Thank god somebody finally said that...

I would say that marriage as a whole is a huge issue. Republicans are using "gay marriage" as a rallying point when in fact marriage as a whole is being called into question worldwide. Marriage and commitment should be broken into two parts- the "civil" aspect in which government is involved, and the "religious" aspect. As for the civil aspect, my partner and I demand and expect the same treatment as any other committed couple. Once that happens (along with the tax breaks, the ability to have a foreign partner stay in the US, etc...) if some church doesn't want to "marry" us or solemnize our reliationship, I say fair enough.
The best thing the Dems can do is to take the "gay marriage" debate and turn it into a "marriage" debate. As well, assume that the right wing gets their way with gay marriage... what next- banning no-fault divorce? Even conservatives wouldn't stand for that. Josh is right- this is not something the Dems should be running away from, they just need to expand this issue into what it really is- a)intentional discrimination against a group of people and b) whether government should be in the business of doing religious dirtywork.

I didn't notice anyone having any problem discussing gay marriage at the 43rd District Democrats Candidates Forum last night at Town Hall.

So, why do you have this myth that it's somehow a "problem" for Dems to discuss it?

Do you mean the incompetents back in DC? They're all convinced we're winning the War in Iraq ...

while I agree that it is an important discrimination/civil rights issue, I think Josh is missing the point. The Repugs don't bring this up because they think it is so important, they bring it up to curry votes from the zeolots. Just because one (correctly) points out that the Repugs are throwing out red herrings to distract from the mess they have made doesn't mean that one discounts or overlooks the issue. The Dems are just calling out the BS.

I agree with all of the above, but in the Dems defense, they also surely meant that everyone knew that no such measure had a chance of passing and that the anti-gay ammendment, like the silly flag-burning ammendment, was purely symbolic, to show conservative voters who is for or against. Of course, that's what the Dems are afraid of, but I agree that it is a waste of time if it is pure Republican politics and grandstanding.

The Middle East is going to hell in a handbasket and North Korea could nuke this nation in due time, and World War III is apon us now, and you want to convince me that what Peter does with Paul, or Mary does with Marylou is an issue we should spend more time on than those issues?

Sorry - you have your priorities upside-down and can't convince me otherwise.

I WANT MY EQUAL RIGHTS!

And this is one of the many reasons why I'm supporting JAMIE PEDERSEN for the 43rd.

It is disingenuous of the GOP to portray the upcoming congressional elections as a moratorium on gay marriage. Short of passing a constitutional amendment it seems like there is very little a senator or representative can do to decide this issue one way or the other -- the courts and the states will continue to do so without them. So how is it unreasonable for candidates to resist being drawn into a divisive debate over an issue that has very little relevance to the job they’ll be elected to do?

You say that the Democrats need to quit pretending this isn’t an important issue. Maybe so, but I think what the Democrats really need to do is a win a goddamn election. If you want to vote for a party that takes principled stands even on unpopular, divisive issues such as this even when it keeps them from winning elections, might I suggest the Greens? For a party that has virtually no say in policy-making, they sure are right about a lot of things!

Numbers?

Talking about what is or is not the Zeitgeist without some pretty good numbers to back it up is religion, not politics.

With 55% of democrats or so opposing gay marriage and only about 27% of those supporting it identifying it as a key issue, the numbers pretty much belie your claim about the Zeitgeist.

some zeitgeist related numbers - FYI

So you're wrong, and I'd guess that your zealotry is an emotive response to your idological convictions rather than being an analytical response to political reality.

Gay marriage at a state level is great and all and the more states we get the better BUT...eventually we need FEDERALLY recognized gay marriage or civil unions (I don't really give a crap if they call it a civil union so long as I get the same benefits as straight marriage).

There are A LOT of federal benefits afforded to straight marriage that I don't get (my partners social security benefits if she were to die, joint filing tax benefits, etc., etc.).

I WANT MY EQUAL RIGHTS!

Now the chart on the page kinaido of most important issues is why it ISN'T Gay Marriage, Stupid!

Thanks for that.

The reality is that almost no one opposes gay marriage because they are concerned about the sanctity of marriage. It's simply opposition to gays. They might as well make the ballot initiative, "What do you think about the gays?" to which most of these gay marriage opponents would check the "Don't like 'em" box. Or "should gays get more or less ice cream?" to which they would vote "Less please".

Forget arguing about "marriage". Dems should be willing take on the real issue and just say that they like the gays and aren't going to vote for laws that are anti-gay. Fuck it, all straight people should start doing that. Like this, but maybe a little more emphatic.

I wish people would quit calling it "gay marriage." "Gay marriage" isn't the issue, the issue is MARRIAGE EQUALITY. And the way the question should be phrased is "do you support marriage equality for all couples?"

Being a snarky sumbitch myself, I'd usually add "without counting the innies and outies to make sure there's an odd number" but that's optional.

The whole point of societally recognized marriage is that a stable marriage creates a basic societal unit. One would think that anyone with half a brain who actually wants a stable society would recognize the benefits of allowing ALL couples who wish to enter into a stable, societally-recognized partnership to do so.

But I suppose, being the tribal primates we are, we just aren't happy unless we feel superior to someone, and gays seem to be just about the last openly-acceptable outlet for the haters.

Unfortunately, this issue is going to be decided by the courts, several decades from now. Beltway politicians are too cowardly and the American public is too homophobic for this matter to be resolved on the federal level. I hope I don't have to remind everyone that anti-miscegenation laws had to be struck down by the Supreme Court, 84 years after they were upheld in Pace v. Alabama.

Marriage equality is a very long-term fight (like 84 years long). As such, no, it's not as pressing as life-or-death issues like war, nuclear proliferation, or even health care and high energy prices.