did i just hear john edwards say that

homosexuaLs shouLd not be aLLowed to marry?

on CNN?

as i type this, he's staggering and saying something about civiL unions based on states? and now he's taLking about jesus?

pLease teLL me why he shouLd be supported in the primary? yes, i'm sure he's just hedging his bets and mentioning his Lord and savior jesus christ for the primary or something, but pLease reassure me that he's not just using the GLBT community in a simiLar vein as the the despicabLe repubs do.

Asked if homosexuals have a right to be married, he said "no".

But then he blathered about how HIS personal views aren't necessarily the positions that should be imposed on the states, and yadda yadda yadda.

I think he made a good point about the distinction between the responsibilities of the president versus his own personal beliefs ...

as was Kerry's when he made a similar statement.

about abortion.

Not very clearly, obviously.

"HIS personal views aren't necessarily the positions that should be imposed on states"

We shouldn't let them frame the Democratic Candidates on issues that the federal government has no jurisdiction. Marriage is a state by state thing. All states recognize a marriage between a man and a woman, not so much with gay marriage.

But more over the point here is he is leaving state issues to the state so the federal government can concentrate on federal issues.
The republicons talk about smaller government then want the federal government to tell the states how they should act on things like this.

Look at his answer again, it was an excellent reply.

"yes".

Because the right wing has made it one, that is why.

I support in principle the gay and lesbian cause, I just don't think the Presidential race is the place the battle for equality can be won.

the leadership the President provides on topics like this is important.

There are far too many issues that effect each and every American that need to be addressed. Stopping the bludgeoning debt, illegal wars, health care and the economy that we should be judging our leaders on.
But that is just my opinion and if you feel strongly enough about any views, you must make your decision based on those views and your views alone.

Presidents take position on all sorts of issues that they don't have much control over. Abortion is a prime example.

But there ARE policy-issues involved in gay marriage - a prime one being the Defense of Marriage Act, which Clinton wants repealed. I don't know the stance of the other candidates.

Issues like these are important for letting us know how they think. If John Edwards believes gays don't have a "right" to marry, that's something I'd like to know.

Just maybe his views would give him enough reason to appeal the Defense of Marriage Act. I don't know.
I hope you find what you are looking for in a candidate.

...fuck me. My life doesn't count. Does that about cover it?

:shrug:

:eyes:

I will not vote him now...regardless of any other position he holds on anything. Period. Son of a Demon cur...
I'm tired of voting for people who don't support MY LIFE. I just won't anymore.
Lee

So frustrating, I know.

Marriage equality should not be just a state by state thing. It's a basic civil rights issue, and as such, shouldn't be held up to a vote anywhere -- like our other inherent rights, it simply *is*.

The boorish majority should not be allowed to restrict the basic rights of GLBT people to marry. It's that simple.

And if his personal feelings are such that he disagrees with full rights for these people, then IMO, that's a very good reason indeed not to vote for him.

I'm quite disappointed. Bigotry is sad.

I have never once condemned gays nor would I ever consider doing so. I have no problem with gays getting married. None what so ever.
I don't judge people based on their life style and if I did then I would deserve the bigot title. But I would stand up and support anyone being persecuted for their life style, race, religion or any other beliefs.

Unfortunately the marriage thing is a state issue even for heterosexuals. Ohio is not required to honor my marriage license which was issued in Missouri. Let them realize the windfall they could make from that one. But then they could do that with gay marriage as well and they continue to pass it up.

I would fully support a fight for gay marriage on the state level. The reasons I am against it being an issue in the Presidential campaign are based on the fact that marriage is already a state issue and more importantly is what the religious right has done making this issue more important that foreign relations and the general well being of the nation on many levels.
The religious right knows they can strike a nerve in the Democratic party and they keep poking it.

I hope that all gays do have the opportunity to get married, they may as well be as miserable as those of us who are married LOL!

And yes bigotry is a sad and terrible thing. Hope this explains my opinion better and you think better of me.

And while I understand that marriage is a state by state issue now, my point is that marriage equality should not be.

We did away with laws preventing inter-racial marriage. Likewise, it's long past time to get over the opposition to gay marriage. There simply isn't any legal standing to discriminate. And like all civil rights, those for GLBT ought not to be up for a vote by anyone. They exist -- before any laws that could limit them.

So, sure, allow states to decide how long you must wait after getting a license before you can be married, or similar rules. What states should not be allowed to do is discriminate.

I find it sad that so many of our Democratic candidates lack the backbone to simply say they are for gay marriage. I think the "opposed to gay marriage, but for CUs" is a cowardly dodge, designed to appeal to those who, yes, are still struggling with bigotry.

And I was saddened to hear those comments of Edwards'. If he did say what he said, then he has some serious personal work to do. Sounds like Elizabeth is a few thousand miles ahead of him on that front.

So no, I didn't mean you. I meant Edwards, and the others, who continue to fudge on something which really doesn't warrant fudging.

That's why.

not just the monetary aspect, shouldn't be supported?

I can't fathom one single even-semi coherent fucking reason why gays and lesbians shouldn't be allowed to marry, beyond the fact that the notion sticks in the craws of uptight, church lady busybodies who are incapable of minding their own damn business.

If that's his *personal* view then the hell with him. It speaks volumes, to me anyway.

Frankly I think he's trying to 'play both sides' with statements like that.

He'll be back with an article in the Advocate saying all that you want to hear......

and his supporters will say he never said what you thought he said.

That's what happened when he was saber rattling against Iran at the big AIPAC and the Herzliya Conferences (the 4 that he attended).
PROOF:
http://www.herzliyaconference.org/Eng/_Articles/Article.asp?ArticleID
http://www.cjp.org/content_display.html?ArticleID=178593
http://web.israelinsider.com/Articles/Politics/10435.htm
http://www.rawstory.com/news/2007/Edwards_Iran_must_know_world_wont_0123.html
http://www.totallyjewish.com/news/world/?content_id=5400
http://www.axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/printer_23828.shtml
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3355802,00.html
http://www.nysun.com/article/47843
http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2007/02/enforced-orthodoxies-and-iran.html
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2007_02/010678.php
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2007_02_01_digbysblog_archive.html#117046464485756663
http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=10399
http://www.planetarymovement.org/2007/01/24/edwards-veers-hard-right/

The Internet got wind of this "Cowboy" talk coming from John Edwards, many said they wouldn't support him anymore, and next thing you know, he arranged for an interview just for the netroots.
http://ezraklein.typepad.com/blog/2007/02/the_edwards_int.html

Just check the dates. After that one interview that was dissiminated throughout the internet, the Netroots once again loved them some John Edwards in about one minute. Made me kinda of scared of those who call themselves Liberals but can rationalize what is clear to something more wishy-washy as needed.

I'm sure he'll "clean" it all up as soon as possible! That's how he operates.

"I'm sure he'll 'clean' it all up as soon as possible! That's how he operates."

And that's how Microsoft releases software.

the basic human rights of GLBT at the same time?

That's a mighty odd statement to make.

To me, those issues are inextricably interconnected. It's all about justice.

should be imposed on the States ... allowing same-sex couples to marry DOES amount to equal protection of the law, in my humble opinion, as the High Court has recognized the right to marry as a fundamental right.

Ideally, that right would be fully recognized as a constitutional right, for same-sex couples, and it would be imposed upon the States via the 14th Amendment.

So, Sen. Edwards, I respectfully disagree.

the kuch?

and dodd (though apparentLy, he crapped out during the Last debate - not Last night) and from what i've heard, richardson.

Where did you get that one from?

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

She filled out the HRC questionnaire and she opposes gay marriage.

Yet they filled out the questionaire saying they oppose it. She also supports civil unions.

Hillary only supports civil unions.

You should look at the dates of the article you link to. The article stated her tepid support for gay marriage in New York and was from October, 2006....when she was running for re-election for NY Senator, with a Governor who was for full equality rights.

The hrc.org questionnaire was from a few weeks ago where she explicitly expressed that she didn't support equal marriage rights for the LGBT community. Civil unions are not equality.

maybe she may intimate in private courters that she's aLL for it, but in pubLic, she's not.

Too bad. I was really starting to like Edwards. But I can't abide this religious right pandering crap.

be proud of. He speaks my mind and my heart, but he's much too honest and unpaid-for to be elected.

According to the Human Rights Campaign, only Kucinich
supports gay marriage.

All of the candidates support Civil Unions.

Tesha

:thumbsup:

I think he's made it clear that he supports a state's rights to decide the definition of 'marriage', and that it should not be a federal mandate over all, and that his personal views are simply that, his own personal views, not those he would impose on a country.

Each person has to make the decision on whether his views on this topic will outweigh everything else. If it is THAT important, then, it seems to me, you know your choice.

"I think he's made it clear that he supports a state's rights to decide the definition of 'marriage', and that it should not be a federal mandate over all..."

You know that's a cop-out. It's the same stale argument used to avoid the issue of whether or not interracial marriage should be recognized across all states. Cheney says the same thing about marriage equality.

That marriage not only gives couples state rights, it also gives couples rights and responsibilities on a Federal level.

But how is this a federal issue, anyway?

is a federal issue.

against an entire group of people?

So long as he promises not to be biased as president...

Makes no sense to me.

That's why we support Edwards.

That's why we support him.

I'm sorry but social issues aren't a priority for us. And in any case, they only help the Repubs in the end.

The white, working male voter voted for Bush over Kerry by a roughly 20% margin in 2004. It wasn't because of Bush's fiscal policies.

On edit: I find both your username and avatar tragically ironic.

What's ironic about it?

LBJDemocrat means I support a return to the economic policies of LBJ, not Bill Clinton, who did for the Democratic Party what Tony Blair did to Labour.

My avatar is a statement that Republicans don't have a monopoly on religion. I don't mean to advertise my faith, only to help make DU more appealing to lurkers.

Thank you so much for making DU appealing to lurkers.

So you're saying LBJ's legacy should depend on Vietnam only? There's more to LBJ than Vietnam.

And yeah, Iraq is at least as big a mistake as Vietnam.

As saphhocrat wrote below "LBJ had the wisdom to sign the Civil Rights Act, knowing full well he may be committing political suicide, because it was the right thing to do." Now, why should the Democratic party pander to bigots? I think they should continue to work on civil rights and equal rights along with a whole bunch of other stuff. And any one that says that is all they are working on is either lying to trying to manipulate you. Will it work?

I just don't see it as politically possible. There were a lot more blacks than there are gays. It's not right, but that's politics for you.

I think the candidate should remain quiet on the issue, and then once he's elected, he can change the public discourse and undo the damage Reagan did.

I don't get it.

That is not true by any stretch of the imagination. Do you know how many blacks there were in the US in 1961?

http://www.census.gov/population/documentation/twps0056/tab01.pdf

That is 9.502%

Now what's the population of GLBT Americans?

No one knows for sure, anti-gay folk like to say it is 1-2%, but actual studies in Britan show its about 7-8% there. Most studies show the % of GLBT people in every population remains constant (i.e. if Britain has 8% it would be reasonable to assume its about 8% in the USA). There are many problems with studies of how many would identify as GLBT and the actual number. However to say that there were a lot more blacks than 60's than there are gays would be untrue and equally impossible to verify at the current time.


http://www.avert.org/hsexu1.htm

It's pretty ignorant to assume that there are no LGBT Black Americans.

Just saying.

...is that for all his faults, LBJ had the wisdom to sign the Civil Rights Act, knowing full well he may be committing political suicide, because it was the right thing to do. That concept seems to be lost on you.

As for your avatar, I won't begin to make any assumptions about your faith, but your gays-can-get-knotted-for-all-I-care attitude doesn't even remotely resemble anything my mama taught me about what it means to have a "Christian attitude."

Or are you just fond of non sequiturs?

That response had nothing to do with your historically accurate smack-down. And those who invoke Lincoln in these situations come from a different set of political mores.

Social issues only help repubs in the end? How is that?

Why were they so hell-bent on trying to pass an anti-gay marriage amendment that they knew would fail?

"The white, working male voter voted for Bush over Kerry by a roughly 20% margin in 2004." And in order to pander to their vote the Democratic party should....also be anti-gay?

The Democratic Party should, at this moment, focus on economic issues that have broad appeal. Of course that's difficult to do because you lose contributors like that, and Wall Street would much rather have a socially liberal president than an economically liberal president, not that they're mutually exclusive.

:shrug:

in order to appeal to bigots who might be persuaded to vote Dem. on fiscal issues?

Sorry, I can't go for that.

How about dealing with fiscal issues along with equality?

If I'd been allowed to marry the person I wanted to, I wouldn't have burned through tens of thousands of dollars in international phone calls, flights to the other side of the planet, immigration-lawyer's fees, and a host of other expenses -- and today, I might be able to put food on the table myself.

Damn, it's funny how that works, isn't it? Yeah, there are no poor gay people, and the refusal of some to recognize the very real financial benefits of marriage equality, to all, doesn't sock anybody square in the wallet, does it? :sarcasm:

Don't even mind the fact that we get screwed up the chute on taxes or health insurance, either -- as long as it doesn't affect you, why should you give a flying fart at a rolling doughnut? (Well, it won't affect you, until the day I need surgery, and your tax dollars pay for it.)

What is it going to take to make some people understand that ALL these issues are the SAME issue? That if you screw me, you get screwed, in one way or another?

You realize that our families get taxed more than other families, don't you? Social Security. Health insurance. Inheritance. Hell, we can't even get the family discounts at National Parks.

Unless Gore gets in, I'm voting Kucinich. I've just about had it with religious right busybodies being incapable of running their OWN lives as opposed to trying to run everyone else's.

:thumbsup:

It's all of a piece. It's NOT all of one or all of the other.

Justice is justice, and injustice toward one is injustice for all.

Now we'll just be talking about issues that the elite couldn't give a flying fuck about (abortion, gay marriage,etc) while the underlying economic and foriegn policy issues will be pushed to the side or given lip service to.

:eyes:

:eyes:

I support those rights because they are rights that should be granted to everyone. But I don't think they should overshadow the other issues and create wedges. That's why pubs campaign on them.

Though were you sarcastic when you said the elites don't care about gay marriage and abortion? You'll find plenty of gay investment bankers in New York.

In general, politicians and the rediculously wealthy don't. If the gay investment banker doesn't get those concessions here or the elite's daughters can't get an abortion here, what's to stop them from going overseas and doing those things?

I was just saying that they would rather the main focus would be on those things instead of the facts that we spend going on $1 trillion a year on the MIC (Military Indutrial Complex), world conquest, the destruction of the social safety net, amongst other things.

Edit: Pubs using these things for divide and conquer tactics was what I was talking about.

...you wouldn't have the gall to call them "wedge" issues.

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

I knew that was coming, but I didn't expect to hear it quite so early in the thread.

You're the one marginalizing people, and you don't even see it. "You people," indeed. You'd never say that to a group of black folks, would you?

It was said in frustration since you just want to attack and not see the main point. So I guess we can just talk about this for the next 30 years while the rest of the country goes into the hellhole, right?

I'll be dead in 30 years.

And I'm attacking your P.O.V., which is the same brick wall I've been running into for the first 45 years of my life: You refuse to understand that this isn't a game to me -- this is my goddamned life, and my life is not a political football. Your easy dismissal of equality as a "wedge issue" reminds me of the doctor who cannot see his patients as human beings, but only "cases."

Understand?

certain strategy necessary. Being hostile is emotionally satisfying but blocks progress. No one's goddamed life is a political football, and politics never answers one groups needs specifically. If you're that centered on your goddamed life, why do you expect other people to be centered on other than theirs?

Politics is about coalitions. You're breaking yours down. How do you convince straight people that gay rights should be their first priority in their goddamed lives? You have to give it a fundamental human rights underpinning, that it somehow threatens them that it does not exist.

Geez, let alone trying to convince the damn repukes.

First, READ what I was responding to. READ the posts that say, quite clearly, my rights are just not as important as anyone else's. I wasn't even talking about "strategy"; I've been talking about being dismissed as if my life amounted to nothing.

But since you brought up "strategy":

You're on DU talking to people who agree with you but think a certain strategy necessary.

And which strategy might that be? "Wait until after the 2000/2002/2004/2006/2008 elections! If you rock the boat, you're going to lose it for the whole party! Just wait your turn! Just hang in there, one more time, and I/we/they/God/we all promise you'll get full equality! No, really! We really, really, really promise! Just be quiet and let the grown-ups handle it, 'cause we know what's best."

Guess what that's gotten us? Constitutional marriage bans in 17 states, a thisclose dodge of the Federal Marriage Amendment bullet, and yet another round of the neverending Get-to-the-Back-of-the-Bus-Where-You-Belong game.

Did it ever occur to you that this fabulous "strategy" isn't working? Did you notice it's only hurt us? Or is it just too difficult to come to terms with the idea that you might, just maybe, just possibly be dead wrong?

Tell me: How many times does one need to do the same thing over and over and over again while expecting different results, before it's OK to call it insanity? What does it take to convince people that if something isn't working, it might be time to do something else?

This "strategy" can be summed up in three words: It. Isn't. Working.

Being hostile is emotionally satisfying but blocks progress.

Don't you try to psychoanalyze me. And unless you've been where I am, buddy, you're talking to a brick wall.

No one's goddamed life is a political football...

Then what is it to you? A chess game? Same thing -- you SAY as much when you dare to play games with my life as if it were a pawn in this master game plan of yours.

You are making my life a political football, or pawn, or whatever you don't want to call it. MY LIFE is NOT part of YOUR "strategy."

And, my God in heaven, if you don't think anyone's life is a political football, you need to bone up on a couple of centuries' worth of American history. What, you think Lincoln freed the slaves out of the goodness of his heart? He did it because he thought it was the only thing that would hold the Union together. You think Clinton caved and signed DADT into law because (as Hillary just told us) he thought it was going to be a "transition," a way of easing people into the idea of queers in the military? Please. Don't insult my intelligence.

And if you don't believe your life is just a political football, too... Well, there's nothing I can say to you. You are no more special than I am to TPTB; you are just another pawn, the same as I am, and the same as every soldier who's just that much more cannon fodder. If you believe otherwise, then you're playing right into what the Roves of this world -- on both ends of the political spectrum -- want you to believe.

...and politics never answers one groups needs specifically.

Well, gee, there seem to be a few folks right here in this very thread who think politics should answer their needs specifically, at the expense of anyone and everything else. Why don't you go talk to those folks? 'Cause, buddy, I already know this. I'm not the one who needs the lecture about stepping outside one's self-absorbed little cocoon.

If you're that centered on your goddamed life, why do you expect other people to be centered on other than theirs?

If other people are so centered on their goddamned lives, why should I continue caring whether or not you have a job, your children can eat, your wife can get a legal abortion, your mother can afford her meds, your father might benefit from stem-cell research, your cousin can choose death with dignity, or any of the countless other issues that have no direct bearing on my life whatsoever? Why do I even bother standing up for anyone else? Because it's the right thing to do.

At the same time, I must ask you: Why must you (and far too many others) insist on believing that it is impossible to work equally for all issues of importance? Of course, if you're one of the ones who believe my equality isn't as important as your pet/wedge/trivial/little-piddly-nothing issue, then that's a moot question.

Politics is about coalitions. You're breaking yours down.

The only coalition we have consists of allies who understand that equality is not negotiable. If you do not understand that, believe in it, and are willing to fight for it with all your heart and soul, then you were never my ally to begin with. You may change your mind, and I hope you do; I, however, have no guarantee that you will do so in my lifetime. And that is not melodrama, or hyperbole; I most likely will be dead in 30 years. Or I could get hit by a bus tomorrow. The one thing I do know is that you were not in my corner for my first 45 years.

How do you convince straight people that gay rights should be their first priority in their goddamed lives?

You're putting words in my mouth, and you damned well know it. I HAVE NEVER SAID our battle for equality should be YOUR "first priority." You show me one time I've said that, or anything like it, in all the thousands of posts I've made on DU over the past five years. Or on my blog. Or in real life. Show me that.

What I am telling you is that my equality is EQUAL to every issue near and dear to YOUR heart. To try to convince me or anyone else otherwise only says YOU do not believe that I am equal to you, that my life is not as valid as yours. Is that what you're telling me?

What you don't get is this: It is not merely a matter of "gay rights." What is it going to take to make you understand that "gay rights" is but one arm of the same war? That it is the exact same fight as the battle to preserve a woman's right to choose, or your right to take a "mercy cocktail" when the pain gets so bad, death is a blessing? It is just as much about YOUR freedom to live YOUR life in exactly the way YOU choose.

To paraphrase the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.: Your destiny is tied to our destiny, and your freedom is inextricably bound to our freedom. You don't have to like it, but it is the truth. The difference between you and me is that I recognize it, and I do my damnedest to live by it. I believe abortion is morally wrong. I believe suicide is morally wrong. Neither has any direct on my life; I will never have an abortion, and I will never kill myself. But I'd hate my own goddamned guts if I didn't fight to preserve -- or win -- your right to do either.

Do you get it yet? Do I have to find another way to explain it? Or do you just want me to get down on my knees and beg you, O Privileged And All-Knowing Straight One, to have mercy on us poor little homos -- after, of course, we've run ourselves ragged capitulating to your needs before you get around to so much as considering ours?

Now, don't hit me with that "first priority" bullshit again. It doesn't wash. And I think you know it.

You have to give it a fundamental human rights underpinning, that it somehow threatens them that it does not exist.

I just did.

Geez, let alone trying to convince the damn repukes.

As if I thought that was possible. I might as well invite Fred Phelps for tea and see where we can find some middle ground.

wtf? Yes, they divide people into those that believe in equal rights and those that don't. So?

What the fuck is with "Fuck what is with you people"?

If that's all we're gonna focus on then it's no point in me going on. Sorry.

Explain what you mean. If you post something, you can assume that others might comment. If you want to post and get no replies, well, this is the wrong place.

Now if someone wants to get offended over even the slightest percieved provocation, I assume they don't want a reasonable discourse. The original reply of "We should all just shut the fuck up" and "Uppity queers" were putting words in my mouth I didn't say. And no, the fabulously wealthy don't give a damn about your's or anyone else's civil rights and will continues to use you for cannon fodder.

If that's what you want, hey, no skin off my back. I know my ignore list just got expanded mightily.

And another thing I support your right to marry, but my right to exist (health care and the economy) kinda trumps that in my book. Don't like it . Too bad.

I wanted to know how "Equal Rights divide and marginalize people" is a bad thing. Yes, they divide people into those that believe in equal rights and those that don't. So? Divide out the bigots that don't believe in equal rights, civil rights.

Then I asked "What the fuck is with "Fuck what is with you people"?" and you respond that you didn't invent the term, going on to rant at me for other things other posters said and finally about your "right to exist (health care and the economy) kinda trumps that in my book", "that" being my "right to marry? Mr Up and I have been married for almost 10 yrs, and yes, we are are heterosexual couple who supports the right of 2 adults to get married regardless of their sexuality. I'm not sure who all you mean to rant at, but putting me on your ignore list is just peachy with me if this is how you discuss things.

And you do see that your comment that started this whole subthread has been deleted by a moderator? I think they must have found it offensive also.

...without even trying to understand why you pissed the living shit out of anybody.

I don't see anyone saying that.

not an irritant.

You should read "What's the Matter with Kansas" by Thomas Frank. These wedge issues are what keep poor people from voting Democrat.

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

Guess what Im poor and gay. Im sorry you do not see the fact that Equal Marriage rights help in the fight against poverty.

The only reason Equal Marriage Rights divide democrats is because of people like you and Mr. Edwards who will not stand up for GLBT citizens rights.

Instead of crying foul why not embrace Equal Marriage Rights as a way to eradicate some poverty?

I do support gay marriage, but only because I believe everyone should have the right to a legally recognized monogamous relationship and because such relationships are better for the physical and spiritual health of the country. I don't see how it can eradicate poverty aside from providing a tax break.

Gay marriage doesn't divide Democrats so much as it lets Republicans shift the debate towards an issue on which the Democrats simply do not have a majority and which provokes people's base and hostile emotions.

Marriage creates stability and in return stability creates less poverty. Do you have any gay friends? Ask them how much extra they have to pay for everything from Health insurance for their partner to documents to try and get less than 5% of the rights people that are married automatically get.

You can not stand firm for people and rights if you let the other side misuse your beliefs. The only reason they can shift the debate with it is because Democrats let them and run scarred from something that should be a fundamental issue.

Then they are truly suckers.

I think after a real Democrat's elected president (not Clinton, who was just a continuation of Reagan in many ways), the zeitgeist will change enough for this to no longer be an issue. But to choose to focus on it rather than on trade policy and the economy is a losing strategy, in my opinion.

Exactly. Sort of like if we were to vote to end slavery or not. This would be a dividing issue. OF COURSE IT IS AN ISSUE THAT DIVIDES PEOPLE! That is why we are working on it and need to stand strong for equal rights. If I didn't care, I'd be a republican.

I guess your theory is full of crap. :shrug:

"The antagonists of this familiar melodrama are instantly recognizable: the average American, humble, long-suffering, working hard, and paying his taxes; and the liberal elite, the know-it-alls of Manhattan and Malibu, sipping their lattes as they lord it over the peasantry with their fancy college degrees and their friends in the judiciary."


Oh my lord, which class am I? hahahahahahhhahahahaha

That's the perception. Stop skimming through it.

I don't see any candidate focusing on any 1 issue yet, and saying they should avoid an issue because otherwise they are focusing on it is silly. There are many issues and yes, civil rights is a big one.

Because some people are delusional and vote based on that, we're supposed to roll over and let them vote our rights away year after year after year.

Duh! :crazy:

I know. Incredible. If only the democrat party weren't so uppity as to work for civil/equal rights, it would have more people voting for them. (misspellings intentional)

If we stop pushing for our Civil Rights we are magically going to get them! The Republicans will just forget about marriage rights and the poor will vote for Democrats too! Everyone knows the silent wheel gets the attention! I always fix problems I do not even know about! /sarcasm

Doing nothing worked for black people. Who ever heard of Martin Luther King Jr., Malcom X, or Rosa Parks? Sitting idly by is by far the best approach.


:sarcasm:

Don't loose peeple, ya need to wurk on broadening the democrat party to include all sorts of folks and kin.

fearmongering, and other dishonest tactics. But then we'd be Republicans. :shrug:

In order to curry the votes of those who think differently...

I know.

So?

..."Democratic." Democrat is a noun. Democratic is an adjective. Gotta be careful about the difference around here, or some folks might not believe you're a real Democrat.

:grr:

:mad:

:scared:

"but it divides people! It FORCES them to not vote for those of us who want to end segregation, so we shouldn't end segregation because otherwise they won't vote for us". bunch of bs

I'm fucking floored- FLOORED- that anybody who claims to be a progressive does not think equal rights are a political priority.

This is not a matter of political strategy, so get this horse race mentality out of your head and start treating this election as the vitally important fight for the rights and welfare of all of us that it really is.

I never thought I'd see some of the attitudes expressed here. Basic human and civil rights for everyone. Period.

What the hell is so hard to understand about that? How can anyone argue against it for any reason?

I know Edwards is a Christian and a good man who was raised thinking a certain way. He's admitted that he struggles with the topic but he IS coming around and I do give him credit for that.

However, we constantly allow this to used as a wedge issue. I really like the way Wes Clark handles it, which is basically to turn the question around and ask "Why shouldn't anyone be allowed to marry the person they love and want to share a commitment with?"

Doesn't the right support commitment and monogamy? Well, then let's let gay people get married.

And I see this thread has brought out the same old characters. :eyes:

:eyes: Same old crap. Just more dissembling to hide their true feelings

How have you been? Haven't seen you around in a while. :hi:

Eh?

And I've been fine. How about you? :hi:

I've been very good. This is shaping up to be a much better year than last(except for the fact we still have a delusional maniac at the helm).

... supporting is Kucinich, period!

If anyone thought Edwards would turn out to be the miracle candidate then they were all sadly mistaken. Just think back to when he ran last time, he said exactly the same thing.

And I would really like to know what all the idiots in th thread are willing to give up in the way of their own rights. After all they seem hell bent on making sure queers don't get theirs.

Edwards had such a nice speech. About the Two Americas.

Yet, in reality, we have more than two. We should have just one.

If Edwards opposes gay marriage....what about the economic issues involved? I didn't hear that Edwards said that short gay marriage, there at least should be a guarantee for partners to obtain equal economic rights through some sort of civil union....right now in many states we have partners who don't have a say in hospital decisions, insurance, inheritance, and a whole host of other economic and life issues.

So to just say you don't believe in gay marriage without addressing this is indeed a pretty wierd position to hold for someone who says he makes Two AMericas his campaign theme.

I agree and he just lost my vote in the primaries.

...marriage?

Of course he wouldn't. No democrat would do that.

would he sign a bill legalizing gay marriage if it came across his desk. I think he would.

I can't say what he would do now, and he lost my primary vote tonight :(

"Asked if homosexuals have a right to be married, he said "no"."

If he personally believes I have no right to me married it does not matter what he signs or does not sign - I will not vote for someone in the primaries that believes my partner and I are not equal to him and his wife (or her and her husband).

He told them that the feds shouldn't force either the states or the church to recognize gay marriages.

state prerogative and all that?

You're seriously asking us to trust whether or a not a Democrat would sign into law anti-gay legislation?

Please.

just to be fair if it's all about the church then jop weddings should be considered civil Unions as well right? I always thought marriage was considered the "Cornerstone of society" so why would we not want to make that cornerstone stronger? i can't believe this is still a debate in this country.

Edwards has been clear that he believes there should be no discrimination against gays in the granting of any government benefits and rights, and he believes civil unions should be the standard.

He does not believe the government should be deciding who can be 'married', and he does not believe it is his place to impose his personal beliefs on anyone other than to enforce the laws against discrimination, and allow the states to decide how to deal with the issue.

I tend to agree with Edwards' view in that the Federal government really should have no right to designate who is 'married' and who is not. However, the government has a clear duty to decide issues related to 'civil unions' because they determine rights and privileges.

Just my own opinion, but whether a person is 'married' or not carries a religious connotation and/or personal vows between partners, and should not be decided by the government on the basis of the payment of a fee for marriage license.

aside from the fact that your asking a segment of society (the majority of which vote dem) to accept that they are second cLass, marriage is more than just a reLigious ceremony; it means (don't know the number off hand - sure many here do) number of rights are denied to coupLes in a civiL union.

this has nothing to do with churches, and i'm kinda shocked that on 6/4/07 you stiLL think it does.

the state won't recognize your union. If you go to the city hall get the license, and have a judge "marry" you, it is legal. The church ceremony is for show, signing on the legal documents is what gives you the rights under the law.

Allow Gays and Lesbians the legal rights rights all other citizens enjoy. If a church doesn't want to allow you to get married there, go somewhere else. One doesn't need the churches silly charade to be a legal couple.

coddled the fundies. He's invisible to me now.

Obama and Edwards both invoking their mythology and now Edwards invoking it to oppress me. I guess they don't need my vote.
Lee

he'll "clean it up"...say sorry, you know! He's good at that. Does it regularily!

Did this really happen, sniffa?

Oh, hell.

I can't find one.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

:puke:

fuck him.

Since the Labour Government introduced "Civil Partnerships" in 2004 they have proved to be a big hit with a lot of people - like Elton John, George Michael, and thousands of less famous people.

I am not aware of any significant campaigns pushing for "same-sex marriage" in the United Kingdom.

As far as I know the legal protections are very similar to those of marriage.

Now all of the mainstream national political parties in Great Britain support Civil Partnerships - including the Conservative Party.

So from a legislative point of view - and a public acceptance point of view - it can be described as a success.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_partnerships

He bullshitted his way through the question because he didn't want to lose the vote of everyone watching him speak.

Give him a break.

'He bullshitted his way through the question because he didn't want to lose the vote of everyone watching him speak.

Give him a break.'
======

You have GOT to be kidding me. Give him a break for pandering to an audience?

It sucks, but that's the way it is.

You don't get MY vote playing it.

here you go again putting your pet issue above what's important.

i'm Loving this thread.

"Rights delayed are rights denied!" -- MLK, Jr.


Who was NOT a panderer!!!

...Hillary is looking better and better.

So your choice is to cast a protest vote, not vote at all, vote for another party, or vote for a dem who doesn't support equal marriage rights but does support civil unions and overturning DOMA.

gave the okay on homosexual marriage?????

no, they didn't. :eyes:

his lesbian novel writing wife posed for family pictures with it.

LBJ signed the Civil Rights Act, but it took a Supreme Court decision to invalidate the state laws against interracial marriage.

I'd expect the same logic to apply to federal recognition of same-sex marriages. And you know how likely _that_ is with our present supreme court lineup.

So here too it's important to insure we elect a Democrat whose judicial choices will be wise and fair-minded people. More important, perhaps, than taking "principled" stands because a candidate trims his/her words to fit our own passionate beliefs.

Heck, I'll bet NO candidate will ever reflect my own true opinion about marriage law. That government shouldn't be in the position of certifying ANYBODY's personal relationship. Doesn't the Constitution say something about not having two classes of citizens? When there are special rights reserved for only the married (be they straight or gay) that creates two classes of citizens IMO.

I could accept Civil Unions for all (marriage an optional ceremony or status via your favorite church, synagogue, or casino. ) Anything further, I think is discriminatory. Now I've probably made everybody mad. Oh well.