It's long past time for Obama and Clinton to abandon the "civil unions" canard

[ruggerson]

Americans respect politicians who make decisions. Ronald Reagan was elected President two times, even though more than 70% of the nation disagreed with him on abortion.

Why?

Because the public respected that he took what he framed as a principled stand on a divisive issue, and explained it, without hedging, in language people could understand.

This fence straddling that Democrats do (or the vast majority of them anyway) in repeating the mantra that they don't support same sex marriage but they do support civil unions with all the rights and responsibilities of marriage, is as phony as a three dollar bill and plays into the very worst stereotypes of Democrats: when the going gets tough, they DON'T TAKE A STAND.

And the public sees right through it. Many people think that a lot of Democrats are lying through their teeth and DO support same sex marriage, but are politically afraid to do so.

A Democrat can reframe this issue with great ease: "I understand and appreciate that good people can and will disagree with me on this particular issue, but I believe firmly in the principle that every man and woman is equal before the law in our country. Violating that principle undermines all of us. To me, we are a nation living up to its promise under the constitution whenever we support American's rights to be treated as equals amongst fellow citizens. It may or may not be a popular stand, but it's the right and proper stand and I hope and trust that people of good will can respect the strong passions that this issue may stir."

The polls show a shift every year in favor of same sex marriage. Favoring same sex marriage is far more popular than banning abortion was, back when Republicans were routinely getting elected President taking a firm stance in favor of banning abortion.

Voters respect honesty and taking a decisive stand on controversial issues. They do not respect politicians who try to have it both ways.

Come down off the fence, Senator Obama and other Democrats. The grass is greener over here. And you'll feel a lot better about yourselves because you'll be telling the truth.

[IndianaJones]

1. that is not politically viable for either, especially Obama. nt.

[BigDDem]

6. "not politically viable"

Oh, thought he was a new kind of politician, my bad.

[IndianaJones]

10. thats what you get for thinking. nt.

[lligrd]

2. Can We Just Win First

Then we can take on all the civil rights issues. Why throw fodder for the GOP in before the election?

[Straight Shooter]

8. That's the motto of the Democratic Party.

Can we just win first. Then everything will change. We promise. No, really, we mean it this time. Sincerely. Just vote for us. Then things will change. But, can we just win first.

*sigh*

[xchrom]

3. what the public KNOWS is that it isn't authentic when

dem politicians soft pedal of equality for gay folk.

they KNOW that dem politicians will do things that move toward equality -- what the public can respect and even get behind even if they disagree with a liberal politician is when they vigorous and outfront state what they are about.

that's why -- since reagan -- it was never a wise game plan for dems to hide that they were left of center.

[newmajority]

4. Obama's approach is working.

He says the decision should be left up to the states. And the states ARE deciding.

Should the gay people in California, Massachusetts, and other more civilized states have to wait until Utah and the Old Confederacy states catch up to the 21st century?

Obama says he will get rid of the DOMA law that Bill Clinton signed. That will take the federal government out of the equation until the inevitable day that the US Supreme Court hears the case. And hopefully there will be some new judges on the court by the time that happens.

[lligrd]

7. Agreed. Let's Get In There And Get The Votes And Judges

in place to get real change passed.

[Dhalgren]

5. K&R! I agree with you 100%!

The hole separate but equal bullshit has got to go! Just make a stand for full citizen rights for all citizens. It is just that simple and just that easy. Obama can even just refuse to discuss the particulars. He can just say that, "Of course I support full citizen rights for every citizen. Who wouldn't? Next question?" If he is asked about same sex marriage, he can simply say, "Equal rights for all citizens. Period. Next question?" When this is couched in civil rights terms, most citizens should accept the idea.

[sfam]

9. How 'bout they wait till November 10 instead?

How 'bout we get them through the election before they abandon this canard.

[hokies4ever]

11. Support civil unions, but let the states decide

I think their position is VERY clear. It's to let the states decide, but to also support civil union legislation. I guarantee you that none of them will complain about the CA decision on gay marriage. The fact remains that marriage is a complicated issue because you have what is considered by many to be a religious institution heavily involved with rights granted by the government. McCain has also said that he would support civil unions. The fact remains that there isn't enough popular support for elected officials to push for a federal amendment supporting gay marriage. The DOMA wasn't long ago you know.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

12. It's not that clear-cut

Marriage is a sacrament of the church and isn't something that any government has any right to regulate. I fully and completely support same-sex marriage, but I don't for one minute want the government picking and choosing which church sacraments it will acknowledge. If one demonination wants to recognize gay marriages and another denomination doesn't, more power to both of them. But the government should keep out of it.

All that is not to say that the government doesn't have a legitimate interest in promoting long-term, stable relstionships. Every scrap of statistical data we have clearly shows that these relationships build stronger families, stronger neighborhoods, and a stronger society. So if the government is going to jigger the tax code to promote this behavior (this is called social engineering, kids) then the playing field needs to be level. Straight marriages? Yes. Gay marriages? You bet. Common Law marriages? You too.

The ONLY unions the government should be recognizing are civil unions. You want to get married in a church? Fine. But you don't get your tax breaks until you go down to the courthouse and register. That includes Adam and Eve, Adam and Steve, and Goldie and Kurt.

[RichardRay]

13. How can the government dictate to churches?

Make it a political choice and repeal tax exempt status if a church refuses to marry same sex couples? What else is there?