Presidential Candidates On Same-Sex Marriage

[E.J.]

Presidential Candidates On Same-Sex Marriage

by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff

LINK

(Washington) When it comes to same-sex marriage there are few differences in the positions of John McCain, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. All three are opposed but would grant varying rights to gay and lesbian couples. And all three oppose amending the US constitution to bar same-sex marriage.

Clinton would amend the Federal Defense of Marriage Act that was signed into law while her husband was president to remove sections that bar the federal government from providing benefits to same-sex couples.

Obama would repeal the law altogether and permit civil unions.

McCain would follow the Clinton lead by leaving in place the section barring the government from recognizing gay marriage but he would support benefits for same-sex pairs. McCain voted both times against his party when the proposed constitutional amendment came to a vote in the Senate, calling the measure "un-Republican".

Following Thursday's ruling by the California Supreme Court striking down that state's ban on same-sex marriage both Obama and Clinton released carefully worded statements saying it was an issue for the states.

McCain said it should not be a decision for judges to take.

All three have been consistent since the campaign began.

Last August during a presidential forum on Logo-television, the network which owns 365Gay, Obama pushed civil unions.

"Civil union that provides all the benefits for a legally sanctioned marriage," said Obama.

In the same forum Clinton called it an issue for individual states to decide, a position she later repeated on the Ellen DeGeneres TV show.

"I've always believed that marriage should be left to the states, because that's where it's always been," Clinton told DeGeneres on April 7.

Perhaps the only surprise has come from Libertarian presidential candidate Bob Barr - the man who while a Republican Congressman was the author of the Federal Defense of Marriage Act.

Barr said late Thursday he has no problem with the California high court ruling.

?Regardless of whether one supports or opposes same sex marriage, the decision to recognize such unions or not ought to be a power each state exercises on its own, rather than imposition of a one-size-fits-all mandate by the federal government (as would be required by a Federal Marriage Amendment which has been previously proposed and considered by the Congress)," Barr said in a statement..

"The decision today by the Supreme Court of California properly reflects this fundamental principle of federalism on which our nation was founded."

?365Gay.com 2008

[Nickolas James]

Presidential Candidates On Same-Sex Marriage

by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff

LINK

(Washington) When it comes to same-sex marriage there are few differences in the positions of John McCain, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. All three are opposed but would grant varying rights to gay and lesbian couples.

And people are planning to vote for these people monsters because.........????

[Fun Tails]

Because any candidate who openly supported gay marriage would never stand a chance of winning a primary, much less a general election.

There's a limit to how far idealistic stances will get you in politics.

Real progress doesn't come from politicians, anyways, so they're irrelevant. If Martin Luther King had been an office holder he'd never have been as successful as he was. Queer activists, advancing education through things like the gay pride events and anti-bullying programs are where the battle for queer equality will truly be won.

And, of course, by the gallant, iron-willed souls who dare to live openly in oppressive communities and strike a blow for progress by their mere presence.

[The Pecman]

I agree with Fun Tails 100%. I think, quietly, both Obama and Clinton will do everything they can to get pro-gay legislation passed through Congress, if either of them is elected. But, as Bill Clinton found out in 1992, it takes a lot more than just being President to force pro-gay laws through the government (like his doomed support of gays in the military).

It's totally ridiculous that the U.S. government doesn't condone, admit, or understand gay people in the armed forces. I just finished reading Reichen Lemkuhl's biography, Here's What We'll Say, which details his four years going through the Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs, and it's a nightmarish story. I really had my eyes opened as to just how bad it is for gays in the military, just based on reading it.

We get so used to the freedoms we have in civilian life, you forget there are people who have to hide who they really are about 99% of the time, and live in constant fear of being found out. And in the military, they can not only get court-martialed, they can actually wind up in jail and even owe the government money for all of their training ($100K a year for pilots). Incredible story.

I'm very close to putting a bumper sticker on my car that says: "I'll vote for anybody this November, as long as they aren't Republican."

[Fun Tails]

Isn't Reichen Lemkuhl just fucking HAWT?

He certainly makes *my* little gay soldier stand at attention.

[Anthony]

I think you are rather unlucky in the USA. It seems that your politicians have to conform and so have to pretend their opinions are like those of the majority.

Here in the UK it isn't like that. My MP is gay and 'out'. Most MP's are in favour of at least civil partnership. It's mostly the religious nuts that are opposed. The cardinals and bishops. On the other hand your schools seem commonly to have GSAs and to be a lot more tolerant - and of course you have an openly gay bishop! Here the Archbishop chickened out of appointing a gay man to be a bishop even though the man concerned asserts that he is celibate (which Gene Robinson certainly isn't).

But we are getting more like you. All parties say they want less taxation. All party leaders pay lip service to religion (or worse, are sincerely believers). And our press doesn't help. Our popular press is national so when they get thier knife into someone it affects voting nationwide. Most of it is very right-wing - authoritarian, in favour of more draconian punishment, private enterprise and selfishness rule the roost.

[DesDownunder]

Anthony wrote:

But we are getting more like you. All parties say they want less taxation. All party leaders pay lip service to religion (or worse, are sincerely believers). And our press doesn't help. Our popular press is national so when they get thier knife into someone it affects voting nationwide. Most of it is very right-wing - authoritarian, in favour of more draconian punishment, private enterprise and selfishness rule the roost.

Yes, Australia is doing that too.

[Nickolas James]

Because any candidate who openly supported gay marriage would never stand a chance of winning a primary, much less a general election.

There's a limit to how far idealistic stances will get you in politics.

Real progress doesn't come from politicians, anyways, so they're irrelevant. If Martin Luther King had been an office holder he'd never have been as successful as he was. Queer activists, advancing education through things like the gay pride events and anti-bullying programs are where the battle for queer equality will truly be won.

And, of course, by the gallant, iron-willed souls who dare to live openly in oppressive communities and strike a blow for progress by their mere presence.

I'm going to have to respectfully disagree with you. I think we live in a day and age where people are sick and tired of social conservatives, and a lot of republicans are ready to give them the boot. Personally, I despise both parties, because there's no real difference. I doubt very much that gay marriage is a pressing issue for either Obama or Clinton. Her husband signed DOMA during his second term, and I can't find anything on the internet about her coming out against it at the time. If she really felt that strongly about equality and gay rights, she should have opposed it and said so before he signed the bill.

As for Obama, he's spent years as a member of a church that openly condemns homosexuality. Kinda like John McCain and George Bush. If he was that passionate about our rights, even if he planned to keep it quiet, he should have left that church and found one that's more diverse.

[Fun Tails]

Polls show that countrywide, AMericans oppose marriage for gays.

Obviously, that varies from state to state, but Democratic politicians don't worry about safe states like New York. In 'swing' states, which Democratic candidates need to win in the General election, the opinion tends to be against gay marriage.

You'll notice that I never said, as pecman did, that Obama or Clinton would work to support gay marirage if they became president. They would not stand in it's way, the way Bush has, but they would not work for it either. It is an issue that is too likely to burn them without any justifiable reward, politically.

In the end, I think you're arguing with the wrong people. The majority of AMERICANS are against gay marriage. Politicians are mostly empty suits who reflect public opinion. Even the great hope-and-change man, Obama, is no different. In ten years, if Americans change their minds and support gay marriage, you can expect to see Mitt Romney leading a gay pride march and boasting about how his father marched with the stonewall activists.

The president is largely irrelevant on social issues, anyways. Bush has been one of the fiercest opponents of gay rights in general, not just gay marriage, yet his time in office has seen gay rights and gay marriage make more advancement than any other time in American history.

[Nickolas James]

Personally, I think that a viable alternative to legalizing gay marriage is to stop recognizing straight marriage. Then equality can reign throughout the fruited plain

[Guest Fritz]

I have to agree with Fun Tails. Politicians are mostly a gutless bunch that never do anything unless they feel it will produce more votes than the alternative. The gay population is too small for them to take a stand on or work for legislation which specifically benefits gays. Only when enough of the general population favors the topic will politicians act. , so don't expect either party to advance gay causes anytime in the near future.

I would add, don't always believe what politicians say on any subject. They frequently say one thing in an effort to appeal to their voter base, and then do another either overtly or covertly. Yes it is true that Bush has been outspoken against some gay initiatives, but as Fun Tails points out, gay rights and acceptance have come further under his administration than under its predecessors which would seem to indicate that while Bush has spoken against, he has not blocked progress. That progress has little to do with Bush, but rather is a reflection of the mood of the country. My thought is that instead of worrying about convincing politicians, the gay community needs to convince the general population to accept them. When the population does, appropriate legislation will follow.

[The Pecman]

You'll notice that I never said, as pecman did, that Obama or Clinton would work to support gay marirage if they became president.

Actually, I didn't say "marriage." What I said was:

I think, quietly, both Obama and Clinton will do everything they can to get pro-gay legislation passed through Congress...

and I strongly believe this is true. I think their support of gay rights will stop at marriage, but I'm realistic enough to accept that drastic change has to come slowly. We've come a long way in 20 years. I expect gay marriage will eventually become law in this country, but it's not going to happen overnight. I'm confident that either Obama or Clinton would start dismantling the wall a brick at a time, rather than trying to knock it down.

[Drewbie]

Hmm, some people in the Miltary that are gay isn't so bad, but for some it's pretty bad. but most of the soldiers do not care

http://www.advocate.com/issue_story_ektid41440.asp

For Obama, I read some articles on him and videos, it seems that for each audience he talks to, he says lets say he talks to a rural crowed he's all for the 2nd amendment, when it comes to a more liberal crowd, he's for more gun control, but both sides do that.