Have the candidates yet weighed in on the California marriage ruling?

[TechBear_Seattle]

Both Clinton and Obama are on the record -- repeatedly -- as unambiguously opposed to same sex marriage. Has either campaign issued a statement regarding the California ruling? If so, could someone please post links. If not, I'm taking bets that any statement of support will be extremely weak.

[chelsea0011]

1. McCain says he supports marriage between a man and woman and

then taking a mistress and dumping the wife.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

4. Sheer pandering!

:grr:

[TechBear_Seattle]

5. (Removed snarky reply)

My apologies, I did not specify just "Democratic candidates" so your comment about McCain makes sense. Sorry. :hi:

[Lone_Star_Dem]

2. If pressed the best I expect from the Dem is something about individual states rights to decide

And perhaps a bit about how the president has to respect said rights.

I don't expect there will be any changes in either of our Democrats stances on the issue. It's too hot and neither of them wish to be burned by having it wielded against them in the future. :(

McCain may go into how he finds it to be wrong and how it's a danger to "real" marriages. Then he may toss out the possibility of bombing California off the map just for good measure.

[AllentownJake]

3. I think

Bush stole the news cycle on this with his wonderful speech today.

[TechBear_Seattle]

6. So no one has any comments about Clinton's or Obama's reaction?

Why are all the devotees so silent, I have to wonder. Because they know that their candidates oppose equal rights and could only condemn the California ruling?

[anigbrowl]

11. I commented about it in other threads, just saw this one.

Obama's for states' right to decide, so I think he'll say that this proves there's no need for a federal DOMA. Meantime, even Schwarzenegger has said he'll oppose a constitutional amendment on the issue here if it makes it to the November ballot. I don't think one will pass.

[MonkeyFunk]

15. It just came out

a few hours ago. geez, give them a little time to respond.

And neither candidate will condemn the ruling.

[Neshanic]

7. No. *crickets chirping*

[JackBeck]

8. Here ya' go:

Obama statement:

"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."

Clinton statement:

"Hillary Clinton 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 that 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."

McCain statement:

?

http://www.americablog.com/2008/05/hillary-obama-and-mccain-on-ca-gay.html

[TechBear_Seattle]

9. So both Obama and Clinton say the California Court was wrong

"Hillary Clinton 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." She ignores the blatantly obvious fact that EACH AND EVERY LEGAL MARRIAGE IN THE UNITED STATES IS ALREADY A CIVIL UNION and says that Jim Crow is better than full equality, damn the constitution.

"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, too, effectively states that the California Court was wrong and makes absolutely no promise to support existing laws in Massachusetts and California, much less pursue expanding those fundamental human rights to everyone in the country. In other words, he, too, says that Jim Crow is better than full equality.

My strong dislike for both candidates is quickly shading into total hatred.

[JBoy]

10. Sadly "civil unions" are a political cop-out.

Both Barack and Hillary are triangulating on that issue. Unfortunately that's the best you get from a mainstream candidate in 2008.

[TheDonkey]

12. if civil unions have 100% of the rights of marriage they are fine by me

then we get to debate linguistics and that is ok. I just want my rights, I do not care what you call it.

[JackBeck]

14. So you believe in "separate, but equal"?

The Supreme Court in CA would disagree.

[anigbrowl]

13. Bullshit. "He respects the decision of the California Supreme Court"

Nowhere does he say that it was wrong. You are delusional.

[TechBear_Seattle]

16. "He will continue to fight for CIVIL UNIONS as President"

Civil unions, not marriage. Add in his repeated insistence that his religion requires that he oppose same-sex marriage (in direct violation of what his church actually has to say on the matter) and I stand by what I said.

Care to try again?

[anigbrowl]

23. No need to try again. You distorted what he said, and you fail.

Obama's not a crusader for gay marriage, and I haven't argued that he was. But he's not going to stand in the way of states like MA or CA that decide to go down that route, and he's committed to repealing DOMA. He said he respects the court's decision, but you chose to mischaracterize that as a statement that the court was wrong. It's untrue and you know it.

[boppers]

21. You might have mis-read the decision.

California said that couples, both gay and straight, have the same rights to form and build families.

They did not say "all churches must now accept such unions and describe them as marriages". They don't have that power.

It doesn't matter if it's called "jumping the broom", "riding the chair", "tying the knot", or "marriage", all couples have that right.

As far as Massachusetts and California accepting those rights, and other states denying it, that's a matter of precedence and the 14th amendment. As more and more multi-state (for example, coupling in CA, getting un-coupled in OR) cases hit, it will rapidly become an issue of whether or not some states can deny rights that are accepted in other states.

To address your uppercase and bolded point: EACH AND EVERY CIVIL UNION IN THE UNITED STATES IS NOT A MARRIAGE, AND EACH AND EVERY MARRIAGE IN THE UNITED STATES IS NOT A RECOGNIZED CIVIL UNION.

The FLDS liked to marry lots of girls to one man. Legally, however, he could only have one civil union at a time.

[wvbygod]

17. Both Clinton and Obama need to support the CA decision now

The first one to do so wins the primary. The delegates can quickly follow suit and choose
the winner now.

[CatsDogsBabies]

18. I live in a civil union state

and was wondering if any couple could opt for a civil union. Since marriage has so many connotations (e.g. religious) I would think that many people would choose civil unions. Perhaps it is just a matter of what you call something, but I think civil union or marriage should be options available to any couple who wants to enter into a relationship contract that is legally binding.

[TechBear_Seattle]

19. How many times must this be said?

Legal marriage is and always has been a civil union. The First Amendment REQUIRES that this be the case. No religious ceremony can create a legal marriage; no legal marriage requires the performance of a religious ceremony or any recognition from any religious institution. All that is required for legal marriage is to file the appropriate fee with the appropriate government official and have the couple take a jurat in the presence of two witnesses and someone authorized by law to take that jurat. In Maine, Florida and North Carolina, any notary public can perform this service. That religions have a related institution which also is called marriage is irrelevant.

Calling this institution "civil union" throws away centuries of American jurisprudence, as court decisions and judicial rulings regarding marriage cannot automagically be reworded to reference "civil unions" instead. Creating a parallel "marriage in name only" is inherently unequal and can never be made equal, not under our system of law. Eliminating civil marriage entirely is possible, but it means that centuries of case law would have to be repeated, very likely with different results. The only possible way to give same-sex couples access to the rights of marriage is to let them get married.

Alas, but the bigots and the ignorant won't allow that to happen.

[FrenchieCat]

20. Obama was busy defending himself being compared to Hitler.....

I'm sure he'll have a statement as soon as the GOP stops biting his neck and get off his back.

[babylonsister]

22. Just how awful was that today? Disgusting!

I was SO pissed off, but the country lost McCain's 'sentiments' about the war, where he got really weird.

[casus belli]

24. Ever think you'd see the day...

when the most powerful man in the free world pisses on diplomacy and insults others who would do differently? We have fallen so far.