Ralph Nader on Civil Rights

Nader supports gay marriage; but gay groups support Gore

The organization made the appeal even though Nader supports legalizing marriage for gays and lesbians while Gore and Bush do not. Gore supports recognizing limited “contractual rights” normally reserved for married couples. Bush has said that he supports allowing states to decide the issue.

Some gay Republicans objected to what one called the HRC’s “scare tactics.” A spokesman for the Log Cabin Republicans, a gay GOP organization, said Bush is supportive of gay rights. “This is the first GOP nominee in history who has reached out to gays and lesbians,” he said. Bush has said he would not discriminate against gays and allow them to serve in his cabinet.

Equal gay rights, including civil union

A: My view on this is equal rights, equal responsibilities for gay and lesbian people. That would cover all issues.

Truth and reconciliation commission for Native Americans

A: It’s common sense. There have been crimes against Native Americans.

Q: But why a truth and reconciliation commission?

A: Instead of picking at one case at a time, it’s to see the patterns of discrimination. And she thinks there should be a major task force to raise this issue in a big way and ask, How can we improve justice for first Native Americans?

Supports Civil Union in Vermont and elsewhere

Long history of fighting in sexual politics

A: The word “gonadal” means that which begets. I could have used the word sexual politics. I fought against the restrictions on women being prohibited from civil juries way back before some of the more prominent issues of homosexual rights and abortion came onto the political scene. The Green Party will be speaking out on these issues as well.

Disagrees with ACLU on spending money as free speech

Supports “impenetrable protection of privacy”

A: First of all, tax returns are a matter of privacy between individuals and the U.S. Treasury. They are inappropriate vehicles for political candidates to disclose and breach the -- what I think should be -- impenetrable protection of privacy. For 30 years I have supported the right of privacy -- whether for medical data, credit information, tax information -- and I want to practice what I preach.

Now the only appropriate vehicle for disclosure in my judgment for political candidates is the Government Ethics Act. It has a $ 5,000 threshold. I will spend less than $ 5,000 and not become a candidate under the definition of the Government Ethics Act.

Differentiate discriminatory justice from indiscriminate

My work deals with indiscriminate injustice. When you work in indiscriminate injustice, everybody wants their defective car to be recalled and fixed. You tend to appeal to a broader spectrum of the American people.

I think we need in our country to put more attention on indiscriminate injustice, because while it is important to focus on discriminatory injustice, if you just do that, you tend to divide the country. So you need a force that not only abolishes gross, discriminatory injustice, but unifies the country against indiscriminate injustice. Anybody can join bank groups, consumer groups. They’re voluntarily funded. It doesn’t cost the taxpayer anything. Everybody is a customer of banks, directly or indirectly. Everybody is a consumer of insurance, electricity, telephone, gas, pollution.

Political discourse narrows when media serves Mammon

A: Actually, the range of permissible political discourse is far narrower here than it is in Russia at the present time. For example, when there’s a corporate crime epidemic going on, [American news shows] never have any programs. They never even talk about it. You’ve got a corporatization and of almost all of American life. The university research agendas are being set more and more by these corporate contracts and moonlighting consultantships with professors. You know throughout history what happens to a society that only serves mammon, that only serves commercialism? It’s on its way down. And commercialism now is the juggernaut system that’s running roughshod over other important value systems like health, safety, economic opportunity, justice and other values that don’t have a dollar figure on them.

Our "Who Do You Agree With?" (Issues Match) quiz is a modified version of "Vote Match," a product of SpeakOut.com, "a political portal on the web that invites you to learn more about the day's hot issues, then SpeakOut and be heard." VoteMatch was developed by Jesse Gordon of Issues2000.org.