John Edwards' Statement on Marriage Rights Issue

[Tank in Texas]

"I oppose gay marriage. I also oppose President Bush's attempt to amend the Constitution to ban gay marriage. Washington has no business playing politics with this issue. Marriage is left to the states today, and should remain with the states.

"I'm not surprised that the day after he kicked off his campaign, the president is already talking about gay marriage. He can't talk about jobs, because he has no new ideas to create jobs. He can't talk about health care, because he has no new ideas to hold down costs or cover every child. He can't talk about education, because he has no new ideas to help young people pay for the soaring cost of college.

"If President Bush wants to stand up for marriage, he ought to help millions of married couples who are living paycheck to paycheck. If he wants to stand up for marriage, he should tackle the marriage penalty that punishes poor families when they marry. He should help middle-class families save and invest. But instead of offering new ideas to help the families who are actually married, President Bush wants to play politics with the Constitution.

"We have had our Constitution for more than 200 years. We amended it to abolish slavery and ensure women could vote. We should not amend it over politics."

[spooky3]

1. All of these are excellent points, except I wish conditions were such

that he could support gay marriage. I realize that he knows that this is a wedge issue and that too many voters are simply not ready for the reality.

It's very sad that this country could not pass an amendment insuring equal rights for women, but * thinks that it can and will pass an amendment banning gay marriage and that that is a good use of his and the Congress and the state legislature's precious resources.

[skippysmom]

3. Exactly my thoughts

I wish he and Edwards would just come out and say they're for gay marriage. But I think it's great to point out what a distraction this is from what a miserable failure * is.

[Politicub]

23. The ERA

Could *'s trying to amend bigotry into the Constitution re-ignite the debate about the ERA? I forget how many states voted to add the ERA, but I do remember that it only needs a handful more to be added to Constitution.

[WitchWay]

30. well...

Maybe Edwards is against gay marriage.

[DuctapeFatwa]

2. Leaving equal rights to the states has some very business-friendly

application potential. Edwards should point that out.

[WitchWay]

31. Business potential...

Great! Maybe he should come out in favor of overturning Roe V. Wade, then.

[adamblast]

4. Um... Mr. Edwards, sir...

If you really believe sentence #3 why did you start out with sentence #1???

[JusticeForAll]

5. Nice Point

Edwards is still my guy. But I hope he realizes his own hypocrisy in what you point out.

[mac2]

10. The religiously insane in his state would oppose gay marriage...

I'm of the opinion that if same sex people want to get married do it in a church that approves. Form a new one if there is none.

All states should allow contracts or agreements between two people who want to unite. Call it marriage...call it a contract. The laws should be the same for all. Equal rights.

The President or Congress can not change or add to the Constitution. It can only be changed by ratification. 2/3 of the states vote for it (when their citizens do).

Republicans!!! Keep your hands off the Constitution you so eagerly want to destroy for your own religious agenda.

I asked the DNC to have a Constitution and Bill of Rights there at the Boston Convention for present day candidates to sign. They sign it again as a pledge to protect and defend it. Do it in front of us so we know you are serious about keeping it and adhering to it. Like people do when they get re-married at age 50.

[Journeyman]

12. Why do you see these points as mutually exclusive? . . .

Can't someone be against something yet content to let society as a whole make the decision about it?

For example, I don't favor abortion. In any situation I might find myself a party to regarding abortion, depending on the circumstances I would counsel against it, or at best support it only as the decision of last choice. However, I wholeheartedly support another person's right to choose if they want to have one. Does this make me anti-abortion, or pro-choice?

Too many people insist the world must fit their concept of right and wrong and paint each issue in stark, contrasting color, rather than seeing there are a multitude of opinions and each choice should and must remain the individual's.

[GreenGreenLimaBean]

26. Good point JM

I totally agree. But this is even more reason to not oppose
gay marriage. If you are willing to fight for the right to choose,
but be against abortion, then you should be for gay marriage rights,
even though you personally believe gay marriage is wrong.

[WitchWay]

32. well...

so does this mean that you would be in favor of overturning Roe v. Wade and letting the states decide?

[Journeyman]

36. And yet again, someone insists. . .

on seeing the world through the lens of their personal myopia.

[MsUnderstood]

6. Negative start

Edwards turned me away with his negative start. Fortunately I haven't given a vote yet for the candidate.

At least Kerry focused on Bush first, marriage second. . .

“I believe President Bush is wrong. All Americans should be concerned when a President who is in political trouble tries to tamper with the Constitution of the United States at the start of his reelection campaign.

“This President can’t talk about jobs. He can’t talk about health care. He can’t talk about a foreign policy, which has driven away allies and weakened the United States, so he is looking for a wedge issue to divide the American people.

“While I believe marriage is between a man and a woman, for 200 years, this has been a state issue. I oppose this election year effort to amend the Constitution in an area that each state can adequately address, and I will vote against such an amendment if it comes to the Senate floor.

http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/releases/pr_2004_0224b.html

[mac2]

11. Very well said.

It's an election distraction.

[PurityOfEssence]

38. It's called a direct answer

Regardless of anything else, Edwards actually ANSWERS questions, and in doing so, he often offers more information than other politicians who prefer to be all things to all people.

His answer to Dianne Sawyer on the subject was much better. When she said "Do you support gay marriage", he responded "No, I don't." When she thought she had him on the run, she asked "Why not?", to which his answer was "I don't think the country's ready for it." Now that's a good answer. He went on to enumerate the rights that should be granted, even though he wasn't asked.

The entire Senate voted 99-0 against the 9th Circuit Court's decision that "under god" was unconstitutional in the Pledge of Allegiance. Yeah, it was a non-binding vote, but to me, that's much more damning. Not only does it personally intrude on my life, it is clearly a departure from the letter and spirit of the Constitution. Am I screaming about that? No.

It's called politics.

If we're going to let the nazis pick the ground for battle, we're going to lose. Edwards is a backwoods Methodist from a conservative part of the country; he should be praised for coming to the decent and cosmopolitan way of thinking, because I guarantee you, he was swimming upstream all the way. If he's not all the way there--or if he's staking out a careful stance based on political viability--he's still pretty damned honorable, progressive and downright good.

He goes out of his way to enumerate the rights--which are literally all the rights of married people, minus the word--to be upheld, so he's going at least part of the way out on a limb.

But seriously, I find it refreshing to hear a politician start with the bad news--and direct answer--before qualifying it; that shows some guts and respect for the listener.

[JasonBerry]

7. Compare this to Kerry

Kerry would take 27 paragraphs to say the same thing, and then none of us would be sure what we just read. Give Edwards credit for saying what he thinks in a way everybody can understand - whether we all agree with it or not.

[IndianaGreen]

14. "Kerry would take 27 paragraphs to say the same thing..."

Well said JasonBerry! I may not agree with Edwards on gay marriage, but at least I know where he stands.

I believe Kucinich is the only Democrat to endorse gay marriage, as have the Green Party USA, the Socialist Party USA, the Socialist Equality Party, and the Communist Party USA.

Here is the Socialist Party USA platform on GLBT rights:

Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender

The Socialist Party recognizes the human and civil rights of all, without regard to sexual orientation or gender identity.

1. We call for the repeal of all sodomy laws and anti-lesbian and gay restrictions, and the legalization of same-sex unions or marriages.

2. We are committed to confronting the heterosexism that provides the fertile ground for homophobic violence, and support all efforts toward fostering understanding and cooperation among persons and groups of differing sexual orientations and identities.

http://sp-usa.org/about/platform/human-rights.html

[Tank in Texas]

15. LOL

Yup. He would also have to cover his ass several times by over-qualifying each sentence six times. That way, if he is ever quoted he can leave himself a slimy little escape route.

[lancdem]

25. It took three paragraphs

see post 6.

[baby_bear]

8. He should have said

(in his last line):

It would be shameful for this nation to amend its Constitution specifically to deny rights to human beings.

s_m

[Tank in Texas]

13. Not In So Many Words

He did say that in his last line. Just not in so many words. I agree with you on Marriage Rights. I also agree with Edwards' savvy realization that now is not the time. Read between the lines- both he and Kerry are saying that the time will be AFTER the election.

I believe we are headed toward a separation of religious and civil marriage. Edwards doesn't believe in "gay marriage" but he does believe in civil rights for all. If a marriage is left to the church and a civil union to the state...

[WyLoochka]

28. Agreed Tank

Bush* says "marriage is sacred"

"Sacredness" is the in domain of the church, not the state.

The first sixteen words of our First Amendment to our Constitution:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"

Think about those words ... the first 16 words!!!! why the first???

We, the people, will resolve this by re-affirming the separation of the religious from the civil.

It's inevitable - the fundies are going to fight it - but they are going to lose.


"and we won't have to listen to those fundamentalist preachers anymore" Howard Dean - a statement that REALLY set him apart and got my attention. Thank You, Howard Dean for expressing my sentiments.

edit - add Doctor Governor Dean tribute

[WitchWay]

33. okay, so...

why doesn't he just say that?

People deserve to know where the Political Candidates stand. Then, it is up to the electorate to decide.

I, just like the "swing" voters, can only go by what he actually says and does BEFORE the election.

[utopian]

9. The problem is

he may well be fine with gay marriage, but to say that would be political suicide.

[Malva Zebrina]

16. skirting the issue

and playing it safe.

I think Edwards is a good man, but I am, to be honest, sick of this type of politics.

I wish we could get back to basics here and stop it already with the politcs game.

we need more than a cautious Edwards or a cautious Kerry, tippy toeing around the issue.

Is there anyone, besides Kucinich and Byrd, who know what it means to have honesty, integrity and passion for the way they think things should be?

Edwards and Kerry as just OK. I will vote for either because ABB, but I am not enthused with this approach.

[NC_Nurse]

18. Exactly!

How about saying people deserve equal protection under the law, whether you call it marriage or not and our Prez. is cynically demonizing a certain group in order to distract people and turn them against each other. Divide and conquer, simple as that!
He could at least come out for civil unions, which is what all partnerships should be called by the govt., IMO.

[Tank in Texas]

19. politics sucks

I am an Edwards supporter, as evidenced by the little avatar that appears beside my name. Marriage Rights is one of the few issues where I find myself seriously disagreeing with my candidate's stance. However, I also believe that neither Edwards or Kerry can come out and say anything directly now, not until the general non-political-blog-reading public has enough time to be exposed to both sides of the issue.

[Speed8098]

17. Ahhhhh......This issue drives me nuts

I am a 47 year old heterosexual white male married for 25 years, and I can't figure out why anybody would care if homosexuals marry.


IT'S NOBODY'S BUSINESS!

I would like for one of these rw idiots to explain to me how a complete strangers marriage would affect them.

I just don't get it. :shrug:

[NC_Nurse]

20. the religous right

wants to have a church/state with the chimp as their ayatollah so they can control everyone's personal choices!:crazy:

[Columbia]

21. They don't really care

It's just to get people yelling and screaming over a fairly unimportant issue while millions are still unemployed with no help in sight.

[Malva Zebrina]

22. HOnestly , I find it an issue not on the top of my list

everybody should have rights under the law and I am all for marriage laws affording homosexuals lega rights.

Can we please move on to discussing the slaughter of ten thousand innocent civilians in Iraq on the lies of George Bush?

Is this not the primary issue and is this issue, the murder of thousand of innocent with our bombs and our bombs and our bombs, on the lies of our so called leader, who was not even elected int eh first place, not a very serious issue?

Is there something wrong with me that I think this needs to be addressed and investigated, in depth and with all the resources we have at our command?

(throws up hands in frustration)

[BR_Parkway]

24. Here is his response to my email

Dear Mr. XXXX:

Thank you for contacting me regarding H.J. Res. 56, legislation proposing an amendment to the Constitution related to marriage. I appreciate hearing from you.

As you may know, states generally maintain the authority to establish the definition of and the requirements for marriage. However, current federal law defines marriage as "a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife" and defines "spouse" as "a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife."

H.J. Res. 56 proposes a constitutional amendment declaring that marriage in the United States can only consist of the union between a man and a woman. This amendment would also state that neither the federal Constitution, the constitution of any state, nor state or federal law, could be construed to require that marital status be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups. H.J. Res. 56 has been referred to the House Judiciary Committee.

As a matter of personal belief, I do not support gay marriage, although I believe that gays and lesbians in committed relationships have both rights and responsibilities and should be entitled to partnerships benefits under our laws.

I also have deep reverence for our Constitution, and believe it should be amended only when absolutely necessary. I am not able to support this legislation. Please be assured that I will keep your strong views about this issue in mind as it is considered by the Senate.

Again, thank you for contacting me. Please feel free to keep in touch.

Yours sincerely,

John Edwards
United States Senate

[Sandpiper]

27. Way to play both ends to the middle Senator

n/t

[soleft]

29. This is why Kerry gets my vote

He did not lead with his oppostion to gay marriage, and he included that he supported civil unions. Where is Edwards support for Civil Unions?

[54anickel]

34. Do you have a link for this? I just saw a clip of Edwards on TV,

and that's exactly how I heard him say it. Perhaps I didn't catch it properly.

[fortyfeetunder]

35. Politics as usual

Can you see something here? Neither Kerry nor Edwards is committing to be *for* gay marriage. Because if they did take a position for, then they would be pictured as anti-family values, something the Chimp in Chief seems to proclaim. A potential GOP attack in the presidential election.

However, I think there is room for either Kerry or Edwards to soften or even reverse their stance once they get in the White House.

Personally, I liked Rev. Sharpton's answer to gay marriage the best: He may had have his own beliefs but no right to impose them on others.

[Malva Zebrina]

39. Probably but

not really answering or addressing the issue is in a way, pulling the wool over our eyes. That will be an insult later on if they do decide to take a stand. They will have lost credibility,be perceived as waffling, be just more of the same Bush in that respect.

I don't think at this point after the horror of Bush, we need to put p with that kind of politics anymore.

Kerry recognizes the need to change the language. I can see this point of view better than Edwards avoidance. After all, civil union grants the gays what they want. A marriage and they can call it that once they are unioned. IT is the "sanctity of marriage" thing that people are reacting to--and that is a learned religious belief.

My two cents

[dawn]

37. Yeah, I saw this on TV

As an Edwards supporter, I was disappointed when I heard how he spoke about this issue when confronted by reporters on TV. When asked why he opposed gay marriage, he just said he thought it was wrong.

I wish he would have brought up his opposition to the Constitutional Amendment first. I also would have liked it if he brought up the economic issues prior to stating that as well.

I fully support full marriage rights for gays and lesbians. I completely disagree with Edwards' personal views on this subject. However, I know that even if he was for it, he couldn't say it anyway, because of, well, politics.