I'm No Longer Giving John Edwards a Pass. He's No Friend of the GLBT Community.

[David Zephyr]

This is a bit hard to write, but I'm doing it anyway:

I wanted to let you know that a group of my gay friends (all long-time activists and progressives PFLAG, AIDS volunteers, and, yes all gay Democrats) watched the last CNN debate together. These friends have given their lives, their money, their hearts to further civil rights for my GLBT brother and sisters from marching to washing the bedpans of their loved ones who are no longer with us.

And so...when John Edwards continued repeating his 'personal' problems with gay marriages over and over again and then opted to let everyone know that his wife supported it, but he just couldn't...the groans in our family room were loud and telling.

Of all the candidates in our field, Edwards has danced around the gay issue the most. He wants to have it both ways it appears: to win primary voters, but to still signal to bigots that he's "uncomfortable" (his words) with our issues.

His position on civil unions is pretty much the same as most of the other Democrats, but none of them felt it necessary to wring their hands and fret out loud about their personal problems with my community. It was sickening. Absolutely sickening.

I'm through with giving John Edwards a pass. I've done it time and again. I did so still once more recently --- right after he apologized for his IWR vote on Tim Russert's program (posted so here at the DU) --- but then I had to bite my tongue as he sanctimoniously and self-righteously attacked any Democrats in Congress who voted recently for extending funding the war after Bush had vetoed their first bill. Like he would have done any differently. Pullleaazze.

John Edwards really strikes me as an opportunist through and through now. And the sooner Edwards and his money from lawyers evaporates from the process, the better it will be for folks who truly are committed to social/economic/environmental justice like Richardson and Kucinich and that will be a good thing because it will narrow the field and thereby put pressure on Obama and Hillary.

I'm done with politicians (especially Democratic ones) who are uncomfortable with me and mine. That street goes two ways.

Memo to John Edwards of North Carolina (the state you could not deliver for John Kerry): I am very uncomfortable with you. Period

[jgraz]

1. Edwards needs a smack upside the head

Rhetorically speaking. He's otherwise a pretty good candidate (IMHO), but he's ridiculous on this issue.

[Mike Nelson]

2. It could be that he is being more honest about this than *some* of...

... the other candidates. Still, you have a fair point and I will be watching how he addresses this in the future.

[goodgd_yall]

29. You'll be able to see all of them discuss this issue in the near future

See snip below from www.queerty.com:

"Logo, a division of Viacom’s (NYSE: VIA and VIA.B) MTV Networks, and the Human Rights Campaign Foundation today announced they will co-present an historic televised forum on issues of importance to the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) community with the leading 2008 Democratic presidential candidates, including, currently confirmed and in alphabetical order, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.

The one-hour event will be held on August 9th at 6:00PM PT / 9:00 PM ET in Los Angeles before a studio audience and broadcast live, without commercial interruption, exclusively on Logo’s 24/7 cable television channel as well as through live streaming video at LOGOonline.com."


None of them are going to get off the hook easily in front of a LGBT audience. I can't wait.

[comtec]

77. Any candidate who OPENLY supports gay marridge is a DEAD candidate!

Seriously people a little reality check!
This is NOT like civil rights for non-white-rich people!
ANY candidate who states they are openly for gay marriage is blowing their feet off!
This is an issue that will NOT HELP them, but WILL HURT them!

Personally I think two things would help the gblt message. FIRST stop having those stupid "Pride" parades! They are realllllllyyyy NOT helping your image. Any time a Reich winger needs fodder to toss to base he?s lost, all they need to do is show a clip from the latest pride parade. i mean seriously.. what the fuck people!? you SAY "It's not a choice/lifestyle, and we just want to be treated like everyone else" then you pull this bullshit!

Second.. give up on the "marriage" word. Here in the Netherlands it's just called a Civil Union. It holds the SAME legal power as being married (for the most part) but it's a MUCH LESS INFLAMITORY TERM!

I think the problem the GBLT (btw I count my self among the B's) is that "the community" is really being overly hypocritical. Even using the term "gay community" is self defeating for anyone who wants sexual orientation taken out of the equation.

I'm all for equal rights, being able to partner with whomever you want, equal pay for equal work! I'm a moderate, I believe framing the question and the answer are key. Intelligent, thinking people get it, but they are SO NOT the majority, even among voters (educated people tend to vote many more times than poorly/non educated people)

SO.. before you flame me (puts on fire suit) consider the mixed messages given out by the GBLT.

The reality is who else are you going to vote for? I know that's a very annoying message the Dem's rely on, but it is the truth. Right now we NEED the Dems. In 6 or so years after the next Democratic president has fixed all the problems (ever notice how Dems have to ALWAYS fix the problems and messes created by repugs? this is an actual trend in all of US history) then we can work towards splintering off the democratic party into a LABOR party!

And those of you who vote green.. seriously, why? The greens have never, NEVER taken politics seriously. '00 was bought and paid for by the corporations. Hold your nose (I did in '00) and vote Dem until things are on the right track towards repair.

IF it's his WIFE that is FOR, you know he is. If you aren't married (committed whatever) you don't know the influence a wife has on her husband. If ONE of them has come out for it, then it WILL BE POLICY!

GOD, you gays are so easy to up set! :rant:
and again, for the record, I am very sympathetic. I just think the framing needs to be different. Stop sending two conflicting messages.

[David Zephyr]

99. Comtec: "You gays are so easy to upset".

And you also write: "FIRST stop having those stupid "Pride" parades!"

Dude, you have real issues.

[NMMNG]

103. Let me guess

You have all of your civil rights, eh?

This is NOT like civil rights for non-white-rich people!

Like hell it's not.


Personally I think two things would help the gblt message. FIRST stop having those stupid "Pride" parades! They are realllllllyyyy NOT helping your image. Any time a Reich winger needs fodder to toss to base he?s lost, all they need to do is show a clip from the latest pride parade. i mean seriously.. what the fuck people!? you SAY "It's not a choice/lifestyle, and we just want to be treated like everyone else" then you pull this bullshit!

Straights need to stop having Mardi Gras. Close down all of the straight strip clubs. Stop those Girls from Going Wild! Seriously! All any RRRWinger needs when he wants to get his base rabid is to show a clip from any of those venues and blam! Instant foaming at the mouth from the "Family Values" crowd.


Second.. give up on the "marriage" word. Here in the Netherlands it's just called a Civil Union. It holds the SAME legal power as being married (for the most part) but it's a MUCH LESS INFLAMITORY TERM!


Under federal law here in the US (which is where WE live) people do not get Marriage benefits unless they are in a Marriage. Civil Unions and Domestic Partnerships don't provide the same benefits as Marriages. Therefore nothing but Marriage will do. Religions and religious people don't own "Marriage". They only think they do. Separate but Equal isn't.


I think the problem the GBLT (btw I count my self among the B's) is that "the community" is really being overly hypocritical. Even using the term "gay community" is self defeating for anyone who wants sexual orientation taken out of the equation.


Who says we want sexual orientation taken out of the equation? It's only the bigots who think being G/L/B is all about sex as opposed to a global issue. That's their problem. If you want to stay in the closet then you're welcome to do it.



SO.. before you flame me (puts on fire suit) consider the mixed messages given out by the GBLT.


What mixed messages? That we want to be treated like normal human beings and have equal rights just like every other American?



GOD, you gays are so easy to up set!

Yeah, funny how that happens when we get shat upon and have our rights taken away. :sarcasm:

[sniffa]

104. we appreciate the sympathy

the gLowing, fuzzy, warm muffin pans fuLL of sympathy.

and for the record, some of your best friends are something, something.

[LeftyMom]

108. Your heterosexism and willingness to throw our GLBT brothers and sisters under the bus offends me

Quasi-marriage isn't the same thing, it's not good enough, and it's offensive to suggest to anybody that they should do without the rights and privileges others take for granted in order to placate bigots. Screw that, screw the bigots and above all screw any Vichy Dems who roll over on civil rights.

[comtec]

128. I will try to explain it better

I suppose I should apologize for my rant yesterday.
I really do support equal rights.
The problem, as I said is in framing.
Someone mentioned Mardi gras and strip clubs.
Hey you want gay strip clubs have at! But as I recall male strip clubs are a dying breed.

Comparing the national gay pride parades to Mardi gras is really disingenuous. Mardi gras happens ONCE a year at ONE location. the gya pride's happen country wide. I'd say you have many up on Mardi Gras.

And this is also, sadly typical of the GLBT community. You attack the messenger.
I am only pointing out the truth. at MOST, GBLT is less than 10% of the population.
A very loud minority, but still a VERY SMALL MINORITY

The reason no one is going to put themselves on the line for us is that we're too small.
Mind you nearly EVERY MEMBER of the community that can vote, which artificially raises the
number to maaaayyybe 25% of the vote. But we vote dem mostly.

Am I for "gay marriage"? well I'm not against equal rights.

You really don't understand the problem from the other side I think... GIVE THEM THE FUCKING WORD! call it anything BUT marriage.
I think you'll find the problem would go away faster.
You can SAY you're married of course, have a wedding, etc.
but legally, leave it be. Take the equal rights, and be willing to compromise. REALIZE WE ARE THE MINORITY!
Otherwise the fight is lost. You are pushing away people who WOULD SUPPORT GAY RIGHTS because of the framing!
Look we know better. We know what it would really be, but be willing to compromise.
In the end it's the same right. accept a different term and get on with life.

[NMMNG]

134. You obviously don't support equal rights

Considering how strongly you're arguing for us to give them up.


And I'll attack any message that's bullsh*t.

[comtec]

143. where did i say give them up?

change the wording, legally it would be the same.
what is your issue, seriously? I want to help and I get attacked!

[NMMNG]

151. Changing the wording does not make it the same

Under federal law Marriage is the only thing that gives Marriage benefits and privileges.

Domestic Partnerships/Civil Unions do not do so. Period.

Therefore only Marriage will do.

What part of that do you not get?

[Sapphocrat]

149. "We are the minority"...

...yet it's "you gays." How convenient for you. :eyes:

I've seen a lot of internalized homophobia in my time, but I've never seen anyone so willing to embrace it the way you do, nor such an attempt to make the rest of us feel like a bunch of low-life scum who should be grateful for the moldy crumbs tossed to us from time to time.

You enjoy being a second-class citizen, if that assuages your feelings of guilt, or whatever your problem is -- and, whatever it is, it's one hell of a problem. But it's your problem. You own it, and you need to deal with it.

And until you so, it's never going to be "we."

In the meantime, don't you dare try to pass your homophobia/biphobia off on the rest of us for demanding our rights -- and yours.

P.S. Giving them "the fucking word" just stripped every UPS employee in New Jersey of domestic partner benefits. Or do you not understand the problem "from the other side"?

[Jamastiene]

154. Oh yeah, I can just feel the homophobic claim of sympathy

in your message. :nopity: We are here to stay and we aren't going anywhere, whether you like it or not.

Your ideas on this are much like the "I took good care of my slaves" claim many pro slavery types made. Why don't you just be an adult about it and just come on out and say you hate gay people and be done with it instead of this wishy washy post you have made here? I mean, seriously, do you think any GLBT person here is going to believe your views are not homophobic? Give me a break. My bullshit-o-meter is going to need re-tuning after reading what you just posted. We, the GLBT community, are not going anywhere, so you best learn to be a little more civilized in your views. Otherwise, you might just get an earful from a bunch of GLBT people who have had it with bullshit comments like yours.

Evolve now or be left behind. It's as simple as that.

[burrowowl]

3. His wife is a true friend!

Maybe she can influence him.
Kucincich as always is right on track for everything really Democratic!

[elizm]

4. I thought having his wife support it...

...while he 'still just couldn't take a stand' was one last straw.

[Adelante]

5. I'm glad you've come to your senses

:hi:

[dsc]

6. How is he any worse than Clinton or Obama here?

Both have used similar justifications for positions that are the same or worse than his. My problem with him is his previous record.

[elizm]

11. My understanding is...

...Edwards makes it a 'moral issue' while Obama leaves it up to denominations to decide about 'marriage' but wants equal rights under the law for everyone. Let me say up front that I am all for same sex marriages as well as equal rights under the law. Where I differ from Edwards is that I do not feel there is a moral issue at all...and I really wish he would not make it one.

[dsc]

14. Obama has repeatedly discussed marriage as a religious rite

and not the civil rite it is. He didn't use the word sin but he also refused to say that gays aren't immoral. I fail to see a huge difference here.

[Colobo]

17. I think Obama just thinks everyone should have the same rights under the law

and religious denominations have the right perform or not perform religious marriages to any sort of couples.

[goodgd_yall]

34. This is the same stand as Clinton and Edwards

The government has nothing to say about what rites religions choose to perform. This is a moot point. That Obama says this tells me he is conflating the civil institution of marriage, which is the only one that government has jurisdiction over, and the religious ceremony or sacrament. Saying that religious denominations have the right to perform or not perform religious marriages between gay people is stating the obvious. Yes, they do. It is a given.

[CTyankee]

133. But here's the point: EVERYONE should have a civil union available, gay or straight.

A marriage should be just strictly a religious matter and therefore a private matter. My son and daughter in law (in NYC) were so upset that gays did not have equal rights with them on this issue, they went to Canada for their ceremony. The woman who officiated at their union was recommended by friends in the gay community, since she has performed so many same sex unions.

I think they do this in France, but I am not sure if gays can do it. However, it is just one step closer to recognizing the difference between the religious and the civil...

[venable]

114. edwards believes exactly the same thing, and he's said it.

he is not speaking for churches, he is speaking about where he grew up, and the role of the federal government.

let's hear Obama's answer to the question

Or HRC's.

it will not be as honest or as compassionate as Edwards.

[elizm]

19. Do you have a link...

...where Obama was asked and refused to say that gays aren't immoral. I ask because I am truly interested. It would make a difference to me if he hesitated at all on that. Do you have a link to something specific?

[dsc]

22. It was immediately after Pace's comments

[Milo_Bloom]

107. In the debate it was pretty clear...

Obama made it clear that he would require GOVERNMENT to recognize civil unions, but would not require CHURCHES to preform ceremonies or recognize marriages (as if what a church recognizes matters at all).

On the other hand, Edwards stated that he disapproves of it personally and well... it is better to just pull the exact quote and then analyze it...

EDWARDS: I think Reverend Longcrier asks a very important question, which is whether fundamentally -- whether it's right for any of our faith beliefs to be imposed on the American people when we're president of the United States. I do not believe that's right.

I feel enormous personal conflict about this issue. I want to end discrimination. I want to do some of the things that I just heard Bill Richardson talking about -- standing up for equal rights, substantive rights, civil unions, the thing that Chris Dodd just talked about. But I think that's something everybody on this stage will commit themselves to as president of the United States.

But I personally have been on a journey on this issue. I feel enormous conflict about it. As I think a lot of people know, Elizabeth spoke -- my wife Elizabeth spoke out a few weeks ago, and she actually supports gay marriage. I do not. But this is a very, very difficult issue for me. And I recognize and have enormous respect for people who have a different view of it.
and a little later

But I think it is absolutely wrong, as president of the United States, for me to have used that faith basis as a basis for denying anybody their rights, and I will not do that when I'm president of the United States.

Here, Edwards never promises to actively force government to recognize civil unions, he meanders around it saying "I want to do some of the things...", but in essence he only promises to keep his faith out of it and not use his power or faith to RESTRICT RIGHTS Well, that essentially means that states, under an Edwards administration, would be allowed to pass bills that restrict civil unions and he wouldn't interfere...

Contrast that with Obama...

Well, I think that it is important to pick up on something that was said earlier by both Dennis and by Bill, and that is that we've got to make sure that everybody is equal under the law. And the civil unions that I proposed would be equivalent in terms of making sure that all the rights that are conferred by the state are equal for same-sex couples as well as for heterosexual couples.

Now, with respect to marriage, it's my belief that it's up to the individual denominations to make a decision as to whether they want to recognize marriage or not. But in terms of, you know, the rights of people to transfer property, to have hospital visitation, all those critical civil rights that are conferred by our government, those should be equal.

Here he talks about an ACTIVE roll in making sure that (from the government's perspective) there is no descrimination, which is all anyone can really ask for... afterall if we believe in seperation of church and state, then you can't force a church to recognize a specific marriage anymore than we can force them to worship a giant spaghetti monster.

[benny05]

112. Edwards also said he didn't think it was immoral

to be gay.

[goodgd_yall]

32. Why do you think Obama does not support civil gay marriage

which is what the issue is about. Whether churches allow gay marriage or not is not an issue. When Obama says this, it is a moot point. The issue is one of supporting civil marriages for gays, rather than, one might say, a second-class solution of a civil union.

[maximusveritas]

12. They're all the same on this issue

They have different ways of saying it and excusing themselves, but basically it boils down to: I'd like to support gay marriage, but then I wouldn't be able to win the general election. That's all there is to it.
If Edwards was more of a long-shot, he might have come out in support of gay marriage, but he thinks he has too good of a chance to do that at this point.

[elizm]

15. Edwards makes it a moral issue...

And I do not believe that it is.

[goodgd_yall]

61. Again I ask

do you know why Obama is against gay marriage, or Clinton. Have they been made to explain themselves? How do we know it isn't a moral issue in their cases too?

[Darth_Kitten]

142. No,he makes it his own moral issue........

which is his right.........where is the clue that as President he would be unfair to anybody? :shrug:

[nickinSTL]

40. "all"? of the media-annointed "leaders"...and most of the rest

but not all.

Kucinich has been in favor of gay marriage from day one.

You want a candidate who is a true friend to the GLBT community (and who is the only one to ever even acknowledge transgendered Americans), there is only Kucinich.

[David Zephyr]

13. He's a lot worse. Read the OP.

"Of all the candidates in our field, Edwards has danced around the gay issue the most. He wants to have it both ways it appears: to win primary voters, but to still signal to bigots that he's "uncomfortable" (his words) with our issues.

"His position on civil unions is pretty much the same as most of the other Democrats, but none of them felt it necessary to wring their hands and fret out loud about their personal problems with my community. It was sickening. Absolutely sickening."

[dsc]

20. No instead

Hillary's husband called people and told them Howard Dean had lost the right to run for President because he gave gays civil unions. I fail to see a huge difference.

[David Zephyr]

21. You can't prove what you wrote.

You shouldn't write things that you can not prove: "Hillary's husband called people and told them Howard Dean had lost the right to run for President because he gave gays civil unions. I fail to see a huge difference."

I think that those magnolias make one a bit masochistic, wouldn't you agree?

[dsc]

26. I believe the gay man who got called by Clinton

as quoted in Dean's book. To my knowledge this account has never been denied. I will support our nominee whomever it is. But as a matter of public policy Edwards' position is no different from Clinton's nor Obama's. For me Edwards has to explain his Senate career while Clinton has to explain her husband's activities.

[Mabus]

70. You are correct, here is a dailykos comment quoting from Dean's book

I'm including the preceeding paragraphs (as they were published on dailykos) to try to keep the context of Dean's comments.

p. 113-114

"For me, in the end, the civil-union issue was a straight-forward question of getting people equal rights under the law. But it led to a painful debate in our state, with much more bitterness than we've seen in Massachusetts. Once the House had voted for the civil unions bill and we were getting closer to enacting it, there was an outpouring of anger and ugliness from all over the country. We had established, respectable churches coming to Vermont to tell us that we were all going to hell. Especially me."

"Which, of course, remains to be seen."

"It remains to be seen, too, just how much my support for the civil unions bill will hurt my chances to reshape Democratic politics. Some pretty important Democrats have shown they think it might. When former president Clinton was trying to drum up support for Wes Clark, just prior to Clark's entry into the presidential race a year ago, he called a friend in a large city and said, 'I need you to be for Wes Clark.' The friend demurred. Clinton said,'Look, I'm from Arkansas, and Wes is from Arkansas, we need to be for Wes.' The friend told Clinton he was a Dean supporter. 'Howard Dean,' Clinton said, 'forfeited his right to run for president when he signed the civil unions bill. He can't win.' It was a rare mistake for the president. The supporter was gay and called to tip us off."

http://www.dailykos.com/comments/2004/9/9/17726/51394/18#18

[karynnj]

43. But you can prove

that Hillary's husband backed DOMA when it was to his political advantage and that per CLINTON sources he told Kerry to back all the gay bashing referendums.

There really is very little difference in their positions - it's in how they talk about it. Richardson articulated his support of civil unions with all the rights of marriage as what was the best currently possible option. (I hope I got the wording close). In reality, every Democrat is for that - and I believe that Guilliani may be the only Republican for that.

[goodgd_yall]

24. I don't see his stand any worse than the other candidates

And in fact, if anyone danced, it was Obama. Edwards was honest, Obama gave a very confusing reply as though he was trying to hide the fact that, no, he does not support gay marriage. The top tier candidates have the same stand on this issue; I don't understand why Edwards should be singled out for your anger and disappointment.

[RaleighNCDUer]

How is he worse when he is publicly addressing the issue and

his problem with it, rather than like the others having the same stance and not talking about it?

[AtomicKitten]

7. I don't get it either.

It seems really out of character and is rather unexpected.

[Colobo]

8. John really blew it there with that answer. He doesn't mean wrong, but

his rhetoric is exactly what the right has used to deny gays from their rights as American citizens.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

9. Hmmm... okay. I have noticed one thing about heterosexual men....

I'm a straight woman, and I've found that among heterosexuals, women are more accepting of gays than men are. I have worked, lived and known mostly liberal heterosexual men and women, and believe me, even among libs, men have a tough time of it. Why? I don't know. Wish I knew. If I knew I'd write "THE BOOK" and get rich.

Even in Spain, where it is now perfectly legal for gays to get married, it's the same. The men of the family just don't find it easy. The women don't care either way, and believe that everyone should have the right to live happily and in peace.

Why do het men react this way? Beats me! Maybe we should have a discussion about it and see if we could find an answer??

[Colobo]

16. Probably it has to do with the way the Western notion of masculinity is constructed

In which any sort of "feminine" behavior- in other words, anything that is not part of the ideals of masculinity we are raised under (men are tough, rough, strong, dominant, possessive, etc., while the feminine is the object through we reaffirm our condition of men) is directly or indirectly rejected because it is seen as a potential threat to our "condition". Homosexuality rejects the notion by not using sexuality as a ratification of the dominance of the "masculine" over the "feminine".

Just a thought.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

23. You're right! That's probably why we women love gay men so much......

They are more on our level. In that regard, het men are in a category very distant from women? Is that good or bad, I wonder?

[Colobo]

25. Not all of us are that distant from women, but a lot are.

I would say upbringing makes a lot of difference; there are many het men that have rejected with some degree of success many of the notions of "heterosexual masculinity" society has tried to impose on us, because of our personal experiences (me, for example, being raised by 4 women and a father who represents and embodies what is wrong with the Western idea of "dominant masculinity").

Gay men and women share a lot because they are under attack by the same social mechanism. I would say that, however, many women have not only accepted the "dominant masculinity" of the West as the "proper masculinity", but also have, as a result, adopted the Western "submissive/objectified feminity"- which helps keep the oppressive social constructs in place, for the detriment of all of us.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

52. I agree with you on the submissive/objectified femininity

And you're right, that submission to the masculine ideal is what keeps the mechanism in place that, in turn, perpetuates the fears of women and homophobia. That's it, tho, heterosexual males are forced by society to fear women and gays. It takes a LOT of effort for a heterosexual man to overcome that.

[Colobo]

53. Yeah, it's quite hard to overcome such fears- lifelong process. ¿Tú eres española?

[Sarah Ibarruri]

54. Si, lo soy. nt

[Colobo]

55. Estuve en Andalucía hace un mes- ¡que maravilloso lugar!

Quisiera vivir allá.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

56. Glad you liked it.

Me alegro te haya gustado. It's a slower mode of living, don't you agree? The people of the South are quite different from those of the North. In the North they're more inward, keep more to themselves... In the South, they're always ready for la juerga. The fiestas of Andalucia are legendary. :-)

[IndianaGreen]

82. It is a generational issue as well. The younger one is, the more accepting of LGBTs

they are likely to be (one exception are the Xtian fundies, they reject reason and science!).

[Sarah Ibarruri]

102. Absolutely! Xian fundies are fascists. nt

[closeupready]

136. Because they are not heterosexual; they are bisexual. Gays make them uncomfortable because

it reminds them of a side of themselves which they have suppressed, or at least deny (in claiming to be "straight"). Why I distrust men who claim to be "straight".

[movonne]

10. Who will you be voting for then??? Well then I guess it would have

to be kucinich or gravel...I will still take my chances on Edwards because I don't think that he would interfere with the gay community and Elizabeth is very gay friendly...

[democratsin08]

18. thats why i like his wife

and not him. edwards seems to have nothing going for him except being a career presidential candidate.

[jonnyblitz]

27. oustanding post. K & R.

:thumbsup:

[David Zephyr]

31. Thanks. I've finally had enough of his squirming and being "uncomfortable"

Wringing his hands every time the word "gay" even comes up. Hiding behind his wife over and over again like having Elizabeth call Ann Coulter to fight for him. It's probably why she used the "fag" word against him...she knows he's clearly "uncomfortable" with my community.

In any event, he's done in my book.

[Cameron27]

28. I came to that conclusion a long time ago,

for a lot of reasons.

[DURHAM D]

30. I agree with your assessment.

John lost me a long time ago for this very reason. Actually it was when he and Elizabeth appeared on Tweety's show several months ago. I felt he has a moral problem with us and is definitely judging us. He always includes Elizabeth's views in his comments as if that somehow cancels his homophobic view.

I had dinner with a friend last night and we were talking about the youtube deate, John's race and Elizabeth's role. The word we finally decided on to describe him (sadly) was slimy.

Frankly I can't believe he hasn't been called on the dual-presidency thing they are doing. Seems like he hides behind her skirt.

[David Zephyr]

42. I think that debate sunk him.

And his comments about Hillary's attire. Jeeze. He makes me cringe now.

[venable]

130. for god's sake, he is not 'homophobic'

if you knew him, you would never in a million years say such a thing.

nor does he 'judge' GLBT

He is honestly talking about the culture he grew up in, and the role of marriage in that culture.

He has said, repeatedly, that he would never do a single thing to prohibit gay marriage as president.

My own guess is it will get here quicker with him as president than with anybody else.

[polichick]

33. Hope John & Eliz. aren't playing both sides of the field...

...in a calculating political way.

[goodgd_yall]

35. Edwards does not deserve to be singled out since all but Kucinich oppose gay marriage

Edwards was called out on his stand on gay marriage. The other candidates were not challenged during the CNN/YouTube debate on their position. He was asked to further explain his position; this is why it was "necessary" to speak about his personal feelings about the issue. Why wasn't Clinton or Obama made to explain themselves? You may have seen some hand wringing there too they were given that "opportunity" to be put on the spot.

[David Zephyr]

36. Pullleaze! Read the OP.

It's his squirming. His fretting. His moralizing about it. His public wringing of hands. His being "uncomfortable" with the issue.

Good try. The folks in my home that evening know a thing or two about homophobia. None of the other candidates continually carry on this way when this issue is presented.

He's pathetic and insulting.

[goodgd_yall]

37. Pulleaze back to you.

Can you tell me why Obama and Clinton do not support gay civil marriages? Has anyone grilled them as they have Edwards? I'm a lesbian and I know about homophobia too. I don't see why you and your friends are letting Obama and Clinton off the hook so easily.

[David Zephyr]

39. They don't sweat bullets and suffer publicly whenever our issues come up.

.

[goodgd_yall]

46. It seems a matter of impression to you.

As I said in my previous post, the other 2 top tier candidates have not been put on the spot as Edwards has. I look forward to the debate before the LGBT community on August 9. I hope the audience does not allow any of the candidates to get off easily on the gay marriage issue. You might see Clinton and Obama sweat bullets that night too!

[RaleighNCDUer]

57. No, they just look right at the camera and lie. nt

[John Q. Citizen]

38. Kucinich was the most direct and unequivocal. Vote for who is going to watch your back, not

for who is electable, has the most money, or appeals to someone who is antithetical to your views.

[ruggerson]

41. I actually thought he was far better than Obama

at least he was honest about his feelings, and the fact that he is on a journey that a hell of a lot of straight people go on.

Obama brought up the old canard of "demoninations should be able to marry or not marry whom they please." As if the marriage debate EVER had anything to do with telling churches whom they can and cannot marry. He muddied the water the same way the religious rightwing does: he made the debate about who churches can decide NOT to marry, instead of what the debate should be about: civil marriage and equality.

His answer gave me a boatload of insight into his character.

[Colobo]

44. What does Obama has to do with David's post?

[ruggerson]

49. Um, because his OP is about his reaction

to one of the candidates answers on the same sex marriage question. So, I responded with MY reaction.

It's called a discussion. He writes something, I respond to it.

And occasionally an overly-defensive partisan interjects something utterly meaningless in between.

[goodgd_yall]

50. Because David is heated up over Edwards only

While Obama and Clinton have the very same views.

[goodgd_yall]

47. Exactly n/t

[elizm]

48. Well, I agree....

As an Obama supporter I wish he would come out stronger in favor of gay marriage. But the original post was about John Edwards, not Obama. Edwards speaks out strongly that it is a moral issue for him. I do not agree.

[ripple]

75. Please see my post below

ANY candidate who comes out in favor of gay "marriage" right now is looking to get his/her clock cleaned. Obama is steering clear of the emotional triggers and instead, is focusing on the legal aspects of government-recognized marriages. A church can call a legal union what they want, but the government should make no distinction based on religious ideology, particularly when it comes to granting rights. It fits well with his broader message about equality and justice.

As a lesbian, I'm actually really liking his approach to this issue. It just might work.

[ripple]

71. That is what it SHOULD be about

The government should recognize civil unions for ALL people, gay or straight. It is up to churches to determine how they wish to define such a union, if they wish to recognize or define it at all.

As a lesbian, I think Obama is taking a clever approach by making this strictly an issue about equality in the eyes of the government. That doesn't strike quite the same fear and distaste among the general population as the mention of 'gay marriage'. He has a knack for making liberal ideas (or ideas most often associated with liberal ideology) seem sane and rational, even to republicans. He's doing just fine on this issue, especially given the ground we lost in 2004.

I don't have a problem with Edwards on this issue, though- I think I've seen too many people who feel the way he does to find his position particularly surprising- especially for someone trying to muster votes from areas of the country that clearly won't support such a stance. I think it's pretty cool that he and Elizabeth agree to disagree about it. Such dissent among spouses rarely happens with presidential candidates.

[Forkboy]

45. Understandable.

It bothers me,but I also like some other things about him,so he's a mixed bag to me.

Either way,good for you for standing up and saying what you felt needed to be said. :thumbsup:

[RaleighNCDUer]

51. I thought the last debate really clarified it --

the last time he was confronted on it he emphasized that his PERSONAL religious beliefs make gay marriage difficult for him, but he also clearly stated that his personal beliefs would NOT be the deciding factor.

What I heard was, he may not push for gay marriage, if a gay marriage bill got though congress, he would sign it.

I don't have a transcript of the Q & A, but I am very sure I heard it that way.

[goodgd_yall]

58. That's how I understood what he said, as well.

And btw, I haven't decided who I'm voting for, so this isn't a matter of my candidate, right or wrong.

[ruggerson]

62. That's what I heard too

I thought he EMPHASIZED that he would not let his feelings overrule his decision making. And I think he was quite clear in signaling that his acts as President would be in favor of gay people, gay couples and gay rights.

[PurityOfEssence]

59. That's ridiculous crap; he's head and shoulders above the other two on the issue

Besides all that, David, you've ALWAYS had a problem with Edwards and have said this to me in person. You're not wistfully giving up on him; you never gave him a shake in the first place and you've said so repeatedly. You'd give Kerry a pass on the IWR, but not Edwards, and that's not the only issue. You gave Kerry a pass on the Patriot Act, when Edwards was the one who made sure there was a sunset clause.

Edwards gives a straight (no pun intended because this is serious) answer on this question and has been very consistent about it.

When Dianne Sawyer sandbagged him with this as the very first question in an interview in '04, he responded very directly that he personally didn't agree with it, but that he felt that same-sex partners should have all the legal rights as opposite-sex partners, going on to enumerate them: insurance coverage, survivorship, visitation and property. He was very direct and specific, and he's been consistent on this. If you don't like his unwillingness to use the word "marriage", I can understand that, but if he's specific--as he has been--that the couples are to be treated the same in every other way, then at least take his word and remember that he's been VERY direct and clear on this issue, whereas Clinton and Obama have shilly-shallied, equivocated, dodged, weaseled, played to the cheap seats, deliberately misled and just plain fucked with us all on the subject.

Due to this, he's head-and-shoulders above either one. If you have more affection for or loyalty to either of these other two due to this issue, you're just plain wrong.

You dislike him for many other reasons, and some of them are probably simply gut instinct. That's fine, but please don't post that you'd somehow given him the benefit of the doubt in general, because you haven't. Posts of yours in the past have smacked of the very same emotional appeal: you've given your heart and the person in question has hurt you deeply.

Hey, I wish he'd come out and say he's for it, but I don't think he's being either a rank bigot or making a calculated move; I think that for all his sophistication, he's still a backwoods southern Methodist bohunk deep down, and the word "marriage" gets in that blurry area of religion. Yes, such a pronouncement bespeaks prejudice, but his continual specific call for legal equality shows something too. That's why I use the term "rank bigot": all of us have certain prejudices, and those who don't admit them are either egocentric and too self-congratulatory to see them, or are liars for not copping to them. I don't think he thinks gays are sick or inferior, I think he's hidebound and caught up with the religious overtones.

While Barack and Hillary have dodged and played the field, he's stood up and answered directly.

Having done so, he's unquestionably morally superior to the other two and more on your side.

I seriously think he's speaking his mind here, and much as that's little comfort for those of a downtrodden group, it's to be commended if true; we could certainly use a bit more candor these days.

Please listen to everything he has to say and contrast it to Brand X and Brand Y.

[David Zephyr]

63. Read this post of mine about John Edwards and then you can apologize.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=133448

[PurityOfEssence]

74. For shame, breaking a promise like that. Tut tut; I thought better of you.

Okay, dammit, I apologize. Much as I try to stay away from superlatives, inevitably I trot one out and pay the price for my zealous sloppiness. The word "always", especially in upper-case fulmination, is apparently not justified.

To make such a fatuous claim, I should have read every one of your posts, and obviously I missed that one. Still, as you so obviously claim, you've been harder than just hard on him over the long run, and here you are now, breaking a solemn promise.

What promise? "In any event, I may be in Wes Clark's corner, but you won't hear me carping about John Edwards anymore." You're not just carping here, you're floundering and beached with your gills flapping in the breeze. So, since we're both dragged back to earth after having shot ourselves in the foot (or fin, as the case may be), let's address the issue.

First, however, an aside: CLARK! Aaaaaaaah! I guess I somewhat remember your support of him, but this plays into one of my biggest bugaboos: the obsessive enmity for Edwards expressed by so many of his most extreme supporters and the tireless hounding that results. You're not one of these who resent the fact that Edwards didn't salaam to the superiority of the savior and bow out of the primaries, are you?

Okay, back to the point: isn't his stance and willingness to express it clearly a much more admirable act than the mealy-mouthed evasiveness of Ms. C and Mr. O?

Whether you've ALWAYS dogged or dismissed Edwards or not, you must admit--as you do in the post to which you refer--that you've been not only quite consistent in bagging on him and have done so in a fairly vigorous manner. To feign hurt in the face of this "betrayal" of his smacks of the dudgeon of dime-store dramatics that would make Captain Renaud laugh himself silly.

Please back off a minute and ask yourself if all of your impressions of Edwards are still valid. Even if the guy's a bigot on this issue--which I still think he isn't--his steadfast stance of supporting ALL of the legal rights of the partners shows his commitment to pluralism and his sensitivity toward others. Sniff at that as you will, but it's nothing to be sneezed at; this guy actually sticks his neck out, does what he believes in and stands by his word. On occasions when he realizes he's been wrong, he admits it and makes no bones about it. Show me another person with that kind of integrity among the bunch other than Kucinich.

Fine, you've made your point: there's been at least one occasion where you didn't slag Edwards. Perhaps you should re-read the post you pointed me to; have you lost that sense of awe of a public figure doing something as mature and noble as what he did to prompt your joy?

Do you think raising the issue of poverty is "safe" or "calculated"? As the Reagan years showed, it's death to mention helping the poor or believing in affirmative action; these causes are easily tarred as stealing from the middle and working classes.

Going after predatory lending is tantamount to painting a bullseye on your chest, and he did this when he was a Senator from a state with a HUGE banking industry.

He fought like a demon--as did many other Dems--against the tax cuts, when this was extremely unpopular in his home state. Lest we forget, your pal Clark lied about this repeatedly, claiming that he and Kerry had voted for them, and when confronted by Edwards about it in the press not only didn't deny it but launched a new fusillade of distortions about Edwards' voting record. (Clark was doubly idiotic and greasy for doing so, since Dean had tried it before and been caught with his pants down and publicly called out for it.)

Was anyone as tireless in grilling Ashcroft and attempting to stop his appointment?

More than anything else, disappointed as you are by this all-too-personal betrayal, can you answer this one question here for old times: do either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama have a better stance on same-sex marriage and has either one of them been as clear, honest or courageous on the subject?

You started a thread with an emotionally charged attack, larded with images of cruel repression and even agonizing death in the face of indifference from people whose actions are somehow echoed by John Edwards' scurrilous preferencist bigotry. As you stand there, please tilt your head back forward so your eyes look horizontally, take your palm-up and draped hand off your forehead, drop the drama for a second and grant me the brief moment of introspection to think this through and the even briefer time to respond to my question.

You have your pain and your issues, and I have mine too. I'm also very much on your side on this particular issue, lest we forget.

Edwards has a chance to take the primaries, but if he gets too many fractious hits like this, it's more and more fleeting. I don't want my kids to grow up in a world dominated by the reactionaries, and not only do I think Obama and Hillary are far too corporatist, I don't think they can win a general election. I REALLY don't think Hillary can.

You've tarred the guy as an opportunist and unfeeling in the face of literal death, so I think you can at least answer a simple question like this.

[JANdad]

85. How has Edwards changed since you posted this?

This is cut from the thread you referred to, your reply, #4:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=133448#133567

"I'm gay and found his responses acceptable.
He supports civil rights for gays and lesbians.

He supports civil unions with all the same rights as heterosexual couples.

When asked if he, as a Southern Baptist, believed that homosexuality was a "sin", he answered without a dodge with a very clear "No."

He said that while he is not an "expert on sexual orientation" he felt that it probably was not a choice or preference, but an innate part of one's being from birth.

His wife is also extremely positive for gay and lesbian rights."

[RaleighNCDUer]

64. And he is not the only one hung up on the word 'marriage'.

After all, if a civil union gives ALL the rights, priviledges and responsibilities of marriage, how is it not 'marriage'? OTOH, my sister and her partner were married last month by their UU minister, but here, in this state, they CANNOT get a legal union - so, I ask, are they married, while they don't have ANY of the rights or priviledges (tho they certainly share the responsibilities) of marriage? Yet so many activists absolutely reject the idea of the first, insisting on the word of the second.

Keep in mind that Edwards is a lawyer, and his focus on the rights, priviledges and responsibilites legislated as being fully equivalent to 'marriage' does infer equality. After all, anyone given a civil union by the state can find a UU or other to perform a 'marriage' ceremony if they like, and anyone with a union will call themselves married in any case. Better to have a union, and give yourself the word 'marriage' than to have a marriage and have no legal standing, as my sister has.

[kitticup]

79. Edwards is no Kerry

Edwards co-sponsored the IWR with Liberman. Given that the Democrats controlled Congress at that point, the Vichy dems who sponsored the IWR screwed over the rest of the party. Edwards supported the actual invasion, even thourh as part of the Intelligence Committee he recevied more information than the other democrats and knew that the White House's case was flawed. Of course, Edwards needed to look tough because he has no military credrntials. Kerry spoke out against the invasion before it started and continued to do so even after. He even stated that he was voting to give the President leverage. Go look up Kerry's floor speach. Edwards seemed to follow public opinion.

Edwards was on the commitee (Confernece) that drafted the Patriot's Act. I've seen it claimed by Edwards supporters that Edwards is responsible for the sunset provision, but I have never seen a link that stated that Edwards was the one responsible for getting the sunset clause in the Patriot's Act. I thought that Gephardt was the one that got the sunset clause in the Act. I've read that Edwards opposed repeal of the sunset provisions and make statements that WE (emphasis on the WE which means most of the Dems) got the sunset provision in. If he in fact did draft the sunset clause, then I apologize (please provide a link for my future reference). However, if all he did was support the addition of sunset provision, so did Kerry http://www.ontheissues.org/2004/John_Kerry_Civil_Rights.htm. Kerry takes credit for the anti-money laundering provisions because he wrote it. In fact, Kerry wrote this legislation when he took on the BCCI, but was never able to get it passed until the Patriot Act. Kerry was on the terrorism long before 9/11.

I just want to set the record straight. Kerry gets a bum rap when he has been a strong voice on progressive issues for decades, whereas Edwards seems to have conveniently found progressive issues in his Presidential campaign.

[politicasista]

96. Thanks for setting the record straight

Too much dem bashing around here. :hi:

[zalinda]

60. Okay, I watched the video ..........the question and the answer

And, this is what I got from it. He is a man of faith, which carried him through troubled times. His faith has taught him that homosexuality is wrong, and he is trying to reconcile that with what he knows is right. He is struggling to make sense of what he is feeling. I think that is honest. He also said that he would never put his faith in the fore front of this nation. That he thoroughly believed in the separation of church and state.

I understand what he is going through, as many faithful have problems with what they were taught in church and what they know is true. My Mom had a huge problem with the birth control issue (raised Catholic), she had 6 kids, and quite frankly, she would have been much happier without children. But, she would never change from being Catholic. It's very difficult to "erase" the teachings of your church, especially if you have received comfort from it.

The fact is, that Elizabeth had said before the debate, that she was more comfortable with gays than her husband was. I think on this subject, they are telling the truth. They are trying to be honest with the American people, and not just giving lip service.

As with all the candidates, we can only hope they are telling us the truth, and not just what we want to hear.

zalinda

[frazzled]

66. But he specifically said faith shouldn't enter into a decision

(in response to the minister's question about why faith should be an issue in this question). And in the same breath said his personal beliefs made him uncomfortable and therefore he couldn't support gay marriage. So as president, he WOULD use his personal beliefs, as opposed to Constitutional considerations.

This was the most contorted, ill-conceived answer I've ever seen in a debate, and it shone a bright light on Edwards's thin veneer and pandering tactics: he got stuck between two panderings, and couldn't get out of it.

And yes, he sends Elizabeth out to be for all the tough stuff so he can be against it. Or to say he's "better for women." A man who is better for women would make that case himself instead of sending hisi frickin' wife out to say it.

Why was Edwards's answer diffrent than the others? Because at least the others didn't pull the "I feel icky about this" stunt. They just stated their position and left out their personal issues. Whether or not he is uncomfortable, it is damaging to the gay community for a candidate to reify that commonly held position.

What that black South Carolina senator was getting at was this: personal faith or beliefs have been used in the past to support slavery, prevent interracial marriages, keep women from voting: why should personal faith enter the question of gay marriage? Edwards denied that it should and then said that it did. If it were the Gong Show, the gong would have been hit half way through his answer.

[David Zephyr]

67. Thank you, frazzled.

You got my OP.

I am totally OK with civil unions and all the legal rights and, personally, I don't need the word "marriage" attached to it. Just give me and my partner of 35 years the "rights".

That said, you put your finger on it: "at least the others didn't pull the "I feel icky about this" stunt." I know that this is what I've witnessed about John Edwards. He clearly gets a case of the cooties whenever any subject regarding homosexuals is brought up and he has to give us his tired old and tortured face and 'inner conflict' about it. It's like he is being magnanimous in overcoming his personal aversion to us. "I feel icky about this". Maybe only gay people can see this, but from the responses here, I guess that others also see this in him.

[zalinda]

73. So, it's okay to lie and say you're okay with it

than to tell the truth that you're not? He wouldn't have had to say anything about his problem with it, if it hadn't been reported in the news that he was, and, that is why he got the question. Maybe in his world, he never had much contact with "known" gay people. I can see where he would have a conflict.

My grandmother had problems with black people, especially when her neighborhood turned blacker and blacker. She never used the N word, but always called them coloreds. She never interacted with them even though they lived all around her. But when she started to go to the senior center, her attitude started to change. She ended up with a number of black lady friends who she thought very highly of.

Okay, so you don't like Edwards, that is fine. But, I certainly don't think he is anti-gay or anti-gay marriage/civil unions. And the reason why? His wife is very pro gay marriage/civil unions, and he thinks very highly of his wife's opinion.

zalinda

[avrdream]

81. Then why not SAY you don't have a problem with it?

That's the part we are all pissy about: that he feels UNCOMFORTABLE (or says he does) about gay marriage. What do we believe? Is he lying just to get the conservative votes? Does he really feel this way despite having a fantastic wife who is clearly comfortable with it? What are we to believe? Just tell me the truth, John.

[zalinda]

86. He did, why do you have trouble with that?

I can be conflicted about something and still do the right thing. Millions of people do it every day. You don't think millions of people don't have a problem with people of color? Especially in older generations, they had been brought up that they should hate them, or at the very least, look down on them. And well, gay people were never talked about, because we all knew they were the devil incarnate. So gays were waaaayyyy in the closet. My sister is STILL in the closet, even to her whole family.

You don't think people are conflicted when they find out a friend/family is gay? They will act the right way and try not to be judgmental, but inside they are freaking out. It will take a while to get to the point where it's no big deal. He said he is on the journey to get there, what more do you want from him. He said he was for civil unions, with all the benefits. And, he said he wouldn't let his faith interfere with governing, because he believes in separation of church and state.

zalinda

[struggle4progress]

65. Supports civil unions. Wants to repeal DOMA. And honest enough to say "I'm not there yet"

on gay marriage.

Frankly, after looking at current polls, I doubt if we'll see a mainstream 2008 Presidential candidate take an unequivocal stand in favor of gay marriage

[jsamuel]

69. Singled Out

EOM

[zulchzulu]

68. Gay "marriage" is a tough issue... civil unions and domestic partnerships aren't enough right now?

Civil unions and domestic partnerships (which I think Edwards is for) certainly is something to be OK with.

No, it's not gay "marriage" (which is loaded with religious overtones and baggage)...but having those two types of legal unions being official would be an excellent first step.

I have other issues with Edwards, but I certainly don't think he is not a friend of the LGBT community.

[Maven]

90. Why are you putting marriage in quotation marks like the antigay bigots do

pray tell?

Is it to suggest that such a concept is ridiculous?

[zulchzulu]

95. So are you accusing me of what I think you are?

I have a brother who is gay...an uncle I watched die of AIDS...friends I know who are gay...

Marriage is a religious ceremony with religious overtones. And I am no fan or "religions"...

I also think that civil unions and domestic partnerships are just as valid as "marriage". If you have a problem with that, I don't know what to tell you... all I can say is that civil unions and domestic partnerships need to be national policy.

[Maven]

97. Marriage is a civil institution first.

It is a legal relationship that has no intrinsic religious content. Whatever spiritual or dogmatic significance religious bodies impart to that relationship is of no concern to the state.

If you can't grasp that, I don't know what to tell you.

And it's exactly this disingenuous conflation of civil marriage with religious "marriage" (notice my use of quotation marks) that people like John Edwards shouldn't engage in to win votes.

[zulchzulu]

106. What will pass first?

Civil unions and domestic partnerships...or...gay marriage?

Do people not want anything to pass?

Listen, if two people want to get married, I say go for it.

The problem is that gay marriage is not going to happen nationally for a generation. It's that simple. BUT civil unions and domestic partnerships could pass...and that would be a lot sooner than 20 years.

When I put "marriage" in quotes, it is used as a religious context. If two men wanted to marry in the Catholic faith, would it be marriage? No. The Catholic Church would not accept the union. Nor would many other faiths...it's that simple. They suck, but it is a reality that they won't change their view anytime soon.

In the meantime, people who want to have an official santioned union to their relationship and love for each other is squelched because some people want it all or nothing at all.

[JerseygirlCT]

110. Haven't we already learned that separate is not equal? nt

[comtec]

144. I wish I had seen your post before I made mine

I could have saved myself a great deal of flaming.
I have seen this is a very emotional issue for the GBLT activists.
Most gay people I know don't give a rat's ass what it's called. They just want the legal right to make legal decisions for the person they love and live with. The right to default inherit, and to have children go to the person they deem. There are also teh tax advantages, but for many people (married) it's still better to file separately.

On a technical, legal, level civil unions are truly equal. Here in the Netherlands there are Civil unions and marriage. My wife n I are married, my sister in law and her boyfriend are civilly unioned. I've chatted with gay friends who are also civilly unioned. I wonder if there is a dislike of civil unions because they really are equal. a straight or gay couple can be civilly unioned, and many states, and countries have civil unions.

There are some vague differences between civil unions and being married, but for everything that matters, they are exactly the same. IIRC Canada has civil unions, as well as the Scandinavian countries. I don't recall if the UK has them or not.

BUT this seems to be more about names, than legal status. Someone remarked about separate but unequal. If I were a minority, i would be seriously offended. We aren't talking about going to a different school. being made to ride in the back of the bus, or get off if too many whites get on. We aren't talking about NOT BEING ABLE TO FUCKING VOTE!!!!! BEING PROPERTY!!!!! we are talking about being recognized as partners. THAT'S IT!

Mind you the joy of being partnered is truly great, and I would wish it upon anyone who wanted to be in that state of union. I think all the legal loop holes a gay couple has to go through to get the same rights a simple, cheap ($25?) union costs is utter bullshit. but because I call for logic i will be flamed.

se la vie. Keep up the good posting Zulchzulu

-A patriot in exile.

[bling bling]

72. My unprofessional opinion:

I don't think Edwards is telling the truth. Though I don't have any proof. I pretty much agree with others who have said that he's too smart to feel 'icky' about gay marriage.

I think Edwards problem is that he's just not cut out for politics. For one thing, I think he needs to be liked too much. I think he's uncomfortable with the idea of being disliked and unpopular, and thus he can be pressured into doing things or saying things against his better judgment. I think that's reflected in his voting record. He never stood up for the things a "populist" would stand up for. He voted for the 2001 bankruptcy bill, for the IWR, and for anti-environmental bills. I think his votes can & have been influenced by whatever groups it is he wants to impress. And I think his need to be liked and impress others trumps serving the public.

Now in the case of gay marriage rights, most of the Democrats are going to pander to the majority. I think they've thought it out strategically and calculated their positions very carefully. I don't think they feel they have much choice and will do what they feel they must in order to not commit political suicide. But with Edwards I think he is a less savvy politician and thus has more of a problem than the others with the cognitive dissonance. He seemed to go out of his way to explain & used body language to try and match it all to the (fake) belief. I think it makes him very uncomfortable. And on top of that it puts him in a position to not be liked by his own base. Double trouble. I can understand and sympathize. But for me, it just reinforces my already pretty firm belief that he's not cut out to be the leader of this country. Really, I don't think he's cut out for politics in general.

[Maven]

91. I don't think he's telling the truth either.

Not for a second.

That's why I find all the self-righteous claims that his poor stance is the product of "honesty"--as though that would excuse it anyway--so very comical.

[w4rma]

76. I understand, David Zephyr. You just prefer to be lied to. Too many people are like that. (nt)

[Maven]

92. ...

A) What we'd prefer is a candidate who supports full equality under the law

B) If you believe John Edwards really has any personal problem with GLBT people getting married, you're fooling yourself

[BootinUp]

111. question for you

what does John Edwards personal issue with gays have to do with how he would govern? You really think he volunteered that information without a political goal?

[Hippo_Tron]

78. When candidates say they don't support Gay Marriage...

It's code for: polls say that over 60% don't support it and therefore they feel that they can't either or they will piss off moderates.

Politicians, and those with Presidential aspirations particularly, are generally not going to be on the front lines of social change. Activists have to push them and convince them that it's worth taking a political risk to change things.

The truth is that most likely all 9 Democrats running for President personally have absolutely no problem with gay marriage. But they are politicians and they are going to say otherwise in public to get votes. The chances of advancing gay rights are far greater when you have a Democrat who is personally sympathetic to your cause but also wary of politics, than having a homophobic Republican who gets elected by directly pandering to bigots.

[Solon]

88. I would say its code for "I'm a bigot." and I don't isolate that to just Edwards either. n/t

[IndianaGreen]

80. Kucinich supports equal rights for LGBTs, including marriage rights

A marriage license is a secular state license and it should not be denied to same sex couples, anymore than it should be denied to interracial couples.

We wouldn't accept denying a teaching or professional license on the basis of sexual orientation, so why so many accept the concept of denying marriage licenses to gay couples?

My rabbi would marry gay couples, but he is prevented from doing so by my state's denial of marriage licenses to same sex couples. Why should Jews that believe in equality be forced to accept Christian intolerance?

We are still paying for Clinton's DOMA and "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."

[4dsc]

83. Some people just don't get it here

I wonder what's the problem here.. If you want to turn the tables and watch republican's gain back all the seats they lost in the last election, just keep mentioning gay marriage because this plays right into their playbook! WHY?? Because most American's do not support gay marriage.. The republican's WON in 2004 in alot of states because the corporate owned news media repeatedly played the gay marriages that were taking place and showing gay couple kissing repeatedly and this turn American's OFF to the idea!!

[GreenPartyVoter]

84. Play fill in the blank with your post. Take out

gay marriage and add in women's suffrage or integration. How does it sound now? Like a comment from another century?

[Solon]

87. It seems that its better to be Pro-Democrat rather than being pro-Human Rights...

Partisanship rears its ugly head yet again, and yet again, only ONE of the presidential candidates gets it.

[Laurab]

115. The word marriage makes it a hot button - get out the repug voters

idea. I think it is wise to wait until after you are elected to try to make some changes. It's smart politics, nothing more. I doubt that, for example, Obama, has a problem with gay marriage, however, he would like to be elected to the Presidency.

I'm really not all that clear on Edwards or Clintons feelings on the issue, although if Edwards thinks it's a moral issue, he's got some learning to do. I've studied Obama a bit more, because I'm leaning toward him thus far.

A lot of repukes are really THAT stupid that that one word would make a huge difference in the turnout and their voting. I don't think one word is worth losing an election for. I'm heterosexual, but no one can tell me that my younger brother's homosexuality is a moral issue, and that he doesn't deserve the rights every citizen has - what I don't care about is the wording, nor does he. Republican voters do.

[OHdem10]

89. Edwards is the most honest candidate on this issue.

None of the candidates are going to do anything about
Gay Marriage. Each Candidates knows this country is
not ready for Gay Marriage. Civil Unions is as far
as they can go.

It is unfair to bash Edwards on this issue.

[sniffa]

93. k&r

[Midlodemocrat]

94. Frankly, I'm disappointed in all the candidates on this issue.

I like Edwards' stand on the issue of poverty, but I can't get behind him if he doesn't support gay marriage. Which is one of the big reasons why I haven't decided who to support in the primary yet. That and the fact that I am still praying for Al Gore to come riding in on his white horse and save us all from Buschco... I digress.

Not civil unions....marriage.

I am not civil unioned. I am married and have been for 18 years. (well, this September) Why don't my friends in the GLBT community deserve it as much as I did?

I just don't get it. NOTHING will change in my life if the GLBT community is allowed to marry...NOTHING. I will still be married. I will still have my kids. I will still have my job.

I can't understand why the candidates aren't pushing harder for equal rights for ALL citizens in this country.

/rant off.

[BootinUp]

98. well

I think you nailed it.

[Catchawave]

100. Vote Kucinich ?

:shrug:

No strings :)

[PresidentObama]

101. I'm an GLBT American, and he's a friend to me.

I trust him. I'm sorry that you don't. But you don't speak for the rest of the GLBT community. I know a lot of gay people in my community who have expressed interest in Edwards candidacy, and I know Edwards has gotten plenty of endorsements from pro-gay and GLBT supporters.

He hasn't danced around on the gay issue at all. He's been honest, clear, bold, and open. I respect him for that. Find something else to attack him over. I hear he got a $400 haircut...?!? There...I gave you some red meat.

[Tom Rinaldo]

105. I almost stayed out of this

But I thought you deserved a response. I sympathize with your reaction, it makes sense to me. It's hard for someone who is straight like I am to tell someone who isn't who you should consider your friend and who you should not. It seems obvious to me that the policies of a John Edwards administration would be much more Gay and Lesbian friendly than any administration to date, and likely at least as G&L friendly as one headed by any of our announced candidates (other than Kucinich who comes out ahead). But I get what you are saying about Edward's repeated public expression of personal discomfort with Gay Marriage, rather than choosing a more emotionally neutral manner of stating his position on the issue.

"Uncomfortable" is a word that is open ended and almost calls on the listener to guess what aspect of the concept Edwards is personally uncomfortable with and why. It could be relatively cut and dried as in "uncomfortable with changing the traditionally understood and centuries old definition of what a marriage is". Or it could be something else, as in "uncomfortable with associating the word marriage with it's sacred connotations with behavior that I personally feel is unnatural and/or immoral". Edwards doesn't spell it out, and even if we assume for good and sound reasons based on what we believe we know about John Edwards that what he meant is the former only, it is entirely predictable that some of the voters who hear Edwards make that choice of words might fill in the blank for themselves with the latter interpretation, and thus feel validated in those feelings by John Edwards, if that is how they feel.

None of our other candidates answer the question about Gay marriage in a manner similar to Edwards. At first blush it just looks to most like John Edwards is merely being open and real and transparent about his decision making process, which most of us would agree is usually an admirable thing in a politician. But even though I am straight, I get the concern you have about a possible shadow message being expressed and spread, even if it were unintentional.

When first I heard that Elizabeth Edwards had endorsed Gay marriage, followed shortly after by her husband getting questioned by the media about whether or not he shared her position, hearing Edwards comment then on how his wife sometimes gets to a place sooner than he does seemed completely appropriate in that context, and even a little bit charming as an insight into a marriage of two people who clearly seem to love and admire one another. That was a very personal context in which to discuss his view, and his use of "uncomfortable" then didn't jar me, which of course could be because I unlike you am straight and have not been subjected to a life time of homophobia. And there was no sense of John Edwards then attempting "to have it both ways"; the question asking John Edwards to compare his wife's announced view to his own was both timely and appropriate.

I am not as "comfortable" (heh - I couldn't resist) about John Edwards voluntarily bringing his wife's views into a question asked him meant to solicit his position on the issue as a Presidential candidate, however if the questioner does not reference her views in the question.

So those are my thoughts. I know this was a difficult post for you to write. I know that this is very personal for you, that it isn't a matter of scoring points for or against a candidate you either like or don't, and I know that feelings are running hot right now with the competition for the Democratic nomination spilling over into almost every thread on DU.

[jsamuel]

123. Edwards has already said that being gay is NOT immoral

[Tom Rinaldo]

126. Fine, really, that is good, but you missed my point

It wasn't an easy point to make so maybe I didn't make it well and I don't know if I can make it better than I did. I didn't say Edwards thought being gay was immoral, or that he even implied that in any way whatsoever. I commented on how some listeners could project their own meaning into his expression of discomfort. Edwards talking about being uncomfortable with gay marraige could somewhat predictably lend itself to that type of misuse on the receiving end, much more so than on the broadcasting end, by listeners with a predisposition toward believeing that "a gay lifestyle" was immoral, and in the process they could feel that their own views were being in some way validated.

[jsamuel]

141. Thanks

I wasn't trying to contradict your post, just add a little bit of information to it.

[JerseygirlCT]

109. Yeah. I sure like Elizabeth, but I completely agree with you on her

husband.

If he's got problems with gay people, he ought to realize that's HIS problem, and he should deal with that privately.

To put it out there as if it's something reasonable people can disagree about... it's not.

And you're right, it sure makes it look like he's trying to play both sides. Only problem is that so many innocent people are being used as his fodder with this, and still being denied basic rights.

[glowing]

113. Here's my thought, Why in the hell does anyone want to ask permission

from the gov't to marry anyone? A marriage license is a permission slip from the state that binds you in CAPITAL letters. The state should issue union i.d. for you and spouse so that you can convene business as a couple... We should not be asking our gov't to issue permission for who we love and want to commit to for the rest of our natural lives.

Everyone is on the wrong page again and letting themselves become inflammed over the wrong issue... Heterosexual/ Homosexual: All sides should be fighting against this. They work for us, not us for them.

[frogcycle]

117. agreed

and i have suggested a couple of times that straight couples in state with civil unions should opt to execute one of those rather than a "marriage." Now THAT would really muddy the water! If a heterosexual couple executed a "civil union" would another state be obliged to recognize it? Would the fed be obliged to permit joint filing of taxes?

That would make a great demonstration of the idiocy of the whole debate. If they refused just because the other state did not call it "marriage" that would be ludicrous. And of course if they recognize it, well, precedent set!

[glowing]

127. Had I been a little more informed about this, I would have walked

into my registration for marriage office with a declarative statement that I and my husband assume all resposibilities to one another and our family and itend to be married. The state will recognize our union as such. And anyone can do this in any state. Permission to wed (ha).

[frogcycle]

116. Of course I cannot read his mind

but then neither can you.

What he said was he fully supports legal unions with all the rights of marriage. Taken at face value, that is a lot of positive, but the hangup over the label is understandably offensive.

The tricky bit that I think a lot of people don't get is the religious aspect. THAT is what makes "gay marriage" a hot issue. "Marriage" is a religious institution, with various requirements levied by the religions. My wife and I could not get married in most churches, any synagogues or mosques. And it would be hypocritical for us to marry in a Christian church that was willing to tie the knot for us, since we do not share their beliefs.

The real issue that should be fought is that states and the fed have no business meddling in "marriage". Period. For anybody. The ONLY thing available to my wife and me should be a "civil union," the same that should be available to you and your partner. To "marry" we would need to become religious, or at least pretend to.

A ceremony in a church should have no legal standing. And in fact it has none. The states, though, rubber-stamp it, and there's the rub. Just change the name of the "marriage license" to "civil union" or "personal partnership" or something. People take out that contract, sign it, have it notarized, and they're hitched. They want to drop by the church and get "blessed" - then they're also "married." They want to go dance naked in the moonlight and wave chicken bones and call it "marriage?" Fine. But no civil union contract - no legal standing.

Ok, I went off on my soapbox - back to Edwards. He was raised in a church that says it does not want to marry any couple other than "a man and a woman." Well, I guess I can live with that. John Kennedy was raised in a church that still said you could not eat meat on Fridays. As long as someone does not try to inflict their religious beliefs on me, I can let them have them. If I were gay, I'd not join Edwards' church. But then again, I would not anyway.

And I honestly believe that what Edwards tried to convey, clumsily, was pretty much what I wrote above, with the exception that he did not have the epiphany of removing the word "marriage" from the public, sectarian domain altogether.

I don't think he was saying he is uncomfortable with you or your partner or your relationship - but rather, that his church has a position and he is not ready to go against that on a personal basis. Not liking his church's position and his allegiance thereto is within your province, of course. But before writing him off as a potential POTUS, be sure what his deeds would be vs. the words he struggled with on stage.

[Cameron27]

118. Except of course,

Elizabeth made the point that he personally is uncomfortable around gays because a gay friend of hers said he wanted to 'snake' him.

[frogcycle]

119. well that would sort of give me the willies too

I am not uncomfortable around gays, but would be most uncomfortable in a gay physical relationship. That remark might make me as uncomfortable around that specific person as I would expect a woman to be uncomfortable around a letch. I'd probably be flattered though. I've been "hit on" three times by flight attendants. Two women, one man. I loved every one of them for it! It's not the interest that would be off-putting, but the nature of the remark.

If it is true that he extrapolates that to an entire demographic, well, that certainly doesn't impress me.

I'd like to hear him talk it out like Biden did in Iowa a few weeks ago. I felt like I actually got to hear what Biden felt rather than a position statement. I'd like to see Edwards get through that without showing a phobic streak. Biden took the same position as Edwards, but clearly showed empathy rather than phobia. His reason for saying gay marriage would not happen if he was elected was that society would not change that fast, not that he was against it. At he end of the day, that might not matter with respect to policy and law, but is tells you about the person. Biden really impressed me in that meeting.

Now I'm saying "so what IS Edwards saying?"

[Cameron27]

120. Honestly what bothers me about this whole situation

is that this snaking thing happened a long time ago and yet he's still uncomfortable with gays. He's not a country bumpkin, he's a lawyer, an ex-senator who's already run for president and now his closest advisor, his wife, can't get through to him on this issue. What the hell makes him uncomfortable, and why does he think it makes things better to say it out loud, or have his wife say it for him.

Frankly it makes him sound like a bigot.

[frogcycle]

121. i agree - it sounds strange

and i'd like to hear more than this "sound bite" before i draw any conclusions. It might be he's phobic and uses that as the excuse; it might be the whole story is bs. I doubt that that one incident if long ago is the full explanation for whatever feelings he has today though. You are right - he's to intelligent and experienced for that.

edit - i tried googling and all I could find was an unattributed blog on Wonkette - which doesn't tell me shit.

might be just a myth, for all I know

[Cameron27]

122. I think EE told the story on CNN, maybe Larry King?

It was in reponse to From's book I believe.

edited: I'm looking for the piece, but it was probably Blizter not King.

[jsamuel]

140. EE remembered what happened, From backed away

Edwards didn't say that in that context.

[Cameron27]

150. Sorry if I didn't express it clearly, here's the quote in context:

"Mr. Blitzer: Shrum writes this: He says: “More troubling was an exchange we had one afternoon as we were throwing around questions and answers in his law firm’s conference room. ‘What is your position, Mr. Edwards, on gay rights?’ I asked. ‘I’m not comfortable around those people,’ was how he began his answer.” …

Mrs. Edwards said she was there during that conversation. “I believe that Bob Shrum brought up the issues of gays and lesbians, and John said, you know, I come from a small Southern town, Baptist, you know. As far as I know, I don’t know — this is, I honestly, he said, honestly an abstract issue for me because he said, you know, I don’t really know, as far as I know, know any gay people….

“And I said, well, actually you do. I referred to a friend of mine from English graduate school and how we had been out — John and I had been out for the evening. I saw this old friend from English graduate school when we were still in law school, and I went over and spoke to him, and I knew that he was gay, and I said, you know, I’m engaged. And there’s the fellow over there I’m engaged to.

“And he said, oh, he’s awfully cute,'’ she recounted, saying he told her that he wanted to “snake him” and she related the conversation to Mr. Edwards. “And this is where he used the word “uncomfortable.” He said, ‘that made me feel uncomfortable.’

“So Bob correctly remembers the word ‘uncomfortable’ but incorrectly remembers the circumstances in which he said it. All of us feel uncomfortable at someone snaking us — I guess in the presence — trying to snake us in the presence of our fiancee, and that made him feel uncomfortable, and John talked about that.”

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/06/03/getting-ready-for-tonights-debate/

What bothers me is that he continues to claim that he's still personally conflicted about gays and seems to be struggling with the issue for some reason.

[Gloria]

124. I figure that "marriage" is the realm of the churches.....a "civil ceremony"

for the non-religious hetero couples seems pretty similar to "civil unions" for gays. Any shortcomings in this sort of arrangement, if they are to be addressed, will mostly like be something Edwards would do. He's not out to screw gays.

It seems to me that the country is on a journey, as is Edwards. And it may very well be more open to listening if the candidate is openly having a debate with himself....

[SaveElmer]

125. Edwards answer was contradictory...

1. He says his personal opinion about Gay Marriage is the result of his religious beliefs...so he is against it.

2. Says he will not allow his personal religious beliefs to influence public policy...

3. SO as a matter of public policy why then is he against gay marriage?

If as he says he won't allow his religious beliefs to influence him, then by his own logic there must be an unspoken reason why he is against gay marriage as a matter of public policy...

[PresidentObama]

135. He isn't contradicting himself.

He can have his personal beliefs against gay marriage. That doesn't mean his beliefs have to influence public policy if the will of the people some how sways towards approving gay marriages. Like I heard Edwards say in 2004, let the states decide...let the people decide. I see no contradiction here. Edward is a strong leader on GLBT issues, and that's what makes me laugh about this thread. Elizabeth may have the better opinion on the issue in my eyes, but at least John is being honest and open. I can't expect any less. I'm not satisfied with Obama and Hillary's "play-it-safe" answers on gay marriage.

[SaveElmer]

139. He is...

But to clarify then someone should ask him if a bill came to his desk legalizing gay marriage would he sign it? Or would he fight such an effort...

A fair question given his ambiguity...

It's not that I think he is bad on GLBT issues necessarily, but he gives this tortured explanation every time. His position is the same as most of the others, but his explanation for it is not good...and he is contradicting himself...he didn't say anything in the debate about it being up to the states...

[venable]

129. OP, I'm uncomfortable with your discomfort, for a simple reason

you betray your attitude by mocking his calling out of current Senators for extending the war budget, or for delaying their votes...you say he would have voted for it, too.

You either are being untruthful, or you don't realize that he led the fight to vote against the ORIGINAL supplemental $87B, the first time w went back to congress for more money.

He voted against it, especially courageously due to the fact that he had voted for the IWR. That seems a better measure of how he would have voted recently than your mocking 'pullleaaazze'.

If you are not clear on this issue (which YOU brought up), I'm not sure how clear you are on his GLBT position, his honesty about it, and his determination to assure that the federal government never, ever get in the way of gay marriage.

[ChiciB1]

131. My SUPPORT FOR EDWARDS Remains The Same!!!

Sorry... your OP seems to be anti-Edwards basically because most of the Democratic candidates feel the same way!!

[MalloyLiberal]

132. Jackass

[comtec]

145. That's not necissary

There are many points to dis agree with some one but calling names is really juvenile.
oh god I just defended someone who accuses me of being against human rights... oh well. se la vie

[bigwillq]

137. I actually thought he was being really honest

when he answered that way more honest than Obama and HRC have been. They danced around that "do you think homosexuality is morally wrong" question.

However, I wanted that question to go one step further. I want to hear how Edwards would respond if Congress passed a national gay marriage bill. Despite his beliefs, would he sign the bill or veto it (no way the Congress would come back with a veto proof majority on this bill if it EVER made it to his desk).

That's what I want to know and then I will judge him more harshly. For now, I thought he was very honest and I respect him for it because at least I know, some what, what his true feelings are on this subject. I can't say the same for some of the other candidates.

[Darth_Kitten]

138. I'm uncomfortable with one-issue voters.

He's entitled to his own personal opinion on the matter of gay marriage. He stated it as much in the debate.

[comtec]

146. So am I

aside from short sighted, it's how we got into this mess in the first place.
and really, right now, it's not an important issue compared to the war and THE DISMANTLING OF OUR GOVERNMENT!
yes yes, oh how dare I!! but seriously folks, in context, what's more important? making the world safer so you CAN be "married" (quotes for whatever it may end up being called) or supporting people who don't give a rat's ass about ANYONE and enabling this HORRIBLY corrupt dictator!?

FIRST... we toss the bastards in jail, THEN we fix the economy, THEN we get yáll a marriage license :)

[hulklogan]

147. I guess I'll just sit quietly in the back of the bus waiting for full equality then nt

[cleveramerican]

148. he's crunching hard numbers .....

and throwing you a bone. He wants to win and has decided this as his path.Oppose his position but don't attack him for making hard choices based on genuine political concerns.

[iverglas]

152. I understand completely

I'm a foreigner, so I don't count ;) -- but I watched, and felt exactly the same way.

It's exactly how I feel about a lot of people on reproductive choice, too.

Either you want people to be able to exercise their fundamental human rights, or you don't. How you feel about how someone else chooses to do that is of the most supreme irrelevance.

.. none of them felt it necessary to wring their hands and fret out loud about their personal problems with my community. It was sickening. Absolutely sickening.

Exactly.

It may occasionally be useful to explain one's own personal beliefs in a matter -- by way of explaining why one's public policy position appears to be inconsistent with them, but is not. If one is speaking to someone who just can't approve of someone marrying a same-sex partner, or just can't approve of a woman terminating a pregnancy, it may be useful to say to that person that one doesn't approve either, but this is why we must not violate their right to do it.

Edwards sure as hell wasn't doing that. Which is doubly sad, because if he'd use his personal beliefs -- by simply stating them, not by wringing his hands over what people who don't share them do -- to persuade others who share them to support equal rights, instead of to attempt to justify his own choice to try to deny equal rights, he might be useful.

[Strawman]

153. LBJ wanted it both ways too

He wanted to appeal to northern liberals on the race issue without losing Southern support. In the end, he passed more Civil Rights legislation than anybody since Reconstruction.

That being said there are no indications that John Edwards is the second coming of LBJ. ZERO. He has no record of legislative accomplishment whatsoever, so I don't think he should get a pass on strategic grounds.

It's not your job as a citizen to think strategically. Your job is to stand up for your rights and make the politicians have to account for you. Vote for someone who supports you openly. Otherwise John Edwards doesn't have to do anything for your vote.

[More Than A Feeling]

155. I agree with you that it's not his best issue by far.

It's not why I'm supporting him.

I support him because I trust him not to go to Big Business on his hands and knees, saying "pretty please, if it wouldn't be too much trouble, stop subverting our government for fun and profit. If you feel like it."

No, President Edwards will give them a taste of what they've been dishing out to everyone else for decades now, and see how they like it. We're talking public financing of elections, we're talking a labor revival to make those old union hands shout "hallelujah!" John Edwards isn't afraid to collect the taxes we need to make government work for the people, from those who can most afford to pay. He'll take those ancient tropes about "tax and spend Democrats" and shove them up the GOP's ass! He'll bring tax dodgers to justice like the criminals that they are. Now that's being tough on crime!

That's why I support John Edwards.