In the week since Barack Obama announced his support for gay marriage, much of the debate has revolved around the political implications for his re-election campaign.
But as the leader of his national party, his position inevitably affects candidates up and down the ballot – including in some culturally conservative places where the national Democratic Party isn’t always an asset to begin with.
In South Dakota’s Democratic primary for the state’s at large House seat, the president’s stance unexpectedly introduced the same-sex marriage issue into the contest — and revealed a divide between the two candidates, and even between the candidates and their allies.
I think he is just pandering to us, which really irks me to no limit – I hate being used by people who don’t give a damn beyond their goals.
He owned the House and Senate for the first 2 years of his term and could have pushed anything through that he wanted to – the House couldn’t block it and there was no way for opposition to filibuster it in the Senate.
He waited on the repeal of Don’t Ask-Don’t Tell and caused a huge issue with that … and I went through that personally as I am just finishing 21 years in the military and have submitted for retirement this year.
I always said that this issue was being addressed in the wrong manner … as there are many other people who also fall into the said category of “Alternative Lifestyle” … Wilkins, atheists, non-establishment folks, Common Law relataionships … so it’s not just a gay issue.
Personally I feel that the government is already too involved in our lives – and now we want them to rule on marriage, as well as regulate it???
Bear with me ….
Gay, straight, bi, transgendered … where does ANY government have the right to determine who we can choose to take as our partner to enjoy our lives with? If people want to declare the separation of church and state – which is not in the constitution, but rather came about through a controversial Supreme Court 5-4 ruling in the ’70s – then fine … stand on the separation of church and state.
But separation is a 2-way street – if the church can’t inject themselves into the affairs of the state, then the state cannot inject itself in the affairs of the church. Under this logic the state/government has no business requiring churches to obtain marriage licenses before they preform a wedding. Continuing on this, there are recognized churches and clergy who support gay marriage and preform ceremonies all the time.
If 2 people are married in a church, who is the state to question the legitimacy of the marriage … that whole separation thing …
The fight should not be for the right to marry – we already have that granted under the freedom of religion … the fight is about failure to apply the benefits and protections of the laws equally as they apply to married couples … fight from that angle and it would win … as under the separation ruling, government cannot endorse one religion over another, and if a legitimate church recognizes a marriage, the government is compelled to as well, otherwise they are endorsing one religion over another unequally.
Just my two cents … get the politicians out of our personal lives ….
Equal rights NOW! And to our black brothers and sisters who are troubled by gay marriage. Do remind them that the Bible was used in justifying their ancestors’ very enslavement.
legal or not, we are getting married. it may be more of a gesture, but still a way to profess my undying love for my partner. Equal rights…my ass!