Honestly, I wish everyone had civil unions and that the word marriage could be reserved for the religious expressions. So anyone could have a civil union (any combination of 2 adult people) which would cover all legal and civil matters. In addition, anyone who wanted a religious marriage could have that in the church of their choice based on that religion's requirements. That marriage would not have any legal standing - like the rest of the sacraments and such. It can be a religious milestone without being the same as a legal union.

(personal note: I am considered married by the state but not by any church or religion, so I think of it more as a civil union anyway - ymmv)

That's so scandalous... Wait, that's what the Europeans do. Civil marriage for the government, and a separate religious ceremony if you are so inclined. Also keeps the paperwork need, orderly, and done on a 9-5 basis.

I was also disappointed by Biden's response to the gay marriage question and sad that he and Palin agreed on that one point (and how gross was she, "I'm tolerant" "I'm tolerant" blah blah). I would also love to get rid of marriage and go for universal civil unions but I doubt that will happen for decades, if ever. What bugs me the most is the underlying attitude that same-sex couples are unnatural and don't deserve the "sanctity" of the title of marriage. Nonetheless, I'm voting for Obama/Biden because I'd rather have someone who reflects most of my policy stances than not... *sigh*

I struggle with this, too. While I agree that marriage should be religious & union civil, we're not there. I don't know that most people can comprehend the difference, which makes the argument that much harder to make.

Here's where I had a real problem in the debate. Palin and Biden *don't* agree, as I understand it. When she was talking about contracts, medical proxies, and such, I think (based on the campaign positions) that she was saying the things already in place that you can go through a lawyer to have done for you are okay with her, as in I could give a female partner my house if I died by putting it in my will.

I don't believe she actually supports civil unions, which would allow for whatever the fee to the magistrate it, all of those contractual exchanges to be automatic in the way they are for marriages.

I was confused about why she said she agreed with Biden. One of the talking heads said after the debate that he anticipated some fallout for her from the evangelicals today because she said that, and it's not their position.

I was disappointed to see the Obama/Biden campaign not take a stronger stance for civil rights, but I understand why they would do so. Gay marriage is as divisive an issue as abortion amongst religious folks, even as its rarely addressed directly by the president. People will vote for a candidate who otherwise promotes policies that go against their best economic interests simply because they oppose gay marriage and/or abortion. If Obama/Biden had come out in full support of gay marriage, they risk losing those hard-earned votes of moderate Republicans and some religious independents. It's the same reason why no candidate can ever speak out on or criticize the actions of Israel -- the Jewish vote is too great to dismiss.

Does it make it right? Maybe not. Is it justified? I'm leaning towards yes.

It was pretty disappointing, but I still think it's worse to vote for McCain, as far as gay rights are concerned. If you live in a red state like me, and you know your vote won't count, you can "squander" it on a third-party candidate that is more gay-marriage-friendly.

Also, I do think that we should get rid of state-sanctioned marriage altogether and do some sort of civil-union with optional religious marriage ceremonies. I'm convinced of this now just because I realize that marriage is always going to be this sticky issue that garners a lot of hysteria and hand wringing, so I think it's kind of too dangerous for Democrats to mess with. Legislate civil unions for all and leave the marryin' to the priests.

I remember my heart sinking when Biden said that they don't support gay marriage... mostly because it contradicts entirely what he'd just said before: that we shouldn't treat gay couples differently from straight couples, because it's in the Constitution.

I believe that with Democrats in control of the House, Senate, and Presidency, we're going to make more strides toward actual equality for everyone, and eventually, Democrats are going to make sure that gay couples can get married in all 50 states.... what's more, Barack Obama, who may be appointing up to 3 Supreme Court justices in his first term, will appoint justices who believe in the Equal Protection language in the Constitution -- those judges will rule in favor of allowing gay marriage because it falls within the parameters of "equal protection under the law" and true equality.

The reason that a lot of Democrats, including Obama and Biden, say they don't believe in gay marriage is because they don't want to lose votes. It's a cheap ploy and it's kinda stupid, considering that they also lose voters by saying they don't believe in that aspect of equality.

Many of us are disappointed by this, but we also realize that he has to say that because of how many homophobic people exist, and we know the right wing spin machine would spin the fuck out of that, and they wouldn't get elected at all. Meanwhile, you can trust that gay marriage is going to happen, even if they say they don't support it now. We know it's going to happen because we're going to keep working for equal rights for everyone, including gay people because they fall under the purview of everyone.

Look, I don't agree with all of Barack's policies either. But I do agree with the vast majority of his policies, and there's a lot of good language in the DNC Party Platform in regards to gay rights, so don't count them out just because of the debate.

However, you should vote for whomever you feel comfortable supporting. Don't let anyone scare you into voting anything other than your conscious.

Rachel_Setzer wrote: "Meanwhile, you can trust that gay marriage is going to happen, even if they say they don't support it now. We know it's going to happen because we're going to keep working for equal rights for everyone, including gay people because they fall under the purview of everyone."

Now THAT'S what "yes we can" means. :)

As a straight woman who is completely nonreligious, if I ever decide to spend my life with someone it would be through a civil union. I think the idea of marriage is entirely based on religion and misogynist historical practices, and should have no influence on the political (separation of church and state, much?). However, I have that CHOICE. I could get married in a church, or have a union recognized by the court, depending on what I felt like. Gay people don't have that choice, and I think it's essential that we vote for candidates who will make the road to true equality a little less rocky.

While I find it disheartening that Obama/Biden haven't come out in obvious support of gay marriage, I would also point out that even if they do support it, it would not bode well for the campaign to say they are. Unfortunately people sometimes have to not tell the whole truth in order to get elected.

I've watched the debates and both tickets talk about the subject. While the tickets say they agree about not supporting gay marriage, I really doubt they do. After years of studying nonverbal behaviors (body language, facial expression, even vocal qualities such as pitch, tone and pauses) I would say that Obama/Biden do support gay marriage but know that saying so would (unfortunately) cost them many votes.

Breaking down that portion of the debate last night, Biden emphasized that there should be no distinction legally between hetero/homosexual couples and even 'slipped' in his speech saying "we do support that committed couples in the same sex marriage...". In this portion Biden doesn't have any non-verbal inconsistencies with what he had just said.

Palin on the other had, specifically when she speaks about "not being anything but tolerant of adults in America choosing their partners", she starts off with a twitch to the right (her left) and then continues with a very slight 'no' back and forth movement of her head. When speaking about her very dear friends who disagree with her she has a definite 'yes' nod.

But going back to Biden when asked directly if he would support gay marriage his (very subtle) non-verbals point out some inconsistency. He is hesitant in saying he doesn't support it and when he says "I'm glad to hear the governor. I take her at her word obviously..." and into the "no civil rights distinction"... I almost had to laugh. Out of the entire debate that was the most inconsistent I saw his verbals and nonverbal.

I've always believed someone's nonverbal over their verbal communication because we are far less aware of the nonverbal. Just my 2 cents on the issue, and practice in explaining this to my classes on Monday (since they have this total fascination with testing my 'expertise' on nonverbal communication, lol).

I don't understand how people keep saying that Obama is a "new kind of candidate" and then defend his position on gay marriage because that's just what he has to say to get elected.

I'm not saying anyone is a "new kind of candidate" (though Palin is a "new type of scary") and I'm not neccesarily defending Obama/Biden's position on gay marriage just because it is likely what they'd have to say to get elected.

I'd say it is sad that so much of the society we live in still sees homosexuality as something other than just another version of normal. I'd say that it is sad politicians need to say one thing to get elected when they've shown in certain ways that they don't completely agree with what they are saying.

But unfortunately, we live in a society that only borderline tolerates let alone is accepting of. The whole issue is that if people were more accepting of those who are different than themselves that this would be a non-issue. :P

it is ludicrous that a man and a woman can get married when they've only known eachother for one night (e.g. disgustingly drunken las vegas sham marriages)and be awarded all of the governmental and societal benefits and joys of marriage but truly loving homosexual relationships that epitomize the loving ideals of marriage are limited to civil unions. how can people say that allowing gay marriage would bastardize the entire institution of marriage when one half of marriages end in divorce? all of the ignorant imbicils who believe this should go to old memories cafe october 6 at 8:45 p.m.