Slog News & Arts

Line Out

Music & Nightlife

« The Morning News | Shooting at Tacoma High School »

Wednesday, January 3, 2007

John Edwards “Struggles” With Gay Marriage

posted by on January 3 at 9:04 AM

Yesterday Eli, in the first of his Slog posts on ‘08 presidential contenders, wrote up John Edwards. Today Towelroad gives us John Edwards’ mealy-mouthed, weasel-assed “position” on same-sex marriage…

QUESTION: “Given that there’s so much dissension in the country about gay marriage, what is your view, or what would you tell your gay supporters in the country what your view is on — not gay marriage in a religious sense, but gay marriage as a civil right and as being able to get a civil license to marry your same sex partner?”

EDWARDS: “Single hardest social issue for me, personally—and there are lots of them—but most of the others, I don’t have a lot of personal struggle with. I have a lot of personal struggle with this one…. Because the issue is, from my perspective, I think it is right and fair and just in America that men and women who want to live with their partner should be treated with dignity and respect and should have civil rights, as you refer to them. And the question becomes, ‘Can you accomplish that through civil unions or partnership recognition and support of partnership benefits? Does that provide the level of dignity and respect that gay Americans are entitled to? Or do you have to cross the bridge into the issue of gay marriage?’ I personally feel great conflict about that. I don’t know the answer. Wish I did…”

So Edwards is comfortable with “two Americas” after all—at least where gay and lesbian couples are concerned. All the rights and responsibilities of civil marriage? No question, straight couples have ‘em comin’. And gay Americans? Well, maybe we can work out some sort of partnership benefit program? Or maybe you guys can go to a lawyer and spend thousands of dollars drawing up private legal agreements that fall far short of the protections of marriage and, what do you know, can be challenged in court by homophobic relatives—because, hey, that would spare me from having to take a position on this difficult, difficult issue, and that would be great. But, hey, I’m no bigot! I’m all for providing you people with the “level of dignity and respect” to which you people and your relationships are entitled. Which is, of course, needless to say, I mean come on, something less than the “level of dignity and respect” to which straight couples are entitled.

It’s wonderful that Edwards feels “great conflict” about gay marriage. Because I feel the same way about his candidacy.

RSS icon Comments

1

i don't think that this is the worst thing ever. while i think that people should support full marriage rights, the fact is that most don't. for edwards to straight up say that he thinks gay couples should be able to get married would be to seriously doom his campaign. you really can't expect him to do that. at least he is stating that he is conflicted by it, unlike kerry, who seemed perfectly fine with keeping gay couples seperated.

Posted by konstantconsumer | January 3, 2007 9:37 AM
2

I dunno, sounds like Dan is trying to be the Lou Dobbs of gay issues.

Posted by cressona | January 3, 2007 9:44 AM
3

I'm with you Dan, and we're going to see even more cowardly bullshit than this as we move toward the next election. I would be amazed if a candidate had the balls to come out and actually do the right thing.

Posted by Mark Mitchell | January 3, 2007 9:47 AM
4

I hate to say it, but this country is too hooked on the bible for any candidate to stand up for the Gays. It is part of what I hate about politics and contemporary American society. I would love to see a legit candidate have the balls to be a leader and say it out loud, but that ain't gonna happen. I hope I'm wrong.

Posted by Mike in MO | January 3, 2007 9:49 AM
5

So today another ex-general came out to say that he has reversed his opinion on 'don't ask don't tell' and that gays and lesbians should be able to openly serve.

At this time when the military needs all the qualified people they can get I would think this stands a chance of happening.

I think getting rid of 'don't ask, etc' will lead to our benifit in the marriage arena.

The argument will then be... "you want to deny rights to the very people who risked their lives for YOUR freedom?"

Seriously, who wants to be the ones to discriminate against war heros?

Posted by monkey | January 3, 2007 9:56 AM
6

"I would love to see a legit candidate have the balls to be a leader and say it out loud, but that ain't gonna happen.

It certainly won't happen if people - particularly Democrats - don't speak up NOW and demand that candidates defend their position. Edwards false humility is inexcusable. He is (as are Kerry and Clinton) an attorney. As attorneys they must have some comprehension of the conflict presented in Article IV of the Constitution and the restrictions imposed on same sex couples.

Don't let them get away with being weak and pseudo sympathetic because it might help their chances at getting elected.

The election is 23 months away. NOW is the time to push these assholes like an overripe boil until they burst. Edwards (and the rest of them) need to be questioned about their position, not given a pass.

We were told to shut up in the summer/fall preceding the fall election. Democrats got their majorities. It is time to get LOUD.

Thank you for this post, Dan. Are you planning on donating as much to MassEquality to help them preserve marriage as you did to Bob Casey's campaign in PA?

Posted by patrick C | January 3, 2007 10:03 AM
7

There is a candidate out there that supports FULL MARRIAGE RIGHTS for gays and lesbians. Maybe you folks at The Stranger shouldn't mock and ridicule Dennis Kucinich's candidacy like you did in 2003 and 2004. Put your money where your mouth is, Dan, Josh, Eli, etc.

Posted by DOUG. | January 3, 2007 10:06 AM
8

patrick, that sounds great and all, but what percentage of democrats support full marriage rights? is that enough to get him through the primary? and if it is, would he stand a chance in hell of winning a national election. i'm pretty sure the answer is no.

Posted by konstantconsumer | January 3, 2007 10:10 AM
9

Above said: "Don't let them get away with being weak and pseudo sympathetic because it might help their chances at getting elected."

Alas, this is exactly what we must do.

Look, politics are degrading and humiliating for us gays. I had to mark the box next to Gerry Alexander in the primary to prevent Groen from getting into the general. That was deeply, personally insulting, and I won't forget it.

The alternative is worse: you get that now, right? Sometimes standing on principle only makes you feel all puffed up and proud until you have to live with the consequences; then the puffy pride turns to bitter anger and resentment.

Clinton signed DOMA, and I hated him for it. I would take him back in a heartbeat.

Posted by David Summerlin | January 3, 2007 10:12 AM
10

in a nation which only now - to much self-congratulatory back-slapping - is seeing its first female Speaker of the House; a country yet to elevate an African-American (with the notable exception of Pinckney Benton Stewart Pinchback - and then only by a death and through an impeachment) to the top executive position at the state or federal level - Isn't Edward's Hamletesque 'conflicts' over the issue of gay marriage at the start of a national campaign in 2007, sadly, right on schedule? This is why the gods made activism. We have to push.

Posted by Laurence Ballard | January 3, 2007 10:19 AM
11

I agree David, and the only thing that made me feel a bit better about it was that I told Alexander himself (in front of a reporter no less at the GSBA candidate forum) that I'd vote for him but was holding my nose doing so for that very reason.

He didn't give a shit about that cause he knew he'd likely win, this was his last election and once in he's accountable to no one. Which is the larger problem- the Dems don't think we have anyone to turn to but their party. I don't think that means we don't call them on the carpet in a very public fashion. If anything, it "politically" helps them with the right wingers (they're seen as standing up to us fags) and keeps our issues in the forefront. We'll get there one poll point at a time.

I've been torn about civil unions vs marriage for some time. And I'll take civil unions as a starting point. But that's the point. We need to make it very very clear that it is just a starting point. As for people like Edwards, he wants to get elected. I think the way to press him is to press him on those civil rights. Make him stand up for things like Nadler's immigration rights, repeal of DOMA etc. That's the way to corner them. Later on we press for full marriage.

I'd take Clinton back as well, but as for the Democratic Party mavens that want me to shut up... You can fuck off. I will continue to try to push the party in the correct direction.

Posted by Dave Coffman | January 3, 2007 10:28 AM
12

John Edwards was also on "This Week" with George Stephanopoulos. He basically said the same thing.


Stephanopoulos: But more important, more important, at that time, you said it's the single hardest issue for you.

Edwards: Because I'm 53 years old. I grew up in a small town in the rural south. I was raised in the southern Baptist church. And so I have a belief system that arises from that.

It's part of who I am. I can't make it disappear. And what I said when I was asked about this in Portsmouth, New Hampshire//

[John Edwards in New Hampshire: I personally feel great conflict about that. I don't know the answer, I wish I did. I think from my perspective it's very easy for me to say civil unions, yes, partnership benefits yes, but it is something that I struggle with.]

Do I believe they should have the right to marry? I'm just not there yet, me, I'm not there yet.

Posted by Alex | January 3, 2007 10:29 AM
13

Dave: "I'd take Clinton back as well, but as for the Democratic Party mavens that want me to shut up... You can fuck off."

Agreed. I wouldn't argue that anyone should "shut up" about it or cease our efforts in any way to push the party in the right direction.

Democrats are still easier to deal with, and almost always less dangerous.

Posted by David Summerlin | January 3, 2007 10:38 AM
14

Hmmm... why am I not surprised that they type of people who "rise to the top" of the political pile are the ones who are not standing out on very controversial, potentially election-losing issues? That is why they became real contenders in the first place, while people who actually have some backbone, like Kucinich, are not... and as an early commenter noted, This paper has not done much to support such principled candidates.

When I think about this issue, what stands out to me is that there is still very little grassroots activism around gay marriage. Yes, there are some very dedicated groups out there, including in Seattle, but even among the gay community this issue has not sparked the type of protest and demonstration that, say, anti-segregation did. So, ignoring his personal qualms and just looking at political strategy, Edwards thinks, "Why risk it? It is not like there are people marching in the streets."

Yes, I know that people are trying, but the general contentment, complacency, and inaction of America these days extends to the gay rights issue, thus, no political will.

Posted by Jude Fawley | January 3, 2007 10:42 AM
15

John Edwards is the Democratic equivalent of George W. Bush.

He's got a little more smarts, but he's basically a vacuous dipshit.

Posted by Seth | January 3, 2007 10:46 AM
16

Good shit what a crock. Sounds like the lip service Clinton paid gay voters (and then he gave us don’t ask don’t tell and DOMA). If we fall for this shit again, aren’t we exactly like the “lil woman” that keeps going back to her “ol man” (even though he beats the holy tar outa her) because she knows deep down he “really loves her”? The relationship between the Democratic Party and it’s gay constituency is beginning to mirror the worst kind of domestic violence. We need to stop being the willing victim. For all their faults, at least the republicans don’t lie to us on civil rites issues to get our votes (and money).

Posted by You_Gotta_Be_Kidding_Me | January 3, 2007 11:07 AM
17

so are we to support and vote for a candidate who would most likely lose the primary, and who would definitely lose the general election?

how about you keep voting for kucinich and i'll keep voting for people whose issues are good AND who stand a chance of actually winning.

Posted by konstantconsumer | January 3, 2007 11:15 AM
18

what a jackass. maybe i will read some more badiou after all

Posted by josh | January 3, 2007 11:21 AM
19


Edwards said several times during a 2004 campaign debate that he believed that marriage was between a man and a woman. I noticed he sort of tripped over himself when he said it (he didn't say it with feeling), but he said it. Now as a candidate for President, he has tempered that stance.

I honestly think he's struggling with the concept, like a lot of people his age are who don't live in cities and don't know or don't realize they know any gay people and that they aren't exotic or evil.

However, if you give him the ol' "those kids of gay parents? Those parents should be [insert indignant, haughty tone here] MARRIED!" then he might come around. In tradition-speak, having kids out of wedlock is bad.

Posted by facts | January 3, 2007 11:28 AM
20

Right on, YGBKM! That is the precise comparison.

"Look, politics are degrading and humiliating for us gays." In other words, "Yeah, he beats me, but I always needle him. If I just let him alone, he wouldn't get angry. It's my fault he gets so mad."

"Sometimes standing on principle only makes you feel all puffed up and proud until you have to live with the consequences; then the puffy pride turns to bitter anger and resentment."

In other words, "I know I should leave him, but I'll never make it on my own. Why throw the baby out with the bath water? He'll change. I know he loves me."

All I'm saying is that NOW is when we have the opportunity to demand Democrats at least stop acting like they are stupid. John Edwards is hardly too old to comprehend the Constitution and the numerous reasons that he is wrong.

By the way, we are the fucking grassroots. This IS us taking action. Who is dropping the ball? Who are these mysterious "leaders" that aren't changing minds?

I stood in line for two fucking days three years ago at SF City Hall to get married. Sice then I have been writing letters/editorials, sending $$, and driving myself crazy following Democratic asskisser bloggers trying to get people to see the bullshit that repeats itself as each political campaign comes and goes.

When will the lock-step rigid Democratic shills take a critical look at themselves and take action instead of making it everyone else's responsibility?

If, as Time Magazine suggests, the bloggosphere is part of the new democracy, why is it so ineffective when it comes to this issue?

Why can we make a joke out of an asswipe like Rick Santorum, but we can't create and promote an effective campaign about equality?

Posted by patrick C | January 3, 2007 11:32 AM
21

#17: I brought up Kucinich not for people like you, but for the likes of Dan Savage, Josh Feit and Eli Sanders who continually demand progressive stands from non-progressive candidates.

Rather than backing ACTUAL progressive candidates, The Stranger ridicules them. Search "Dennis Kucinich" in their archives and see how many serious articles were written about him. At best he's dismissed as an amusing hippie.

Posted by DOUG. | January 3, 2007 11:34 AM
22

There is a time to fight and a time to give in.

The primary is exactly the time to fight. I personally will not vote for a candidate who will not support full marriage equality. And I'll write each candidate and tell them so. They need to know this is important, and I won't support them waffling.

Come the general election, that is the time to take what we can get, even if it is less then ideal. If it comes down to a vote between a Democrat who supports only civil unions, or a raving Republican who supports gulags for gays, or throwing away my vote on some Nader wanna-be, I'll take civil unions, thank you very much. Sure, it isn't what we deserve, but it is a step in the right direction, and something to build on.

Now is the time to push. It is the political off season. 95% of the country isn't paying any attention. It is only us political nerds and wonks that that start wringing our hands over this almost 2 years ahead of the election. If we give in this early, we'll never make any progress, and nobody will ever take us seriously.

Edwards may end up being a good candidate, and if it comes down to him or McCain (or whoever the R's pick) in Nov 2008, I'll vote for him without hesitation. But right now, this early and in the primary, he will not get my vote, nor a nickel in contributions as long as he maintains his fence-sitting stance. And I plan to write and tell him so.

Posted by SDA in SEA | January 3, 2007 11:40 AM
23

I don't know about you guys, but I'm waiting for the Dems to pull out a John Edwards/Clay Aiken presidential ticket in '08. Both men make my sister's lhasa apso look straight.

Posted by horatiosanzserif | January 3, 2007 11:44 AM
24

SDA, the problem is that, should edwards say something wonderful like "while i have personal qualms about the issue, i recognize that it is right that all people have access to the benefits of marriage," he would instantly be extremely unlikely to win the primary. you can't expect him to commit political suicide like that.

Posted by konstantconsumer | January 3, 2007 11:48 AM
25

The abusive spouse analogy doesn't work. It sounds good, but it isn't the same thing.

It is true that most abusers continue to abuse, and appeasing them and staying with them, hoping they will change is usually a bad idea.

However, people do change their minds about gays, and gay rights. Ten years ago, I'm sure my brother would have voted to keep gays from marrying. Now I'm out to him, we get along great, and he's a big supporter of gay rights. That kind of thing happens slowly over time to lots of people all over the country.

At one time, interracial marriage was illegal in most states. In fact, WA was one of the few states that never barred it. Now, of course, it is legal everywhere, and only rabid racists would argue against it. But that change did not occur overnight. Attitudes changed slowly over almost a century's time.

I expect that by, oh, 2050, gay marriage will be legal all over the country, and that we'll look back at this time and wonder what a bunch of bigoted assholes Americans were way back in 2006. But I don't think it is realistic to expect it will happen by the next presidential election.

So let's drop the spouse-beating analogy, okay?

Posted by SDA in SEA | January 3, 2007 11:53 AM
26

SDA in SEA... If the wife beater fits... All I'm saying is that we are deluded to keep hoping these southern crackers are going to come around (in thier hart of harts) on the "gay thing".

Posted by You_Gotta_Be_Kidding_Me | January 3, 2007 12:06 PM
27


Edwards is floating a trial balloon.

We should write to him and let him know where we stand. If he's sticking his finger in the wind on this, let's help him make the right decision, and help influence this issue for the 2008 race as a whole.

Posted by grab it | January 3, 2007 12:09 PM
28

I'll take the abuse of a Democratic president over the abuse of a shrill activist any day.

The domestic violence analogy is just silly posturing.

I'll be right there writing letters and disparaging mealy-mouthed Democrats; I'll cast a vote of conscience when it does more good than harm. All fine and good.

None of that will get us a Democratic president in 2008 who campaigns on a firm principle of full GLBT equality, no matter how high I raise my own blood pressure.

I'll be a willing victim of neither the fundamentalist fuckwits nor of my own pride. I suffer no delusions about the shortcomings of any politician, and do not require that they "love" me, or pretend to.

Posted by David Summerlin | January 3, 2007 12:14 PM
29

i think david is dead on. i went all idealistic in 2000 and voted for nader. the only problem is that i live in florida, and i still practice self-flagellation for that.

Posted by konstantconsumer | January 3, 2007 12:17 PM
30

Is marriage *the* gay issue or is just a component in the larger question of civil rights for homosexuals? Since I posed the question, I think it's the latter. The reason it's such a hot button is that it makes people think about what people do once they get married, namely, have sex. (I know, I know, recent studies suggest that people have sex before marriage, too, but you get my point.) As a nation, we are queasy about sex, except when we're not, so it's no wonder that this creates a conflict.

I really get the cultural point Edwards is trying to make. My father is at least 20 years older than him, an immigrant from an eastern European country, taking a conservative view of family matters. He's not going to be your best advocate for gay marriage. However, if you pointed out to him that in 38 states (or is it 37?) it is completely legal to fire someone from a job that they are performing well based on his/her sexual preference, he would see this as unjust and unreasonable, as would Edwards.

Yesterday I brought up the fact that sexual orientation is not protected under the Fair Housing Act, which means that while you cannot legally say something like 'no Jews' in a For Rent add, you could concievably say 'no gays' without there being much recourse. Once again, you could get neither the senior Wondering Willa nor Edwards to say that this is a great thing.

Say that gay civil rights boiled down to these three things: right to shelter, employment, and marrying whom you want, well, then you're two-thirds of the way there with basically egalitarian older white men from conservative upbringings. This is a hell of a lot more than you have with the current regime and it's something you can work with.

As for Kucinich, well, I laud his broad mindedness. I don't know if he had to overcome prejudices in the first place or never had them, either way it's great. I still don't think that makes him a better or more viable candidate than Edwards.

Posted by Wondering Willa | January 3, 2007 12:17 PM
31

At least Obama equivocates more skillfully. Edwards just says "Gee, I dunno." Obama says "I know you're not ready to accept that there's nothing wrong with marriage equality, so I'm going to pretend I'm with you but state that I might be proven wrong in the future, in an effort to try to get you to start thinking the same thing, and hopefully also make some voters think I will eventually come around to their hard-line side of the issue."

Unless we implement a fairer voting system, clear-headed people will always have to swallow their pride.

Posted by Noink | January 3, 2007 12:54 PM
32

Gay marriage will NEVER be legal because the controversy that it provides is too much of a useful distraction for politicians to use to distract the stupid masses from the bigger problems. Every time there is a war, or some other problem, gays will be used as a distraction. So what are you going to do about it. Do what I do, and turn the tables on them. Since I am being used as a distraction I feel that I have the right to use straight people to my advantage so I got into the predatory lending business. I sell high interest loans to stupid people who have like 20 kids and no money. And they say gays threaten marriage. None of the 1000s of miserable straight idiots with marital problems that I sell to have had a gay person create their problems. So, if you idiot politicians want to blame gays for marital problems and broken homes, be my guest. I am very happy that you are not addressing the real issues that cause poverty and broken homes. You are creating a very profitable situation for a gay guy like me who makes money off of you. Thank you, and keep blaming gays for your problems, I will happily make money off of your misery

Posted by the genius | January 3, 2007 5:19 PM
33

Gay marriage is not a "winner" for Democrats in lots and lots of places.

In Texas, Democrats often say they are "libertarian" on abortion because it's 'code' for prochoice.

Edwards is in favor of gay marriage, he just can't come out and say it because he wan'ts to win Missouri and Arkanasa in the general.

Posted by Will | January 3, 2007 10:54 PM
34

Oh good, Will. That is a relief.

I didn't pick up on his secret code.

He is also probably agaisnt the war and all the votes in support of it were merely done to make him look good in Indiana and Georgia.

It doesn't matter what he does or says, eh? As long as we know what he really means.

Posted by patrick C | January 4, 2007 7:42 AM
35

John Edwards knows a lot about poverty, after all, he’s helped throw a lot of people into it with:

- his co-sponsorship of H-1b visas,

- his support for illegal aliens,

- his vote for MFN-China

but what about stuff like iraq war and the patriot act?

well, he voted for them too

About the only thing you can say for Edwards is, he spent so much time running for president that he didnt have time to do more damage as senator

You’ve got to ask yourself - ‘what did he do, with the power he had, when he had it?

Posted by Sir Spamalot | January 4, 2007 1:48 PM
36

Yeah, Kucinich, he's 100% true-to-himself guy who doesn't mold himself to fit voters' desires. That's why, after a lifetime as a pro-lifer (Catholic, doncha know), he became pro-choice just as he entered the Democratic primary, in which a pro-lifer stands a snowball's chance in hell. Wow, I bet that was a genuine change of heart! The fortuitous timing? Purely conincidental!

There are no saints in a democracy. At least, let's hope not: any politician who succeeds while saying exactly what he/she thinks at all times would be riding into Washington on a cult of personality (Ross Perot, anyone?), and that's no way to elect people.

Was it sickening to watch Dr. Judith Steinberg suddenly turn into "Judy Dean" in the days before the Wisconsin primary in 2004? You bet. Was getting Bush out of office more important than that one step back for women's rights? Unequivocably, yes. I bet Steinberg herself would've happily been "Judy Dean" for quite a few years in exchange for a hundred thousand fewer deaths in Iraq.

And maybe that's the last word on this one.

Posted by A in NC | January 4, 2007 5:47 PM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 14 days old).