This USA Today report that includes a link to the Massachusettes Supreme Court’s advisory opinion allowing gay marriage states “the issue has the potential to become a hot factor in the presidential campaign.”
Yet it only quotes two of the candidates.
Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry: “I believe and have fought for the principle that we should protect the fundamental rights of gay and lesbian couples from inheritance to health benefits. I believe the right answer is civil unions. I oppose gay marriage and disagree with the Massachusetts Court’s decision.”
Retired Gen. Wesley Clark: “I leave that to the states and the courts whether you call it a marriage or not, I leave up to the states and churches and synagogues and mosques.”
According to Pat Buchanan, also quoted in the article: “John Kerry, if he supports it (gay marriage), is going to be swallowing hemlock,” Buchanan said.
Despite Dennis Kucinich’s third place showing in the Washington caucuses, USA Today couldn’t be bothered to even access his opinion.
“His overriding philosophy is that same sex couples and opposite sex couples should be equal in the eyes of the law, including in marriage.” [read position in its entirety]
George Bush, on the other hand, is intent on amending the constitution to ‘protect’ an overtly religious ceremony from the clutches of people seeking sanctity of their pledges to remain faithfull to each other for a lifetime.
Again from USA Today:
“Marriage is a sacred institution between a man and a woman,” he said in the statement. “If activist judges insist on redefining marriage by court order, the only alternative will be the constitutional process. We must do what is legally necessary to defend the sanctity of marriage.”
Even if you disagree that gays should be allowed to marry the issue should be decided in your respective congregations, not by the federal government. The words in the ceremony do say, “In the name of God”, not “George Bush”, as much as you or he’d like to think so.
Americans should be resisting this obvious ploy to divert their attention from matters that are in fact the govt.’s business, like the investigation of an administration that misled our nation into an illegal war, unlike this ‘hot factor’ of who is permitted to marry in a country that exports ‘equal rights for all’ behind the barrels of guns. That anyone would seriously consider amending our constitution to placate the unfounded fears of the religious denigrates our secular society in a more egregious manner than homosexual couples seeking to establish a recognised committment to their relationships.
Take it up with your ministers, your priests, your pastors, your rabbis and any other spiritual leader I’ve forgotten to mention. Why this insistence the govt. intervene in these religious matters?
Before you do, consider the other side.