Why not an explicit Democrat platform of state's right re. gay marriage?

[brentspeak]

Why not adopt and make 100% clear to any and all voters that the Democratic party considers so-called "morals issues" like gay marriage to be the sole province of the individual state voters? Advocate that the states can hold their own referendums on such matters (as some just have), and that a "yes" on gay marriage in say, Massachussetts, doesn't have to be legally binding in say, Alabama.

By making it very, very, very clear to voters that THEY and only they can directly vote on such matters (rather than indirectly vote, ie. voting for politicians who they believe reflect their social concerns), then no one can convincingly make the claim that the Democratic party or it's candidates are "foisting" their values on people who may not agree with those values.

Promoting that kind of direct connect to the political process would completely differentiate the Democratic party from the Republican party, giving the average citizen the feeling (a true feeling) that they have been given more power over their lives than simply electing a politican.

[Heath.Hunnicutt]

1. We have more important fish to fry.

It's too bad this issue came to a head early -- now we are going to have to put up with laws specifically against gay marriages.

Ultimately, though, this is a non-issue compared to the agenda of world domination and U.S. financial ruin that BushCo is pushing. Whether or not gays can marry is something we should view as 'icing' for once we have a cake to put it on.

[sangh0]

2. It's not gay marriage

It's "marriage equality"

[Heath.Hunnicutt]

5. The other side thinks of it as "reproduction free" marriage

From their side, the entire reason that marriages get a tax benefit is that there is an assumption that the family will be raising kids. This doesn't apply to couples that won't be reproducing.
The two kinds of marriage are inherently not equivalents.

Having a civil union that allows power of attorney, survivorship, and similar 'marital community' rights makes sense.

Equating the tax entitlements of a straight marriage with a gay marriage makes an assumption about the purpose of that tax break, and the assumption is wrong.

Marriage in terms of churches and so forth should be out of the mind of government. Clearly,

[eriffle]

3. two reasons

during the civil rights movement, people in the south thought it was a moral issue to keep blacks oppressed and to ban interracial marriage. the whole issue of an interracial marriage from say new york being recognized in alabama happened then too. secondly, there is a possible constitutional issue by allowing the states to have differing standards on what in the eyes of the law is a legal contract

[Bluebear]

4. Because "moral values" did not drive this election

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=962455&mesg_id=962455