I am not into forcing conservative churches to perform gay marriages....are you?

On the other hand, if the states decide, then is a gay marriage made in California also upheld by Texas legally?

1. How or why someone is Gay has nothing to do with anything. "Is" and "Are" should be enough.

2. Anyone should be able to marry anyone as long as they are both consenting adults.

3. The state should function to enforce the contracts written and implied, regarding property rights, children, etc., involved in marriage. Nothing else.

4. All churches should be free to accept, embrace or condem based on the desires of the church members.

I'm both disappointed in Hillary and defensive of her.  She's the one of the big three I think is probably the most comfortable with gays and I wish she'd just come out and say she has no problem with gay marriage, but many parts of the country just aren't ready for it and she isn't going to force it on them.  

At the same time, I understand why she's so reticent to do so - her husband took a real beating on the gays-in-the-military crap.  Maybe he backtracked more than he should've, but it's still fascinating to me that so often there is more anger directed at him (and by extension Hillary) even though he tried than there is at some of the folks who went after him.  I remember the gays-in-the-military kerfluffle and the military leadership and Congress, including some Democrats, were brutal.  

I do think DADT was intended by Clinton to be an improvement, it just didn't work out that way.  I've always thought the military leadership deliberately implemented it badly - they were always out to get Clinton.  It's shocking what they've silently gone along with under Bush, which has brought the military to the breaking point, when they were up on the Hill complaining about every little thing Clinton did.  

As for Obama, he's the youngest candidate and is trying to sell himself about being the face of change and taking on the Washington establishment.  I'd believe it more if he took positions that actually differed from the Washington establishment.  This is just another example of him not doing that.  Also very disappointing.

Obama's approach is, up to this point in the discussion, "keep that status quo." Beautiful solution for gay people or would I say it's the Republican approach.

Second the inappropriate part, what about civil marriages? Is Obama taking care of "people of faith" only? I find this approach beyond the pale and even Republican!

Consider the fact that we humans are all "born that way", which typically is as blank slates. We, as the highest critter around, lack the birds and bees pre-programmed, instinctive driven behavior.

The fact that a reproductive system evolved with humans is a mandated necessity. We wouldn't be here to ponder things had it not.  Yes, it is creationist style beg-the-question thinking to claim MF is the "natural" way. But it is a similar error to claim something inate about other pairings. It is a belief of convenience. We just have to explain ourselves as "normal" when the concept of normal may itself be perverted by those to whom we desire to defend our behavior.

You see, if humans were incapable of higher thinking and had no idea what caused babies, adolescent human males would be humping animals, other males, females, and what have you, with no one caring a whit about it.  And enough of those  pairings of M-F could easily impregnate more than enough human females to keep the species going in a very primitive, but purely natural, indeed a normal way.  And in fact, our earliest ancestors could have lived precisely that style of life.