McCain and Obama Differ even as They Both Reject Gay Marriage

If Elected ... - Hopefuls Differ as They Reject Gay Marriage - Series - NYTimes.com

This is a fairly good read... and pretty balanced (from what I know about the candidates positions) [This Post Continues after the jump...]

Poll: 55% of Fla. voters support gay marriage ban

I don't want to focus on this, but it is news... I'm more concerned with how this being on the ballot effects turnout... I can't decide who it helps (if anyone)....

Right now only 55% support for the Gay Marriage ban, it needs 60% to pass, but that's 60% of the total people that actually vote one way or the other on it... some might think simply ignoring it is like voting against it. But I don't think that's true. If one person votes FOR it and no one votes against it, I think it passes.


Poll: 55% of Fla. voters support gay marriage | floridatoday.com | FLORIDA TODAY [This Post Continues after the jump...]

Golden State Gay Marriage Ban Struck Down

Pajamas Media » Golden State Gay Marriage Ban Struck Down: "

As a gay man who supports the ideas the institution of marriage embodies, I should be pleased. To some degree, I am grateful that this issue has received the attention it is getting, but I’m also troubled by the decision. To be sure, the court makes some valuable arguments about the merits of recognizing same-sex unions, but I believe those arguments should be made to the citizens of the Golden State, 62% of whom voted in 2000 to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman."

But the court overstepped its bounds in redefining an institution which has long been limited to monogamous relationships between individuals of different genders. In a democracy, the people and their elected representatives should make decisions of this magnitude.

Read on for more great comments... [This Post Continues after the jump...]

California gay marriage ban ready for Nov ballot

Well Florida and California will both be voting on gay-marriage this fall. I'm not sure who that will help in the Presidential race this time, but similar amendment in 2004 supposedly help Bush get reelected.

Backers of Calif. gay marriage ban ready to submit petitions [This Post Continues after the jump...]

Florida’s Marriage Amendment - Part 1

Ok it’s time for me to stake out a position on the Florida Marriage Amendment. Florida4Marriage.org has gotten enough signatures to get this proposed Amendment on the Nov 2008 ballot.

“Inasmuch as marriage is the legal union of only one man and one woman as husband and wife, no other legal union that is treated as marriage or the substantial equivalent thereof shall be valid or recognized.”

As far as I understand it has passed all the usual challenges and WILL be on the ballot.

Let me first say that I did NOT sign the petition even though I had an opportunity to do so. The reason I did not sign is that I thought this was TOO STRICT. I firmly believe that we need a constitutional amendment to define “marriage” as “legal union of only one man and one woman as husband and wife”. This is to prevent the Florida courts from doing what was done in Massachusetts, which is to read into the constitution a meaning that was never intended. This is badly needed.

However, the 2^nd part of the amendment does not limit the courts; it limits “the people” as represented by their legislature. It would prevent any kind of “Civil Union” or “Domestic Partnership” from being created or recognized in Florida. Even if was passed by the state legislature and signed by the Governor (and therefore supported by a majority of the people). This is what I think is too strict. Don’t get me wrong, all things being equal, I would only vote for representatives that would promise to vote against this sort of law. But do I have a right to stop a future majority from defining marriage as they see fit? (More on this later)

One reason I did not sign the petition is that I don’t think it will pass, mainly because it is too strict like I said. I even emailed the organization pushing for this asking them to rewrite the language of the amendment. Doing so would increase the chances of it being passed. We are in desperate need of passing a amendment to define marriage and control the courts, there is not as much of a need to control the legislature because it is more directly controlled by the people.

Even with the amendment, we are not fully restricting the will of the people in the future to pass any given law. They simply would be required to pass another amendment to allow Civil Unions or even “gay-marriage” if they have a 60% majority. In a way, this is good because it prevents the legislature from quickly passing a law like this without real public debate on the issue.

So I have to decide how to vote for this. On the one hand I think it is desperately needed to be a check on the power of the courts. On the other hand I think it is a little bit too strict in that it prevents a mere majority (50.1%) of voters from establishing “Civil Union” type relationships. However, it would not prevent a large majority (+60%) from doing so, and it would require enough time and public debate that it would only pass if people really supported it.

When I started writing this I was thinking I would end up saying I was going to vote against this amendment. Not signing the petition was in a way a “vote against” it, so I was leaning towards actually voting against it. But I’m not so sure now….

MarriageProtection.org

Opposition Groups
Florida Red and Blue

News Stories
Florida to vote on gay marriage ban amendment [This Post Continues after the jump...]

Maryland gets it right.

I haven't read the opinion yet, and probably won't because I have no one to really discuss it with, but from this and what I heard on NPR today, Maryland got it right.

This has nothing to do with weather gays SHOULD have the right to marry, it has to do with if the state constitution already gives them that right. Common sense and the state supreme court says it doesn't. No matter where you stand on this issue, I would hope you would agree that society has the right to make our own rules and laws. The constitutions of the US and the states protect a few rights from being infringed, but this protection was itself agreed to by a majority (or even a super majority) when the constitution was ratified. To come in decades later and reinterpret what basic rights the constitution protects is in my opinion a cop out, it short circuits the democratic process. I can guarantee you that the people who ratified the Maryland constitution never thought it would be used to force the acceptance of gay marriage.

Essentially I'm saying that the right to gay marriage needs to come from the legislature, not the courts. To claim that the right to gay marriage is "already in the constitution" is foolish and dangerous. If the language is that loose, then another group can find the right to just about anything "already" in the constitution. The abuse of "equal rights" or "equal protection" phrase is sickening in my option. There is nothing "unequal" about defining who one can marry. It is similar to defining who can park in disable parking places. I can't because I don't fit the definition of "disabled" but I'm not treated UNequally at all, because the definition is clear and applies to everyone equally.

Anyways, I'm rambling here so I'll just go to bed...


Maryland justices say no to marriage - Yahoo! News [This Post Continues after the jump...]

Married Couples Must Have Kids

I guess turn about is fair play....

Wash. initiative would require married couples to have kids

But I think there needs to be a distinction between couples how should be able to have children, but cannot (or cannot safely) due to an illness, injury, or medical condition, and couples who can never have children together no matter how healthy they both are.

But I agree that, if society wants to, couples that merely choose not to have any children, could get less of the benefits of "marriage". In these cases I think that these benefits should be tied to "families" not "marriages" or "couples". But some of that is already true.

1 - Only people with kids get per child deductions
2 - Some insurance charge only a "single" or "family" rate where childless couples pay the same as large families but get less benefits.
3 - All tax payers pay for public schools but only people with children get any direct benefit from it.
4- Kids can eat free at some restaurants, but other family members or relationships are not eligible.

I'm sure there are more...


UPDATE:
Initiative ties marriage, procreation
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politics/2003558717_nokids06m.html

Gadow said the alliance would introduce two other proposals over the next few years, one that would prohibit divorce or separation by married people who have children together and another that would make having a child together the equivalent of marriage.

Now those ARE good ideas....

But how can you have a "Family" without children? I seriously don't think any type of "couple" is the same as a "family"... not if you want words to actually have an objective meaning beyond what people "want it to mean".

The gay-rights organization Equal Rights Washington also won't endorse it, pointing out that families come in all forms, some of which don't include children.

[This Post Continues after the jump...]