Lieberman: No gay marriage (But Opposes Amendment Prohibiting It)

LEBANON - Presidential contender Joe Lieberman joined President Bush yesterday in opposing gay marriages while defending his own record of fighting discrimination.

"I do believe marriage should remain uniquely a union as it has traditionally been of a man and a woman," the Democratic U.S. senator from Connecticut told reporters after visiting a biotech company.

He said he voted for the Defense of Marriage Act, but said he opposes a constitutional amendment to prohibit gay marriage.

"I think it is unnecessary and divisive. The constitution should not be amended to respond to a political or social argument of the moment," he said.

MORE.....................

http://www.cmonitor.com/stories/news/state2003/0801lieberman_2003.shtml

How can you be for equal rights while denying equal rights? It should be quite clear to all involved that gay and lesbian marriages are coming, period. You can get out in front of the curve or you can be like Strom Thurmond and segregation and fight it all the way to the point where you have to admitt you were wrong (while looking like an idiot).

If a particular religion does not want to sanction gay and lesbian marriages, fine, don't. But the state should not be in the business of picking appropriate partners for a marriage license. And don't give me any crap about incest or children getting married, those are completely different issues and "straw man" arguments and everyone knows it.

Hey, Joe, I bet some of your best friends are gay, huh?

The Human Rights Campaign gives Lieberman a perfect score:

2002 On the votes that the Human Rights Campaign considered to be the most important in 2002, Senator Lieberman voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

Source:http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_rating_category.php?can_id=S0141103&PHPSESSID=61a8450bec65812e3054e84b52bfc96e#Civil+Rights

But I guess that the Lieberman haters will now equate him with the Christina Right even though he gets a perfect score from HRC.

I guess that just makes his opposing civil rights for gays a-ok then huh?

What if I said that people named Carlos shouldn't be allowed to marry, because my religion says so? Wouldn't you view that as an assault on your civil rights?

Why does the Human Rights Campaign then disagree with all the Lieberman haters here?

Had their been any legislation in 2002 concerning gay marriages, the HRC WOULD NOT give Lieberman a 100% score.

This is just like saying "I don't think negroes should have to sit at the back of the bus, but marrying white people, not a chance!"

I looked at the Lieberman HRC record over time. It was always over 50% and over the last few years it has been steadily rising.

Look, regardless of the issue we Dems are looking for someone to stand up and take a clearcut position and stick to it (preferably in opposition to the White House). Lieberman may have an acceptable voting record in the Senate, but time after time he makes statements that are trying to have it both ways on a given issue. He supports the war, but doesn't like the way its being managed. He opposes gay marriage, but thinks his position is somehow meaningfully different than Bush.
Every time there's a gut-check moment on a hot-button issue, Joe comes out with some namby-pamby milquetoast statement that tiptoes on eggshells to ruffling anyone's feathers by playing to both sides. This is why I feel like I can never trust the guy, he's always acting like he's afraid of his own shadow and it seems like we can almost count on him to buckle under when faced with any significant opposition.

To everything there is a season. Right now what we need is courage, leadership, and confidence of conviction. To me Lieberman represents meekness, equivocation, and dithering - none of which are qualities that are particularly useful in the war against Bush.

If he does turn out to be our nominee, I will support him - but it will be support devoid of hope and devoid of passion. It'll be about as exciting as hoping for the Cincinatti Bengals to win the superbowl.

Touché to all the Lieberlubbers. Couldn't have said it better myself!

With NO exceptions. You are obviously pro human rights except for GLBT people. You call yourself a liberal???
:kick:

There's is A LOT more to the Christian right than the legislation they push. Lieberman is almost identical to them in the sense that he seems to think that religion is the appropriate rooting for any moral modelling or agenda the gov't may have.

2001-2002 On the votes that the Christian Coalition considered to be the most important in 2001-2002 , Senator Lieberman voted their preferred position 20 percent of the time.

2001-2002 On the votes that the Family Research Council considered to be the most important in 2001-2002, Senator Lieberman voted their preferred position 22 percent of the time. (Due to the 49-51 split in the Senate, an insufficient number of votes were taken on issues of concern to warrant inclusion).

2000 On the votes that the Family Research Council considered to be the most important in 2000, Senator Lieberman voted their preferred position 0 percent of the time.

1999-2000 On the votes that the Christian Coalition considered to be the most important in 1999-2000 , Senator Lieberman voted their preferred position 15 percent of the time.

Source: http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_rating_category.php?can_id=S0141103&PHPSESSID=61a8450bec65812e3054e84b52bfc96e#Conservative

See my prediction.

On his statements on the illegal "war"/not "war", his waffeling on the gay rights issue (against gay marriage/unions - whatever you call it) but "won't push the issue or vote against it (or some such phrasing) just don't cut it anymore.

Holy Joe is the most CONSERVATIVE dem - probably more conservative than a lot of pukes. He's horrible. I will do everything I can to make sure he's marginalized. He would be a terrible President.

He supports "pre-emptive" war based on LIES. HE'S AGAINST GAY UNIONS!

He's FOR using taxpapyer money to support RELIGION!

How much clearer does it get!

(on edit) - here is a discussion that better illustrates why my gut feeling, and memory of every frigging thing he's said just adds up to a big "thumbs down" on Holy Joe (a moniker very aptly applied):

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=121764&mesg_id=121764

Lieberman is only considered "conservative" at DU because he is not an extremist, which is what most DUers are.

I am not voting for him in the primary, but I do think he is attacked unfairly here. And no, Lieberman isn't more conservative than most Republicans.

If you actually bothered to look at the facts, and not your own biases, you would realize that.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

After all, he's also opposed to gay marriage.

See post 25, civil unions are gay marriages, and the differing titles are nothing but semantics.

civil unions are NOT gay marriages. Next you'll be telling us "AA is racist"

any facts? or just WRONG?

The poster who declared, without any facts to support it, that civil unions = gay marriages wants facts?

Fact #1 - Most Dems oppose gay marriage

Fact #2 - Most of those very same Dems who oppose gay marriage, support civil unions

So why would so many Dems oppose gay marriage while supporting civil unions if they're the same thing?

I don't give a fuck what NAME dems want to support, you haven't said anything about WHY civil unions and gay marriages are different. You wanna try this again?

Whatever you call it, GLBT people should enjoy the same benefits of civil unions that hetero people do. That is really what we are talking about here. Don't try to dodge it, smartypants.
:kick:

but its true gay marriage and civil unions are NOT the same. Ive heard that civil union couples arent eligible to as much benefits. Let me say on the record that I support gay marriage theres nothing wrong with it in my opition. Also Dean may be a little more progressive than Lieberman on that issue but he's definely not for gay marriage he even said so himself. I am not trying to get involved but to bring up a point, Dino I know you like Dean but he has said hes against gay marriage I know civil union sounds like its good but in reality it seems to me to be like PlessyVsFerguson which made the precedent Seperate but Equal and 58 years after that decision it was overturned I dont think you wanna pass civil unions in to law like in 2006 then have gay marriage instiutionized in 2064. Just saying.

You've "heard"? Can't you do better than that?

Isn't a civil union the paper two people get when they go to the court house? The paper that allows them to claim extra goodies on their income tax, among other rights?

As a gay man, that's what I want: the same privileges hetero couples get who sign that paper. Who cares whether the Catholic Church etc. condones it.
:kick:

I want literal gay marriage. I just think literal gay marriage and civil unions are different. Civil unions are a good idea but literal gay marraige. Well if its civil union I think it will be easier for people to discriminate if its a literal marriage ted then it will be harder. My point is I think civil unions are a good idea but they arent gay marriages. I am sorry. Yeah you deserve the same privileges too. Well maybe it would be nice to see religion move forward in this century huh?

He is not yet 18 and is in possession of more of the facts than most people I know who are twice his age. He is also in your corner, if you read what he says.

Let's keep marriage just between women and men who marry them 3 or 4 times or dump their wives while in a hospital to take up with a younger chick.

Yes, let's keep it uniquely between a man and woman because I can't understand why two guys or two gals would want in on that mess.

Count the minutes until someone refers to exposing this political stance as "bashing."

... so he can have that fence post removed from his ass.

and I say, so be it.

What some couple needs to do is be married in a Church/Religion/Whathaveyou that accepts g/l/b marriages, and then they need to sue the Gov't saying that the attempts to stop their marriage is an infringement of the couple's religious rights.

It's that simple and clear cut to me. It seems the Right is forgetting that there are religions out there that do allow such unions. Why is the US gov't forgetting the other half of the marriage equasion, that it's also defined by religions and not just the gov't?

But then I'm a strong supporter of the separation between Church and State, so it seems pretty damn simple to me.

Wander into a Unitarian Universalist church (an internationally recognized religion). Ask if they will marry a same sex couple. They will gladdly perfom the service. There. It is recognised by a religion. Now which religion did you have in mind to represent the US population.

The problem is the courts are filled with too many right wingers. It will be just like non-whites trying to use the rights granted to them in the constitution after the civil war. They clearly have the legal protection in the constitution, but the courts will rule against them anyway.

And even if the courts did rule in favor on a constitutional basis the right wingers, controlling the congress and the majority of the states (not forgetting dem defectors) will probably introduce a constitutional amendment against it ASAP, and it might actually pass...

oh how committedly non-commital.

will vote for Joe (DLC sez it). I can see conversions on the Free republic - they all want Joe instead of bush now!

Joe better be prepared to filibuster this measure (presuming that's possible.)

What a farce this man is

>>Lieberman: No gay marriage (But Opposes Amendment Prohibiting It)

Kind of like Kerry...vote for the war and oppose it at the same time...nice try if the voters aren't paying attention...

.

Wow.
That is a cutting edge kind of cheesy, all right.

Unlike Dean, Lieberman (along with Kerry, Edwards and Graham) just might have to vote on a constitutional amendment banning same sex marriage. So there is real substance to Lieberman's remarks.

Or every other candidate, for that matter?

"MONTPELIER — While former Gov. Howard Dean opposes efforts to ban gay marriages — such as those suggested this week by President Bush — the presidential hopeful won’t push for a federal law making them legal, his campaign said Thursday. "
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=108&topic_id=10700&mesg_id=10700

And so, like on every other issue, he gets singled out unfairly.

NT

n/t

I was horrified when he ranked fairly high up on my list when I took that SelectSmart test on which presidential candidate most agrees with your views. I was afraid to mention that Lieberman was fifth or sixth on my list; I was sure I would be flamed, or worse!
:scared:

If marriage is about religion than they all need to shut up about it and leave to folks to belong to whatever group they want. But I can't figure out why there isn't a strong argument (maybe there is) that says denying gays the right to civil unions (i.e. contract) is unconstitutional. Why can I engage in this contract, but a gay person can't? BTW, the United Church of Christ also perfoms gay marriages. One of my pastors is a married gay man.

is semantics, and nothing more. Civil unions ARE gay marriages.

What's in a name? that which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet;
So Romeo would, were he not Romeo call'd,

civil unions are NOT gay marriages, which is why most of the Dems oppose gay marriages while supporting civil unions.

any facts? or just WRONG?

So where are YOUR facts?

"Civil Unions" are an artificial construct designed to let politicians especially play on both sides of the fence.

Civil Unions, as most propose them, are in all practical senses the same as marriages, offering the same rights as marriages do. In calling them something else lawmakekers seem to be trying to appease the religious fundamentalists who see marriage as an officially church sanctioned union.

In short, the politicians who propopse these seem to be saying "Fine, you can have your 'marriage', same as you always had, with all the bells and whistles. We will give gay people 'civil unions' which aren't the same thing. Really, they're not". Even though of course, as proposed, they are. At least in the eyes of the law.

many unions are performed IN churches.

Come to think of it, many marriages are performed OUT of churches.

A rose by any other name....

any facts from sangha if I were you. Sangha is well known for going into threads and posting maybe 5 or 6 words, but then leaving without backing them up.

You're very good at posting a few words, but I don't see one "fact" to support your claim that "there's no difference" between civil unions and gay marriages. Here's a fact that shows a difference

Civil unions are supported by most Dems - Gay marriages are not.

om edit - You might also want to take a look at Liberator_Rev's post #36

Don't you understand what caused them? The vermont Supreme Court said Vermont needs a law for gay marriages or something that does exactly the same thing. The only difference is the title, but the actual OUTCOME is the same. I don't give a fuck if "most dems" support a different NAME for gay marriages, the FACT is civil unions are the same thing as gay marriages.

a rose by any other name...

Both Sangha & Carlos repeatedly have mentioned links and other pertinent items to back up their opinions. I just don't have the energy or time to be that delligent.

I can't stand CONSERVATIVE Holy Joe.

I know what I hear every frigging time he opens his trap. It is NOT liberal. Sometimes, he get's it right, in my opinion, but on too many issues, I JUST DON'T LIKE HIM AT ALL - I LIKE HIM THE LEAST! - but never as much as bunkerboy and his gang.

Give me and my partner the same piece of paper that hetero couples get so that I can enjoy all of the "civil" rights that come with it. Geez. What's so difficult about that?
So, if Dean will vote to give me the right to that paper, as long as it's not called "marriage", who gives a f---???
:kick:

And that's what it comes down to, IMO. I don't know why you insist on separating people into different groups the way Jerry Falwell does.

Surely there are more than a few hetero couples who had civil ceremonies, but not religious, yes? Please, tell us what the differences are in rights that you keep saying you heard, between a Civil Union License (or whatever the going term is) and a Marriage License - I'm dying to know.

People who want to see Civil Unions pass use that term because we know there's a FAR sight better of getting these laws passed without dividing people than if you want to get in people's faces and yell 'gay marriage!'

Correct me if I'm wrong but here is the Difference between Gay "Marriage" vs. "Civil Union".

So long as you are in the state where you get your "Civil Union", there may be little if any difference. BUT, if you go to a state that doesn't recognize your newfangled "Civil Union", you've got NOTHHING. Marriage is a universally understood concept. So no matter where you get "married", no matter which community you go, they know what to make of you (except if you go into a church, where they have their own views of what it takes to be married).

and it's a good point but I don't think in the end it matters much.

While it's true that states have universally accepted marriages performed in other states as biding within their own, imagine a gay couple married in say, Hawaii, attempting exercise the rights of a married couple in say, Georgia. You think Georgia would care what their union was called?

I don't. I think they'd reject the gay couple's union in any case. States accepting marriages elsewhere has been a result of agreeing generally what a marriage is. Once some states begin to allow gay marriages that universal recognition will end in a big hurry.

The first section of the fourth article of the Constitution contains the "full faith and credit clause." See U.S. Const. art. IV, § 1. This clause provides that each state must recognize the public acts (laws), records, and judicial proceedings of the other states.

I wish I could put you in the Supreme Court, baby!
:bounce:

I am not sure I would like thc company.

...so that when a GLBT couple gets that piece of paper it will be good for the IRS as well as the state tax board.
:kick:

But I do find there to be a slight difference between gay marriage and civil union. If they are so simliar why is Canada moving forward with literal gay marriage. A civil union thing is in the right direction I admit but marriage itself is a another thing.

to the day when this guy goes away.

He tries to have it all ways - support the war but oppose Bush, suppoprt strict definition of marriage but oppose Bush's call for legislation.

Here's some shocking news. The guy's a Republican.

:grr:

Lieberman is a dried-up old eunuch who so desperately wants to be president that he will contort himself into any position to try to win votes. But it will not work. You cannot beat the Republicans by trying to play 'me too' with them. I think that enough Democrats and progressives realize this to keep Lieberman from ever getting the nomination.

As for 'marriage' vs. 'civil union': it really is semantics. Religious conservatives are offended by 'marriage' between people of the same sex. They are not going to change in that attitude. A marriage is a civil union which, in the views of the religious, has been sanctified by God. However, religion really has nothing to do with the civil unions that we call marriage. Nonreligious people of opposite sex are 'married' all the time in civil ceremonies by atheists or other not especially religious judges and justices.

So get over the semantics. If gays engage in a civil union or a marriage in Canada or in some state in the U.S., you can bet that it will not be recognized in Mississippi, regardless of what that union is called.

Let's support a Democrat who represents progressive views and who can WIN. That is not Lieberman.

As * says: You're either with us or against us.
This Repug pretending to be a Democrat is trying to have it both ways. But by not totally supporting GLBT civil rights, he is condoning the opposite.
:kick:

To me the issue is: GLBT people should be allowed to sign the same civil union document that hetero couples sign when they tie the knot, regardless of religious affiliation. In the eyes of our government, they should get the same benefits of that paper.
It's that simple. Why are we getting all confused here???

:kick:

He's a wannabe Repug.


Dean in 2004!
:kick:

Lieberman: No gay marriage...

I'm sure it's a great relief to gay men everywhere that Holy Joe has decided against getting a gay marriage...

;-)

Did you see Jon Stewart the other night? He was ``horrified'' that gay marriage might become legal because he doesn't want it forced on him! He said his wife would object. I really don't understand all this ridiculous fear-mongering. If you don't want to marry someone of the same sex, then just don't do it! Otherwise, how will someone else's choices affect your life?:shrug:

I say let the hetero's have their precious word "Marriage" to themselves if it means so damn much to them. There's no reason that the queer population can't have its own word for it. The part that matters is the recognition of the union, and its attendant RIGHTS anyhow, not the word. It does seem like ol' Holy Joe is trying to have his cake and trying to eat it too doesn't it? As usual.

KUCINICH 04!!!

Is he saying as long as we don't call it "marriage" he will vote to give us the same rights for tying the knot as heteros get?
That would be fine with me.

discrimination. Obviously he didn't learn a damn thing
in the last 60 years, the bastard.

1. Why should a gay person vote Liebermann over the other democratic contenders?

2. Joe Lieberman has repeatedly claimed that how many of his positions repeatedly reflect those of President Bush. given a choice, why would someone in general election vote Lieberman over Bush?