Gay Marriage Returns To The Campaign Trail

Analysis: California Supreme Court Decision Injects Uncertainty Into Race As Candidates Tread Carefully

(AP)  A California Supreme Court decision clearing the way for gay marriages in the state injects an element of uncertainty into a presidential race in which the Iraq war and the sputtering economy have largely overshadowed social issues.

John McCain, the GOP nominee-in-waiting whose position on the issue rankles the Republican Party's conservative base, sought to strike a delicate balance to the Thursday ruling.

He "supports the right of the people of California to recognize marriage as a unique institution sanctioning the union between a man and a woman, just as he did in his home state of Arizona," his campaign said in response. "John McCain doesn't believe judges should be making these decisions."

McCain rejected the will of the state's high court even as he tried to maintain his long-held stance that the issue should be left to the states. He suggested that he backs an effort by California's religious conservatives to put a constitutional amendment defining marriage as solely between a man and a woman on the November ballot.

The Arizona senator opposes gay marriage but, in a break with the GOP's right flank, he also opposes a federal constitutional amendment banning same-sex unions on grounds that states traditionally have decided the issue. McCain did work to ban gay marriage in Arizona, campaigning for a ballot measure there in 2006. The measure failed.

This year, there are indications that the GOP's conservative base is not nearly as energized as the Democrats' liberal base. If true, a California ballot initiative - and others in Arizona and Florida - could help mobilize dispirited conservatives to turn out in the fall there and elsewhere, and, perhaps, boost McCain's prospects.

Complicating McCain's position, his top ally in California, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, said in a statement that he respected the court's decision and would uphold the ruling. But he also said: "I will not support an amendment to the constitution that would overturn this state Supreme Court ruling."

Like McCain, Democratic rivals Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton say the marriage issue should be left to the states, and they, too, seemed to tread carefully.

"Barack Obama has always believed that same-sex couples should enjoy equal rights under the law, and he will continue to fight for civil unions as president. He respects the decision of the California Supreme Court, and continues to believe that states should make their own decisions when it comes to the issue of marriage," the Illinois senator's campaign said.

Clinton's campaign said she "believes that gay and lesbian couples in committed relationships should have the same rights and responsibilities as all Americans and believes that civil unions are the best way to achieve this goal. As president, Hillary Clinton will work to ensure same-sex couples have access to these rights and responsibilities at the federal level. She has said and continues to believe that the issue of marriage should be left to the states."

In a victory for gay-rights advocates, the California court narrowly overturned a voter-approved ban on gay marriage and said domestic partnerships are not a substitute for marriage.

Some Democrats and gay-rights advocates rejoiced. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., called the ruling "a significant milestone."

In turn, some Republicans and gay-marriage opponents vowed to press forward with their ballot initiative effort. Tony Perkins, the head of the Family Research Council, said, "It's outrageous that the court has overturned not only the historic definition of marriage, but the clear will of the people of California."

California's secretary of state is expected to rule by the end of June whether the sponsors have gathered enough signatures to put the anti-gay-marriage question on the ballot. If approved, it would trump the court's decision.

In 2004 and 2006, voters in more than 20 states approved similar measures, and conservative groups were extraordinarily active in mobilizing their rank-and-file to go to the polls to support the initiatives. Some analysts have suggested that such turnout activity helped lift President Bush to re-election over Democrat John Kerry four years ago. Others dispute the notion.

Given the Iraq war and the economy, social issues such as gay marriage have seemed to matter little so far in the 2008 presidential race.

Until midwinter, the war was the dominant concern among voters. Since then, the economy has become their top concern.

Gay marriage aside, five proposals related to other conservative issues - abortion and race-based affirmative action - have failed to even make state ballots. And, besides California, Arizona and Florida are the only other states likely to vote on a state constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage.

Now, however, conservative activists will have a talking point as they work to rally their supporters.

[kansas1946]

I would think that with all of the problems that affect Americans and their families, that no one would be spending much time on whether Joe and Brad down the street are married. That doesn''t affect me or my family on iota. This is not a religious issue. Every religion has prohibitions and laws, but no one suggests that we should force those laws and prohibitions on other Americans through legislation. When people bring up the Bible as an argument against gay families having equal benefits under the law, they are arguing apples and oranges.
Why don''t we start thinking about what we need to do about health care, energy prices, education, taxes, etc., and leave families alone.

[minnick8-2009]

The headline in here is "Gay Rights" couple . . .

Why can CBS use the word "Gay," but if I use it, it is bleeped out? What hypocrates.

[minnick8-2009]

Marriage is between a man and a woman. If two men or two woman want to have intercourse or relations in whatever way they deem likeable, it might be their choice, but it isn''t marriage and society should not lable it as such. What these "***" want is legalilzation of their actions os that they can have the benefits of marriage like tax classifications, insurance, health benefits, and on and on. They are right that what they do behind closed doors isn''t anyone''s business. However, therefore, it isn''t my business to have to pay for their long, term health care needs as a result of them dying of aids or whatever. Take your relations, and your demands for benefits back behind closed doors where it isn''t anyones business but yours and live with it.

[downsteamjim]

I want to hear Rev. White''s comments on this decision.

[tx2democrats]

Polygamy next, thats crazy talk,
we''re not Polygamy people,

but if a woman wants to take
on 2 or 3, maybe 5 husbands,
why shouldn''t she, she should
have the right to do so, it''s
hard to find a good straight man
these days, you have to combine
2 or 3 just to make
a "half-a-man".

Only woman should be allowed
to spread the best seed around
the world, she''d stamp out ignorance,
a better world we will live in.
So letter HER marry all the men
she wants, find the best seed,
and produce a better world.

[tx2democrats]

If you hug a small dog just right, you get a little glimpse of heaven.

-------------------------

thats beautiful!!!

[tx2democrats]

well-doggy! Californy has done it again,
lets get Roy Scrubs and Earl Tubbs to sing
us jingle about this little story.

THANK YOU Big "C" for being 10 years
ahead of the times. The rest of us
backwoods folks will catch up.

Once Cali turns,
it is only a matter of time for the winds
to blow East and I think
the winds are a blowing,
is that El Nino I feel, no,
it''s the Santa Ana''s......

[sgtrds-e4]

If you hug a small dog just right, you get a little glimpse of heaven.

Goodnight.

[sgtrds-e4]

Rulings like this make me proud to live in California! Rulings like this make me even more proud then I already was to be the father of a gay son and the step-father of another one. My son and step-son are completely 100% normal human beings in all senses. they live their lives as best they know how. They work, pay their bills, pay their taxes, fall in love and want families. They and their partners have every bit as much right to get married as any straight couples.

[kansas1946]

Time to make polygamy legal. After all, its consentual between adults. Those who support same-*** marriage now have ABSOLUTELY NO argument against polygamist relationships.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by lilvinnyb at 11:53 AM : May 16, 2008
**********************************

I bet to differ. We have every right to argue against polygamy, in fact, it is the same argument that makes you for marriage or civil unions for *** that makes you against polygamy.
People that support "marriage" for ***, do so because of the legal problems that is causes not to have a recognized union by the government. It affects gay families end of life issues, their social security and retirement benefits, etc.
Multiple wives or husbands causes the same legal problems for the spouses on property division, end of life issues (which wife is going to give permission to "pull the plug" or speak for you if you can''t speak for yourself.

Gay families deserve the same legal protections that any other family has.

[bks59]

those ''activists'' judges, 6 of the 7 were appointed by Republican Govenors.

[sjc_1]

The courts rule on the legality of laws. There were laws enforcing segregation before the Civil Rights Act. Those laws were not right nor legal, but courts packed with conservatives refused to deal with them.

[lilvinnyb]

Time to make polygamy legal. After all, its consentual between adults. Those who support same-*** marriage now have ABSOLUTELY NO argument against polygamist relationships.

[irliberal]

Nothing like a civil rights ruling to get the bigots thinking about *** with animals. Makes ya wonder, doesn''t it?

[libh8er]

Congratulations, CA. Once again, a few activist judges have overturned the will of the people. So, in effect, 4 people decide for millions.

What''s next.....men marrying horses? How about we not stop with one wife.....why not marry several? Why is it ''constitutional'' for homosexuals to ''marry'' and not other deviant behaviors?