California Gay Marriage Issue + McCain, Clinton, Obama?

Today, the mostly republican California Supreme Court has overturned a ban on gay marriage by a vote of 4-3, declaring that state laws banning same-sex unions are discriminatory, according to an article by Kevin Drum of CBS News. The ruling affects more than 100,000 couples in California, with about 25,000 of those couples having children involved.

Before California gay couples can apply for a wedding license, they must wait for 30-days for the courts decision to take effect. This wait sounds rather simple for gays wishing to marry, but it is not. California gays have had marriage rights in the past that have been overturned. Republican Schwarzenegger has vetoed two measures before today that has resulted in keeping the ban on gay marriage in place in California.

According to the Los Angeles Times, a large group of anti-gay rights people have submitted a traditional marriage petition to be voted on in November. This petition seeks to overturn the California Supreme Court by amending the state constitution to read that only a man and woman may marry. (L.A.Times article.)

In my opinion alone, this favorable decision towards gays by the six-republican and one- democrat California Supreme Court, after years of negative gay rights republican Schwarzenegger intervention seems a bit odd. Did the mostly republican California Supreme Court make their decision today knowing that it will be voted out of reality in November?

John McCain, our republican candidate for president, has the same curious republican smudging-of-lines attitude when it comes to clarifying his exact party views on the gay rights issues. Giuliani had the gay following of supporters, when he dropped out of the presidential race the gay supporters chose to go with John McCain, but it was McCain who was instrumental in helping to block gay marriages in 2000, and again in 2006, according to the New York Sun.

For McCain with a record showing that he voted for the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act that would have added Federal mandates requiring that marriage is only between a man and a woman, the California Supreme Court decision today could not have been a happy one. McCain will almost be forced to voice his disapproval of this mostly republican decision, and this will cost him his gay voter following inherited from Giuliani. Although, McCain might not be alone in this dilemma; Hillary Clinton may have the same general problem as McCain with the California Supreme Court decision today.

Democrat Hillary Clinton has her own share of the gay vote following. Hillary Clinton, like John McCain was in favor of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act. However, Clinton was against the Federal Marriage Amendment that would have allowed an Amendment to direct that marriage was only between a man and a woman. This is Clinton standing on both sides of the gay marriage issue fence. Clinton explains her actions with the logic that she is for same-sex unions, but not same-sex marriages. (About.com)

In my opinion, Clinton seems to be in a position where she won't be able to address today's California Supreme Court decision without putting her foot into her mouth. If she goes in favor of backing up the courts, or against backing up the courts, somebody is going to pull her records and start squawking. Her gay followers like her views about letting gays live as gays and serve openly in the military, and her views about allowing gays to adopt children. She can't be seen as openly against gay families.

Obama seems to have the easiest road to walk while trying to explain his views on California's gay marriage decision. Obama has been rather quietly sincere about stating his views on gay marriage. Throughout his career he has claimed that his Christian beliefs prevent gay marriages for him, but that he is willing to allow for gay unions in his belief system, and allow for individual states to make the final call on gay marriages.

Obama claims about gay relationship rights, "Giving them a set of basic rights would allow them to experience their relationship and live their lives in a way that doesn't cause discrimination," Obama said. "I think it is the right balance to strike in this society." Sources: Chicago Daily Tribune, National Gay and Lesbian Task Force. (About.com)

In my opinion, perhaps some won't agree with Obama about his views on gay marriages, but none of us can argue that he didn't try to make his views fair for everybody involved. Obama isn't trying to court both sides of the fence to fit his needs like McCain and Clinton, and he is not trying in any way to say that his personal belief is the only correct belief that this country must follow. Obama was smart to keep himself almost neutral while explaining his feelings about gay affairs.

During the 2004 election, we saw gay rights issues take center stage on the campaign trail with pressure on Kerry to give up his pro-gay marriage stance while the Clintons were waving their gay voter lists like battle banners. This is no longer the year 2004, and our country has moved on.

Today, it doesn't look like two of the three prime candidates will benefit by addressing gay rights issues towards their campaign cause. The California Supreme Court gay marriage decision opens the door to uncomfortable questions for the candidates to answer. My guess is that if uncomfortable questions are asked, two will change the subject as a form of self preservation.