Why Don't Hillary Clinton And Barack Obama Support Gay Marriage?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

Is it because it's a politically untenable position? Most of my friends are liberal and they all support gay marriage... I have yet to hear one say I think marriage is between a man and a woman because my pastor, priest, rabbi, imam tells me so...

[anonymous171]

1. I think they don't want a replay of 2004.

Huge amounts of social conservatives pouring out to vote against them. BTW I think Gay Marriage is a good idea.

[ej510]

5. I agree.

Gay's pay taxes and are people and that gives them the right to love anyone they desire.

[MadBadger]

2. I dont know and their stances deeply disappoint me.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

6. Probably Because It's Politically Untenable

I suspect they personally don't have a problem with it...

[bunnies]

10. I too prefer to take this view.

Despite the fact that theres really no facts to support it.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

24. My Thinking

Obama and Clinton are social liberals... I think it's a rare social liberal who opposes gay marriage...

That being said there are lots of social liberal politicians who personally support gay marriage but oppose it as public policy because it's a polarizing issue... It's the abortion debate stood on its head... In the abortion debate you have many politicians as well as myself who personally oppose abortion but support it as public policy...

[bunnies]

53. Makes sense.

I cant imagine either Clinton or Obama being anti gay marriage. In fact, if I thought for a second either held that view, I wouldnt support either of them.

What shocks me though is that I know quite a few people who arent particularly socially liberal who feel that gay marriage should be legal. And in my experience the ones who are flat out against it are the ones who will NEVER vote for the Dem anyway.

My problem is that I get to enraged when the topic of gay marriage comes up... because I just cant think of a single reason for it. Marriage is a legal contract. No ones telling these people what they can and cant do at their church. They're free to do whatever they see fit. So is it just the "word" that threatens them? Its ok to oppress people over a WORD? In the "land of the free" no less. It makes no sense to me.

[dkf]

3. Because it brings out all the crazies, i.e. fundys.

[galaxy21]

4. It's just too contraversial a position....

[yardwork]

15. Why is that, do you think?

The OP is pointing out that most Democrats don't seem to be opposed to gay marriage. So why do the two candidates - each of whom represent a group of people (women and blacks) who were not allowed to vote until the early 20th century - seem to think it's too controversial to support gay rights?

[anigbrowl]

84. Because Americans are pretty religious overall

There's more people out there who believe in the bible than in equal rights for all. Americans go to church a lot more than Europeans, hold more conservative views on premarital sex etc.

[yardwork]

87. Many Christians don't believe that the Bible says that homosexuality is wrong.

There are a lot of different interpretations for the very few passages that some believe say that homosexuality is wrong. In any case, there is no reference in the Bible to lesbians - women loving women.

Jesus was silent on the subject. Don't you think that if it were supposed to be that important to God, Jesus would have mentioned it?

[JoFerret]

77. As a born-again

Obama will be able to tuck many of them in his pocket.

[anamandujano]

7. We may be moving into the time where it won't be such a lightening rod.

The more people hear about it, the more acceptance. At least we may be entering a stage where people think it's none of their business and they shouldn't be imposing their "morals" on others.

That would be nice.

[still_one]

8. Is that the most important issue facing the country right now?

Don't get me wrong, civil rights are vital, but putting this issue on the front burning will put ALL other issues in the back burner

Right now we should be focusing on Iraq, the economy, jobs, social security, medicare, healthcare, and the Supreme Court

Unless a Democrat gets in, you can not only kiss the above issues goodbye, but also gay marriage or civil unions goodbye

[DemocratSinceBirth]

12. It's Important To Me

A right deferred is a right denied...

[still_one]

28. I am not saying it isn't important, but if the Democrats make this the

paramont issue in the campaign, we will lose. There are a lot of homophobes out there, who would vote against their own interests just to deny someone equal rights

If Lyndon Johnson ran on passing the Civil Rights act of the 60's he would have lost the election

He won, and with that victory pushed the Civil Rights Act into being

I believe the same thing will apply to gay and civil unions. Once we get in, it WILL happen

[IntravenousDemilo]

37. Perhaps homophobes shouldn't be allowed to vote.

And gay people shouldn't be required to pay taxes either, until they have the same rights as everyone else.

[still_one]

39. It will happen if a Democrat is in the White House, and appoint Supreme Court judges

who won't discriminate

[yardwork]

17. Your implication is that focusing on gay marriage will make the Democrats less electable.

Why is that, do you think?

[still_one]

34. Because that is what happened in 2004. As I said before if Johnson ran on a civil rights

platform, he would have lost the election. However, he didn't run on that basis, won the election, and passed the most overdue civil rights laws in our history

I believe that if the Democrat wins whitehouse, through either legislation or the Supreme Court, gay marriage will be a reality, but unless we get in to do it, it won't happen

The whole South and much of the bible belt would vote against it. It isn't right, but I am afraid that is the bigoted nature of our country

[yardwork]

40. Actually, John Kerry didn't focus on gay marriage in 2004.

The Republicans made a big issue out of gay marriage by placing anti-gay marriage constitutinal amendments on the ballots of many battleground states, then getting out the vote to encourage folks to vote against them - and vote for Bush while they were there.

One could say that the impetus for this was the fact that a tiny number of states and cities passed gay marriage laws, but none of those had anything to do with the presidential race.

Personally, I think that the Republicans made it the issue, not the Democrats. By ignoring it, we wimp out.

[still_one]

46. Your right Kerry didn't make it a major issue, but he made it clear he was for it

through civil unions. That of course was not the reason he lost, I blieve he lost because he didn't stand up to the swiftboating strong enough, and the fear factor that was thrown at the public

I just believe that it will be a reality if a Democrat win the White House, but if we make it an issue, it will unify the homophobes, which also exist to a lesser extent in the Democratic party, but enough to throw the election

You make good points though

[readmoreoften]

82. And it will be made an issue again since Obama has the exact same stance as Kerry.

They'll use this against us until we make them stop. We make them stop by telling them to shut up and cut the crap.

Think about it. When do bullies back down? If you're a kid and somebody calls you a 'fag lover' at school, what'll make them shut up? Saying that you don't really love 'fags' but that you have to accept them because you'll lose the 7th grade student body election if they don't vote for you? Will that work? No. It makes you look worse. The bullies will just say HAHA! So you don't love 'fags' you're AFRAID OF THEM! You're not just a fag lover, you're a coward!

So when do bullies back down? They back down when the person turns around and says: "That's right I'm a 'fag lover'. This person here is my friend and I will beat your ass if you say one word against him. Who the fuck do you think you are? We're all sick of your insecure bullying crap. I'll kick your ass right now." Usually, someone that you never met, some quiet girl who sits in the back of the class, is suddenly standing behind you and she says to the bullies. "Yeah, we're sick of your crap! And you wet the bed anyway--I know cuz my mom works with your mom!" Then everyone laughs at the bully. The bully of course, puffs up and say he's going to kick EVERYONE's ass. Then one of the bully's own minions whispers to him "dude, just shut up..."

Next thing you know, the bully's minions are telling everyone 'that guy who stood up for the 'fag' is pretty cool.' Later it becomes 'Yeah we hung out with that guy and his gay friend. His gay friend is all right. He's not that bad.' By 8th grade they say "Man we were hanging out with Chuck and his girlfriend Jenn and Chuck's gay friend Adam and his boyfriend Matt. We had a blast." Then by 9th grade they say "We all went out last night with our buddies Chuck and Adam."

That's how it works. It's the only way it ever works. If you don't stand up to bullies and call them on their shit, they will beat you down until the end of time. And why don't people stand up to bullies? Because they're afraid. There is a term for people who live in fear for long periods of time. They're called cowards and no one really likes them. The other reason why people don't stand up to bullies is because they secret believe that the bullies are right--that the bullies have them pegged. The Democratic party is a little of both. There are some cowards; there are some who think the bullies are right, that gay people are really less human than they are.

My opinion... you want the homophobe vote? Call them out on it. Be unapologetic. Because you will never win over a bully's followers until you stand up to the bully. People like strong leaders. People like politicians who take a stand.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

38. The Survey Data Suggests There Is Plurality Support For Gay Marriage

There is also plurality support for civil unions...

No recognition at all is the minority position...

I guess that means supporting civil unions is the safest political course...

[still_one]

That is good to hear /nt

[totodeinhere]

56. There are still a lot of homophobes out there.

Remember, in 2004, there were several anti gay marriage initiatives on state ballots, and unfortunately every one of those initiatives passed, even in liberal states such as Oregon. That was four years ago of course and hopefully there is less homophobia out there now than there was four years ago. But I don't think that our candidates want to take a chance on it right now.

[NJSecularist]

68. Where's the survey data?

I'm not surprised, but I'd like to see the specific survey data you are referring too...

[Solon]

9. Because they are both assholes?

Just putting it out there, they seem that way to me.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

14. It's Not Worth Losing An Election Over But It Is A Right Whose Time Has Come

~

[Occam Bandage]

16. Unfortunately, the act of personally recognizing that something ought to be

is generally not sufficient for enacting that something.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

30. It Can't Be Enacted Because There Isn't Majority Support

But that's different than saying it shouldn't be enacted because it's inherently wrong... The difference in my opinion between malum in se and malum prohibitum...

[yardwork]

33. The Civil Rights Movement operated differently.

[still_one]

36. and it will come if we elect a Democrat who will put Supreme Court judges

who will rule against that discrimination

[Occam Bandage]

11. Because it's politically impossible. Both back civil unions with full rights, and frankly

we are unlikely to get gay marriage until we first get national recognition for civil unions with full benefits. I'm more concerned with equality under the law than social equality at the moment.

[cali]

26. that's exactly right

In Vermont, civil unions were deeply controversial 10 years ago. Now we're moving toward full marriage rights and the majority of Vermonters, albeit a slim majority, support marriage for all. People have seen that there is no threat from Civil Unions and that helps in the transition to marriage.

[yardwork]

48. The only reason its no longer controversial in Vermont is that Vermont went ahead with it.

The south would never have given equal rights to African Americans if the country had waited for southerners to agree. It took the Supreme Court and federal Civil Rights laws to force the change. Now, most southerners see nothing wrong with equal rights for African Americans.

Sometimes the country as a whole has to set the standard.

[quakerboy]

13. With this topic

If you Do things, it makes them mad.

But if you Talk about it, it makes them crazy mad.

[yardwork]

22. Who is "them?"

[quakerboy]

75. Evangelicals.

[Mike03]

18. They are courting the Catholic/Hispanic vote?

I don't know. I didn't even know that Hillary opposed gay marriage.

Perhaps they are pursuing the conservative leaning Dem vote in middle-America and the south.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

41. If You Use California Latinos As A Proxy For The Nation's Latinos,

They Are Supportive Of Gay Marriage:

http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=20f41f94-d412-4b19-8655-b1412e053db9

[Mike03]

44. Whoa. I had no idea. That surprises me, but it's a good surprise.

Thanks for the info!

[yardwork]

45. Another stereotype shot to hell.

We have nothing to fear but fear itself.

I believe that a strong majority of Americans are perfectly fine with gay people getting married. The few who are really opposed would never vote for a woman or black for president either.

I believe that it's another sign of the extreme wimpiness of the current Democratic Party that they've allowed the Republicans to get away with so much erasure of civil rights, especially constitutional rights that effect all Americans.

[hooraydems06]

49. They are now...

... they weren't in 2000, when they provided the balance of votes that put Proposition 22 over the top. I suspect Hispanics in many other states have yet to make the transition to be support of marriage equality. I know friends of mine who have been the victims of homophobia at the hands of Hispanics... I'm not trying to stereotype any particular ethnic group as more homophobic than anyone else... there are plenty of non-Hispanic people that are bigoted when it comes to gay people and gay rights... just responding to this particular line of debate within the thread.

[yardwork]

50. As I said in another post on this thread, sometimes people have to be pushed a little.

California enacted a more liberal approach to gay rights, and now, several years later, most Californians recognize that it's not a big deal. Same thing in Vermont and Massachusetts.

As I mentioned, the south would never have gone along with civil rights for African Americans if the country had waited for southern states to take the lead. Instead, the lead was taken on the national level, and the south fought it. Now, in 2008, most southern whites pretend that they were always in favor of equal rights for African Americans. It's considered bad form to be a bigot.

The same is true of abortion rights.

Sometimes the country has to take the lead on unpopular positions. Then the wimpy scaredy-cats go along eventually, when they see that it's no big deal after all.

[Solon]

58. An analogy would be anti-miscegenation laws...

Until Loving vs. Virginia, it was illegal in many states for people who were white or "colored" as it was termed, to marry each other. The Supreme court struck down these laws, nationally, in that court case, and that was in the 1960s. It was almost 30 years later, in 1990, when most of the nation no longer opposed interracial marriages. If it was left up to the voters, anti-miscegenation laws would still be in effect in many states.

[yardwork]

62. Very good example. Thank you.

Obama's parents, for example, would not have been allowed to marry without that Supreme Court decision.

[Solon]

67. Well, it depended on the state they lived in...

I think its important to distinguish that. I remember a movie about WWII with Patrick Swayze in it, I believe, and he fell in love with a second generation Japanese-American woman. They lived in California at the time, and, against the wishes of her family, and his, they eloped in Seattle, because in California it was illegal for Japanese-Americans and White Americans to marry each other, but it wasn't illegal in Washington State.

Just like Roe v. Wade, Loving vs. Virginia made all these laws that existed in all 50 states unenforceable. Before Roe v. Wade, some states had legalized Abortion, and many didn't, just like laws against interracial marriage, it varied from state to state. We are in the same situation now with Marriage Equality, so far one state has legalized it, and all other states don't. Eventually anti-gay marriage laws are going to be struck down nationally, I would prefer it happened sooner, rather than later.

[QC]

19. Because they are both timid centrists who have somehow made

a lot of otherwise intelligent people think they are progressives.

[Solon]

23. Yep, that's the crux of it. n/t

[jonnyblitz]

25. exactly. nt

[cali]

29. Hate to break this to you but aside from Dennis

no one running this year supported gay marriage. In the Congress, only a handful do. And that includes a lot of progressives.

[yardwork]

31. Personally, I think that almost everyone in Congress is a timid centrist and corporatist.

Very few of them deserve to be called progressives.

[QC]

32. True, but Obama and Clinton are about as progressive as my Aunt Ethel,

despite what their votaries say.

[John Q. Citizen]

60. We know that about Hill, we have yet to find out about Obama. I have to say, I like that he's

running a populist campaign.

I also like that he spent a chunk of his life doing community organizing.

So while I'm not expecting a far left wing paradise/revolution when Obama wins the POTUS, I am expecting some serious structural changes to address the problems people face in our society.

And if Obama can keep his coalition together, then he can get some stuff done because he will have boots on the ground to push members of congress.

On the other hand it's entirely true he could end up being no better than a Hillary administration would be.

I honestly believe we have a very good shot at finding out though if Obama has some enhanced abilities to get things done with the good support of his coalition.

[superduperfarleft]

83. Exactly.

We've gotten so caught up in the fucking beauty pageant that there's been little time to discuss actual issues (namely that there's few, if any, substantial differences between Clinton and Obama).

[QC]

86. I think that's why the campaign has been so vicious.

Since there are no meaningful policy differences between the candidates, all that is left is the personal.

[mrcheerful]

20. Because most of america is homophobic to one degree or another

hell just look at how long it took for a black and a woman to be considered electable. Jesse and Ferro never had the support BHO and HRC have when they ran. Hell even here in liberal Michigan ( well once liberal until the great exodus from the state ) Theres now a law against gay marriage, it even affects those hetro couples living together. My SO went into the hospital and had to put her then 16 yo son down as her contact and decision maker if anything went wrong.

[yardwork]

27. You're pointing out that the country is going backwards in terms of civil rights.

You and your significant other now have to face laws against your relationship, laws that limit the rights of both gay and straight couples.

Similarly, we have less protection under the U.S. Constitution than ever before. Any U.S. citizen can now be arrested without being charged, thrown in a secret prison anywhere in the world, denied access to an attorney, denied a speedy trial, and tortured. The Supreme Court has agreed that this is ok.

You're right. We're going backwards in terms of civil rights. All of us have fewer rights than ever before. Maybe that's one reason to focus on everyone's civil rights, including those of gay people.

[mrcheerful]

43. I knew that, have known that for a few dozen years now

remember last election cycle Michigan also voted down affirmative action in the belief that by ending AA whites would get more jobs and higher education opportunities. When in fact all that law did was make it hard to prosecute businesses and schools that denied anyone of their civil rights. Btw, you should have been with me after a friend and her brother invited me to Thanks Giving dinner, they were gay and everyone at the house were also gay, I was the only hetro there. I had a great time and their gayness never wore off on me ( sorry bad joke, but it was many of such jokes I heard from hetros when they heard I ate with gays on a holiday ).

[yardwork]

47. That's funny! You know, we get toaster ovens if we recruit someone to the gay!

(Just a little joke....)

[HockeyMom]

21. I have two daughters

One is gay and one is straight. I believe both should be able to marry the person whom they choose to spend their lives with. One of the reasons I voted for Eliot Spitzer was because he made it a campaign promise that he would fight for gay marriage. My lesbian daughter still lives in NY and I hope she, and others like her, can someday marry the person they love.

[elocs]

35. Yes, it is not only politically untenable, but politically impossible at this time.

Having "most" Democrats is not good enough to get elected. Reality is a real bitch, but does electing more Republicans like McCain as well as others in Congress who do not and will not ever support gay rights make them more or less possible? Everything is not made perfect in a day or in one election. There is no point in promoting short term, feel good agendas that destroy long term goals.

[AllentownJake]

42. Probably because

They want to win. I support Gay Marriage but the older generation who is against it need to die off before it will happen barring a Supreme Court ruling. My mother has more gay friends than I can count however for some reason she's against it.

Baby steps. Both of them will get rid of don't ask don't tell and civil unions will get support.

Keep the faith it will happen. We don't get from point A to E right away no matter how much we want to it.

[totodeinhere]

51. Your friends might not be representative of the whole population.

Most of my friends are liberal and they all support gay marriage... I have yet to hear one say I think marriage is between a man and a woman because my pastor, priest, rabbi, imam tells me so...

You are probably a liberal person, and people usually have like minded friends so most of your friends are probably liberal too. But you and your friends might not be representative of the entire population.

And as others have said in this thread, our candidate needs to get elected first. Then there should be plenty of time to work on gay rights issues.

[yardwork]

52. But if voters are liberal enough to vote for an African American,

shouldn't they be liberal enough to support equal rights for all?

[totodeinhere]

59. One would think so and hope so, but...

remember that there is still a lot of homophobia in the African American Community. I don't mean to smear an entire ethnic group, and of course there are many African Americans, especially young people, who fully support gay rights. But particularly in many black churches there exists a strong anti gay bias.

And yet as we know, AA's are Obama's most reliable constituency. So that might have something to do with why Obama as a black man can get more support than gay rights issues get.

[yardwork]

64. I am aware of that, and that's exactly my point.

Obama is in a unique position to take a leadership role in convincing people that support for gay rights is as essential as all civil rights. How much of a risk would Obama take in the black community for this stance? Very little, I believe.

Does anyone think that African Americans would abandon Obama just because he supported gay marriage?

[totodeinhere]

69. That's good point. And it's a good source for optimism.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

54. That's My Point

I believe in their "heart" both Clinton and Obama are supportive of gay marriage but oppose it for political reasons...

[marshall]

55. I don't think gay marriage is broad enough for today's families

There are so many other types of families, not all are headed by sexual partners. Many are headed by divorced mothers with children who pool their resources (like the old Kate and Allie) or adult sublings with children who live together (like the current Two and a Half Men) or elderly siblings who live together for companionship (like the Baldwin sisters in the old show The Waltons).

If we are going to have a social movement to broaden the definition of family and make government benefits available to more than just the traditional type family, why should it be restricted to just other type of family? The civil rights movement came up with legilation that was applicable to more than just African Americans, though African Americans were certainly instrumental in it.

I hope that Obama and Clinton see the possibility that a more broad reaching solution would bring household benefits to more than just gay headed families.

[Solon]

61. The problem is that most of the benefits of marriage...

are actually benefits that blood and adoptive relatives have with each other already. Hospital visitation is limited to "next of kin" not just spouses. Marriage licenses allow for two UNRELATED people to share in the same benefits as relatives share. These include rights to visitation, powers of attorney, preference in custody, inheritance, etc.

The only real exception I can think of that relatives don't share with each other normally are married people's tax benefits and being able to file such things jointly.

[marshall]

63. That's a pretty major benefit

My grandmother and my aunt are both widows and live together. They are mother and daughter. I'm not sure if they would be allowed to get married even if our state had same sex marriage. But they could certainly benefit from being able to file their taxes as a couple. And it would be benefitical if my grandmother could get health insurance from my aunt's job.

[yardwork]

66. It would be beneficial if everyone in the U.S. had health insurance

regardless of marital status. It would be beneficial if single people didn't have to pay higher taxes than married people.

The fact is that the country offers many benefits to married heterosexual couples that are denied to everyone else.

[marshall]

74. So true, why must it all hinge on who's having sex with whom

Whether they are straight or gay or neither. The solution lies in a much broader direction.

[Solon]

70. I'm for single payer health care...

which would actually make that first point moot. In addition, if either one files for the other as a dependent, some companies have the option for the dependent to be covered, though not nearly enough of them. As far as filing taxes together, I agree with you, but I don't think it would apply in necessarily a same sex marriage, generally speaking, there could be a different type of contract for that, since being blood relatives already gives them some benefits of marriage, perhaps an additional measure, a "mutual benefit" or domestic partnership scenario to allow for jointly filing taxes for blood relatives who live together.

[Recursion]

57. Because they want to be President

That's the sad but true answer.

[Beregond2]

65. Why?

To do so is to invite all the rabid fundies to go crazy attacking them. Fortunately, they can support civil unions without evoking the same response, even though it is de facto the same thing; or will be once all the bugs get worked-out. It's a perfect way to get this one past the nutjobs, so sshhh!

[zulchzulu]

71. Unfortunately it's political gamesmanship or more like a problem of branding

Gay marriage as a title for what should obviously be available is also a lot of political baggage. In order to get equality, we need to get civil unions and domestic partnerships enacted federally first and then have the choice for people to marry within a religious denomination that allows gay marriage.

If you're a Catholic and want to be married in the gay marriage paradigm, good luck. The Pope will NEVER allow gay marriage (don't even talk to me about the hypocrisy...) and other industrial, corporate religions won't either.

If the travel, vacation and marriage event lobbies would just get more powerful, domestic partnerships and civil unions would pass in 15 seconds.

[Mooney]

72. Because they're pandering to the religious right.

I don't actually believe that it's a politically untenable position, provided that the candidate backing it was absolutely unequivocal in their support. I think the electorate actually admires politicians who take a strong, principled stand on things, even if they're things that are political "third rails" that the electorate may not favor.

The American people like their politicians full of bluster and noise. As soon as a politician starts equivocating is when it all unravels.

[Orangepeel]

73. I don't know whether it is because gay marriage is untenable or because civil unions are just easier

I strongly support equal rights, which include the right to call for gays and lesbians to marriage a marriage (although I'd personally be just as happy to call all marriages "civil unions", including my own).

But from a political perspective, I believe that the fastest way to get there is to get civil union laws passed first. According to polls, a majority of people support "civil unions" but not "gay marriage" (the word alone is a sticking point for a lot of people), and I think that civil union laws could be passed more quickly -- giving some relief to people -- and then the courts could be used to ensure full equality (you can't have "separate but equal" if you don't even have "separate").

That's debatable, of course. There are plenty of people who think that holding out for full marriage equality is a better strategy. Most elected democrats do not.

[JoFerret]

76. Which candidate has the guts to come out for equal rights?

I know Hillary is stronger on this than Obama.

I also know that Obama is quite happy to patronize gays.

But which one has the courage?

[readmoreoften]

79. Kucinich. Gravel. /nt

[JoFerret]

81. Obama will "deliver" gays from sin

...because he loves them.

Hillary will skirt as close as she dare/can without being shriveled by flame.

Which then should I choose?
Hillary. of course.

[readmoreoften]

78. Because they are both spineless politicians who stand for nothing.

Those who hate gays will still vote against them for supporting gays. Those who don't will only be disappointed by their cowardice and everyone will have a bad taste in their mouths. My sense is that all the 'major' Dem candidates agreed to have identical positions on same-sex marriage so that it wouldn't become an issue during campaign season.

A smart candidate would pass a federal law for gay marriage and another for religious freedom that 'no church will ever be forced to perform services that conflict with their message.' It would be a stupid law because the government can't tell churches what to do anyway and no church would ever be forced to perform a gay marriage, just like no church is forced to hold a wedding service for jews or muslims or divorcees, but the window dressing would go a long way to winning the bigot vote while not selling out gay people.

[angie_love]

80. B/c sadly America wont' vote for a candidate who supports gay marriage

I personally don't have a problem with it. I think ppl who have a problem with it have way too much time on their hands to be worrying about what the gays are doing.

[JayFredMuggs]

85. I agree

As a person who knows many gay couples, married in Massachusetts and un-married elsewhere, love between two people doesn't need a state sanction, but it does need equal rights. Both Hillary and Obama support equal rights, but Hillary wants to leave it up to the states, much like slavery, Obama, on the other hand, wants a national policy of equality, big difference, IMO