I think the remaining candidates should support Gay Marriage.

[Meldread]

Let's face it anyone who is going to vote on the gay marriage issue isn't going to vote Democratic anyway. Those who vote on the gay marriage issue are also voting on the abortion issue, which I believe all of the remaining candidates support a womans right to choose. (Correct me if I am wrong.)

The Gay issue is the WORST for Bush. Bush is an idiot if he makes it an issue in this election -- his base is already pissed at him. Bush is trying to position himself as a moderate, so he might come out in support of Civil Unions just for "balance". This will make him no different than John Edwards or John Kerry on the issue -- and we do not want that.

There are a few million gay people in this country. There are millions and millions more who have gay family members and friends, and believe me they VOTE. They have an invested interest in who wins this election, and as we know they can make a difference in a close election.

If the candidates come out in support of Gay Marriage then they can paint Bush as a Gay Basher. They can paint him as bigoted. They can inform the public what gay marriage really is. That the government CANNOT force Churches to marry gay people, but the government has to recognize their relationship under the Constitution that it is discrimination to do otherwise.

I believe that most people are not against gay marriage they are against the idea of having their religion affected by it -- they believe that if the government sanctions gay marriage the Church will have to recognize it. I think once people find out otherwise the moderates won't have all that much problem with it.

We all know wording is important. They should call it "civil marriage" and keep saying "civil marriage". It makes a distinction between "religious marriage" and "civil marriage".

I believe John Edwards is the best man to make the case on Gay Marriage. First of all he's from the South, and that is where you're going to find the most opposition. It might be a bit insulting to have a "Northerner" (like John Kerry) come down "South" and tell "Southerners" how to live their lives and what they should and shouldn't believe. People are more open to people who are more like them. Secondly John Edwards has spent his entire career convincing people to believe what he wants them to believe. That's what being a lawyer is all about -- you can't be a good lawyer without being convincing and able to sway people over to your side. On top of it all Kerry is trying to blur the lines between himself and John Edwards to make it look like there isn't much difference. This would make a clear distinction and on top of it all it could get Edwards a quite bit of free press. (And he can even talk about other issues then.)

Here is what Andrew Sullivan said on gay marriage this weekend on the Chris Matthews show:


MATTHEWS: I knew you would. I'm teasing, Andrew. Andrew, you wrote a beautiful column in Time magazine this week about--advocating the cause, the sentiment, the feeling of those who want to seek gay marriage. What is it?

Mr. SULLIVAN: Well, I'd like to be a political pundit, but this is my life.

MATTHEWS: Yeah.

Mr. SULLIVAN: This is--I have a boyfriend, I come from a traditional Catholic conservative family. I was always brought up to believe the happiest day of your life will be the time you meet the person you want to love and marry. And my whole family would celebrate it and my society would celebrate it. And when I figured out that I was gay growing up, I realized that will never happen to me. And a whole group of people in society are told, `You will never have that day, you do not belong in your own family, you do not belong in your own society.' And that's enormously painful for a lot of people. And you could bring those people back into the families they belong to and the country they belong to without harming anyone. And--and that's what this is about. I can't be objective.

MATTHEWS: Is it the role of the state or the government, generally, to celebrate or to recognize that kind of union? Is that the role of the state?

Mr. SULLIVAN: If it recognizes my sister's wedding and marriage, then it should recognize mine. I don't think I'm any less than my sister. I don't think...

MATTHEWS: But should it be an issue...

Mr. SULLIVAN: I don't think gay people's relationships are inferior to straight people's relationships.

MATTHEWS: Is that debatable for you? Is that something that should come up in an election in California, in New York or Philadelphia or wherever, or should it be a matter of rights, like separate-but-equal is with education?

Mr. SULLIVAN: It's about human dignity. The right to marry is in the human sphere what the right to vote is in the political sphere.

MATTHEWS: So we shouldn't be debating this or have votes of it in various states.

Mr. SULLIVAN: No, we should because people are anguished and they need to talk about this. We shouldn't shut the debate down.

MATTHEWS: But should it be up to the courts?

Mr. SULLIVAN: Ultimately, maybe, because sometimes these basic issues of human rights have to be. But it's my duty and responsibility to try and persuade people that this is the right thing to do. And--and...

MATTHEWS: OK.

Mr. DONALDSON: Well, what I can't figure out is why people think that if Andrew and his partner get married, it will debauch the country. They may disagree with your view, but the argument is always either that God has somehow decreed something opposite, or that the whole country will then fall into...

MATTHEWS: No.

Mr. DONALDSON: ...line in that way.

MATTHEWS: I can--I'm going to give--let me give you a middle case.

Mr. DONALDSON: And I don't understand that.

MATTHEWS: Let me give you a middle case. It's like a lot of things like paying for abortion. A lot of people say, `You should have a right to an abortion,' but people like me might be troubled with `I don't want the state paying for it.' Now, just a minute, they might say it's all right for people to have homosexual relations, gay relations, that's fine, but, `Don't ask me to celebrate. Don't bring me into this.' And when you ask the state to ratify these relationships...

Mr. DONALDSON: Andrew's not going to invite us all to his wedding.

MATTHEWS: No, no.

Mr. DONALDSON: I mean, what are we celebrating?

MATTHEWS: I'm saying, the question here and the reason we have a democracy and argue these things out is a lot of people say, `That's fine. Live and let live. But don't ask me to celebrate it or recognize it'...

Mr. DONALDSON: They're not saying `live and let live,' though.

MATTHEWS: ...`because I don't want to do it.'

Mr. SULLIVAN: We're told that divorce is impermissible.

MATTHEWS: Right.

Mr. SULLIVAN: We're not supposed to celebrate it. But as a matter of civil law, there is civil divorce. And as Catholics, we acknowledge the right of people who don't share our religion to have that right. It's the same thing here. It's not marriage, it is civil marriage. It isn't about religion, it's about marriage licenses given by the state. And all these state constitutions simply say, equality under the law. You can't get around it. States cannot discriminate. That's the issue.

[emanymton]

1. Equal Rights! It Is Equal Rights!

Keep the issue a winning one by focussing on Equal Rights. Use positive terms and you will be a winner!

[DuctapeFatwa]

2. Both the front runners are opposed to Equal Protection under the law

Although Kerry especially phrases it in a very skillful filigree that causes both opponents and fans to argue for days over what he said, if you read his response carefully, he likes the idea of Equal Protection but opposes it being hard-coded into the constitution unless it involves establishing a separate legal status for certain groups.

edit to paste rest of sentence broken off in text editor

[AP]

6. Edwards is actually for Equal Protection unde the law.

He says that all the federal rights conferred by "marriage" should be extended to same sex couples.

That's the crux of this issue. If Democrats separate the material from the spiritual, and separate church and state, the Democrats will win on this issue.

[DuctapeFatwa]

7. He supports a separate legal status for certain groups, as does Kerry

And enshrining such in the constitution has the potential to save a lot of money for business. Imagine the potential for employers faced with a large number of low-level employees of a particular ethnic group!

[MuseRider]

3. Kucinich does.

http://www.kucinich.us/lgbt

[Meldread]

4. I know.

That's why I said both of the front runners should. Both Sharpton and Kuchinich support gay marriage.

[Blue_Roses]

5. I don't think it's good for any candidate

to support something they don't truely believe in just because it will get them the votes. This sort of thing happens already and it does backfire.

This is a states rights issue, not a federal one and this is what the candidates should be pushing. Each state needs to decide. This is just being used by Bush as a wedge issue to appeal to his base.

[Meldread]

8. It isn't about what they believe nor is it about what the States think..

It's about doing what is right. It isn't about States rights its about EQUAL rights.

Civil Unions aren't good enough. That is like telling a black person, "Well we LET you on the bus, why are you complaining that we made you sit in the back? At least we LET you on the bus!" or "We let you have a water fountain. We even gave you your own fountain, so I don't understand what all the fuss is about."

Separate is never equal.

[jansu]

9. That's exactly what G. Wallace said about opening up the schools

to Black children. He stood in the doorway to stop this, claiming that it was State Rights. The Constitution of the United States trumps State Rights! A RIGHT IS A RIGHT EVERYWHERE!

[jansu]

10. What does the Bible say about marriage?

No one in U.S. can have just a religious marriage, you must have state license. If you want a religious marriage, without the state issuing a license, then you may have something to stand on, but as long as the state is putting their stamp on it, then you MUST have equal protection under the law.

The churches can still say who can get married in their church. I can not marry in a Catholic church, since I am not a member of that church. The churches can still NOT have women priest or ministers.

Having marriage open to all does not harm any religion. But, if you want to have a Biblical marriage, let's take the law right from the source:

The Presidential Prayer Team is currently urging us to: "Pray for
the President as he seeks wisdom on how to legally codify the
definition of marriage. Pray that it will be according to Biblical
principles. With any forces insisting on variant definitions of
marriage, pray that God's Word and His standards will be honored by
our government."

So here, in support of the Prayer Team's admirable goals,
is a proposed Constitutional Amendment codifying marriage entirely
on biblical principles:

A. Marriage in the United States shall consist of a union between
one man and one or more women. (Gen 29:17-28; II Sam 3:2-5)

B. Marriage shall not impede a man's right to take concubines in
addition to his wife or wives. (II Sam 5:13; I Kings 11:3; II Chron
11:21)

C. A marriage shall be considered valid only if the wife is a
virgin. If the wife is not a virgin, she shall be executed. (Deut
22:13-21)

D. Marriage of a believer and a non-believer shall be
forbidden. (Gen 24:3; Num 25:1-9; Ezra 9:12; Neh 10:30)

E. Since marriage is for life, neither this Constitution nor the
constitution of any State, nor any state or federal law, shall be
construed to permit divorce. (Deut 22:19; Mark 10:9)

F. If a married man dies without children, his brother shall marry
the widow. If he refuses to marry his brother's widow or
deliberately does not give her children, he shall pay a fine of one
shoe and be otherwise punished in a manner to be determined by law.
(Gen. 38:6-10; Deut 25:5-10)

G. In lieu of marriage, if there are no acceptable men in your
town, it is required that you get your dad drunk and have sex with
him (even if he had previously offered you up as a sex toy to men
young and old), tag-teaming with any sisters you may have. Of
course, this rule applies only if you are female. (Gen 19:31-36)

Freedom is the first human right!

I can not imagine wanting to marry someone of the same sex.....
I can imagine that those who want to....... Cannot imagine marrying someone of a different sex.

What do the words "PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS" mean? To me, being able to marry whomever I love, is at the top of that list!

[Finch]

11. It would be a very bad idea

for Kerry or Edwards to say they supported the notion of “Gay Marriage” most people in the US are uncomfortable with the idea of gay marriage and these people include many potential Dem voters who are more concerned with economic issues than this however if the Dems make this an issue it will help Bush to win these moderate independents over… Bush can use this as a “wedge issue” all dems should support the notion of civil union providing legal rights to long term couples however the idea of supporting “gay marriage” and for that matter “gay adoption” is a very bad idea especially for Kerry who has to try and come across as moderate as possible…

This issue is not a deal breaker for most independent voters however if the Dems stridently support the idea Bush can exploit most peoples disquiet at the prospect and will be able to draw these people towards voting for him over a candidate portrayed as a “radical social liberal” by the GOP as Kerry most certainly would be… added to this a declaration of support for Gay Marriage would further geographically constrain the Dems as it is only likely to become law in one state (even in MA it seems controversial and that shows you how liberal this measure would be seen to be by most Americans) further more any Dem nominee should steer away from any association with Mayor Newsom… I’m sorry its not just the media but the man is bloody irresponsible and is pretty much as far to the left in most Americans minds (and I stress in their MINDS) as Roy Moore is to the right…

So in conclusion very bad idea… if we support Civil Unions and oppose Gay Marriage then Bush is only helping himself with his base if we start a debate this as an election issue we have wondered from our strong suite of the economy and the detereating situation in Iraq this is an issue that would be best tackled once we have won (I personally agree with both Edwards and Kerry YES to civil union and NO to Marriage but that’s by the by) if we try and do what the Reps want and make this an election issue then we will lose the argument and this could have grave repercussions…

Ultimately (what ever my personal views) I agree with devrc243… this is a state issue not one for federal government…

[CivilRightsNow]

12. Agreed...

Sometimes I swear Im a libertarian ;)