Richardson didn't "dodge" the question. He answered it. In my opinion he answered it wrong both politically and scientifically, but he did answer it. He responded "I think it is a choice" To which Etheridge gave him the benefit of the doubt, and said I don't think you understood the question, and then asked do you think people are born gay, or in 7th grade they all of a sudden decide to be gay. Then he gave the answers, and avoided a complete answer, but Richardson did answer the question.

Richardson's gaffe about choice was awful, and I can't imagine he'll be taken seriously for VP after yet another of these blunders.

However, this should not distract people from the gaffe that Senator Clinton made there.  She said that an amendment banning gay marriage would have been "the first time discrimination was enshrined in the Constitution", forgetting that slaves made up 3/5 of a person in a part of the Constitution that was enforced for nearly a century.  Now, I don't question Hillary Clinton's commitment to civil rights one bit, because that would be unfair to her given her record; however, this was a major gaffe because it showed a lack of familiarity with the Constitution (which Constitutional law expert Obama would be wise to bring up in the next debate, as part of the broader point that we need a President who best understands and can protect the Constitution now more than ever).  It should be noted, many African American voters who hear this statement by Hillary Clinton may be personally offended, in the sense that they'll think "Hey, I'm not running for President, but if I got up on that stage right now, I sure wouldn't forget THAT part of the Constitution"; we shouldn't underestimate the visceral impact of Senator Clinton omitting our nation's struggles to those whose families suffered through them most, even though her record on civil rights is consistently excellent.  The same would be true in reverse if Obama had said women had the right to vote in the 19th century, despite his record on women's rights; it would still turn people off.

An issue like this could literally be the difference in South Carolina, and subsequently, the Democratic nomination.

Hmmm, yeah, maybe. Shadow - I'd like to change my previous response to this post in another thread (I know, I know, I'm a flip-flopper).

Maybe this one will come back to haunt her in South Carolina.

I don't understand how people think in has to be one or the other. Biologic OR choice. It seems to me that it would have to be both. The small amount I have heard scientifically would indicate that there are some that are biologically/genetically predisposed towards attraction to the same sex. BUT because the overwhelming evidence that the natural world does not work this way, IE: humans do not self-propagate, then choice would also have to come into play. After all we are the most self-aware, free-willed life forms on this planet. So to me, it would have to be both a small percentage of biologically driven and a large percentage of choice-made people that live the LBGT life.
I would also observe that to the people that are driven to legitimize and bring forth the LTBG lifestyle that it is to thier advantage to paint the issue as wholly a biological one, because they then can say 'we have no choice'. It tries to put it on the same level as the race issues. But there is a big difference between choice based issues and non-choice based issues. Whether I agree with sexuality-based laws or not, I do not condone discrimination against people that are not harming other people.

Ah yes the SHADOW knows.{: )

This gaffe, coupled with the 'Whizzer' White gaffe show Richardson's lack of preparation. He's not on the ball. He still might be a VP candidate is the Hispanic vote is in play. That could make a difference in the Southwest or some Mountain states.

The whole moment was weird and proved he's not ready for prime time.  At all.  For such an accomplished man, he is an awfully bad communicator.  He's the Democrats Tommy Thompson. It was an almost exact replica of the moment Thompson said you could fire a person for being gay.  For which he then apologized.  Bumblers, all.

Adios, Bill. You blew it. Game over.

RH, did you choose to be straight? Could you have gone the other way if you so chose? As a heterosexual male, I can't fathom how I can one day choose to be gay. It in fact makes me cringe just thinking about it. If you are saying that it doesn't make you cringe, and that you choose heterosexuality over homosexuality because you are trying to save humanity, maybe you too are a bit "predisposed" towards homosexuality.

Asad, I don't know if I would call it a cringe factor more like it just has no appeal to me. I think there is much more nurture than nature going on. As we expose ourselves and our children to more sexuality, be it commercialized, porn, or even legalizing and ligitimizing gay lifestyles, we are uping the nurture side. The environment in which we grow and change in. Maybe this then 'flips the switch' more on genetically predisposed people(nature), or maybe it allows it to be a more accepted choice on the nurture side. I believe it allows more people to choose it. The 'forbidden fruit syndrome' if you will. I think this would especially be true in discussing bi-sexuality. To answer did I choose hetro? I would have to say yes. There were gay boys I knew in high school and gay men in the military. All when I was in that 15-20 year old range making my first choices. It was there if I wanted. But like I said, not appealing to me.

I’m not sure you would call the statement Hillary made a gaffe when not mentioning the three-fifths compromise.  The discussion at hand was an amendment to the constitution banning same-sex marriage and writing targeted discrimination of American citizens into the document.  The 3/5 Compromise never took away any right of any American at that time.  The Southern slave states wanted to count slaves, that they considered property, as residents of the state so they could garner more seats in the House of Representatives and more political power as a result.  The Northern states opposed to slavery were against the proposal as the slaves were not considered citizens.  Thus, the 3/5 compromise.  Hillary is a smarter than that.

Looks like Gov. Richardson is suffering from foot-in-the-mouth disease.

The LGBT community is an important voting bloc for the Democrats.  He just blew any chance of a VP spot or a cabinet appointment.

RH...thats pretty damn ignornat.  Do you really think ANYBODY would choose to be gay?  Why would they choose to be ostracised from their families, turned away from their church, earn the enmity of their peers, run the risk of being beaten up and killed for what they are?  Are you crazy? You are so out of touch with this issue that you have no idea what you are talking about. The only reason people like you say its a choice because if it wasn't then it would show you for the bigot you are.
Do you think you would get excited at thought of having sex with a man?  Well gay people dont get excited at the thought of having sex with a woman.  its the way your body works, its what you are naturally attracted to.

>> RH...thats pretty damn ignornat.  Do you really think ANYBODY would choose to be gay?  Why would they choose to be ostracised from their families, turned away from their church, earn the enmity of their peers, run the risk of being beaten up and killed for what they are? <<



People that choose to be Democrats run the same risks.

Too bad you have so much anger in your life. I would think your rant was more offensive than what I stated as my opinion only. I'm am not a bigot nor is my having an my own opinion on this matter, make me a bigot. Look it up "a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion". This dictionary definition would fit your outlook much closer than mine. I am not intolerant of much in this life. I obviously have a different opinion on the root of sexuality when it comes to free will and choice. But this posting was a discussion on the LGBT lifestyle and whether it came from Nature or Nurture. Try to keep your intolerance under control.

Richardson, are you even in this thing? Honestly, this guy has to be out of his mind. Maybe this type of arrogance works in New Mexico, but Iowans and the rest of the country knows better. I bet the next comment is that women in shorts skirts choose to be raped...

Richardson, get out while New Mexico still respects you! Don't forget about your "day job."

Most of my posts on this board are my political positions.  I have no academic training in politics, I’m just another opinionated American.

But now we’ve somehow wandered into my professional line.  Speaking as a professor of biological psychology with graduate degrees in cognitive neuroscience I am comfortable stating that we just don’t know if homosexuality is caused by nature or nurture.  We know that it’s common throughout the animal kingdom, but we have no conclusive proof of either genetic predisposition or social psychological causation.  It’s a fascinating subject and one of the great mysteries of our time.   It’s also an empirical question to be resolved by objective scientific study.  It’s not going to be settled by political speeches or blog posts.

Frankly, I don’t see what difference it makes to the political questions at hand.  People deserve civil rights either way.

Again, thanks for your scantimony.  Does that make you feel superior? When someone challenges your ignormnat belief system you suddenly get high-minded and call other people angry. Give me a break. Go read a book called "Whose That Stranger In My Nest?"  It's written by a researcher at UT.  Its about how parents raise their kids all the same but some of their kids come out totally different . (It has nothing to do with people being gay, his research is all on straight people.)  And his findings are that the majority of what makes up who we are isn't nuture its nature, its all in the genes.
I know you don't really care because actually attempting to educate yourself would put you outside of your comfort zone.  Until you walk in the shoes of a gay person, don't tell gay people they choose to be that way.

GAB, you rock my socks.

Paul, it just kills you that the republiCON party is going down....love it!

This whole thing is so overblown. Who cares whether it's nature or nurture? People get so unreasonable over this issue. Straights need to relax and accept the fact that loving gay couples deserve the same rights as loving straight couples. On the other hand, gays need to abandon this all-consuming quest to have "gay marriage" when civil unions are available that provide exactly the same benefits. The term "marriage" is fraught with religious connotations that make it (in the minds of a significant majority of Americans, I might add) incompatible with the gay lifestyle. So what? Is the quest about shoving gay marriage down people's throats and forcing them to accept something to which they morally object, or is it about the reasonable quest for equal traetment under the law to which all Americans are entitled? The two quests are not the same. It's time both sides of the issue came to their senses and graciously compromised, one side magnanimously accepting a different title out of respect for traditional views that differ from its own, and the other accepting the granting of equivalent benefits under that different title as something to which we all, as Americans, have a claim.

We have enough issues where solutions are hard to come by. We don't need to make a bigger deal out of issues where the seemingly Gordian knot can easily be severed.

Is being a Bush-voting moron a choice, or biological?
Or both?

What Richardson said was flat wrong and disappointing to his supporters.  He's trying to remedy the situation today.  See http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/08/10/richardson-clarifies-gay-gaffe/#more-2234

OK all you blogging geneticist PhDs, someone please point out the DNA sequence number that indicates positive or negative for the gay gene.  Obviously if it not a choice we can alter the sequence and cure you once and for all.

Let the gays rest.  I am sick and tired of the issue as part of the political situation. I do not understand it and I don't care anyway.

Hey, our used to be Gov. ( Bill Richardson) was just speaking his mind.  To bad he was not politically correct.  He  better brush up on his Spanish too.  Richardson is out of his elemtent,  In NM he is considered to be more conservative than our last Gov. (Johnson) who was a Republican!

">> RH...thats pretty damn ignornat.  Do you really think ANYBODY would choose to be gay?  Why would they choose to be ostracised from their families, turned away from their church, earn the enmity of their peers, run the risk of being beaten up and killed for what they are? <<



People that choose to be Democrats run the same risks.
Paul Mollert, St. Paul MN
"

WTF???

The gay issues that are important in California or New York or any other left wing states mean not a thing in the other states where gay issues rank down there at #100 of the 100 most important things in life right now.  In California, this was probably the biggest issue among the voters there, but this gay debate thing was barely worth noticing elsewhere.  What happened to Richardson there, the people on the other states won't care what he said.  If there are issues related to gay rights in Iowa, please enlighten me, because that is the one thing I have not noticed here on this blog.

While I view his statement as wrong, and he later recanted it, Richardson emphasized all persons should be treated equally under the law regardless of sexual orientation.

And keep in mind it's easy for Obama and Clinton to talk about what they would do as President. They come from such liberal states they don't have to worry about any backlash from voters back at home. Yet have they actually done anything in the Senate? Did Edwards do anything when he was in the Senate? Richardson, coming from a red state where being seen as pro-gay rights can cost you an election, has achieved more for the LGBT community than many governors than in solidly Democratic states.

In Congress, Richardson voted against the Pentagon's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy, and will reverse it when President. As Governor he

* expanded anti-discrimination laws to include sexual orientation and gender identity.
* provided state health insurance for domestic partnerships,
* signed into law the state's first hate crimes legislation for crimes based on sexual orientation and gender identity,
* transformed health services in the state for AIDS patients.

If a few state senators hadn't blocked it, New Mexico would have a Domestic Partner Rights Act. Richardson fought hard for the legislation earlier this year. Have any of the other Presidential candidates called on their state legislatures and governors to enact Domestic Partners statutes?

Recently, the Bay Area Reporter, the leading LGBT paper for San Francisco, profiled Richardson noting:

"B.A.R. publisher Thomas E. Horn . . .said winning the southwest will be key to the Democrats taking back the White House. Not only does he see Richardson having an advantage in the West, but Horn also praised his gay rights track record. "If a Democrat carries New Mexico, Colorado, and Nevada, we don't need Ohio or Florida to win. Richardson is very popular throughout the southwest and stands the best chance of being able to do that," wrote Horn. "His record of LGBT issues has always been stellar."

For other views on Richardson's statement, take a look at the Nation - http://www.thenation.com/blogs/notion?pid=222350

RK: What did you all think about the way Bill Richardson answered the question, posed by Melissa Etheridge, about whether you are born gay or choose to be gay?

AS: I thought Richardson's failure to grasp that question was one of the most poignant moments of the entire forum. It honestly didn't matter to him. It just wasn't computing. Why would it matter? Why would protection from discrimination be appropriate for people who were born Jewish but not for people who converted to Judaism? It makes no logical sense whatsoever, and I think that's why it wasn't computing with him, and I found that kind of endearing and also heartening.

LD: I think it was the inadvertent best moment in the whole forum because his answer was basically so good. He said it doesn't matter, that equality isn't a matter of choice or biology. It's when he said, "I don't want to characterize people according to some standards of science that I don't understand."

>> Paul, it just kills you that the republiCON party is going down....love it! <<

Love you too sweety!  Are we still getting together tonight?

It is a choice. It is a choice that may be influenced by chemical imbalance or something like that, but nobody is 'born' with a behavior. The entire desire to label it as a 'born trait' is just an attempt to lend it legitimacy, which is ridiculous - schizophrenia comes from birth traits and we still don't want that behavior.

"However, this should not distract people from the gaffe that Senator Clinton made there.  She said that an amendment banning gay marriage would have been "the first time discrimination was enshrined in the Constitution", forgetting that slaves made up 3/5 of a person in a part of the Constitution that was enforced for nearly a century.  Now, I don't question Hillary Clinton's commitment to civil rights one bit, because that would be unfair to her given her record; however, this was a major gaffe because it showed a lack of familiarity with the Constitution"

I feel it must be pointed out, the 3/5's clause of the constitution was a northern compromise in order to deny full congressional representation to the slaveholding south. It was a progressive measure that the slave owners were not happy about. People often make the mistake of quoting this section as proof of constitutional descrimination, when in reality it is quite the opposite.

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):