I think you will have to cross everyone off your list then. I don't think that any of the candidates in either party are in favor of gay marriage. I believe that even Hillary and Kerry have come out against it.

I'm not sure where Hillary stands on the issue...I'll be disappointed if she supports anti-gay legislation. Kerry? Who cares? I wouldn't vote for Kerry under any circumstances. Not sure about Obama either...I'm sure we'll hear if he runs. Usually, I don't vote based solely on one issue...for example, trying to find a candidate who cares about the issues that I do and is anti-abortion is often impossible. Not since Casey anyway!

Cardus,
Those that murdered Matthew demonstrated hatred...is this not correct?
Again, you didn't answer the questions I asked.
1) Who should have their rights denied?
2) Why do you believe so?

Your point????
Your answers to the other two questions????

Cardus,
For clarification purposes...
hetero= male/female partnerships.
homo= male/male,or female/female partnerships.

I guess either I'm wrong, or you don't know what these terms mean.

I'm also still waiting for your answers to my two questions.
If you are defeated in this debate, at least have the courtesy to admit it.

There is no way to really "win" this argument. I, for one, am for gay marriage but can completely see why people would be against it.

I think that civil unions are the answer, as they would give all the same rights to a couple, but would not use the word "marriage."

Sadly, most of my liberal brethren would not be happy with that, because they're so far gone that they would still think that was unequal, which means that we would be fighting for equality in words -- which is a most absurd notion when every right equal to marriage would be bestowed on these couples.

The reality is, that this issue just won't ever stop being an issue. But my generation is full of a disproportionate percentage of people who are for gay marriage -- so it's only a matter of time before we're the majority....and then true equality will occur.

the thing i ca't figure out is...what would it hurt any person to know that gays can marry? what affect would it have to anyone other than the gay people who could legally commit to another person? would i still have the life i have? sure would. would my kids? well, yes.
as for 'respect for the sanctity of marriage' as an argument, that is fairly easy to dispute, knowing how many marriages end in failure. if hetero couples are so easily swayed from a supposed commitment, just how holy is matrimony anyway??
in your religion, if your church feels a certain way regarding marriage, that's one thing...
but as far as this country, and as far as church and state being separate, and as marriage is considered a 'legal agreement', than i would think the govt has no right to declare rights for some, but not all.

which is exactly why you call it a "civil union" and then watch the mayhem that ensues. Anyone still against it would out themselves as an extremist. This way, homosexuals get the rights -- which they claim is the only thing they're after, and the Christian right gets to hold on to the semantics. Then, your left-wingers who still insisted it be called marriage would prove that they were lying the whole time, and that their agenda is about beating the Christian right, and not getting equal rights. Those on the Christian right who still wouldn't back it, would expose themselves as judgmental and proponents of inequality -- and therefore expose themselves as terrible Christians to begin with.

End of story -- everyone wins!

i just don't understand why anyone really gives a rats behind about what others do.

what is that saying about when they went after a group, i said nothing...and then another, i said nothing... and then i was the one they came for, and there was no one left to speak up. a rather crude version, but essentially correct.

The problem with calling it a "civil union" or for that matter a "grilled cheese sandwich" is that it denotes a difference! Semantics can be important if wording is used to promote certain concepts...in this case that gay folks are "different". I don't hide my opinion...I'm rather straight forward! It's not about "beating" some group or ideology...there's room on this planet for different religions, philosophies, and ideologies as long as everyone respects the rights of others (unfortunately that's the fly in the ointment...well, more like the elephant in the fridge). I use to support the idea of "civil unions" as a first step but unfortunately...a person is either accepting of others or not, there is no middle ground here...well, "middle ground" is occupied by the hypocrites who call themselves "liberal" in many (no, not all) cases. Accepting a "compromise" when it comes to equality is akin to accepting "less than human" status...and that's simply not the path out of this mess!

I totally understand the logic in what you're saying here -- but I just don't think the semantics should matter. I don't think that calling the same thing two different words should matter. I think that is a compromise that is fair to all parties.

What are we fighting for in the first place? We're fighting because the government stepped into a religious institution and gave those who enter into a religious "contract" certain benefits and rights. So if the government gives homosexual couples those very same benefits and rights, then what more is there? Parity is achieved. That really should end the story right there.

Let the religious right think that they are superior by forcing homosexuals to get those rights under a different name, let them do whatever they want. Homosexuals will be equal in the eyes of the law, and that should be all that matters.

The problem is that there are two things that you can't legislate...morality and folks opinions. When the sweeping Civil Rights legislation was passed by the federal government in the 60's, it gave us in the movement leverage but didn't give black folks equality! Women are supposedly "equal under the law" but "glass ceilings" abound...the old prejudices, the old mis-information, the old mindsets take time (generations) to overcome BUT they will always exist if reinforced by societal constructs that illuminate "differences"...that's why the words are important!

Right, but LEGALLY it did make them equal, even if it didn't change how people felt. If calling it marriage is still not going to change peoples' views (which it won't), then why delay it any further by insisting that it be called marriage? This fight becomes so much easier if people just back off of the marriage thing and ask for civil unions.

Based on this post...what does fighting for marriage accomplish? Whether it's called civil union, marriage, or "grilled cheese sandwich:D ", those who don't approve still won't approve. So if the rights can be granted faster by using a different word, then what's the hold up?

A valid point Brian...my only answer is that once you legalize differences, they become canon. Whatever term is applied, you are correct, it won't change opinions already "set in stone" but the next generation, and the one after that will take their cues from what society has "set"...if children grow up seeing the emphasis on "differences", they will believe that people are different...if they grow up seeing that all folks are given the same rights, treated the same, they will more likely accept that all folks are the same. I respect your point of view that sometimes change is best accomplished by taking "baby steps" rather than giant leaps...I learned impatience in the 60's and have never outgrown it intellectually, pragmatically...I can deal!

good good good point. just remember how attitudes are shifting on this though. Once my generation becomes the generation in charge, this won't even be an issue anymore. By and large, we don't give a **** about who marries who, and policy shifts will reflect that. By the time my kids come around, this whole argument will have been put to rest and everyone will be getting married anyway.