Warren on Gay Marriage

[fromderinside]

Does it really matter who threw the softball? Warren felt she needed to be on record on this issue.

 

[Toni]

By the way, the guy in the audience who asked the question was Morgan Cox, one of Elizabeth Warren's corporate megadonors. In other words, it was staged. Welcome back to 2016.

Morgan Cox is on the board of HRC. It would make sense that he would donate to candidates who he felt were supportive of LGBTQ issues. That doesn't make the question 'staged.'

BTW, how much did Cox donate to Bernie, that champion of LGBTQ rights?

 

[Rhea]

1983 if not earlier

Citation?

1983 was the year I first lost a friend to aids. I don’t recall any politician talking about marriage. Maybe I’m wrong. Show me?

 

[Rhea]

As Gay Rights Ally, Bernie Sanders Wasn’t Always in Vanguard
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/28/...-bernie-sanders-wasnt-always-in-vanguard.html


He liked his gay friends in 1983,

On June 24, 1983, Mr. Sanders approved a resolution proclaiming June 25 to be Gay Pride Day, writing, “In a free society we must all be committed to the mutual respect of each others lifestyles.”

But it wasn’t a full-throated roar for gay marriage, by any stretch. Because later,

In November 2000, just before Election Day, Mr. Sanders and the state’s two senators accompanied Robert T. Stafford, the 87-year-old Republican elder statesman, to a news conference where Mr. Stafford asked, “What is the harm?” in allowing gay unions. When it came time for Mr. Sanders to speak, he deplored the demonization of gay people but complained that the virulent opposition to civil unions diverted attention from prescription drug costs, health care and other economic issues.

“There are a dozen other issues out there that are as important or more important as that issue,” he said.
[...]

In 2006, Mr. Sanders, trying to make the leap into the Senate, seemed to shy away from the issue. Asked in a debate against his Republican opponent whether the federal government should overturn laws on same-sex marriage, he argued that it was a states’ rights issue. When asked by a reporter whether Vermont should legalize same-sex marriage, he said, “Not right now, not after what we went through.”

 

[Toni]

As Gay Rights Ally, Bernie Sanders Wasn’t Always in Vanguard
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/28/...-bernie-sanders-wasnt-always-in-vanguard.html


He liked his gay friends in 1983,

On June 24, 1983, Mr. Sanders approved a resolution proclaiming June 25 to be Gay Pride Day, writing, “In a free society we must all be committed to the mutual respect of each others lifestyles.”

But it wasn’t a full-throated roar for gay marriage, by any stretch. Because later,

In November 2000, just before Election Day, Mr. Sanders and the state’s two senators accompanied Robert T. Stafford, the 87-year-old Republican elder statesman, to a news conference where Mr. Stafford asked, “What is the harm?” in allowing gay unions. When it came time for Mr. Sanders to speak, he deplored the demonization of gay people but complained that the virulent opposition to civil unions diverted attention from prescription drug costs, health care and other economic issues.

“There are a dozen other issues out there that are as important or more important as that issue,” he said.
[...]

In 2006, Mr. Sanders, trying to make the leap into the Senate, seemed to shy away from the issue. Asked in a debate against his Republican opponent whether the federal government should overturn laws on same-sex marriage, he argued that it was a states’ rights issue. When asked by a reporter whether Vermont should legalize same-sex marriage, he said, “Not right now, not after what we went through.”

Those are articles I found as well. I don't fault Sanders for not being with the present day times 36 years ago. We all know him as a progressive. As far as I can remember, there was no talk of gay marriage in the 80's by anyone.

 

[PyramidHead]

1983 if not earlier

Really? I’d be very interested in a link demonstrating that.

I got my issues mixed up actually, 1983 was when he advocated for gay pride in Vermont. He was writing letters to Nixon saying that all discriminatory laws against gay people (including presumably their right to marry) should be repealed in 1972.

 

[PyramidHead]

As Gay Rights Ally, Bernie Sanders Wasn’t Always in Vanguard
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/28/...-bernie-sanders-wasnt-always-in-vanguard.html


He liked his gay friends in 1983,


But it wasn’t a full-throated roar for gay marriage, by any stretch. Because later,

Those are articles I found as well. I don't fault Sanders for not being with the present day times 36 years ago. We all know him as a progressive. As far as I can remember, there was no talk of gay marriage in the 80's by anyone.

Since you brought up Sanders in this thread to draw a comparison to Warren, which of the two do you think has been a more consistent advocate for gay rights?

 

[PyramidHead]

By the way, the guy in the audience who asked the question was Morgan Cox, one of Elizabeth Warren's corporate megadonors. In other words, it was staged. Welcome back to 2016.

Morgan Cox is on the board of HRC. It would make sense that he would donate to candidates who he felt were supportive of LGBTQ issues.

HRC voted for DOMA. It's not about LGBTQ issues.

BTW, how much did Cox donate to Bernie, that champion of LGBTQ rights?

Probably nothing because he's rich? Is that some kind of gotcha?

 

[PyramidHead]

On literally every issue you people claim to care about as "progressives", there is no comparison to be made between Bernie and Liz that doesn't put Bernie miles ahead and decades before Liz and everybody else. If you really care about these issues, join the movement that backs the most consistent and principled advocate for them.

 

[fromderinside]

Bernie's been a senator for decades. Elizabeth is still working on her first decade. Bernie as positions but he has no plan that will pay for them and he's been at it forever. Elizabeth has a good plan for each proposal that looks like they'll pay for what she proposes. Plus she's out organized the pros by orders of magnitude. the financial sector are scared of her with good reason. She'll reign them in again. She's a social democrat bernie is actually a socialist who wants to remove the insurance industry from health care with no plan to accommodate the disruption that would cause.

I'm all for better healthcare but we're on trajectory to have a capitalistic social program like many in the EU, not one that owns the industry. I see no reason why insurance companies can't participate in a single payer plan like medicare.

Competence over ideology every time.

 

[Jarhyn]

Bernie's been a senator for decades. Elizabeth is still working on her first decade. Bernie as positions but he has no plan that will pay for them and he's been at it forever. Elizabeth has a good plan for each proposal that looks like they'll pay for what she proposes. Plus she's out organized the pros by orders of magnitude. the financial sector are scared of her with good reason. She'll reign them in again. She's a social democrat bernie is actually a socialist who wants to remove the insurance industry from health care with no plan to accommodate the disruption that would cause.

I'm all for better healthcare but we're on trajectory to have a capitalistic social program like many in the EU, not one that owns the industry. I see no reason why insurance companies can't participate in a single payer plan like medicare.

Competence over ideology every time.

I fully support the violent disruption of the health insurance industry. They have been rent seeking on human lives since the industry first started.

This said, I agree that Warren is generally the most competent.

To make an analogy here, I have a friend. Let's call him S. S has, all his life, been pretty far left. He was left when we were kids, and he's now involved in politics as a democrat. I think he may have even won an election or two. The point is, he has more "experience" in politics than I do, and bangs on the same drum as Bernie, at about the same volume.

Thing is, S is, and always has been, an idiot. He doesn't think things through, and his arguments often go into spin and talking points. I do not respect his political positions, correct as they may be, because he believes them religiously rather than coming to them with hard-fought reason through the battlefield of doubt.

Bernie strikes me as much the same: he has always echoed the message of the far left, which is a correct message... But he comes to it with his heart, only seeing the destination he believes in.

Warren, well, she's more like me. She had some beliefs, positions, and actions that she started to doubt. As a product of that doubt, did her best to ask what right really looked like. She moved left, and kept moving. And as a result of that movement, she learned and understands her position. She has not been in her position as long, but she understands it much better. She sees that it isn't just about where you think you should be, but also about making a real plan to get there.

To that end, I support Warren. Because I think Bernie is blinded in his own beliefs, much like my friend S. Warren is clearly not blinded by belief, but sees with eyes of doubt.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Bernie's been a senator for decades. Elizabeth is still working on her first decade. Bernie as positions but he has no plan that will pay for them and he's been at it forever. Elizabeth has a good plan for each proposal that looks like they'll pay for what she proposes. Plus she's out organized the pros by orders of magnitude. the financial sector are scared of her with good reason. She'll reign them in again. She's a social democrat bernie is actually a socialist who wants to remove the insurance industry from health care with no plan to accommodate the disruption that would cause.

I'm all for better healthcare but we're on trajectory to have a capitalistic social program like many in the EU, not one that owns the industry. I see no reason why insurance companies can't participate in a single payer plan like medicare.

Competence over ideology every time.

How does the public benefit by "reigning them in again"? Most people need loans to buy a house, buy a car, finance working capital for a company, and etc. How does it help to make it more difficult to get loans? Would it be better to prevent another banking collapse. Absolutely. But she seems to be more intent on just hurting banks. And that will hurt all of us.

 

[ronburgundy]

Either way, coming from a liberal, it's a pathetically lukewarm response. #appeasement

Fundy: "Real Marriage^TM is between a (real) man and a (real) woman.
Warren : "That's nice"

It's a perfect response that frame the issue the only way it should be framed, a matter of personal choice where no one has any say on anyone's marriage but their own.

If you believe marriage is X, they you should make your own marriage X and that is the only relevance your belief has.

Yes, it's become the standard goto rebuttal used by the liberal left for everything.

Don't like abortion? Don't have one.
Don't like same sex marriage? Don't have one.

But notice how this doesn't work in both directions.

Don't think climate change is a problem? Fine. Ignore Greta Thunberg.
Gun stockpiling? Where's the problem. Nobody is forcing you to own guns.
Uncomfortable with fluid gender theory? Easy - you don't have to accept non-binary pronouns.

I realize that authoritarians (aka Theists) like yourself have no concept of morality based upon causing harm to other persons rather than based on the arbitrary will of your sky master, but that is the ethical basis for the distinction between those two things.

Climate change is global, thus anything that increases it effects harm all other people.
Guns are the #1 weapon used in murder and almost all guns used in murders were funneled through the legal gun market, so the legal gun market harms everyone.
Gender pronouns are on a different scale, b/c there is no direct harm to which pronouns are used. However, the scientific reality is that some people's brain biology doesn't align with the genitalia used as the sole basis to assign gender pronouns at birth. And, it helps those people's psychological health if they are called by what they prefer, so it makes you an asshole not to do so when asked.

Same sex marriage only impact the couple, so no moral implications, except for fascist authoritarians like yourself who think morality is doing whatever your imaginary god wants.

Fetuses are not persons and when left to "nature"most of them don't live to become persons. They lack the essential defining property of of and individual not being subsumed inside the body of an already existing person. That actual person, the mother, is severely harmed by being robbed of the most fundamental right on which all other human rights rest, control over their own body. So, abortion restrictions inherently harm people, and thus are immoral. Even if the fetus is granted some degree of moral status, that would change that robbing a women's ability to control what happens inside their body is immoral. It would just mean that you would judge getting an abortion as immorral, while still rejecting any law that makes it criminal.

 

[ronburgundy]

On literally every issue you people claim to care about as "progressives", there is no comparison to be made between Bernie and Liz that doesn't put Bernie miles ahead and decades before Liz and everybody else. If you really care about these issues, join the movement that backs the most consistent and principled advocate for them.

You've provided zero evidence that Bernie is at all ahead of Liz on LGBT issues. Plus, any person who actually cares about those issues and the people impacted wouldn't give flying fuck which one went on record first as being pro gay marriage. What matters is their actual policies and the sincerity of their current stated views. And like almost all other issues, Liz's LGBT platform is at least if not more thorough, thought out, and sensible than what Bernie has presented. And Liz has fought consistently for the LGBT community since she entered political office.

 

[Lion IRC]

...I realize that authoritarians (aka Theists) like yourself have no concept of morality based upon causing harm to other person

Well, clearly you DONT have any understanding of what theists like me say about the undeniable immorality of harming others. Neither do you seem to understand that when you make (authoritarian) brute fact claims of your own about the status of an unborn human being, what you are in fact doing is reducing bioethics to the level of subjective personal opinion. Random dude on the Internet said abortion is OK. Well so effing what? I can gainsay that opinion in a nanosecond and I don't even need to invoke divinity because your opinion carries no more or less weight than any of the other several billion human primates wandering around planet earth.

If you don't like global warming stop using fossil fuels. Don't like climate skeptics? Don't be one. But good luck convincing all those people who think that, (because plants like carbon dioxide,) as carbon dioxide levels increase, so does the amount of vegetation and crop yields will go up. If we could grow field crops in Greenland and Siberia would it be worth enduring more flooding in Pakistan and Bangladesh?

You're quick to label me a fascist but I'm not the one advocating you pay higher taxes to fund my "ought statement" ideologies. Abortion 'ought' to be taxpayer funded. Carbon 'ought' to be taxed so that Elon Musk can get even richer.

 

[Lion IRC]

ronburgundy wrote : "If you believe marriage is X, then you should make your own marriage X
...and that is the only relevance your belief has."

See?
Your own views about marriage. Your own views about climate change. Your own views about abortion.

 

[PyramidHead]

Bernie's been a senator for decades. Elizabeth is still working on her first decade. Bernie as positions but he has no plan that will pay for them and he's been at it forever. Elizabeth has a good plan for each proposal that looks like they'll pay for what she proposes. Plus she's out organized the pros by orders of magnitude. the financial sector are scared of her with good reason. She'll reign them in again. She's a social democrat bernie is actually a socialist who wants to remove the insurance industry from health care with no plan to accommodate the disruption that would cause.

I'm all for better healthcare but we're on trajectory to have a capitalistic social program like many in the EU, not one that owns the industry. I see no reason why insurance companies can't participate in a single payer plan like medicare.

Competence over ideology every time.

Totally false on all counts. Bernie's plans are detailed and comprehensive and budgeted, no matter how many times people repeat what you just said about them. It's Warren who has no implementation plan, because she includes no role for popular pressure and mass protest, which are the only things that can force change in our broken system. She just thinks everyone in Congress will grow a conscience and vote for her wonderful plans once she's elected.

 

[PyramidHead]

On literally every issue you people claim to care about as "progressives", there is no comparison to be made between Bernie and Liz that doesn't put Bernie miles ahead and decades before Liz and everybody else. If you really care about these issues, join the movement that backs the most consistent and principled advocate for them.

You've provided zero evidence that Bernie is at all ahead of Liz on LGBT issues. Plus, any person who actually cares about those issues and the people impacted wouldn't give flying fuck which one went on record first as being pro gay marriage. What matters is their actual policies and the sincerity of their current stated views. And like almost all other issues, Liz's LGBT platform is at least if not more thorough, thought out, and sensible than what Bernie has presented. And Liz has fought consistently for the LGBT community since she entered political office.

In what ways is it more well-thought out? Is it the part where she doesn't abolish at-will employment, which would allow employers to fire someone for being LGBTQ no matter what other reforms are in place?

 

[Toni]

Bernie's been a senator for decades. Elizabeth is still working on her first decade. Bernie as positions but he has no plan that will pay for them and he's been at it forever. Elizabeth has a good plan for each proposal that looks like they'll pay for what she proposes. Plus she's out organized the pros by orders of magnitude. the financial sector are scared of her with good reason. She'll reign them in again. She's a social democrat bernie is actually a socialist who wants to remove the insurance industry from health care with no plan to accommodate the disruption that would cause.

I'm all for better healthcare but we're on trajectory to have a capitalistic social program like many in the EU, not one that owns the industry. I see no reason why insurance companies can't participate in a single payer plan like medicare.

Competence over ideology every time.

How does the public benefit by "reigning them in again"? Most people need loans to buy a house, buy a car, finance working capital for a company, and etc. How does it help to make it more difficult to get loans? Would it be better to prevent another banking collapse. Absolutely. But she seems to be more intent on just hurting banks. And that will hurt all of us.

I think that regulation of all industries helps. Lenders sometimes have predatory loan practices, most recently demonstrated in the last housing/economic crisis in 2008. Any business who primarily serves the needs of the stockholder rather than the needs of its customer base and community is prone to ignoring the needs of the customer and community and engaging in predatory or otherwise misleading and harmful practices.

 

[PyramidHead]

Bernie's been a senator for decades. Elizabeth is still working on her first decade. Bernie as positions but he has no plan that will pay for them and he's been at it forever. Elizabeth has a good plan for each proposal that looks like they'll pay for what she proposes. Plus she's out organized the pros by orders of magnitude. the financial sector are scared of her with good reason. She'll reign them in again. She's a social democrat bernie is actually a socialist who wants to remove the insurance industry from health care with no plan to accommodate the disruption that would cause.

I'm all for better healthcare but we're on trajectory to have a capitalistic social program like many in the EU, not one that owns the industry. I see no reason why insurance companies can't participate in a single payer plan like medicare.

Competence over ideology every time.

I fully support the violent disruption of the health insurance industry. They have been rent seeking on human lives since the industry first started.

This said, I agree that Warren is generally the most competent.

To make an analogy here, I have a friend. Let's call him S. S has, all his life, been pretty far left. He was left when we were kids, and he's now involved in politics as a democrat. I think he may have even won an election or two. The point is, he has more "experience" in politics than I do, and bangs on the same drum as Bernie, at about the same volume.

Thing is, S is, and always has been, an idiot. He doesn't think things through, and his arguments often go into spin and talking points. I do not respect his political positions, correct as they may be, because he believes them religiously rather than coming to them with hard-fought reason through the battlefield of doubt.

Bernie strikes me as much the same: he has always echoed the message of the far left, which is a correct message... But he comes to it with his heart, only seeing the destination he believes in.

Warren, well, she's more like me. She had some beliefs, positions, and actions that she started to doubt. As a product of that doubt, did her best to ask what right really looked like. She moved left, and kept moving. And as a result of that movement, she learned and understands her position. She has not been in her position as long, but she understands it much better. She sees that it isn't just about where you think you should be, but also about making a real plan to get there.

To that end, I support Warren. Because I think Bernie is blinded in his own beliefs, much like my friend S. Warren is clearly not blinded by belief, but sees with eyes of doubt.

Jarhyn, you're smarter than this. If someone started supporting a populist, progressive position right around the time they started gunning for public office, rather than gunning for public office because they've always supported the progressive position, there is a 100% chance that any legislation they propose and/or enact once elected will be watered down and ineffectual. You're shilling for the status quo here and ducking out of a historic moment that requires uncompromising principles, not vague epithets.

To look at this comparison from several decades ago, and contort your moral compass to somehow have the person on the right coming out ahead because she "sees with eyes of doubt" is funhouse mirror insanity. You have to go out of your way to explain why, unlike in every other scenario where moral commitment is something that matters, being an unapologetic spokesperson for the wrong side of history and seeing the light within the past few years is preferable to devoting your entire public life to helping others.