John Edwards on Massachusetts Decision on Gay Marriage

[mbali]

Statement Of Senator Edwards On Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court Decision

Senator John Edwards (D-NC) released the following statement today:

"As I have long said, I believe gay and lesbian Americans are entitled to equal respect and dignity under our laws. While I personally do not support gay marriage, I recognize that different states will address this in different ways, and I will oppose any effort to pass an amendment to the United States Constitution in response to the Massachusetts decision.

"We are a nation comprised of men and women from all walks of life. It is in our national character to provide equal opportunity to all, and this is what unites our country, in laws and in shared purpose. That is why today, we must also reach out to those individuals who will try to exploit this decision to further divide our nation, and ask them to refrain from that effort."

[jenk]

1. about what I expected

he's the first one to comment right?

[pruner]

3. Dean issued a stement earlier this afternoon

MANCHESTER--Governor Dean issued the following statement today in response to the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruling:

"As Governor of Vermont, I was proud to sign the nation's first law establishing civil unions for same-sex couples. Today, the Massachusetts Court appears to have taken a similar approach to the Vermont Supreme Court and its decision that led to our civil unions law. One way or another, the state should afford same-sex couples equal treatment under law in areas such as health insurance, hospital visitation and inheritance rights.

"There will be those who try to use the decision today to divide Americans. Instead, this decision should be viewed as an opportunity to affirm what binds us together -- a fundamental belief in the equality of human beings, regardless of race, gender or sexual orientation."

http://blog.deanforamerica.com/archives/002315.html

[ScreamingMeemie]

8. Well said. There should not be standards of measurement for

rights as an American citizen. We are each allowed by law, one spouse, and that spouse's gender should not matter.

[onehandle]

11. Uh...He doesn't say whether where he stands...

Does he support Gay Marriage or not?

[arewethereyet]

13. "While I personally do not support gay marriage"

seems clear. But he's taking a tack similar to the Big Dog's one on Choice. That is, I don't agree but I'll not impeed it nor allow it's being banned.

Honest, fair and effective. Like he is on everything else.

[AP]

15. He's going to bring over the 61% of Americans who now oppose gay marriage

to the good side of the battle by saying, hey, I know how you feel. In some ways, I feel how you feel. However, as a society, we're about taking down barriers to participation and not putting up barriers.

It's smart.

[arewethereyet]

17. Yes, it is the smart response

And it will resonate with the majority as all his stuff does. A lot like all the other recent Dem presidents. Hum....

[AP]

19. Clinton really brought a lot of people over on the issue of race.

And if Clinton were president from 2004-2008, he'd probably do the same thing on gay rights.

[funkyflathead]

22. Clinton signed DOMA in 1996 n/t

[AP]

23. That was '96 and this is now, and 04-08...

...could be the golden age for gay rights if everyone plays their cards right.

JFK gave an incredibly milquetoasty speach on race before Oxford, Miss exploded, and then 1 week later, he gave one of the greatest speeches on race in America I've heard.

[Closer]

2. Wow

Sounds like it came straight from a Republican's mouth.


"I do not support gay marriages."

"I will oppose any effort to pass an amendment to the United States Constitution in response to the Massachusetts decision."




Great job there Johnny :eyes:

Glad you're doing so poorly in the polls after all :hi:

[Renew Deal]

4. An amendment would hurt gay people

wouldn't it? I don't think he is talking about passing one that would allow gay marriage.

[Closer]

5. Oh, perhaps you're right.

[JohnKleeb]

9. For the record Dean doesnt personally support gay marriage

I disagree with him there, I think gay marriage should be a federal thing. No he doesnt sound like a republican at all, you may be bitter with him being critical of Dean but hes one of ours like it or not.

[WindRavenX]

6. He said he "personally" doesn't support gay marriage

But does that mean he'd vote against for it still?
Many politicians feel they are personally against abortion (like Lieberman), but they are still solid pro-choice allies.

[Jacobin]

7. Daschle just came out condemning the decision and vowing to

pass Bush's federal legislation to end any such movement.

[Rose Siding]

10. Dashle! Did he really do that?

Where did you see it?

[WillyBrandt]

12. Link?

[xultar]

14. OK Edwards is falling like a stone in my book...this hiring

shelton...

[arewethereyet]

18. understandable given your avatar

but Shelton was a Chairman of the Joint Chiefs. That trumps fired NATO head any day.

[Stuckinthebush]

16. I have a hard time understanding

Why do people not support gay marriage? How does this hurt them?

[arewethereyet]

20. it seems to be the sentiment around the word, lot of history

Not a hurt really, more of a contradiction in terms in their minds from what I gather. Kind of tied into the parenting thing.

[Mattforclark]

21. Because

people can behave irrationally. At least I haven't been able to find a rational answer.

In at least some some cases they only oppose it because they hold the misconceptions that government recognized 'marriage' = religious 'marriage,' that this will force churches to marry gay people, etc...

[AP]

24. Exactly.

Even a J of P marriage in the US has a quasi-religious part which society spends millions of dollars to maintain. If you think about it, it's a totally irrational concession to society's belief that marriage has a very important religious compenent, and that the civil part isn't enough.

It should be enough just get a license. What's so magical about the ceremony that Americans will waste their time and tax money to perpetuate it?

What politicians should do is separate the two. Render onto Ceasar what is Ceasar's and render unto God what is God's. By arguing that there should be gay marriage is basically mixing up Ceasar and God. Let the churches do what they want. If the government doesn't tell them who they should marry, the churches can't tell the government to whom the government should grant civil unions.

[AP]

25. One more thing: progress won't be measured by gay

couples getting married. It will be measured by heterosexual couples getting civil unions instead of going through the justice of the peace ceremony.