Democratic candidates for President shouldn't be taking a stance on gay marriage

[Hippo_Tron]

Marriage laws are defined by the states and the President has no control over what the states do. Whether it be civil unions or gay marriage, it's out of the President's hands completely.

What they SHOULD be saying when posed the gay marriage question is that they will push for legislation to extend all federal marriage benefits to homosexual couples that seek them and that the states can decide what they want to do about gay marriage/civil unions.

It's vague in one sense, but for all practical purposes it defines where they stand on the issue.

[Prophet 451]

1. Principle or practicality?

Really, that's what it comes down to. On principle, any two mentally competant adults who want to get married (at least, in the legal sense) should be able to do so. On a practical level, it would be political suicide to say so. Take your pick.

[BR_Parkway]

2. Not to mention repealing DOMA and "dont ask, don't tell" - those are

Federal laws, not states

[Ken Burch]

3. I understand what you're trying to do with this, but it doesn't really provide political cover

The problem is, if Democratic candidates take this stance, the GOP will have a ready-made attack ad:

"_________ won't say what (s)he thinks about changing the definition of marriage. What's (s)he got to hide? Call the________ campaign and demand an answer. I'm Pudge Pachyderm and I approved this mesage".

They probably already have the ad in the can.

It's probably better to just take a straight out position like "I'm in favor of marriage for any two adults in love who want to get married". There isn't really a middle ground on this one, and public opinion is breaking our way slowly anyway.

[idealistMO]

4. Each Candidate should state their position on DOMA

and if they would work towards repealing it.....

I wonder what Hillary would say?

I wonder what Obama would say?

I wonder what Edwards would say?