Saturday, August 18, 2007

Hillary Clinton's View on Gay Marriage

I was somewhat disappointed after watching this video. I was hoping for greater change in the past seven years since I have been gone from the Mainland. I suppose for any Presidential candidate, still today, it would be political suicide to say they think all gay people should be allowed to get married in any State they choose.

First, let me say that I am a firm believer in the First Amendment of the United States Constitution and that there should be a 'separation of church and state'. Since a large population of society views the word 'marriage' as being something that is sacred and religious, it should stay that way then. In my opinion, "marriage licenses" or "marriage certificates" should be only issued out by churches, not by the States officials. There should be a "civil union" issued out by the States officials' and that would include gay or straight unions. This would then leave the various churches to decide if they wish to issue out "marriage licenses" to gay couples or not.

Second, if it is left up to each State to decide on this issue, some states would not even allow gay people to have a "civil union". Some of these states, if it was left up to them, would allow slavery still, nay. Federal laws are set up and designed to ensure equality for all people regardless of the state they wish to reside in. Civil rights is just and equality for all. Gay people deserve the same rights and benefits afforded to straight couples that receive marriage licenses today.

Island Dyke


Island Dyke said...

FYI: Section 3 of DOMA is the part that defines marriage as between a man and a woman for the federal government and "spouse" as a married person of the opposite sex. Hillary Clinton wants to make it possible for married people in Massachusetts to file their taxes jointly and to pass on their Social Security benefits to their partners, but not for that couple to move to another state and have the same benefits.

bradinthesand said...

Ridiculous. Marriage should be available to all. Now, I don't think that churches should be forced to perform the ceremony if they don't agree. They are like big ol' private clubs.

At least for health benefits and tax reasons there shouldn't be a problem at all.

I think that people in congress are worried that they'll be branded as pro-gay instead of pro-people.

Not that there's anything wrong with that, but it's not like they have to be know as the champions of gay rights if they don't want to turn off their supporters from the right (who are off base).

They'd just be sticking up for their constituents.

rev said...

i realized it now. hmmm...could it be...possibly?

seriously, marriage should available to all who is into marriage. sand isn't im sure, but glad that he supports this.

bradinthesand said...

realized what?

Anonymous said...

ups sorry delete plz [url=].[/url]

Anonymous said...

It agree, your idea is brilliant