Edwards is *personally opposed to gay marriage*??

[dolo amber]

I heard this on NPR this morning...

While he's adamantly against the proposed constitutional amendment, he *personally* opposses it. This may be common knowledge, I don't so much pay attn. to Edwards, but it kinda surprised me. :shrug:

[Cuban_Liberal]

1. Why does it surprise you?

It's Kerry's position, too.

[dolo amber]

2. Really...?!

I (obviously mistakenly) assumed our guys would be slightly more evolved...I'm sad to know that.

And I also should be paying closer attention.

:(

[Liberal Veteran]

3. It's called pandering.

What they may or may not feel is not necessarily what they say. He may actually be for it, but is unwilling to risk coming out and saying as much.

Sad that politics has become this way.

[Desertrose]

4. check out Kucinich.....he supports it

His personal opinion, I'm not sure...my guess is he has no problem with what people choose to do in their lives....

...he is for gay marriage....also MM and decriminalizing pot ,too....

Peace
DR

[Bombtrack]

5. Kerry and Edwards have the same positions on all the pressing gay issues

For states rights on Gay Marriage or Civil Unions, against the federal constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, and personally apposed to gay marriage themselves

As far as I and probably most non-social conservative democrats are concerned, they're both right about the first 2 and wrong about the last.

However, there are conflicting reports that Kerry is for the Massachusetts state ban, which would really sort of give Edwards the edge on these issues in some peoples opinions, because it conflicts with Kerry's states right mantle, or at least, makes him look somewhat hypocritical once again

[MurikanDemocrat]

6. edit -wrong thread

[Bombtrack]

10. Actually, I just stated what you stated

He don't think he has really an inconsistent position, but some people might think he does, because he says lets states do what they want, but have Massachusetts do this.

[MurikanDemocrat]

15. I put that in the wrong thread - sorry

:hi:

[MurikanDemocrat]

7. Here's another thread on Edwards position on gay marriage

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x400368

[silverlib]

8. It makes me sad...

First, I am heterosexual. I don't understand the hoopla about marriage. I fought against being married for years and am only "married" in the governments eyes for a very strange reason. My husband obtained custody of his one year old granddaughter after we had lived together several years. She was severly neglected. I didn't want to get married 'cause I had done that before and felt like marriage was nothing more than a government piece of paper. It had nothing to do with "God" or spirituality. When married couples had problems, they generally involved an attorney. I wanted to be "married" in my own eyes, but didn't give a hoot about the government and laws being a part of our relationship. Then came the time to go back to court final orders to keep this beautiful little girl and the court told us that they wanted us to be "married" to protect her. In Texas, common law is recognized for everything but adoption. If something were to happen to her grandfather, I would have no legal rights. And so, in an office at the County Courthouse, we said our vows on a quiet Saturday to protect "our" precious little girl. Once again, at the age of 40+, I "had" to get married. The only thing missing was the gun. I gave birth to this child through my soul and my heart. Just like homosexuals often birth their children.

This is why I think it is incredible that our government would use "sanctity" as a reason to DENY anyone this right. Sadly, "being against this personally, but also against the Constitutional amendment" will be the only way that the Democrats can pull Republican support for not amending the Constitution. It's very shallow, once again.

[emulatorloo]

12. GWB amendment is a Democrat Trap

he wants the dem candidates to say they are for gay marriage so B can drum up homophobia and talk about how Dems are out of touch.

it is also a dem trap in that it gets Dems fighting against each other, those who can only see the "against Gay marriage" part of kerry/edwards positions, and not the full partnership rights advocated by both of those candidates. And then dems fight w each other, and GWB's agenda moves forward.

IHMO it will be a short hop and a jump from civil unions to gay marriage if we have a dem in and we have good judges.

It will be a long uphill battle if GWB is able to ban civil unions.

[meg]

9. Edwards borrowed that position from pro-choicers

Can you see the similarity: "I am for choice but I personally would not have an abortion."

Edwards should really say "I am for gay unions but I personally would not marry a man."

[Cuban_Liberal]

11. Kerry must have borrowed it, too.

It's his position, as well.

[dolo amber]

14. Unless that's not what he means

I was thinking it probably meant more along the lines of:

"I'm for gay unions for political purposes although I *personally* don't believe they should have the right." :eyes:

<sad> :(

[GreenArrow]

16. it could also mean

"I'm for gay unions politically, sort of, and even though I personally believe they should have the right, I'd rather win votes than be honest, so I'll say that I'm against it."

[dolo amber]

17. True 'nuff

Hopefully you're right and I'm just being cynical. :)

[redqueen]

20. Would this mean you're cynical, though?

It seems to me that it's the politicians and those that accept their pandering who are cynical.

[seaglass]

26. Or realistic. n/t

[redqueen]

28. Your response coupled with your avatar... how sad. n/t

[seaglass]

32. A little naive, are we? n/t

[Edwards4President]

19. Or it could mean that

"like many Americans, I still do not feel comfortable with the notion of gay marriage but I am progressive enough to realize that everyone doesn't feel the way I do and that I should not force my view on everyone else by making my personal view official federal government policy."

[southerngirlwriter]

13. I am a ferocious (straight) supporter of LGBT rights.....

and this doesn't bother me, for the same reason that it doesn't bother me if a politician is adamantly *personally* opposed to abortion. Who cares? As long as they are not in favor of the government taking my rights in those areas away.

As many say, "Opposed to abortion? Don't have one!"

I feel comfortable that Edwards would say, "Don't like gay marriage? Don't marry someone of the same sex!"

The "states' rights" position is a safe one to take during an election year. As badly as I wish our country was evolved enough for more, I don't think it is. I've seen polls by reputable places that put America at 67% against gay marriage. If Edwards or Kerry or whoever has to be soft on that issue to get elected, that's fine.

Edwards or Kerry = not as supportive as I want them to be of LGBT rights

Whistle-Ass = adamantly opposed to gay rights; supports giving gov't money to faith-based organizations, which would include NARTH and other gay-torturing organizations; supports codifying discrimination into the constitution

It's not a difficult choice, although it's not as stark a contrast as I'd like. It's still pretty stark.

[Zookeeper]

31. Bush will use gay marriage to distract us from Iraq, jobs, etc....

I completely agree with you on all counts. (and I'm straight, married for 20 years, suburban, three kids and even drive a mini-van.) I'm also old enough to see that acceptance of gay and lesbian people has come a long way in a short time (remember how long it took women to get the right to vote!) and it is inevitable that gay unions will become more widely accepted. That acceptance will come as more and more people realize that gays don't just live in S.F., N.Y. and Florida, but are their neighbors. (or doctor, dentist or real estate agent..) When you know and like someone, it's hard to say, "No, you shouldn't have the same rights I'm entitled to."

I don't have a problem with the Democratic candidates giving a "safe" answer-FOR NOW. When we have a Democrat in the White House we have a much better chance of having our voices heard.

[Freddie Stubbs]

18. The man had a more conservative voting record than Lieberman in 2002

Why would this surprise you?

[tryanhas]

21. So am I...

...and most people on the face of the planet.

[dolo amber]

23. So are you....?

Opposed to gay marriage? Or surprised that a major Democratic candidate for President is?

[tryanhas]

33. Opposed to it...

...just like most people on the face of the planet.

[citizen snips]

22. Edwards is a Christian

So it is no surprise he is personally opposed to gay marriage.

[no name no slogan]

24. Jesus NEVER said a thing about gay marriage

Jesus NEVER said anything about gay marriage. Go ahead and search the New Testament and tell me where JESUS ever said anything about it.

The "Christian" dogma about marriage goes back to the books of the old testament, where certain "laws" for the Jews were laid down. In the same section where "gay marriage" was forbidden, it was also declared that you shouldn't wear clothes made from two types of cloth, shouldn't plant two crops in the same field, and shouldn't eat pork.

How many "Christians" out there wear cotton/wool or cotton/poly blends, have a garden or eat Ham at Easter? Shouldn't they also be condemned to hell for violating these ancient laws?

There are a lot of Christians who don't fear gay marriage, including a number of gay clergy. As Al Sharpton said in one debate, "maybe the Christian Right needs to meet the Right Christians."

[citizen snips]

25. I was talking about Edward's beliefs.

I am not open to talk about my beliefs on gay marriage.

[tryanhas]

34. For this cause shall a man leave his mother and father..

...and cleave to HIS WIFE, and they twain shall be one flesh.

Jesus was the FULFILLMENT of the prophesies in the OT.

Christians don't just throw out the OT when it comes to issues like homosexuality, or BEASTALITY, which are both mentioned in Leviticus.

There are things that are out of date, like SENDING THE WOMEN OFF BY THEMSELVES, during the time of the month of their period, but because of modern hygiene, that's unnecessary now.

But in both the OT and the NT, homosexuality is described as an abomination.

You can't separate Jesus from the OT, and you can't separate the Apostles from Jesus in terms of doctrine. If you could, why would anybody in a church need A PASTOR today.

Paul was no different than your Pastor is today.

Anyone who is going to compare HOMOSEXUALITY to clothes doesn't know a thing about Christian doctrine...

[no name no slogan]

36. It doesn't hold up

Thousands of people still get trichinosis every year from tainted pork, yet Christians are "allowed" to eat it.

Thousands of people get sick off unclean shellfish each year, too, yet Christians are still allowed to eat them, too.

And it would be pretty damned hard for the Bible to talk about "homosexuality", especially since the word DID NOT EXIST in the 2nd century Greek that the earliest Bibles were written in.

Like I said, Jesus NEVER said a damn thing about homosexuality in the New Testament. Sure, it may be described in the books of the OT and NT, but NOWHERE did Jesus say it-- it is only attributable to some "apostle" who never even KNEW Jesus when he was alive.

It's just more mincing and parsing by so-called "Christians" who don't agree with certain behavior, and therefore feel that it should be outlawed.

The only "abomination" is that so many narrow-minded "Christians" can't get over their hatred of those different from them, and therefore feel it necessary to call somebody created in the image of God "evil".

"Oh Jesus, please save me from your followers..."

[colonel odis]

27. i saw edwards on meet the press in november

he said then that he was against laws that would allow gay marriage because "the country isn't ready for it."

evasive? weasel-y?

or reality.

the more it gets talked about, the more the republicans frame the debate.

[Finch]

29. Its not suprising...

and I personally have no problem with his personal opposition to "Gay Marriage"... its seems however both Edwards and Kerry see it as a state rather than a federal issue and i agree with them what ever my personal beliefs (but then again I’m very sceptical on the idea of gay adoption, and would have thought that was just as important an issue)... but Bush is just playing politics with an issue that ultimately is up to the State's to decided not Bush and not the Mayor of San Francisco... Edwards and Kerry seem to have arrived at a position very much like mine...

[PurityOfEssence]

30. He doesn't feel the country's ready for it

That's how he expressed it to Dianne Sawyer.

Without prompting, he then went on to say that he supported insurance rights, medical visitation rights, property and survivorship rights. In short, it's the word.

Remember that this guy is a working class backwoods Methodist; he's come a long way, and his coded message of "the country not being ready for it" shows his political acumen.

[no name no slogan]

38. Much of the country wasn't ready for integration, too

but Kennedy sent Army troops to Alabama to ensure it happened, even though he himself had doubts about it.

It's called COURAGE. It's about standing up for things that are right, even if they're unpopular.

Unfortunately we don't seem to make many candidates like that anymore.

[madfloridian]

35. Do any of our candidates support the marriage part?

I don't think so.

[Uzybone]

37. Kucinich is the only one

n/t