Supporting A Candidate Who Does Not Believe In Same-Sex Marriage

[Spensed]

There's a difference between non-believing in and opposing.

My guess is that many progressive candidates support the notion of gay marriage as a matter of civil rights or whatever. But don't see voters getting behind the idea, so they fudge the issue.

While one can argue whether they should or shouldn't do that, clearly they're worth voting for as opposed to someone who actively opposes gay rights.

 

[josher]

Politics is the art of the possible.

I doubt any candidate could win a general election if s/he supported marriage rights for same-sex couples.

I would, however, vote only for those candidates that supported equal rights for gay men and lesbians in areas like employment, housing, etc.

 

[PSCGuy]

There's a difference between non-believing in and opposing.

My guess is that many progressive candidates support the notion of gay marriage as a matter of civil rights or whatever. But don't see voters getting behind the idea, so they fudge the issue.

While one can argue whether they should or shouldn't do that, clearly they're worth voting for as opposed to someone who actively opposes gay rights.

I would put John Edwards down for exactly that. The only mentionable candidate that supports marriage equality is Dennis Kucinich. And while I'd love to see him be elected, he's not going to be. And I still think Edwards is better all around. And Edwards isn't going to stand in the way of marriage equality, which is a start.

There's a long road to travel down to get to that point. And the journey of one thousand miles begins with one step. So, here's step one.

 

[JackFTwist]

There's a difference between non-believing in and opposing.[/SIZE

yes there is

Bill Clinton with Hillary at his side signed the Defense of Marriage Act. Clintons oppose. Clintons signed into law the very law that makes gay marriage illegal. That is called "opposing."


Meanwhile Obama belongs to the one mainline American church body that has endorsed marriage equality. That is called being a lot closer to us.

 

[Kulindahr]

Personally, I wouldn't support a candidate who openly supported gay marriage.

The majority of Americans believe marriage is sacred. I say leave it that way -- but therefore, by the Second Amendment, marriage does not belong in the law in any way, shape, or form ... unless it is as one recognized form of interpersonal union, one among many. The government's definition of interpersonal union ought to be simple: if some people come and say they're interpersonally united, the government should solemnly record that in the same file as all the others. It shouldn't even list whether the people call it "marriage", "bonding", "handfasting", or anything else: all the government needs to know is that these people have committed themselves to each other, and are entitled to all the same benefits, privileges, etc. as any others who have done so.

 

[iman]

yes there is

Bill Clinton with Hillary at his side signed the Defense of Marriage Act. Clintons oppose. Clintons signed into law the very law that makes gay marriage illegal. That is called "opposing."


Meanwhile Obama belongs to the one mainline American church body that has endorsed marriage equality. That is called being a lot closer to us.

Half truths are not truths, they are lies.

As you should know the Defense of Marriage Act was passed as a way of avoiding a similar Constitutional Amendment that would constitutionally ban same sex marriage. We should all be grateful to Clinton for signing it and avoiding the Amendment.

Barrack Obama has stated on the Senate floor that he believes marriage is between a man and a woman and has opposed same sex marriage on the campaign trail.

If Obama's chosen church performs same sex marriages and has also honored Louis Farrakhan it is beginning to sound like it could be a liability in a General Election.

 

[jtilden21]

Okay, case-in-point as to how this issue gets dis-illusioned.

The company that I work for recently changed hands.

When that happened, we were given a new benefit: insurance coverage for domestic partners.

Having a dom partner of 15 years, of course I chose that option.

But, there were many others who chose to place their casual baby's-daddy de jour on the same plan.

To me, that totally degraded what the company was striving to do.

My company was not trying to offer benefits to an ad hoc relationship -- they were trying to give real benefits to true couples.

But, because the way that things are: if you open-up benefits to same-sex couples, you have to do the same for opposite-sex couples.

I am totally for that and understand common-law marriages. And, there are many common-law marriages out there that should have the same benefits as a same-sex commitment.

It is just that when, ppl like I referenced above, abuse the system, then it degrades the whole premise.

I don't see same-sex marriage being heralded in my lifetime.

However, I think we are making strides.

But, when ppl like I referenced degrade that: we take one step forward and slide two steps back.

My point is: without some type of recogition, the ppl that are abusing the system are going to ruin for those using the system properly.

I don't think, in my lifetime, that we will see same-sex unions enjoy the same benefits as opposite-sex unions.

But, I think that we need some rules: so that rogue ppl are not costing us the few benefits that we are just strating to see.

 

[JackFTwist]

1. Half truths are not truths, they are lies.

2. As you should know the Defense of Marriage Act was passed as a way of avoiding a similar Constitutional Amendment that would constitutionally ban same sex marriage.
3. We should all be grateful to Clinton for signing it and avoiding the Amendment.

4. Barrack Obama has stated on the Senate floor that he believes marriage is between a man and a woman

5. and has opposed same sex marriage on the campaign trail.

6. If Obama's chosen church performs same sex marriages and has also honored Louis Farrakhan it is beginning to sound like it could be a liability in a General Election.

1. Yes, master.

2. Wow - that is some fine spin there! Impressive spin! It was really pandering at the time, and your spin explanation was created later as a cover the clinton ass thing.

3. was it soilwork who spoke of self-hating gays

4. link please

5. link please

6. Ok, you fail to grasp the difference between a pastor, a local congregation, and a national church body. Obama's local congregation and national church did not honor Farrakan. His pastor did pay his respects to a local retiring religious leader. The UCC believes in marriage equality. Your attempt to make that into a negative is feeble, really lame. But that gets us to how you support the anti-gay marriage Clintons.

I love Bill Clinton, hell of a guy. He also blew his legacy. He was a great panderer in political matters, including gay marriage and including his retreat on gays in the military.

 

[construct]

DOMA would have gone into effect without his signature anyway. Pres. Clinton didn't have to sign it, but he did. He was always consistant. He never failed to disappoint.

Would I vote for a candidate who does not believe in same-sex marriage? It wouldn't be a deal-breaker. It would be one factor to be considered. I'm supporting Sen. Obama who supports repealing DOMA and granting the rights and duties of marriage to committed gay couples (i.e. everything but the name).

 

[iman]

DOMA is not going to be repealed any time soon. H. Clinton believes that Section II of Doma is necessary to prevent a Constitutional Amendment. Section II relieves the Federal Government from recognizing state marriages (gay, polygamous, etc.) At the present time the state route toward gay marriage is the only realistic approach and should not be jeapordized by an amendment.

 

[iman]

1. Yes, master.

2. Wow - that is some fine spin there! Impressive spin! It was really pandering at the time, and your spin explanation was created later as a cover the clinton ass thing.

3. was it soilwork who spoke of self-hating gays

4. link please

5. link please

6. Ok, you fail to grasp the difference between a pastor, a local congregation, and a national church body. Obama's local congregation and national church did not honor Farrakan. His pastor did pay his respects to a local retiring religious leader. The UCC believes in marriage equality. Your attempt to make that into a negative is feeble, really lame. But that gets us to how you support the anti-gay marriage Clintons.

I love Bill Clinton, hell of a guy. He also blew his legacy. He was a great panderer in political matters, including gay marriage and including his retreat on gays in the military.

2. That is simply a blatant lie. The history for anyone too young to remember is clear. The Republicans wanted a Constitutional Amendment and some like Hucklebee still do.

3. Why is it that anyone with a different opinion from you is a racist or a self loather?

4. http://obama.senate.gov/speech/060605-floor_statement_5/

5. http://www.desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071030/NEWS09/710300384/-1/caucus

6. I am not making it into a negative, I, obviously have more respect for Senator Obama than you do in that I don't find it necessary to misrepresent other Democrats in order to support him. My reference was to what the opposition would make of it in an election. Religion has become an issue in American politics.

 

[MystikWizard]

Politics is the art of the possible.

I doubt any candidate could win a general election if s/he supported marriage rights for same-sex couples.

I would, however, vote only for those candidates that supported equal rights for gay men and lesbians in areas like employment, housing, etc.

Ditto. Marriage is just a word anyway.

 

[construct]

DOMA is not going to be repealed any time soon. H. Clinton believes that Section II of Doma is necessary to prevent a Constitutional Amendment. Section II relieves the Federal Government from recognizing state marriages (gay, polygamous, etc.) At the present time the state route toward gay marriage is the only realistic approach and should not be jeapordized by an amendment.

You have misremembered DOMA. Section 2 states:

No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.

As you can see, there is no mention of the federal government in Section 2.

Section 3 (the only section Sen. Clinton wants repealed) defines marriage for purposes of federal law.

In any case, I'm not supporting Sen. Clinton in the primary. The difference between her and all the other Democratic candidates on DOMA was a very small factor in my decision.

 

[iman]

^Yes, thank you, I misstated the point about the Federal Government. Section 2 relieves other states from recognition which is the motive behind the Constitutional Amendment. As we all know, there are states that would rather secede than recognize gay marriage.
.

 

[chance1]

yeah - i could support a candidate that is not entirely in support of same sex marriage

it's an issue

it's important

it's not the most important issue

and im not a self hating gay man

 

[Spensed]

Bill Clinton had no moral, religious or personal reasons to support the DOMA nor any track record of going out of his way to oppose gay rights.

He signed the DOMA as a political expediency. He wanted to neuter the anti-gay constitutional amendment, which to a large extent he did, and he wanted to give the Democrats a tool to prevent the Republicans portraying them as anti-traditional marriage, which to a large extent he did.

As with Don't-Ask-Don't-Tell, sometimes you have to take two steps back to jump three steps forward. And all politicans know that.

Either Clinton or Obama would be good for gay rights. I don't see gay rights as being of any importance in deciding between them.

 

[Kulindahr]

4. http://obama.senate.gov/speech/060605-floor_statement_5/

5. http://www.desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071030/NEWS09/710300384/-1/caucus

Obama is exactly where he should be in those two statements -- the floor statement was excellent!

He fails perfection on the issue by not going one tiny step further to just say government should get out of the marriage business, since "the issue of marriage has become so entangled - the word marriage has become so entangled with religion - that it makes more sense for me as president, with that authority, to talk about the civil rights that are conferred" -- and talk about leaving "marriage" to the churches and having the government only recognize civil unions (or whatever), among which "marriage" would be one kind.

Personally I think such a position would make Huckabee and others have to reveal their true colors as theocrats, making it plain they don't want a free country at all.

 

[Glafna]

IMHO, it would be a factor, but it wouldn't be an important one, in the choosing of a candidate. Even if the person openly opposed gay marriage, I would vote for them as long as their stances on other subjects are superior to the other parties, and their morals as good as they can get.

 

[iman]

^"morals as good as they can get"? I'm sorry, you've apparently wandered into a gay forum by mistake.

 

[sunoftheskye]

None of the ones who have any chance of winning support it, though my favorite candidates are supportive of civil unions and other (and in my opinion, more important) gay rights.

But regardless, I don't vote based on one single issue.