Gay marriage and the debates

[angus]

Both candidates have good reasons for not wanting to talk much about the issue to a general audience. Which is an interesting development in itself, actually.

True, but their wishes do not affect the agenda of the debates.

[angus]

I think gay marriage is about as cut-and-dry as a policy issue comes

How so?  Some would say that marriage is a religious institution and that the state has no business getting involved in any way.  Among those who view it as a strictly religious institution, there are those who favor allowing it because they believe that lesbian and gay people were created as such by God and should have the same rights as others and there are those who are against because they see same-sex relationships are immoral, against God's will, and subvert the goal of human sexuality, which is to produce children.  Others might argue that marriage is a civil matter with economic consequences that avail themselves to government regulation.  Still others see it as a matter of justice.  Moreover, some would argue that the tenth amendment makes it a state-by-state matter, while others would argue that it is affected by interstate commerce laws and therefore a federal matter.  I think it's hardly as simple as your post implies.

I agree with Becca that it is worth asking about.  I also agree with realistic idealist.  It's fairly low on my personal list of priorities.  But that doesn't mean that it's low on everyone's list of priorities.  It's a pretty hot issue just now, and it would be interesting to hear what the candidates have to say.  Whether or not this is one of your top five issues, both candidates have been rather shifty on the subject of same-sex marriage.  Not that there's anything wrong with shifting a bit--tectonic plates do that all the time, but I still respect the Earth.  However, a candidate's thought process on this issue gives the voter an idea of how the candidate thinks about things, in general.

[angus]

Right is right and wrong is wrong.

But what is right is not always legal, and what is legal is not always right.  You know that.

I stood before the judge that day
As he refused me bail
And I knew that I would spend my time
Awaiting trial in jail
I said there is no justice
As they led me out of the door
And the judge said, "this isn't a court of justice, son
This is a court of law."

[angus]

Right is right and wrong is wrong.

But what is right is not always legal, and what is legal is not always right.  You know that.

I stood before the judge that day
As he refused me bail
And I knew that I would spend my time
Awaiting trial in jail
I said there is no justice
As they led me out of the door
And the judge said, "this isn't a court of justice, son
This is a court of law."

Uh, yes, right.  Like civil marriage rights for gays and lesbians, for one...

(translation: huh?)

Do you think I feel that the sanctity of my heterosexual marriage is diminished when we allow two men (or two women) to marry?  Do you think I'm afraid that allowing same-sex marriage will lead to inter-species marriage, legalized bestiality, and the like?  Of course not.

I'm saying that while I agree with you on the question of whether same-sex marriage should be allowed, I do not think it is as simple as you make it.  The law is complex.  If you randomly chose a hundred lawyers, you'd find them all over the place.  Some would cite precedents supporting the rights of the individual legislatures to decide these matters.  Others would cite precedents supporting federal intervention.  Voters don't like shades of grey, and their attention spans are short, but rarely are legal matters as simple as a 30-second ad makes them out to be.

We should not try legislate morality, in my opinion.  Republicans often try to do this and Democrats often try to do this, but it leads to disastrous consequences.  The government should stick to law, and leave morality to the individual. 

It's worth hearing the candidates address this issue, and yes, both will use morality as part of their answer.  They always do.  ("It's a moral imperative to deliver medical services to the people."  "It's a moral imperative to protect the unborn."  "It's a moral imperative to use whatever means are at our disposal to prevent the spread of Communism.")  It's all hogwash.  The only moral imperative is to be honest with yourself and to others, and to respect the constitution.  Unfortunately, politicians rarely do either.  They sell themselves to the highest bidder, and ameliorate their beliefs, whittling complex ideas down to one-sentence soundbites, easily digested by the masses.  Nevertheless, hearing what they say about this issue will allow us to judge their ability to reason and to judge their thought processes.  That is why I think the question should be asked.