Good As You

Show me just one example of any way me getting married to Bob, detracts from, cheapens, changes in any way the straight marriage next door. No religious marriage, just marrage. Straight couples who have civil unions are considered married. It's also a little arrogant to say you "KNOW" what a possible "GOD" wants or belives. If you do belive, it's kind of up the him/her to decide right or wrong for me and I belive he/she told you so. First stone, judge not, and all that. Can't pick and choose the parts that are convienent for you.

As much as I agree with you when it comes to the theory and the point, the reality is that Obama, or any other candidate, is extremely unlikely to win if they're openly in favour of full and equal same-sex marriage at this point in time.

Politics, as much as we may wish it didn't, comes down to compromise. Which would you prefer, a Democrat who's in favour of civil unions in the White House, or another gay hating Republican there, after kicking the ass of the Democrat who's in favour of full same-sex marriage, and who would have faced an uphill battle to win half of America based on just one policy?

Yes it's unfair, yes, separate isn't equal, but civil unions are a start, both legally and socially. Besides the wider implications for your country if you end up with another Bushite in the White House, civil unions (especially if mandated by the government), give same-sex couples rights they wouldn't otherwise have, and desperately need.

Don't get me wrong, your argument is good and right, but it's just not realistic in the US, not just yet.

Julian, your comments are of course understood, thus the reason for acknowledgment of the politics behind the issue in saying "Sure, it's likely Mr. Obama is taking the "pro-civil unions, anti-gay marriage" stance in order to enhance his electability..." But the point of the article is that his argument is wholly wrong. Now, do we actually expect Democratic presidential candidates to fully acknowledge that the religious argument is a flawed one? NO. But will we challenge any and everyone for making such a misrepresentation (which gives credence to our opposition's claims). ABSOLUTELY.

No presidential candidate who is serious about winning the office is going to publicly favor marriage equality. I don't like it, but its reality. As I see it, its our responsibility to push the issue and by doing so help to shape the discussion about full equality under the law for LGBT people.

I am a huge supporter of Obama despite his not being where I want him to be on the marriage front. There will be a day when we will achieve full marriage rights and that day will come sooner if we continue to advocate for it.

Agreed, Bloggernista. And we need to remember that we can both (a) support a candidate and (b) challenge him/her to look at any and every issue in new ways!

He has mentioned in his book that as a Christian, he has to recognize that his "unwillingness to support gay marriage may be misguided" - which, to me, is code for "I support same-sex marriage, but my campaign will go to hell." He came up here to MA to campaign for Deval Patrick, who openly supports same-sex marriage. (Then again, the governor's office is less ideology and more practical matters.)

As for the Republicans, I don't know how many of them actually hate gay people. I think that, at least in Washington, they're more or less apathetic to sexual orientation, but they put blocking glbt rights on their agenda because their electability would get a short-term boost from visceral reactions to the idea of gay rights. (Of course, that's a dirty and devious method that messes with the lives of their constituents, but that's what I think they're doing, more than anything.)

Still, Obama '08.

You're right about the statements in his book, jaj, and it's highly likely that Obama is with us more than he currently feels able to let on. But again -- we're going to challenge these misrepresentations.

And no, I don't think many politicians of either party hold real contempt for gay people. In some strange way, it makes their political antipathy even more disgusting.

iam voting for the first time this year and i believe that its wrong that america is so quick to vote against someone with morality or more so just a plain good person. homosexual matrimony will be looked upon in the future the same way we look upon the civil rights act today. " oh how could we as americans have been so stupid and coldhearted back then" is what students will say when they learn about this in class 10 15 years from now. i dont care about his standings i will vote for him because i believe that it is time for america to change, and so i could say that i voted for someone who can change the world....obama 08

Sage: I'm a little confused by your assessment. All we are saying in this post is that Mr. Obama shouldn't be muddying the waters between the "religious" and the "civil" in terms of marriage. You are right that future generations will look back in disbelief when remembering this who "fight." But we're just trying to say that if Dems like Obama would stop "poll-watching" and take a truly righteous, moral stand on gay marriage -- which includes taking the time to explain to the public the diff. between religious and civil marriage -- then we could get to that day sooner rather than later.