The Gay People's Chronicle in Cleveland has a story in this week's issue about gay marriage and the U.S. Senate candidates. In the piece, the two formally announced candidates state their positions on gay marriage. Brunner is for it without qualifications. Fisher is in favor of civil unions, but has "questions about marriage."
No matter where you stand on the issue, their answers alone make this article worth the read. For all the talk about how similar the candidates are on the issues (and generally I agree), I think as this race evolves you'll see each of them employ a very different thought process on a variety of issues.
Nuance is what the Senate is all about. It's about knowing where you'll compromise and knowing where you dig in your heels. Today, some may agree with Brunner on a point, others with Fisher. Tomorrow, it could a be a totally different issue, and suddenly you're aligned with a totally different candidate. It's one of the reasons I called for the campaigns to start taking stands and defining themselves.
Yes, the horse race stuff is fun, but at the end of the day I don't want the horse that raises the most money and secures the most endorsements. I want the horse that reflects my values and is in stride with the issues I feel strongest about. Until we hear more of that from the candidates, we're still stuck in the gate.*
* Disclaimer : At the risk of sounding like a hypocrite, the next few days will be about anything but issues. When the campaigns release their Q1 reports, probably all we'll talk about is the state of the race from a financial perspective. I think that's fair and to be expected. After next week though, I'm guessing (and hoping) the discussion shifts a bit and we get a better sense of who these candidates really are.