Disagree about Carlson's contributions, and not just because they chose someone straight [however previously empathetic or informed] to carry LGBT water. Was this the HRC Plantation Hour? Though I think all the attention paid to him is fuctionally a waste of time, I treasure Kucinich's courage of his convictions. Yet, former Fred Thompson porkee Carlson mocked and diminished him, and his supporters, twice: "welcome to the left coast" and something about being "out there" or the like. I suppose one must be thankful that she didn't "quip" that he must be from another planet.

Out, former CNN anchor Thomas Roberts [versus that closeted coward Cooper] would have been a great choice, and there's a big three out reporter, too, whose name always escapes me. Jeffrey something?

As for Melissa. I agree that she wasted time and much she said, even just in print, almost sent me into insulin shock. BUT she elicited the only NEW answer of the evening and campaign and one that keeps getting ignored: Edwards daring support for gay-positive messaging in public schools:

"ETHERIDGE: Do you think public schools should teach about LGBT kids and families? Or do you think this is a place — how can we bring this into the public school system? Or should we?

EDWARDS: Oh, sure, it should. I mean, 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. .... 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.”

I feel like someone from another planet myself when I awoke to discover that this isn't the lead story about last night on every LGBT site.

Thanks again for the transcripts.

Melissa's bark beetle question was silly. But kudos to her for reminding everyone that her husband DID throw us under the bus.

I thought Joe did okay. Wasn't too thrilled with the moderator or Melissa, but Thomas blew me away. I LOVED him. By far and away, he was the best. I do agree with Leland though that Melissa got the only new answer out of anyone (Edwards) and was also responsible for the Richardson question. That's not too shabby for a "not journalist." :)

I am with Leland about Edwards. That was one of the small bits I was able to catch between outages of the online feed. I nearly shat myself when I heard him say LGBT issues should be taught in schools. That's fucking huge and the rightwing is going to roast him on it.

I commented on a thread last night that Melissa was a crappy panelist. I mean, loudmouth Rosie would have been a better choice than Etheridge.

As for marriage being the central issue, I'm of a mixed bag on that. I think it was overkill to have so much dominance by marriage related questions, but I can also understand why it happened that way. In presidential politics, the only LGBT issue that registers on the radar right now is marriage. It's been the hot button issue for the past few years and that battle is raging just as furiously today as it was when it started.

I don't know. In some ways, I think marriage is the right battle at the wrong time. I think marriage is one of the biggest hurdles we have toward realizing true equality. And I don't mean that in an assimilationist "we must be just like the hets"kind of way. I mean that once we get a majority of the country convinced that gay is OK enough to allow to marry, we will have crossed that line from tolerance to acceptance.

Problem is, the marriage issue did come up first and we can't walk away from that battle. Even if you're not at all interested in marriage, it's important that we don't lose the fight against constitutional amendments that ban marriage equality. It's important because, as we've seen in Indiana and most of the other states that have addressed a constitutional amendment, banning gay marriage isn't the only thing they try to do.

They try to ban adoption by same sex couples. They try to roll back Human Rights laws. They try to ban in-vitro fertilization for non-married couples (including same sex or opposite sex). They try all sorts of nasty tricks while they wedge whack the marriage issue to keep people blinded to their other indiscretions.

Marriage is such a battle ground because it's the only LGBT issue the right wing can get a majority on - so they're not going to let it go. They can froth up way too many of their ChristoSheeple (I'm trademarking that one) with marriage and get them to "see a need" for these other laws too.

So, marriage isn't just about marriage. It's often political double speak for bigger issues. In getting into the nuances of the answers, you can get a picture for how they really view our community. Do they know our issues? Like Edwards bringing up homeless LGBT youth (which Bil said wouldn't be mentioned) or Edwards again asserting his belief that LGBT issues should be taught in school.

That shows a breadth and depth to our issues while still holding out on marriage in order to preserve votes. Yes, you just have to do that sometimes in politics. That's why allowing them to dance around this questions gives us a bigger picture of how inclusive the candidate really is.

It's a dance. Politicians are trained to give you as indirect an answer as possible. Especially in today's age of camera phones and Macaca YouTube moments, a simple little misspeak can cost you the entire election. That's why you keep them talking as much as possible on an issue they are somewhat comfortable talking about (like marriage, since it's been an ongoing debate for so many years and the candidates are well established in their positions) - at some point, the true person will shine through. Last night, we saw that happen several times, good and bad.

Jerame said:

So, marriage isn't just about marriage. It's often political double speak for bigger issues.

I totally agree with you there. In fact I think that's something that social conservatives acknowledge, even though they hate it, that marriage says a lot about what sort of sexual activity is normalized and sanctioned, and I think anti-marriage queer radicals "get it", except they're against that sort of assimilation. It just seems like some center-left/libertarian sorts are are always like "it's just a civil contract" or "we just want it for the 1200+ benefits that we can't even name 2% of". I think it would just be a lot more honest and a lot more productive if we just said the issue is a big part about being treated the same, is a big part about having our relationships normalized and blessed by the government, and, by extension, recognize that part of our identities and affirm it. It would be more honest, although some people might back away from a scary proposition like that one (or, like me, make me question the wisdom of marriage as a whole).

That said, a majority of the questions shouldn't have been about marriage. I know it's a symbol for other things, but symbols don't do any good to teens living in the street trying to find another bed to sleep in. That should have been brought up and not by a candidate, but by the panel.

I'm not saying that I expected them to ignore marriage, just that 22 out of 43 questions is a bit much.

And I would have liked Rosie up there a lot more than Melissa. :)

But when there are an estimated 670,000 same-sex couples living together in the country and estimates of the number of LGBT people range from 8 to 20 million. That's about 3 to 8% of the queers in this country, and those couples aren't just worried about marriage-related issues.

I agree with your point, but I think you math needs some help. Multiply your estimate of the number of couples by two: There are over 1.3 million persons in GLBT couples. Or, 6% to 16%, if we rely on those statistics.