In prez race, civil unions are still progress

[kweerwolf]

Is U.S. Sen. Russ Feingold the new Howard Dean?

Feingold, a Wisconsin Democrat, announced on April 4 that he supports marriage equality for same-sex couples. This makes Feingold only the fourth U.S. senator to take such a stand, joining Sens. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) and Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) as well as Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island, this group's only Republican.

What makes Feingold, who is mulling a 2008 presidential run, akin to former Vt. Gov. Howard Dean, who ran in 2004, is not their position on this issue - Dean, after all, has only gone so far as to support civil unions - but the way community leaders have reacted. Gay groups practically anointed Feingold as the candidate to support.

"Sen. Feingold's public support for marriage fairness is the type of leadership this country so desperately needs and deserves," Human Rights Campaign President Joe Solmonese said in a release.

http://www.innewsweekly.com/innews/?class_code=Op&article_code=1645&PHPSESSID=d4e567aaea1a0cb25008b11cc3025aa4

[ruggerson]

1. I like Russ a lot

but if the Presidential race came down to a candidate who supported marriage rights, but could not defeat the Republican or a candidate who merely supported civil unions, but was more likely to be electable in the fall, I'd support candidate B.

The Supreme Court is far too important for a whole host of issues to get hung up on purity on one specific one. I don't want any Republican president appointing any more justices in my lifetime, if I can help it.

Maybe I'm too pragmatic, but winning back the WH is more important to me than the speed with which we gain full marriage rights. (I am very confident we will have full rights, as newer generations take power over time).

[homaffectional]

10. Feingold is *MORE* electable...

not less because he supports equal marriage rights.

I'm not disputing what you say above (in terms of Feingold being 'electable' or not -- I personally think he is so electable, that he could even beat his partner in the 'campaign finance' legislation -- John McCain -- in a close contest, but I could be wrong), but I'm getting a little weary of this zero-sum game we seem to be playing that whenever someone supports marriage rights, someone has to say 'well, that's great, but they can't win'. I might surprise you by saying more people than you would ever imagine in Ohio, Florida, Iowa, New Mexico, and other key battleground states didn't bother to vote for John Kerry because they perceived his stance on things like the war and marriage equality to be identical to that of Bush's, even if that was not the case.

The sad thing is... it tends to be the bluer states where the most progressive of the electorate that will still consider voting "D" and not third party, become "Yellow Dogs" and vote for a presidential candidate that would win Blue State 'X' with or without and the purpler states, where the "D" could use every vote he can get, where people take issue w/one particular fault w/the Democratic candidate, like he (or she) can't go on record supporting full marriage rights, when if anything we need it to be exactly the other way around... and people generally wonder why Democrats can't win...

[GodlessBiker]

2. The article is unclear. Marriage fairness? Does that mean that ...

Feingold supports the right of gay people to get married?

[Siyahamba]

3. Yes, Russ supports full marriage equality.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060404/ap_on_go_co/feingold_gay_marriage_1

:)

[Guy Fawkes]

4. While his state is working to ban it...

Wisconsin, the first state to guarantee protection in housing for sexual orientation- a generally progressive state- is considering banning same sex marriage. Never mind that we don't have it in the first place, Wisconsin legislators just want to rally their bigoted uber-conservative base.
:cry:

[sui generis]

5. that's actually good news

That means that the bigots are making it an issue, not Feingold, and Feingold is savvy enough and articulate enough to make them look like petty little idiots, instead of being a mush mouth about it like most every other Democratic candidate on the topic.

Even Dean had the balls to come to a private fundraiser in a private home here in Dallas and give a speech to the dinner table about why he supported civil unions instead of marriage, and displayed extraordinary teflon on the topic, but not really leadership, on the topic.

At the time I was disappointed, but optimistic, and I let him make the case that steady progress would win the race. We've given that some time to mull over now - it doesn't work. If you're going to seek political leadership in this country, you had better be able to talk about this topic effectively and then lead your detractors on to other business. Not "more important" business, just the rest of the business of this nation, of which legal equality for all Americans is a topic.

[Guy Fawkes]

6. I'm not sure Fiengold has done anything...

in state about gay rights. He seemingly spends most of his time in Washington, working on national issues.

[Lisaben2619]

7. He's been speaking out against the state ban on civil unions

at the lostening sessions that he holds around the state of Wisconsin. One of these is where he stated his support for full marriage equality. I know people can be suprised when a Democrat has a spine, but Senator Feingold is the real deal. If that gives him aDean-like grassroots support, it will be interesting to watch how hard Hillary and the Hawks will try to take him down.

[Guy Fawkes]

8. thanks...

the local rag doesn't have *news*. And their extrememly racist/homophobic/anti-semitic.

[dsc]

12. He started off as a state rep or senator

I don't know his record then but presumedly you could find out. He was in that position until 1992 not sure the exact number of years.

[pnwmom]

9. The editorial's conclusion:

http://www.innewsweekly.com/innews/?class_code=Op&article_code=1645&PHPSESSID=d4e567aaea1a0cb25008b11cc3025aa4

"At the same time, gay and lesbian Americans should not discount supporting Clinton, or any other candidate for that matter, just because she supports civil unions for same-sex couples instead of full marriage equality.

Yes, civil unions are separate but equal, which is not true equality. But it is progress nonetheless - just look at the examples of Vermont and Connecticut. To have a president who openly supports civil unions would be a breakthrough. That was true four years ago when so many gays - including this newspaper - supported Dean. And the same is true today.

All Americans, gay or straight, have the right and the privilege to support whichever candidate they prefer. But be smart and politically astute about that choice. Don't disregard a candidate only because he or she only goes so far as civil unions.

Can Feingold win against a Republican in the red states? Can Clinton? We have over two years to figure that out. In the meantime, using full marriage equality as a litmus test for support will not advance the issue if the end result is another anti-gay Republican in the White House. •

[davidinalameda]

13. I think that Feingold has a better chance than Hill does

I think my cat has a better chance than Hill does

[TechBear_Seattle]

11. I don't just want a seat on the bus

I want a seat up front. Unless I have that option, I will continue to walk.