Question for the Kerry and Edwards camps...

[angryinoville]

Why won't either candidate pit their own personal feelings aside and do the liberal democrat thing by approving of gay marriage? This would clearly separate them from the shrub. It irks me to hear anyone say that "I believe that marriage is between a man and a woman." That shit is antiquated and played out. Let's be progressive.

[Mick Knox]

1. hmmm Maybe...

they are saying what they really think... Its best they be honest.. then you know who you are voting for... This amendment is going now where.. its election year games.

[democratreformed]

6. This is the way I see it

Not that I am anyone important. But, since it seems to be a very divisive issue, it is best that they not take a liberal stand right now. If they did, then the conversation could very well be over. It could cost them the election and Bush would have four more years to work on passing HIS amendment.

I know. I know. That doesn't help you any. And, I am truly sorry for that. I would love to see you get the rights you deserve. But, right now is definitely the wrong time to take a stand as far as our candidates are concerned. The administration we have now has gotten away with pretty much every single thing they wanted. And, if they really want it (the amendment), you can bet your sweet ass, they'll have it if they get another term.

[AP]

2. The liberal thing to do is to get the gov't out of the marriage business.

Marriage should be for the church. The gov't should only be in the business of conferring material rights (not spiritual relationships).

Edwards saying that all Fed rights conferred on married people should be conferred on same sex couples is the first step down a path that will lead to the liberal conclusion.

[angryinoville]

3. It still...

seems like a dodge. Chris Matthews just ate up both of their spokesmen. As ridiculous as this issue is, (when there are so many serious issues to discuss) shrub has taken a stance. Kerry and Edwards still haven't. That's what I'm talking about. They need to go completely against shrub on every issue even if it goes against their own personal opinions. They need to go all out and vote for gay marriage.

[Old and In the Way]

4. No dodge at all. If you want psuedo-moralist-politicians who mix religion

and politics, there's plenty of those types in the Republican Party.

Both nominees are clear in their support of civil unions....everyone should agree with that. Marriages are a distinctly religious ceremony that should be left to each religion/sect to determine. I have no issues with this perspective.

[JI7]

5. it should be civil unions for all

when it comes to the law and government it should just be civil unions for all. marriage should be for the church. since there is separation of church and state the religious institutions would get to decide whether they want to perform the marriage ceremony for whoever (gays, straight, interracial etc).

[AP]

8. And that's what Edwards says: the Fed gov't should confer all the rights

it confers on married people to any two people, regardless of gender, who are a couple.

This is the first step down the road towards government no longer looking to the church for a nod when deciding on whom to confer rights and duties.

[Hippo_Tron]

7. Not being for gay marriage = far right staying home on election day

Civil unions are the exact same thing with a different name.

[SerpentX]

9. No, they're not. Civil unions in VT confer less than one-third the rights

The idea that you could somehow write a law that would make civil unions equal to marriage except for the word 'marriage' is a fallacy. The language of such a law would be tortured and each word and punctuation mark would become a bone of contention for the Dominionists.