According to CNN, Obama, like Edwards supports civil union

but not gay marriage.

But one does not see DUers tearing him down to pieces, the way they did to Edwards last week.

Will be interesting to hear the contortions that some will go over this...

I understand boths positions on gay marriage, I don't agree with them though. I'm glad to hear they support civil unions at least.

And the reason people jumped on Edwards because he said he didn't think it was a sin to be gay and that you could be born gay, but then said his beliefs prevented him from supporting gay marriage. It seemed kinda weird for someone to say.

To me, it is what you do on the issue, more than what you say, that is most important.

people.


It is not going to be able to please every one of us all of the time but something tells me that he will build on a Compassionate America that will be inclusive.

I've never understood the vigilant push for the word 'marriage'. To my mind, if you have to move in baby steps, its, at least, preferrable to no progress at all.

If it were me, I would be satisfied, for the time being, with civil unions, and continue to work for changing the label later.

I fully realize all the arguments in favor of the word 'marriage', and yes, gay people are absolutely right in theory, but sometimes a little compromise can pave the way to a full victory, if a bit delayed.

I'm OK with politicians who say they support civil unions. They're tempering their language too, because just like 'Abortion', 'Gay Marriage' is a hot button phrase that they are wise to avoid in the middle of a campaign.

-chef-

and I concur for the same reasons.

I do admire their spirit of being unwilling to compromise when they know their position on equality is sound. A slight change in the direction of that passion would bring incremental but more long-lasting results.

Despite what's often promised, CUs do not provide all the legal benefits of marriage. And so long as there are two tracks -- one for GLBT folk and one for the rest -- CUs simply will not provide equality.

Perhaps everything should be signed by partners - whether married or in a committed relationship. I think that many married women, mostly, could greatly benefit from having what they take for granted written and signed. And if not, to realize this. Too many married women end up in poverty because their husband promised that they would be taken care off, but they never put that in writing when all of a sudden they died.

contract.

Now, religion puts entirely different spins on it, and that's fine.

It's the overlap we now have that seems to be causing some confusion.

Obama hasn't made any similar comments in recent newscycles, hence no protest.

It's a bullshit position, but it's one held by the vast majority of Democratic candidates and elected officials.

http://obama.senate.gov/speech/060605-floor_statement_of_senator_barack_obama_on_the_federal_marriage_amendment/index.html

1). He believes it is a states' rights issue.
2). He believes that the discussion of gay marriage is too divisive right now to really discuss and can only used as a political ploy.
3). He believes that it distracts us from working on what a majority of Americans would agree are more pressing issues.

You really should read it for yourself, though (and this was in reference to the gay marriage ban).

It's a hot button wedge issue that Republicans use to try and rally support and excite their base. They use it to divide us, and it is very much a political ploy. Personally, I don't like as a gay American being used as political red meat to get the Christian right to foam out the mouth. And as long as Obama supports civil unions, and doesn't restrict my rights as an American I'm alright. I understand and respect his beliefs, as I do Edwards.

Edwards just mangled his response on MTP to gay issues questions specifically about homosexuality being a sin and whether or not you're born that way. It's weird that he said yes you can be born that way, and no it's not a sin...even though based on the belief system he's justifying his "no" answer to the gay marriage question off of...that belief system says it is a sin and that it is a choice. So many think he botched the answer!!

I'm not gay, but to me, it rankles. We're really talking about basic civil rights -- should they ever be a back-burner issue? I'm sure plenty of folks wanted Rosa Parks to just get to the back and quit making such a fuss. But is that right? Is the easier path the right one?

People may, eventually, get there without leaders being willing to speak up and demand equality. But is it really fair to ask people to just wait patiently because not enough of the rest of us are quite ready to deal with that now?

It's not something you can tell people to change - especially in places where they voted 70%+ in favor of statewide bans on gay marriage.

Is it right that so many people are this bigoted? Not in my view, but I also know that it's better to have gays and lesbians receive most of the benefits of marriage for now, rather than have more of their rights stripped away (as it has been happening under this administration).

I think it's a positive step that we now expect our Democratic candidates to support civil unions, when less than ten years ago Clinton signed DOMA. I think society has made some improvements and most will come outside the political sphere (hell, it's worth remembering that it's still not exactly safe for people to come out in most parts of the country - such people are still looked as pariahs by many).

We have to first work on getting people to be understanding of different sexual preferences before changing the terminology of marriage contracts. Only until people sympathize with couple's unable to receive most benefits will we even be able to think about gay marriage - and that's OUTSIDE the south and much of midwest.

much as I dislike that approach in theory. In practice, as you say, it's the way likely to get results.

And I think if you said starting tomorrow, no one would have a civil marriage, but that all government unions would now be CUs, you'd find plenty of straight people up in arms. Religious or not, they want to be "married". So it's not just an issue of religious vs. civil. It's an issue of separate but... almost equal.

My concern is that it becomes too easy for those of us who will not have to deal with this issue in our own lives to decide it's not so important. I react the same way when I'm told that we really ought to leave the issue of choice on the back burner, b/c it's just upsetting too many people, and it's just not important right now. The heck with that.

Regardless of how difficult or distressing issues such as those can be, there's still a right and wrong here, and I don't think issues of individual rights are ever unimportant.

Just my 2 cents, of course.

"I should say that personally, I do believe that marriage is between a man and a woman."

From the link you provided.

As for states' right issues - yeah, this is what the ones who want to overturn Roe v. Wade say.

I would think that most gay rights advocates would consider the points that you raise as caving in but then... it is clear that on DU, at least, what holds for others does not for Obama.

Obama and Edwards seem to be big fans of the notion of 'Separate but Equal', apparently.

There are plenty of posters on here who seem to devote a healthy percentage of their time on here to attacking potential Democratic Presidential candidates. Maybe they're just still having to get a feel for Obama, with him being relatively "new" and whatnot, but I'm sure it will only be a matter of time before they really get going slinging the shit at him as well. None will be spared in their quest to do the Republicans' job for them.

Marriage is an institution that is left up to the states and not the federal government, as are civil unions as an alternative. What Edwards and Obama should be saying is that they will push for a law to extend all federal marriage benefits to homosexual couples and that the term marriage or civil union can be left up to the states.

Personally I'd add that if Congress doesn't pass legislation allowing for federal marriage benefits to be extended to homosexual couples then I'd do it by executive order. But since we have a Democratic congress there's a good chance that it will actually pass.

screw him. him and any other politician who uses weasel words to promote bigotry.

Almost every potential Democratic nominee has almost the same position on this issue.

The only exception is Kucinich (and Sharpton and Moseley-Braun, from last time around), who supports full same-sex marriage rights.

And Joementum, who stubbornly refused to commit to a civil union approach back during the '04 primaries.