Slog - Comments on Re: Edwards vs. Clinton's Coat

Comment by Levislade

Levislade — Tue, 24 Jul 2007 10:31:24 -0800

I didn't think his answer was that tortured, especially in the follow-up. He was being very open in saying he personally didn't believe in gay marriage, but he would not use that personal belief to make policy as president. Of course he didn't say what he would do, as Obama did, but still, I wouldn't say he was being evasive.

And that Reverend is great. I'm so glad they used his question.

Comment by Mr. Poe

Mr. Poe — Tue, 24 Jul 2007 10:32:01 -0800

He's having a tough time trying to explain that his personal (and religious) beliefs frown on homosexuality in general. I'll admit it isn't exactly comforting, but who am I to judge what he believes if he's explaining that it would not get in the way of my freedoms? It's a tough answer to handle for him, and I can respect that. Besides, my vote isn't based on my sexuality. Though I believe gay marriage is a very important issue for our Country, I do not believe it is a major factor in my voting decision. It's not like any of the three that have potential for winning are going to rush on gay marriage/civil unions. But do I believe Edwards 'answer'? Um...no. I have a tough time trusting any Christian. Oh, I'm sorry. Methodist. Same fucking thing.

Comment by Gomez

Gomez — Tue, 24 Jul 2007 10:40:45 -0800

This is still a belabored, tired attempt to make something out of nothing, Eli. Dan smacks me down whenever I try to read too much into something. Why should you be any more exempt from such paranoid illogic?

Comment by mjg

mjg — Tue, 24 Jul 2007 11:23:40 -0800

I'd say it's more nuanced than tortured.

Edwards supports equal rights under the law, and seems to object only to the term "marriage" being used. Which may still be an affront, mind, but equality under the law is more realistic than true equality at this point.

Religion is but one of the influences upon our values, and Edwards has made it clear he's not in support of gay marriage. But electing a man who would work to provide equal rights is a clear step in the right direction.

Comment by You_Gotta_Be_Kidding_Me

You_Gotta_Be_Kidding_Me — Tue, 24 Jul 2007 11:31:16 -0800

Edwards is has been on a long personal journey and the Democrats want to continue to take gays for a ride. The only one who�s position is morally defensible was Kucinich.

Comment by You_Gotta_Be_Kidding_Me

You_Gotta_Be_Kidding_Me — Tue, 24 Jul 2007 11:38:54 -0800

But instead of talking about the disgraceful fact that only one of the Democrats (and possibly the least relevant one) has an acceptable position on Gay Marriage, lets all obsess on Hillary�s coat. (Yeah, the Democrats really are pro-gay aren�t they? (maybe when we�re writing checks, but that�s about it.))

Comment by elswinger

elswinger — Tue, 24 Jul 2007 12:58:11 -0800

A black preacher who is pro gay marriage? Why don't we have people like that living in Seattle?

Comment by Will in Seattle

Will in Seattle — Tue, 24 Jul 2007 13:05:51 -0800

@7 - we do, they just get elected to KC.