Edwards evades gay marriage issue

[Freddie Stubbs]

N.C. senator criticizes proposed amendment, says it's issue for states

JIM MORRILL

Staff Writer


SAN FRANCISCO - Sen. John Edwards continued to tiptoe around the subject of gay marriage Thursday, even during a visit to the city at the heart of the issue poised to become an election-year hot button.

Yet even as he continued to sidestep questions on it, the N.C. Democrat was endorsed by one of the city's most prominent -- and newly married -- lesbian officials.

At Thursday night's debate in Los Angeles, Edwards criticized President Bush's proposed constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage.

"This president is talking about amending the constitution for a problem that doesn't exist," he said. "This is clearly nothing but politics."

more: http://www.charlotte.com/mld/observer/news/8053467.htm?ERIGHTS=7913798653110238677charlotte::[e-mail]&KRD_RM=5sltlqlsumlquoonlllllllllo|K|Y

[spooky3]

1. This newspaper has bashed Edwards unfairly before. I think his position

is crystal clear, and very consistent, on this issue. Either you agree with him, or you don't (and I don't entirely). Apparently that is too complex for some people to understand.

[lazarus]

2. So what is his position?

Is he for or against gay marriage?

[mohc]

3. He has stated repeatedly

He is personally against gay marriage.
He is against an amendment to the US Constitution to ban gay marriage.
He believes states should be allowed to decide if they want to allow gay marriages or civil unions.
He believes the federal government should recognize whichever decisions the states make on this issue.
He supports civil unions, or some legally equivolent status for gay couples that would afford them the same rights as married couples.

[HFishbine]

4. Is that right?

#4? So a gay couple could be married in Hawaii and receive federal recognition and benefits, but not allowed to get married or civilly joined in North Carolina where they would be denied any benefits of marriage?

[Atlant]

5. Which of course, only leaves in doubt...

Whether the Full Faith and Credit clause of the US Constitution
applies to a gay marriage established in one state but tested
in another state.

Where's Edwards on *THAT* one?

Should one of California's gay marriages be recognized in, say,
Mississippi?

Atlant

[HFishbine]

6. A better way

of asking what I was wondering.

[mohc]

7. I'll respond to both #4 and #5 here

I have to admit, Edwards position on this one point seems a bit odd. If the federal government were to take Edwards stance on this issue, then gays in MA, VT, or possibly CA depending on how that situation turns out would get tax benefits that couples in the rest of the country would not.

Many suggest that by getting the right to gay marriage in one state will open the door to testing the Full Faith and Credit clause against the DOMA. The FFaC clause of the US Constitution forces states to recognize certain certifications, such as marriage, from another state. But what DOMA did, and what many states have done in their laws, is to differentiate between a qualification of marriage and the definition of marriage. If one state allows a person to get married at 16 while another requires the person to be 18, the state with the higher age limit will have to recognize the marriage of someone from a state with the lower age limit that is below the higher limit. This is because the age restriction is simply a qualification for marriage. DOMA, many state laws, and most of the proposed constitutional amendments do not make a man-woman relationship a qualification, but a definition of marriage. Using a hyperbole to demonstrate the difference, a state that allowed people to marry their pet rocks would not have those marriages recognized in other states because it is not a marriage in the first place. So what these laws are attempting to do is to state that any gay union can not be a marriage because a marriage is man-woman relationship, not a two person relationship. Basically this makes the argument a semantic one, relying only on the definitions of words. But equal protection remains unchanged, if the government is going to give benefit to unions of straight couples, which happen to be called marriages, then those same rights must be afforded to gay couples, regardless of what word describes those unions.

[lazarus]

8. I'm curious

why he's against gay marriage, and if he thinks all civil rights should be left up to the states.