Why Same-Sex Marriage is a problem. Both McCain and Obama have said that they oppose granting legal recognition to same-sex marriages.
[GAY MARRIAGE]
We Can't Suggest Things That Don't Have Wide Support.
Funny thing is, most of the really old farts in this country are actually cool with gay marriage. They understood that it was an issue of civil rights, plus benefits & entitlements that we all pay for, and just plain fairness & human decency. Or, as one crusty old dude put it, "What the Hell do I care who you marry?"
Well, there are a few guys out there (including our presidential candidates) who care less than we all do. They start freaking over the mere suggestion that we put it up to a vote, they also refuse to allow informal queries as to consensus on gay marriage, pro or con. So they shut down the rest of us. Interesting. I wonder if this is how it works in Congress. One guy starts screaming, so everybody shuts up. The most reasonable people lose, the most unreasonable win. Is that the system? I thought Obama was going to change that. He'd better get a memo out to the local Party officials. Unless he's afraid they'll start yelling. I guess, if you really believe in something, you have to be really unreasonable, and go yell at some reasonable people. But what if what you believe in IS being reasonable? But neither candidate wants to alienate voters who support marriage rights for same-sex couples. And gay and lesbian campaign donors can be a powerful force, particularly in the Democratic Party.
With just three months to go until the election, msnbc.com is presenting a weekly series, Briefing Book: Issues '08 which will assess issues and controversies that the next president must confront once he takes the oath of office. This week, the station looks at the courts and marriage. Can same-sex couples marry? Is such a right is guaranteed by state constitutions and by the United States Constitution? As these controversies make their way to the Supreme Court, will the next president have the opportunity to appoint justices who'll address these questions?
Why it’s a problem
For same-sex couples, the California Supreme Court’s May 15 ruling on marriage is a historic victory. The state’s highest court ruled that the California’s constitution protects the right of same-sex couples to marry. In doing so, the court overruled the state’s voters. In 2000, 61 percent of California voters approved a ballot measure that said “only marriage between a man and a woman is valid and recognized in California.” But the ruling poses a thorny election-year problem for both Republican John McCain and Democrat Barack Obama. With four months to go until the election, msnbc.com is presenting a weekly series, Briefing Book: Issues '08 which will assess issues and controversies that the next president must confront once he takes the oath of office.
This week, the station look at the courts and marriage. Can same-sex couples marry? Is such a right is guaranteed by state constitutions and by the United States Constitution? As these controversies make their way to the Supreme Court, will the next president have the opportunity to appoint justices who'll address these questions? McCain cannot afford to forfeit the support of conservatives in his party who abhor gay marriage and who believe the California ruling is an example of judges imposing social policy changes on the electorate. Apart from California, same-sex marriage is recognized only in Massachusetts, where the state’s highest court ruled in 2004 that the state’s constitution implied protection for marriages between two people of the same sex. Forty-five states have laws prohibiting same-sex marriages, including 26 states with constitutional amendments that define marriage in the traditional terms: one man and one woman. The California Supreme Court ruling may pose a problem for the 45 states that do not recognize same-sex marriages — if the United States Supreme Court eventually overturns the 1996 federal law called the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). That law, signed by President Clinton, says that no state shall be required to recognize any same-sex marriage performed in another state.
We Can't Suggest Things That Don't Have Wide Support.
Funny thing is, most of the really old farts in this country are actually cool with gay marriage. They understood that it was an issue of civil rights, plus benefits & entitlements that we all pay for, and just plain fairness & human decency. Or, as one crusty old dude put it, "What the Hell do I care who you marry?"
Well, there are a few guys out there (including our presidential candidates) who care less than we all do. They start freaking over the mere suggestion that we put it up to a vote, they also refuse to allow informal queries as to consensus on gay marriage, pro or con. So they shut down the rest of us. Interesting. I wonder if this is how it works in Congress. One guy starts screaming, so everybody shuts up. The most reasonable people lose, the most unreasonable win. Is that the system? I thought Obama was going to change that. He'd better get a memo out to the local Party officials. Unless he's afraid they'll start yelling. I guess, if you really believe in something, you have to be really unreasonable, and go yell at some reasonable people. But what if what you believe in IS being reasonable? But neither candidate wants to alienate voters who support marriage rights for same-sex couples. And gay and lesbian campaign donors can be a powerful force, particularly in the Democratic Party.
With just three months to go until the election, msnbc.com is presenting a weekly series, Briefing Book: Issues '08 which will assess issues and controversies that the next president must confront once he takes the oath of office. This week, the station looks at the courts and marriage. Can same-sex couples marry? Is such a right is guaranteed by state constitutions and by the United States Constitution? As these controversies make their way to the Supreme Court, will the next president have the opportunity to appoint justices who'll address these questions?
Why it’s a problem
For same-sex couples, the California Supreme Court’s May 15 ruling on marriage is a historic victory. The state’s highest court ruled that the California’s constitution protects the right of same-sex couples to marry. In doing so, the court overruled the state’s voters. In 2000, 61 percent of California voters approved a ballot measure that said “only marriage between a man and a woman is valid and recognized in California.” But the ruling poses a thorny election-year problem for both Republican John McCain and Democrat Barack Obama. With four months to go until the election, msnbc.com is presenting a weekly series, Briefing Book: Issues '08 which will assess issues and controversies that the next president must confront once he takes the oath of office.
This week, the station look at the courts and marriage. Can same-sex couples marry? Is such a right is guaranteed by state constitutions and by the United States Constitution? As these controversies make their way to the Supreme Court, will the next president have the opportunity to appoint justices who'll address these questions? McCain cannot afford to forfeit the support of conservatives in his party who abhor gay marriage and who believe the California ruling is an example of judges imposing social policy changes on the electorate. Apart from California, same-sex marriage is recognized only in Massachusetts, where the state’s highest court ruled in 2004 that the state’s constitution implied protection for marriages between two people of the same sex. Forty-five states have laws prohibiting same-sex marriages, including 26 states with constitutional amendments that define marriage in the traditional terms: one man and one woman. The California Supreme Court ruling may pose a problem for the 45 states that do not recognize same-sex marriages — if the United States Supreme Court eventually overturns the 1996 federal law called the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). That law, signed by President Clinton, says that no state shall be required to recognize any same-sex marriage performed in another state.