Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Baltimatt

McCain favors California marriage limitations; Obama in middle

31 posts in this topic

According to group supporting the initiative

 

The sponsors of a ballot initiative that seeks to ban same-sex marriage in California say Republican presidential candidate John McCain has endorsed the measure. The ProtectMarriage.com campaign says it received an e-mail from McCain Thursday in which the Arizona senator expressed his support for the group's efforts "to recognize marriage as a unique institution between a man and a woman."

 

OK, we can put John McCain down as anti-marriage.

 

Barack Obama seems to be walking a fine line. While he says he supports civil unions, he thinks marriage is between a man and a woman, although he is not bothered by the California decision.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Obama is now opposed to the amendment.

 

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama, who previously said the issue of gay marriage should be left up to each state, has announced his opposition to a California ballot measure that would ban same-sex marriages.

 

In a letter to the Alice B. Toklas LGBT Democratic Club read Sunday at the group's annual Pride Breakfast in San Francisco, the Illinois senator said he supports extending "fully equal rights and benefits to same-sex couples under both state and federal law."

 

"And that is why I oppose the divisive and discriminatory efforts to amend the California Constitution, and similar efforts to amend the U.S. Constitution or those of other states," Obama wrote.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't vote for Obama in the primary, but this just gives me another reason to vote for him in the general

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It reads like their views are identical except McCain is more honest and decisive. Which makes me wonder why a Obama supporter would see this in his favor?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I agree with Obama .This needs to be national law Having one state one way and another is pre nonsense. Marriage is fundamental if we can't agree nationally this country is in really big trouble. It should have never be left to the states because benefits and protections should be the same no matter where a person chooses but in setting up the national standards churches should not be pentalized if they still want the sacrament to be between a man and a woman. Because in the separation of Church and States Sacraments belong onto to the Church. If they don't they there is nothing left for the churches in USA.Personally i still believe civil unions was a better solution but like eveey issue in the USA there is no compromise!And people who are so called" on the fence" are ridiculled!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I agree with Obama .This needs to be national law Having one state one way and another is pre nonsense. Marriage is fundamental if we can't agree nationally this country is in really big trouble. It should have never be left to the states because benefits and protections should be the same no matter where a person chooses but in setting up the national standards churches should not be pentalized if they still want the sacrament to be between a man and a woman. Because in the separation of Church and States Sacraments belong onto to the Church. If they don't they there is nothing left for the churches in USA.Personally i still believe civil unions was a better solution but like eveey issue in the USA there is no compromise!And people who are so called" on the fence" are ridiculled!

Obama comes down on the side of compassion MCCain is Bush 3 You are either with me or against me .Damn the other side!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While McCain opposes a federal definition of marriage as one man-one woman, he does not object to states doing the same and indeed supports the California initiative to do just that.

 

While Obama has in the past favored civil unions for same-sex couples, he now seems to be moving towards marriage equality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
While McCain opposes a federal definition of marriage as one man-one woman, he does not object to states doing the same and indeed supports the California initiative to do just that.

 

While Obama has in the past favored civil unions for same-sex couples, he now seems to be moving towards marriage equality.

Obviously MCCain like chaos that a state by state decision makes!It fits his political stragedy perfectly!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tough issue for both candidates

 

Presidential candidates can command instant national attention when they want it. But John McCain and Barack Obama each took a hushed approach to letting the world know where they stand on the California ballot measure to ban same-sex marriage. The muted announcements -- McCain supports the proposed ban, Obama opposes it -- will have little if any bearing on the presidential contest in a state that strongly favors Democrats.
Their support came in letters to groups involved in the California marriage issue.

 

His approach, no doubt, could limit Obama's reach with conservative evangelicals. But overall, the issue is a more difficult one for McCain, said Andrew Kohut, president of the Pew Research Center. "For Obama, I think it probably is a less important issue," he said, "because the kinds of people who take this very seriously on the right aren't going to vote for him, and the kind of people who take this very seriously on the left are going to vote for him."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

John--

 

As long a the Defense of Marriage Act is there, there will be problems, especially the lack of federal recognition of same-sex marriages. If it is determined that full faith and credit apply to same-sex marriages, then it is less of a problem in states that will not marry same-sex couples but will have to recognize their marriages from elsewhere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Obviously MCCain like chaos that a state by state decision makes!It fits his political stragedy perfectly!

 

Why shouldn't every state have the right to decide what fits them best? There are plenty of statewide laws that are not on a national level. Speed limits are one, tax rates or even whether to have an income tax are one, liqour sales are one, etc. If the laws of one state don't suit you, you have the option to work for change or move to another state which suits you better. That is the beauty of America. If every decision is being made by the federal government and on a national basis, why even have separate entities such as states anymore?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why shouldn't every state have the right to decide what fits them best? There are plenty of statewide laws that are not on a national level. Speed limits are one, tax rates or even whether to have an income tax are one, liqour sales are one, etc. If the laws of one state don't suit you, you have the option to work for change or move to another state which suits you better. That is the beauty of America. If every decision is being made by the federal government and on a national basis, why even have separate entities such as states anymore?

 

So I get married in one state, move to another, POOF! I am no longer married, as the new state does not recognize the marriage from my old state?

 

Marital status effects many important legal and financial aspects of our lives, it is rather important that states regognize marriages from other states, and that there is not a patchwork.

 

Can I still file as married on my 1040 for fed tax, if the new state does not recognize the marriage, and I have to file as single with them?

 

What about inheritance laws? Will my spouse (in absence of a will) NOT get a share of what I leave behind, because I had been in a nursing home in a state, just across the state line, that did not recognize my marriage?

 

If my spouse is up to the eyeballs in debt, and the creditors come after me, can I move to a state that does not recognize my marriage, and therefore get off the hook?

 

-Cynic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For same-sex married couples, filing as married is not permitted for federal taxes thanks to DOMA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why the issue? The American people don't approve of same - sex marriages.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why the issue? The American people don't approve of same - sex marriages.

 

There was a time when the majority of the American people didn't approve of interratial marriages. Should we have had laws on the books banning those as well? I got news for ya... the American people aren't always right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why the issue? The American people don't approve of same - sex marriages.

 

My mother-in-law did not approve of my marriage to her youngest daughter, so we eloped and got married by a NY State Supreme Court Justice who liked to do weddings on Saturday mornings.

 

I love her daughter and we are still married after 36 years.

 

Her other two daughters got married at great expense with big weddings, fanfare, gifts and heaps of approval from dear old mom. Both were devorced in less than 5 years. One has married two more times. The other only one more time, but she has been cohabitating with a male partner for about 10 years. I guess you'd call him my "common law brother-in-law"... not a bad guy.

 

The funny thing about this is that we all got together earlier this June when both sisters and husbands flew out from California for a week visiting us and dear old Mom up here in New England.

 

Get this.... both sisters and husbands, who have between them 9 marriages, and dear old mother-in-law who has been married 3 times (one guy died on her) are all opposed to same sex marriages. They believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman and they have been working hard on the principle for decades. My wife and I support marriage laws that allow civil unions as well as marriage between persons of the same sex.

 

Maybe being married only once does not qualify me to make a proper decision?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why shouldn't every state have the right to decide what fits them best? There are plenty of statewide laws that are not on a national level. Speed limits are one, tax rates or even whether to have an income tax are one, liqour sales are one, etc. If the laws of one state don't suit you, you have the option to work for change or move to another state which suits you better. That is the beauty of America. If every decision is being made by the federal government and on a national basis, why even have separate entities such as states anymore?
Family status should be universal in a country that calls itself the "United States". Separate laws in each state is pure non sense!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It will end up in the SC just like the DC gun control laws.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
According to group supporting the initiative

 

 

 

OK, we can put John McCain down as anti-marriage.

 

Barack Obama seems to be walking a fine line. While he says he supports civil unions, he thinks marriage is between a man and a woman, although he is not bothered by the California decision.

 

Obama wants to be on the fence on every issue either you are against or not. If he is against same sex marriage he then has to be against the California law not both ways. No pun intended.Obama is typical Washington politics pandering to the christian voter block while pandering to the gay voter block.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My mother-in-law did not approve of my marriage to her youngest daughter, so we eloped and got married by a NY State Supreme Court Justice who liked to do weddings on Saturday mornings.

 

I love her daughter and we are still married after 36 years.

 

Her other two daughters got married at great expense with big weddings, fanfare, gifts and heaps of approval from dear old mom. Both were devorced in less than 5 years. One has married two more times. The other only one more time, but she has been cohabitating with a male partner for about 10 years. I guess you'd call him my "common law brother-in-law"... not a bad guy.

 

The funny thing about this is that we all got together earlier this June when both sisters and husbands flew out from California for a week visiting us and dear old Mom up here in New England.

 

Get this.... both sisters and husbands, who have between them 9 marriages, and dear old mother-in-law who has been married 3 times (one guy died on her) are all opposed to same sex marriages. They believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman and they have been working hard on the principle for decades. My wife and I support marriage laws that allow civil unions as well as marriage between persons of the same sex.

 

Maybe being married only once does not qualify me to make a proper decision?

States should use one term Civil Unions whitch protects unions from persecution and absolute equal protection.

Marriage is a sacrament a religious ceremoney the two should have always been separate. Everyone should get a civil union from the state with basic civil rights of each union protected by the Federal Constitution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That's today. Wait a few weeks and he'll say something else.

 

Is the wind blowing, which way?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Obviously MCCain like chaos that a state by state decision makes!It fits his political stragedy perfectly!

 

Following the constitution?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's amusing watching Democrats on this issue. They know a vast majority of the public oppose gay marriage but in order to maintain their liberal credentials they are forced to come out in favor of it. Watching them twist themselves into pretzels deciding which stance is most beneficial is great fun. Obama's gymnastics were just the latest performance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
States should use one term Civil Unions whitch protects unions from persecution and absolute equal protection.

Marriage is a sacrament a religious ceremoney the two should have always been separate. Everyone should get a civil union from the state with basic civil rights of each union protected by the Federal Constitution.

 

And that's fine. I doubt people mind the term civil union which is a secular recognition. The word marriage has religious connotations which is a different matter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites