Out For Democracy

John Edwards Leading the Race in Iowa

In Iowa, a new Time magazine poll shows John Edwards leading the Democratic presidential race with 32%, followed by Sen. Hillary Clinton at 24%, Sen. Barack Obama at 22% and Gov. Bill Richardson at 13%.

Complete poll results are available.

from Political Wire.

Edwards and Biden Support Global AIDS Pledge

Global AIDS Activists are making their mark on the 2008 election by attending campaign events to ask one simple question. Will the candidates support $50 billion over 5 years to stop the global spread of AIDS?

They've posed the question to Obama and Edwards here in Washington DC. Edwards also got the question in South Carolina. The Boston Globe reports the question was recently given to John McCain in New Hampshire. The question has been asked so many times, that often you just have to say '$50 billion' and the candidates will know what you're talking about.

John Edwards and Joe Biden stand out as the only presidential candidates thus far that have committed to $50 billion over 5 years to fight the global epidemic, part of the 08stopAIDS platform. It leads one to wonder, how many more times will we have to ask the question until Obama, Clinton and the other candidates hear our voices?

Edwards Leads Giuliani and Thompson

Rasmussen Reports: Democratic Senator John Edwards now holds solid leads over the two leading Republican Presidential hopefuls. The most recent Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey shows Edwards leading former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani 49% to 41%. Edwards dominates former Senator Fred Thompson 49% to 35%.

A month ago, Edwards held a virtually identical lead over Giuliani. In between, Giuliani had closed the gap to two points in early August. This continues a trend that began in April, with Edwards consistently polling in the mid-to-high 40% range against Giuliani while the New Yorker has polled in the mid-to-low 40’s.

Giuliani started the year with the edge over Edwards. He came out on top in five Rasmussen Reports national telephone polls between November, 2006 and March of this year. Since April, seven more polls have been conducted and Giuliani has not been ahead in any of them..

Edwards has led by double digits in four out of six previous match-ups with Thompson.

Edwards also leads former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney and Arizona Senator John McCain in Rasmussen Reports polls.

Please click here to review the report in its entirety.

No Straight Talk from McCain on Medical Marijuana for AIDS Patients

John McCain's straight-talk schtick that has served him so well in the past, is turning out to be his achilles heal in 2008. This time round McCain is having a hard time giving straight answers on several issues, including Medical Marijuana for HIV/AIDS Patients. We've gotten no less than threeanswers to the same question. Reason Magazine reports:

When he was asked about medical marijuana in April, the straight-talking John McCain said, "I will let states decide the issue." Less than three months later, asked if he would end the DEA's interference with medical marijuana use in the 12 states where it's legal, he had already changed his mind, saying, "Right now my answer to you is no."

His most recent position on medical marijuana is the most troubling, however, because not only does he take the wrong position, but he also gets his facts wrong. Bay Area Reporters states that recently:

Someone asked John McCain whether he'd support the research into the use of marijuana for medical purposes, but the Republican presidential hopeful said no. "I agree with the American Medical Association. They don't think it's necessary." But in fact, the AMA recommends studies to determine the efficacy of marijuana for seriously ill patients.

Family Reminds Edwards of Health Care Concerns

When John Edwards left Charles City on Wednesday, he took a special memento with him — a photo of 10-year-old Adrian Haught.

It’s the second photo of the Nashua boy that his mother, Tami Haught, has given the Democratic presidential candidate and former North Carolina Senator. Tami was diagnosed with HIV nearly 14 years ago.

“When I gave it to him three years ago, he was talking about health care and poverty so I gave him the picture of Adrian,” she said. “I said if you ever get tired, look at the picture. It’s one of the people that you are fighting for.”

The back of the photo says, “ADAP (AIDS Drug Assistance Program) saves lives. ADAP?saves families.” Haught said she wanted to encourage Edwards to support the program that helps provide access to medication.

continue reading this article inthe Charles City Press

Needle Exchange: An Important Distinction between Obama and Clinton

Ben Smith from the Politico has a post up highlighthing an important distinction between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. Obama supports federal funding for needle-exchange programs to prevent; Clinton is still waffling.

We have overwhelming scientific evidence that needle-exchange programs are an effective way to reduce HIV infections among injection drug users. Even the CDC supports needle exchange (and has for several years). Most of Hillary's fellow candidates including both Obama and Edwards, have supported federal funding for needle exchange. So I'm not really sure what basis Clinton could have for her indecision, but it's an important distinction to make.

Ben writes: "Obama was quick to say at his July appearance he supports lifting the ban on federal funding for needle exchange. Clinton, by contrast, performed what King called "an interesting waffle" at her April 23 event."

read the article and see the video footage here

On the Record: Hillary Clinton at the HRC/Logo Debate

CARLSON:
Last and not least, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton. She was the first lady of Arkansas and later first lady of the United States. She was elected to her first
term as a senator from New York in 2000 and re-elected last year. Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton.
(APPLAUSE)
CARLSON:
Senator Clinton, welcome.
CLINTON:
Thank you.
CARLSON:
I don't know if Senator Edwards is still here, but from the last debate, let me go on the record. I like the coral jacket.
CLINTON:
Thank you.
(LAUGHTER)
CARLSON:
Joe is our first questioner for you, Senator.
Joe?
SOLMONESE:
Senator, thank you for being here tonight. You've said in past settings like this and all across the country that you would like to repeal "Don't ask; don't tell."
Now, since 2003 you've sat on the Senate Armed Services Committee, the committee that would decide this issue. Why haven't you introduced legislation to
repeal this policy?
SOLMONESE:
Well, Joe, first, thanks for doing this and thanks for everybody being here and having this forum.
I think the very simple answer is we didn't have a chance with the Republican Congress and George Bush as president. And I want to get it done when I'm
president. I want to do it and have it be successful. I don't want to try in a Republican Congress with a very negative president and have it defeated.
We're talking now that we have a Democratic Congress about what steps we can take to sort of lay the groundwork so that when we do have a change in the
White House, which can't happen too soon to suit me...
(APPLAUSE)
... we will be able to move on that.
But I just want to put it into a broader context, because it's one of my highest priorities. I came out against "Don't ask; don't tell" in 1999. It was a
transitional action that was taken back at the beginning of my husband's administration, because at the time there was such a witch hunt going on.
And we've got some veterans over here. I saw Staff Sergeant Eric Alba, who I have met before at HRC, and I was so glad to see him when I walked in.
(APPLAUSE)
And for people who don't know Staff Sergeant Alba's history, he was the first Marine wounded in Iraq, recipient of a Purple Heart, and 15 years ago he
could have both been refused the opportunity to serve, but if he had gotten into the military under the rules that existed at the time and the attitudes that were
prevalent, he could have been court-martialed or even accused and threatened with criminal action if he didn't reveal names of those with whom he might have
had relationships who were serving in the military.
I think we have moved a long way on this and other issues, but I think it's important to recall how much of an advance "Don't ask; don't tell" was at the time.
However, it was not implemented appropriately. It was still used to discharge a lot of patriotic men and women who were serving our country, often at great cost
in the middle of a war where people were being told, "We don't need your services anymore," including linguists and translators and other specialty services.
But in 1999, it just struck me that it wasn't working and that what we needed to do was to try to move us toward using the Code of Military Justice and judge
people on conduct, not status, no matter whether you're gay or straight. That's the way it should be. It should be even-handed across the entire services.
We're beginning to see some changes. I remember very well the intense debates about this back in '93, and honestly, it was so emotional in the military and
in the Congress that the Congress did pass a law. But we have to get the law repealed.
But now it's beginning to change. Former Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman General Shalikashvili has just come out in favor of a change. I've noticed General
Powell, who was adamantly against my husband's efforts back in '93, has begun to say, "You know, maybe we should rethink this."
So I think we will lay the groundwork, but then when I'm president, we'll get it done. And I'm looking forward to doing that.
(APPLAUSE)
SOLMONESE:
Changing tracks, talk to us about what is at the heart of your opposition to same sex marriage?
CLINTON:
Well, Joe, I prefer to think of it as being very positive about civil unions.
(LAUGHTER)
It's a personal position, and you and I have talked about it. I've talked about it with a number of my friends here and across the country.
And for me, we have made it very clear in our country that we believe in equality. How we get to full equality is the debate we're having. And I am
absolutely in favor of civil unions with full equality, full equality of benefits, rights and privileges.
And I've also been a very strong supporter of letting the states maintain their jurisdiction over marriage. And I believe that was a right decision for a lot of
reasons, because it's easy, again, to forget that just 2.5 years ago, we were facing all of these referenda that were enshrining discrimination in state constitutions.
And a lot of people tried very hard to fight against them and prevent them from being passed, but unfortunately, they were.
Now, 2.5 years later we're beginning to see other states take different approaches. And what we were able to do -- and I really give HRC a lot of credit for
your leadership on this -- in stopping the federal marriage amendment gave the states the breathing room to make different decisions.
So I want to proceed with equalizing federal benefits. I want to repeal Section 3 of DOMA, which stands in the way of the extension of benefits to people in
committed same sex relationships, and I will be very strongly in favor of doing that as president.
SOLMONESE:
I wonder, Senator, if you can sympathize with the frustration of this argument that it's a states' rights issue. In the civil rights struggle, this argument that it
was a states' rights issue was something that was typically used against people working against us as sort of a red herring. And so can you see where this
argument of marriage as a states' right issue would resonate the same way in our community?
CLINTON:
Absolutely. And Joe, not only that, I really respect the advocacy that the community is waging on behalf of marriage. I think you're doing exactly what you
need to do and should do, and I really am very much impressed by the intensity and the persistence of that advocacy. But this has not been a long-term struggle
yet.
And I think it's really clear that people in the states are moving much more rapidly to deal with the inequality than you would find at the federal level.
When you and I were plotting strategy to beat the federal marriage amendment, the reason we were plotting strategy is we were worried it was going to pass.
And, again, this was a terrifying prospect that we would have enshrined in the Constitution for the first time ever discrimination.
And we were very clear about what we needed to do to get the vote in order to prevent this mean-spirited, divisive effort led by Karl Rove to politicize the
hopes and dreams of so many of our fellow Americans.
And we were able to defeat it, but I don't know that we could have defeated it if we had not had DOMA. That, if anything, has provided a great protection
against what was clearly the Republican strategy blessed by George Bush, led by the congressional Republicans, to just cynically use marriage as a political tool.
CARLSON:
Do you think that's going to come up this time when the Republicans are running?
CLINTON:
No.
CARLSON:
Is it dead as an issue?
CLINTON:
You know, Margaret, I'm very optimistic, because I think that...
CARLSON:
I haven't heard it yet.
CLINTON:
I don't hear it either, and -- don't tell anybody, but I'm running for president...
(LAUGHTER)
... and so I'm traveling around the country a lot.
CARLSON:
"Don't ask; don't tell."
CLINTON:
Yes, that's right. And I don't hear it. I don't feel it. I don't see it. Even with the Republicans, with their various forums, you don't get the sense. Why?
Because a lot of people who were in favor of that constitutional amendment knew better. That was a strictly cynical, political ploy on their part, and they were
successful, unfortunately, in a lot of states.
But I think that now people are starting to say, "Well, maybe we don't want to do that," and because a Democratic Congress won't bring up the amendment,
there's really nothing for them to be rallying around.
CARLSON:
Thank you, Senator.
Melissa?
ETHERIDGE:
Senator, I have a personal issue here. I remember when your husband was elected president, I actually came out publicly during his inaugural week. It was a
very hopeful time for the gay community. For the first time we were being recognized as American citizens. It was wonderful. We were very, very hopeful.
And in the years that followed, our hearts were broken. We were thrown under the bus. We were pushed aside. All those great promises that were made to us
were broken. And I understand politics. I understand how hard things are to bring about change.
But it is many years later now, and what are you going to do to be different than that? I know you're sitting here now. It's a year out -- more than a year. A
year from now are we going to be left behind like we were before?
CLINTON:
Well, obviously, Melissa, I don't see it quite the way that you describe, but I respect your feeling about it.
From the moment that Bob Hathaway spoke at the Democratic convention through the appointments that were made, both to positions in Cabinet agencies as
well as in the White House, to the ongoing struggle against Gingrich and the Republican majority, I think that we certainly didn't get as much done as I would
have liked, but I believe that there was a lot of honest effort going on by the president, the vice president and the rest of us who were trying to keep the
momentum going.
I remember when I was running for the Senate as first lady, marching in the gay pride parade in New York City. And to a lot of people that was just an
unbelievable act.
ETHERIDGE:
Why not be the leader now?
CLINTON:
Well, I think I am a leader now. And I think that we are doing a lot to not only talk about laws, as important as they are, but to really try to change attitudes
and persuade people that they should be more open, more respectful, more accepting.
If I were sitting where you're sitting with all you have gone through in the last 14 years, I'm sure I would feel exactly the same way, because not only did
you bravely come out, but you've had health challenges and so much else. And so time can't go by slowly. You want things to move as quickly as possible, which
I understand and wish could happen as well.
But as president, I think I have an opportunity both to reverse the concerted assault on people. It wasn't just on people's rights; it was on people. It was
pointing fingers. It was demeaning. It was degrading. It was mean-spirited. And that will end. That is over. And when we began to...
(APPLAUSE)
CARLSON:
We're almost out of time, believe it or not. Time flies when you're having a good time.
CLINTON:
Oh, I can't believe it.
CARLSON:
But Jonathan?
CLINTON:
To be continued, Melissa.
CARLSON:
Jonathan?
CAPEHART:
Senator, former Joint Chiefs Chairman Peter Pace called homosexuality immoral. And when you were first asked about it, you said, quote, "I'm going to
leave that to others to conclude." The next day, after much criticism, you finally said you did not think that homosexuality was immoral. Why didn't you say that
the first time?
CLINTON:
Well, it was a mistake, Jonathan, because what I went on to say after what you quoted was to launch an attack on "Don't ask; don't tell," because my view
was that as a chairman of the Joint Chiefs, he had absolutely no right to say what he said.
I disagreed with him profoundly, but what was really offensive is that he was in a position of responsibility that had a direct impact on the lives of hundreds
of thousands of these young people in the military. So I went right at him on "Don't ask; don't tell."
And you know you say these things. Somebody sticks a microphone in front of you and you say, "Well, that's pretty good." And my friends started calling
me and saying, "Well, that wasn't very good." I said, "Oh, you're probably right." So I immediately got the first opportunity I could to say the whole thing.
So I just was focused on one aspect of what I thought was really over the line. You know, Joe Blow, Joe Schmo walking down the street can say, "Here's
what I believe." You say, "Who cares?" The chairman of the Joint Chiefs says it -- that has a direct impact on policy, and that's what I went after. But I should
have put it in a broader context.
CAPEHART:
Senator, would you...?
CARLSON:
Well, we are just about out of time, Jonathan. I'm really sorry.
CAPEHART:
... who's anti-gay?
CLINTON:
I'm sorry. What, Jonathan?
CAPEHART:
Would you put someone on the bench who is known to be anti-gay?
CLINTON:
No. And that's why we shouldn't.
(APPLAUSE)
CARLSON:
Senator...
CLINTON:
That's one of the reasons why I'm against Southwick for...
CARLSON:
Senator, you told the AFL-CIO on Tuesday night, "I'm your girl." Do you want to express those same sentiments here?
CLINTON:
I am your girl. Absolutely.
CARLSON:
And you do get a closing statement, short though it may be.
CLINTON:
Well, I want to be a president who really does move forward the agenda of progress and equality in our country. That is what I have tried to do my entire life
for 35 years.
This country, with all of its flaws which we can see manifest -- it doesn't move fast enough; it doesn't do what we want it to do -- has demonstrated
extraordinary resilience and a lot of movement forward. And I think we will see that as the years unfold, and I want to be a part of that.
But I come to these issues not as a senator or as a lawyer or as a presidential candidate, but as a friend of a lot of members of the LGBT community who are
my age who have suffered through a long period of coming out, of having to face families and having to deal with all of the issues that we know occur.
And I want to be a president who can clearly say to the American people, "These are our friends, our children, our parents. These are people we want to
support as they live the best lives they can."
So it's very personal for me. And we are not going to agree on everything, but I will be a president who will fight for you, who will work to end
discrimination in the employment area and "Don't ask; don't tell," finally get hate crimes through, do a lot of what we need to do on HIV AIDS and so much
more. And I really hope we can be partners in trying to make our country a little bit better and a little more progressive for all of us. Thank you.
CARLSON:
Senator, wish we had more time. Thank you.
CLINTON:
I do, too.
CARLSON:
That concludes our forum, but the campaign is only heating up. From now through Election Day 2008, stay informed, follow the campaign and join with
LGBT Americans across the nation to debate the issues of visiblevote08.com and at hrc.org.
On behalf of LOGO and the Human Rights Campaign Foundation, thank you to your panelists, Jonathan Capehart, Melissa Etheridge and Joe Solmonese.

On the Record: Barack Obama at the HRC/Logo Debate

Text of the HRC/Logo Debate

CARLSON:
And now with that, it is my pleasure to introduce our first candidate. Barack Obama was elected to the U.S. Senate from Illinois in 2004. The senator
previously served eight years in the state Senate in Illinois. Please welcome Senator Barack Obama.
(APPLAUSE)
CARLSON:
Good to see you again.
OBAMA:
Thank you. Thank you.
CARLSON:
Well, welcome, Senator. You are a rock star, I think.
OBAMA:
Oh, I don't know about that.
CARLSON:
It's not quite as hot here as it was in Chicago the other night, literally and figuratively, perhaps.
OBAMA:
Absolutely. Well, it's wonderful to be here. I want to thank, first of all, HRC and LOGO for setting this up. I think it is a historic moment, not just for the
LGBT community, but for America. And so I'm glad that I'm participating and glad I kind of got the ball rolling.
CARLSON:
Yes. Start-off batter here.
OBAMA:
Absolutely.
CARLSON:
Welcome.
(APPLAUSE)
OBAMA:
Thank you. Thank you.
CARLSON:
I'm going to have some questions for you, but first I'm going to turn it over to Joe.
SOLMONESE:
Senator, thank you so much for joining us. It's a real honor to have you here with us tonight. And thank you for being the first to accept our invitation.
You have said in previous debates that it is up to individual religious denominations to decide whether or not to recognize same sex marriage, and so my
question is what place does the church have in government-sanctioned civil marriages?
OBAMA:
Well, it is my strong belief that the government has to treat all citizens equally. I come from that, in part, out of personal experience. When you're a black
guy named Barack Obama, you know what it's like to be on the outside. And so my concern is continually to make sure that the rights that are conferred by the
state are equal for all people. That's why I opposed DOMA in 2006 when I ran for the United States Senate.
(APPLAUSE)
That's why I am a strong supporter not of a weak version of civil unions, but of a strong version, in which the rights that are conferred at the federal level to
persons who are part of a same sex union are compatible.
Now, as a consequence, I don't think that the church should be making these determinations when it comes to legal rights conferred by the state. I do think
that individual denominations have the right to make their own decisions as to whether they recognize same sex couples.
My denomination, United Church of Christ, does. Other denominations may make a different decision. And obviously, part of keeping a separation of
churches and state is also to make sure that churches have the right to exercise their freedom of religion.
But when it comes to federal rights, the over 1,100 rights that right now are not being given to same sex couples, I think that's unacceptable, and as president
of the United States, I'm going to fight hard to make sure that those rights are available.
(APPLAUSE)
SOLMONESE:
So to follow up on your point about the state issue, if you were back in the Illinois legislature where you served and the issue of civil marriage came before
you, how would you vote on that?
OBAMA:
Well, my view is that we should try to disentangle what has historically been the issue of the word "marriage," which has religious connotations to some
people, from the civil rights that are given to couples in terms of hospital visitation, in terms of whether or not they can transfer property or any of the other --
Social Security benefits and so forth.
So it depends on how the bill would have come up. I would have supported and would continue to support a civil union that provides all the benefits that are
available for a legally sanctioned marriage. And it is then, as I said, up to religious denominations to make a determination as to whether they want to recognize
that as a marriage or not.
SOLMONESE:
But on the grounds of civil marriage, can you see to our community where that comes across as sounding separate, but equal?
OBAMA:
Well, look, when my parents got married in 1960 or '61, it would have been illegal for them to be married in a number of states in the South. So obviously,
this is something that I understand intimately. It's something that I care about.
But I would also say this, that if I were advising the civil rights movement back in 1961 about its approach to civil rights, I would have probably said it's less
important that we focus on an anti- miscegenation law than we focus on a voting rights law and a nondiscrimination employment law and all the legal rights that
are conferred by the state.
Now, it's not for me to suggest that you shouldn't be troubled by these issues. I understand that, and I'm sympathetic to it. But my job as president is going to
be to make sure that the legal rights that have consequences on a day-to-day basis for loving same sex couples all across the country, that those rights are
recognized and enforced by my White House and by my Justice Department.
CARLSON:
Before I go to Melissa with a question -- I've been working with the LOGO people for a couple of days, so I have more of a feeling for what troubles them --
it seems like religion owns the word "marriage" or you're letting religion have marriage, and then civilly, you get civil unions.
But you got to get married and I got to get married, but Joe doesn't get to be married. And that really does mean that it's a lesser thing. It looks like a
politically feasible thing to do, but...
OBAMA:
Well, as I've proposed it, it wouldn't be a lesser thing, from my perspective. And, look, semantics may be important to some. From my perspective, what I'm
interested in is making sure that those legal rights are available to people.
And if we have a situation in which civil unions are fully enforced, are widely recognized, people have civil rights under the law, then my sense is that's
enormous progress, and that is the kind of progress that I think HRC would be proud of and I would be proud of as president, and that's what I'm going to try to
lead.
CARLSON:
Thank you.
Melissa?
ETHERIDGE:
Thank you very much. First, I just want to say how incredibly humbled and honored I am to be here. I am not a professional politician. I'm not even a
journalist. I'm an incredibly privileged rock star...
(APPLAUSE)
OBAMA:
That's a good enough reason.
ETHERIDGE:
I'm very, very grateful and honored to represent my community and be able to speak for so many people who need to have their government's help. And with
that, thank you.
I want to say hello. It's a pleasure to meet you, Senator Obama.
OBAMA:
It's great to meet you.
ETHERIDGE:
And you have this reputation, and not only in my heart and my experience of you, of being an incredible orator. You speak, you touch many of us, and you
have. And we have lots of hope.
And I see you speaking to a very divided America. The last eight years we have been subject to a great fear that has divided us all -- between races, between
economic classes and, of course, gays and lesbians often feel like we are at the very end of that "us" and "them" role.
OBAMA:
Right.
ETHERIDGE:
If you are elected president, what are you going to do? What are you going to do to bring this country back together?
OBAMA:
It's a great question. Part of the reason that LGBT issues are important to me is because I got into politics in part because I don't like people looking down on
other people. It bothers me. Maybe it's something that my mother instilled in me. Maybe it's the experience of being an African American and at times being
discriminated against.
So the cause that all of you are involved with is part of what prompted me to get into politics. But part of what prompted me is also this hopefulness, this
belief that there is a core decency to most people, and certainly most Americans, and that our founding documents, I think, have a set of universal truths that are
really important.
And the key question for the next president is can we tap back into that core decency? And can we appeal to what Lincoln called the better angels of our
nature?
And part of that involves, I think, when it comes to LGBT issues, acknowledging the reality that people experience every day. That's why when I was at the
Democratic convention in 2004, I said there are no red states; there are no blue states. But I also said we've got gay friends in the red states, and we played little
league in the blue states, trying to acknowledge that people's experience on a day-to-day basis is they've got gay friends, they've got gay family members. They
love them and they cherish them, and somehow our politics creates craziness and fear that doesn't match up with people's day-to-day experience.
And it's the job of the president, I think, to talk about these issues in ways that encourage people to recognize themselves in each other. And when I talk like
this, by the way, sometimes the Washington press corps rolls its eyes and says, "Ah, he's so naive."
CARLSON:
No eye-rolling here yet.
(LAUGHTER)
OBAMA:
But people do, because the sense is, you know, Obama -- he's always talking about hope. I'm a hope-monger.
(LAUGHTER)
But I believe that, and...
(APPLAUSE)
ETHERIDGE:
I grew up in the Midwest. I grew up believing that if you work hard and you're good, then you'll succeed and you can be a good citizen. I grew up believing
in our country, in this great America. It's the greatest country, and I grew up believing in those documents. And those documents say equality to everyone...
OBAMA:
Absolutely.
ETHERIDGE:
... given by our creator. And my creator made me what I am. And I believe that.
(APPLAUSE)
ETHERIDGE:
And please, as you go and as you leave, don't be afraid. Don't let that fear -- be the first one to make the change to bring it, all right? Thank you.
(APPLAUSE)
CAPEHART:
You've gotten some praise for taking to the pulpits of black churches and telling the black community, talking to the black community about its
responsibilities.
Now, you and I both know that there's a homophobia problem in the black community. So how are you going to talk to the black community about that, both
as a candidate and, if you are elected to the White House, as president?
OBAMA:
I have already done so. Some of you saw at the Howard debate that Tavis Smiley had organized I specifically raised the homophobia in our community as an
impediment to dealing with AIDS issues. I'm somebody who talks about LGBT issues not just before HRC.
I was with Harold Ford. He organized a forum of black ministers in Tennessee. And I specifically talked about the degree to which the notion of gay
marriage in black churches has been used to divide, has been used to distract. I specifically pointed out that if there is an pastor here who can point out a marriage
that has been broken up as a consequence of seeing two men or two women holding hands, then you should tell me, because I haven't seen any evidence of it.
(APPLAUSE)
And what I've also said is if you think that issue is more important to the black family, which is under siege -- if you think that's more important than the fact
that black men don't have any jobs and are struggling in the inner cities, then I profoundly disagree with you.
So this goes to the earlier point that we were talking about, Melissa. I think when there's truth-telling involved, people respond, as long as you don't come at
people in a heavy-handed way, but rather you approach them based on their own experience and their own truth.
And the black community, I think, has a diversity of opinion, as you and I both know. There are people who recognize that if we're going to talk about
justice and civil rights and fairness, that should apply to all people, not just some. And there are some folks who coming out of the church elevated one line in
Romans above the Sermon on the Mount.
So my job as a leader, not just of African Americans, but hopefully, as a leader of Americans, is to tell the truth, which is this has been a political football
that has been used. It is unfortunate. It's got to stop. And when it stops, we will then be able to address the legitimate and serious concerns that face the black
families.
CAPEHART:
Senator, real quickly, a recent poll out of the New York Times and MTV of Americans ages 17 to 20 show that 44 percent of them favor same sex marriage
compared to 28 percent of the public. Now, you're running as a candidate of change, but how can you run as a candidate of change when your stance on same sex
marriage is decidedly old school?
OBAMA:
Oh, come on now. I mean, look, we can have this conversation for the duration of the 15 minutes, but there's a reason why I was here first. It's because I've
got a track record of working on these issues.
If people are interested in ENDA at the federal level, they can look at who was the chief co-sponsor of Illinois' version of ENDA, which we passed. If
people are interested in my stance on these issues, I've got a track record of working with the LGBT community.
What I have focused on, and what I will continue to focus on, is making sure that the rights that are provided by the federal government and the state
governments and local governments are ones that are provided to everybody. And that's a standard that I think I can meet, and I don't make promises I can't keep.
And on this issue, I have been at the forefront of any of the presidential candidates.
CARLSON:
Senator, I want to do a viewer-generated question. I want to do a moderator-generated question very quickly.
OBAMA:
Go ahead.
CARLSON:
Would you put the fight among gays and lesbians for civil rights on a par with the civil rights movement for African Americans?
OBAMA:
Well, my attitude is if people are being treated unfairly and unequally, then they are being treated unfairly and unequally, and it needs to be fixed.
So I'm always very cautious about getting into comparisons of victimology. The issues that gays and lesbians face today are different from the issues that
were faced by African Americans under Jim Crow. That doesn't mean, though, that there aren't parallels in the sense that legal status is not equal. And that has to
be fixed.
But I think it's important not to look at the black candidate and wonder whether or not he's going to be more sympathetic or less sympathetic to these issues.
I'm going to be more sympathetic not because I'm black -- I'm going to be more sympathetic because this has been the cause of my life and will continue to be the
cause of my life, making sure that everybody is treated fairly and that we've got an expansive view of America where everybody's invited in, and we are all
working together to create the kind of America that we want for the next generation.
CARLSON:
Well, I had a great viewer-generated question here for you. You're never going to know what it is, but now you get to sum up for 30 seconds or a minute.
OBAMA:
Well, listen, it's a pleasure. This went too quick. I want more time, but I don't have it.
CARLSON:
We'd like to give it to you.
OBAMA:
But the only thing I want to say is this. All the candidates in this race are going to be terrific on these issues compared to, certainly, the candidates in the
other party right now. And that's unfortunate, because this shouldn't be a partisan issue.
The one thing I guess I would say about my candidacy, and something you should think about, is I don't just talk about these issues where it's convenient.
There's a reason that I spoke about the importance of gay and lesbian issues in the most important speech of my life. I didn't have to. There's a reason why in
my announcement I talked about these issues. There's a reason why I talk about gays and lesbians and transgender people in my stump speeches.
I'm somebody who I think is willing to talk about these issues even when it's hard -- in front of black ministers. I'm willing to talk about AIDS at Saddleback
Church to evangelicals and talk about why we need to have condom distribution to deal with the scourge of AIDS. So that's the kind of political purge that I hope
all of you recognize is going to be necessary in order for us to create the kind of America that we all want. And I appreciate your time. Thank you.
(APPLAUSE)
CARLSON:
And we're happy you came here.
OBAMA:
I had a great time.
CARLSON:
It's good to see you. Bye now.
OBAMA:
Thank you. Thank you so much.

On the Record: John Edwards at the HRC/Logo Debate

Text of the HRC/Logo Debate

CARLSON:
Our next candidate, John Edwards, was elected senator from North Carolina in 1998 and ran for president six years later. And, of course, in 2004 he was the
vice presidential candidate. Welcome to Senator John Edwards.
(APPLAUSE)
ETHERIDGE:
Hi.
EDWARDS:
We've been listening to your music. I want you to know that.
ETHERIDGE:
Good.
CARLSON:
Senator Edwards, welcome. We're so delighted that you're here. Thank you for coming.
EDWARDS:
Thank you. Glad to be here.
CARLSON:
Melissa's going to start off the questions. She was bragging that she's neither a politician, and not even a journalist.
(LAUGHTER)
But we can't sing.
EDWARDS:
That's a great place to start.
CARLSON:
All right.
Melissa?
ETHERIDGE:
Yes. Welcome and thank you so much for being here.
EDWARDS:
Of course.
ETHERIDGE:
We're so grateful for that. Your wife and I actually have a lot in common, both suffering through cancer and such, and I wish her the best.
EDWARDS:
Thank you.
ETHERIDGE:
And I send her lots and lots of love. And we also share more than that. Both her and I are very fortunate to be able to afford the best health care.
EDWARDS:
Yes.
ETHERIDGE:
And I remember being in chemotherapy and having a shot once a week that was $3,000 and wondering how anyone else could afford this. And I know you
understand the health care need of lower income people.
But do you understand the special needs of people in gay and lesbian couples who cannot depend on their partner's insurance for protection because they are
not a legal spouse or have to pay extra on the benefit? What would you do about this?
EDWARDS:
Well, first of all, let me say thank you to HRC and thank you to all of you for your leadership.
And the answer to your question is those rights should be available to gay and lesbian couples. I actually was the first candidate to come out with a universal
health care plan, which I'm very proud of, that made it very clear that those rights to gay and lesbian couples would be exactly the same as they would for straight
couples. And so those health care benefits would be available to someone in that situation.
And I might add just a few weeks ago I was the LA Gay and Lesbian Center, which is an extraordinary place, which I'm sure some people here are familiar
with here in the Los Angeles community, where they are doing amazing, amazing work.
But there's a message from my visit there that I think is really important for America to hear, which is I met a whole group of young people who were there
because they were homeless, and they were homeless because they came out of the closet and told their parents the truth, and their parents kicked them out of the
home.
And there they were -- the only place -- they were living on the street, had nowhere to go. Thank God for the LA Gay and Lesbian Center being there for
them, and an extraordinary woman who runs the center. But without that place, where would these young people go?
And it just can't be that in America people think that's OK. They can't believe that's OK. And they need to hear and see exactly what I saw when I was there,
because it was moving. It was touching, and I actually believe that that kind of experience would have a huge impact on the American people if they could just
see.
(APPLAUSE)
ETHERIDGE:
It seems like it's had a huge effect on you, and that's really nice to see, because I have heard that you have said in the past that you feel uncomfortable around
gay people. Are you OK right now?
(LAUGHTER)
It's OK.
CARLSON:
It's very common.
EDWARDS:
I'm perfectly comfortable.
ETHERIDGE:
But it's experiences like that that people need to know, people need to see, and just how universal -- how we are all just people. We're the same.
EDWARDS:
It is.
ETHERIDGE:
Now, my next question is...
EDWARDS:
Can I just tell you that's not true -- what you just said? You didn't say I said it, but...
ETHERIDGE:
I had heard of it.
EDWARDS:
Someone else said it.
ETHERIDGE:
Not true?
EDWARDS:
It's not true. It is not true.
ETHERIDGE:
OK. I take that back. I apologize.
EDWARDS:
No. I know where it came from. It came from a political consultant, and he's just wrong. And Elizabeth and I were both there, and both of us have said he's
wrong.
ETHERIDGE:
All right. I apologize for ever taking that and putting that out.
EDWARDS:
That's OK.
ETHERIDGE:
I have children in grade school, and they're now in third and fifth grade. But I remember in first grade and kindergarten the little kids coming up to me and
going, "Why do they have two mommies?" And I always felt that this was my place to just bend down and go, "You know what? Some people have a mommy
and a daddy. Some people have just a mommy, just a daddy. Some people have two mommies and two daddies." And they go, "OK," and they walk away,
because it makes perfect sense to them, and they're fine with that.
Do you think public schools should teach about LGBT kids and families? How can we bring this into the public school system, or should we?
EDWARDS:
Oh, sure it should. The kids who go to public schools need to understand why same sex couples are the parents of some of the children. They need to
understand that these are American families, just like every American family.
It's one of the reasons why, of course, we have tens of thousands of kids in foster care who desperately need a home. It's one of the reasons that we need to
allow gay and lesbian couples the same rights to adopt children -- in fact, to provide for them to have the same rights to adopt children.
(APPLAUSE)
(CROSSTALK)
EDWARDS:
I'm sorry. I'm almost done. The only thing I would add to that is I do think it's important for the kids that their peers understand what's happening, because
otherwise, you know, children are children. They can be mean and cruel, as I know that you have seen.
And the question is whether we as adults have a responsibility to make sure that they're educated, that they understand this is a good thing, and it's
something that we as Americans believe in and embrace.
CARLSON:
At what grade or what age would you introduce, for instance, that kind of education in the schools?
EDWARDS:
That's a good question. I've not thought about it enough to answer it.
CARLSON:
Well, think about it and come back later and tell us what you come up with.
(LAUGHTER)
EDWARDS:
Yes. There is a place, though, that I believe it's appropriate.
CARLSON:
Jonathan?
(CROSSTALK)
CAPEHART:
Senator, when you were the vice presidential nominee in 2004, many gays and lesbians felt that they were being used as a scare tactic by the right wing and
the Republican party and that the Democrats didn't do anything to defend them. Why should the gay community think that it will be defended this time by you?
EDWARDS:
Well, first of all, this is only one area where the right wing uses scare tactics to divide the American people. And the truth is both in a presidential campaign
and in governing, it is so important that we reject this hate-mongering.
I was actually very proud, I have to say -- Melissa mentioned my wife Elizabeth -- I was very proud of Elizabeth for taking Ann Coulter on, and taking her
on head-on.
(APPLAUSE)
I have seen the impact of tolerance, for lack of a better word, of hate-mongering. I have seen it with language used when I was growing up in the segregated
South. And if you stand quietly by and let it happen, what happens is it takes hold. And it takes hold, and then people begin to believe it's OK. It's OK to use the
kind of language that Ann Coulter used. It's OK for the Republicans in their politics to divide America and use hate-mongering to separate us.
If we stand quietly by, it's not just bad for a political campaign -- and it is bad for a political campaign, because we have to stand up for what's right and fair
and just, and we have to do it with passion and strength -- but it's also bad for America.
It is bad for America for us to let anybody, speaking to the American people, use these issues to divide us. And it is so important for anyone who seeks to be
the leader of the United States of America to stand up strong and firm and denounce it and speak out -- and speak out strongly -- for equality.
CARLSON:
Senator, did you want to take on Ann Coulter? You could use the opportunity here.
(LAUGHTER)
Or just Mrs. Edwards?
EDWARDS:
No, no. As a matter of fact, I joined Elizabeth (inaudible) most things with Elizabeth. One of the reporters asked me afterwards, "So what kind of
consultation did you have before Elizabeth called in?" I said, "The usual one. I found out about the same time the media found out."
(LAUGHTER)
No, I think that what Ann Coulter does is the worst kind of public discourse. I think she demeans everything that all the rest of us do.
(APPLAUSE)
And I think it is intended to go to the lowest common denominator in the American people and to divide us.
And it goes to the same point I was making just a minute ago with what I saw when I was growing up in the South, which is if you stand quietly by and let
this happen, then what happens is hatred gets a foothold. And when hatred gets a foothold, it is much harder to unseat.
And you cannot let these people go by quietly and continue what they're doing, which is why Elizabeth spoke up. And I think it's absolutely crucial that we
speak up in a presidential campaign with strength and passion, not quietly and carefully, to do what's right.
CARLSON:
Joe, do you have a question?
SOLMONESE:
Yes. Senator, thank you for being here.
EDWARDS:
Thank you.
SOLMONESE:
Susan Stanton is in our audience tonight. She was for 17 years the city manager in Largo, Florida. She did her job well. She was respected and admired, and
when it was revealed that she was transgender, she was fired.
So my question for you is, if a member of your staff came to you and told you that they were transgender and that they were thinking of transitioning, how
would you react to that? And who in your life has influenced what your reaction might be?
EDWARDS:
I would support them in every possible way, including on a personal and an emotional level, provide every bit of help and support that I possibly could in
going through what they were going through.
And by the way, can I say about the first point you made in your question -- it's the reason we need powerful employment nondiscrimination laws in the
United States of America, so that people cannot be fired.
But I will say I do think that you deserve, and the American deserve to know beyond your policy position what your reaction is, too. I mean, what is it you're
actually willing to do on a personal level? Will you stand with them? Will you support them? Will you support them publicly? Are you willing to do what's right
under the circumstances?
And I can tell you I know in my heart and soul that I would. I've had -- not on that specific question -- similar experiences when I was younger on issues of
race that were extraordinarily difficult in the place where I grew up, when I did what I believed was right, when my family did what we believed was right, and I
think that's at least some indication of what I would do under these circumstances.
SOLMONESE:
And finally, Senator, you've expressed your opposition to same sex marriage, and you've raised your faith as part of the reason for your opposition. I'm
wondering if you could talk a little bit about what is it within your religion that's leading you to this position?
EDWARDS:
Well, you know, I have to tell you I shouldn't have said that, because first of all, I believe to my core in equality. My campaign for the presidency is about
equality across the board.
And I listened to your discussion with Senator Obama a few minutes ago. I was backstage, and I was able to hear what you were saying and what anyone
here was saying. And it makes perfect sense to me that gay and lesbian couples would say, "Civil unions -- great; 1,100 federal benefits -- great; you know, give
us these rights. We deserve these rights." And they're absolutely right about that. But it stops short of real equality.
It makes perfect sense to me that people would feel that way. I totally can understand it. It makes sense. And the only thing I would say about the faith
question is I think from my perspective it is wrong, because we have seen a president in the last six-plus years who tries to impose his faith on the American
people. And I think it is a mistake, and I will not impose my faith belief on the American people. I don't believe any president of the United States should do that.
I believe in the separation of church and state.
And these things that we have talked about -- all these substantive issues of equality, which is really what the discussion has been about, these are part of my
heart soul and core. And they are not just issues that I will answer when I am in front of you. They are things that I will fight for every day, both in the
presidential campaign and as president of the United States, because I think America desperately needs it, and I believe in it deeply.
CARLSON:
Joe, very quickly, one more question.
SOLMONESE:
I was just wondering, then, if you could briefly talk about, as you said, it is not your faith. Then what is at the core of that resistance? I know that you said
you're on a journey, and I'm curious where and when you might end up on that journey.
(LAUGHTER)
CARLSON:
How old are you?
EDWARDS:
I'm too old. I'm 54. I can tell you where I am. First of all, I think you deserve to know the truth. And the truth is that my position on same sex marriage has
not changed. We're past the time of political doublespeak about this. I do believe strongly in civil unions and the substantive rights that go with that. I believe we
desperately need to get rid of DOMA. I think we need to get rid of "Don't ask; don't tell." I think we need to get rid of those things.
(APPLAUSE)
And now what? Just as an aside, "Don't ask; don't tell" is not just wrong now. It was wrong when it began. It's been wrong the entire time, as is true with
DOMA. Exactly the same thing is true with DOMA. All I can tell you is where I am today. That's the best I can do. You deserve to know that from me. Today, I
believe in all these other things, but I do not support same sex marriage.
CARLSON:
I want to squeeze in a viewer-generated question. And it's about "Don't ask; don't tell." This is from Jason Knight in Washington, D.C. He was a former
native linguist who was dismissed under "Don't ask; don't tell." We have so many fewer Arabic speakers, thanks to that rule.
EDWARDS:
I know. I know.
CARLSON:
And he said since the ban cannot be lifted by executive order, he claims you need more than the president. President Clinton wanted to do more, but ran into
the generals, ran into Congress, ran into a lot of roadblocks. So how do you do it? What are you going to do?
EDWARDS:
Well, I think the president of the United States can get rid of "Don't ask; don't tell." I appreciate the question, but if the president of the United States
believes that "Don't ask; don't tell" is bad for America -- in fact, bad for our military, and it's discriminatory, all of which is true...
CARLSON:
And when General Colin Powell says no, you can't do it.
EDWARDS:
I'm not sure Colin Powell would say no.
CARLSON:
I think he did say no.
EDWARDS:
Back then. Back then. But it doesn't matter. It's not the job of the generals to make this determination. It is the job of the president of the United States to
make this policy decision.
(APPLAUSE)
And I can tell you I am firmly committed to eliminating "Don't ask; don't tell."
CARLSON:
Well, we're out of time with our questions.
EDWARDS:
Oh, come on.
CARLSON:
Would you like to wrap up? You know, you get to ask us questions if you'd like to. Anyway, you have a minute to yourself.
EDWARDS:
OK. Thank you. Thank you all very much for being here, and thank all of you. You're so important. The truth is America owes you a debt of gratitude.
Some of you heard me talk in the past about two Americas and trying to have one America. If we actually believe in having one America, we've got a lot of
work to do, don't we? And nobody understands that better than the people in this room and the people you're advocating for.
We have such work to do to keep loving couples together who are separated because of immigration laws that are unfair; to have exactly what was described
in one of the earlier questions, to have an employer be able to walk in to an employee and say you are fired because of your sexual orientation, and nothing can
be done about it; to have someone brutally murdered in the United States of America because of their sexual orientation and not have that be a hate crime.
We're better than this. The United States of America is better than this. And we, and all of you, are important in bringing about the change that's necessary in
this country.
And the last thing I want to say to every single person in this room and everyone who can hear the sound of my voice -- it's great that you're having a
presidential forum; I love that; I'm glad we're talking about these really important issues of equality -- but I want to add to that, the real change and the real
movements in America didn't start in the oval office. They started in places and in communities just like this with people with courage and strength that went out
and stood up and fought for what was right, who marched and spoke up. That's what you're doing today, and you're going to change this country along with the
next president of the United States. Thank you all so much.
(APPLAUSE)

John Edwards Reacts to Bush Threat to Veto Hate Crimes Legislation

Chapel Hill, North Carolina - Senator John Edwards released the following statement in response to President Bush’s threat to veto pending federal hate crime legislation.

“Every American is entitled to live in dignity without fear of violence. No community should feel that they can be targeted with impunity. But until law enforcement has the tools to aggressively investigate and prosecute all hate crimes, some Americans will doubt that the government is on their side. President Bush’s threat to veto hate crime legislation sends just that message.

“With 25 hate crimes committed every day by the FBI’s count – one every hour – it is embarrassing that the White House says stronger law enforcement tools are ‘unnecessary’. Nine years after the heinous murders of Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr., I know these tools are more necessary than ever. As president, I will sign the hate crimes law and make sure law enforcement has all the resources it needs to protect every community in America.”

Stephen Herbits to Lead Clinton LGBT Outreach

From Haaretz.com: Outgoing World Jewish Congress secretary-general and prominent gay rights activist Stephen Herbits will lead Hillary Clinton's campaign
within the gay and lesbian community, as she seeks to win the Democrat presidential nomination.

Herbits has in the past held several positions related to the gay and lesbian community in the United States.

In his last post, Herbits served as the personal assistant to Donald Rumsfeld during his term as secretary of defense. He was then appointed secretary-general of the WJC.

After cosmetics heir Ron Lauder was elected to the WJC presidency in June, replacing Canadian billionaire Edgar Bronfman, Herbits announced he would resign from his post as the organization's secretary-general. He has not yet stepped down.

The WJC was established in the 1930s and represents Jewish communities from 80 countries. In the 1990s, the organization played a key role in restoring property that was stolen in the Holocaust to its Jewish owners, but has recently found it difficult to focus on a major goal

This article is by Amiram Barkat and was posted on www.haaretz.com

Democrats 2008: Déjà vu, all over again?

By Matt Foreman, Executive Director, National Gay and Lesbian Task Force

The Democratic candidates for president, as a group and individually, express more support for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) issues and legislative and policy initiatives to improve our lives than any prior set of presidential candidates in the history of American politics. These new standards of support for LGBT people are worthy of our applause, our appreciation and our accolades.

Still, no major Democratic candidate has made the kind of sweeping statement of inclusion as did Gov. Bill Clinton in 1992, when he declared to a huge crowd of LGBT people in Los Angeles, "I have a vision for America and you are part of it." His words brought tears to the eyes of the audience and rang out across the United States. Even the most skeptical of us in the LGBT community knew that we heard something previously unspoken by any major political figure.

We also know and painfully remember that Clinton's vision of America did not translate into much of anything positive for us at the federal level. We can recount our bitter disappointments during Clinton's time in the White House: the crash and burn of the effort to rescind the Department of Defense policy of discharging gay and lesbian service members, the secret late-night signing of the Defense of Marriage Act, and an ushering in of abstinence-only sexuality education in the public schools. Clinton couldn't or wouldn't deliver on the specifics, but at least he held us in his larger vision of a healthy society.

Since 1980, we have suffered the gross indignities of defamations and slanders from a ravenous and rapacious right-wing anti-gay movement, a veritable industry churning out anti-LGBT propaganda at every turn. We endured the AIDS epidemic and the Reagan administration's cruel indifference while our people fell to illness and then to death. We saw the U.S. Supreme Court uphold state laws that branded us criminals for our sexuality. We have been clubbed by an onslaught of ballot questions that put our lives up to popular vote. Time and again, we've been thrown under the political bus by politicians either in the White House or those who want to get there.

All of this misery has been exacerbated exponentially by the spinelessness or unwillingness of all but a few national leaders to take a stand for us and denounce the animus unleashed on us. Many of our "friends" have simply looked the other way.

We bear our scars and yet remain unbowed. But, we are still waiting for the country's political leadership to defend our right to live and thrive as a matter of principle, not parse our dreams as a matter of misguided political calculation.

This far into the 2008 race, things don't look all that good. People who think GOP candidates are backing away from using us to inflame and divide are simply wrong. Republican rhetoric is peppered with code that thinly disguises -- and affirms -- anti-LGBT sentiment with references to safeguarding the family, the sanctity of marriage, the foundation of civilization. For example, Mitt Romney said in Derry, N.H., "The source of America's strength is the American people...family oriented American people." And, John McCain on his official Web site: "The family represents the foundation of Western Civilization and civil society and John McCain believes the institution of marriage is a union between one man and one woman." Let's be clear: Romney and McCain do not include our families when they speak of "the family." The Web sites of other Republicans, except for Ron Paul and Rudy Giuliani's, explicitly reject full and equal recognition of our relationships.

But, what of the Democrats? Sadly, mostly silence. You can find our issues explicitly referenced on only three candidates' sites (Kucinich, Richardson and Gravel). Frontrunners Clinton, Obama and Edwards carefully parse their support of our people into specific reforms. We find no evidence that the Democratic frontrunners counter Republicans' anti-LGBT speech with routine and positive inclusion of LGBT people in their visions for a whole and healthy society.

It's déjà vu all over again -- the GOP often slyly and sometimes audaciously whips us for political gain. The Democrats include us -- sorta -- but only in response to a direct question and typically in the language of careful legislative reform.

This must change, starting now, because at this moment in history, reforms are both important and insufficient.

We deserve and we must demand from the Democratic 2008 presidential candidates the simple and straightforward statement that our humanity requires full respect and fair treatment by all and, further, an equally simple and straightforward condemnation of those who seek to use our lives for political gain. This needs be said in front of all audiences -- not just in front of us.

We need leadership. We need strength of vision. And we need to know that the promises of reform come from the candidates' understanding of LGBT people as inseparable from the national community in which we live. There can be no more equivocating or silence about the goodness of our personhood, our families, our relationships. Period.