Perhaps at some level voters want the government out of their wallets and their bedrooms.
Or perhaps we realize there is a differenct in the US Constitution based government and one based on whatever your version of Christianity is.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t the reason why they aren’t talking about this is because they agree – isn’t it true that neither are supportive of redefining marriage to include same sex partners, and both are up for some kind of reform – legal status for homosexual unions, as long as it isn’t called “marriage”?

When both candidates are in agreement about an issue, it doesn’t help your cause to talk about it. Both McCain and Obama oppose gay marriage. So why talk about it. Let each State vote and if enough ban it as most will, then we can have an amendment to ban gay marriage. My argument is that I believe that what’s in Webster’s Dictionary is good enough for me. We need to stop the courts from rewriting it. Marriage is the Union between a man and a woman and nothing else.

It doesn’t matter what anyone thinks. The courts are going to rewrite it, Gay marriage is going to be legal everywhere and no constitutional amendment to change that is going to pass the Senate.
That battle is probably already lost and if the election goes the way folks think it is now, the FOCA will pass, taking the matter away from the states and with an overwhelming majority in the Senate and Obama as President, the Supreme Court will not reverse Roe. So that war is probably about to end as well.

Scruffy, what difference does it make to you whether same gender couples marry? How could that possibly hurt you? Same gender couples should have the same rights as heterosexual couples and what they do untimately has absolutely no affect on your life…as I’m assuming you are heterosexual by your comment about marriage being “the Union between a man and a woman and nothing else.”
As to the fact that it didn’t even come up on last night’s town hall debate? Folks are much more worried about the economy and I don’t think right how they are worried about what 2 people are doing in bed, heterosexual or homosexual.

I really think Charles is right, that despite the aversion to gay marriage exhibited by a very vocal Evangelical & Catholic segment of the community, the definition of marriage is going to have to change. Why would I say that? Two reasons:
First, the main argument against same sex marriage is a religious one. Despite the obvious argument – that there exists in the US a “wall of separation” between church and state, there is also another compelling argument for gay marriage. That is, marriage is not only a religious ceremony / institution. Atheists and other non-religious people get married all the time, and do so for security, commitment and to make public their love. So arguing that marriage is a sacred institution that is inherently religious isn’t going to cut it.
Second, there’s the “what about the children” defense that many against gay marriage will try to use. It’s the idea that marriage is for the purpose of procreation and child rearing. The problem with this, obviously, is that not every couple will have children, and “family” has never been uniquely defined as 1 man, 1 woman, and their progeny. Consider Barack Obama, for instance. He never knew his father, and was raised by his grandparents for much of his formative life. Does that mean he wasn’t part of a “family” because of the non-traditional makeup of his family unit? No one would try to argue that.
So if you take away the religious argument and the children argument, all you have left is the argument from tradition. And I don’t think anyone is naive enough now to put all their eggs in THAT basket.

Or perhaps they are starting to look at themselves and their own and realize that we heterosexuals have been destroying marriage for quite some time. Regarding marriage, heterosexuals need to make things right before going after the gays.
Then there’s always the rendering unto Caesar what is Caesar’s………

pagansister and Warren Cheswick,
Your arguments are right on. I especially agree with Warren in that traditional nuclear families aren’t the only valid family structure. At least a third of the world practices polygamy, and all kinds of alternative marriage structures are found in the Bible-including polygamy, levirate marriage, concubinage, etc. I mean, I know all kinds of people who were raised by single parents, and I would never dream of telling them their families were not valid.

And I wonder why the received text included mention of David’s love for Jonathan that exceeded David’s love of women. Maybe younger Christians no longer have a need to define their virtue in terms of someone else’s sin.

and both are up for some kind of reform – legal status for homosexual unions, as long as it isn’t called “marriage”?
But that’s the problem. The “Marriage Protection” Amendments specifically state:
Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution or the constitution of any State, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups.”
That means that unless the GLBT community gets to use the exact term MARRIAGE, we don’t get the equal treatment of partner visitation, Social Security benefits, or any of the other 1200 tax and legal protections that are specific to marriage. This is why civil union is not equivalent to marriage. Look at all of the marriage amendments that have passed so far, everyone, and you will see why it would be illegal for a civil union to be treated equally as a marriage.