Should candidates just say "Yes" to Gay Marriage to defuse it as an issue?

Personally, I think gay marriage is a non-issue. or it should be...and IMO could be.

This may sound unrealistic, but I believe all Democratic candidates should stop trhe gyrations about civil unions and the "I'm in favor of equal rights for all people but..."

Instead they shouldsimply say "I'm in favor of gay marriage because I believe it is a matter of personal freedom. It doesn't affect anyone else, doesn't undermine anyone else's marriage and is a simple matter of equal treatment under the law. Period."

Frankly, supporting gay marriage is a libertarian "live and let live" kind of issue. And most Americans, I believe, are at heart supporters of that idea, regardless of what they may personally approve or disapprove of homosexuality.

There is also, admittedly, a reservoir of bigotry and homophobia in the public. But today, most people no longer think twice about an interracial couple, which in the past was considered shocking.

Politically, Democrats could frame the issue very simply. "Would you rather have an administration and Congress that are fighhting for your rights and your financial interests rather than trying to take away personal freedom of behavior? Or would you rather have a government that wastes its' time worryiong about your neighbors' personal lives while subverting your own freedom and working against your own economic interests?"

Maybe that's simnplistic. But beneath all the convioluted bullshit, it really is a simple issue. And if it were defended on that basis, it could do a lot to take away one of the GOP's bigger weapons.

Yes, they should.

You're either for, or against, human rights.

because it's the right thing to do, whether they like it or not!

"a civil contract between two persons".

It seems to me a compromise is possible that leaves "marriages" to religious institutions each with their special spin on such things as divorce, e.g. Roman Catholic Church", and letting civil courts deal with legal issues involving civil contracts between two persons.

Note a marriage may or may not include a "a civil contract between two persons" because today some senior citizens are being married in churches and living together as cohabiting seniors
because civil contracts simply aren't financially practical for some senior citizens.

That creates an interesting possibility, "civil contract without marriage" versus "marriage without civil contract".

In the tradition of seperation of church and state, whether a particular church decides to discriminate regarding their own belief of whether a gay couple is "married in the Eyes of God" or not should be hashed out within that church. It should not be imposed on civil society.

Gays should be able to get those same licenses imo.

I am saying that in terms of civil society, a gay marriage should be exactly the same as a heterosexual marriage.

If churches choose not to recognize it within their own operations, it is a matter for that church.

But the legal marriage itself should be no different.

If all Democrats say "yes," as you suggest, they will throw away a lot of votes and support in the general election.

If a candidate wants to win, he/she has to pose against same-sex marriage. If a candidate wants social justice above wanting to win, a candidate will support same-sex marriage or civil unions.

The OP is extremely simplistic. I think the OP attitude is the wishful thinking, or "convoluted bullshit," on this issue.

People want leaders who aren't afraid to lead ~ when candidates back off an issue because of fear, voters know it and aren't impressed. They'd rather vote for someone who stands up for what he/she believes in than someone who's chickenshit.

You wrote, polichick: "when candidates back off an issue because of fear, voters know it and aren't impressed."

Do you have any evidence that people think the candidates' positions against same-sex marriage are generating negative feelings or that the voters "aren't impressed"????

Our candidates are mostly poll-driven, and they seem to be responding to this issue as if they believe the polls - which suggest same-sex marriage is a strong wedge issue (i.e. it will gain very few Democratic voters who wouldn't vote Democratic anyway, and will turn off independents, and some Democrats, to a much greater extent than it will gain.) Conclusion of most of our candidates: same-sex marriage is poison to the voters.

Maybe Mondale's famous "I'll raise taxes" was honest, and maybe Mondale got 'points' for his honesty - but he lost 49 out of 50 states in '84.

the GOP and the right-wing made it one.

Don't forget that it was hardly on the radar at all until there were a couple of state court rulings that supported the rights of same-sex couples, and then the GOP and Rushes of the world fanned the flames. And the GOP even had the moxie to claim it was all the fault of Democrats -- even though those were legal rulings and (in the case of Massachusetts at least) a GOP appointed judge.

In my opinion (of course) if the Democrats had counterpunched by stating that it is a simple matter of freedom and civil rights, and of course we support that, the whole issue would have been defused in a political sense.

Sure the hard-core bigots would have been lost, but good riddance. I believe most Americans would have either been supportive, or neutral or set their own personal preferences aside to focus on other issues.

You wrote: "In my opinion (of course) if the Democrats had counterpunched by stating that it is a simple matter of freedom and civil rights, and of course we support that, the whole issue would have been defused in a political sense."

Democrats have said that repeatedly. I think the best quote - recognizing the very real problem is...

"I understand that some people firmly regard gay marriage as a civil right while others find it antithetical to their religious or moral beliefs."
Ron Kind (D-WI)

Those two points of view are not as susceptible to the counterpunch you suggested... both beliefs are firmly held. We can wish that a simple counterpunch would be effective, but it's never that simple, IMO.

Yes, that's what a true leader would say.

It IS a simple issue. It's called basic human rights being equal to everyone, and not dictated by homophobia or religious dogma.

I thought (assumed) that my own attitude could be easily assumed from the post.

It is IMO one of those issues where the right thing to do is also politically expedient.

that needs to be danced around for reason this or reason that. IMO, if one doesn't support equal rights to all people, then one isn't liberal or progressive. I don't care how you vote. It's a right that doesn't need to be given as much as it's a right that's been taken away.

Replace it with "Legally Wed". I acknowledge that I am side stepping the question you pose but one of the problems with "civil unions" and "domestic partnerships" is that the terms themselves are devoid of emotion and any historic resonance. They culturally do not capture the deep and often sacred meening that "marriage" conveys, instead they communicate a second class relationship, less profound than marriage.

I think the day will come within a generation when the vast majority of Americans won't blink an eye lid at gay marriages, but right now the cultural and political Right have dug in their heels fighting to define "marriage" as the union of a man and woman - citing both religion and tradition to uphold that definition. I think a lot of that political battle can be outflanked by immediately embracing the term "to wed" in our civil statutes. Weddings have profound traditional cultural significance, unlike, say, domestic partnership ceromonies. Once the term "legally wed" is widely established in civil law, the semantic barrier between gays and lesbians wedding each other and marrying each other will quickly erode, and people will soon wonder what all the fuss was about in the first place.