Gay marriage in the U.S. inevitable?
(PHOTO CREDIT:GETTY IMAGES)
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
California is set to start marrying gay couples next month – barring an unexpected legal challenge to the state's recent decision to overturn a ban on same-sex marriages.
This is all well and good for gays who get married in California, but what if they move to a state where gay marriage isn't legal? While there's been a slow and steady march in the direction of gay marriage in some states for years, there remains a question about the recognition of these unions in states where gay marriage remains against the law.
In light of this, New York Governor David Patterson has told state agencies to recognize same-sex marriages performed in states and countries where they are legal. This could affect as many as 1,300 state laws and regulations governing everything from joint filing of income tax returns to transferring fishing licenses between spouses.
Critics insist Paterson is trying to circumvent the legislature and courts, while experts say this would make New York the only state that doesn't allow gay marriage itself but fully recognizes same-sex unions from other states.
But the whole issue remains murky. Different states have different rules. Some states – like Vermont and New Jersey – allow civil unions but no marriage. With California, there will be only two states where gay marriage is legal. The legal rights accorded gay couples will continue to vary widely from one state to another complicating the decision of a gay couple that wants to move.
Nevertheless, the country seems to be developing an increasing tolerance for something that was once considered unthinkable.
Here’s my question to you: Is gay marriage in the U.S. inevitable?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
Your questions for McClellan?
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
Former White House press secretary Scott McClellan is now talking, and everyone but the White House is listening.
McClellan strongly defended his critical memoir about the Bush Administration in a TV interview this morning. He said the president decided to go to war against Iraq shortly after the 9-11 attacks. He said Mr. Bush did not review all the evidence before making his decision and instead relied on his gut.
McClellan said he became "disillusioned" with the administration once he realized he was being used as a pawn in a much larger political game. He said the president and his aides operated in a "permanent campaign culture", which caused them to ignore the facts leading up to the war once those facts didn't fit their picture and advance their political agenda.
McClellan says the tipping point for him was the CIA leak case, particularly when he found out that it was the president himself who had secretly declassified parts of an intelligence report about Iraq, enabling Scooter Libby to leak classified information that bolstered the case for war to the media. These are damning revelations in light of Bush's repeatedly condemning the selective release of secret intelligence information.
McClellan says the low point of his job was being ordered to tell the press that Karl Rove and Scooter Libby were not involved in leaking CIA operative Valerie Plame's identity to the press. A criminal investigation later revealed that they were.
Critics call McClellan a turncoat, a sellout and a disgruntled former employee. The White House has called his book puzzling and sad, and some former colleagues want to know why McClellan never voiced any of these doubts earlier. His former deputy, Trent Duffy, says McClellan owes his whole career to President Bush yet he's "stabbing him in the back... and dancing on his political grave for cash."
Scott McClellan will be a guest in the Situation Room tomorrow.
Here’s my question to you: What would you ask Scott McClellan?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
Clinton’s “I’m more electable” working?
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
Despite being hopelessly behind in pledged delegates and with only three primaries to go, Hillary Clinton refuses to give up. In fact, she continues to insist that she is more electable than Barack Obama.
Clinton told voters in South Dakota yesterday that her wins in swing states and her strong vote margins among certain groups make her more likely to beat John McCain in the general election.
At the same time, her campaign sent uncommitted superdelegates a letter with polling data showing how she could compete better than Obama in the fall. They pointed to her wins in states like Ohio and West Virginia along with her strong showings among older women, Hispanics and rural voters.
While Clinton has toned down her attacks on Obama in recent weeks, she has implied that if he becomes the nominee, the Democrats could lose in November. Clinton insists she's the stronger candidate against McCain "based on every analysis of every bit of research and every poll that's been taken and every state a Democrat has to win." Not true at all.
There are polls that show Clinton in a close race with McCain, many within the sampling error. And more importantly there are polls that show Obama beating McCain by a larger margin than she does. Sometimes facts are very inconvenient.
Clinton also claims to have won the most popular votes – but that's only if you include Michigan and Florida, states that were stripped of all their delegates after breaking the party's rules. Their votes don't count. Obama actually leads by 570,000 in the popular vote, and is now just 45 delegates shy of clinching the nomination.
Here’s my question to you: Has Hillary Clinton's continual drumbeat of "I'm more electable" gained her any traction?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
@jackcafferty on Twitter
Recent Comments