Massachusetts has temporarily allowed gay marriage (it won't last), and already the Democratic candidates are panicking. Or as the NYT article says:
Most of the Democratic presidential candidates went to great lengths on Tuesday to emphasize that they opposed gay marriage, even as they restated their support for some forms of legal rights for same-sex couples. But the candidates also voiced strong opposition to any constitutional amendment barring gay marriage; supporting it would be nothing short of suicide in a Democratic primary. But that stance provides what even Democrats said would be a clean target for Republicans to hammer next year.
This prevarication is what is so awful about America's mediocre two party system. The Democratic candidates are all too craven to actually take a leadership stance on social issues. Bush isn't afraid to be hateful:
Marriage is a sacred institution between a man and a woman. ...
Today's decision of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court violates this important principle. I will work with congressional leaders and others to do what is legally necessary to defend the sanctity of marriage.
Why can't a Democratic candidate be equally forceful, but in a humane way? One thing I admire about Dean is his willingness to actually take strong positions. But even he shies away from gay 'marriage'. At least he favours gay partnerships with pretty much all the legal protections of marriage, and even enacted such in Vermont.

— I remain your second class citizen, Nelson
  2003-11-19 16:12 Z