President Obama has finally stated the obvious and necessary. If you believe Kinsey, 10% of male voters are gay, and between 2% and 6% of females are lesbian. ("Experimental" percentages are far higher.) When 5% of voters can throw an election either way, it would be ill-advised to offend them.
Governor Romney seems to be taking a more nuanced stance:
"My view is that marriage itself is between a man and a woman, ... This is a very tender and sensitive topic, as are many social issues, but I have the same view that I've had since — since running for office ... My view is the domestic partnership benefits, hospital visitation rights, and the like are appropriate but that the others are not."
Neither candidate, of course, seems sufficiently principled to declare "this has always been my belief." Both waffle on their opinions with the exigencies of the latest polling data (generally, about 50:50).
Like many with whom I talk, I don't care about gay marriage. I have always believed that it is no business of government. I would like to think that "the party of less government" would stay out of the bedroom and the marriage bureau.
The Log Cabin Republicans have come out against Obama's statements. Besides, despite propaganda (by Democrats) to the contrary, I find it interesting that no Democrats (other than Barney Frank) have mentioned having gay friends, while Republicans admit to loving them within their families. The Party might be wise to point this out.
It is time to put the issue to rest.
I respect gay people, much as I am amused by their occasional oddities. One of my wife's nurse friends was gay; in the greatest of stereotypes, he "did the flowers" for our wedding over 25 years ago. He also gave us keys to his vacation house in Florida for our honeymoon, and looked in on us at the hospital where our kids were born and both he and my wife worked. At the time, he had had some kind of "partner" for 18 years and lamented the fact that they could not get married.
Years later, as the youngest Trustee on my church's Board, I noticed something interesting. As we were presented with the option of hiring a new Preacher, there was some dissension among the congregation about moving him and his "special friend" Roy into our parsonage. I felt obliged to represent the views of the (younger) opposition, but every one of my older companion Trustees (none a day under 60, and that would be an understatement) was for it. I bowed to their wisdom, and the Preacher worked out just fine.
I am familiar with the Old Testament Arguments, e.g.:
13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
Of course, if you agree with that, you have to agree with everything else:
10 And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.
I'm not sure if the specifics let John Edwards (D) and Newt Gingrich (R) off the hook, but the general 7th Commandment doesn't so much forgive either.
Of course, having kids that have argued with me (particularly in their teenage years), I've never had any compunctions about reminding them of
9 For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death: he hath cursed his father or his mother; his blood shall be upon him.
For my part, I choose to follow the two commandments of Jesus Christ, particularly the one he reiterated among many more recorded by Moses:
18 Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the Lord.
Even if the neighbor disagrees with you.