Differentiating the Obama, Edwards, Clinton positions on Gay Marriage

[Iceburg]

Some would argue that the candidates positions are virtually the same. I thought that too until I spent more time examining the candidate's relative position. After reviewing dozens of video clips of the candidates "in their own words", I'd like to share my findings, and ask you -- who do you think has the greatest will and capacity to initiate positive change for the GLBT?

All have stated that they are in favour of civil unions (separate but equal -- that's easy), and each has voiced objections to gay marriage. What's interesting to many of us in the GLBT ccommunity is understanding why the candidates endorse civil unions but object to gay marriage. Is it personal or otherwise? Does it make a difference to you if the objection raised is personal? If the candidate personally objects (to gay marriage) do you believe they are more likely or less likely to initiate steps that will lead to full equality under the law for the GLBT community?

On Obama
Obama has consistently stated that his objection to gay marriage is hinged on his personal and religous beliefs. And yet the very church that Obama belongs to (the United Church of Christ)has endorsed same sex marriage. Perhaps someone can explain Obama's apparent disconnect from his wider church's belief. Obama's contradictions and naiveté on the issue of gay marriage/religion are highlighted in this video clip of an Obama/Keyes debate.

Sadly, Obama (whose own parents' marriage would have been illegal in many states at the time of their marriage) has not made that connection that the same religous arguments were used to construct and uphold the ban on inter-racial marriages for decades.

On Edwards
Now Edwards' position is not that different from Obama's. Like Obama, his personal religous beliefs prevent him from accepting gay marriage, however he does state that his personal matters of faith shall not interfere with issues of governing. see video (FYI: Excellent question posed by on the contraditions of faith in this clip)

On Hillary
Contrast the above Obama & Edwards response to Hillary's response to the question on the :

Ellen: "you support civil unions but not gay marriage -- why"
Hillary: "uh huh..." Hillary then goes on in great length to explain what steps can be done immediately on a national level to end the discrimination and emphasizes the state role in marriage determination. Note that Hillary never says explicitly WHY she doesn't support same sex marriage. In fact she cleverly avoids answering the "why" in any direct sense. Although, we may glean the "why" from what she does and does not say in her remarks.

Hillary wisely states that she would terminate the military's "Don't ask don't tell" policy, and leaves the question of legalizing same sex marriage with state level government (where it has always resided). Hillary's experience and ability to project how to bring about change is illustrated in this footage -- she knows that a repeal of DADT must precede any expected state changes. She knows (as do the other candidates) that the legal entity of marriage IS a state issue and that it counter-productive and politically unwise to encroach on their turf regardless on the issue at hand. But I believe that she has faith that most Americans in most states (although probably not all) will eventually do the right thing once the federal branch put its own house in order and that begins with dismantling the discriminatory practices of DADT ASAP. As an aside, recall that before 1967 most state laws prohibited inter-racial marriage. And that it wasn't until 1998 and 2000 that SC and Alabama (the ClingOns) repealed its anti-miscegenation laws -- and not by margins that one would boast about either ...some 40% still objected!

So if Hillary has an "objection" to gay marriage, I assume it is that she believes that we are putting the cart before the horse -- i.e. not a personal objection, rather a professional one. Don't jump the gun -- Do what is achievable and within federal juristiction first.

In summary, on the issue of gay marriage IMHO Hillary is the only candidate that does not have a "personal" objection to gay marriage. Further, and more importantly she appears to have given the issue considerably more actionable thought than her fellow candidates. To which I conclude, that she is perhaps the only candidate that has the will, the intellect, and the experience to construct and execute a plan that will eventually lead to the lead to legalization of same sex marriage.

But heck -- You are the decider. What do you think?