made from "sacred bond between a man and a woman" to her current support of marriage equality. (It's also true that Barack Obama's evolution on gay marriage seemed to move step-by-agonizing-step with Mr. Gallup's numbers, and the final step in that evolution only happened after support in the country finally topped 50%.)

Hillary has a fairly long record of evolving in in line with with opinion polls on any number of issues. So yeah, as a question of principle and a measure of honesty and character, it matters. The fact that Bernie has been, at least relatively speaking, a whole lot more consistent in his positions is one of the reasons I like him and trust him more than Hillary.

But in the pragmatic sense of "how would these candidates differ on gay issues as President?" I'll stick with, "in the end it doesn't much matter who got there first." There are plenty of issues where I do see a significant difference between Clinton and Sanders. Gay rights just isn't one of them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Smarmie Doofus (Reply #18)

Mon Feb 8, 2016, 03:07 AM

26. The latter quotation comes from a debate he had in Vermont and his response given

I had posted the video here a while back to give it's full context...

Literally that we had to be cautious about bringing marriage equality to the federal level before it was time, lest we cause a constitutional amendment against it to crop up again. Hell even up til the SJC ruling last year we were still worried that it was too soon that we had moved to quickly. Thankfully we succeeded.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dbackjon (Original post)

Mon Feb 8, 2016, 03:10 AM

27. I miss Unrec n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hydra (Reply #27)

Mon Feb 8, 2016, 03:24 AM

30. That's what I was just about to post.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dbackjon (Original post)

Mon Feb 8, 2016, 03:28 AM

31. Perhaps you didn't notice

 

But you just explained how Sanders both opposed and supported gay marriage. He favored civil unions at the time, a position I share, and still support to this day. I do not believe states should issue marriage licenses to gays or lesbians. I do not believe states should issue marriage licenses to straight couples. I do not believe states should issue marriage licenses to anyone. I believe states should recognize civil unions between any two persons of legal age. If those persons want to get married, they may do so in whatever church or other venue they desire.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dbackjon (Original post)

Mon Feb 8, 2016, 03:29 AM

32. Pushing this garbage spin again I see

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dbackjon (Original post)

Mon Feb 8, 2016, 03:54 AM

33. This is a thinly veiled failed attempt at a hit piece...

DU readers... read the article... it's a bait and switch on critical points throughout... weak and misleading at best... and against such a thoughtful consistent kind human like Bernie... desperation from the establishment/Clintons

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dbackjon (Original post)

Mon Feb 8, 2016, 03:31 PM

35. Wow. 33 replies. I haven't seen this sleepy little nook get so worked up since....

 

.... I dunno ..... since "marriage" became the preeminent lgbt issue.

I give ya' credit for THAT, anyway.

(Seems like the ONLY issue sometimes. Now that I think about it.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dbackjon (Original post)

Thu Feb 11, 2016, 02:23 AM

36. This type of lying revisionist history is just makes me and my generation (X/Y) support Bernie more

[font style="font-family:'Georgia','Baskerville Old Face','Helvetica',fantasy;" size=4 color=#009999]You really should be ashamed of yourself for lying about one of the true allies of LGBTQ community.[/font]

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread