Posted on 11/18/2003 3:15:01 PM PST by kattracks
WASHINGTON (AP) — The major Democratic presidential candidates continued to back legal rights for gays but declined to go as far as the Massachusetts Supreme Court and endorse gay marriage.Only underdog candidates Dennis Kucinich, Al Sharpton and Carol Moseley Braun support laws that would allow same-sex couples to wed.
The leading candidates for the nomination oppose gay marriage, but most say gay couples should get all the legal rights of married couples. It may seem like a dubious distinction, but it's the same position taken by the majority of Americans in public opinion polls.
The candidates attempted to stick to the fine line separating gay marriage from equal rights for gay couples, despite the Massachusetts court ruling Tuesday.
"As a society we should be looking for ways to bring us together and as someone who supports the legal rights of all Americans regardless of sexual orientation, I appreciate today's decision," said Wesley Clark. "As president, I would support giving gays and lesbians the legal rights that married couples get."
But the Massachusetts court went beyond equal rights for gay couples and directed the legislature to change the state's law to allow gay couples to marry. Joe Lieberman, Dick Gephardt, John Kerry and John Edwards issued statements Tuesday restating their opposition to gay marriage.
Congress and the Massachusetts legislature are considering a constitutional amendment that would legally define a marriage as a union between a man and a woman. The Democratic presidential candidates said they would oppose such an effort.
"It is my hope that we don't get sidetracked by the right wing into a debate over a phony constitutional amendment banning gay marriage," said Gephardt, a Missouri congressman whose daughter is gay. "I strongly oppose such an effort as purely political and unnecessarily divisive at the expense of those who already suffer from discrimination."
Kerry, a Massachusetts senator, said the decision calls on the legislature in his state "to take action to ensure equal protection for gay couples." He avoided specifying what that action should be, as did most of his presidential opponents.
Howard Dean said "the state should afford same-sex couples equal treatment under law in areas such as health insurance, hospital visitation and inheritance rights."
That's what Dean did as governor of Vermont when he signed a bill allowing civil unions, but that action didn't go far enough for some gay rights supporters.
Kucinich said the federal government should allow civil marriage between same-sex couples, not just civil unions.
"Separate is not equal," he said. "The right to marry is a civil right that should not be denied."
Sure they do.
They support it, but they're hardly stupid enough to vocalize their support.
What? Are liberals lying again?
They DO embrace this decison: LIBERALS-DEMOCRATS-SOCIALISTS...whatever you want to call them most certainly DO embrace this decison.
Look at the beginning of the Iowa "debate" hosted by Hitlery this weekend:
opened with the National Anthem by the Des Moines Gay Men's Choir.
Look at who APPOINTS these liberal judges that rules for gay marriage: LIBERALS-DEMOCRATS-SOCIALISTS.
Look at the Presidential candidates for the LIBERALS-DEMOCRATS-SOCIALISTS...many of them went groveling to the militant gay community celebrating their desire for marriage.
Right now these RATS may be saying, "oh no..." but if this is allowed to go through, THEY WILL TAKE FULL CREDIT FOR IT.
Democrats are such freakin' LIARS. They cannot even be honest about who they are!!
Is there ANY wonder I'm a
Recovering_Democrat?
I can answer that! Anything popular during the time of Noah leading up to the flood; anything practised in the cities of Sodom and Gomorra (sp?) before the the reign of fire; and all activities during the Roman reigns of Caligula, Nero and a few others, are all a-okay with shrillery.
-PJ
So does Dennis intend to make his boyfriend the "first lady"?
LOL. That's the G-rated version!
I'm going to get flamed for this, I know, but I think conservatives are taking this issue completely wrong. Let me begin by saying that I am terminally heterosexual man, a former infantry officer, and the father of a wonderful little girl.
We should fight against "civil unions." We should argue that we have a mechanism in place for two people who want to share their lives, yadda yadda yadda. It's called marriage. Let gays get married! Then sit back and watch the fun as the gay divorce and alimony suits begin.
My real issue is that "civil unions" blur the line of what marriage is. If two men can declare themselves in "civil union," that is, some state in between singleness and marriage, what will stop a heterosexual couple from declaring the same thing? What happens if there are children involved? Family law, flawed though it may be, is designed to provide the best possible life (through child support and visitation) for the child under the worst possible circumstances (divorce). If I can simply declare myself to be in civil union with my girlfriend (assuming I had one lol), and get all the legal benefits of being married, with NONE of the difficulties if the relationship fails, why on earth would I ever bother to actually get married?
As a Christian, I believe homosexual relationships are an abomination to the Father. What difference does it make if they choose to be "married?" Their actions are still sinful, and somehow declaring that we can't do anything about their homosexuality, but we can do something about their legal status just seems silly to me.
Flame away lol...
Dewey Dickum & Howe, the preferred law firm for gays seeking a divorce.
Translation: "As if we needed this right now."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.