Senator Claire McCaskill (D-MO) Comes Out for Marriage Equality

Senator Claire McCaskill (D-MO) is the latest lawmaker to come around on the issue of marriage equality, in a Tumblr post this evening:

MccaskillThe question of marriage equality is a great American debate. Many people, some with strong religious faith, believe that marriage can only exist between a man and a woman. Other people, many of whom also have strong religious faith, believe that our country should not limit the commitment of marriage to some, but rather all Americans, gay and straight should be allowed to fully participate in the most basic of family values.

I have come to the conclusion that our government should not limit the right to marry based on who you love. While churches should never be required to conduct marriages outside of their religious beliefs, neither should the government tell people who they have a right to marry.

My views on this subject have changed over time, but as many of my gay and lesbian friends, colleagues and staff embrace long term committed relationships, I find myself unable to look them in the eye without honestly confronting this uncomfortable inequality. Supporting marriage equality for gay and lesbian couples is simply the right thing to do for our country, a country founded on the principals of liberty and equality.

Good people disagree with me. On the other hand, my children have a hard time understanding why this is even controversial. I think history will agree with my children.

In a Politico article published on Thursday, McCaskill suggested that her views were evolving. McCaskill had previously expressed support for civil unions and opposed Missouri's 2004 constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage.

Comments

  1. TampaZeke says

    Welcome to the bandwagon Senator. Glad to have you aboard! This justice and equality train is pickin’ up speed and will run over anyone who gets in its way! Zoom Zoom!

  2. Strepsi says

    “On the other hand, my children have a hard time understanding why this is even controversial. I think history will agree with my children.”

    DING DING DING correct answer!

    Nailed it, cheers Sen. McCaskill.

  3. Icebloo says

    At least she had the decency to vote AGAINST the gay marriage ban in 2004. Even though she was weak, spineless and too afraid to support us she didn’t actually vote against us like the REPUBLICANS continue to do.

  4. Moz's says

    many progressives criticize Senator Mccaskill of being too conservative, BUT she always comes through

    She supported Obamacare , other big liberal issues, and now this…..Good for her and as said, she always comes through in the end

    Supposedly the WH told her that they supported any conservative stances she might have had to make & any distancing she had to do from Obama to win re-electon because she always gives her support where & when needed

  5. Brian in Texas says

    Awesome….Notice that she just got re-elected in 2012 for a 6 year term. By the time she’s up again for re-election marriage equality could by nationwide. I don’t fault her for waiting though; she’s in a swing state.

  6. Richard says

    It’s disgraceful that it took her this long. We should no longer be patient with public figures making political calculations with out civil rights.

  7. Shannon says

    Actually, I think the way she’s worded this will end up being very useful. She’s referenced the words and ideas that many people still use as their excuses to not support Equality, and then shows how a pragmatic, clear-eyed and fair view of things allowed for a change of perspective.

    It’s everything we want those on the fence to do.

  8. robroy says

    I don’t think McAskill was ever truly against us. And she certainly didn’t clutch pearls and invoke gawd and children. I give her more leeway than pretty much any D Senator because her seat in Missouri is a tough one to hold and because even when she hems/haws she always comes through in the end. We’ve had Senators from much bluer state throw up more road blocks.

    Plus she won by throwing $/support to getting an idiot through the R primary. He claimed the nom and then blathered on about women/real rape/etc. It was actually pretty good politicsal strategy. I think she realizes she is on borrowed time and is simply going to start acting as she damned well pleases throughout instead of simply at the last minute.

  9. HawaiiBill says

    I’m curious Richard… what would you have her do? Keep her mouth shut and NOT support our equal rights ever? Way to look a gift horse in the mouth.

    Thank you for standing up Ms. McCaskill.

  10. Jeff says

    Oh, this is just the beginning, look for much more gay marriage support, it should pick up right around the 26th or 27th of this month, and reach a fever pitch before the end of June.

    It’s exciting to see. I wonder who will be left by the wayside politically when the dust finally settles.

  11. melvin says

    All very well, welcome aboard, etc. But I am so sick of this religious crap inserted everywhere. OF COURSE no ministers or whatever would be required to administer etc. LIKE ALWAYS. In case none of these idiots have noticed, I can’t just wander into the nearest mosque and demand that they marry me, a buddhist, to whatever jew, hindu, or catholic I have picked up off the street. Are we as a people so idiotic that these reassurances have to be stated over and over and over?

    Don’t answer that.

  12. Mydoooona says

    marriage is a joke anyway, you can get married in Vegas and get divorced a day later,marry 16 times, Marriage is based on religion, if you love someone it shouldn’t matter whether you are married or not.

  13. melvin says

    All these flowers strewn for those who have finally figured out the train is leaving the station and hoisting their skirts to get on board.

    These are not leaders, they are followers. How about a minute for those who were with us so long ago? For Grethe Cammermeyer, for Jesse Jackson at the head of the parade in 1987. Nineteen eighty friggin seven he was there.

  14. Bob says

    TO THE COMMENTERS WHO DON’T UNDERSTAND THAT SHE IS IN MISSOURI —
    The idiot who said the ridiculous thing about rape would have beaten her last November if she had said this a year ago.
    It does not help us to have a friend if the friend cannot get elected.

  15. yuninv says

    Mydoooona,

    You are correct except for one minor fact: it matters because of the legal benefits marriage bestows. For example, in Florida, if something were to happen to my partner, I would lose everything. Even though we have legal documents to simulate many of the same benefits, including survivor, his family could challenge them and automatically win, because they would be null and void in this state.

    So, what does it matter if we’re married or not? When you’ve built your life with someone, it matters a great deal.

  16. Jack M says

    I don’t think people who disagree with her can necessarily be called “good,” but I realize she is trying to stay classy by putting that in.

  17. robroy says

    She inserts the ‘minister/religions will not be forced…’ crap because for the last 10 years conservatives have used that as their one last line of defense. That is what sank our side in Prop 8- conservatives ran ads in hispanic/AA settings that had people turning out for Obama voting against us because of false perceptions. She’s actually proven to be the second coming of Bil Clinton in terms of political manuevering this last year.

  18. Kenny says

    yuninv is dead right. The legalities of being recognized as “married” are one of the MOST important things in this whole issue. The right to visit an ailing partner in the hospital, to claim survivor benefits, the list is too long to enumerate but exists and is one of the primary reasons this movement has taken on the importance it has, including the right to live as a married couple.

  19. Steven says

    For those of you whose memories are short she was the person who ran against Todd Akin — he of the “women can’t get pregnant if they are raped” rants. She obviously had to play down things a bit to make certain she didn’t lose and Missouri would have been stuck with a STUPID, LOUD-MOUTHED, OBNOXIOUS TEAPARTYIER. Oh wait that is the definition of a Tea Party member.

Leave A Reply