They're pretty much all for it, some more than others.
Obama voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment which would have defined marriage as between one man and one woman, but believes that marriage is defined as a religious bond between a man and a woman. He supports civil unions, which is basically same-sex marriage with a different ring word. He also said he believes same-sex marriages should be decided by the states.
Clinton like Obama voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment. She has expression opposition to same-sex marriage, but supports civil unions, which is again, just marriage with a different name.
Edit: Terry, one can be against Gay Marriage without being homophobic. It is after all, a church institution.
The state recognizes it, it is after all a minister who weds people, not a government official.What are the top democratic candidates views on same sex marriage?
Well, there you have it. The dems support (at least) civil unions. In my opinion, this is detrimental to children of these relationships. ALL children deserve to have ONE mother and ONE father!!!! As far as the religious debate goes from above: The Bible clearly states that the main reason for marriage is procreation. The last time I checked two people of the same gender cannot produce children.
Well, 1 you are a very backwards thinker and probably shouldn't be voting democrat seeing as they are a progressive party.
2, The solution would be to vote republican
3, you don't vote on who the democratic primary winner is, and Obama nor clinton nor edwards will run third party.
And all democrats are for making same sex marriages, or the legal rights equivalent of without calling it marriage available,
so is leading republican candidate Rudy Giuliani
Tough luck, think progressively
not stupidly
--nathan
Fortunately for America (since our next President will probably be a Democrat), NONE of the Democratic candidates are bigots with respect to same-sex marriage SSM).
They mostly are amenable to ';civil unions,'; rather than *calling* it marriage, but having all of the benefits of marriage. Once the unconstitutional blocks to SSM (since *nothng* in the Constitution restricts the gender makeup of married couples) have fallen, and SSM is fully legal nationwide, I think that the semantic ';civil union'; challenge to that terminology will vanish. Because it suddenly will dawn on people that ALL opposite-sex marriages now being performed in the USA... by JPs, Mayors, Ship Captains, Vegas-style Wedding Chapels... are NOT religious ceremonies. (So much for ';sanctity'; of marriage, since if any marriages are sacred at all, it would only be the religiously-performed ones.) And therefore *are* civil unions.
With NO difference in benefits accruing from marriage vis-a-vis civil unions, that will be the end of this silly semanics war. Everyone thus joined will be MARRIED, plain and simple. Opposite-sex and same-sex.
Don't trust ANY *Republican* to be an egalitarian, when push comes to shove. Not even Giuliani. He talks that way, but I don't think he'll go to the mat for the assurance of EQUAL rights for all.
And remember -- NO opponent of SSM has ever yet, to the best of my knowledge, shown how ANY opposite-sex couple's marriage could be harmed in any way if same-sex neighbors were to get legally married. Thus, all those mindless ';Defense of Marriage'; laws are nothing but a hateful sham! The sort of ';reasoning'; that the segregationists used to use, in *their* desperation to salvage *their* loathsome agendas, 45-50 years ago... as those were about to swirl down the Drain of Extinction, where they belonged. For more on this, and for many powerful talking points, I invite you to see the FACT-filled articles dealing with equal rights and personal liberties, in my blog --
http://apifar.blogspot.com
To ';S P'; -- See what I said above about marriages being religious. Millions of them, right now, for opposite-sex couples, are NOT. Not even remotely! And it's probably been that way for far longer than most of us have been alive.
To ';Honest1'; -- Bigotry should *always* be a deal-breaker!
If you do not want it to be legal then you do not support equal Rights. Obama is against any constitutional ban on gay marriage. Hillary will do what the lobbyists tell her to do.
Rather foolish way to decide who to vote for on ONE issue with ALL the problems our nation faces today!
How would it affect you if it were legal. Would you lose some right that you have now?
Would you trust what someone here tells you or do you think you should inform yourself by paying attention to what the candidates say instead of what someone tells you they said.
IMO you sound lazy, uninformed and homophobic.
S P If marriage is a church institution then I wonder why the
State is involved in it in the first place.
A Justice of the Peace is a government official.
BTW, you gave a good answer
I'm sure Hillary loves the idea considering she's a dyke.
No comments:
Post a Comment