Features > December 30, 2003

The Candidates on Marriage

By Ana Hristova

	Carol Moseley Braun She is one of three candidates who support gay marriage. “All of us—regardless of sexual orientation—stand to benefit from equal marriage rights because stable families strengthen our communities and neighborhoods.”
	Wesley Clark He doesn’t advocate same-sex marriage but says he favors civil unions. “People who want same-sex relationships should have exactly the same rights as people who are in conventional marriages,” said the retired Army general. “I am talking about joint domicile, rights of survivorship, insurance coverage … I think that’s essential in America today.”
	Howard Dean Though he signed a civil union bill in Vermont giving gay couples the same benefits as married couples, Dean wants to leave decisions regarding same-sex marriage to the states. “Marriage isn’t the federal government’s business,” he said. “My view is that we have to have a civil institution to provide equal rights for every single American.” He was careful not to endorse gay marriage, remarking on ABC that voters will not accept it because “marriage has a long, long history as a religious institution.”
	John Edwards Although he has stated that he supports gay adoption, he would not champion civil unions for those parents, let alone marriage. “I believe gay and lesbian Americans are entitled to equal respect and dignity under our laws. While I personally do not support gay marriage, I recognize that different states will address this in different ways.”
	Dick Gephardt He drew applause when he said that he and his wife joined PFLAG (Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays) after their daughter, Chrissy, came out. But Gephardt was one of the two candidates to vote for the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act. “Civil unions is the way to go,” he said, suggesting that neither he nor the nation is ready for gay marriage. Daughter Chrissy disagrees.
	John Kerry He has hinted that he might favor gay marriage if the idea were more popular politically and could win support in Congress. “At this particular moment in time, I don’t believe that exists,” he said. “I don’t support (gay) marriage itself because…. of how I view the world culturally.” Kerry voted against the Defense of Marriage Act.
	Dennis Kucinich He openly supports same-sex marriage and has voiced his opinion throughout the campaign. “As a matter of simple justice, it’s the right thing to do,” he said.
	Joseph Lieberman The senator is quite clear on this issue. “I am opposed to gay marriage,” he wrote in a statement adding at the same time that he supports ‘same-sex unions.’ Lieberman also voted for the Defense of Marriage act in 1996. “Marriage has a special status in our culture, our heritage, our history,” he said recently.
	Al Sharpton Al Sharpton He strongly advocates gay marriage, making no distinction between same-sex marriage and conventional marriage. “It is like asking do I support black marriage or white marriage, because the inference of the question is that gays and lesbians are not human beings that can make decisions like any other human being.”

• subscribe to print magazine

  First Name Last Name Home Address City State Zip Code Email

  2-year, 24-issues, $44.95 1-year, 12-issue, $24.95

• stay in touch with our email newsletter

  Subscribe to our regular weekly e-mail newsletter. It's packed with updates on recent and upcoming stories, events, campaigns and things every progressive should be informed about.

   

• email this article to a friend

  Your Name Your Email Recipient Email

  Personal message Thought you might be interested in this article from In These Times.

   

  Please help us prevent spam by verifying the word you see in the image above

  Send to multiple recipients. Just separate each email address with a comma.

• Reader Comments

  I do tip my hat to Dr.Dean. While in power to make a change he picked up a potentially explosive and for him politicaly destructive item and signed a bill that gave same sex couples the same rights than hetero sexual couples.
  You cannot change the puritanical America in one penstroke.

  Posted by ulla on Dec 30, 2003 at 10:57 PM

  Very interesting assortment of views!

  The Mother and the Clergyman support.

  Gephardt has a gay daughter but does not. (Hm-m-m ... will he go to her wedding if/when she has one?)

  Kucinich supports it, “just because it’s right.”

  Clark supports it, but won’t say the words.

  The other Federal legislators do what they do best ... obfuscate.

  And to Dr. Dean ...  I think it *is* the federal government’s business! We can’t have a patchwork of laws governing marriage in today’s world. Not if we are to be a “civil” union!!

  Isn’t it time we truly separated Church and state?  We should make civil marriage available to all, regardless of race, creed or sexual orientation. Then if people want to solemnize their “union” in the religion of their choice, that’s their business, not the state’s.

  Posted by Gerrie Blum on Dec 31, 2003 at 10:23 AM

  As a 55 year old Gay woman and an American from birth, it is my hope that the Gay community will think of our country first in this political year. This is not just any old political year. Our very Constitution is under attack and we will be, indeed, fortunate if we are not under military rule by this time next year.

  Of course, I can easily go along with marriage remaining a Heterosexual institution, though I would prefer to see marriage be more devoted to raising children. As a matter of fact, I think it should be more a legal contract with the children who are a product of marriage than the adult egos involved. When one observes what is going on with the children of our nation, one can only come to the conclusion that parents have abdicated much of the responsibility for Child-rearing to the government, daycare centers, nannies and others. It seems to me that child-rearing is one of the most important jobs on Earth. While many working-class couples have no choice but to work to keep a roof over their heads and food on the table, many of the school shootings have involved upper-middle class kids. The shooters at Columbine were not poor kids.

  Of course, in anything-for-a buck- America, the elderly (wisdom) is warehoused and the kids (innocence) are left to their own devices more often than not, it seems. Of more concern is how big a house and car can the parents own?

  If the state is going to involve itself in who lives with whom, then let it all be civil. Let the Churches deal with marriage as they see fit.

  Posted by Dot Dedman on Dec 31, 2003 at 12:00 PM

  I think Clark’s position is clearer than the short quote portrays.  In speeches and meetings, he clearly has differentiated “marriage” as a religious institution ("a choice by each church, temple, mosque, or other house of worship” was I think the phrase used at Exeter)—which is no business of government, just like any other belief in a religion—and “marriage” as a civil institution—whether you call it “marriage” or “civil union,” Clark has clearly stated that government cannot discriminate between committed heterosexual couples and committed homosexual couples—and clearly stated his agreement with the Massachusetts Supreme Court’s decision to that effect.

  Posted by Bruce on Jan 1, 2004 at 1:59 PM

  Here’s a start.

  Posted by Allison on Jan 12, 2004 at 3:16 PM

• register a new account »Posting Security

  To participate in our forums, please register for a free account.

  Username Password

    Remember me
  

  Retreive lost password »

Member Login

Also by Ana Hristova

• The Candidates on Marriage
  
• A Fine Mess
  The cost of civil disobedience