How should the democratic nominee handle the gay marriage issue?

[fujiyama]

While I personally do support gay marriage, I understand that it may (then again it may not the way the administration is going) be politically unviable to do so. Supporting civil unions (which provide ALL the same benefits) is a good first step. Of course, this leads them to ask, why not then support the ammendment?

Well, aside from the obvious moral consideration and the fact that the ammendment smacks of homophobia and bigotry, the nominee should also claim that this shows how little the administration has to run on.

How else could the nominee handle it?

[Shanty Oilish]

1. Because we need to get a Dem elected

"It's up to the states individually" is a useful posture. Sounds very broad-minded and fair. It isn't, as Al Sharpton eloquently observed at one of the debates.
It's a dodge. The states will come up with various laws and the courts will knock them down. Eventually we'll see gay marriage legalized, and it won't cost us another presidential election. Still, it's regrettable that the nominee won't support it outright.

[morgan2]

2. have some freaking courage

say its ridiculous to not support gay marriage. Gays marrying has absolutely no affect on the institution of marriage. If a church chooses to not recognize gay marriage thats up to them. In civil society we can not distinguish between what life choices others make. The state gives benefits to married to couples to promote stable relationships and raising children. All straight married couples don't raise children and they get marriage rights, so should gay couples. People respect someone when they take a stand and if they say it in the right way it would play very well. Its sad that Kerry and Edwards are too afraid to touch the issue. They don't want to take a stand so go with the stupid states rights issue.

[no_hypocrisy]

3. The nominee should stick to issues concerning protecting liberties and

amending the Constitution should not be for whims and passions. This process is meant to strengthen the existing liberties and democratic processes, not remove or damage them. And certainly adding an amendment that discriminates against a particular group weakens the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause as well as the 5th Amendment and 14th Amendments' Right to Due Process.

The experiment to legislate morality failed miserably right after World War I when the 18th Amendment was passed in order to stop citizens from imbibing alcoholic products. It was popular and had noble purposes but its results of corruption, crime, and being ignored by the public made it moot.

The nominee should bone up on The Federalist Papers and some constitutional law cases and give the public a reminder of what this country stands for.

[BruinAlum]

4. Kerry press release yesterday

Statement from John Kerry on Bush Constitutional Amendment


February 24, 2004

For Immediate Release


“I believe President Bush is wrong. All Americans should be concerned when a President who is in political trouble tries to tamper with the Constitution of the United States at the start of his reelection campaign.

“This President can’t talk about jobs. He can’t talk about health care. He can’t talk about a foreign policy, which has driven away allies and weakened the United States, so he is looking for a wedge issue to divide the American people.

“While I believe marriage is between a man and a woman, for 200 years, this has been a state issue. I oppose this election year effort to amend the Constitution in an area that each state can adequately address, and I will vote against such an amendment if it comes to the Senate floor.

“I believe the best way to protect gays and lesbians is through civil unions. I believe the issue of marriage should be left to the states, and that the President of the United States should be addressing the central challenges where he has failed – jobs, health care, and our leadership in the world rather than once again seeking to drive a wedge by toying with the United States Constitution for political purposes.”


http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/releases/pr_2004_0224b.html

[Old and In the Way]

7. Strong response, but-

I'd wish he'd have worded this slightly differently-

I believe the issue of marriage should be left to the states

It should be organized religions

Hopefully, he'll clarify. I don't think we need our state legislatures trying to devine the Supreme Being's take on this issue.

[BruinAlum]

11. Good point

[BR_Parkway]

5. And where in that amendment is civil unions?

So far, the wording is too loose and subject to interpertation. If the RePugs need an amendment to protect the word marriage, then why not just have an amendment saying all unions, of any sex will be civil and marriage is only something performed by a church if you so choose. No, they are wanting cake and eat it too.

I'm disappointed that none of the candidates has the balls to say, we will not discriminate in this country, at this point I'm voting on the lesser of the two evils.

[Old and In the Way]

6. Why is this being spun as a religious issue?

The real issue is civil unions and the right for partners to share in the same benfits as heterosexual couples that are legally recognized. Marriages are the domains of churches. If Jerry Falwell does want to marry gay couples in his church, I'd say that's his right. Of course, other churches who wish to bestow marriage, should feel free.

But from a government standpoint, I think the "marriage" thing obfuscates the real issue. If the issue is correctly framed, logically, why would we discriminate against some couples who have the constitutional right to persue "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness".

Republicans are making this a quasi-religious issue and Democrats need to be clear that we support civil unions for any couple who chooses to be legally bound.

[Care Bear]

8. You got it.

Did you know there is a little paragraph in the midst of the proposed constitutional amendment that slips in the fact that same-sex unions will not be recognized?

So, Bush is pandering to the fundies (4 million of whom stayed home in 2000) by saying he's pushing this protection of marriage amendment which includes a no recognition of civil unions clause and tacks on that the amendment cannot be appealed to any court.

That would never fly, but he's after that damn fundie base he lost some of in 2000 and demanded this of him in order to vote repuke in 2004.

[unblock]

9. focus!

"they looked at their record on the economy and said, 'let's talk about gay marriages'

they loooked at their record in wmd and said, 'let's talk about gay marriages'

they looked at their record of job losses and said, 'let's talk about gay marriages'

they looked at everything they've done in the last four years, scouring their record for positive achievements, and said, 'let's talk about gay marriages'

so let's send the republicans back to crawford, where they can talk about gay marriages all they want, and let's send the democrats to washington, because we've got a whole lot of america's work to do!

[morgan2]

10. listening to kerry talk on abc now

about gay marriage.. He's such a freaken coward, its sad.

[dweller]

12. Here's one stand

http://www.kucinich.us/issues/gayrights.php

snip
Kucinich goes further than supporting civil unions for same-sex
couples at the state level; he believes that, much like the Civil Rights
legislation of the 1960s, federal law should protect civil unions, and
that no state has a right to abridge basic rights to privacy. He would
support the introduction of federal civil union legislation if the courts
do not recognize this intrinsic right.

He supports equal treatment of same-sex couples under Social
Security survivor benefits and spousal benefits. He supports equal
adoption rights regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity.
Ultimately, he believes gays should be allowed to marry, as a matter
of "equality and justice and fairness," as he told the Boston Globe
(4/26/03).


dp

[soupkitchen]

13. Start asking, "Do we really need a gay prohibition amendment?"

Prohibition was such a bad social experiment in most peoples minds that if you could tie the stupidity of this amendment into the stupidity of prohibition it would go nowhere in a hurry.
And let the opposition try to argue, "Well, it's not gay prohibition it's gay marriage prohibition." The more they say prohibition the more likely it is this amendment is doomed.

[John_H]

14. Easiest issue of the campaign.

"I've already said what I believe a hundred times and my position hasn't changed. Look (whichever bush shilling whore is asking), you may want to help George Bush start a divisive cultural war for his own personal gain, but I don't. George Bush wants to set Americans against one another so they wont think about jobs, health care, yada yada yada."

[AntiCoup2K4]

15. How about taking a goddamn stand and supporting equal rights?

The homophobes are going to vote for Junior anyway, so why pander to their hateful asses?