US future…Maybe a black man in the white house, maybe a woman vp….but gays getting married and not being treated as second class citizens…neither party will support queer rights. Freedom and equality in the USA…what a lie!

If you vote for Nader you may as well not vote at all since you’re in effect throwing away your vote since you know that Nader doesn’t have a chance in hell of being elected. That’s no different than the ‘hurt’ Hillary supporters voting for John McCain only for spite.

Just for the record, Obama and Biden oppose discriminatory constitutional marriage Amendments at the state and federal level. This includes the proposed amendments in California, Arizona and Florida to ban gay marriage.

McCain said “I’m proud to have led
an effort in my home state to change our state Constitution to protect the sanctity of marriage between man and woman.”

McCain supports the California gay marriage ban. In an e‐mail to protectmarriage.com, McCain said “I support the efforts of the
people of California to recognize marriage as a unique institution between a man and a woman, just as we did in my home state.”

Just saw the candidates answer. They basically answered the question the exact same way. Palin even went more in depth in that they would not limit any kind of “contracts” being signed or visitation in hospitals, etc. I hear folk on here saying that “who cares what you call it?” Well, Palin calls it a contract. Biden calls it “I don’t believe in gay marriage.”

“Private contract” has been McCain’s euphemism for “power of attorney” for quite some time. So, Palin’s merely reiterating the party line. Since such an arrangement wouldn’t require any reforms to the family code, it is less than a Domestic Partnership or Civil Union. Since the Republicans are offering us absolutely nothing, any explicit opposition to same-sex marriage is unnecessary. It is implied by virtue of the fact that they’re not even willing to talk about formal recognition of gay relationships in any meaningful sense. A “private contract” means your non-spouse gets to play lawyer.

same comment to similar post:

Come on people! Joe Biden made the most open and positive statement from a presidential candidate (with any real possibility of winning the election) regarding gay rights in my 52 years. I have heard your complaints that he said that he does not support “gay marriage”. But he DID say that we should have complete equal rights of heterosexual couples. Get over yourselves; change takes years. Yeah I want my California marriage to be legal throughout the country, but I am still in awe that I even have a legal marriage at all! So relax; and vote for the person who will best edge us towards our real objectives.

My objective is that my marriage be a legal US marriage before I die. A vote for John McCain will definitely not get me closer to my goal. Due to the current state of our election process a vote for Ralph Nader or Ron Paul will just be one less vote for Obama. That means that the only option (which I happen to believe is also the best option) is a vote for Barack Obama. He will get the United States closer to recognition of my marriage.

So continue to fight for our rights, but accept that steps are a necessary process

Biden’s answer surprised me. He was for same-sex marriage before he was against it, right in the same answer. The “right” answer for Democrats on this is “I believe marriage is a matter for the states”, or even “I support same-sex marriage” which has the added benefit of being honest, and is a stronger statement than one that falls back on the constitution. By bringing up faith, now he has to explain why faiths that support same-sex marriage will be discriminated against by the US government. And he has to explain why Democratic strongholds like Massachusetts and California have apparently done something wrong by permitting same-sex marriage. It was his worst answer of the night.

Define marriage, when did Adam and Eve sign a contract to be married for the rest of there life’s. Why does heterosexual must get married by church and submit a license ro the start. Where is separation from government and church.

From another thread here:
“But supporters of the ban accused the California Supreme Court of violating the will of the people.”

And I say again:

It is the very specific job of the courts to ensure that the “will of the people” does not turn into a “tyranny of the majority”, where the people can gang up on a “suspect minority”, as is evident in their rulings from 1948 for interracial couples, and just recently as they did in May 2008 for same-sex couples.

Anyone who thinks this kind of ruling is not worthy of a brilliant, wise, just and thorough court do not understand just exactly why the court systems in the United States and the individual states was established.

We are not an absolute rule of the majority, any more than a Governor or the President is an absolute monarch. The will of the people is subject to court rulings, just as surely as if it was King Solomon ruling in the “split-the-baby” case.

These two specific rulings are not a case of legislating from the bench, as some conservatives, and many (overly) religious persons, may claim. Rather, this ruling was in response to a very specific case of discrimination, and the California Supreme Court (CSC) did their job correctly. They were asked to judge about marriage for several same-sex couples, and they ruled correctly and justly. The end result was the setting of a legal precedent which will stand for all times, in California, and because of the “full faith and credit” clause in the United States Constitution, eventually ALL STATES OF this union. It just takes some time to work out all the kinks.

Having read the entire 170+ pages of the opinion, the CSC reserves the right to rule on this topic again, and even in response to a vote from the people where the people might try to overturn the May 2008 decision. The people are not any more wise, sacred or sacrosanct that the legislature or the executive branches of the government. They are just a part of the scheme, and the founding fathers wisely understood these facts.

The religious right will not win in this case, and it will become a national event. The U.S. Supreme Court will have to strike down this discrimination in all states which object to the California ruling, like it or not.

Again, it is the job of the courts to ensure discrimination is not enshrined in the California Constitution (or the United States Constitution for that matter), and that the “will of the people” do not trample on the rights of any “suspect minority” deserving protection under the various constitutions and laws of the land.

Let it be written! Let it be done!

Thank you so much for stating this.
I thought you put it better than anyone I have ever talked to.
I have a “civil union” that will soon turn to marriage in CT and I am with you change takes time. The coasts always flip first then it spreads to the rest of the country.
I will take what we have an work toward more but if we get civil unions everywhere look at CT it too will change to marriage eventually.
Women and Blacks didn’t get the right to vote in one year it took almost a century.
And heck even after blacks had the right to vote they still couldn’t marry a white person until the 1980’s.

JohnM You said McCain is oppposed to discriminatory bills but later went on to say he supportd the gay marriage ban in California. McCain is totally against gay marriage. That quote you used was from when Arizona tried to pass their own gay marriage ban type thing.

Kera C,

Please re-read my post. I said that Obama and Biden are against discriminatory marriage amendments - and McCain is for them. The quotes I provided support those views.