Why won't most Dem politicians support gay marriage?

What is up with that? I flat out do not understand how they support this kind of discrimination. The reason I ask is because of this:

John Edwards: Gay marriage is an issue I feel internal conflict about and I continue to struggle with it.

http://www.americablog.com/2007/05/john-edwards-on-civil-rights-for-gay.html

John Edwards is front and center on gay rights except for this one. It's basically the same for the other candidates. What is so wrong with saying, 'You know, if I can marry the person I love, a homosexual should be able to marry who he or she loves'?

Every other candidate and most of the dems serving in DC support all the equal rights in the world for gays except for one...marriage. It's like they are too damn afraid to take that extra step. Feingold and a few others have stated their support for gay marriage.

But the rest are mute and stop short of supporting gay marriage.

but they call this leadership? :eyes:

1.) They are politicians, and

2.) Some are homophobic to some extent, whether they realize it or not.


Neither reason is an excuse to deny me my basic civil and equal rights.

I would rather hear them say it is up to the states. That is how the legal age to marry is handled. I suppose if the state recognizes the marriage, the federal (for tax purposes) does also.

the person they choose. It's not the same as letting states make decisions in regards to age. These are legal adults who are citizens, vote and pay taxes. Why should they be denied a basic right that the rest of us enjoy?

Marriage offers 1,138 Federal benefits and responsibilities.

OK then it should be state's rights whether straights can marry. Jeez...what crap.
Lee

People under 35. And it's not a top priority for them.

A certain percentage - it varies from poll to poll - of gays don't see this as a top priority.

This issue needs to be framed as more of a rights issue, as Human Rights Campaign is trying to do. As another of those rights that should not be denied generically.

a certain nasty segment of the population (right-wing religious freaks) seems to have an influence well out of proportion to their actual numbers.

But basically these Democrats are just cowards. At some point they have to stop being afraid of what their opponents will say about them. Also, we have to acknowledge that most conservative Christians who are homophobic bigots will not vote Democratic ever. I think we need to just write those people off and appeal to the core of the Democratic party.

:shrug:

I think gay marriage is inevitable, but it will take time.

You don't wait for the bigots to die off. You have to force change.

Otherwise the black community would still be sitting in the back of the bus.

is the kiss of death for most politicians.

...and none of these politicians are gay so they just pretend we don't exist. We need to be more of a thorn in their sides.
Lee

and I don't see this as merely some right to marry for a group of people, though I'm certainly supportive of that idea, but as the right of ALL citizens to inexpensively and easily access a system of laws which govern some of the most basic, universal life experiences. In my mind, the government has no business demanding that any legal ADULT who doesn't "marry" be treated as some child of the STATE and be governed by laws in which (in many states) the GOVERNMENT has the right to dictate things like funeral/burial arrangements or health decisions if there are no LEGALLY recognized "family" members.

In my mind, that is just a crock. The government's only interest in regulating those things (just as in hospital visitation rights) is to protect the public's real and practical HEALTH (meaning, ya can't bury your partner in the backyard) and ensure an orderly distribution of an individual's property upon death. Period. Why should any legal adult NOT be allowed to EASILY and INEXPENSIVELY decide who is allowed to make decisions or arrangements based on his/her OWN interests, rather than some dictated system of recognition devised by the government? Is my state government more capable of making these decisions than ME? NO.

Con-servatives have campaigned heavily through those bogus and insulting state constitutional amendments to ANNEX statutes which merely OUTLINED benefactors and family rights as "incidents of marriage" when no such thing is part of either the state or religious marriage ceremony. In my mind, it is part of a movement which reared its ugh-ly head during the Terri Schiavo fiasco, as wingnut religious fanatics (on both sides of the fence) demanded the government INTERVENE on the "incidents" of marriage of Michael and Terri Schiavo. In my mind, that should have been a red flag to every American of what the REAL intent of the con-artist con-servatives is in demanding greater government interference in the most basic, universal experiences of our daily lives. And yet, people were still stupid enough to vote for those state constitutional amendments because of the imagined gay bogeyman.

In many states, there is a greater number of UNMARRIED people than those who are MARRIED, and yet UNMARRIED people are supposed to haul a filing cabinet full of legal documents around with them just for the right to make a decision about the operation of their own lives. The concept is ridiculous. There is no viable reason whatsoever for any state to over-regulate the lives of individuals as if we are bastard children under the guise of "encouraging" marriage. How the hell do you encourage healthy "marriages" by bribery?

I bet that most Dems support gay marriage, it's just that the majority of Americans don't, so they never directly answer the question if it means it would be harder for them to get elected.

...then they'd lose. In the end that's all that matters to most politicians. Not what's right or wrong, just how if it will or won't get them votes.

they expect and honest answer.

Here goes. Most rank and file Democrats attend many of
the same or similar churches as Republicans. Cuturally,
they believe in heresexual marriage only.

The difference is Democrats are tolerant and aceepting.


Therefore Candidates go with their consituents.

but its because being the minority party in DC really sucks. I am not sure what the solution is. Dems in National office would support it if they could and still have some means of affecting many other policies.

The day they do is the day the laws will be rewritten to reflect civil rights for gays.