Op-ed: Keep Same-Sex Marriage OUT of Election

Much attention has been recently paid to the scant amount of attention both McCain and Obama are paying to gay issues. Indeed,with same-sex marriage amendments pending in three states (California, Florida and Arizona), the two candidates have been, for the most part, surprisingly mum.

I for one do not want gay marriage becoming the high-profile, lightning rod it was eight, and then again, four, years ago. And clearly after last night's Vice-Presidential debate, they don't want it to either. In a moment of awkward harmony both Palin and Biden were quick to say they supported civil unions but do not want and/or support a redefinition of marriage. There's enough mishigoss for them to discuss and debate (like, uh, the war, the economy); and without placing a moral value on which issue is more important than the other, gay marriage is simply reduced to an (un)welcome distraction that no one wants to deal with.

Why else would Tom Minnery, a senior vice president with the conservative Christian group Focus on the Family, say, "We wish it were a top issue - it seems not to be." The extremists on the right love to have "moral" issues at the forefront (family values anyone?) because they can't build consensus within their own party on other, more concrete issues...and because they love to dictate how we should all live.

Conversely, there are those among us who want the gay marriage issue to be front and center for both party's agendas. And I can appreciate the desire to have a candidate articulate his stance - and hopefully his support of gay marriage - once and for all. But let's face it: it's a loaded topic, and it's one that has the power to completely overshadow all other substantive issues because of the passion it incites from all sides.

Think about it: what is the best thing that could happen if one of the candidates came out and unequivocally supported gay marriage? This alone would dominate headlines for the next month, drowning out intelligent discourse on all other subjects (including gay rights) and would once again reduce the election to a race simply between us and them, blue and red, sinners and the saved. I say go with the guy that you believe has humanity's best interests at heart, and therein lays our best hope.

What do you think? Do you want gay marriage to be front-and-center for Obama and McCain, or are you like me - happy for it to take a backseat for now and trust that the right man will do the right thing at the right time?

(Images courtesy of Getty)

Comments

[Stephen]

Hi. Gay marriage is an important issue that our community has been working into the forefront and OUT into common public awareness. Gay marriage is most definately needed to have clarity, understanding, compassion and acceptance brought to light in and through the next administration. Gay marriage has a place in the presidential campaign and should be discussed but I feel that at this time it should not be a main topic of debate, as presidence of the war, health care and anything related directy to the current state of the economy should be the highlight at this time.

I have been an openly gay man since age 17 and I will soon be arriving to number 40, which is great to me. In this time I have seen ups and downs in the acceptance patterns of gay lifestyle and gay marriage. I was brought up catholic, studied and experienced various religions of the world and now remain to be as I choose (I am my own religion)- and God know's about it too! As a member of this community I have every intention and need to have and nurture a loving relationship with one special person. A Union is very important to me, more for spiritual reasons. I have trouble calling it a Civil Union. Likewise, I have trouble calling it marriage. I may be projecting into the future at this time but I strongly feel that there are an abundance of creative people in our community and together we can create a very positive, moralistic, ethical and meaningful name for our type of union. Perhaps there could possibly be one variation for the guys and one for the girls that defines and pertains to our specific loving unions.

I know that God has created me as a creative and loving being and wants me to reciprocate love with people and a partner and there is not one person anywhere that can interupt my communion with God. Because of many reasons regarding the marriage issue I believe with all of my emotion, knowledge and spiritual insight that I do not need to place myself in contempt with the constraints of Marriage - defined for a man and a woman. If definition is the only true barrier with opposistion then let's define ourselves further, have patience while current crisis are handled and then bring this issue to light once, for all and ever. Many Blessings to you all!

[Bob D.]

Although gay marriage is certainly not the top issue for gay or straight America at this time, I can't help but think that there is underlying homophobia in politicians who oppose gay marriage. Can we really trust them to fight for ENDA or "don't ask, don't tell" or affirming violent crimes against gays and lesbians as "hate" crimes? I think an appropriate response from someone like Obama would be "I am in favor of equal protection of the laws for all Americans." I think it is wrong for a biracial man to condone discrimination of a basic right just 40 years after Loving v. VA. Candidates do not always shy away from controversial issues. We need candidates who will not shy away from our issues. Each time we let go of one of our issues we lose a little of the tiny bit of power that we have. Although gay marriage is not currently a crucial issues, we must support candidates who will support us - or take another step backward.

[handy1]

In California, It seems as though the Republican and Religious Right, have become better organized and sophisticated. Their churches are now political voting blocks..So I fear we will be constantly winning rights only to be lost...Then slowly gotten back...

This in itself is a huge waste of money and effort...

For me the biggest issue is the war..

In my experience, the anti vietnam war movement and Civil Rights Movements paved the way for other struggles to be won and huge amounts of people to be organized...When i say organized, I mean grass roots movements that layed the groundworks for progressive conscienceness... The student unions and trade unions, Every oraganized gruop even progressive churhes...We would take the struggle everywhere we went...

The LGBTG movement needs to organize to go into the Right wing churches and make the struggle where they organize...

The beauty of this would be...

1. It would draw lines of demarcation...In a public way... What church would kick people out for being Gay...and by infiltrating we could take a stand...for correct seperation of church and politics.

Our leaders seem to have gotten so mainstream...They seem to mandate strategies and tactics without our consent...When elections can be won or lost based on sexual orientation we are not laying the ground work....

We need to organize...be part of a broad umbrella of groups that work together and unite around the most important issues, leaders are built that way...

I would like to see the majority of the Boards of Directors be actual Commmunity organizers,,That are also active in building a movement... Payed full time organizers that promote Gay Rights outside the gay community.. This is where the lines get blurry.

We are heading to really bad times...When Sarah Palin can insite crowds of people to yell Kill Obama...And not stop them...(This is overt racism)

And our Gay Democratic Leaders are not getting us to the conventions and in our local Democratic meeting places to make a mandate that ...The Democratic Party supports Gay Marriage ...This should be a goal..To build a constituency within the rank and file democrat...And hey You Republicans should do the same..

We have become such separtists yet we want assimilation so badly...

[Ben]

I find it difficult to cast my ballot for any candidate who does not clearly and unashamedly support my human rights. We have endured thousands of years of imprisonment, torture and murder, and here we are still begging for crumbs of decency. It's monstrous.

[handy1]

The main point of my previous post was to say...At first Civil Rights was a battle ground of ideology...Then (rightly so) it just became an issue of right or wrong....

After years of organizing and many deaths... President Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act...

There are states that will never have a marriage amendment...It must be nationwide....

And face it ...we have a two party system...Yet look at all the different parties...Green, Peace and Freedom, Libertarian, Independent, etc..on an on...

The party that finds a way to unite and work for all these peoples goals and ferret out our key goals giving and taking...Building a new party, That has intelligent leadership, that recruits new leaders, not career politicians...

This is a bit idealistic...but our parties are failing us, And its our fault...we let them...

[Aneet]

I hope it isn't the central issue in this election. My concern is for our country and economy. Things such as these articles deeply concern me.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2008/10/06/supreme_court/

If elected, McCain might well push the supreme court far to the right — with dramatic consequences for abortion rights, sexual privacy, diversity in schools and more.

Imagine if the Obamas had hooked up with a violently anti-American group in league with the government of Iran.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2008/10/07/palins_unamerican/index.html

[gerald hay]

How many "Straight" marriages have
lasted more than two years?
Why are Gays insisting on emulating
FAILURE?
Love your partner, make love with
your partner, dedicate yourself to
your partner but please don't make
a circus out of your relationship.
Civil Union? Yes.
Holy matrimony.............Holy Shit.

[Tom]

No.

But I'll tell you what: I think the financial meltdown in this country may be a 'blessing in disguise' for us: once again, 'it's the economy, stupid' and these marriage amendments pending in several states will go down in flames because of it.

[Stoley]

Some people need to get a clue, neither candidate is going to make any big movement for gay marriage. Both sides are more than willing to leave it up to the States to decide and thus flounder for another ten years. I for one agree that the term marriage should be left for the religious side of life and let the legal definition being civil union for both hetero and gay 'marriages'.

[Leon Duych]

As I am not a theist, it follows that I do not believe 'marriage' (or any other 'sacrament') can (or even 'could') exist.

Absent something as foolish as the 'divine', how can there be something as ridiculous as the 'divinely instituted' (a qualifying and indispensable feature of any so-called 'sacrament', including 'marriage')?

How a government like ours, espousing (as it does) Separation of Church and State(*), ever got into the 'marriage' business is beyond me. What is NOT beyond me is that (however it happened) it could not have happened constitutionally.

Wouldn't it be nice if the Supreme Court instead of having to declare something unconstitutional hadn't the option of declaring it just plain stupid?

(*)State, as in The United States of America:
The political units/divisions of and/or under The United States of America include, and are limited to:
- States/Commonwealths
- District of Columbia
- Native American reservations
- Territories/Possessions (both unorganized and explicitly self-governing)

[Rebecca]

Could it be that Vincent is friends with Sarah Palin? I DON'T CARE IF THAT WITCH MARCHED NAKED ON WASHINGTON....I WILL NOT VOTE FOR PALIN/MCCAIN!! Aside from gay rights, has anyone bothered to do any research on Sarah Palin? Look at her stance on animal rights...she filed a suit to have the Polar Bears removed from the endangered species list because they "interfere with drilling for oil". And what about her husband...he belonged to a group that wanted to seperate Alaska from the United States!

As far as gay marriage goes, I don't care what you call it...I just want the same rights as heterosexuals. Why should heterosexuals be treated superior to gays and lesbians? What right does anyone have to dictate how a person lives their life and whether or not it is right? If people would stop hiding behind religion and start thinking with the brain that God gave them, we may actually make progress. Instead, the holy rollers of the world continue to spread their messages of hate and try to take away what few rights we have.

In my opinion, I think we should send Palin/McCain to Alaska and let the Polar Bears have them.

[Esteban]

Hello! Gays and Gay Marriage are not an issue. Both sides have basically said what they think we want to know. 'I accept gays, but do not think they should marry.' It seems a dead issue when its not being fought over- when one side says yay and the other nay.
I'm almost just as offended that they think by saying they accept us, we are going to vote for them. Its not whether they accept us or not, its what they are going to do for us. Which apparently seems to be nothing- though as long as neither talks about another amendment against gay marriage, I guess I should be happy??
No, didn't work, not until the proclaimed Land of Free grants us the rights as they do in Netherlands, Canada, Spain, Belgium, Argentina, England, and even Mexico has civil unions (which is a step in the right direction).

[Kenneth]

Marriage is the word covering two people vowing to spend their live togethe and procreate the race.
Since we cannot perform, and since we are special in this sometimes dreary world, we must not b labeled with a wrong term which can become an epithet with/to us.
Let's hv a new and best Title for the union of two who are together just bcause they love each other and no other promise, implied or othrwise, which do not apply.
This will also cover heteros who do not want children and now lie by using that same teem.

[Ron]

I'm glad to read such intelligent
dialogue here for a change.
As for Gay Marrige being forefront in this political campain, I do not think it is of any real importance at this time in history. Our country is in deep trouble and regardless of the daily breaking news, there is not going to be ANY quick fix.
But it does dictate the real issues in this campaign: Economy/Education/Jobs/Social Security, the list goes on.
As for my personal views on Gay Marrige...As previously mentioned here by others, I do not see why Gays are so wanting of this right when what I see and hear is that most gay men are only really interested in, [which sickens me] is sex, sex, sex, and where ever and with who ever they can get it.
I do not see where the right of marriage comes into this scene. Other than a bunch of sex fiends just screaming for equality that really do not and cannot begin to know what being in a one on one long term monogamous relationship is all about.
As for the choice we as ppl have in this election...I do not understand how any gay person could possibly vote Republican, when they blatently Scream Out Against Gay Anything!
Go Obama!

[Joseph W. Froton]

PRICELESS!

[DMH]

This is a tough one. On the one hand, I wish gay rights were taken more seriously. There was so much hue and cry over Jeremiah Wright, but very little about Sarah Palin's "pray away the gay" church connections. On the other hand, at this point it seems that the far right determines the context for any conversation about this and many other subjects of importance (like abortion rights, pay parity, etc.), so I'm reluctant to have this battle on that turf. My hope is that if Barak Obama wins the election (and it looks as if he will) that the terms of a discussion of gay marriage (along with the other so-called "social issues") can be framed in a way that will allow for an actual dialogue and real, substantive change.

[AreYouKidding]

It's not like civil unions are vastly different or you can't visit your partner in the hospital. There are all sorts of rights we have now. You are more than likely to be carted away to an american concentration 'camp' with Obama at the helm than to be afforded rights like 'marriage'. I'll pick the one without a secret agenda and who has gay friends=Palin/McCain. They want most issues to be state decisions rather than a federal mandate. Too much government in the lives of people is no good. Keep it a state decision like most issues. Federal mandates are dangerous territory and Obama is all for communistic/socialist BIG Government in your faces! No thanks-I'll keep my freedom. Besides, Obama has dual membership in 2 political parties. He's really a "New Democrat Party" member posing as a Democrat that is allowed by the "'New Democrat Party" which is very socialistic and too much like big bro watching and communism. There are a handful of members in the US Senate who belong to that party and the Democrat Party at the same time. Remember, in communistic countries there are no rights for glbt's and you work for free. When you google american concentration camps you will not believe it but it is a real possibility; if Obama is given the keys to the kingdom. There will be dictatorship and we do not want that at all. Careful. Things are not what they seem with this man Obama.
Your fate rests in your hands and your ballot. Country before Party. Dems for McCain.

[Mike]

some of you people r such idiots but that is because you dont educate yourself Bush DID NOT steal the election!! lol Fact the NEW YORK Times had an independent acounting firm recount all the ballots and Bush won the election not by a landslide but he won--just like everyone saying Palin is not qualified to run for Vice President and OBama is qualified to run for President!!! lol I think alot of you people r jus miserable people look at your own life before u critizize others!! See things that need to be changed and make them better dont see things that need to be changed and fill them with hate!

[Reynolds Jones]

WOW -- the number of false statements in various posts here is amazing.

1. Sarah Palin did NOT support civil partnerships in Alaska -- she was advised by the AG of the state that NOT obeying an existing court decision was unconstitutional. At the time she became John McCain's running mate, she was actively supporting a state constitutional amendment to take away that protection from gay couples.

2. Senator Obama was not raised a Muslim. His father, while of Muslim extraction was either a secular Muslim or an atheist, I am unclear as to which. Senator Obama was secular until he joined Trinity UCC -- TWENTY, not ten as one poster suggested, years ago.

3. I wrote the statement that was used by Samara Barend in her 2004 race in NY Congressional 29. She has been close friends with Jonathan and I for years. She agonized over whether or not to openly support gay marriage, and I told her NO. I told her to oppose it, but support civil partnerships. I wrote the statement that she used in her debate with Randy Kuhl. Yes, the district in which she was running is the most conservative in New York State -- but I'll tell you right now, when we ask candidates to take positions that are opposed by more than half of all American voters -- we ask them to cut their own throats, and then they help no one.

There are millions of us nationwide, as one poster said -- but there are (if one extrapolates from Pathela and others "Discordance between Sexual Behavior and Self-Reported Sexual Identity: A Population-Based Survey of New York City Men" published in "The Annals of Internal Medicine" -- 19 September 2006 | Volume 145 Issue 6 | Pages 416-425 )-- then for every one of us who is out, there are two more that are still so deeply in the closet that no one knows they prefer the same sex. My own experience supports that assumption.

If we actually want to be counted as important, then the best thing we can do is work with love and patience to help younger ones come out in the actual numbers that exist. We won't succeed -- but for every percentage point we increase the number out -- we as a community gain more notice and more political clout. While 2 out of 3 of us won't admit what they are -- its remarkable we have as much as we have.

Regards,

Reyn

[AreYouKidding]

Senator Obama was raised a Muslim by his step father in Indonesia. Why hide it? Obama is also a member of "Nation of Islam" led by Louis Farrakhan who hates Jews and Gays. All members of Nation of Islam are self described Muslims. Facts, just facts. Careful. The empty slate (Obama)wants you to paint a picture that you have in your mind of him. It's a fantasy. Stick with the documented facts. He was raised a Muslim by his mom and step father in Indonesia and went to JaKarta school. Facts. His family in Kenya admire Fidel Castro and have political clout. His cousin Odinga was a political candidate and is for sharia law (Islamic extremism modeled after Fidel Castro) and yes his family in Kenya where Obama was born are Muslim. facts..just facts. Not heresay. It's all documented.
Palin is not about taking rights from Gays or anyone else for that matter. She's about preserving rights which is more than I can say about Nobama. Gay rights, like abortion is a wedge issue that is full of panic and lies. They hold us hostage for our votes over these issues. Think. They'll keep these issues unsolved so they can hijack our votes every 4 years.

[Nik]

I do not support Gay Marriage. I do support civil unions. Everyday we try to tell the church what to do, we hurt ourselves. If we supported civil unions alone, we would already have them in most states, instead we bring church into it and we ruin it for ourselves every time... Of course dressing up like clowns in public, at bars and parades and promiscuous sex probably don't help our cause either.

[Darren]

I think the right has definitely used the three "Gs" (Guns, God, and Gays) to get voter turnout in the past two elections. I think that the best thing that the Democratic candidate could do for us is speak on behalf of our rights to citizenship, equality, dignity, and the pursuit of happiness in general. Rather than coming out "for" gay marriage, which could turn off some of his constituents, I wish Obama would try to frame the issue a bit more in terms of civil rights in general. Even if he says now that he supports civil unions and not gay marriage per se, he has the kind of charisma that he could use to actually educate the public about equality and civil rights for gay people. There has not be an intelligent political discussion about gay rights from a presidential candidate in my lifetime. Because it's such a hot button issue, everyone is afraid to really talk about homosexuality. We need a candidate who can explain to the American people that, like left-handed people, gays are a minority that have existed as part of human culture since time immemorial. We need people in America to understand that gays will always be here, and a candidate who can explain how important it will be for our community's spiritual, physical, and mental to be granted equal rights from the culture at large.

[Darren]

I meant to say, "spiritual, physical, and mental health" in my comment.

[An MSW]

What's in a name? Call it bloody "Gay Peanut Butter," all we want is access to the same body of legislation / matrimonial regiemes so that we don't have to pay huge $'s to create artificial relationships for each and every gay/lez partnership time on time again.

I am a transgendered lesbian who had the great fortune to meet my partner prior to legal changes which made me "female" in the eyes of the law. The truly fucked up reality is that my marriage is in fact legal and stands as a testament to "Gay Marriage" that's ALREADY LEGAL in the United States.

The WORD is the issue... you defuse it by calling it something else and demanding equal protection under the law, NOT by falling into the Christian Fundamentalist Right-Wing trap of calling this a sociocultural issue / war.

This isn't a cultural issue, and that's where we lose. It CAN be if the spin doctors screw with it and control the dialogue, but the reality is this is a constitutional issue regarding equal protection and NOT an issue of morality.

NOBODY WITH ANY SENSE EVER SAID THAT LAWS ARE MORAL. The day we stop falling for the bullshit and take control of the conversation in terms of LAW and NOT WORDS, is the day we all receive the same LEGAL protections under the U.S. Constitution.

[Gregg]

Does Sarah Palin really support "gay-rights"? http://gaycitynews.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=20098390

Collectively, few politians will openly support an issue like "gay marriage" because it will cost them votes.

While searching for endorsements from specific groups, politians will claim to back that groups agenda item but afterwards they simply conform to their parties politics. Is gay marriage the real issue? Lets focus on the big picture, liberty and equality for LGBT people. All equal rights, not special rights!!

[mike]

I have always been leary, very leary, of using the legal system by way of state and federal courts to advance the cause of "gay rights". (I prefer the term "Queer" but that's probably neither here nor there.) The brilliant expositions that garnered the progressive, Supreme Court rulings of Brown vs. The Board of Education, or the end of legal prohibitions to inter-racial marriages, the end of officially-sanctioned discrimination in housing, employment and voting against people of colour and women, or even the still-controversial ruling that recognized a woman's right to full privacy and personal choice (Roe vs. Wade) are issues that have advanced and broadened the general definition of Constitutional liberties. While the Constitution does not specifically declare certain rights for its citizens, under the patriarchal, property-based civil society that has been the American social and legal foundation for 250+ years, it has always been understood that men, primarily caucasian men of European descent, are assumed to have implied rights that by default allow these men/citizens to maintain their superior status in the American social and legal hierarchy. By using the courts system as a legal tool to expand such implied or de facto understanding of what constitutes civil liberties into clearly defined mandates from the courts, groups heretofore excluded (women, people of colour, etc.) have been able to participate more fully in American civil and corporate society. With civil rights for Queer people, it is a more difficult challenge. For example, some gay men who are caucasian enjoy the benefits of their social status by an assumption of privilege inherent in the traditional view of the American patriarchy. The caveat to all this is that caucasian Queer men (or women or people of any non-European race or nationality) cannot openly express the fullness of their humanity because of prejudices that stem mostly from the bigoted arrogance of religious bias. Those prejudices in many cases are as deadly and vile as those that oppressed non-caucasian men and all classes of women for centuries and gave the Euro-patriarchy in its most virulent and odious form the implied "right" to oppress through violent means if necessary those groups that it saw as threatening to its implied superior social and legal status. While strong cases have been and are being made that civil liberties protections apply to ALL citizens, there is still a strong resistance to recognizing Queer people as fully equal participants in the general commonweal simply by virtue of their natural sensual, sexual and affectionational orientations. That such resistance is ongoing would imply that it is not only a question of religiously-based prejudice but also one of ignorance. Only by educating the heterosexual majority of the humanity and normalcy of same-sex orientations and refuting the erroneous argument that now dominates what is called the "conservative" judicial philosophy--that there is such a thing as a static and unchanging "natural law" and that recognition of anything that deviates from such "natural law" will disrupt and even destroy civil society--can Queer people truly change their precarious legal status. "Gay" marriage is one such issue. Heterosexuals enjoy too many implied or explicit advantages in civil society--one of those being civil marriage. What troubles heterosexuals is that they believe that somehow, by permitting same-sex couples to have their committed relationships recognized CIVILLY as equal to those of heterosexuals, the stability of civil society is in danger. Reactionary social or judicial philosophies promote foundational myths that America is a "christian nation". They also believe that only by accepting as innerrant and literally true its written traditions--i.e. the Bible--can America sustain its alleged "blessed" status among nations. The key words to this argument are "civilly recognized". No one wishes to force any religious group to perform or permit same-sex marriages to be performed in their places of worship. No one wishes to force them to recognize such relationships that conflict with their narrow interpretations of human spirituality or "natural law". But, it is important to the ideal--if not survival--of a tolerant, progressive CIVIL society that relationships between same-sex couples--as with heterosexuals, relationships that are freely chosen--be recognized as equal and necessary. What Queer people are seeking is CIVIL recognition of their relationships and the civil right to cohabitate freely within the legal definition of CIVIL marriage--not the use of government to force religious institutions to recognize within their faith communities (unless they freely choose to do so) the spiritual legitimacy of same-sex relationships. This is a very important point that is not being made in the arguments for same-sex, civil marriage. But, it is a viewpoint that can only sustain itself on the solid foundation of reasoned or rational thought by educating the heterosexual majority. Prejudice or bigotry is not natural. Sexual orientation is natural. The latter cannot be changed. But, the former can be changed--usually--if reasoned arguments based in fact are presented clearly to those who do not understand or recognize the innate humanity of Queer people and the common desire that all people share to love and be loved and to enjoy stable, loving and caring consensual relationships with the partner of their choosing. While it is comforting that the legal arguments to recognize the civil rights of Queer people to enter into civil marriages are being recognized by enlightened and principled jurists, progress cannot be made until the social attitudes against such Queer relationships are changed by educating the larger society about what is really at stake in recognizing same-sex marriages--the preservation of civil freedoms from government intrusions into the private lives of consenting adults.

[bill]

Equal is equal. We should have access to marriage. Until then, I certainly won't be attending anymore hetero marriages, unless I know both parties support us.

[daddy_bear54]

While it would be nice to be able to marry one's partner (assuming one has a partner) that is NOT the only issue this campaign is about. What good odes it do you to be married when neither one of you has a job. If you let this become a big issue and cause that old S.O.B. McCain to get in office the economy and American jobs will both go straight to hell in an hand basket and we could well have war for the next hundred years. Mark my words, make a big issue of marriage in an election year and you will do more that is contrary to your interests than that is beneficial to your interests. Don't any of you remember how the goddamned Republicans got the stupid fundies out in droves over this issue in the last election?? Why the hell does it matter whether you call it marriage or a civil union? Why do you want to completely emulate the heterosexual norm? I've never been one to mince words and I am not going to start now. Wise up before you become your own worst enemies!

[c havens]

gay rights are inportant,but there are more inportant sudjects,ie bushes war,the econamy, and the fall of the middle clase, and then how we as an nation recover .

[Nico]

As someone who has been in a long distance, bi-national relationship for over four years now and with no resolution in sight that doesn't involve breaking the law, I would love for someone to make me feel confident that something is going to happen. I don't care if we can marry. I just want immigration law to change so that I can sponsor him to be my partner just as anyone else in a "traditional" relationship could.

[Mark Leathers]

It is a matter of symantics, marriage or civil union. Once Federal sanctioning of homo-gender civil unions occurs, validating equal rights and responsibilities. Several States have done so and others will too.

[Dave]

The most important elections are being held for president, members of Congress, state houses, governorships, county and city offices. I am a progressive voter first and foremost and ridding this nation of this fetid, stinking GOP cabal is tops on my list. Gay issues cannot trump the most important of progressive issues--the economy, health care, poverty, energy investment, job creation, the blight of the two wars--in 2008. No offense intended to my gay brethren. Just my view of what must be prioritized.

[chaz]

I WOULD NOT FOCUS TOTALLT ON GAY MARRIAGE WHEN OTHER BASIC HUMAN RIGHTS FOR ALL WILL IGNORED REMEMBER, IT‘S " ALL MEN AND WOMEN SHALL BE TREATED AS INDAVISUALLY WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL". it’s LIKE A SALE FOR 20 TO 60% OFF AND WHEN YOU GET IN THE STORE, IT'S ALL ON PACIFIC ITEMS. DON'T WANT ANYONE TO COME UP SHORT. we ARE FIGHTING FOR THE RIGHTS THAT MANY OF OUR ANCESTERS HAVE FUAGHT FOR FOPR MANY YEARS, THE RIGHT TO BE CONCERNED AS HUMAN BEINGS AND TREATED SUCH. THESE MEN AND WOMEN DIED FOR US TO HAVE THAT RIGHT.

SO WHEN U R LOOKING AT THE DIFFERENT ADMENDMENTS AND PROPOSALS. TALK TO OTHERS, LOOK BETWEEN THE LINES AND SEE WHAT THE MOTIVES GATHER UP ALL THE INOFRMATION BEFORE YOU MAKE YOUR DECITION. TAKE A REAL GOOD LOOK AND SEE IF EVERYONE IS INCLUDED, YOU MIGHT JUST MISS OUT ON THE ONE THING THAT CAN HELP U BE APART OF THE HUMAN RACES ONCE AND FOR ALL

CHARLES E. GREEN

[Starjack]

It is entirely true that Clinton promised a lot and delivered crap. This is one reason I am glad the Clintons are not heading back to the White House. The nonsense about Sarah Palin being for us is quite astounding. She signed one bill that included a number of provisions including extension of benefits to a handful of gays and lesbians only because she was legally bound to sign that bill. She says she has gay friends, but with that hair and those shoes? Oh, puh-leeze! What gay men would let their straight girlfriends go out looking like that?

OK, seriously... Look at the friends she can actually name and has been recorded with -- the Church in Wassila that has been trying to convert gays with prayer, the neo-Confederate Alaska Independence Party, which is affiliated with the theocratic reactionary Constitutional Party. She has said loud and clear that these homophobic reactionaries are her friends. She's no friend of ours.

Elected officials will generally chicken out on this issue, trying to walk a "moderate line" as they did in the 60's on equality for Blacks, and too often still do on racial issues.

Yes, Clinton caved to the Republicans who pushed DOMA -- and Cheney, even with his lesbian daughter NEVER spoke up, never said ONE WORD against the homophobes he was allied with. When reporters and liberals asked him about his hypocrisy and cowardice he snapped at THEM that his daughter's life was a private matter.

Yes, the Democrats are undependable cowards. The Republicans are still so much worse. Remember who put anti-gay initiatives on the ballots of 11 states four years ago.

The important thing to remember here is the FEDERAL COURT SYSTEM! From the Supreme Court on down, the President appoints the judges subject to Senate confrimation. The GOP wants to Bork us with judges who are very right wing, trying to overturn Roe v. Wade. These judges will not rule in our favor.

This is especially important as so much of our progress has been made in the courts -- as with Connecticut last week, as with Lawrence v. Texas, which finally struck down sodomy laws across America.

Who do you want picking your judges? I am no huge fan of Obama and Biden, but they're the best we'll get in the real world.

It offends me to hear people treating the notion of my/our equal rights as debatable, and in this real world equality is rarely won at the ballot box, but much more in the courts. Much as I prefer open debate and discussion to stealth, I'm pragmatic enough to welcome equal rights "by any means necessary."

[Bryan]

Gay Marraige is something that is unattainable at this point in time. I would say Civil Unions is an appropriate goal, and it seems that all of the candidates favor that. But with all that is going on in the country, and the world, it would not be the top issuein deciding who our next President should be.

As to the question of who is better for such issues, neither party has a monopoly on moral values. Members of both parties have shone themselves to be selfish, greedy and immoral at times. The fact is that there are all kinds of people on both sides of the political spectrum. Gay rights is one of many issues facing every day Americans, and it isn't fair to box any group into a corner so that they feel they have to support one party over the other based on a "flock" mentality. I know people who do not support abortion who are Democrats and I know gay people who are Republicans. They support their party for a variety of reasons, not just one.

[new way]

I am not sure how many people noticed that both Biden and Palin said in there only debate, that they both oppose gay marraige.

Yes in some frightened way I feel this topic needs to stay out of the election, but all of America knows that republicans are the one trying to but bans on gay marraige on State levels. Wile Biden has said what he said, I am sure he will be a better aly in the long run with our rights.

Now as much as the topic is not mentioned and is displaced in the media durring this election, it is a very real issue, one that brings out issues of "family values". Another topic not discussed anymore in this election, probably due to McCain own marraige track record.

But as I said above it is the Republicans who have become our greatist threat to freedom so our real direction is by voting Democrat, not just for Obama, but I am saying to vote a full Democrat ticket. We must also concentrate our efforts in what is going on with our individual State goverments.

And as I said above the republicans have lost there "family value" foundation, we actualy have a chance this time!

But thats only a small thing we can do, however our problem is hetrosexual alliances. We are small and greatly out numbered the way to get this going is simple the GLBT community needs to also work on its image.

We are the meek, and we look week!

I must say the Evangelicals are where they are today, because well they have had all they say.

Really WTF has the GLBT community done to publicly rebut the negative campain the right wing radicals have onlieshed on us?

What have we done to fight back? Keeping our issues out of the election might very well be the worst mistake we have ever made.

We can not expect Ellen, Rosey, and Elton John to fix it for us!

[new way]

Oh yea one more thing i forgot to mention to any "tax paying American homosexual" who might actualy read this>

MMM MMMcccMMMM cough cough------

Ok here its:

Oh have we forgot that we are

"TAX PAYERS!

Yea thats right, we are tax payers, through our taxes, we have a constitional right to pursue happiness!

Marriage between consenting adults is attainable, you just have to bring to there table in that context, but its more then a right, its freedom! We pay taxes, screw the evangelicals, we should get married anyway if it makes us happy!

Who are they to try and stop us!

What are they going to do, waste tax dallors to have us arrestet, put through a trial and thrown in prison.

Hell most cops are affraid to deal with homosexuals anyway there affraid they might get aids or something!

Grow a pair! Its about freedom to pursue happiness, no jury can convict on that!

[Alexei]

I believe we as gay individuals should be more active and best of all behave accordingly to the rules of society. Giving us a respectfull place, as we are intelligent and selfdriven individuals.

[new way]

OMG why are even asking to be granted the freedom to get married.

I have read some of the post above, one reached out with the respect of other really more important issues, like the unjustified war in Iraq, a complete idiot who has ruined our economy, the fact Osoma is still free. yes I can go on and on.

You are all correct, it is just to the average repuke "republican" voter that they do not think with a normal realistic brain.

Some vote for the most insane reasons,for some repukes they vote because they "like the shoes Palin wears". or some will vote because they like the cute eliphant the repukes use for there mascott.

So yes the above issues do take center stage.

But Im not going to forget my freedom to be married and that issue takes center stage with me!

And dam it, when I am in love with a consenting adult who loves me the same way.

Im not asking for anyone to give me permision to get married!

[new way]

Yes alexie, I respect your ideas. we should "all behave accordingly to the rules of society."

That is as long as the rules behave accordingly to the rules of freedom.

You know banning Alcohol seemed like a justified rule of society, but it went against the American freedom to get happy by getting drunk.

It was the rule breakers that corrected that stupid mitake.

We are dealling with evil people, perhaps being good people ourselves will win the day, but standing idlely by and hoping they will be nice to you and let you be happy is not going to happen.

[khaisen]

I haven't read all but I wants to say I love gaylife but sometimes I think "is it for shamed?"But I think gay marring is a nice program ya I want it right now

[sereiondrea]

Hi man
+85516681220

[Justin]

I was actually pleasantly surprised that in the first presidential debate, Obama did acknowledge gay marriage in some form ("I know there are differences on same-sex marriage, but surely we can agree that our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters deserve to visit the person they love in the hospital and to live lives free of discrimination.") And one look at his site and the breadth of gay issues covered surely shows he is more concerned (read: actually concerned!) than the other candidate!

[queerplanet]

Freedom of expression.

Suppport the first amendment.

All else will follow.

Marriage? Just another fetish.

[Margaret]

I have a question, haven't we all been wanting equal rights all these years? Isn't there a separation between church and state. Why don't we fight for our civil rights first, on a federal level as it is written in the Constitution. It seems to me we would have an easier time with our civil liberties instead of fighting with the religious right.

[Caroline]

It would be nice if both parties would state just where they feel on the issue of gay rights, however I'm somewhat glad it isn't being brought up. The Right tends to use issues like abortion and gay marriage to get the Relgious Right up and arms and it wouldn't surprise me if they end up doing that this year.

I think Obama really is the best choice since McCain/Palin are part of the side that wanted to get that Amendment banning gay marriage passed....

It's just common sense in terms of who to vote for, really. And I don't really care what gay marriage is called as long as it IS equal treatment under the law. I also agree with queerplanet that we didn't lose both elections since the idiot managed to rig them both times. >_< I really hope McCain doesn't manage to do anything like that, although the cynic in me wouldn't be surprised if we get an "October Surprise."

P.S: If any of you live in California and are REALLY worried about our rights, be sure to vote NO on Prop 8 (and 4) to help secure them!