"I'm a Christian. And so, although I try not to have my religious beliefs dominate or determine my political views on this issue, I do believe that tradition, and my religious beliefs say that marriage is something sanctified between a man and a woman."

The phrase "We the people" in the beginning of the constitution needs to be changed "We the people of the courts". This country no longer is governed by the voice of people, but by the courts.

Perhaps that is why this is called a republic, where the minority is supposed to be protected from the tyranny of the majority. There is no constitutional basis for discriminating against one group based on religous beliefs. Perhaps soon I will be able to get married here in Pa. God willing, Praise be to God.

Perhaps that is why this is called a republic, where the minority is supposed to be protected from the tyranny of the majority. There is no constitutional basis for discriminating against one group based on religous beliefs. Perhaps soon I will be able to get married here in Pa. God willing, Praise be to God.

Perhaps soon I will be able to get married here in Pa. God willing, Praise be to God.

Well, don't count on Obama to get you there, the one to do that was Hillary.

Neither Obama or Hillary govern the State of Pennsylvania so neither one could give dragonrider his/her wish.

Although Barack Obama has said that he supports civil unions, he is against gay marriage. In an interview with the Chicago Daily Tribune, Obama said, "I'm a Christian. And so, although I try not to have my religious beliefs dominate or determine my political views on this issue, I do believe that tradition, and my religious beliefs say that marriage is something sanctified between a man and a woman."

Barack Obama did vote against a Federal Marriage Amendment and opposed the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996.

He said he would support civil unions between gay and lesbian couples, as well as letting individual states determine if marriage between gay and lesbian couples should be legalized.

"Giving them a set of basic rights would allow them to experience their relationship and live their lives in a way that doesn't cause discrimination," Obama said. "I think it is the right balance to strike in this society."
Sources: Chicago Daily Tribune, National Gay and Lesbian Task Force

Except that civil rights and equal protection under the law trump state's rights.

I've heard this middle of the road kind of talk before but I have also heard lawyers saying this would not be possible since it would bring immediate lawsuits from pro gay marriage organizations. During the civil rights movement of the 50's there was a case brought to the Supreme Court, Brown vs. the Board of Education, where the Supreme Court declared it constitutionally illegal to form any legislation that makes a people group "separate but equal".

You cannot say these 2 people have a "civil union" and these 2 people have a "marriage". Even if they both have the same rights, that would fall under the "separate but equal" label.

I understand that politicians are trying to build bridges in a very volatile issue but there really is no middle ground here. Either you call it marriage or you let it the way it is. Obama knows this so I agree with usedmeat, Obama has no intension of making it easier for gays to marry although he will try anything to deflect the issue and will probably stay on the sidelines just like Bush has been doing when states individually make the choice.

Gov. Sarah Palin vetoed a bill Thursday that sought to block the state from giving public employee benefits such as health insurance to same-sex couples.
In the first veto of an administration that isn't yet a month old, Palin said she rejected the bill despite her disagreement with a state Supreme Court order earlier this month that directed the state to offer benefits to same-sex partners of state employees.

Advice from her new attorney general said the bill passed by the Legislature was unconstitutional, she said.

"Signing this bill would be in direct violation of my oath of office," Palin said in a prepared statement released by her administration Thursday night.

More like an institution that has been the corner stone of our society, being undermined by the tyranny of the minority.

Could say the same about pro-lifers' attempts to have the Supreme Court stacked in their favor.

Perhaps that is why this is called a republic, where the minority is supposed to be protected from the tyranny of the majority. There is no constitutional basis for discriminating against one group based on religous beliefs. Perhaps soon I will be able to get married here in Pa. God willing, Praise be to God.

Which is exactly Sarah Palin's objective. She's got the political smarts to not fight the Constitution without a strong case, but she will serve as the hand of the social conservative movement in the White House, ready to influence picking U.S. Supreme Court justices, Federal judges, Justice Department employees, etc.

As will Obama and Biden if elected. Do you have a point? It's a culture war and the country is split right down the middle...

More like an institution that has been the corner stone of our society, being undermined by the tyranny of the minority.

It's a culture war and the country is split right down the middle...

Honest question:

How do you reconcile wanting to overturn Roe v Wade so the states can determine if abortion is permissable when the same party wants a constitutional amendment that prohibits gay marriage so the states will be prevented from making that determination?

Marriage is a somewhat different issue because the Constitution requires that the states recognize the laws of other states. So, if Maryland decided to be alcohol-free (prohibition), people from Maryland could come to PA and have a drink, and a PA person visiting MD could not carry alcohol into MD for their own consumption without risking arrest. But what happens when a married gay couple from Massachussetts, moves to PA for a job change? Are they married here or not? If PA has a gay marriage ban, their marriage is not recognized as such. Do you see the difference? When states individually vote on the issue, does that freeze all gay couples in the states in which they live and marriage is recognized?

There is also an objection to the idea that the Courts will determine the laws of the state, and not the legislatures and the citizens.