What was up with that idiot university student at the end, asking Clinton if she preferred diamonds or pearls? And what was up with Clinton actually responding to that type of question?

It was an excellent opportunity to say, “You know, that IS a ‘fun question’, but since you’re a college student, let me talk to you about what I’m going to do to education in this country….”

Mike Gravel was his usual self, although toned down for the context. I loved his mentioning of having been reconsidered for the invitation to the forum.

The one that won me over was Dennis Kucinich, even with all his hippie love talk. There are several spots wherein I lose composure and become verklempt.

Out of the six, Gravel and Kucinich are the only two candidates who support full marriage inclusion for queer couples. The other four (Clinton, Edwards, Obama, and Richardson) have taken a more “we’ll be the first to make separate somehow equal” stance in favor of “civil unions”.

As we have learned (or as some of us apparently haven’t learned), “separate but equal” does not always get played out that way.

I cannot think of a valid reason as to why two consenting adults should be denied equal access to the marriage contract. When we are dealing with state and federal rights and privileges being conferred to some citizens but not others we have a duty to correct the imbalance and reinstate equality under the laws for all. Civil unions are more like a bone being thrown to the crowd to heed them off for a bit than an effective, lasting solution.

In the past seven months I have attended two weddings while another friend is engaged and set to marry at some point this fall. That they decided to pronounce their union to the state and enter into a contract is secondary and was often done for the benefits they would receive; their dedication to and love for one another is the important part and that is why they held a wedding: to share with their family and friends their love.

I am glad the forum was held.