Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Al Gore Comes Out for Marriage Equality

Posted by Pam Spaulding, Pam's House Blend at 3:01 PM on January 23, 2008.


"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," says Gore.

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

Got a tip for a post?:
Email us | Anonymous form

Get Media and Technology in your
mailbox!

 

The man who won the popular vote for president in 2000 (and if not for SCOTUS, would have resulted in a much different last 7 years), shares his views on equality on his cable channel, CurrentTV.

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.

Freedom to Marry on the video:

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."

Hat top, Towleroad

Digg!

Tagged as: gore, gay marriage, gay rights, freedom to marry, wolfson

Pam Spaulding blogs at Pam's House Blend.


Fox News: 'McCain's TV Commercials Contain ... Out-Right Lies'
Wait, we're seriously talking about Fox News? The Fox News?
Post by Steve Benen. September 5, 2008.
Van Halen, Heart, Others to GOP: Stop Using Our Songs!
GOP ignores copyrights, raises ire of multiple recording artists.
Post by Dave Burdick. September 5, 2008.
Jon Stewart Thrashes Rove, O'Reilly For Palin Hypocrisy
How do you spell 'double standard?'
Post by Staff. September 4, 2008.

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Ah, Al Gore...
Posted by: JoshuaLudd on Jan 23, 2008 4:29 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
All willing to do the right thing... but only when he is politically irrelevant.

You're about 8 years late, Al.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

problematic argument
Posted by: Zenobia on Jan 23, 2008 6:40 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Shouldn't we be promoting the kind of faithfulness and loyalty to one partner regardless of sexual orientation?"

Why?

"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."

Promiscuity? Anyone who is not monogamous is promiscuous?

This is truly disturbing. I fully support the right of the LBGQT community to marry if they choose to do so for romantic, spiritual, and/or legal reasons.

HOWEVER, monogamy is not the only model for loving or expressing one's sexuality. Marriage is not the only way of expressing committment. We cannot use the quest of same-sex couples for marriage equality as an excuse to urge or reward traditional relationship mores!

Along with same sex marriage rights, I do wish we were expanding the dialogue to re-evaluate and deconstruct the whole institution of marriage itself. For example, why am I, as a heterosexual person in a committed relationship of 7 years, punished for not giving in to a patriarchal, religiously-rooted institution in terms of domestic partner health benefits at my job? If we were married, he would get them, if we were gay, she would get them.

We need to treat adults--gay, straight, bi, questioning, whatever--as adults in terms of defining their relationships. Right now we treat heteros as little children who are handed lolipops for passing through their societally-sanctioned rite of passage (marriage), and we treat same-sex couples as invisible non-people.

Of course, if we had socialized health care, many of these legal issues around benefits and marriage would be moot.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I am glad to see this
Posted by: Lauren on Jan 24, 2008 2:04 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Thanks Al. I think this is a good move in the war of the roses.

The other, even better, reason you missed is to avoid the kind of fooled-you marriages that are created by gay people trying to pretend they aren't. The fooled spouse and the resulting tensions are not good for anyone, children included.

Glad to have you aboard my MariKush express! Now that you have taken on one of their hot button religious issues, would you please talk about the discrimination of small minds against compassionate care? I mean national medical marijuana policies? Thank you.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Oh my Dog!
Posted by: zipper696 on Jan 24, 2008 9:27 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What was Al thinking? He's gonna have the brimstone burning Fundies buzzing around him like angry hornets.
Imagine, actually letting adults CHOOSE who they wish to have a relationship with, what an extraordinary idea!
Come on, Mr Gore what do you think this country stands for, Liberty, Freedom, Democracy?

Excuse me, I have to go commune with my Rush Limbaugh dress-up doll....

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Anyone stupid enough
Posted by: hurricane hugo on Jan 24, 2008 10:10 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
to actually want to get married should be allowed to do so.

;)

plur

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Poor Al Gore,
Posted by: Doubtom on Jan 24, 2008 8:51 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Aw shut up Al, you make way too much sense for this bunch of religious wackos and radicals. Wait for Amerika to grow up.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Yet more proof
Posted by: Shey on Jan 25, 2008 5:16 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
........that the brightest and best feel compelled to opt out of politics in the U.S.
Of course having a presidential election stolen from you by fraudulent voting incidents and "our" ultra-right wing-nut Supreme Court, would also tend to put a chill on one's political ambitions.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]