If Obama/Clinton/Edwards wins will we have CIVIL UNIONS/SAME SEX MARRIAGE in the next 4 years?

[musicblind]

I am a 25 year old gay male, and I am very interested in this issue. I understand that it is very unlikely Kucinich or Gravel will win (Both Kucinich and Gravel support same sex marriage)

Out of the top three candidates here is how they stand:


Hillary Clinton
Opposes same-sex marriage but supports civil unions. Says states should ultimately decide the issue. Opposes a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. Bill Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996. :(



John Edwards
Opposes same-sex marriage. Opposes a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage.


Barack Obama
Opposes same-sex marriage, but also opposes a constitutional ban. Supports civil unions.


Personally I support Hillary and Edwards. I think Obama is a spectacular guy and will make an awesome president as well, I am just not sold on him based off of experience, and worries he wont be able to get as much done in the four years if he were to win the nomination this time around. However, I am open to any positives anyone wants to say about him or any candidates.


THE QUESTION IS:

Do you think that we will have Civil Unions and or Same Sex Marriage nationwide (or in the majority of the country) by the end of the next president's term if a democrat were to be elected.

Second, which of the three leading candidates (Edwards, Clinton, Obama) do you think would be MOST LIKELY to bring about this change.


This is something I care deeply about, and would really like to see happen. I would like to be able to marry whom I choose. I know churches that would like the right to marry me, I even am friends with a pastor who would like the right to marry me in a legal ceremony. No churches would be forced to do this. The same way churches are not forced to marry interracial couples (even though for a long time, at least in the south, this was not allowed legally... changing the laws didn't FORCE any church to marry someone), just like southern baptist churches are not forced to marry divorced couples but they can if they so choose. So please do not post any arguments saying that legalizing gay marriage will FORCE a church to have a gay marriage that they do not want. That is just ignorant on the issues. (I wrote that last big because i have seen that argument used on DU several times sadly).

Please DO, however, answer the question as best you can about your respective candidates. It plays a big part in my decisions and I am hungry for knowledge.

Thank you

[lapfog_1]

1. I suspect that if any of the three top contenders win

there will be a push to expand the rights of domestic partners.

But there will not be a nationwide civil union or Same Sex Marriage.

Of course, I think this would true no matter who is president simply because supporters will not be able to get a bill to the President's desk... filibuster rules being what they are and repukes being who they are.

I think neither Hillary OR Obama would want this as one of their first fights... as they would not want to be BLAMED for losing congress in 2010 (even if that didn't happen, they would be afraid of it).

So... that's just my feeling. Domestic partners with some rights afforded to married couples... but not much else except lip service.

I hope I'm wrong about this...

[aquart]

2. What I think will happen?

It's going to go state by state. More easily if there's a liberalizing spirit in the country, harder if there a morality police crackdown. The more established it gets, the easier it gets for the next state.

The more states that pass gay marriage or civil union laws, the better the odds of a federal law legalizing whatever can be gotten from Congress (attend meetings of ANY elective office candidate and MAKE it an issue by just ASKING: Will you vote for legalizing gay marriage? Will you present a bill to legalize gay marriage? Start local and move up the status chain.) because it's just so much easier if laws are relatively standardized. That's why a majority of states have to do it first. When it's no biggie at home where the fundraisers are, it won't be a biggie for Congress.

As for a timeline? We've never had a woman president. We've never had a black president. And, unless it's true about Lincoln, we've never had a gay president. And for sure we've never had an openly gay president. So you might say we've got a lot to work on, and those weddings are just one issue.

Not to mention, Bush has done so much damage, just setting the place to rights may take all the next four years.

But it's not like you plan to give up, is it?

[Kucinich4America]

3. Actually, it's very possible that there was a gay president. Besides Lincoln.

http://www.tompaine.com/Archive/scontent/2458.html

[lapfog_1]

4. Yes, state by state is the way to go

and it may be the only issue which will be fought at the national level is the "full faith and credit" clause (Article IV Section 1). Hopefully, at least THAT could be enforced.

And you are right about it taking years to undo the damage done by BushCo over these last 7 years.

I was trying to make a list (in my head) and prioritize it... and post it in GD later today.

And ask the question "Which of our candidates do people here feel will address each of these issues?". To me, this is much more important than health care or even support for working class Americans or a host of other issues. We have to restore the rule of law and the meaning of the Constitution of the United States of America.

I think the first thing on the list is "signing statements"... and Patriot Act, and Military Commissions Act, and FISA and, well, this is where I need to start making a list. Of course, down the list a ways are a few things that Bill Clinton signed that haven't been so good for us, NAFTA and some other "free trade agreements"... but first lets get our rights back and rejoin civil societies by renouncing torture and upholding the Geneva Convention.

[JuniperLea]

11. Well said... eom

[magatte]

5. the Experience meme...

This has to stop.. especially tying to Imply that Obama has les Experience than JOhn Edwards. Especially when he has been an elected official twice as long as him.

[musicblind]

6. ...

This thread is about gay marriage. I stand by my opinions about experience, I did not say that you had to agree with them. That is why they are MY opinions.

[JuniperLea]

12. Yep... Bush has more experience prezidentin...

and we sure as hell don't want another Bush!

I'd choose Edwards over Obama (today, anyway) but I don't like the experience argument at all, for any of the candidates.

[jackson_dem]

7. Obama can't be trusted on this

Obama values support from anti-gay folk more the gay folks. He isn't going to jeopardize the former by fighting for civil unions for the latter. Obama proved this when he used one of the biggest anti-gay bigots to save him in South Carolina.

[JuniperLea]

13. I would agree with that...

Even if his childhood religious experiences were different, I think he is tied too tightly with (so-called) Christian churches and leaders. I don't trust anyone who would bring a (so-called) Christian speaker or performer into their fold on the campaign trail.

When I was 17, I personally witnessed a gay man being asked to leave the Assembly of God church I was attending. When he left, I did too. That was the last straw for me, and ever since that day, I've had little use for churches.

[Dawgs]

17. Then why does he belong to a church that recognizes same-sex marriage?

I think you need to get informed.

[JuniperLea]

19. Got link?

Instead of insulting people, you should try to inform! Jeez... If I wanted insults, I'd go to freaking church! fuck me!

If that's the case, why doesn't he support the cause? And why would he have a (so-called) Christian (so-called) ex-gay person perform at one of his functions?

Jeez. Ask a fucking question, state a fucking opinion, and you get insulted. I'm getting really sick of this place.

[Skinner]

8. My read on the issue of gay marriage is not actually candidate-dependent.

There may be some differences between the three frontrunners' stated positions, but I believe the outcome will be the same regardless of who is elected.

Even if a Democrat is elected, there will not be a national law legalizing same-sex marriage or legalizing civil unions. Democrats will almost certainly pass ENDA and other gay rights measures, and there is even a chance that they will overturn DOMA, but it is unlikely that they will pass any national legislation creating same-sex marriage or civil unions. Why? Because marriage is (for the most part) a state issue.

In fact, it is my understanding that congress would not be able to legislate the legalization of gay marriage across the country, except by constitutional amendment. Which is not going to happen, at least not anytime soon.

So, change is going to happen on this issue in the states. If there is a big Democratic win in 2008, then we may see some coattails that give us Democratic governors and bigger Democratic majorities in state legislatures and even some more liberal state supreme courts. This could pave the way for more legislation changing state laws to permit gay marriage or civil unions.

For this reason, the single most important issue for federal candidates (president, senators, reps) is whether they support a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. And as far as I know, almost all Democratic candidates (and even a fairly large number of Republicans) oppose a federal marriage constitutional amendment. Thankfully.

As far as I know, the only way that gay marriage or civil unions could possibly be legalized in all states across the nation would be if the US Supreme Court found marriage discrimination against gays and lesbians to be unconstitutional. That is unlikely in the current court, but if the court's ideology could shift to the left with enough Democratic appointees, it could actually happen.

[Meldread]

9. I think Skinner gave the best and most honest answer.

All three main candidates: Edwards, Obama and Hillary are pretty much identical on gay issues. The only issue that comes to my mind that there is any real difference on is Hillary does not wish to repeal all of DOMA, only a section of it.

I disagree about Obama, for the following reasons:

1. The experience thing is just a distraction. No President can be experienced in everything, and that is why they have advisors. More than experience what you need to look for is JUDGMENT. If you have good judgment you seek out those who are experienced to advise you on critical situations, and then as President you make the final call after listening to the experts. Obama has proven that he has superior judgment (at least to me) by his opposition to the Iraq War before it even began, when it was unpopular to not support it. Edward's was a co-sponsor of the bill that gave Bush the right to go to war in Iraq, and Hillary supported the bill and then made a speech on the very reasons she should have never voted yes on it in the first place.

2. Obama has a larger draw among independents and moderate Republican's and will also be able to draw out the Democratic base. Skinner eluded to the "coattail" effect. If someone is willing to vote for a Democratic President they are also likely to support a Democrat in local and State Elections who may also be on the ballot. As Skinner noted that is where the real battle is - thus I believe Obama can be used to give us maximum benefit due to his influence over independents.

[musicblind]

15. experience

Well I appreciate your defense of the experience argument. I have to admit that I have never looked at it exactly like that. I wish other people could be as polite and non insulting when discuss their candidates.

You make a good point about advisers and judgment. I need to look harder at Obama's judgment on issues. I think experience does hold some weight, but maybe not as much as I thought.

I need to spend some time thinking that issue over more thoroughly. I do still like Clinton and Edwards a lot, but that is a good point about Obama. I will have to consider it.

[Flabbergasted]

20. I agree. Well done argument...

The other factor which is highly relevant is the ability to inspire. This guy is getting people fired up and hopeful again. He's getting kids out to vote.

What better way to turn the country around than to inspire the route to change.

[JuniperLea]

10. As strongly as I support those issues...

I think they really do need to take a back seat to making sure this country still exists in the next four years. Our Constitution is in shambles and our entire planet is in jeopardy, not to mention the poverty and the starvation right here in the good ol' US of A.

If we don't pull the country back into the living, breathing world, it won't make a damn bit of difference who can marry whom. We will all be dead, or worse, if we don't make some changes now.

I hate myself for hitting "post message"... I seriously do. But I'm afraid for everyone right now, and marriage, gay or straight, are just not relevant when we are on the brink of disaster.

[Orangepeel]

14. We'd have to get legislation through Congress

all of them would sign a civil unions bill if there is one. I believe all would sign a repeal of DOMA if it came to them.

[ShadowLiberal]

16. Realistically I'd see gay rights expanded, but not gay marriage legalized

Looking at things realistically I think that all of the democratic candidates would certainly expand the rights of gays, such as repealing don't ask don't tell for starters, but marriage/civil unions will be far more difficult to get through.

If you look at the polls for support of certain rights for gays like allowing them to raise a child, the number has really gone up over the years, I don't know the exact number right now, but it's definitely over 50%. Politicians would therefore have an easier time giving gays those rights, but on marriage only around a third support it.

As much as most gay people and other liberals wouldn't like it, I think we have to win civil unions for gays first before we win the gay marriage battle. Yes there's the whole 'separate is not equal' argument I agree with, but in my opinion if we got civil unions for gays legalized and waited a few years then people would start to realize nothing is wrong with civil unions for gays, and then realize that nothing would be wrong with gay marriage.

[CK_John]

18. Another state issue which none of the candidates have any say in the matter. Will your state tackle

this issue in the next 4 yrs, that is the question.