In an echo of the 2004 U.S. presidential run-off, the issue of gay marriage has been placed squarely on this year's campaign agenda. Democratic presumptive nominee Barack Obama has stated that he strongly opposed a ballot measure which would wind back the recently-changed Californian constitution law allowing gay marriage in the state.His opponent Republican John McCain has said he supports the November bill.
Obama said in a letter to San Francisco's Alice B. Toklas Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender Democratic Club that he opposed "the divisive and discriminatory efforts to amend the California Constitution" and other similar moves across the country.
McCain, though, said in a statement to the Protect Marriage Campaign he supported the bill to reverse the Californian Supreme Court's decision: "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 of Arizona. I do not believe judges should be making these decisions." [source]The issue has divided political commentators between those who believe it has the potential to be used by sections of the Christian lobby to mobilise supporters in favour of Senator McCain's campaign.
Political commentator Gary L. Bauer made this case in a recent commentary in Politico magazine, referring back to the 2004 presidential campaign.
In 2003, two courts issued high-profile decisions that would loom large on Election Day 2004. The United States Supreme Court's decision striking down a Texas statute outlawing sodomy and the Massachusetts Supreme Court's ruling legalizing same-sex marriage catapulted same-sex unions to the forefront of the election campaign.However left-wing commentator Joe Solmonese, writing in The Huffington Post, contends the Baur argument is flawed arguing that "homophobia will not determine this election".
The marriage amendments had a buoying effect for President Bush and other conservative candidates, pushing to the polls many voters who otherwise might not have voted. In Ohio, for instance, a huge marriage amendment campaign registered 54,500 new voters, and thousands more Ohioans who were registered but rarely voted cast their votes for the marriage amendment. On the strength of the marriage initiative, Bush won in the battleground state, as did 13 of the 17 Republican candidates running for Congress there. [source]
...by any tangible measure, Gary Bauer's vision of conservatives riding a wave of anti-gay fervor into the White House in 2008 is pure illusion. Why, then, does he bother? It isn't just about getting people to the polls; it's about getting them to open their wallets and purses, to finance right-wing groups. In the absence of ideas that really would strengthen even one family, it's about attempting to make people believe that keeping gay people from marrying is somehow "pro-family." [source]Earlier this week, James Dobson, powerful leader of the conservative Focus on the Family organisation, criticised both candidates for not doing enough to support the winding back of the controversial legislation claiming both "didn't give a hoot about the family."
Image above left: Same sex marriage.Credit:Kurt Löwenstein Educational Center International Team/flickr
";?>
There has been absolutely no debate regarding gay marriage; an automatic slur of homophobia or anti-gay chills debate. As if strengthening our institutions were not important, as if marriage is not an institution worth strengthening. Marriage between gay men is a charade and debases the term. There will be a backlash. I'm a liberal by the way. I passionately disagree that this is a human rights issue. Its sad to live in a society that supports twisted speech to support radical ideas -there is no difference between Democrats and Republicans in this respect. Homosexuals are a minority. No fair popular vote would support changing the meaning of the word "marriage" to something that is its opposite.
Leave the gay people alone.
Now the way I see it,
nobody cares who screws who,
except for the weirdos
who are fascinated with sex.
If you actually follow the polling on this...
Gay marriage is more popular right now then George Bush is...
So I don't know were John McCain is going with this?
Does he really want to control
someone elses' peepee that bad?
Tell me folks do you write government policies
based on your neighbor's peepee?
These politicians and their sex laws are little nuts.
Why does America need a sex law John McCain?
And why are you so fascinated with writing a sex laws John?
Gay marriage is strictly for law equality.
If a man and a women live together for 40 years, have no children, but work together to create a home for themselves, what happens when one dies? If one is sick in the hospital what happens?
If they are married the other lives out the rest of his/her life in the home that they built. If one is sick, the other can sit by the bedside and comfort them in their final days on earth.
If two gay men do the same....they have NO rights to each other. The "widow" of the relationship has no rights to the home that he/she built with their partner. They also have no rights to be by the bedside when its a "family only" condition.
This has nothing to do with god. This has to do with the rights to your partner that marriage grants. Stop being so selfish and let people do what they want.
Or how about this:
If you want to be married, you have 1 year to give birth to a child, otherwise your marrige is null. That is just as far as not letting certain people marry because your god says its a sin. GROW UP.
There will always be people against equality. Marriage is a basic civil right that should be attainable by all Americans if they choose. For those who are uncomfortable with gay marriage check out our short produced to educate & defuse the controversy. It has a way of opening closed minds & provides some sanity on the issue: www.OUTTAKEonline.com
I'm all for gay marriage. Why should straight people be the only ones to suffer. The way I always looked at it is The more faggots out there the more women for me. It appears that some of the lesbians out there have been trimming my hedges though.
sp4 is is a gay man .
and i back him up on the issue
you've turned the country into a fascist dictatorship and you are worried about the gays. you're all a bunch of idiots along with the biggist one sitting in the white house. Heil folks.
This argument always reminds me of Abraham Lincoln. He once asked a gentleman, "How many legs does a dog have if you call its' tail a leg?" The man responded, "Five". Lincoln chuckled, and responded, "No sir, the dog only has four legs...just because you call a tail a leg, don't make it so." Same with gay marriage. I'm for equal rights...such as state recognized civil unions for the purpose of protecting our gay citizens...but calling it marriage, give me a break.
You can have the term "marriage" all to yourself. I care more about the other term "spouse." In many U.S. state and federal laws, that is the magic word.
Sure you can pay a lawyer to get the same right through contracts, power of attorney, agency relationship, etc., but by allowing two gay people to register or marry or civil unionized and thereby, calling them none other than spouse will automatically confer many equal rights to them without even an amendment.
So there, have the 5 legged dog and marriage, but I will take the term "spouse" and a federal act to define it as two people, regardless of gender and sex, who enter into a mutual relationship sanctioned by the state.
Amazine site
Thanks, webmaster.