MAYBE
LESBIAN
ROCKER
Melissa
Etheridge
as
presidential
forum
panelist
isn’t
such
a
bad
idea
after
all.
That’s
a
highbrow
choice
compared
to
the
spectacle
of
CNN’s
“historic”
YouTube
debate
broadcast
Monday
night.
In
it,
rednecks,
rubes
and
even
an
animated
snowman
asked
questions
of
the
Democratic
presidential
candidates.
If
the
Republicans
are
smart,
they’ll
back
out
of
this
demeaning
exercise
in
pandering
before
their
scheduled
YouTube
debate
in
September.
This
country’s
embrace
of
informality
and
empowering
of
the
“everyman”
has
now
reached
ridiculous
extremes.
When
a
candidate
for
president
of
the
United
States
in
a
time
of
war
is
forced
to
answer
a
question
on
global
warming
from
a
snowman,
you
know
Edward
R.
Murrow
has
left
the
building.
CNN’s
dapper
Anderson
Cooper,
who
moderated
the
circus,
should
have
worn
overalls
and
a
baseball
cap.
It
would
have
been
a
more
appropriate
sartorial
choice
for
the
occasion.
The
debate
featured
questions
submitted
by
web
users
via
YouTube,
the
popular
video
sharing
site
that
is
also
a
magnet
for
lawsuits
alleging
copyright
infringement.
Cooper
announced
that
same-sex
marriage
had
emerged
as
a
popular
topic
among
the
3,000
questions
submitted.
Two
such
questions
made
the
cut.
In
the
first
clip,
a
lesbian
couple
from
New
York
asked
the
Democrats
if
they
would
support
their
right
to
marry
—
each
other.
The
second
gay-related
question
came
from
a
North
Carolina-based
pastor
who
asked
John
Edwards
to
explain
why
he
invokes
his
religious
beliefs
to
justify
opposition
to
same-sex
marriage.
The
problem
with
this
setup,
of
course,
is
that
the
questioners
can’t
follow
up.
Cooper
made
a
few
attempts
at
pressing
the
candidates,
but
he
simply
lacks
the
gravitas
to
do
the
job
credibly.
Several
times,
the
candidates
simply
ignored
Cooper
and
continued
with
their
evasive
answers.
IN
THEIR
RESPONSES,
several
candidates
repeated
their
support
for
“equality
under
the
law”
for
gay
couples.
In
the
Democrats’
political
parlance,
that
doesn’t
mean
actual
equality,
it
means
they
back
civil
unions,
whatever
that
means.
They
never
explain
what
they
mean
by
the
term
and
Cooper
didn’t
press
them
for
specificity.
Rep.
Dennis
Kucinich
was
the
only
one
to
enthusiastically
and
unequivocally
support
the
right
of
gay
couples
to
marry
during
the
debate,
though
cantankerous
former
Sen.
Mike
Gravel
also
supports
marriage
equality.
The
others,
including
Sen.
Chris
Dodd,
Gov.
Bill
Richardson,
former
Sen.
John
Edwards
and
Sen.
Barack
Obama,
stressed
their
support
for
civil
unions
or
domestic
partnership
rights.
Obama
even
emphasized
that
he
backs
full
“states’
rights”
for
gay
couples.
Sen.
Hillary
Rodham
Clinton
wasn’t
asked
the
question
during
the
debate.
But
the
issue
no
one
will
touch
concerns
the
hundreds
of
federal
rights
that
convey
to
married
couples.
What
about
those
rights?
If
these
candidates
support
“equality
under
the
law”
as
they
claim,
how
do
they
address
the
issue
of
the
many
disparate
federal
benefits
that
would
be
denied
to
gay
couples
even
if
they
had
access
to
a
state-sanctioned
civil
union?
The
federal
government
provides
more
than
1,200
benefits
and
rights
for
married
couples,
including
joint
tax
filings
and
Social
Security
survivor
benefits.
Existing
federal
law
does
not
recognize
gay
couples
—
including
those
legally
married
in
Massachusetts
—
and
so
none
of
those
benefits
would
confer
to
same-sex
couples
in
a
civil
union.
Furthermore,
a
civil
union
performed
in
Vermont,
Connecticut
or
New
Jersey
is
meaningless
in
all
other
states.
Granting
those
1,200
or
so
rights
to
committed
gay
couples
would
require
more
than
just
a
federal
law
recognizing
civil
unions
performed
in
the
states.
Legal
experts
have
said
lawmakers
would
need
to
repeal
at
least
part
of
the
federal
Defense
of
Marriage
Act,
which
was
supported
by
many
Democrats
and
signed
by
President
Clinton
in
1996.
That
law
does
two
things:
It
defines
marriage
as
a
union
only
between
a
man
and
a
woman
and
it
allows
states
to
refuse
to
recognize
same-sex
marriages
performed
in
other
states.
The
part
of
DOMA
that
defines
marriage
as
a
heterosexual
union
prevents
federal
recognition
of
a
same-sex
marriage
performed
in
a
state
and
would
likely
have
to
be
repealed
if
gay
couples
were
to
access
those
1,200
benefits.
Our
best
hope
for
clarity
on
these
issues
arrives
Aug.
9,
when
the
Human
Rights
Campaign
and
Logo
sponsor
a
Democratic
candidates
forum
(not
a
debate,
because
they
won’t
appear
on
stage
at
the
same
time).
It’s
a
welcome
opportunity
for
the
candidates
to
address
a
key
constituency
and
probably
the
only
chance
gay
voters
will
get
to
hear
precisely
what
they
think
on
issues
important
to
us.
The
forum
will
include
HRC
President
Joe
Solmonese,
gay
Washington
Post
editorial
page
writer
Jonathan
Capehart
and
Etheridge
as
panelists;
Bloomberg
News
columnist
Margaret
Carlson
will
moderate.
THE
DEMOCRATS
DESERVE
high
praise
for
addressing
a
gay
audience
in
a
televised
forum
(as
they
did
in
2003)
and
for
taking
more
progressive
views
on
issues
like
repealing
“Don’t
Ask,
Don’t
Tell.”
But
the
forum’s
moderator
should
adopt
an
aggressive
posture
and
demand
clear
answers.
If
the
Democrats
oppose
same-sex
marriage,
then
they
should
be
made
to
explain
the
rationale
for
that
stance.
If
they
support
equality
under
the
law,
does
that
support
extend
to
the
federal
benefits
of
marriage?
If
so,
how
would
they
go
about
changing
the
law
to
make
it
happen?
But
more
importantly,
HRC’s
panelists
and
moderator
must
press
the
senators
and
congressman
—
Clinton,
Obama,
Dodd,
Joe
Biden,
Kucinich
—
on
how
they
plan
to
push
the
hate
crimes
bill
and
the
Employment
Non-Discrimination
Act
through
this
Congress.
Attaching
the
Senate
version
of
the
hate
crimes
measure
to
the
defense
authorization
bill
proved
a
doomed
strategy.
So
what’s
next?
What
will
the
Democrats
in
Congress
who
are
running
for
president
recommend
as
the
best
way
to
secure
the
...
