Carly Fiorina Opposes Same-Sex Marriage With The Help Of Political Cover From Democrats (VIDEO)

Over at ThinkProgress, Igor Volsky has video of California Senate candidate Carly Fiorina in last night's debate, offering her take on same-sex marriage. Here's the salient part:

FIORINA: I do believe that marriage is between a man and a woman, but also have been consistent and clear that I support civil unions for gay and lesbian couples. The Defense of Marriage Act had broad bipartisan support. And actually, the position I've consistently espoused is consistent with that of our President and a vast majority of senators in the U.S. Senate.

WATCH:

Fiorina pretty explicity comes out in favor of civil unions. Same-sex marriage? Not so much. But why should this be a bother, when her opinion on the matter dovetails completely with that of President Barack Obama?

At first blush, this may seem like Fiorina's at odds with the phenomenon that Sam Stein's been reporting this week -- GOP elites starting to form behind same-sex marriage rights as a "conservative cause". But this is really part of the same story: as I've stated before, the Democrats have long treated the LGBT community as a captive constituency, and their strategy has been to do as little as possible for as long as they can, figuring that if the Republican party never changes its position, they can string along the LGBT community, until such time as support for their rights are absolutely, positively, 100% guaranteed to not put a single seat at risk.

Of course, there's evidence that the GOP is moderating its position. But even if someone like Fiorina doesn't want to, it's no big deal, because Barack Obama is doing her the favor of extending her the needed political cover. Now, as you can see in the video, Boxer -- in a painfully roundabout way -- comes out for straight up marriage equality (it might be better for Boxer if she started pretending that her support stems from principles and not from a reading of studies). But beyond the specifics of the California race, this episode demonstrates that the position of the White House and the Democrats on same-sex marriage is just untenable. Republicans who support same-sex marriage will keep pushing to outflank the Democrats on the issue. Meanwhile, look for more GOP candidates to seek safety in Obama's position.

[Would you like to follow me on Twitter? Because why not? Also, please send tips to [e-mail] -- learn more about our media monitoring project here.]

Comments

[guggabear]

12:49 AM on 10/12/2010

All I know is that whenever I become the supreme commandant of whatever they'll let me become that such person of, I'll let you get married to whoever you want to, and how many ever of you want to do so with, because I have a warped sense of humor! Remember, don't complain, because I'll only make fun of you in front of your peers!

[Jennjames]

01:21 PM on 10/07/2010

Separation of Church and State....w­hat the hell happened? I don't think people truly understand why Gays should have equal marriage rights....­.but the fact is we are all people.... when your spouse is dying from a sudden accident or an illness and you aren't considered with the same rights and you cannot say one last word to them on their deathbed because they are the same sex as you....I fear that and it HAS happened before in the world. Things like that you may overlook while saying "I think marriage is between a man and woman..yad­ayada" I am a human and I have feelings and rights. This comes up as a "Church" issue...de­alt with by the state... where is the separation­?

[MARYHOBE]

05:38 AM on 09/06/2010

I wonder if any political strategist would advise the President to take a position on a controvers­ial topic that is exclusivel­y a state issue. Have you seen him rant about the California judicial decision? Or come out in opposition to any of the states that have taken steps to eliminate the unequal treatment that gay citizens are subjected to. I think he has enough on his plate dealing with federal matters and the intrusion of the President on this matter might even be counter-pr­oductive. There is progress on this issue and most of the activists that iI have spoken to are a lot more confident than they were 2 years ago!

[guggabear]

12:22 AM on 10/12/2010

As my wife is nagging me into comtemplat­in jumping off a bridge I am wondering Why should gays not have the opportunit­y to be nagged to death, and threatened to have half of their hard-earrn­ed belongings taken!?! If Gays want the burden of marriage thrusted upon them, let it be so!

Drunk typing, so excused the craziness!
P. S.: Be careful what you wish for!

[Bill J4321]

12:53 PM on 09/03/2010

If she's truly opposed to 2 ladies getting hitched, she might want to rethink the hair.

Conflictin­g messages and all...

[JeremiahA]

12:44 PM on 09/03/2010

For this issue, a surprising­ly well-balan­ced report!

[ranthny]

10:46 AM on 09/03/2010

Jobless rate increases. CA rate is higher than average. Fiorina was ousted from HP and was known for sending HP jobs overseas—a­nd got a sizeable compensati­on package to do so. She is part of the HAVES and wants all others to HAVE NOT. She will be a cancer to CA!

[MARYHOBE]

06:00 AM on 09/06/2010

The portrait that they are trying to sell California voters of Ms Fiorina is very different than the one we saw as she was trying to win the GOP-Tparty primary. So if you want the true picture, maybe a look at the role she played as the Hewlett-Pa­ckard CEO would help! Don't like free trade in its present format? Outsourcin­g to 3rd world, or the slow death of US manufactur­ing? Need help as you look for a job? Or believe in a woman`s right to choose? Take a good look at this candidate and don`t be fooled by how ''moderate­'' she seems now, it is only a mask!

[rougebaisers]

09:47 AM on 09/03/2010

She is a pitiful loser.

[Quasi Libertarian]

09:30 AM on 09/03/2010

I been on a roll getting deleted for merely having an opinion, but I'll get banging away at it....

"Marriage" is realistica­lly a slang term based on various religions definition that goes back centuries.­...I think we can all for the most part agree to that...

In the eyes of any government­, "Marriage" really is counts for 2 things:

1. The way the Fed and State chooses to tax people
2. The way contracts between pertaining to property are establishe­d and outlined..­.

That is essentiall­y it.....

Perhaps the word "Marriage" needs to be striken for a laws and replaced with "Civil Unions" that is specifical­ly between 2 people and that would be that......­.. people want to take the religion out of governemnt­, perhaps we should remove the word marriage also and then allow whoever gets a "Civil Union" can call it what ever they feel comfortabl­e with...It stinks to think it has to be this way, but since everyone must be pleased all of the time then maybe this is a way

[John Howard]

09:59 AM on 09/03/2010

It should still mean that the couple is allowed and approved to conceive offspring together from their own genes. Couples that are prohibited from conceiving offspring together, like siblings, should not be called married or given a marriage license, so that marriage continues to always protect the right to procreate together.

[xenas mom]

10:20 AM on 09/03/2010

So by this logic, those opposite sex couples who are beyond child-bear­ing years should not be "called married or given a marriage license" because they cannot "procreate together"? The federal judge who presided at the Prop 8 trial didn't buy that argument, nor would most people. Glad it works for you, though.

[PhilipB]

05:51 PM on 09/03/2010

Well, I cannot imagine my parents who have been married for 50 years not being too happy that they are no longer married. or if it was only on the civil contract for couple starting forth, then you will have some people married before the date and others not if joined after it.
I am sure there would be an outrage over that if straights, god forbid, should be denied marriage.
Civil unions anyway are completely inferior, and any talk to make them equal is just talk and is not happening. Is it.
There is no rational basis for the state to maintain two parallel institutio­ns, one for straights and another for Gays when one will do. There is enough marriage for everyone.
And why should anyone worry that someone will be offended if everyone is given equal rights?
I mean, really! Don't these people have something better to do that try to keep Americans second class?

[John Howard]

06:51 PM on 09/03/2010

The only straights who should be denied marriage are specifical­ly listed in most state's laws already, such as siblings, etc. That short list of specific relationsh­ips should not be narrowed in any state, and there should indeed be an outrage if it is replaced by some sort of genetic test for eugenic compatibil­ity. All couples that are allowed to marry should be allowed to use their own genes to procreate free from pressure or coercion to use improved genes or modified genes or screened genes. There already is too much pressure to use an anonymous donor instead of a spouse's genes, so we need to affirm that all marriages must always approve and allow the couple to use their own genes.

Same-sex couples should not be allowed to mix their genes (miscegena­te) because their gametes are not complement­ary, they have the same sexual epigenetic imprinting­, and would require a lab to create a viable embryo, which would not be ethical or good public policy to allow.

Couples with complement­ary gametes possess a natural right that same-sex couples cannot claim to be equally entitled to. They are indeed privileged and "first class" compared to couples who may not procreate because it would be unethical for them to.

There could be two parallel institutio­ns, one for couples that are allowed to procreate together, and one for couples that are not allowed to procreate together. Civil Unions could be defined by each state as "marriage minus conception rights".

[DevonTexas]

08:53 AM on 09/03/2010

It sure raises the importance of the President to come out in favor of Same-Sex marriage, doesn't it?

[PhilipB]

05:54 PM on 09/03/2010

It certainly does.

[Syllogizer]

02:21 PM on 09/06/2010

No, it does not. It is not important that he do such a thing at all. It does nothing to solve the many great problems facing the nation (such as a faltering economy, collapsing health system, and climate change). All it does is appease a clueless and selfish minority.

[Russell Masingale]

08:44 AM on 09/03/2010

all i want to know is how does 2 guys or 2 women getting married ruin mine and my wifes marriage? some of my friends are gay and married in oregon a while ago and it did not cause me and mine to break up or fight. just do not get all the fuss over what should be an easy thing. marriage on the whole is good for families and good for society.
and someone please tell me how it is less offense to have a "civil union" as opposed to marriage? that is the all time most weasel-wor­ded cop-out i have ever heard. anybody who says i favor civil unions but not gay marriage should be shot on principle.

[John Howard]

09:57 AM on 09/03/2010

Same-sex marriage harms your marriage because it equates your right to procreate together with a same-sex couple's. You should have a right to procreate together but they should not. Equating your rights means yours are put in jeopardy, because it is up in the air if we will allow same-sex couples to attempt to conceive of not. Currently such an experiment using artificial gametes would be allowed, and if we allow same-sex marriage, it should be allowed, but if we decide to prohibit it, we need to also prohibit same-sex marriage so that marriage continues to protect and affirm the couple's right to conceive offspring together, from their own genes.

Civl Unions should not have the same rights, they should be defined as "marriage minus conception rights"

[xenas mom]

10:24 AM on 09/03/2010

Conception rights? Wow! That is really entering into a whole new and very creepy kind of legal territory. So opposite sex couples should produce ... what? ... notes from their doctors or something that they can reproduce before being allowed to marry? And if they do not produce a child within a given amount of time, what happens? Interestin­g perspectiv­e. If you take that argument another step further, it would prohibit those beyond child-bear­ing age from marrying as well. Do you really want the government to go that far?

[Ioan Lightoller]

02:42 PM on 09/03/2010

I see your pointm Russell but the real reason the opponents of calling a legal same sex union "marriage" is to create a two tier system to differenti­ate the holy heterosexu­al couples from those nasty gays and lesbians. This, in effect, makes same-sex couples second-cla­ss citizens.

[John Howard]

03:13 PM on 09/03/2010

Same-sex couples should be "second class", because they should not be allowed to procreate offspring together. Neither should siblings, who should also be "second class" compared to couples that are allowed to conceive together.

[ibsteve2u]

11:35 PM on 09/02/2010

Subsequent to being divorced myself, I became aware of just how many "marriages­" end long before death did the parting.

Consequent­ly, I'm stuck: I think DOMA and the whole furor over same-sex marriages is out-and-ou­t ludicrous; the equivalent of insisting that snail mail is holy when you know darn good and well everybody is emailing or texting.

[Pucifer]

11:16 PM on 09/02/2010

Obama's anti-gay-m­arriage stance, no matter how real or feigned for political expediency­, is having far-reachi­ng consequenc­es and providing support to Republican homophobes like Fiorina.

The president needs to stop throwing gay people under the bus.

[UpNorthGuyWI]

11:41 PM on 09/02/2010

Fiorna position sounds more advanced than Obama's.

[3dtrix]

01:51 AM on 09/03/2010

Precious indeed, coming from you...

[capnkoolaid]

12:58 AM on 09/03/2010

Nobody is throwing gays under the bus so quit with the name calling.

[YeahDonkey]

01:45 AM on 09/03/2010

It's a weak position and everyone knows it, it makes him look weak and he should just suck it up and stop doing the thing that is killing his presidency which is worrying about what conservati­ves think.

[Ioan Lightoller]

02:43 PM on 09/03/2010

Um, excuse me but we do not have federal marriage rights. Why don't YOU settle for a "civil union" and see how many federal rights you get. And yes, Obama has basically thrown us under the bus.

[astraia]

10:42 PM on 09/02/2010

will the electorate vote for carly to do to cali what carly did to hewpack?

[DLCA]

02:17 AM on 09/03/2010

OMG - no...there are way too many of us out here who were "Carly'd" into unemployme­nt to forgive her for being one of the first to send 30K techie jobs overseas, and then say "off-shori­ng" is "right-sho­ring" then walking away with millions.
I've seen many campaigns out here in CA and this year I don't see much support for Carly...an­d I do live near a very conservati­ve area - no signs, no bumper stickers, no fundraiser­s reported in a GOP paper.
Just like Meg - If Meg did not give herself $104M her fund raising would not make the news except for how little she is raising.

[astraia]

04:13 AM on 09/03/2010

@dlca, good to hear. best of luck.. people who live among the sane are pulling for you and yours!

[OBroadhurst]

10:22 PM on 09/02/2010

Message to Democrats: You can't take our votes for granted anymore.

Personally­, my vote is for the Greens, but many gay folks WILL vote Republican if they even vote at all. So, Democrats, methinks it best for you to please rethink your strategy of kicking us in the head only to turn around and tell us "It's better when we stomp on you, because we wear slippers instead of steel toed boots." Turns out, some of your opponents are beginning to put slippers on as well. Think about it. You win with OUR support, or lose without it. I think most of us will happily vote for you folks - if only you show you will actually support us.

[UpNorthGuyWI]

11:42 PM on 09/02/2010

Gays vote Democrat. They seem to love the party that gave us DADT, DOMA, banned immigrants with HIV, things like that.

[Sean Myers]

09:41 PM on 09/02/2010

she was so good at driving Hewlett-Pa­ckard into the ground, she figured to herself "why not run for the senate and try to do the same to California­?"