Slog: News & Arts

RSS icon Comments on Re: Edwards vs. Clinton's Coat

1

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.

Posted by Levislade | July 24, 2007 10:31 AM
2

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.

Posted by Mr. Poe | July 24, 2007 10:32 AM
3

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?

Posted by Gomez | July 24, 2007 10:40 AM
4

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.

Posted by mjg | July 24, 2007 11:23 AM
5

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.

Posted by You_Gotta_Be_Kidding_Me | July 24, 2007 11:31 AM
6

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.))

Posted by You_Gotta_Be_Kidding_Me | July 24, 2007 11:38 AM
7

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

Posted by elswinger | July 24, 2007 12:58 PM
8

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

Posted by Will in Seattle | July 24, 2007 1:05 PM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 45 days old).