The man who won the popular vote for president in 2000 (and if not for SCOTUS, would have given us a very different last 7 years), shares his views on equality on his cable channel, CurrentTV.
Freedom to Marry on the video:I think it’s wrong for the government to discriminate against people because of a person’s sexual orientation. I think that gay men and women ought to have the same rights as heterosexual men and women to make contracts, have hospital visiting rights, and join together in marriage.
I don’t understand why it is considered by some people to be a threat to heterosexual marriage to allow it for gays and lesbians. Shouldn’t we be promoting the kind of faithfulness and loyalty to one partner regardless of sexual orientation? Because if we don’t do that, then to that extent you are promoting promiscuity and promoting all the problems that can result from promiscuity. And the loyalty and love that people feel for one another when they fall in love ought to be celebrated and encouraged and shouldn’t be prevented by any form of discrimination in the law.
Hat tip, Towleroad.As the country awaits state high court decisions in marriage cases brought by couples in Connecticut, California, and Iowa; the New Jersey legislature prepares to deal with the reality that civil unions don’t work; and the 11th Annual Freedom to Marry Week (Feb. 10-16) approaches, Nobel Laureate Al Gore has added his voice in support of ending same-sex couples’ exclusion from marriage.
In a personal video posted on Current TV January 17, shortly before Martin Luther King, Jr. Day, Al Gore spoke out in favor of the freedom to marry.
…In response to Gore’s unequivocal and heartfelt statement making the case for marriage equality, Evan Wolfson, founder of Freedom to Marry and author of Why Marriage Matters: America, Equality, and Gay People’s Right to Marry (Simon & Schuster 2004), said, “Al Gore, a true world leader, explains it perfectly. The freedom to marry is about protecting all families and promoting loyalty and love and commitment. As on so many crucial questions, Gore gets it right, and shows what leadership really means.”
39 Responses to “Al Gore: I’m for marriage equality”
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
One more reason I wish voting for Mr. Gore was an option.
good god, just imagine a president with a brain and a conscience. it makes me wistful for what should have been.
Of course, it’s not improbable that if he had stayed in political office he wouldn’t be saying things like that. But even so, yeah. The contrast is terrifying.
Agreed- wish he would throw his hat back in the ring.
not only is al gore the awesomest, but current.tv is a wonderful channel. it’s informative and actually fun programming. it is the real iteration of the simpsons’ “funducational.”
Of course, it’s not improbable that if he had stayed in political office he wouldn’t be saying things like that. But even so, yeah.
Try no way in hell. Politicians are limited by political concerns, hence the name. Instead of looking at Al Gore who has the luxury of saying whatever he wants and saying “God, he’s so much better than the clowns we’ve got”, give Ms. Clinton, Mr. Obama and Mr. Edwards a break because they’re all thinking the same thing.
You might say that doesn’t do the LGBT community much good but I think that’s wrong, it’s a hell of a lot better than having people who actively want to write bigotry (back) into the Constitution. In a democracy, politicans can only lead so far. We’ve got to push them.
As the polar bear says, “I can has Al Gore?”
http://icanhascheezburger.com/2008/01/07/funny-pictures-i-can-has-al-gore/
There is absolutely no way he would be saying something like that, and particularly not in a direct manner, if he were currently in office. The Al Gore of the 2000 campaign was a mealymouthed shapeshifter, as was his rival, thus driving people like me to vote Nader in hopes that SOMEONE might actually speak plainly for a change. Only after the election did the true natures of the candidates come out, as is so often the case.
You can see it happening in the current campaign, statements by the frontrunners becoming less bold, more vague. It’s a horrible thing that handlers do to candidates, and it’s one of the reasons people don’t vote.
The Al Gore of the 2000 campaign was a mealymouthed shapeshifter, as was his rival
Was he? Or did you simply swallow the lies of professional bullshit artist Ralph Nader and his peers in the media?
Certainly one of the media narratives that developed was that Gore was a mealymouthed shapeshifter who liked to take credit for things he couldn’t possibly have been involved with. Of course, none of that narrative turned out to be supported by anything besides Maureen Dowd’s imagination and Nader’s ridiculous campaign rhetoric.
Wow, that Gore video was cool. If only we could get some of the presidential candidates to vlog like that - or anyone else in the political sphere, for that matter.
Unfortunately, you can’t be that candid when you’re running for office - making the word “candidate” a supreme irony.
Chet,
No, I WATCHED DAMN DEBATES. I watched his press conferences, I watched for any fucking sign of life at all, and found none. And frankly, I also saw no sign of this Nader The Master Media Manipulator of whom you speak. The guy spoke more clearly than the other two options, but he was hardly Rupert Fucking Murdoch.
Yeah, I think he can get away with saying this because he’s not running for political office. I fully expect the Democratic nominee to waffle on this issue to play on both sides. But I’m a cynic with 16 years of history to back me up.
I like Gore out of the races because it means he can say the right things and piss off the right people. But he’d make a kick-ass Secretary of State.
I dearly hope that we on the left side of the field do not revise our history to suggest that Al Gore v.2000 appeared as some great savior, simply because his opponent turned out to be such an asshat. Gore did many great things in the Senate, but he also did his share of triangulating and DLC-style center-speak as Clinton’s veep. There’s no evidence to suggest that had he stayed in the White House, he wouldn’t have followed that road rather than the far more progressive one he has since not having to jockey for votes.
It’s obvious as hell that he would’ve been a better president than the Chimp, and the world is a worse place because he got shafted by Rehnquist and the gang. But let’s not pretend that the Al Gore of An Inconvenient Truth was the Al Gore who soft-shoed his way through the 2000 campaign, stiffening a mold that for some insane reason Mr. Kerry fell into shortly thereafter.
“No, I WATCHED DAMN DEBATES.”
…through the filter of countless hours of media manipulation to ensure you’d have exactly that reaction.
But I’m sure a guy like you is way too strong to influenced by negative media narratives that frame someone in exclusively bad terms while ignoring anything positive.
Besides, that slippery Edwards guy gets $400 haircuts! And HE’S A TRIAL LAWYER! Two small breasts and two large thighs! And if she bends over, YOU CAN SEE HER BALLS! Barack HUSSEIN! Obama, why HE’S NOT EVEN REALLY BLACK! Is that crazy or what!!!…
on Gore’s actual statement:
i don’t know, i think the ‘prosmiscuity is bad, therefore marriage is good’ line of reasoning is a dead-end. As long as we believe marriage is the solution and promiscuity is the problem, it won’t *matter* whether or not we can get married. What does this do for me if i’m single?
I disagree that to fail to promote marriage is to promote promiscuity. Otherwise it’s nice to hear from him, and no surprise.
“i don’t know, i think the ‘prosmiscuity is bad, therefore marriage is good’ line of reasoning is a dead-end. As long as we believe marriage is the solution and promiscuity is the problem, it won’t *matter* whether or not we can get married. What does this do for me if i’m single?”
Yes, “promiscutity bad, fidelity good” doesn’t lead anywhere in particular on its own merits.
By it’s good framing to counter the family values, morality squealing of the right. In this frame, gay marriage hands them everything they claim to stand for. The conservative message loses its power.
Heh, the direction of this thread is counter-proof to the claim in the other thread that liberals are not blindly loyal to authority figures.
Not everyone was happy happy, joy joy over the Clinton/Gore/DLC centrist stance. Many of these people took to the streets in Seattle, Philidelphia, and LA and were treated with some of the nastiest FBI action since Herbert Hoover.
And you alone, MikeEss The Almighty, are capable of divining the truth amidst the fog of media narrative? No one else can think for themselves?
MikeEss: But I’m sure a guy like you is way too strong to influenced by negative media narratives that frame someone in exclusively bad terms while ignoring anything positive.
Because after all none of us were reading press releases from left-wing groups who were consistenly saying, “well, we are not that fond of Gore, but he’s better than the alternative.” Or reading activist press publications who were wondering why non-violent protesters were getting herded into free-speech zones, run down by mounted police, and held on million-dollar bail for posession of a palm pilot, or why the WTO which was the biggest story of 1999 was excluded from the debates, or why the debate system that included Perot in ‘92 was changed to exclude Nader in ‘00.
Yes, the left was just one big happy family singing kumbya in ‘00.
“And you alone, MikeEss The Almighty, are capable of divining the truth amidst the fog of media narrative? No one else can think for themselves?”
We’re all swimming in it. So, no, I can’t always tell when I’m seeing the “real” candidate or when I’m just seeing the spin, the packaging, and the media narrative that has been assigned.
And you can’t, and Amanda can’t, etc….
Haha, I have never commented on this site before and I am so excited to Blaspheme! Anyway, I agree that his stance on so-called promiscuity did catch me a little, as I am never getting married but I still do not plan on being “zomg a slut!!”.
But other than that, the president of the US that resides in a separate universe from ours did really well. Better than most of the mainstream now, I gather
Because if we don’t do that, then to that extent you are promoting promiscuity and promoting all the problems that can result from promiscuity
Which is *exactly* the frame that the Bible thumpers want. They don’t want Adam and Steve living quiet lives of work, family and friends, they want them to be in ass-less leather chaps getting fucked on pool tables in seedy dive bars and spreading all sorts of icky diseases (see the recent bullshit hysteria about “Staph infection spread by gays”).
And for FUCK’S SAKE get a new one/fix the shitty anti-spam thing in these comments! I’ve had two co-workers look at it and we can’t even come close to a consensus.
“i don’t know, i think the ‘prosmiscuity is bad, therefore marriage is good’ line of reasoning is a dead-end. As long as we believe marriage is the solution and promiscuity is the problem, it won’t *matter* whether or not we can get married. What does this do for me if i’m single?”
There are lots of sites of discourse. Major political leaders just aren’t going to praise non-monogamy. I ain’t gonna turn monogamous, and there are other sites where those conversations can take place. however, he’s probably also the highest official in the land to have thus far called for equality (even if it’s from a “former” position). Additionally, the Gore of 2008 is a candidate I would be enthusiastic over in ways that Gore 2000 wasn’t.
Anywho…we deal with the candidates we got. They’re far from perfect, but they’re far better than the probable alternatives.
It’s obvious as hell that he would’ve been a better president than the Chimp, and the world is a worse place because he got shafted by Rehnquist and the gang. But let’s not pretend that the Al Gore of An Inconvenient Truth was the Al Gore who soft-shoed his way through the 2000 campaign, stiffening a mold that for some insane reason Mr. Kerry fell into shortly thereafter.
And it’s not just 2000. Gore had run a listless campaign as the most conservative Democratic presidential candidate in 1988. He was principally responsible for the Clinton administration’s sales job on NAFTA (remember the debate against Perot on CNN?). His wife was a leading conservative culture warrior of the 1980s and he chose one of the leading conservative culture warriors of the 1990s as his running mate in 2000. Bill Bradley, of all people, was able to plausibly run to Gore’s left in the 2000 primaries.
Maybe Gore’s behavior since 2000 teaches us something about how he would have governed. But the evidence concerning how he actually behaved in the Senate, in the Vice Presidency, and as a candidate for president suggests otherwise. Gore seems to have really changed for the better since 2000. It’s a pity that this transformation apparently took his being out of office.
And, no, none of this has to do with media nonsense about “inventing the internet,” Love Canal, Love Story, or (not) loving to have a beer with him.
MAJeff,
Hell to the yeah, i love Al Gore v2.0.0.8.
And some of my favorite politicians say things i don’t love, too. Including the candidates we have– except Kucinich. He’s adorable, committed, and at the HRC/Logo presidential forum he was all ‘I support marriage equality, because I love you!’ It was a little creepy, but sweet. I don’t really want Al Gore to support gay marriage for that reason, either. I don’t think people should stop fighting for it, i’d just like to see it tied to other issues in a smarter, less heteronormative way.
As long as we believe marriage is the solution and promiscuity is the problem, it won’t *matter* whether or not we can get married. What does this do for me if i’m single?
yeah, thanks for those who mentioned this. i do appreciate that he’s supporting equal rights and that he’s addressing the right’s own stated values to do so. i know, i know.
i just wish he’d said something like “we want to support strong families and strong relationships, which is difficult to do when the law discourages or prevents you from making long-term plans together”. something that sounds more like “why does the right hate love?” and less like “why does the right love sluts?”
i don’t know, i think the ‘prosmiscuity is bad, therefore marriage is good’ line of reasoning is a dead-end. As long as we believe marriage is the solution and promiscuity is the problem, it won’t *matter* whether or not we can get married. What does this do for me if i’m single?
He’s basically highlighting the logical flaw in the conservative stance on sex: If people are only supposed to have sex within marriage, but you refuse to allow them to get married, how can you claim that they’re sinners since you won’t let them do what you say they have to do to be moral?
It’s supposed to make the fundie-bot heads explode from cognitive dissonance. Not that that ever works, but that’s the logic.
What Ben Alpers said. Harrumph!
The devil is always in the details. This is critical for looking at Gore’s history. International press sources in 1999-2000 were frustrated that the Clinton administration was talking big about environmental issues, but was a stubborn and obstinate bear at the negotiating table demanding consessions which would have required only token changes by U.S. industries. So yeah, big talk, saying the right thing. That’s a world of difference from actually doing the right thing.
I don’t think, in this context, you can say “promiscuity bad, fidelity good” is an accurate reflection of his position. He’s talking about a debate over marriage rights. You know, for people who want to get married.
There’s a big difference between being promiscuous because you want to and being promiscuous because the option of being monogamous is socially and legally unworkable. I think we can agree that in that situation, promiscuity is a bad thing.
And of course, as has been said, conservatives want gay people to be promiscuous, because it fits their message of hate.
Obviously, Al Gore is itching to earn the Gay Nobel Prize.
Or would that be a Tony Award?
being promiscuous because the option of being monogamous is socially and legally unworkable.
yeah but isn’t that second idea total bs? i think even this “unwanted promiscuity” is a little more complicated than not having access to legal marriage.
“And of course, as has been said, conservatives want gay people to be promiscuous, because it fits their message of hate.”
Or, you know, to have somebody available when they want a quickie. The constant “wide stance” style scandals make me think that’s the real reason.
I’d like to see President Obama, Hillary, or Edwards (still keeping my fingers crossed) give this man a cool job, like U.N. Ambassador, or create a Global Warming Czar position for him.
I think that in a soundbite world, he needs to speak in fairly broad strokes.
The fact is that there are plenty of gay couples who already do conduct their relationships in line with the way most people think of opposite-sex marriage.
In a lot of ways, it is like trying to address the “gay people can’t get married because marriage is a religious thing” argument with pointing out that there are respected denominations that have been conducting union ceremonies that they consider in all religious ways equal to marriage for ages now.
It doesn’t address the valid discussion point of whether religion belongs in charge of marriage, because the point of the argument is to highlight the flaw in the argument being addressed.
Whether or not monogamy or promiscuity is good, better, best, etc, is a different discussion. The point at hand is that a lot of people support marriage specifically because it (supposedly) reduces promiscuity among straights who couple up. The question he is asking is “if that is such a good thing for straight people, why are we refusing to allow it to the very people we are accusing of being the worst offenders?”
Personally, I’d be more tweaked about the fact that he is using the gay MALE stereotype as the basis for his refutation. Not that their aren’t promiscuous lesbians or monogamous gay men, but reality does seem to skew the other way.
Pesky stealth lesbians!
atheist woman
January 23, 2008 at 6:33 pm
“I am never getting married but I still do not plan on being ‘zomg a slut!!’.”
I do. (*ducks*)
I do plan on getting married and I still plan on being zomg a slut.
I am never getting married but I still do not plan on being ‘zomg a slut!!’.
I do. (*ducks*)
I do plan on getting married and I still plan on being zomg a slut.
see, this is what i love. no reason we can’t de-couple and re-permutate (?) all the options.