Edwards- Gays shouldn't have the right to marry

[Clintonista2]

Did anybody else see him say this tonight? Bigotry.

[LBJDemocrat]

1. [eyeroll] n/t

[Cerridwen]

2. Naw, not bigotry - that's his personal "faith" he's talkin'

about there.

:sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm:

[LSparkle]

3. You got it wrong -- he said he PERSONALLY does not believe in gay "marriage"

(although he does believe in civil unions) but as president, he would abide by the will of the people. He admitted his own daughter has a very different opinion about gay marriage and stressed that this was his PERSONAL belief.

[Clintonista2]

5. I knew someone was going to say something like that...

It would be like saying during the civil rights movement: "I dont PERSONALLY believe that African Americans are equal to me, however, I support legislation that would make equal."

[Stuckinthebush]

144. Perfect summation

Yes, it's a bullshit position. It is either a cop out or bigotry. Why in the hell would he not "believe" in marriage for two people who love each other but just happen to be of the same sex?

I like John, but that statement shows some serious weakness in his thinking.

[donco6]

6. So, what's not to "believe in" exactly?

He doesn't believe it's really marriage?

He doesn't believe gays should have full status as married partners?

What?

[JerseygirlCT]

35. I know. That confuses me. He's already married -- why

would he need to "believe" in anyone else's marriage? Why is his belief a factor here at all?

[LBJDemocrat]

8. Let them froth at the mouth

Maybe they'll happily vote for Giuliani if he gets the nomination.

[Dawgs]

10. The point is he doesn't deserve the nomination.

Or, do you agree with him?

[LBJDemocrat]

13. No.

I don't agree with him.

On the other hand, I'm not going to fall into Wall Street's trap.

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/17982

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Clark2008]

19. You simply cannot admit when Edwards screws up, can you?

[Catchawave]

29. Linky?

[DURHAM D]

22. "you people"

Who exactly is/are "you people"?

[MuseRider]

25. That kinda jumps

right out there at you doesn't it?

YOU people. Man oh man.

[DURHAM D]

31. And, woman oh woman. eom

[MuseRider]

39. Sometimes

I feel like I should be somewhere else. How that can be typed out and then posted is mind boggling.

[Name removed]

58. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[venable]

123. apparently that was my quote, but it's been deleted

so I can't see what I wrote, but believe me, there is no way in the world that I would have written that in the way it apparently was taken. If you knew me, you'd know that's just not possible.

I'm sorry if some fast typing made me write something so easily misconstrued, but I ask you to take my word for it - I would no sooner write such an offensive phrase than I would insult anybody (besides the current administration).

I was angry at the OP, and I wrote too fast - but never meant to suggest such a heinous phrase as that.

I'll slow down.

[MuseRider]

125. Thank you.

I have done similar things, most often when talking faster than my brain is working, never meaning to offend. An apology is a nice thing to see. We learn as we go along.

I see there was a sub thread that was deleted after my last post. Hmmmm, I always miss those!

[venable]

126. thanks for understanding

the thought of being construed that way is pretty upsetting. it's the last thing this site, or this country needs.

[MuseRider]

127. Easy to understand

I have been there myself as I said and I am always willing to accept an apology. We all need to be backing civil rights with all we can muster and a slip of the tongue can really set a discussion back. It takes a big person to apologize on a board that can get really rough.

[w4rma]

137. It wasn't miscontrued, certain posters are trying very hard to twist your words and confuse. (nt)

[DemBones DemBones]

23. Check out Kucinich. nt

[donco6]

45. He was great in the debate, I must say.

I liked his answers best.

[primative1]

60. Hillary doesn't deserve the nomination ...

Heres why.
Last week when the war spending bill came up, no one knew if she would vote against it until the absolute moment she cast her vote.
Not even her die hard supporters had a clue which way she would vote.
Some anti war candidate.
Maybe she will play along or maybe she will revert to her original stance.
Things like that shouldn't keep people guessing.
Gay marriage shouldn't even be an issue.
It is made into an issue by those who cant handle actual ones.

[bpeale]

140. i completely agree with him

if this is the only issue you are interested in, then vote repuglican. there are far more important issues in this election than getting bogged down "values/moral" issues. that is bullshit. get a grip people!

[donco6]

41. Probably not a good idea to let us "froth at the mouth."

I mean, we'd be the ones stumping for the guy, right? What's wrong with questioning his stand here? I honestly just don't get it.

[MonkeyFunk]

78. The question was

"Do you believe homosexuals have the right to get married"

Answer:

"No"

[Drunken Irishman]

158. It's called having his cake and eating it too.

Quite simply, this is done by most every major politician. It's their way of throwing scraps to a group, whether they be gays, feminists or minorities, but they say just enough where they don't look like they completely support the position.

You're either for gay marriage, or you're not. Clearly Edwards feels the need to be against it, yet says just enough to appease some voters. To me it's too convenient and typical of politicians. And don't get me wrong, it isn't as Edwards is the first, or will be the last. It's just a shame we can't live in a society where politicians actually stand up for what is right.

[Cameron27]

159. HA! Great name!

This sober Italian woman welcomes you to DU:hi:

(And I agree with your comments.)

[Drunken Irishman]

160. Thanks, I couldn't think of a name...so I went with the truth.

And a bit stereotyping, but I'm Irish...I'm allowed, right? :D

[Sukie1941]

4. I won't vote for Edwards

If he really said gays shouldn't marry, bye bye Edwards! I will remove him from my MySpace.

[venable]

17. look at his record, not at this slam on DU

it is a ridiculous and transparent smear.

Edwards is the most advanced on the issue of all major candidates.

Gay and Lesbian activists support him. Why do you suppose that is?

[Clintonista2]

32. Its very sad when simply quoting what was said is considered a "smear"

Maybe instead of accusing me of "smearing" him, you should work to help change his opinion on social issues such as this one. I have never had ANYTHING against Edwards until this point, it was a very very shocking moment.

[venable]

66. what in the world are you talking about?

what is anyone talking about on this thread?

did I miss something?

he said he supported NH's move.

he said he is for every single right for gay unions.

he said churchs can 'marry'.

he said states can do whatever they want.

he has also said that he expects that soon the country will be ready for state recognized gay marriage.

what in the world are you all talking about?

[Catchawave]

33. I'd hit alert, but my alert button is always broken....

:rofl:

Hi Ven :toast:

[donco6]

46. THIS gay activist just wants an answer.

Is that too much to ask? What is it about gay marriage he doesn't "believe in"?

[venable]

68. he doesn't believe the country is ready for it.

and he has said he expects it will be soon.

you must know this. you must.

why is this thread allowed to live? he is so far out front on this, and yet the thread makes him seem like some homophobic redneck.

show me a candidate that supports gay issues, even around the marriage/union question more than he does.

please let me know someone who has a chance for the nomination that comes close to him.

[Clintonista2]

74. We're both arguing two different things

I understand that he is PRO the RIGHT to have civil unions. The fact that he is personally against gay marriage, is all that I have been posting about. Imagine if a member of the Democratic party had said "I personally dont believe in evolution, but I do think it should be taught in the classroom." It's just a very ignorant statement.

[venable]

91. you are taking it in a way it was not, is not, meant.

"believe' in this context means 'support legislatively'.

the thread makes more sense now that you make it clear that you think he doesn't 'believe as in evolution'...that is in no way what he means....look at his full record, his openness and honesty.

how could he not 'believe' in it - he is an sentient human being, he knows that it exists and what it means to the married couples.

He is simply talking about where the country is, right now, in terms of embracing certain laws.

I know this is what he meant. A full perusal of his statements would make this clear. Now that I know what you think he said, I don't think this is a smear - but I DO think it is a serious misunderstanding.

[Clintonista2]

Please learn to read, seriousley

I never said edwards "doesn't support evolution", I said "Imagine if a democratic candidate didnt believe in evolution", I was using that as an example to make a point. Please read EVERYTHING that is said in the future. Thanks.

[venable]

120. I understood what you meant

I used it in the same way you did - to distinguish types of 'belief'.

Of course I didn't think you meant Edwards didn't believe in evolution.

we are, at this point, arguing about the argument.


My point is simple - and if you read my last post, I acknowledge that I was wrong to call your OP a smear, now that I know what you thought he meant by the word 'believe'. my point is that John Edwards does not NOT BELIEVE in gay marriage... he believes that RIGHT NOW it cannot be nationally legislated. Sadly, he is probably correct. He doesn't think the country is ready for the term. This is clear from statements he has made over at least the last two years.

So, until the country is ready, Edwards says let's go as far as we can, lets push the country toward this: full rights for civil unions, states deciding to move ahead, churches doing what they do, etc.

A couple of years ago at Harvard he was asked by two women, arm in arm, if he supported gay marriage. He said just what I said above, the country isn't ready for it, civil unions can happen, etc.

He then looked at them and said, "I can tell my answer doesn't please you. Have courage, the country will get there. It will happen." They clearly appreciated it, and applauded.

My point is this guy is as good as it gets on gay rights, and so I take offense at a post calling him a disgusting bigot. He is not.

Peace.

[donco6]

80. When it's someone else saying stuff like this . . .

we can talk about him/her. And yes, I would support him if he were the nominee, of course (don't even THINK about that straw man - I raised money for Kerry and he had a similar position.)

I'm not comparing. I just want to know . . . What is it about gay marriage that Edwards doesn't believe? He doesn't believe the country is ready for it? Was the country ready for Selma? Obviously not or they wouldn't have fought the demonstrators with fire hoses and billy clubs, right? Maybe he doesn't believe our fight is related to civil rights? If so, I want to know that. What's wrong with asking?

[venable]

121. good question.

and the answer is, yes, what he means is the country is not ready for it. He has stated this several times.

He does believe it's a civil rights fight. He believes that it's something to move toward.

His "Selma" is his strong endorsement of civil unions, FULL rights under such, NO CONSTITUTIONAL BAN on gay marriages (he was vocal when that crap was floated by Repubs in 03/04).

He wants and expects the country will get there.

That's what he meant last night, and it is consistent with his positions for some time. He is out front on this, way ahead of the other top tier candidates.

[donco6]

124. Thanks.

I'll do more research on it. I really do think, however, that this "nation isn't ready" stand is going to be really hard to defend.

[jenmarie]

130. venable,

You have demonstrated to me that you are a very kind person, so I would like to offer you and the other Edwards supporters some advise. Start a folder in your bookmarks titled Edwards. Under that heading, start filing links to articles, statements he makes, things he posts at his blog, etc. and title the folders you file them in so you can find links when you need them.

When debunking falsehoods, you will have a much easier time just stating the facts and posting a link to back it up. It saves time and frustration when having to post the same things over and over again, and no one can shoot back that you are just saying things, or making things up.

It will never end and will likely get worse as time goes on -- trust me!

:hi:

[FrenchieCat]

131. I thought he was supposed to Lead?

That what he says adnauseum!

So where's his lead on Gay Marriage...Oh, I know, he's waiting for the public poll to show 65% in agreement for Gay marriage, and then he'll "lead" on this issue. :eyes:

[LittleClarkie]

7. Did he says something about civil unions instead?

I didn't see it, so I'm asking.

[LSparkle]

14. He did -- referred to "marriage" as a religious distinction

but that civil unions should be recognized by the state, granting LGBTs same rights. He also said that some faiths may elect to perform gay "marriages" but that the state shouldn't be dictating to religious organizations which unions they must bless (e.g., state saying gay marriage exists and forcing faiths to perform/recognize same).

[dflprincess]

40. The idea that churches would be forced to marry Gays is such a red herring

Divorce is legal and in all states divorcees may remarry - and many faiths will conduct the marriage ceremony. But the Catholic church will not marry divorcees (absent a church annulment) and I have never heard of anyone trying to force the Catholic church to marry divorcees.

"Marriage" is really a loaded term because there are religious conotations to it because most marriages are performed in a church. Too bad we don't use the system many Europeaon countries use where there has to be a civil ceremony and then, if the couple chooses, they can have a church ceremony as well.

[JerseygirlCT]

87. It's right up there with Phyllis Schlaffly's unisex bathrooms nt

[donco6]

47. They don't NOW.

I used to work for a fundie church. They WOULD NOT marry a couple who didn't profess a "born again" experience, and who didn't follow the teachings of the church. How is that different?

[LittleClarkie]

50. Sounds like his position hasn't changed

and is probably in line with most of the candidates, just like 2004.

[JerseygirlCT]

85. Then the state needs to really separate the two for hetero

couples as well.

Get a civil license, and a CU, then if your particular religion is good with it, become married as well. But the CU is necessary for any benefits from Uncle Sam.

[Dawgs]

9. One more reason?

That's too bad, cause I like the guy. He's a good Democrat, but not nearly as perfect as some make him out to be.

[MethuenProgressive]

11. Edwards and Romney agree?

Personally, I think the Gummint should get out of the marriage business altogether.
It's a spiritual thing, not a legislative one.
But as long as they're in it, they MUST allow people of different races, different religions, and the same gender to marry EXACTLY as they allow all others to do so.
It's the American way.

[LSparkle]

18. That's Edwards' position -- the "marry" verb shouldn't be up to the govt

UNION is the only thing the govt ought to recognize -- for all couples. Those who get "married" in a religious ceremony shouldn't have preferential rights in the eyes of the state, nor should the state be telling churches, synogogues, mosques, etc. what "marriage" should be for them.

MUCH ADO ABOUT VERBIAGE!!!

[MethuenProgressive]

36. Then why hasn't he ever said that?

He's never said the Government should get out of the marriage business.

[GreenArrow]

62. he thinks the unions/marriages should be left up to the states to decide

Following that logic, I suppose, it should be up to states to decide whether or not interracial couples can marry. Seems like a step in the wrong direction to me.

[venable]

71. doesn't the statement that churchs can 'marry' say as much?

[noamnety]

54. Does he believe in atheist marriages?

I want someone to ask him that.

[venable]

12. this is a PATHETIC smear to cloud his actual position. pathetic.

the facts bear me out on this.

why would the poster pick the very best on the issue to slam? what's going on?

show me a candidate who is more straightforward, honest, hopeful for LGBT issues. seriously, show me a major candidate who is better on these issues.

he was very clear the other night about the full range of rights, and has said many times in the past that his own evolution from small town religious upbringing parallels that of the nation, and that he expects his to be the last generation to not see gay marriage. He says this hopefully - ie that the country is not now ready but will be.

THIS IS WHY GAY AND LESBIAN ACTIVISTS SUPPORT HIM ACROSS THE COUNTRY.

pathetic smear. pathetic.

[Clintonista2]

16. I'm sorry if you see a quote as a smear. nt.

[Name removed]

20. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[The Magistrate]

64. You Did Not Provide A Quote, Mr. Lirwin

You provided a paraphrase, ommitting many elements of the actual statements made by Sen. Edwards....

[venable]

76. Thank you, Magistrate

I've been waiting for same.

[Clintonista2]

106. Oh I'm sorry to keep you waiting, here's the transcript

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0706/04/sitroom.03.html

[MonkeyFunk]

89. Here's a quote

Q: do you believe homosexuals have a right to marry?
A: no.


Then he spoke at length about the difference between his personal views on the issue and the legal issues. But to the simple question of whether he believes gays have a right to marry, his answer was "no".

[The Magistrate]

100. Is That Off A Transcript, Sir?

Most here did not watch the program, you know.

But it does spund, even from your own account, that you are leaving out a good deal of the man's actual comments, and probably provided a signifigant ellided version of his remarks.

[Clintonista2]

104. Transcript right here

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0706/04/sitroom.03.html

[The Magistrate]

113. Thank You, Mr. Lirwin: Now We have The Full Exchange Here

O'BRIEN: You had a question during the debate yesterday about gay marriage. And with all due respect, I thought you dodged it a little bit, so I'm going to ask you...

EDWARDS: No. No.

(LAUGHTER)

O'BRIEN: Maybe it's just me.

EDWARDS: What a ridiculous...

(LAUGHTER)

O'BRIEN: But I will -- so I'll just ask it again, maybe more pointedly. Do you think homosexuals have the right to be married?

EDWARDS: No. Not personally. Now you're asking about me personally. But I think there's a difference between my belief system and what the responsibilities of the president of the United States are. It is the reason we have separation of church and state. And there are very good people, including some people that I'm very close to me, my daughter who is sitting in the front row here tonight, feels very differently about this issue. And I have huge respect for those who have a different view about this.

So I think we have to be very careful about ensuring that the president of the United States is not using his belief system and imposing that belief system on the rest of the country. So what that... O'BRIEN: But if it's...

EDWARDS: So what that -- I'm sorry. All I was going to say is I think what that means in this case is the substantive rights that go with partnerships, civil unions, for example, and all the subsequent rights that go with that, should be recognized in this country, at least in my judgment, should be recognized. And I think it is not the role of the federal government to tell either faith-based institutions, churches, synagogues, what they should or should not recognize. Nor should the federal government be telling states what they should recognize.

O'BRIEN: If you think something is morally wrong, though, you morally disagree with it, as president of the United States, don't you have a duty to go with your moral belief?

EDWARDS: No, I think that, first of all, my faith, my belief in Christ plays an enormous role in the way I view the world. But I think I also understand the distinction between my job as president of the United States, my responsibility to be respectful of and to embrace all faith beliefs in this country because we have many faith beliefs in America. And for that matter we have many faith beliefs in the world. And I think one of the problems that we've gotten into is some identification of the president of the United States with a particular faith belief as opposed to showing great respect for all faith beliefs.

[Clintonista2]

116. He said exactly what I have said he's said

O'BRIEN: But I will -- so I'll just ask it again, maybe more pointedly. Do you think homosexuals have the right to be married?

EDWARDS: No.

That says it all.

[The Magistrate]

117. And A Good Deal More Besides, Sir, That Many Will Find Relevant

[Clintonista2]

119. Many people here have already expanded on what he said (especially monkeyfunk)

As I've said at least 5 times tonight, the idea that he is personally against marriage equality is very disturbing to me, even if he supports civil unions.

[ElboRuum]

145. That is far from saying it all...

And you know it. And you're being grotesquely disingenuous about it, IMHO.

[MonkeyFunk]

110. I said there was much more to his answer.

but he does not believe gay people have a right to marry.

[venable]

142. is there a candidate other than Kucinich who answers differently

I wish there were, but I believe there is not.

Which brings me to why is it that Edwards is being singled out here.

I know that his position is not what everybody here, including me, wants, but who has a different position?

And my view is pure speculation, obviously, and colored by my support of Edwards, but I just have a feeling that he is going to be the first, whenever that is, to step up to the issue the way he should and support gay marriage. I hop so, anyway.

Maybe i believe this because I think Elizabeth will get him there, or becaue I believe in his honesty and compassion and commitment to civil rights (which, of course, is what this really is).

[Clark2008]

24. And only a 60 percent rating from the ACLU.

Oh well.

[Catchawave]

34. Link?

[rinsd]

151. Edwards' "evolution" on gay marriage matches polling on the issue.

What a shock from Candidate Windsock.

[DemBones DemBones]

21. Kucinich said they should.

In case you missed seeing the rest of the Dems.

[wyldwolf]

26. no! If Hillary had said it, it would have been bigotry.

[AZBlue]

30. Post of the week, right here!!!!!

You are soooooo right!

[venable]

72. give me a break, and tell me Hillary's position on gay rights

don't play the victim here.

your candidate is nowhere near Edwards on this, and you know it.

[MonkeyFunk]

98. Nowhere near?

She's EXACTLY the same as Edwards, according to the HRC scorecard.

http://a4.g.akamai.net/f/4/19675/0/newmill.download.akamai.com/19677/anon.newmediamill/pdfs/Questionnaire_ReportCard.pdf

[Clintonista2]

101. Not to mention...

She is also PERSONALLY for marriage equality. That makes her 2 for 2.

[Catchawave]

27. Tonight? Monday, June 4 night?

Linky?

[Connie_Corleone]

37. He said it on CNN at 7pm during the faith forum.

[Catchawave]

48. Context?

I asked the OP for more info.

[Clintonista2]

52. The question was "should gays have the right to marry?" Edwards' response...

"NO"

[Connie_Corleone]

138. You asked for a link.

[DURHAM D]

28. I see Edward's position as being exactly that of the Repubs -

leave it to the states. Just another way of saying - I don't believe in gay marriage.

I have watched him squirm on this every since the night he and Elizabeth appeared on Hardball and he said that Elizabeth disagrees with him on the issue of gay marriage. She is for it - he is carefully trying to "look" in favor of gay rights while not believing in full rights.

[MethuenProgressive]

43. Except they're up-front about it.

He's acting like a smarmy lawyer trying to hide what he really thinks behind weasel words.

[JerseygirlCT]

44. You know, I see a great many more men get squiggly over the

issue than women.

I wonder why that is.

I remember a knock-down, drag-out with my own husband 20 years ago on the issue. The same talking points you hear now -- undermining tradition, hurt my marriage, blah, blah, blah.

Fortunately, he'll admit he was 100% wrong then. But he passionately felt that. And obviously, he's not alone.

Why does someone else's marriage seem to be such a threat to so many people -- especially, it seems, so many guys?

We don't see the same horror and concern for all the divorcing couples in the country, do we?

[DURHAM D]

51. Is your husband more uncomfortable with gay male couples

than female couples?

[JerseygirlCT]

75. No discomfort with either now

I never noticed any before, either, actually. And I've had both male and female gay friends.

It was weird, b/c he wasn't in the least prejudiced - then this big, visceral reaction out of the blue.

It was many, many years ago. And we've all got those demons hiding somewhere inside.

But watching it was enlightening -- if my gay-friendly, progressive guy felt somehow threatened by gay marriage, what did that mean?

And I think that those of us who support marriage equity need to realize that we're probably still up against that all these years later. It's not necessarily something that will be won on good arguments -- opposition seems to reside closer to a primitive place in our brains.

[DURHAM D]

95. I think you are correct - it is something very buried.

I guess the discussion of gay marriage is the public reality of private practices that many just don't want to think about.

The right wing has done a very good job of using it as a wedge issue. However, they have lost the under 35 crowd. This is just a big yawn to them - as in, give them their human rights already.

[JerseygirlCT]

Absolutely

It's so not a big deal with the younger people I know (thank goodness!). The only time it is, is when it effects young gay people wrt relationships with their parents.

Between peers? No biggie, in any way. At least with the kids I know. It gives me lots of hope!

[Name removed]

55. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

61. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

70. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[JerseygirlCT]

79. Why don't you "believe" in gay marriage?

Seriously.

It's something I truly just don't comprehend, and understanding it might help.

[venable]

73. nice unfair characterization

show me where HRC and Obama are on this.

nowhere near Edwards.

why does this thread not attack them?

this is BS

[Clintonista2]

81. Let me show you what a simple 30 second google search can find

http://www.onenewsnow.com/2007/03/hillary_clinton_delivers_priva.php

Notice how not only does she support full marriage rights for same sex couples, she also has a PERSONAL belief in equality.

[JerseygirlCT]

38. Do we have any serious candidate who does

support gay marriage?

I thought they all indulged in the no marriage, but CUs ok dodge.

Intellectually dishonest, and unsatisfactory to either side.

Wish they'd all just get over themselves, and realize it's a civil rights issue, period.

[LittleClarkie]

59. Kucinich might be the only one

correct me if wrong

[JerseygirlCT]

83. That would be my guess. Which is why I said "serious"

And God love him, but he's got about the same chance of becoming the nominee as I do.

[GreenArrow]

67. "it's a civil rights issue, period"

That's the backbone of it. This states rights crap is (at best) a weak cop-out.

[rox63]

42. So when did Hillary start supporting gay marriage?

I think the only candidate that has said they support gay marriage rights is Kucinich.

[Clintonista2]

49. Hillary supports civil unions

[rox63]

53. As does Edwards n/t

[Clintonista2]

57. Except that Edwards wishes he wouldn't have to.

Like I said earlier, it would be like somebody saying "I dont believe black people are equal to white people but... I'll support legislation that would make them equal." It's about bigotry and intolerance.

[venable]

82. that is absurd and you know it...

how in the world can you say he wishes he didn't have to.

what is your problem with Edwards, cuz it sure ain't what he actually says and bellieves.

[Clintonista2]

88. Why can't you simply acknowledge that what he said was wrong?

You know it was wrong, you know statements like that do not support equality.

[Catchawave]

105. I don't think he was wrong,

Divorce doesn't support equality either, can he be against that too?

[Clintonista2]

108. Any married person can get a divorce

You gave a very poor example.

[ripple]

156. Nor do civil unions.

I believe some of our candidates are ok with same-sex marriage. Politically, they would be fucked if they said so.

There really isn't any difference among the top candidates when ot comes to this issue.

Edwards misspoke. My candidate will probably flub something at some point, as will yours. A poor choice of words should not be confused with a position stance.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

56. When one belongs to a political party one should follow the party line

Doesn't the Democratic Party believe in gay marriage? If a person is to be nominated by the Democratic Party then they should follow the manifesto.

If a candidate wants to pick and choose why don't they stand as an independent?

[riverdale]

63. Does the Democratic Party believe in gay marriage?

Well, that's a good question. I would say the majority of elected Democrats don't.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

122. then there should be a party line

just because these people are elected it doesn't mean that they can do what they want? What is the point of having a political party if they are loose cannons?

[FrenchieCat]

132. But, but, but......I thought Edwards was gonna "lead" on this.....

or is he supposed to wait for the party line to change before he has a "personal" belief that Gay Marriage is an acceptable institution?

It's one thing if you ain't always talking about "leading" and saying things like silence is "bretrayal"! I mean, which is it for John Edwards? :shrug:

[CTLawGuy]

135. he's going to wait to the very end and then cast his vote the right way...

tables turned on YOU, Johnny Boy.

[Name removed]

65. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[donco6]

69. So your answer is "Move to the Netherlands?"

"The term "marriage" is obviously a sticking point, but that can be had in some other municipality or country. If people are so bent out of shape by that, they should go to a country where "marriage" can be had."

Hmpf.

[primative1]

86. You cant legislate societies opinions

Only time will do that.

[donco6]

92. I honestly don't care about opinions. Really.

But people in Boston were of the opinion that black kids should stay in their own schools. The law however insisted that they have access to the wealthy white schools as well as the poor black schools. The law passed through Supreme Court ruling went against popular opinion. Are we going to wait until opinion has come around to the right of things before we stand up and say, "Gays should be allowed to marry?" I'm 47 years old and have been with my partner for 10 years. How long do I wait for that?

[primative1]

96. Civil Union IS the Full extent of the law

Through legal civil unions the government is already protecting everyones rights equaly. The government has zero role in sanctioning "marriage". That is an external arrangement of clergy and the like.

[donco6]

97. Not the civil unions that exist now.

Civil unions are specific to the state's that allow them. If you move, suddenly you're not "married" anymore. Is that equal?

[primative1]

99. Well than thats what needs changing ...

Around here all the states are passing civil unions, make it national and the debate is closed ... thats a civil rights issue, arguing about some word is pointless.

[donco6]

102. There's merit to that idea.

Look, I'm not even the slightest bit interested in being married in a church - certainly not a Christian one after everything they've done to me. I just want what other people can have with no more thought than a dirty gin martini in a sleazy Las Vegas bar. Is that really too much to ask?

[primative1]

109. Technically Im not married

I was "civil unionized" in Vegas by some JP at some dive chappel for 59$. (we didnt buy the video) :)
Works for me but I get to use "the word". Wierd.
Never was into the priest stuff myself. I dont know how to unstigmatize "the word". Like if I fill out my taxes I check "married", what will you check? "civil union"?
Wierd issue ... I think they keep us focused on "the word" so we will forget the actual implication.

[donco6]

114. Color me red.

No slight meant about the Vegas wedding . . . Jeebus! I was more thinking about Britney's 24 hr marriage (was it Britney . . . does it matter?) And you didn't even buy the video?!

If I were "civil unionized" (and it were a REAL C.U. equivalent to any straight couple) I would just refer to it as "married" and a big FU to anyone who wanted to debate it.

Thanks for the insights. I have a lot to think about . . .

[Cameron27]

77. Why is it so hard to say

that gays are American citizens who have the same right to marry as every other citizen?

[Clintonista2]

84. Doing so would "belittle their manhood" or something. NT.

[Cameron27]

93. Ah well, Elizabeth said that

her gay friend in graduate school wanted to "snake" him, and he's been uncomfortable around gay men ever since.:eyes:

[DURHAM D]

103. Did you find that "snake" comment a little weird?

I am close in age to John and Elizabeth but I am not from the south. Is that a common expression?

I have also never heard any gay men use the expression and have spent the past 40 years in their wonderful company.

[Cameron27]

107. A little weird? I thought it was downright

incoherent. I'm a little bit younger than her, and I'm from the NE, so no, I've never heard it used, and I honestly don't know if it's a common expression in the south. But why she thought it would explain anything is beyond me, and then to tell it to Wolfie? ROFL ????

/edited for clarity

[Rockholm]

148. I thought it was a dumb as shit story.

Many of us have thought our friends dates were hot and may have made comments, but I have never heard "snake". Way too phallic for morning tee vee.

[venable]

129. i'm about exactly her age and spent much time in the south back then

and yeah, it's a common phrase, or was then, meaning steal them away, romantically.

[tkmorris]

90. This is absolute nonsense

The point is that "marriage" is a buzzword that the fervently religious types protect as if it's an assault on their faith. Edwards knows that, and thus is reluctant to appear to be forcing any form of "marriage" on religious groups or churches. His stance is that churches can endorse whatever types of unions they wish to, but the government itself should recognize gay couples through civil unions. In my mind it's a smart move because it supports gay rights while deflating the objections to the "marriage" terminology.

The problem is that you, and several other overly self-righteous people on this thread, already know every word of that. You also know that the candidate in your avatar takes a very similar approach. These pointless smears are just stupid, and I will say that no matter WHO they are aimed at.

[donco6]

94. But churches ALREADY decide who they will marry.

Always have and always will. No one has the right to walk in to a church and demand to be married . . . ANYWHERE. The government CANNOT force a church to marry anyone. Supporting gay marriage will not change that one whit. So why doesn't he?

[DemBones DemBones]

111. Besides Kucinich, does anyone support same sex marriage?

Clinton? Obama? Dodd? Richardon? Biden?

[karynnj]

112. What is your candidate's position?

[venable]

141. interesting that nobody who is attacking Edwards is saying how their candidate is different

why is that?

[laconicsax]

115. He said the same thing in 2004

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0402/26/se.01.html

CLAYTON: Senator Edwards, you also oppose gay marriage?
EDWARDS: I do. I do.

He goes on to say that he doesn't support the Federal DOMA saying that it's a decision for the states to make. He didn't oppose it because it is institutionalized bigotry, in fact, here's what he said on that issue:


EDWARDS: ...There's a part of it -- there's a part of it that I agree with, and there's a part of it I disagree with. The Defense of Marriage Act specifically said that the federal government is not required to recognize gay marriage even if a state chooses to do so. I disagree with that. I think states should be allowed to make that decision. And the federal government shouldn't do it. And can I say just one other word about...

BROWNSTEIN: The part that you agree with is what?

EDWARDS: Well, the part I agree with is the states should not be required to recognize marriages from other states. That's already in the law, by the way, without DOMA.

[alarimer]

118. It is, pure and simple.

Any faith that includes considering gays as second-class citizens is not to be respected AT ALL. It is to be CONDEMNED. What they believe in that case is just plain wrong.

What the hell is so wrong about allowing people to marry the individual of their choice, with all the rights and obligations that go along with it?

[Solon]

128. Well, you are right, it IS bigotry, regardless of his future "intentions"...

he's homophobic, period.

[FrenchieCat]

133. But Edwards will be "leading" on this issue any minute, as soon as the polls show that he

can go ahead and "believe" in Gay Marriages! :eyes:

[Solon]

136. I don't mince words to spare someone's feelings...

I call Edwards a homophobe for a reason, not just as an insult, I mean, what do you call people who are against interracial marriages? Racists, so, in this context, Edwards is a homophobe. If Edwards admitted to this, and agreed to enter a 12 step program, I'd be more impressed.

[bpeale]

139. if this is what edwards truly believes...

i would rather have him state what he truly believes as opposed to pandering to gays by telling them only what they want to hear. when you are raised a certain way, it may take your whole life to try to come to grips with issues & you still might not change based on your own faith. i, personally, also don't believe in gay marriage, but only because i don't believe the government should be in the business of sanctioning relationships of any kind whether they are hetero or homo. period. does that make me a bigot as well? if so, that's a mantle i will wear proudly. you don't have to right to tell someone else how to feel on issues.

[eridani]

134. And it may well be a political mistake in the long run.

When are our "leading" candidates going to recognize that no concession they make on these issues is going to get them support from cultural conservatives? The tide is running the other way.

From the Laura Flanders book Blue Grit

The next Democratic candidate considering running for president would do well to talk to activists like Justin Turner of Cincinnati Citizens to Restore Fairness, fighting to overturn the anti-gay Article XII.

From a skimpy minority of 32 percent who voted in favor of repeal in February 2004, the Restore Fairness campaign won over 53 percent of the vote on November 2. The campaign set a goal of turning out 60,000 supporive votes; the repeal proposition won with over 65,000. The gains came disproportionately from the most conservative parts of town.

"The key was to put a human face on the message and to address it head on," Turner told me on the phone from his home after the proposition passed.

Kerry campaigned in Cincinnati with the losing, instead of the winning, side. he brought onto the stage with him the one group of African American leaders that was not part of the Cincinnati for Fairness Coalition.

[PresidentObama]

143. This coming from an OPer with Hillary in their avatar?

Ask her the same question. Get the same answer.

Bigotry, huh?

I'm a homosexual, and I certainly don't disqualify candidates for supporting their faiths view on gay marriage. Especially when Edwards is FAR from anti-gay. What a lame way to try and nail Edwards. Tisk, tisk.

[Buck Rabbit]

147. Read the transcript. He believes gay marriage is morally wrong.

Regardless of his support for civil unions, but only on a state by state basis, he believes gay marriage is morally wrong.

That is not a little bigoted?

I am not even close to a Hilary supporter, but while she supports civil unions instead of gay marriage she personally doesn't believe gay marriage to be immoral.



"O'BRIEN: If you think something is morally wrong, though, you morally disagree with it, as president of the United States, don't you have a duty to go with your moral belief?

EDWARDS: No, I think that, first of all, my faith, my belief in Christ plays an enormous role in the way I view the world. But I think I also understand the distinction between my job as president of the United States, my responsibility to be respectful of and to embrace all faith beliefs in this country because we have many faith beliefs in America. And for that matter we have many faith beliefs in the world. And I think one of the problems that we've gotten into is some identification of the president of the United States with a particular faith belief as opposed to showing great respect for all faith beliefs."

[bling bling]

146. I hope people understand Edwards has no choice.

Edwards would commit political suicide with any other answer.

That's the way it is. That's just the way it is.

Everyone has got to look at this issue and process the situation as a ***thinking*** person, not a ***feeling*** person, in order to understand it without getting angry. I hope that part came across the way I meant it too. No offense intended.

If you are angry, be mad at the people who spread the fear and hate into the voting populace. Or, hate the voting populace who believe it. But the Dem's running for office didn't start this. They are victims of the anti-gay Republicans too, if anything.

[jonnyblitz]

149. poor Edwards, he has no choice but to pander to bigots.

AWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW. :puke:

[bling bling]

150. You're talking like the "bigots" are the minority or something.

80% of the voting populace in my state is a bigot. My state will go red, guaranteed, if Edwards says what he 'ought' to.

Big picture.

Win or lose.

That's all there is to it.

It's a goddamn shame. But IT IS WHAT IT IS and you can't change it. We need to apply the pressure elsewhere at this time. Someplace where it would be effective. Step, step, step. Get more people on board, then we can use this issue to persuade the candidates at the Presidential campaign level.

Look, if Edwards panders to YOU, and not the bigots, he'll get a great big slap on the back from a few bloggers while he loses the biggest race of his life.

I'm sure the people who have actually pledged lots of money for him to WIN the race would rather the strategy stick to what will have a chance in hell of winning.

[Catchawave]

152. Obama has the same position,

www.ontheissues.org

Put the Confederate flag in a museum, not the state house. (Apr 2007)
Opposes gay marriage; supports civil union & gay equality. (Oct 2006)
Marriage not a human right; non-discrimination is. (Oct 2004)
African-Americans vote Democratic because of issue stances. (Jul 2004)
Forthright on racial issues and on his civil rights history. (Jul 2004)
Defend freedom and equality under law. (May 2004)
Politicians: don't use religion to insulate from criticism. (Apr 2004)
Supports affirmative action in colleges and government. (Jul 1998)
Include sexual orientation in anti-discrimination laws. (Jul 1998)
Miscegenation a felony in 1960 when Obamas practiced it. (Aug 1996)
The civil rights movement was a success. (Aug 1996)
Voted NO on recommending Constitutional ban on flag desecration. (Jun 2006)
Voted NO on constitutional ban of same-sex marriage. (Jun 2006)

[bling bling]

153. They're all in the same boat.

Appealing to our emotions on this and villify the Dems running for President in 2008 won't help anybody. They feel that they are backed up against the wall on the word marriage and I won't fault them for that because I live in a state where we had the gay-marriage amendment brought up for a vote in 2004. Record turnout and an overwhelmingly sick majority of people here voted FOR the amendment. I've written several posts on DU about it over the last couple of years.

The Dems will lose the election if they make any wrong moves on this one where the word marriage is concerned that will give the Republicans ammo to go for the kill.

[Imagevision]

154. Well how does Dick Cheney feel about same sex marriage...?

[ripple]

155. All of the major candidates feel this way

Kucinich is the only candidate that doesn't and unfortunately, he isn't electable.

If you support Hillary, you attacked her, as well.

[Cameron27]

162. I don't think that Hillary or Obama

believe that homosexuals don't have the right to marry, because that's not even an opinion about whether he thinks it's good or bad...he's talking about the rights of a group American citizens here.

That's what's so disturbing about what Edwards said.

O'BRIEN: But I will -- so I'll just ask it again, maybe more pointedly. Do you think homosexuals have the right to be married?

EDWARDS: No. Not personally. Now you're asking about me personally

I don't think either of them feels that way, at least I hope not.

[mzmolly]

157. Is this a quote or a paraphrase? If it's a quote, I missed it and if it's a paraphrase

this is mere flame bait. :hi:

[David__77]

161. All the major candidates take this position.

I'm fine with uniting with them, though I disagree with this anti-marriage rights position. That said, I do NOT buy the "I'm PERSONALLY opposed..." line of argument; either one will work to actively change the law, or they support the anti-gay status quo. Again, that won't prevent me from supporting them.