The U.S. Senate debate tonight in Perry, Georgia, was a rowdy one with panelists and the candidates sometimes having a hard time hearing questions, according to live tweets from several news sources covering the event.

There was plenty of expected jabs between Democrat Michelle Nunn and Republican David Perdue, both vying to replace retiring Saxby Chambliss in Congress with many polls showing them in a tight race. Libertarian Amanda Swafford also participated in the debate.

Georgia’s role in the U.S. Senate race is an important one, too. Democrats are trying to fend off a Republican takeover of the House and Senate in the upcoming elections and the Peach State is considered by some to be in play for the Democrats.

Nunn, however, has been battered by some in the LGBT community who say they are unclear about her stance on same-sex marriage. The concern raises from her telling the Atlanta Journal-Constitution last year that she believes same-sex marriage is a states’ rights issue.

The GA Voice has reached out repeatedly seeking an interview with Nunn to no avail.

At Tuesday’s debate, it was Amanda Swafford, who supports marriage equality, who asked Nunn directly what exactly her stance on same-sex marriage is.

Swafford’s stance on same-sex marriage:

AJC reporter Greg Bluestein explained it also to the GA Voice when we asked him via Twitter what Nunn stated:

Robbie Medwed, assistant director of the local gay Jewish organization SOJOURN, tweeted what he said Nunn stated:

Listen to what she said in her own words in the clip below (at the 9:12 mark): And in the gubernatorial debate between Republican incumbent Nathan Deal and Libertarian Andrew Hunt, Democratic candidate Jason Carter is standing out via Twitterverse for his support of same-sex marriage.

And Jason Carter in his own words (at the 4:05 mark):

3 Responses

  1. Neil Flesch

    Perhaps,the great dilemma of the Universe and all of creation might be summed up in one adaptation of a famous Shakespearean phrase: Evolve or not evolve, that is the question. The institution of marriage between two people might be synthesized, surely on a single expression: an economic relationship between two parties. Since the beginning of time these parties to the marriage concern the celebration of a legal agreement made ​​between a man and a woman.

    Men and Women have the their own values ​​(social, cultural, familial) dominant throughout the history of civilization. These same dominant values ​​are the same responsible of the generator factor of social exclusions. Generally, one can say that most of these exclusions occurred in the course of history have been based on perpetuated prejudices by predominant values in each community, with their own cultural values ​​and their respective time.

    Looking from outside this universe, apparently divided, at first sight, between issues strictly economic nature or restricted social behavior to certain groups, issues such as marriage between people of the same gender, in fact, relate more to the small universe of life between two people of the same gender out of the pattern of behavior of a majority living heterosexual marriages as proper subjects belonging to the public sphere. The latter when manifests itself in direction to the public power is in order to seek its standardization. This standardization aims to search for the balance. In the sent of not making an exception of the rule, either make the rule a tool of minorities elimination. However, is acknowledged by all that the field of wills expressed by the people in front of their authorities which have the power of standardization to affirm or deny the right of a popular claim, generally, the emotions and the immediate interests of each citizen mix too deeply into issues that require a slow process of observation, study and maturation. Divorce, for example, in many societies can be considered as a good example of what I speak.

    However, inevitably, the polarization of trends, pro and con, in the complex field of marriage between persons of the same gender often found arguments based only in superficial opinions. Many of them, instead to abide to a more detailed analysis on the formation and evolution of societies in various aspects, it holds, purposely or not, only in the pejorative aspect arising mostly mainly gay anecdotes, radical religious and loose phrases without major foundations; arising mainly from a large majority of the population alienated largely with relation to all relevant issues that are involved in this question.

    It is timely for us to recognize here, beforehand, that homosexuality has existed since the beginning of mankind.
    Still, this is not, by itself, a strong enough argument for us to recognize and affirm that the overwhelming majority of heterosexuals around the planet are wrong to protest against this kind of union of persons of the same gender.

    And on the other hand, the same way it is appropriate to recognize the urgent need for us to analyze the aspirations of an incipient homosexual population that began to mobilize, in fact, in an organized, disciplined and mature way a short time ago.
    Despite this, the homosexual union is a fact that deserves proper legal analysis.

    However, simply, we assert that after the legal seal of the legalization of marriage between persons of the same gender while we came to say that this decision simply will not affect or change, over time, the heterogeneity of family values present in a American society still full of contradictions in their core, and still struggling with difficulty, to escape the barbarism, of drugs, prostitution, social and racial discrimination, the death penalty, radicalism and religious and parochial fundamentalism, domestic violence, among many other problems still requiring a more substantial upgrade in the cultural values ​​of this nation, the expedient of trying to fit a sudden idea that we now have a sufficient level of maturity that will allow us to deal adequately with the demands of the gay population is something that can be considered, at least, hypocritical and very convenient for a minority that is not worried a bit about the rest. Even because, in fact, this is a process that is not different from the importance given in its analysis on many other fields of study. And as such requires debate, discussions of dogmas, prejudices and legal principles that are way beyond being solved in a short period of time as shown in seasons of television series.

    Honestly, I do not see any problem in the question of succession of goods between people of the same gender. Even because, the court rules on the issue of succession of property is already on the disposition of everyone for a long time. And making an upgrade, on the matter involving marriages between persons of the same gender, it would not be difficult at all, I think.

    However, can the claims by an incipient minority of same-sex couples have the same power of decision, the same rights and the same status quo that a majority of heterosexual couples?
    Can we evolve together as a society and especially in quality on the complex institution called marriage, both between people of the same gender as heterosexual people?
    It is good to say and to recognize that the basis of marriages between same-sex lies in the same kind of conservatism in some cases up to more radical, than that observed between the unions of heterosexual couples.

    Anyway, nothing new in the front of the war of sexes.

    Despite this, the great pillar of the defenders of marriage between persons of the same gender, have been so far, to a greater or lesser degree, the right to freedom and equality. Although the same defenders when asked what might be actually regarded as “freedom” in its broadest sense and rational, recognize that the good of truth, freedom and equality can also be interpreted as the “consciousness of its own limits”. In other words, in short, freedom is beautiful, but is not infinite.
    So, how we approach such a question without entering into the merit
    of curtailment of individual freedom and support, generated from
    a superficial analysis of this fact without falling to the side
    of oppression?
    Honestly, I believe that the law is not decided according to particular assessments of groups or individuals. Because often these same assessments, either by groups part of the individuals part, fits only interests of immediate relation without having biggest worries on the final result of their actions and opinions that will generate in the future in all that composes the American society.
    The law, which is an intrinsic element to the general plan of this nation, forces towards rebalancing. Naturally imposes full harmony. And after the law had taken its final decision, whether they like it or not, people should be living together and forgive each other on this subject, but in a certain time and only after a long process of maturation before they reach the issues of the laws plan. Because, after having lesion prior to the law, this will move the justice and nothing more might be done, without be cooperating for the progress of events for the best solution.

    Finally, it’s timely to recognize that the complex debate about marriage between people of the same gender, it should not create more aggravating cases in the midst of the overwhelming majority of heterosexuals of this nation. And once this matter reaches such culmination, everything possible should be done to harmonize with the conciliators or punitive acts resulted from of the final appreciation by the Supreme Court.

    For these and many other reasons, it is appropriate for us to recall that in nature, and saved the proper proportions, the law of nature conspired and worked incessantly during billions of years in favor of the separation of the gender for the evolution of the human species could reach this current stage where we all live now. The legacy of our earliest ancestors is inalienable and imprescriptible. They transcended all the difficulties imposed by the hostile environment that always surrounded them and reminded them about the transience of our mortal condition before nature. And without it we couldn’t have achieved the establishment of ourselves as a real society.

    Therefore, it is necessary that now, honestly, in our intimate, we silently ask ourselves: Should we agree or disagree, preserver or corrupt, affirm or revoke the legacy of our ancestors and the law of nature that shaped us and brought us up here?

    Neil Flesch


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.