Gay marriage and presidential nominees.

[ccharles000]

Do you think we will have a presidential candidate who believes in full marriage equality? I personally don't think we will until all states have gay marriage. Until then most people in our party will be to wimpy to declare equal rights for everyone.

Here is a quote from Queer as Folk- Melanie: I used to hate it when Brian would say, "There are two kinds of straight people in this world - the ones who hate you to your face, and the ones who hate you behind your back," because I knew that wasn't true, there are plenty of straight people who don't hate us. But the ones who do no longer have to do it behind our backs, they can do it in the White House, in the churches, on television, in the streets! Is that the kinda place we wanna live? Is that the kinda place we wanna raise our kids?

[MNBrewer]

1. I believe that we will have a presidential candidate who supports

gay marriage before all 50 states have it. We're not far off. I give it 12-16 years before it will no longer be the (gay) kiss of death to support marriage equality. Of course, I may be dead before that

[Pyewacket]

2. I loves ya!

Hey, I don't hate you, I love you!
You should move to Australia.

[ccharles000]

5. I would but Australia is to far away.

[msongs]

3. obama favors leaving it up to the bigots in each state to deny gay marriages nt

[ccharles000]

4. Neither Hillary or Obama believe in marriage equality.

[anonymous171]

6. Like the bigots in CA?

:wtf:

[magnificent9]

7. offensive reply.

[ccharles000]

8. welcome to DU.

:hug:

[Hekate]

9. Oh joy, why don't we get this hot-button issue on the ballot this year--wingnuts will vote in droves

That's what's happening in California, even as we speak. The State Supreme Court has said it's time for full equality (and I agree wholeheartedly), the Governator has said he will support the court's decision (and then made jokes about weddings bringing income to Calif.) -- and the wingnuts are starting a petition drive to put this on the ballot in November again.

I am very glad the court made this ruling -- it's about time. But it is also predictable that the RWers will use this as a way to get otherwise discouraged Republicans into the voting booths, where as long as they are there they will vote for McCain.

My concern is this -- Can we please not play gotcha with our presidential candidates any more? Can we please just work to get full gay equality as a plank in the Democratic Party platform?

Hekate

[FreeState]

14. The signatures to place the ammendment on the ballot were turned in before the ruling

it would have been on the ballot (if there are enough valid signatures) regardless of how the court ruled. It was not a result of the Courts ruling but rather the GOP in California trying their hand at getting votes out for 2008.

[Hekate]

15. If so, fine, whatever, that's what they do. But can we please stop playing gotcha with Dem presi-

-dential candidates?

As you can tell, I am reacting to previous flame-fests here....

Hekate

[FreeState]

16. Ummm... I didn't

I dont even mention candidates in my post...

[LordJFT]

12. what a hilarious comment, Obama's position is actually better than Hillary's

Hillary wants to keep the section of DOMA that says states don't have to recognize gay marriages in other states while Hillary wants to keep it.

[alarimer]

10. Not this time, unfortunately.

Too many milquetoast Democrats in this race. Well, the ones that run the party have decreed that in order to win votes we must not advocate full equality. So they pander to the bigoted "Christian" right.

No, someone (not Obama but probably the next Democrat in office) will have to shove it down the bigots' throats, the way LBJ forced civil rights on the South. Someone is going to have to have the backbone to accept some electoral losses.

This winning by selling out various parts of your constituency sucks and it is why I am no longer a Democrat. Clinton (Bill) sold out labor and the working poor with NAFTA. No, the Democrats absolutely cannot be relied upon to do the right thing. Those of us who care will have to stop voting for the bigots' enablers.

[magellan]

11. Excellent post.

n/t

[Unvanguard]

18. Ultimately they might do it via a new and improved ERA.

"Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex, sexual orientation, or gender identity--and yes, that means you must allow same-sex marriage, whatever absurd interpretations of 'equality' you want to babble about."

:)

[alarimer]

19. Yes, probably.

But it really shouldn't take an amendment to guarantee equal rights for all. It seems like the Constitution should already be interpreted that way. Of course, unless there is an amendment, right-wing judges will be free to use "strict construction" to rule against equal rights. They already try to eliminate the right to privacy because it is not specifically listed. I propose an amendment that also include the right to privacy.

[Unvanguard]

21. There are issues with strict scrutiny and suspect classes and such

that someone who actually knows what he or she is talking about should probably elaborate on (not me).

You're right, the right to privacy should probably also go in an amendment.

[LordJFT]

13. I hope it's sooner than that, but you may be right

[Unvanguard]

17. Not this time. But maybe next time.

I think California may be a turning point in this respect.

[ccharles000]

20. I hope it is sooner than later.