Friday, April 06, 2007



Yesterday, some of my friends in Indiana were celebrating the relative progress in their state when a viciously anti-gay amendment was defeated. At the same time they were yipping it up in Indiana because the freight train to deny their humanity was slowed down, Connecticut Senator Chris Dodd showed some real heart, wisdom, leadership and balls in New Hampshire when he took on the issue of gay marriage head-on. Dodd is running for president. So are Hillary, Obama, and Edwards. You think any of them would speak out so forthrightly?

Dodd said the question we should all ask ourselves is "What would you do if your child were gay? Dodd said anyone who would deny a gay child the right to be happy isn't being honest."
Dodd, the father of 2-year-old and 5-year-old girls, said his daughters could grow up to be lesbians and that he hopes they would have the opportunity to enjoy marriage-like rights.

"They may grow up as a different sexual orientation than their parents," he said. "How would I want my child to be treated if they were of a different sexual orientation?"

In contrast to Indiana, New Hampshire lawmakers were debating a civil unions bill at the statehouse, a mile away from where Dodd was speaking. The bill passed easily, moving on to the Senate. (In Alaska, on the other hand, not such good news-- a not-so-ringing 53 percent endorsement for a right-wing proposal to deny health care benefits to partners of gay public employees.)

Meanwhile, Dodd also became the first Senate Democrat running for president to endorse Feingold's new bill to bring the occupation of Iraq to a end. "The Feingold-Reid Bill helps Congress finally put the brakes on the Administration's failed Iraq strategy, and serves notice to the President in terms he can't ignore. It sets forth a new direction that will require the Iraqis to take responsibility for their future by mandating the safe, phased redeployment of US combat forces from Iraq, with a hard date for completing that redeployment. It also very responsibly provides for a continued, very limited role for US troops who remain in Iraq-- equip and train Iraqi security forces, carry out limited counter terrorism operations and protect US personnel and infrastructure. I am pleased to join with Senators Feingold and Reid as a co-sponsor on this important legislative initiative. I would urge the President to embrace the new direction set forth in the bill."

Last January Chris Dodd became the first presidential contender to open up to the regular Saturday Blue America live forums we hold at Firedoglake. Media hype aside, he seems a far, far better leader than any other senators currently running for president.


Labels: , , ,


At 8:55 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I love that it has become safe to be a liberal again. I think Americans have had enough of this bully nonsense. Which is good to know about one's country.

America has always polled liberal, but the neocons always believe their own press. Too bad. They poked the sleeping bear of American live and let live spirit. Now, they will have to pay the consequences.

At 9:37 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...


Big fucking deal. Where's he been for the last 30 years? Johnny-come-lately isn't getting my vote.

Although I am glad that spineless Congressional wimps finally feel safe enough to challenge wingnut orthodoxy, even if in a small way.

At 11:37 AM, Blogger Political Realm said...

Some progress is better than no progress. Good for Dodd.

At 11:40 AM, Blogger aaronjasonsilver said...

Is marriage a religious institution?

I feel at times I am the only gay person that is not satisfied by the term “civil union”. To me it feels like a consolation prize given as a means of pacifying gays. Throw them a few crumbs as their used to and they’ll shut up. Truthfully, I hope that we gay men and woman will not stop at gay unions and go after what we deserve, gay marriage. I am saddened but not surprised that many gays are willing to accept second class citizenship after all it is what we are accustomed to. Our entire gay civil rights movement that is being courageously fought by a very few, has been about equal rights, not just some rights. This of course means marriage as well.
We should not be satisfied by civil unions. Unions are not equal. It’s unfortunate that this have become political as did the civil rights movement back in the 60’s. Even the politicians that are privately in favor of gay marriage are afraid to speak openly about it, with the exception of a few impassioned politicians that have a strong sense of integrity and a clear view of what is right and wrong.

We cannot look to the bible for any answers regarding equal rights. Those laws were written at a different time and for an ancient culture. It may surprise many to know that gay marriages were widely accepted by the Romans and the Greeks. We also must understand that many of the ancients were a very superstitious people that made many of their laws in regards to those superstitions. We therefore cannot be influenced by scripture. The many books within the bible vastly contradict themselves on many subjects. Which ones should we believe? Many religious institutions have the belief that sexual relations is solely for the purpose of procreation. This is an affront to childless marriages. Are they any less valid? Should they not have sexual relations even though they know it will not produce children? I wonder why God would make sexuality so very pleasurable if it were only for procreation. It wouldn’t need to be enjoyable. The mechanics of sexuality would be all that is necessary. Beside don’t we live in a country that has a law about separation between church and state?

Somebody please help me understand why marriage by many is considered a religious institution. For the sake of discussion I would like someone to tell me why atheists are then eligible for marriage? It seems to me that heterosexual marriages are afforded just about any opportunity and environment they choose to take their vows. Even those damned heathens.

Straight men and woman can choose a church marriage; they can get married underwater, on a mountaintop, by a justice of the peace or even by a ship captain. However, the most romantic and holy place I can imagine to pledge ones vows of love and fidelity, is driving through a drive-in chapel in Las Vegas, as one would order a family meal. Don’t get me wrong. I do love happy meals. The best part is, no one even has to bother to get out of the car. How can one compete with that kind of service? I’ve heard that they even change your oil, but that may be just hearsay.

Has it dawned on anyone that the constitution of the United States says very clearly that all people shall be treated as equal? There are no clauses added to that, such as, except gays. What was stated in that document then still rings very clear yet today and likely for many years to come. We don’t have to look too awfully far back into our history to find examples of how we ignored the constitution for selfish heterosexual Anglo-Saxon citizens so we could still own people. It wasn’t until the early part of the nineteenth century before woman were allowed to vote. Not so long before that, slavery was legal. It wasn’t until nearly fifty years ago that African Americans weren’t allowed to marry whites. If we are to learn anything from our nation’s history, we should then know that whenever we veer off from what that beautifully crafted document for whatever convenient reason, it is eventually overturned and changed for reasons of being fairer. I have still yet to hear a valid reason how gay marriage could negatively impact modern society. I’ve heard that if gays were allowed to marry it would have the potential of destroying traditional marriage. We only have to look at the statistics of the success of “traditional marriages to discover that more than half end up in divorce. Gays did not cause that. Fidelity within marriage has a terrible track record as well. Therefore I would truly like to hear some reasonable argument posed that would make sense why gay marriage ought not be allowed. Thank you, Aaron Jason Silver; Fennville, Mi 49408 for more information on issues within gay culture please read; “why gay men do what they do”, an inside look at gay culture.

At 12:06 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Some progress is better than no progress. Good for Dodd."

I cannot disagree. Yet it would have been better for the country if he and the others had stood up to the Falwell- Robertson- Dobson- Wildmon crowd decades ago. If they had, we wouldn't be saddled with Bushco today.

At 7:51 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

okay does this mean he is all for it or on the fence leaning in the direction of "yes'?

Im doing a report on him for english and i need to know facts

At 7:52 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

okay does this mean he is all for it or on the fence leaning in the direction of "yes'?

Im doing a report on him for english and i need to know facts

mail me at



Post a Comment

<< Home