(CNN) - Democratic Sen. Claire McCaskill of Missouri announced her support for same-sex marriage on Monday, joining high-profile names on both sides of the aisle who have endorsed the right for gay couples to legally wed.
"I have come to the conclusion that our government should not limit the right to marry based on who you love," she wrote on her Tumblr page. "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."
Follow @politicalticker Follow @KilloughCNN
Her public endorsement comes as the Supreme Court is set to hear oral arguments this week on challenges to Proposition 8, the voter-approved same-sex marriage ban in California, as well as the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), a 1996 congressional law that says for federal purposes, marriage is defined as only between one man and one woman.
Republican Sen. Rob Portman also reversed his stance on the issue and announced his support earlier this month, citing his gay son as a big reason for his change of heart. Last week, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton also publicly backed the issue.
And in February, a chorus of prominent Republicans, including former GOP presidential candidate Jon Huntsman, signed onto an amicus brief that advocated for the Supreme Court to rule in favor of same-sex marriage.
McCaskill, who was recently sworn into a second term and is not up for re-election until 2018, says her views have "changed over time"
"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," she wrote, adding that her decision is "simply the right thing to do."
McCaskill was considered one of the most vulnerable Democrats in 2012 but survived re-election after her Republican opponent, Rep. Todd Akin, made controversial comments about rape.
The senator, in posting her announcement, also cited a Bible verse: I Corinthians 13, which says "And now abide faith, hope, love, these three; but the greatest of these is love."
"Good people disagree with me," she wrote. "On the other hand, my children have a hard time understanding why this is even controversial. I think history will agree with my children."
– CNN's Alison Harding contributed to this report.
She forgot Leviticus 18:22..; "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination." Another political hack...anything for a vote.
You've forgotten the right wing rallying cry, "Keep governement out of our lives."
You've forgotten all about separation of church and state.
You've forgotten that "separate but equal" was deemd unconstitutional decades ago by the SCOTUS.
I hope more Senators and Representatives follow in her footsteps, and that all Americans can soon marry the one they love, regardless of their sexual orientations.
mikie 2000 said, "She forgot Leviticus 18:22..; "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination." Another political hack...anything for a vote."
I believe it is Leviticus that also condemns wearing 2 different types of material, e.g., wool and cotton, at the same time. Ever eat shellfish or pork, mikie? That's prohibited, too.
If you want to live by the Old Testament, you need to obey all of it. Or, you could live in the 21st century. Your choice.
I agree totally.
Giving them the right to marry is fine with me, my point was, please dont try to cite scripture to justify your belief, and your timing for becoming devout is comical, campaigning already? i just feel as though when using scripture to validate this, just dilutes the bible, and christianity in general. imo
All that needs to happen is to not call it marriage it is a homo sexual partnership and that what it should be call .all the trouble starts when you call it marriage.
Give it a name Adam call it by its name homo sexual partnership. You can give it right under that name.
V-mag, you are so good. No point in me making a comment because you nailed it. Two thumbs up.
old testament yes, but, the physical science should give pause, if we were meant to be gay, we would be a sexual.
Well said, Sen. McCaskill. And when will so many American conservatives, who supposedly believe in small government and individual liberties, get around their duplicity as regards this issue?
I absolutely support gay marriage – but, politicians make me sick.
As the Country runs down the path to immoral bliss, pretty soon it is going to hit a bump and crash in to a Tree.
You doomsday experts screamed about the wrath of God, tidal waves of destruction,
burning in hell....ect....ect....ect...
Guess what ?
Massachussetts is still here.
So Is Iowa, and New York, and .....get the drift ?
You need a new line.
Good good. A lot of these people probably supported it back in the 90s but couldn't say back then. Good to see times changing.
And i suppose a child raised by a gay couple has no more gender confusion, propensity to become gay than a child raised conventionally? among other issues?
Homosexuals Do Not Enjoy Rights Like Other Citizens.
Response: As Americans, homosexuals are entitled to equal rights, not special rights. Their behavior based lifestyle does not qualify for privileged minority status under the U.S. law. All individuals; good, bad, homosexual, or whatever, are protected under the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights. As a class, the courts have repeatedly denied homosexuals their claim to "insular and discreet" minority status, quotas and affirmative action. Homosexuality is a behavior, not a race. Homosexuality is defined by the act of sodomy (sex with members of the same sex). Homosexuals fight for protection by drawing an analogy between themselves and African Americans before the civil rights movement, and by presenting themselves as severely persecuted. Is the analogy reasonable? People of color cannot abandon their color the way many homosexuals have abandoned their perverse lifestyle. Protection of homosexuals is based on behavior held as immoral by the majority of people. An African American or a Caucasian can be either morally upright or morally corrupt; a practicing homosexual seeks social sanction of inherently illicit activities, not of an immutable or constitutionally recognized trait.
IN ORDER FOR A GROUP TO MEET MINORITY STATUES ACCORDING
TO UNITED STATES LAW THEY MUST MEET THREE QUALIFICATIONS.
HOMOSEXUALS DO NOT FULFILL ANY OF THEM!
1. The class must have suffered a history of discrimination which is evidenced by the lack of ability to obtain economic mean income, adequate education and be deprived of cultural opportunities.
Table 2. The Wall Street Journal reported the results of a nationwide marketing study
about discrimination. The results prove homosexuals have not been discriminated against.
Black Americans Homosexual Americans
Average Household Income 12,166 $55,430
% College Grads 5% 60%
% Management 1% 49%
Taken Overseas Vacation 1% 66%
Refused the Right to Vote Yes No
Legally Segregated Yes No
Legally Denied Access to Public Bathrooms Yes No
Legally Denied Access to Business Yes No
2. The class must exhibit obvious, immutable or distinguishable characteristics that define them as an insular and discrete group.
**There is no way distinguish a homosexual from a heterosexual. There has never been confirmed evidence of the existence of a "homosexual gene."
3. The class must show they are politically powerless.
** In 1992 election, homosexual activists donated $3.4 million to President Clinton’s campaign and supplied many other campaigns with volunteers and contributions.
... I didn't read any of that Leviticus stuff in the Constitution