Richardson: 'Let me be clear'... Gay not a 'choice': The Swamp
The Swamp
Posted August 10, 2007 10:13 AM
The Swamp

RichardonEtheridge

It was singer Melissa Etheridge who posed a question to Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico that the candidate for president was still trying to answer today. Photo by Getty Images.Robyn Beck.


by Mark Silva

New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson sought to clarify today a comment he made about homosexuality being a matter of “choice’’ last night in a forum.

"Let me be clear -- I do not believe that sexual orientation or gender identity happen by choice," Richardson said in a statement issued by his campaign following the candidates' forum. "But I'm not a scientist, and the point I was trying to make is that no matter how it happens, we are all equal and should be treated that way under the law.

“That is what I believe, that is what I have spent my career fighting for,’’ the Democratic candidate for president said in his statement. “I ask that people look at my record and my actions and they will see I have been a true supporter of the LGBT community."

But the candidate wasn’t so clear last night, in a candidates’ forum sponsored by the Human Rights Campaign in San Francisco and broadcast by the Logo cable television network.

Singer Melissa Etheridge asked him: “Do you think homosexuality is a choice, or is it biological?

“It's a choice. It's…’’ Richardson said.

“I don't know if you understand the question,’’ Etheridge said. “Do you think I -- a homosexual is born that way, or do you think that around seventh grade we go, "Ooh, I want to be gay"?

“Well, I -- I'm not a scientist,’’ Richardson said. “It's -- you know, I don't see this as an issue of science or definition. I see gays and lesbians as people as a matter of human decency. I see it as a matter of love and companionship and people loving each other. You know I don't like to categorize people. I don't like to, like, answer definitions like that that, you know, perhaps are grounded in science or something else that I don't understand.’’

For the full context of the discussion including Solmonese, president of the HRC, and moderated by Margaret Carlson, see the transcript:

Richardson

Richardson at the HRC forum. (Getty/Robyn Beck.)


GOV. RICHARDSON: The New Mexico legislature, I am pushing it very hard to expand domestic partnership. It's the same thing, Joe. It's a question of going through a path that is achievable.

Now, you know, I'll give the most flowery speeches like several that have done here. I am in this business to get things done, to lead, to pass legislation, to bring coalitions together, to bring the country together.

MR. SOLMONESE: And you have been a hero on a number of issues.

I think what we're trying to get a sense of here is, when you say the country needs to come along, we need to move people and it's happening in the states, then if it's happening in a state and the legislature hands you that piece of legislation, in your heart, where are you on that issue in that sort of a circumstance?

GOV. RICHARDSON: Well, you know, in my heart, I'm doing what is achievable. And I'm not there yet. And the country isn't there yet. New Mexico isn't there yet. We have to bring the country on. We have to move in the direction of making this happen.

That doesn't mean that I'm closed on this issue. It means that you do what is achievable.

MR. SOLMONESE: I want to get to one of the other issues that you mentioned. Under our current immigration laws, one spouse can sponsor another to become a U.S. resident. Same-sex couples are not covered by this law. What would you do to help binational couples, couples who are playing by the rules, gay and lesbian couples who are playing by the rules, but whose families are being torn apart by the current immigration system?

GOV. RICHARDSON: Well, I believe that when you have expansion of domestic partnership, of civil unions, it should be to all people, regardless of where you are -- overseas, underseas, anywhere.

So there's a bill in Congress, which I have already said I would support, to include -- because it's currently in the immigration issue -- I know of friends of mine that have partners in Mexico, that -- when I signed in New Mexico an executive order expanding domestic partnership, one of my constituents has a partner in Mexico, and my own constituent, because of the immigration law, and his partner cannot come together. I think that's wrong. I think that's discrimination.

MS. CARLSON: Thank you, Governor.

Melissa?

MS. ETHERIDGE: Thank you.

Do you think homosexuality is a choice, or is it biological?

GOV. RICHARDSON: It's a choice. It's –

MS. ETHERIDGE: I don't know if you understand the question. (Soft laughter.) Do you think I -- a homosexual is born that way, or do you think that around seventh grade we go, "Ooh, I want to be gay"?

GOV. RICHARDSON: Well, I -- I'm not a scientist. It's -- you know, I don't see this as an issue of science or definition.

I see gays and lesbians as people as a matter of human decency. I see it as a matter of love and companionship and people loving each other. You know I don't like to categorize people. I don't like to, like, answer definitions like that that, you know, perhaps are grounded in science or something else that I don't understand.

MS. ETHERIDGE: Well, it's hard when you are a citizen of a country that tells you that you are making a choice when you were born that way, and your Creator made you that way. And there's a document that was written 200 years ago that says you are entitled to certain rights that you are not given.
How can there be anything other than absolute equal rights for homosexuals?

GOV. RICHARDSON: Well, that's -- that's always been my view, as I said. As a Hispanic, I grew up with people thinking because of my darker skin and my -- you know, I didn't -- I wasn't fully speaking English at a time, that I was not equal. So I understand that issue of inequality, and so across the board I've always felt that every human being desires the same rights, desires the same niche in our society. And you know, I've -- all my life I've striven very hard to deal with the civil rights issue, on immigration issues affecting families. I've always held these ideals very high, and my record speaks for it.

MS. ETHERIDGE: I've lived in your state. I've lived in Santa Fe, beautiful, beautiful place. How's the bark beetle infestation going? (Laughter.)

GOV. RICHARDSON: It's still a problem.

MS. ETHERIDGE: Yeah.

GOV. RICHARDSON: They're still a problem.

MS. ETHERIDGE: That's -- environmentally, I hope you can do something.

Digg Delicious Facebook Fark Google Newsvine Reddit Yahoo

Comments

Bill tried to pander to the anti-gay marriage crowd with his original answer and he looks dumb and defensive now. Candidates have to quit trying to be all things to all people, it just waters them down to someone no one cares about supporting.


I know the pandering to each and every niche (unions, blacks, Latinos, farmers, LGBT, environmentalists)is pure politics, but we'll have more success as a country if we think of ourselves as one group and want to move forward together.

Everyone thinks they're entitled.


Kb, he wasn't trying to pander to anyone in his answer. His original answer is probably what he believes. His backtracking now, now that is pandering to the gay community.


Man, tough questions. Unless he were gay or some sort of biologist or something I'm not sure how he'd have much of a clue. And frankly I don't get the sense reputable scientists are all in accord on whether sexual orientation is immutable either -- though admittedly the question hasn't been on my radar and maybe they are at this point but I just don't know it. Assuming they aren't, even if Richardson has thought about the issue I'm not sure where he goes to get the definitive answer.

He seems to have basically said last night that he doesn't know, albeit in clumsy, round about fashion. I empathize with him. It doesn't mean he will oppose LGBT causes.

I suspect John D. is correct. His confusing answer to a question of "belief" last night was probably the honest one. He's an agnostic on the point. At most all he should do today is clarify the obvious. And essentially saying, "I don't believe it's a matter of choice -- BUT I'M NOT A SCIENTIST", doesn't do the trick.

I see nothing controversial in saying "I don't know".


Democratic candidates seem to need a second day to answer simple questions: Richardson today, Obama on Pakistan and Hillary on nukes. Hopefully, the time will never come when any of them has to make a quick response critical to the nation and not have a harried staff member being able to sweep up after them. Time to start the selection process all over; Heaven knows, we have time.


Biggdawg,

If we were talking about a kid or some other neophyte, it'd be one thing.

But I'm hard pressed to believe Richardson hasn't read enough, seen enough or heard enough not to have formulated an opinion on this subject by now.


Man, tough questions. Unless he were gay or some sort of biologist or something I'm not sure how he'd have much of a clue. And frankly I don't get the sense reputable scientists are all in accord on whether sexual orientation is immutable either -- though admittedly the question hasn't been on my radar and maybe they are at this point but I just don't know it. Assuming they aren't, even if Richardson has thought about the issue I'm not sure where he goes to get the definitive answer.

He seems to have basically said last night that he doesn't know, albeit in clumsy, round about fashion. I empathize with him. It doesn't mean he will oppose LGBT causes.

I suspect John D. is correct. His confusing answer to a question of "belief" last night was probably the honest one. He's an agnostic on the point. At most all he should do today is clarify the obvious. And essentially saying, "I don't believe it's a matter of choice -- BUT I'M NOT A SCIENTIST", doesn't do the trick.

I see nothing controversial in saying "I don't know".


Well said Beth.

John D, maybe he's doubling up on his pandering? Politicans pander to the Right also. If he's dumb enough to think that homosexuality is a choice, maybe he thinks people can be "cured" too, like Ted Haggard was.


Come on...I am not a scientist either, but I do have gay friends...so I asked them, is it a choice or is is biological? And the answer is....its biological!

I guess he doesn't know anyone who is gay, or he would know the answer to that question.


Bella:

It's not strange that your friends should respond this way. What I do find strange, however, is that the gay and lesbian community back in the '70s were claiming that being Gay/Lesbian was a lifestyle choice that had nothing to do with one's genetics or biological environment.

Even today, some people in the Gay and Lesbian communities resist the notion that being gay is biological because they don't wish to be consider themselves freaks of nature. So, who is to say who is correct? The science on the subject is not exactly compelling one way or another.

Given the circumstances, it is perfectly understandable that Richardson might be undecided on the issue - or at least confused.

But now his stance on immigration and health care - those are other matters altogether . . . .


Honestly now, who in their right mind would "choose" to be gay? I've seen the ignorance and hate my gay friends have had to deal with on a daily basis and it's sickening. Folks is folks and the human spectrum is a complex one. Why not accept, embrace and celebrate it? The "choice" lies in accepting or denying one's sexuality and it seem that the latter carries too high a price.

Homosexuality has been part of the human equation and thus the question of choice is irrelevant.


Let me be MORE clear: Gay not MY choice. But if that's your bag and the other person is willing, go for it.

Just no holding hands and kissing in public. And that goes for you He-TE-RO-SEX-U-ALS, too. Keep it private. I don't want to see people tying tongues in the streets any more than I want to see someone pissing in an alley way.


Real caption:

Bill Richardson says "and then a grabbed him around the waste like this"


Post a comment

(Anonymous comments will not be posted. Comments aren't posted immediately. They're screened for relevance to the topic, obscenity, spam and over-the-top personal attacks. We can't always get them up as soon as we'd like so please be patient. Thanks for visiting The Swamp.)

Please enter the letter "h" in the field below:

Quizzes

palin or fey

Palin or Fey?

McCain

Know the presidents?

McCain

Your McCain IQ

Obama

Your Obama IQ

Latest polls

Electoral vote map

map

Test your scenarios

Galleries

Palin

Sarah Palin

campaign

Campaign trail

conventions

RNC | DNC

Unauthorized tour

Obama

Obama's Chicago

News, but funnier

Cartoon

Walt Handelsman

Cartoon

The Lowe- Down

Cartoon

Joe Fournier

Cartoon

Editorial cartoons

Candidate match


Test assumptions