The Candidates on Marriage

• subscribe to print magazine

• 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 (5)

  Page 1 of 1 pages

  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

  Page 1 of 1 pages

• register a new account »Posting Security

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

  Username Password

    Remember me
  

  Retreive lost password »

Also by Ana Hristova

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