Which high profile Dems openly support gay marriage?

[Grooner Five]

Kerry said he believed that marriage was between a man and a woman. Clinton signed the "Defense of Marriage" act in to law, a bill designed to thwart Hawaii's progressive laws on the subject. I don't recall Edwards or Gore coming out loudly on the issue.

I get the feeling that it's a very short list. How can change happen when Democratic leaders can't even get fully behind the initiative?

[WI_DEM]

1. Well unfortunately it takes time

look at all the Dems who support civil unions which 20 or even maybe 10 years ago would have been political suicide.

[cali]

14. even five years ago

support for civil unions was extremely limited. Vermont's SC decision was issued in Dec. 1999, and it was considered revolutionary- it made front page all over the world. Look how far we've come. Pushing for gay marriage will do more harm to the cause than good. In fact, it can be argued that it already has. Let's secure rights to Vermont style civil unions first. They provide every state right and responsibility that marriage does. Then we can move towards gaining federal rights.

[Grooner Five]

22. The Defense of Marriage Act

Was designed specifically to thwart that very path. And a Democrat signed it in to law.

[terrya]

2. Dennis Kuchinch, for one.

He and Al Sharpton were the only Democratic candidates for President in 2004 that supported gay marriage.

Also, Gavin Newsom, the mayor of San Francisco.

Like you said, though. A very short list.

[Grooner Five]

4. Jeez, even Cheney supported civil unions

It is pretty sad to think that no mainstream Dems (sorry, but Kucinich and Sharpton don't entirely qualify) will openly support the concept of homosexual marriage without reservations.

[Cheswick2.0]

12. what is the difference between the two besides the name?

[Grooner Five]

18. Which two?

[Cheswick2.0]

21. gay marriage and civil unions

not being a smart ass here, I really would like to know what the legal difference is.

[Grooner Five]

23. That's a good question

I presume that one is a domestic legal contract known as a marriage license, restricted to a man and a woman - and the other is a domestic legal contract known as a civil union, not restricted by gender.

Separate, but equal... or is it equal, but separate?

[LTRS]

47. Civil unions not portable state to state, and

convey no federal rights, which are about the only ones that make much difference in people's lives on a day to day basis.

[Zhade]

29. As long as we get the exact same rights as heterosexual couples, nothing.

I don't give a damn if it's called a civil union by others - it would be a marriage to me and my partner, were I to wind up with a guy.

I just want equal legal rights. I don't really see why I should care about the name, so much.

[Hippo_Tron]

31. It's reviving seperate but equal instituations, which are UNCONSTITUTIONAL

As decided by Brown v Board of Education. Civil Unions may be a step in the right direction but it still gives straight couples something that gay couples don't have, and frankly the religious fundies LOVE that.

[Geek_Girl]

32. I would say most fundies

Do not support civil unions. Most fundamentalist unfortunately feel that homosexuals should keep it to themselves and stay in the closet.

[Cheswick2.0]

42. What does it give straight couples that Gays don't have?

I am looking for legal specifics. Are there any?

[Hippo_Tron]

44. Nothing practical

That is if the laws are written in a way that a civil union is the same thing as a marriage. But a marriage and a civil union are still seperate institutions and gay people are STILL not allowed to seek a marriage under the law, which is something that I don't think is fair if straight people are allowed to do it.

Again, civil unions would be a good first step.

[LTRS]

49. Nothing practical?

So the right to SS survivor benefits or not to have to pay federal taxes on SSDP benefits from your company as if it were salary (just 2 of more than 1000 federal rights) are "nothing practical"?

If civil unions are passed and we accept that as good enough equal rights under federal law will never become a reality.

[Orangepeel]

54. "equal rights under federal law will never become a reality"

that's not necessarily true. We could do what the right wing is always accusing us of trying to do, which is use civil unions as a foot in the door and then have the courts declare the 'separate but equal' status unconstitutional. Sometimes it is easier to get the whole loaf if you first convince the baker to give you half.

(Of course, that would have been a lot easier had Kerry been appointing Supreme Court justices)

I support gay marriage, without distinction. But, I don't believe that support for all or nothing is the most practical approach. Unfortunately, there are a whole bunch of people in the country who just freak when they hear that phrase (whereas, a majority actually support equal rights). We need to be working on that, through education and through political action. But, in the meantime, there are a lot of rights that gay couples don't have that state civil unions could give them, if the bills were worded correctly.

[Hippo_Tron]

56. Nothing practical IF the laws are written correctly

As I said before, the laws would have to be written so that everything that applies to marriage applies to civil unions as well. That applies to federal laws as well.

[LTRS]

48. Over 1000 FEDERAL RIGHTS

You don't get a single one of them with state civil unions.

[siliconefreak]

33. one more name

Carol Moseley Braun also supported same-sex marriage. :)

[siliconefreak]

34. just thought of another

Barney Frank of Massachusetts also support same-sex marriage. He's relatively high-profile.

[ThorsHammer]

38. Yep, I mentioned him below (nt)

[Zep]

59. IIRC, Carol Mosely Braun

eot

[Freddie Stubbs]

61. The two guys who finished last in the primaries supported it?

The certainly shows how popular this issue is, even among Democrats.

[hopein08]

3. Edwards stance...

as I remember was that he personally feels that marriage is between a man and a woman but the validity of gay marriage should not be decided on the federal level but on the state level.

I argued in one of my college classes last spring that maybe "civil union" should be the phrase that Dems get behind. My reasoning is that all marriage (heterosexual or homosexual) not performed by a religiuos leader should be a "union." I.e. it would be up to the states as to who they allowed to marry. Then it would be up to the individual churches to carry out a religious "marriage." But those are just my thoughts.

[Grooner Five]

6. I hate the way that 'straddles' the issue

he personally feels that marriage is between a man and a woman

Why add his personal feelings on it if they aren't meant to carry legal weight? Is it a tip-off to homophobes that he's with them in spirit, but not in legaleze?

[hopein08]

7. On the one hand

you have to consider that he is willing to go along with something on the basis of law and separate personal feelings from that. I think we need more of that.

[Grooner Five]

8. Fair enough, but why say it?

What's the point of his making those personal feelings known, if not to give a nod to the opposition? It certainly doesn't strengthen the argument for gay marriage when folks like Kerry and Edwards can't even support civil unions without noting that they think marriage should be reserved for opposite sexes.

[Cheswick2.0]

13. I hate disclaimers too

I hate when people need to say "I am personally opposed to abortion and would never get one but, I think women should have the right to choose".

yeahsurerightokay, we now know what a superior moral being you are. Thanks for allowing all of us immoral people make our own decissions.

[Grooner Five]

15. Ditto - that just drives me nuts

It seems a very wimpy position, and I much prefer a firm position on an issue to the "well, I'd never do it myself, but what the savages get up to is none of my business" crowd.

If you are pro-choice, then be pro-choice. Ditto on gay marriage - if you're for it, then really be for it.

I'd like to see a Democratic Presidential candidate take a strong position like that, instead of always moderating their thoughts with teeny appeals to the opposition. Kerry did way too much of that in the last campaign, and I think voters smell it as weakness of conviction.

[ashmanonar]

16. hey now

i have that sentiment, but not for morals...i just don't think* i would encourage a partner of mine to do it...just my personal opinion...but i wouldn't be judgemental of others if they did, that's their choice and opinion...

*: the reason i'm not sure is that i've never been confronted with the situation, i don't really know what i'd say or do...i know i'd be supportive of my partner, no matter what...but i won't know until i experience it, i suppose.

[Grooner Five]

17. Well, that means you may actually be pro-life

I don't mean to give offense, but how could you take a pro-choice stance in name, currently, if you are open to the idea that the procedure would morally offend you in practice?

Isn't it better for you to err on the side of caution, and be pro-life until you've experienced a reason to change?

Otherwise, why tell people that you wouldn't do it, or don't think you would? Doesn't that essentially undermine the pro-choice position you may already be supporting by paying lipservice to the pro-life stance that abortion is immoral?

[Cheswick2.0]

43. I don't have a problem with the feeling

I have a problem with people who feel the need to prove their moral superiority before they admit they are pro-choice.
It's like me saying, "I think having sex with people of the same sex is disgusting and I would never do it, but I think it's okay for other people to be homosexual"

[hopein08]

39. I agree in general

I have to admit that it did bother me the way that they kept bringing up personal feelings on the matter.

I hadn't really connected that to strengthening the opposition.

I guess the separation of personal and politic feelings is a good thing in general, but not in every instance.

An honest thanks for calling me on my lack of thinking through!:)

[Hippo_Tron]

45. Because if you don't say it, you loose votes

Again, as you said, what his personal beliefs are doesn't matter. If he can pick up a few votes by expressing them, or hell even lieing about them, doesn't matter, so long as he governs or votes the way he says that he will.

[LosinIt]

5. I do

[Democrats_win]

9. Don't forget the constitution.

Until bush changes it.

[Dark]

10. Clark supports it.

Not vociferously, but he supported the decision in Massachuttess (spelling?)

[ThorsHammer]

11. Barney Frank

"There will be no negative impact whatsoever of this on marriage within any particular community in Massachusetts, including racial and ethnic minorities. Nor will there be any increased incidence in the number of people who discover that they are gay, lesbian or bisexual, and there will be no negative effect whatsoever on the raising of children.

In this context, the most important thing to note about same-sex marriage is one that debates seem to me sometimes to overlook: it is optional. This means that it will have an impact almost exclusively on those who decide to take advantage of the option. It will not affect the behavior of gay and lesbian people who decide not pursue this option, and it will clearly have no effect whatsoever on heterosexual people who are completely uninterested in marrying people of their own sex."

http://www.house.gov/frank/gaymarriagestatement2004.html

[Forkboy]

53. Barney is the BEST!

[w4rma]

19. No Dem leaders support it because if they did they'd get voted out.

And they'd no longer be a Dem leader. Supporting gay marriage, rather than civil unions, is political suicide in the vast majority of local races and in nearly all state and all national races.

You guys who do support gay marriage rather than civil unions, have ALOT of work to do in winning over the public towards your side.

[Grooner Five]

20. Imagine how the national dialogue...

would be affected if someone like Bill Clinton were to come out in strong support of gay marriage. He's a politician that managed to cross both party and cultural barriers in politics, gaining the support (and fierce, though smaller, opposition) among members of all regions and classes.

Now that Clinton is a popular ex-President who still has the national stage, what does he have to lose by becoming a vocal champion for progressive values? Are they going to impeach him again? It would certainly give him plenty of media attention, and I have a hard time thinking folks of all stripes who stood by him so loyally in the past would abandon him now for speaking to gay rights, abortion, or any number of leftward causes.

Instead of promoting Progressivism in a way that will make a difference, party leaders seem all too willing to embrace the status quo and travel the path of least resistance. I think it's a shame, when there is such a potency in the platform that's been afforded to them.

[w4rma]

24. He would be ripped to shreds.

A national dialogue on gay marriage at this point in time will go very very badly. Civil unions *are*, however, supported by most Americans. And rightly so.

Messing with "marriage" is messing with religions. Civil unions are equal rights, however.

Gay marriage supporters won't get any support from mainstream political leaders until you guys can convince at least about 20 or 30 million more Americans to support gay marriage.

[Grooner Five]

25. Civil Unions = Separate but equal

Aren't you being a bit conservative here, or is this one of those areas where pragmatism trumps the right thing to do?

America loves to rally behind the underdog. Why wait until a position is popular if the mainstream is unjust?

[w4rma]

26. I haven't said one word about what *I* think *should* be the law.

I'm just stating my observations of the current situation. It doesn't matter what I think should be the law, since gay marriage (in whatever direction) is just about *last* on my list of priorities, at this point in time. Civil unions are somewhat high on the list, tho.

[Grooner Five]

27. I would suggest that it should matter

Otherwise, we become enablers of the ineffective leadership, who push a Progressive agenda in weak drips and drabs behind the backs of most Americans.

I think they're on to us, you see, and aren't entirely fooled by this civil union thing - where we try to get the country to dip a toe in the water. I think they'd rather be convinced by a strong advocate taking a courageous stand than a weak party trying to push folks down a slippery slope. There is a natural genetic resistance in many people to back-door salesmanship.

I think most Americans prefer salesman to have faith in the product.

[w4rma]

28. I have faith in civil unions. That's the "product" I support.

And I repeat myself: Gay marriage is last on my list of priorities. I will most likely *never* vote for or against a politician based on that issue.

I see civil unions as being an important issue. I do NOT see gay marriage as an important issue.

[LTRS]

50. Clearly you are an under-educated straight person

... who really doesn't have a clue about the very real differences between marriage rights and civil unions. But really, why let that stop you from having an uninformed opinion.

What really gets to me about posts like these is that a gay female would likely never make the same argument you did about, say, abortion rights.

[Geek_Girl]

35. Initially I supported only civil unions

But after reading a post on other forum about how another couple were able to get married, even for a brief time, and what it meant to them changed my mind on the issue.

I do think gay and lesbians couples need to speak out on this and let the American public know how you feel and why marriage rights means so much to you. Also if every gay and lesbian talked to their friends and family about why it is important and worked to change minds on the issue, I think it would go a long we in changing public opinion.

[w4rma]

36. There are tons of issues that are MUCH more important than gay marriage

I support civil unions. I could care less about gay marriage.

The only reason I oppose a constitutional amendment to end the debate over this issue is because I oppose adding frivilous BS to the U.S. Constitution. And I especially oppose BS that *removes* individual rights rather than granting citizen rights.

[Geek_Girl]

57. I guess if you were gay and you wanted to get married

The issue for you wold be more important. I am not gay but I think this is a rights issue that the gay community should not put on the back burner because America is too close minded. If the gay community wants this then they're going to have to stand up and speak up loud and clear.

[LTRS]

51. "Civil unions are equal rights, however"

So says W4rma. So I ask, how so? They are not in ANY WAY, SHAPE, or FORM equal to marriage. Civil unions are a state construct that convey absolutely no federal civil rights and are not portable state to state. Please try not to sound so dogmatically sure of yourself when you are spreading absolute disinformation.

[w4rma]

52. Gay marriage would also be a state construct and who says it would convey

federal civil rights or be portable between states? Marriage is a state institution, not federal. It just happens to be that all 50 states approve of regular marriage.

[DaveinMD]

30. civil right initiatives

never come from politicians. During the civil rights movement, President Kennedy took a wait and see approach. Outside forces are what causes this type of change. Marriage rights for homosexual men and women will be no different.

[Stinky The Clown]

37. Maybe I'm a nut, but why not make every couple partnership a civil union

and allow marriage to be a church issue?

This would nothing away from anybody and put everyone on equal footing. States would not be able to "marry" anyone, only to bind them, and society at large, to a civil contract that has rights associated with it. The "marriage would be a second layer that gives only rights and recognition as defined by the church that performs the marriage.

In short, don't elevate civil unions to marriages - downgrade the government's authority to only cover civil unions. Make marriage a completely separate issue.

[hopein08]

40. See my post (#3)

I agree completely with you!

I'm glad I'm not the only one thinking that way! The people in my class kind of just looked at me funny.

[AllyCat]

55. Hear Hear H2S!

I don't see why the government is involved in recognizing marriage AT ALL!!! This is a religious and spiritual issue. If, for taxation purposes or some other dumb thing, the Feds need to know who is married or not, then they can recognize civil unions between any two people.

That said, there still needs to be some legislation protecting minors, particularly in the case of the nutcase Mormon sects that have men marrying hordes of 13 and 14 year old girls. Got a 13 year old pregnant? Statutory rape at the least.

I'm sure there are other instances where protection is required, but Under the Banner of Heaven really got me riled up about these freaks out in the desert of Utah and Colorado.

[Stinky The Clown]

60. I suspect there's a simple solution for the protection of minors

Make them whatever we now have for marriage. Then have the law hold that no church may break those laws.

[Lexingtonian]

41. Let's ask about the bigots and opportunists who oppose it

No shortage there of Chicken Little Syndrome. It's probably far more useful to come up with a list of the principal opponents- the real number is fairly small- and how to foil them. Here in Mass. we had to import knowledgeable opposition from Georgia and Utah, and even then it was pretty pathetic what they had to offer. They flew in their kids to have any demonstrators at all- the poor things.

Gay marriage is an issue that realistically affects maybe 10% of the population, so major politicians can't expend all that much time on it. No one genuinely believes it affects the country one way or another. Except maybe the already-in-tailspin Mitt Romney

The GMA is just like the state constitutional amendments banning gay marriage- there's an obvious contradiction with the Equal Protection clause, and the day the USSC gets serious about enforcing the EPC all of them are going to get declared unconstitutional.

[wyldwolf]

46. I'd like to see everyone be honest about it

..but I know it would be political suicide for some.

Saying it's a state's rights issue is a cop out.

I also think "civil unions as opposed to gay marriage" smacks of "separate but equal."

However, if I could wave a magic wand, I would get the government out of the marriage business altogether and it would only recognize civil unions (for all!) with the same respect it has for marriage now. Then individual churches could marry whoever they wanted.

[Catchawave]

58. Um, who cares?

No offense to the OM, but I think, imo, that this "gay" marriage thing has nothing to do with marriage? Otherwise, we'd be discussing Brittany and J-Lo? Ya know, those who abuse this fine sacrament?