Edwards' record of support for LGBT rights

[JohnLocke]

Human Rights Campaign questionnaire (PDF file)

"I believe that couples in committed, long-term relationships should have the same rights, benefits, and responsibilities, whether they are straight couples or same-sex couples. I support civil unions to guarantee gay and lesbian couples the same rights as straight couples, including inheritance rights, hospital visitation rights, equal pension and health care benefits, and all of the 1,100 other legal protections government affords married couples. I support the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act provision that prevents the federal government from recognizing same-sex relationships. Gay marriage is an issue I feel internal conflict about and I continue to struggle with it. However, I believe the right president could lead the country toward consensus around equal rights and benefits for all couples in committed, long-term relationships."

Edwards Statement On House Passage Of Hate Crimes Bill

Chapel Hill, North Carolina – Senator John Edwards released the following statement praising the House of Representatives for passing the Hate Crimes Bill yesterday.

"As Americans, we should mourn the need for hate crimes legislation, just as we lament the fact that 25 Americans are victims of hate crimes every day. Yet today, we should also applaud the House of Representatives for taking an important and historic step in helping law enforcement ensure that all Americans have the same protections from hate crimes.

"Today, the House showed in an overwhelming vote, that it will not tolerate discrimination of any form, when it strengthened the ability of law enforcement to investigate and prosecute hate crimes based on race, gender, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, disability or gender identity. President Bush should back down from his wrong-headed veto threat and work with Congress to enact this important legislation to show that Americans will not tolerate hate crimes of any kind."

John Edwards Statement On New Hampshire's Recognition Of Civil Unions

Senator John Edwards released the following statement today on New Hampshire's recognition of civil unions.

"Today, Gov. Lynch and the state of New Hampshire showed us that the idea of America -- fairness, justice and equal opportunity -- can become a reality when we have the courage to stand up for what is right. New Hampshire's decision to recognize civil unions and grant gay and lesbian couples the same rights granted to heterosexual married couples is an important step in the fight for justice. This is an issue of fundamental fairness, and by passing this law, New Hampshire's leaders chose fairness over discrimination."

WHERE THE DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATES STAND: An analysis of the candidates’ questionnaires on issues of concern to the GLBT community
from the Human Rights Campaign

National LGBT Leaders Endorse John Edwards For President

Chapel Hill, North Carolina – The John Edwards for President campaign announced today that prominent LGBT leaders from across the country endorsed Senator John Edwards for President.

"I am honored to have the support of so many well-respected LGBT leaders," said Edwards. "They work hard every day to make our country a better place and I am proud to join with them to fight for equal rights for all Americans."

The following LGBT leaders endorsed Edwards for President:

*Skip Paul, Corporate Executive
*Darren Star, TV Producer
*Julie Johnson, Human Rights Campaign Public Policy Committee Co-Chair
*Eric Stern, Former National Stonewall Democrats Executive Director; Former Democratic National Committee LGBT Outreach Director
*David Mixner, Former Bill Clinton for President Adviser; LGBT activist, fundraiser, author www.davidmixner.com
*Dennis Erdman, TV Producer/ Director
*Mary Snider, Human Rights Campaign Board of Directors Executive Committee Member
*David Tseng, Kerry-Edwards 2004 National LGBT Advisory Committee Co-Chair; Former Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays (PFLAG) National Executive Director
*David Mariner, Former Out for Howard Dean Co-Chair; Founder, www.outfordemocracy.org
*James Duff, TV Producer
*Ramon Gardenhire, National Stonewall Democrats Black Caucus Co-Chair; Former DNC LGBT Deputy Outreach Director
*Scott Benson, Majority Leader Minneapolis City Council
*Shane Larson, AFL-CIO Pride @ Work National Executive Board Member; Association of Flight Attendants (AFA)-Communications Workers of America (CWA) Government Affairs Director
*Scott Wiener, Human Rights Campaign Board of Directors Member; San Francisco Democratic Party Chair* (for identification purposes only)
*Jeff Gardner, Garden State Equality Vice Chair; New Jersey for Democracy Co-Chair
*Lynne Wiggins, Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network (GLSEN) National Leadership Council Member; Former Human Rights Campaign Board of Governors Member
*Ken Keechl, Broward County Commissioner; Former Dolphin Democrats President
*Linda Elliott, Human Rights Committee Board of Directors Member
*Dave Garrity, Former Democratic National Committee Member
*Mark Periello, Former Human Rights Campaign staff member; Democratic strategist
*Ron Ginsburg, LGBT Community Activist; business owner
*Randall Kelly, LGBT Community Activist; attorney
*Stephanie Kornegay, LGBT Community Activist; business owner
*Robert D. Horvath, Mautner Project Board of Directors Member
*Patrick J. Lyden, LGBT Community Activist; Homeland Security Advisor

Gay Democratic Party Activists Back Edwards

Two established Democratic and LGBT leaders have come out in support of 2008 presidential candidate John Edwards. Both men plan to be actively involved in the Edwards campaign.

Eric Stern has served as both the Executive Director of the Stonewall Democrats, and former Director of LGBT Outreach for the Democratic National Committee. Stern writes on the Edwards website "I initially was inspired to enter the field of activism and politics because of my desire to advocate for disdvantaged communities. John Edwards is the only presidential candidate who has a demonstrated committment to the social justice issues about which I care so deeply."

David Mixner is a long time political strategist, advocate, and activist. He has played important roles in over 75 campaigns, including Bill Clinton's first presidential campaign. Mixner is a former national co-chair of the Victory Fund. Mixner recently told the New York Observer "This is probably the first election in a while that LGBT issues are not what I'm voting on. It's the first election where other issues are coming to the fore."

Edwards campaign touts gay supporters

Democrat John Edwards is touting prominent gay supporters who have signed on to his presidential campaign, including a former adviser to President Clinton.
Businessman David Mixner is one of 25 people listed on a news release that the Edwards campaign distributed Tuesday, along with a statement from the candidate saying he is honored to have the backing of so many respected gay leaders.

"They work hard every day to make our country a better place and I am proud to join with them to fight for equal rights for all Americans," Edwards said.

Edwards is making a push for gay support in the competitive Democratic presidential primary. In February, he came out in support of legislation that would end the "don't ask, don't tell" policy that prevents people who are openly gay from serving in the military.

Debate with Dick Cheney (October 5, 2004)

"I believe that marriage is between a man and a woman, and so does John Kerry. I also believe that there should be partnership benefits for gay and lesbian couples in long-term, committed relationships."

Gay politicos impressed by Edwards, Obama

Just weeks into their presidential campaigns, former Sen. John Edwards (D-N.C.) and Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) are impressing some political observers for their handling of gay rights issues.

Democratic National Committee GLBT Caucus Chair Rick Stafford and other politicos said Edwards and Obama have quickly outshined a crowded field of other White House hopefuls because they’re prepared to sincerely discuss gay issues.
(...)

[dsc]

1. Edwards has a decidedly mixed and evolving record on this issue

The early part of his senate term he was in the low 70's for a HRC rating. He ended his career with two straight years of 100. He also started off against both same sex marriage and true civil unions (he originally favored only certain rights). I am glad he has moved my way but to call him consistent is very misleading.

[JohnLocke]

3. I've edited my headline.

[Ken Burch]

4. Still, better to start in the low 70's and then move up to 100

than to go in the other direction.

[iamjoy]

6. I Think He Is Open Minded

I wouldn't necessarily say he has been inconsistent either - rather, he has evolved.

He grew up in the South. Before he served in the Senate, he hadn't been outside the Carolinas very much. So, it is possible that he was a little provinicial.

He gets to the Senate, does some travel, talks to some people - I'm thinking it may have opened his eyes a little - his mind had to be open already.

Or maybe Elizabeth and Cate had something to do with it.

[LeftyMom]

2. He's made a lot of really wishy-washy comments, esp. about equal marriage.

He really doesn't have a good record on this issue. He'd probably inspire more confidence if he realized that it's possible to answer the question "do you support marriage equality?" without using the words "faith" or "jesus" because it's a yes or no question.

[iamjoy]

5. Thoughts on Civil Union vs. Marriage

I'm a happily married heterosexual female, so I personally have nothing to gain one way or the other.

On the one hand, I sympathize with homosexuals who want the same rights I have and who don't want a sort of second class citizenship arrangement. To that extent, I personally have no problem with same sex marriages.

On the other hand, I personally know many good, progressive people who support civil unions but just can't bring themselves to call it a "marriage." It's strange, because they seem to realize homosexuality isn't a choice - but they have this hang up, this clinging to tradition. And I say, why shove it down their throats? They are not bigots - there's no malice in their inconstancy. And I believe this represents most Americans.

I have also talked to some homosexuals, waxing idealistically about the beauty of a marriage and all it means emotionally, aside from all the legal benefits. And I've been told by more than one gay person that many would just be happy to have the legal benefits.

See, maybe it's kind of like "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." Clinton wanted to allow gays in the military. But there was such resistance to doing it, he came up with that cockamamie compromise. And was roundly criticised by both sides. But most people in the middle were okay with it. Years later, there are still some extremists who don't want gays to serve - period. But many have realized the flaws in DADT - and think it's time for homosexuals to serve openly. Had you asked some of these people what they thought 15 years ago, they would have thought gays didn't belong in the military at all or been okay w/DADT

So, I say, let's go with Civil Unions. And within a generation, most people will be scratching their heads wondering what's so bad about same sex marriage. Oh, you'll still have your bigoted extremists, but most people will have come around. In the meantime, we'll have provided the same legal benefits and hopefully prevented more asinine and reactionary state laws which threaten even domestic partner arrangements.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

7. He also didn't need to consult pollsters before stating his disagreement with Gen. Pace's bigotry

Unfortunately, the same cannot be said about some others who couldn't even muster enough leadership to express their opinion.

[durrrty libby]

8. Maybe he should have consulted someone.

He is in trouble now

[draft_mario_cuomo]

9. He simply said he didn't agree with Gen. Pace saying homosexuality is immoral

One leading candidate dodged the question, not once, not twice, but thrice. After consulting with his aides and seeing the political fallout several hours later he issued a canned "clarification." Ditto another leading candidate, who also dodged the question.

[Laughing Mirror]

10. Civil unions is bullshit

It creates a separate class for us when all that is required is equality fair and square. I'm sorry Edwards and most of the others have personal conflicts with this. That is their problem, not mine. I will not support any candidate who does not completely support me without any reservations.

[FrenchieCat]

11. Edwards is where-ever he needs to be at any given time on

a lot of issues. If polls show that 85% of Americans support Gay Marriages tomorrow, Edwards would be right there with them......saying "he's sorry" for his past statements......but he has now "Evolved"....again. :eyes:

[JohnLocke]

12. Hmm....let's look at Clark's position.

Clark opposes same-sex marriage but says, "I support civil unions so that gays and lesbians have equality and full rights under the law." When asked about the Massachusetts marriage ruling Clark said, “I think we need to move forward with this issue. I think people who want same-sex marriages really should have the same rights as people in conventional marriages.”

Sacre bleu! Clark and Edwards have the exact same position! Let's bash Edwards anyway! :eyes:
http://lesbianlife.about.com/cs/workschool/p/WesleyClark.htm

[Egnever]

13. The whole he does it too thing loses me John

Your enthusiasm is great but lets not justify a position that is wrong by pointing at the other guy and saying he did it too!

Nice work on the thread though. It is great to see you are continuing your hard work for the dem of your choice.

Just curious but what made you give up on kooch?

[JohnLocke]

15. I never supported Kucinich.

I was for Graham, then Edwards, in '04, and then for Edwards in '08, although I probably would have backed Feingold if he had run...

Although I do like and respect Dennis Kucinich; he is always a voice for progress.

[FrenchieCat]

14. Don't know about that.....but you are showing me a 4 year old interview

of someone who's not running..... :eyes:


And even though that's the case, what Clark said was...."When asked about the Massachusetts marriage ruling Clark said, “I think we need to move forward with this issue. I think people who want same-sex marriages really should have the same rights as people in conventional marriages.”

Doesn't sound like "No, I don't personally.....let the churches decide" to me!

[Cameron27]

16. Yes, exactly,

“I think we need to move forward with this issue. I think people who want same-sex marriages really should have the same rights as people in conventional marriages.”

[FrenchieCat]

17. Like a Leader....... leading...... Clark states, “I think we need to move forward with this issue."

Not......I don't personally believe in Gay Marriages ..... a la Edwards!

[PurityOfEssence]

18. Ug. Clark good. Edwards bad. Must destroy Edwards.

Edwards has been very clear on this. When slagged by Sawyer during the '04 election, he said that no, he wasn't for gay marriage, but then went on to say unequivocally that same-sex partners should share all the same legal and social benefits that opposite sex partners do.

He hasn't been a maneuverer on this point, he has been very clear that same-sex partners should have the same rights as opposite-sex ones do. It's a tricky point, since the pronouncement of marriage carries many implications, and although civil ceremonies can be had to bind individuals in a secular way, he feels that the pronouncement of the term "marriage" is something that far too many aren't ready for yet. He has been consistent in advocating the same rights that married couples enjoy: property rights, visitation, insurance coverage, survivorship and property ownership. He's been consistently vehement that all legal and social rights are to be equal.

People who pick on this are deceptive, and they seem to come from the same quarters as before: extremist Clark supporters who can't get rid of their hatred.

He's been very specific about this, and it's not a political calculation. At the same time, he's been forthright in supporting all the legal and social rights of same-sex couples AS BEING NO DIFFERENT FROM OPPOSITE-SEX COUPLES. Those who ply this route to skew reality to attack this man are either stupid, ignorant or liars. This is VERY important to understand, and I've had many posts deleted by the Edwards-haters who DEMAND that their actions not be contradicted. I don't like suppression and censorship, but the usual Clark extremists rage continuously to kill anything they don't want to have heard.

He has been very clear that same-sex couples should enjoy ALL of the privileges that opposite-sex couples enjoy, but that he doesn't feel that using the term "marriage" is something he endorses at the moment. This is sickening, and yet another deceitful assault from the Edwards-haters.

So what is the great god-king Clark's take on this? Does he UNEQUIVOCALLY endorse gay marriage? If not, he's just sitting on the fence again and playing the field. He CERTAINLY didn't stand up for the rights of same-sex couples as early as Edwards did.

Much as I dislike Hillary Clinton, her response during the last debate when goaded about the "don't ask, don't tell" rules was very good: it was THE BEST WE COULD GET AT THE TIME.

Perhaps Edwards' being a Methodist makes him uncomfortable about the term "marriage". Although it's something that can be had in a secular way by municipalities and ship captains, there is a nasty religious element to it. The most important thing is that he has piped up that same-sex couples should be held in EXACTLY the same way as opposite-sex couples are in the law and in commerce. He's been very forthright about.

Once again, you are an EXTREME Clark partisan with an EXTREME hatred of John Edwards; your posting history is very clear. Mods, please read this before the standard Clark partisans deluge you with demands to flush this post and please refrain from caving in to their intolerance.

[FrenchieCat]

19. Well, you should go and explain all of the to Non-Clark supporters

who are withdrawing their support for Edwards on this issue, instead of whining while insulting DU members who happen to have at one point supported Wes Clark.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1042997
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3301365

Some Perspective for your sake; Edwards is a mere politician running in a primary...who's stances and policies can be criticized per DU rules. Clark supporters are DU members, who are not supposed to be called names for having an opinion per DU rules. Maybe that's why your shit gets deleted? Cause you don't seem to understand that there are rules to abide by, even if you don't like what DU members have to say about the policies of your great love, handsome St. John Edwards.

[PurityOfEssence]

21. Yes, they're very close. Hate Edwards, hate Edwards.

Here's how it worked. Clark thought he was getting away with something by entering the race late in the last cycle. People who were scared of the reactionaries thought that a big masculine leader was necessary to beat the fearmongers. (Hey, Wes WAS a war hero; his unit was attacked, he was shot numerous times and he still led a counterattack.)

The worship of the hero is a religious fixation; dismissing any contradictory evidence is tiresome.

Somehow, to the minds of the Clark extremists, Edwards should have simply withdrawn when the savior's horse rode into the fray. Not doing so is viewed as beyond insolence.

Wes Clark has never had to stand to account for his actions in the political sphere. He's espoused wildly contradictory positions, and somehow his stalwarts will rage with zealous conviction that he's been consistent. He's praised Bush and his foreign policy well after it was obvious that they were assholes. He's been on both sides of the IWR issue, claiming that he'd have voted for it and encouraging others to do so, while claiming that he was always against it. He was for school vouchers and then claimed that he was always against them. Worse than anything else, he lied repeatedly about Kerry's and Edwards' votes against the ugly Bush tax cuts for the wealthy when he was desperate with a failing campaign. When gently confronted about this, he responded with grotesque distortions about Edwards' voting record.

He has played the field and self-righteously distorted his positions. His most extremist followers have engaged in continual disruption.

The methods of the extremists simply smack of conservative bullying and ridicule.

Clark's position on this issue seems very close to Edwards', but to Edwards haters it's a vengeance that can't be slaked.

[The Count]

20. Endorsements don't cover the stink. NARAL's endorsement can't hide the fact

that he failed to vote on the federal abortion ban, just as whatever deals GLBT made cannot gloss over his statements.