Don't Press Dems On Same-Sex Marriage

The New Republic: Gay Community Shouldn't Force Candidates To Be Martyrs

(The New Republic)  This column was written by James Kirchick.

---

During last week's gay issues forum, broadcast on the cable television station LOGO and sponsored by the Human Rights Campaign (HRC), all of the Democratic presidential candidates expressed their support for legal equality for gays via civil unions. But, with the exceptions of former Alaska Senator Mike Gravel and Congressman Dennis Kucinich, they opposed calling those relationships marriage.

This seeming hypocrisy doesn't sit well with gay rights advocates. Evan Wolfson, head of the Freedom to Marry coalition and one of the intellectual fathers of gay marriage, says that, just as previous American presidents made the civil rights struggle into a national issue through the power of "moral suasion," presidential candidates ought to voice support for gay marriage today because it "creates a political, cultural and moral space for America to rise to greatness." HRC's vice president of programs, David M. Smith, says that "The most important role the presidency plays in public policy debates is the bully pulpit, to sway public opinion." And as HRC President Joe Solmonese put it after the debate, "The next president must be committed to not only doing what's achievable, but also what's right."

It would certainly be refreshing to hear a leading presidential candidate come out in favor of "what's right" and support gay marriage. But gay marriage advocates are actually doing their cause a disservice by pushing the Democratic candidates on the issue.

Of course, for those who see gay marriage as a moral right, calculations of political expedience are not the correct grounds on which to judge their tactics. But it's worth pointing out that their insistence that candidates side with them publicly carries a high cost. According to a Quinnipiac poll released the week of the gay debate, 34 percent of voters in the crucial swing state of Ohio said that if a candidate were endorsed by a gay organization it would make them less likely to vote for that candidate, while only 10 percent said it would make them more likely to vote for him (voters in the other swing states of Florida and Pennsylvania responded similarly). Gay marriage is still opposed by a substantial majority of the country. In the past 10 years, 26 states have passed constitutional amendments banning gay marriage, and a May 2007 poll found about 60 percent of Americans opposed to gay marriage. It is for this reason that gay Massachusetts Congressman Barney Frank recently said of the candidates' evasiveness on gay marriage, "It's not wrong for people trying to become president to take political considerations into account. I don't want a bunch of martyrs on my side." Even Jonathan Capehart, one of the debate panelists, who scolded Bill Richardson in The Washington Post for flubbing the question of whether homosexuality is a choice, agreed with the New Mexico governor's assessment that "The country isn't there yet on gay marriage."

Furthermore, while the president could be a powerful advocate for gay rights, gay marriage's prospects lie with the states, not the federal government, since it is the states that hold the power to issue marriage licenses. Throughout the debate over the Federal Marriage Amendment (FMA), one of the most important arguments put forth by gay marriage supporters was the federalist one: that the federal government ought not meddle in what has historically been a state issue. Last year, Wolfson wrote that the FMA "would intrude the federal government into the regulation of marriage to prevent all states and all future generations from making their own decisions on ending sex discrimination in marriage, just as they ended race discrimination in marriage a generation ago." HRC's Smith echoes the point. "Legal marriage is a creature of state governments," he told me.

Aside from being legally sound, stressing federalism is a smart political tactic. It appeals to conservatives who oppose gay marriage (like former Georgia Congressman Bob Barr) but agree that it is a subject best left for states. It also acknowledges that the president's power to enact legislation on gay marriage is extremely limited. The most a Democratic president could do is repeal the Defense of Marriage Act, passed by a Republican Congress and signed by President Clinton in 1996. This law explicitly prohibits the federal government from recognizing gay unions. It's a terrible law: Even though gay couples are equal before the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and gay couples in Vermont have the same rights as straight couples, they are still denied over 1,100 federal marriage benefits. A president could fight for its repeal, which would be a considerable accomplishment and would open the door to granting federal benefits to gay couples in states where such unions are recognized. But marriage laws themselves are still within the purview of the states.

Perhaps once elected, the next president could take a courageous stand in favor of gay marriage via a televised message to the nation, or he could express support for a gay marriage bill were one to arise in a state legislature or criticize state attempts to ban gay marriage or civil unions. As the leader of his party, a Democratic president who voiced support for gay marriage would immediately render such a position more politically viable for state legislators and rank and file party members. Smith says of the candidates, "These people are managing a political problem. ...We just need to change the political dynamic." He's right. Gay marriage advocates need to convince a substantial majority of the country that gay marriage is a moral good before pressuring presidential candidates to take a position on such a highly charged issue.

But in the present climate, asking that presidential candidates support same-sex marriage — while serving an important moral purpose — demands a significant political sacrifice. At most, gays should expect a president to act as a bulwark against congressional attempts to limit their rights and to support congressional attempts to defend those rights. This means pledging to repeal anti-gay laws like the Defense of Marriage Act and Don't Ask, Don't Tell and to sign pro-gay ones like the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, which all of the Democratic candidates have explicitly promised to do. Seeing the Democrats squirm on the issue of gay marriage may make for good political theater, but it does not make good politics.

[tcoleman12]

Make no mistake, this issue does lie with the Federal Government. Where it starts with the states, it ends up in Federal Courts. The President appoints those Federal Judges and there is no doubt that some creative judging occurs with Liberal Judges on the bench.

[mudrose-2009]

Make no mistake, this issue does lie with the Federal Government. Where it starts with the states, it ends up in Federal Courts. The President appoints those Federal Judges and there is no doubt that some creative judging occurs with Liberal Judges on the bench.
Posted by tcoleman12

It''ll take the activists at least another 10 years to change their legislatures but the amendments are in place. Presidents and the Congress appoint judges and with Alito and Roberts, we see the court coming more toward center. I don''t expect them to be legislating from the bench. This issue is a thorn in everyone''s side. There is no right to marriage and this issue is not a civil right. For a right to be violated it first has to exist. Was there ever a right? No. And marriage itself carries no right either. This to me is social re-engineering, the feminazis dream come true. No fathers. No men. Only a neutered society. This time the people were awake. Abortion caught us all off guard.

[huskerarmy]

Once again righties distorting reality:
According to Prof. Gewirtz''s study of voting records of the nine Supreme Court justices since 1994, which is how long the current group has been assembled, the most active judge is Associate Justice Clarence Thomas. He''s a mean man with John Marshall''s Axe, smiting, or voting to smite, more than his fair share of allegedly bad law, meaning allegedly unconstitutional law. And who is the most conservative justice when it comes to trampling Congressional legislation underfoot? None other than Stephen Breyer, the liberal conservatives love to hate.
http://sheridan_conlaw.typepad.com/sheridan_conlaw/activist_judges/index.html

[global_chick]

Disgusting. Why must we now bow down to homosexuals and their agenda? Who died and made them the moral authority? They represent a FRACTION of the population, maybe 1 or 2 percent.

global_chick, who died and made you the moral authority? Young people support same-*** marriage, so it''s only a matter of time until most states legalize it.

[bennyblack1]

tcoleman;
I think that you are mistaken on your politics. The Supreme Court judges are leaning on the conservative side. Judges Alito and Roberts are conservative. They make up the majority of the conservatives, whom, I believe, can accurately interpret the Constitution without stretching it. It is liberals who legislate from the bench and make broad interpretions. Liberals do not understand the fundamentals of freedom. Conservatives understand that freedom lies in discretion, responsibility, and in morality. Liberals tend to tip the scales in their favor by simply "passing a law," that no one has seen. Like, for instance, by February of 2009, we have to get rid of all our analog TV''s and radios. We will have to go digital, or not get reception. I didn''t see it or hear of it until I saw it on the shelf at K-Mart while shopping for a TV. It''s federal law, now.

[bennyblack1]

global chic;
I understand your point. 1 or 2% of the population has no business dictating to the rest of the population what they will and will not accept.

Tcoleman;
Furthermore, we do not appoint judges to appease the president or Congress. The judges are there to interpret whether either existing or proposed legislation is Constitutional. They are not to be swayed by public opinion, acceptance of a congressman, the president, or lobbyists. Their opinions are based upon the written law and the original intent of our forefathers. They are the only branch of our government that actually should NOT have a political persuasion or a label.

It isn''t 1 or 2% dictating to the other 98%. About 35 or 40 percent of Americans support same-se.x marriage, and that number is only going to increase in the tears to come. In some states, a majority support gay marriage. By 2015, it''s likely that both New York and California will allow gay marriage. People 65 and over are the only age bracket strongly against gay marriage.

[bennyblack1]

kenner 116;
It hasn''t occured to you that young people today have NO CLUE? Come on, the average high school grad has to get remedial classes in college before he can take classes worth college credit. The average high school grad graduates from high school to get away from parents, rules, regulations and want to do their own thing. Those who make it to college before they are 20 are only there to party and get into credit card debt, and maybe get a few girls knocked up. Few graduate college. The ones who don''t go to college and decide to "just work" end up getting all wrapped up in their freedom and forget responsibility. Many of the young people today are abusing drugs, alcohol, and ***. Many have felonies just out of the starting block from violence, drug dealing, and gun running. So, I want to ask you a serious question. If our nation''s young people don''t get their acts together, straighten up, and fly right, do you REALLY think they can be trusted with such responsibility?

[bennyblack1]

kenner;
Boy, you really ARE behind. There are 60% of the public that are against gay marriage, and for good reason. The population of 65 or older do not make up the majority of the 60% against gay marriage. And, I think that you will find that MAYBE, PERHAPS, 15% of the entire population is actually on the side of gay marriage, while the other 23% are undecided. By the way, I''m of the age grouping 40-65. I am against gay marriage for what homosexuals would deny were obvious reasons.

[bennyblack1]

Kenner;
Oh, and just exactly what else are young people interested in until they are in their late 20''s? Video games and cartoons. Violent movies and rappers. Gee, to think that they get their morality from these venues scares the heck out of me!

[krotec54]

This is disgusting. I just don''t understand why this group of people, wants so badly to change the world into accepting some thing that is not natural.
There is no future for this group of people. But, they are funny to watch on TV and real life as entertainment.

Well, even if you think that young people will be the downfall of America, their values will shape the law in the decades to come. I believe in tolerance and equality, not denying rights to people I don''t like. I would have to say that the younger generation has superior morals than the older.

krotec54, homosexuality is natural. It''s been around throughout human history, including ancient Greece and China. It''s also found in thousands of animal species. Just because you find it icky doesn''t mean it isn''t natural.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality#History
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_animals

[bennyblack1]

Kenner;
For the good of a nation, there are things that CANNOT be tolerated. Immorality CANNOT be tolerated, or it will destroy a city, township, county, state, and country. Immorality is a precursor to criminal rule. I mean, really, think about it. Would you tolerate a murderer? Or let him keep killing people? Would you protect yourself? Would you tolerate a thief? Or would you have him continue stealing? Would you tolerate a liar? Or would you have him continue to displace blame on someone else for his actions? Would you tolerate adultery? Or would you get divorced? Would you tolerate your kids being beat up and abused? Or would you separate from the abuser? These things that I have described are all immoral, and we are intolerant of them. Homosexuality is ALSO immoral, and for the sake of the country, we need to be intolerant of that, too. It causes confusion, disease, isolation, inferiority, and slavery. Not to mention that homosexuals can''t have children. They still have that biological time clock that rings when it''s time to have kids, which is why they want to adopt. Then, they will raise a confused generation of children, who will also be diseased, isolated, and inferior.

[krotec54]

Posted by bennyblack1
Thank you, I could not have said it any better.

[bennyblack1]

Homosexuality is NOT natural. Nor is it passed down from generation to generation like a gene. Homosexuality, like all other immorality, is SIN. And sin, IS passed from generation to generation. Laws were passed to aid men in not hurting one another by their selfishness of sin. Homosexuality is a self-gratifying SIN that hurts others, emotionally and physically, and alters the original courses of their lives. It only thinks of ITSELF. If it doesn''t get what it wants, it goes elsewhere. It is an unhealthy addiction, just like heterosexual promiscuity, which also causes disease, isolation, slavery, pregnancy, and murder through abortion. It is self-serving sin, and we need to be intolerant of that as well.

Please. How can you compare homosexuality with murder, stealing, and adultery? Homosexuality is not immoral, but bigotry is. And how does homosexuality cause slavery? You''ve completely lost it.

[krotec54]

You''ve completely lost it.
Posted by kenner116 at 12:28 AM

Think about your last entry.

[bennyblack1]

Kenner;
Homosexuality is a life altering choice that people make based on inappropriate desires. Once a heterosexual goes over to homosexuality, there is a 90% chance that he cannot ever be a heterosexual again. All he can really hope for is bi-sexuality, in which case, he will transmit STD, HIV, AIDS to another ****, bi-, or hetero- partner. He''s crossed the line. He will go back to it. He can''t just say, "I''m not a homosexual, today," and just not have homosexual relations. Once he''s gone there, IT BECOMES A COMPULSION. He/she has no choice. It is SLAVERY. Not only that, it degrades.

You can''t compare stable homosexual relationships with promiscuous heterosexuals. Promiscuity is promiscuity, whether heterosexual or homosexual. How does homosexuality hurt others? It doesn''t.

[bennyblack1]

Kenner;
Homosexuality is NOT A RACE! It is an immoral choice! You cannot be a bigot for hating something that is not only wrong, but that can do so much damage to society. We hate thievery, lying, stealing, adultery, murder, and jealousy. We should also hate homosexuality. Mind you, I said, homosexuality, not the people. They need help. Not approval.

"Once a heterosexual goes over to homosexuality." What if they were always gay? You think someone just wakes up one day and decides to be gay? Anyway, homosexual *** transmits HIV and STDs as well. Saharan Africa isn''t a gay paradise but it still has a horrible AIDS epidemic.

I meant to say "heterosexual se.x transmits HIV and STDs as well."

Why is homosexuality immoral? I really don''t understand where you are getting that from. Homophobia is a form of bigotry. Bigotry doesn''t have to be towards a race.

[bennyblack1]

Kenner;
It causes shame and confusion, and displaces the original place or position of a male or female. It damages the psyche, and creates inappropriate affections. Males are designed to be leaders, strong, and well able to take care of his own. They are to have to children, and teach their children the same values that they hold. Homosexuality causes a male to be effeminate and subserviant to stronger males and females, while they have no desire for females. A normal male is turned on by females; homos are turned on by other males. It is the same for females. Only a lesbian is more than likely to have an Amazon warrior attitude and procreate, then have the kid on her own. She gets a superiority complex, and teaches her daughters the same "Butch" lifestyle, and trains her sons to be subserviant wimps, (though some women do that anyway).It''s backwards.

[bennyblack1]

Homophobia was a made up term by homosexual psychologists. And **** Phobia, if you remember your Latin, simply means "Fear of the Same." If you want the truth, OK, here''s the truth. Yes, we as Christians are scared of homosexuals because we know that they have the potential to destroy a society. The sins of a nations brings judgement. Judgement usually comes when an entire nation becomes tolerant of sin. When a nation becomes tolerant of sin, it has been proven in the past, that homosexuality was then accepted in the nation. And through homosexuality, and the further degradation of morality, nations have been destroyed. Homosexuality is a form of judgement on a nation for its sins. It says, "God has left us."

[bennyblack1]

And, yes, while homosexuality is immoral, and according to the Bible, God hates it, he will still allow it to destroy a nation. And, we as Christians are watching our nation fall apart piece by piece, as we watch and sometimes get caught in the crossfire. Our nation is being judged. We don''t want to lose our nation.

[bennyblack1]

Kenner;
Do you have a habit of only reading the first half of anything? Then forming an opinion before the matter is finished?

[bennyblack1]

Kenner
This is a lie that a person is born gay. They are not. To say that a person is born gay is to say that they have a gene that does not exist, which by the way, is a farce. I saw the argument, and the so called, "evidence," which was a drawing of a petri dish of XY chromosones, XX chromosones...and an XY Chromosone with a partial extension on it, suggesting that he didn''t finish developing as a female. It was a DRAWING, and not actual scientific evidence. It was theory presented as the truth. And, no, you don''t just wake up and say, "I''m going to be a homosexual." It has to be introduced. The natural law imbedded in our conscience that says it''s wrong has to be seared, and then the person can be "persuaded," which is a very nice term for rape.

OK, I think that anyone who reads this can see that you are just using religion to justify your bigotry. Religion could be used to justify a lot of things, but it isn''t a valid excuse.

[bennyblack1]

Kenner;
Having a religion, and having a fear of God are two different things. I have a fear of God, or a respect for God. A person can be religious and still have no respect for God. Look at Bill and Hillary Clinton. They each own a Bible, and claim to be Baptists. Yet, have no respect for God. They may attend church services, and even endure a sermon, but they have not taken it to heart. Otherwise, half the stuff they got away with, half the stuff thy were caught doing, simply wouldn''t have happened.

[krotec54]

Thank you Brother bennyblack1
This country needs to wake up. We don''t need this degradation of morality.

And I may not have a Religion and no matter how you look at it, it just ain''t right.

[bennyblack1]

Kenner;
You simply have to understand that how a true Christian relates to society is not based on a society norm. A true Christian doesn''t just sit in a pew and fall asleep during a sermon. The difference between a true Christian and a "religious" Christian is clear. The True one has a relationship with Christ, and abides in the principles laid out in the Bible. A "religious" Christian simply uses the church as a social ladder, and lives by societal norms. A "religious" Christian will compromise his beliefs on a regular basis, while a true Christian will not.

[bennyblack1]

Again, Kenner,
Bigotry is a term used in prejudice and discrimination. It is used by people who have no understanding or education about race, creed, or gender. Bigots use erroneous information to determine their beliefs about people outside his circle of friends and family.
Let''s make this clear, I am NOT a bigot. My information is not erroneous, and my belief about homosexuality is based on truth. And the truth is not just Bible based. It is also rooted in scientific study of the effects it has on the mind as well as the body. The effects it has on the person, the family, and society. The effects it has on a nation.

[nativewoman]

Then, they will raise a confused generation of children, who will also be diseased, isolated, and inferior.
Posted by bennyblack1 at 12:13 AM : Aug 17, 2007

Homosexuality has been around since the beginning of time.

What confuses and isolates children is when they are told that they are immoral, diseased and inferior and that they don''t deserve a loving family just because they are as God made them.

http://www.galluppoll.com/content/?ci=27694
May 2007 Gallup Poll found that:

46% said that gay marriage should be valid
53% said that gay marriage should not be valid
1% had no opinion.

The same poll found the following when it asked about "Homosexuality as an Acceptable Alternative Lifestyle":

Yes No
% %
Men 53 44
Women 61 35
18-34 years 75 23
35-54 years 58 39
55+ years 45 51
Republican 36 58
Independent 60 36
Democrat 72 27

So a majority of all but two demographic categories accounted for by Gallup found that homosexuality is an acceptable alternative lifestyle. The two dissenting groups were Republicans and the 55 age group.

And look at the 18-34 age group! 75% agreed that homosexuality is an acceptable alternative lifestyle!

[bennyblack1]

your welcome, Krotec

[bennyblack1]

Keep in mind that Gallop polls are given to sectors of the public, and cannot be depended upon. Gallop polls can be developed and geared toward areas that either accept or deny something. Also, if that same Gallop poll went out tomorrow to altogether different sectors of the public, the numbers would be different.

[bennyblack1]

Furthermore, our beliefs should not be swayed by people''s opinions, but on truth. Simply because 99 people out of 100 could be wrong. Then they turn to the 1 that was right to fix it later. A blind majority (Gallop polls) doesn''t make something right or wrong. It''s the truth that makes something right or wrong. I know you''ve heard this before..."If 100 people were going to jump off a cliff to their deaths, does that mean you should, too?"

[bennyblack1]

oh..
And stealing, lying, murder, adultery, and jealousy have been around since the beginning of time. So, it''s OK if I steal from you, lie to you, kill you, screw your wife, and be jealous of you because I don''t have what you have, right? These are all immoral, and so is homosexuality. They should not be tolerated,nor should people be subject to them.

[bennyblack1]

And God didn''t create a man to be effeminate, nor a woman to be masculine. God wasn''t confused when he formed you in the womb. He had a vision of you before you were born. He made you either a man or a woman for a specific purpose in their specific roles with their specified sexual identity as male or female.

[bennyblack1]

Parents were made to be examples to their children, as well. A boy follows the example of his father, a girl follows the example of her mother. A boy will marry someone most like his mother, and a girl will marry someone most like her father. So, tell me exactly, what example children are supposed to follow if they were adopted by a same *** couple? A boy who has two mothers...uh..what example does he have? A girl who has two fathers....uh..what example does she have? Children are trained by what they see. If they are confused, they can''t make the right decision.

[zorlacskates]

no, bennyblack, you are a bigot. 50 years ago you would have been saying all the same garbage about blacks and women. and you would have been just as absolutely certain that you had "truth" on your side.

[andrewsac]

Jesus Christ, I didn''t know that we were in church tonight. Let''s turn our bibles to the pages you crazies love so much - the one about god finding *** objectionable. Whaaa! No shellfish? Oh No! No Deadliest Catch? No Lobster Wars? What will you idiots watch when THOSE go off the air?

Love your neighbor as yourself. Remember that, bigots? How about, judge not, lest you be judged? Too busy getting the splinter out of your neighbor''s eye that you forget the log in your own? What great stuff! Where do I get such great material?Oh yeah, YOUR book. Go back to college, and STUDY THIS TIME, don''t just try to get laid or drunk. That is, if you can stop stuffing the campaigns of multiple divorcee candidates who cheat on their wives, alienate their children, steal your money to give to their cronies, all the while *** you out of the culture wars you sent them to win, all while killing a major US city and killing foreign peoples who worship the SAME GOD AS YOU DO (look it up - it''s in a BOOK people).

Enough. Enough of your Republican Bull**** nonsense. A real Christian is too busy helping his fellow man on the Jerico road to bother with any of this ***. He is tending to the man that everyone passed on the road because he "wasn''t one of them". Honestly, do any of you even read your own manual?

[bennyblack1]

zorlac;
I''m not confused about the truth. I know what I believe. I know it to be truth, not just from a Biblical point of view, but from a scientific stance. Since when is upholding the truth a crime?
Oh, yeah, when people believe lies. Look yourself in the mirror. Ask yourself, "Do I believe a lie?" If you can''t look yourself in the eye and say, "No," then I''d say you need to find the truth. And the first place, is Jesus Christ. And we live in the New Testament, so please start reading the Bible in Matthew. If you want to read the Old Testament later, fine. But, get a grasp of the New Testament first.

[krotec54]

No, zorlacskates,
bennyblack is telling the truth, you all just can''t handle the truth.

[bennyblack1]

Andrew
I do love my neighbor. That''s why I''m telling him the truth. If the bridge is out and you don''t tell your friend before he drives over it to his death, did you love him? No. You killed him by withholding information.
By the way, Christianity is not a political party. So, get off that band wagon. Christianity is a relationship with Jesus Christ. Get one.

[bennyblack1]

Andrew;
said like a true hypocrite! LOL

[bennyblack1]

Well, g''nite krotec...got be up early.

And Goodnight everyone.

[nativewoman]

Furthermore, our beliefs should not be swayed by people''''s opinions, but on truth. Posted by bennyblack1 at 01:44 AM : Aug 17, 2007

Our "beliefs" should be swayed on truth? What truth? Whose truth?

Belief is a synonym for the word opinion. Look it up in the dictionary.

I agree with your point about polls however. All polls could possibly be geared to favorable groups.

So what is the source of the percentages you stated at 11:22 PM : Aug 16, 2007?

And if, as you say, polls can be geared to specific sections of the populace and are not to be trusted, why would you cite poll percentages at all? They don''t mean anything right?

[brianbwb-2009]

"...Bill Richardson in The Washington Post for flubbing the question of whether homosexuality is a choice,"

All acts of an erotic nature are done by choice. To be homosexual, or heterosexual, or even celibate is a choice. Not "doing it" or "doing it", with whomever one chooses is obviously choice. If it is an uncontrollable compulsion, then the person so compelled fits the definition of having a mental problem, and is a potential rapist.

The instinct to reproduce is real and natural, but since same gender unions cannot reproduce, those practicing same gender erotic stimulation become practitioners of nothing more than mutual non reproductive gratification, which is neither right or wrong.

It could be humorously argued that a man masturbating is technically "doing it" with a man (himself) therefore is engaging in a homosexual act, same goes for females.