Edwards doesn't support gay marriage, no elaboration.

[alaine]

Says it should be decided on a state by state basis. This is disappointing to me as a resident of his state and someone who helped elect him. His is in favor of a federal non-discrimination law and insertion of gays into hate-crimes laws.

He is in favor of gays being able to adopt. I love Edwards but find this odd, in an amusing way. Sort of like family values in reverse, get the kids first and then we'll worry about marriage later.

He really ripped into that jerk from Citizens for a Sound Economy. I can't believe that guy LIED like that "No were not a right wing organization running political ads against you, you must be mistaken." It was nice to see Edwards get tough and then give the guy the benefity of the doubt, but I'm kind of dizzy after watching it, thought it was mostly good, but he did drop the ball on a few points.

[wuushew]

1. Being married is a federal issue for the purposes of federal taxes

Opposing civil unions is bunk. If the states decided everything the south would still look like a pre-civil rights landscape

[alaine]

7. I agree with that.

Plus every freaking time you move you have new state laws to deal with. I actually knew one of the three couples who helped get the civil unions law passed in Vermont. They lived in North Carolina for a short time. When I first met them (i don't feel comfortable giving names) one of the women was pregnant with a child. The baby was born with a congenital birth defect and passed away before he was a year old, and the other woman thankfully had all her medical power of attorney papers in order to be able to act as a legal partner while all this was going on. The next time I heard anything about them was when I was reading People magazine and they were in there as one of the couples that had sued to get the law passed. I was shocked because I did not even know that they had left the state or that their first child had died. (They had just moved from California to NC when I met them). I love Edwards, but it is insulting to me to get hung up on labels and semantics and differentiate between marriage and civil unions. It is a freaking political strategy, and his exact words were "I do not support gay marriage". No shit. So you're gay, and you can be married in one state and move and have a divorce forced upon you by the state essentially, so you have to run around and get durable powers of attorney...what a bunch of crap.

[ButterflyBlood]

2. he supports civil unions, not marriage

also saying it should be on a state by state basis also would mean he would oppose the amendment backed by Frist.

[Erika]

4. Times Have Changed

The U.S.S.C. just gave gays the right to marriage. The states better live with it. What is wrong with asking gays to face the decisions of any of us who who contemplate marriage? If the states want to dally about age, etc., that's fine...but gays will and should have the right AND the responsibility of marital strings. I believe the Court gave them that right and responsibility. Yes!!!

[ButterflyBlood]

13. unless I missed something huge

I didn't hear anything about the Supreme Court ruling gays must have a right to marry. If it did than it's a moot point since all states have to let it happen whether they agree or not, and there's nothing the President can do about it.

[alaine]

16. I think that was about the Texas sodomy laws not being

upheld...?

[ButterflyBlood]

18. that has nothing to do with gay marriage

and technically nothing with gay rights at all. all the ruling said was that the government can't police what consenting adults do in their bedroom, gay or straight. it's been talked about as a gateway to gay marriage, but hardly creates gay marriage itself.

[AP]

23. People here were freaking out when freepers said that Congress

was going to pass law giving the Supreme Court original jurisdiction over family law matters.

Well, the reason they can't is because it's unconstitutional. Family law is a state matter. And that's a good thing, especially when the Federal Gov't is right wing.

Also remember that the reason Bush v. Gore was so outrageous is because the way states count ballots is a state matter and not a federal matter.

[revcarol]

3. I saw a program on our community channel the other day.

a G/L/B/T program,/ Never had seen it before. They said that the only candidates who were for gay marriage were Kucinich, Mosely-Braun and I can't remember about Sharpton.They hammered Dean about being against gay marriage, because a lot of the benefits of gay marriage are FEDERAL. The other candidates, including Edwards, were all against gay marriage.(Can't verify the accuracy of what they said, but why would they misrepresent who the candidates were who were on their side?)

"KUCINICH IS A KEEPER"

[sandnsea]

5. Gay Marriage

Most mainstream people see a distinct difference between a marriage and a civil union, understanding that gay couples must have legal civil rights. But for a candidate to cross over and endorse biblical marriage is to alienate way too many people and that is how the Republican party is framing gay marriage. I don't understand what is so hard to comprehend about this. For a candidate to recognize state laws and equal protection for gays is about the best they can do.

[revcarol]

6. How about civil marriage by a judge, or justice of the peace?

Recognized by all the states, the federal government, and other nations.

They may think of marriage as "church" marriage, but al lot of people got hitched by a judge.

[alaine]

9. Please read in post 7 what this means for real people

in real life. Imagine being in a new state and dealing with the death of a child and having to go through the legal rigamarole on top of this to actually be treated as your child's parent. Heterosexual adoptive parents aren't put through this.

The couple mentioned now have another child, and I hope things go well for them; I can see why they would jump at a chance to be a part of a civil unions law. Making it state by state is a cop-out and that is the only thing that needs to be comprehended, those "way too many people" can kiss my ass.

[Terwilliger]

10. So, do you need biblical marriage?

How about something more than a "civil union"...which sounds about as committed as a business contract

Now...why NOT have a biblical marriage? People who believe in god and are homosexual cant be recognized, even if certain pastors or whoever condone and perform the ceremony?

[sandnsea]

17. Then get Bush for President again

I'm cranky tonight, I have a toothache.

I am trying to be realistic here. Gay marriage is not going to go over and I sincerely believe the whole election can be lost on that one word, marriage. I think most people can accept the reality of civil unions and all the legal aspects that it entails, even Edwards by what he had to say today. But marriage is simply out of the question for most of America. As far as a pastor that performs a spiritual marriage, that can be done now.

Gay couples need legal protections and I think most people understand that. I think most people even support gay adoptions and understand gay people aren't perverted weirdos. Marriage is just too far, what is it, the man or woman shall leave the parent and cleave to the other, it must be the drugs, I can't remember the words. But it's a man and a woman and people are still very emotionally tied to bibilical scripture, or the quran or whatever scripture. I'm begging people to please let gay marriage go for now and actively support legal civil unions. They'll get SOOOO much farther that way.

[WindRavenX]

8. Hmm...

Obviously, he's trying not to appear too liberal on this issue, but it is pretty good for someone who is pretty much a moderate.
This could hurt his chances for a VP nominee. Southerners generally don't like the opinions he holds...
BTW, I am in favor of "gay marriages"- whatever that means. Quite franky, I could care less as to what it's called- civil unions, partnerships, etc. Same sex couples deserve the same legal rights as heterosexuals, and I think that's basically what Edwards is saying. Correct me if I'm wrong.

[olmy]

11. Monkeys will fly out of Edwards butt...

before he becomes President, so who cares what he thinks. Sorry kids, I am soooooooo sick of Southern Democrats with plastic personality.

Dean...Kerry....Clark, our only true chances.

[alaine]

14. I care. He's my state senator. I voted for him.

My taxes pay his salary. And so much of what has happened wrong in W's term as president happened after the 2002 elections, so the views of senators do actually matter. Jim Jeffords saved our behinds for a while, but if we at least have congress we are alot better off than republicons having it all. If Edwards is plastic then Kerry and Dean are wooden. Clark is my pick of your three but that may be because I know very little about him and have never heard him speak.

[WindRavenX]

15. I didn't say I wanted him to run for Prez

....I want him to run as a RUNNING MATE to either Kerry or Dean. By being a Southern Democrat (a moderate at that), he will capture southern votes (and moderate votes across the country)- which is important if the Dems want to get a few states down South (Florida,for example).
Yeah, I don't want him to run for Prez, no way.But he could be a big help on a campaign ticket with either Kerry or Dean.

[alaine]

12. There's a significant difference between a civil union

and a federally recognized marriage. It makes me sad, I know it is political, and he has to appeal to the masses, but it is just bizarre. Imagine driving down to Florida; (or wherever), well lets see, we are legally married in Virginia and Georgia, but not in North Carolina, or South Carolina, or whatever. How weird.

[AP]

24. He's not parsing. He's phrasing the issue in a way that people

will get it, and eventually come around on this issue.

To get legally married, just about every state requires two things: (1) some kind of religious ceremony, plus (2) a civil registration.

The trick is taking care of the number one. What Democrats like Edwards are trying to do is ultimately make the religious/marriage part no longer part of the formula. They want to create a civil law equivalent of marriage that only requires the registration part, and they're not going to start to tell churches, mosques, and temples that they have to marry people of the same sex.

I think the way Edwards talks about this is going to move things forward much faster than if he started saying that marriages (with the religious implications) should be between same sex people.

[dsc]

19. This is a reply to many posts not the original one

There are two issues here which are getting mixed up. The first is the difference between marriage and Civil Union. The second is federal vs state by state recognition. In Vermont, there is pretty much no difference between a civil union and a marriage in terms of legal rights which Vermont can grant. They can own property together, have right of joint inheritance, claim each other on taxes (Vermont only) etc. They can't do this in other states. The only practiacal difference here is that if the couple moves to New Hampshire then it has no rights. But in any case the feds wouldn't give the rights. DOMA forbids that. Even if Dean had opted for marriage federally it would have done no good at all. Let me repeat that point. Federally it would have been just as worthless as it is now. The only difference is for a couple who lives in say New Hampshire and then goes to Vermont and gets married. The marriage would be good in New Hampshire (unless New Hampshire passed a DOMA act). But it still would only be good on a state by state basis and not federally. Those issues are seperate.

[WindRavenX]

20. Thank you for clearing that up

Makes much more sense now :)

[dsc]

21. thanks

Given how late it is I was worried it may have made less sense when I finished.

[AP]

25. A politician could advocate the repeal of DOMA and insist that

he or she would appoint SC justices who would interpret marriage laws as having full faith a credit in other states (there is federal jurisdiction over that kind of suit, righ? Or would you have to sue in the state court?).

[bearfartinthewoods]

22. thank you for using Edwards as the first word in your thread title

it makes it so easy to find all the candidate threads by sorting by "discussion topic"

thanks!