This is the one real beef I have with Obama's politics. I generally agree with him most other places, but he's just flat wussing out here.

I do give Hillary credit for advocating the repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell, which was her husband's doing in the first place.

I will admit, up front, that being straight, I may not fully grasp this issue. It's sort of the "have to walk in my shoes" thing. But I think that if civil unions were legal across the board, and included all the same rights as marriages, and were documented by the state, then all we're talking about is a word "marriage". Two people can love each other regardless of that word. My girlfriend and I live together. At this point, we choose not to get married, but we are still bound together by our love for each other. The only thing that would make us want to get "married" would be either for tax reasons (benefits of marriage) or if we decide that we need to make it official for spiritual reasons (notice I said spiritual, not religious....I couldn't care less what some priest or preacher thinks of our union).

I would think that if civil unions were offered all the same benefits, and they were recognized by the state, then that should be all that matters for two people in love. I don't know my history on marriage, but I would bet that it started as a religious thing, so that religious people could feel their union was sanctified by a higher power. In my mind, it's just a word, and as long as you have everything that goes along with that word, does it really matter?

I don't think that any church or denomination should be forced to accept anything they don't want to. It's their right to be close minded. In time, as society progresses, they will lose memberships and die off, or they will change to accommodate the times. If at this point in time they want to monopolize a word, fine. If civil unions become everything that marriage is (as far as the state goes) then that word will lose it's meaning in time. Personally, I think that straight people have diminished whatever meaning that word once had anyway.

The state, however, should have to recognize the union. Since our country is made up of mostly religious people, then we may have to call it something else in order to get everyone on board. Down the road, that could change.

As far as the whole Democrats are the new Republicans, etc., there are fringe members on both sides. Not all Democrats are liberal, and not all Republicans are conservative. But I maintain my position that it's the fringes in both parties that keep us preoccupied with divisive topics like this so that the rest of the people in power can screw us over while we're not paying attention.

Yeah, the Democrats aren't liberals and haven't been for years. But the truly liberal solution is to abolish the quasi-contractual, legal status of marriage for *everyone.* Look, if you want to have a civil contract and a ceremony and call it a marriage, go ahead, but when you start talking about a government sanctioned, role-defining, tax-enhanced "contract", you're not talking about the liberal solution anymore. You're actually talking about the feudal solution.

I get the feeling next thing you know, either the democrats or the republicans are going to want to impose religious law. If that happens, be prepared to pack your bags and either head north or south of the border.

Dennis Kucinich is the shit,
I live in Cleveland and i know dennis very well,
his ideas very hippe but them ideas well never win anybody over.
His the only that is there face about isseus so give him a break.
Plus, Democrats are only ones that will at must talk about this issues.

Absolutely. One can be married without the church, but not without the state. For some reason there's a lot of difficulty in people coming to terms with that fact, and politicians know that, and 'handle' the public in accord with those misperceptions.

The blame falls in two directions, but it's really mostly the fault of the majority in the public who wouldn't vote for someone who publicly supported gay marriage - the same public that genuinely believes that this is a 'Christian' nation and not a secular one.

I have that problem with him as well, but that's what politicians view as pragmatism. The bitter, atrocious, repulsive fact is that the American public will rally around preventing gays from having their rights as enshrined in our Constitution. There are so many people who are bound to see themselves as superior to gays, and are bound to see that gays take a subordinate position in society that no pro-gay rights candidate can win.


The public bare a huge portion of responsibility, here. It's fairly disheartening.

This assinine cowardice, while disgusting, will soon be a thing of the past as more and more people step forward and not only support candidates who take a strong stance in favor of sponsoring gay marriage, but also withdraw their support for the diet-Republicans... pardon me... Democrats... who continue to try to dodge the issue.

Afterall, it was about 40 years ago (1964-ish) that some some 80% of Americans polled favored an amendment that would make interracial marriage illegal.

Times change despite the best efforts of politicians to deny this inevitable fact.

Civil unions could give gay people some measure of equality but it would still keep us separate and apart. I'm honestly pleased that there is progress and that at least civil unions are well supported, but I would prefer marriage. Yes, its just a word, but if its the same thing why can't it BE the same thing. Whats the point of keeping gay people separate?

I agree completely. It would take away all the religious aspects (separation of church and state....) and anyone who would want the religious aspects could go to their respective Churches which a lot do anyway.


anyway I really think that Hillary has the best chance at repealing Don't Ask Don't Tell. She knows the policy very well and I think she can really get rid of it. I think it would be an issue she wouldn't forget once she was actually President while other candidates might not care about it.

agreed. make marriage a religious ceremony, with no legal status. everyone gets civil unions, insofar as the state is concerned.

its exactly that american pubic that makes us the laughing stock of the world, and makes me want to move to either leave the country or go live in a very secluded area.

The problem isn't with the governmental system, it's with the castrated, cowed, blobs which live here and do what the government says.

if we as a people demanded it, then it would be done.