Reply #148: Read their responses to Question # 6

[Ms. Toad]

http://www.hrc.org/Template.cfm?Section=Home&CONTENTID=36930&TEMPLATE=/ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm

They had the luxury of time to craft written answers,they were all asked the same questions (unlike the "choice" question only Richardson had the chance to flub). They all answered the basic question in a way I find unacceptable, but given that one of the three is likely to be my choice in November I find their answers instructive:

I find Obama's answer offensive because it indicates to me a fixed position that does not match the law (which views marriage as a contract between the couple and the state, but which has provisions to accommodate religious marriages and to treat them as secular marriages so long as all other qualifications {gender of parties, relationship, age} are met). It also shows ignorance of or, refuses to acknowledge, the growing acceptance of same gender marriages within many faith communities. Respecting the religious aspects ought to logically push him toward legal recognition - at least - of the many same gender marriages that have already occurred within religious communities, rather than supporting his opposition of them. Particularly given his family history, in which his parents marriage could have obtained recognition within a faith community (like the Religious Society of Friends) long before that religious marriage was ever granted state recognition.

I find Edwards answer refreshingly honest. He says he is personally struggling - that says to me that he is open to education and change, which is consistent with growth I have seen in him on these issues.

I don't trust Clinton. She is politically expedient - just like her husband who brought us DOMA (I don't blame him for passing it, but what he could have done, with integrity, was to allow it become law without his signature). Right now, we are acceptable collateral damage, and until we become otherwise I cannot trust her (which is a general challenge I find with her - she would govern not based on her own principles, but on what would allow her to be elected a second term).