01/03/2007
John Edwards on Gay Marriage: "I Don't Know the Answer"
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..."
More at Daily Kos... (via huffington post)
Posted 11:55 AM EST by Andy Towle in Election 2008, Gay Marriage, John Edwards, New Hampshire, News | Permalink
Like it?
Subscribe to FREE Towleroad daily headlines with our RSS feed!
RECENT STORIES:
Comments
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
The fact that Edwards feels "personal conflict" over this issue really troubles me. I would have a lot more respect for his position if he were to say "America is not ready for gay marriage yet so, as an elected official, I won't support it." But "personal conflict" implies that on some level, he has personal (moral) issues with homosexuallity. In an interview with George Stephanopolous, when asked the same question, he gave the same answer, and added that the source of this conflict was his Southern Baptist upbringing -- reinforcing my believe that Edwards questions the moral equivalancy of gay relationships.
No way would I vote for this man.
Posted by: Brad Rolston | Jan 3, 2007 1:38:13 PM
John Edwards, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama: all have, in one way or the other, "personal conflict" over the issue of gay marriage.
I assume anyone here who would have trouble voting for someone who has a "personal conflict" over gay marriage is going to vote for the most pro-gay likely candidate: Rudy Giulaiani
Posted by: LightningLad | Jan 3, 2007 2:04:24 PM
Thanks Brad. It is refreshing to read the words of someone who is actually thinking and not just reacting emotionally. Jonathon, Beautiful! Concise and compelling. Unfortunately, those two qualities are almost universally lacking in politicians.
Posted by: rudy | Jan 3, 2007 2:07:48 PM
Kyle,
The Iowa caucuses and NH primary are both over a year away. A lot can and will happen in that time.
John Edwards may be in the lead in polls right now but then again, he's made it clear for quite awhile now that he's going to run in '08 visiting Iowa many many times over the past several years and engaging in "retail politics" while Hillary has been coy about whether she's running and so she hasn't been going to Iowa to campaign openly, while Obama is still a new, unknown quantity that some people still haven't made up their minds about.
In order for Edwards to get the nomination, both Clinton and Obama would both have to mess up royally on the campaign trail. And that is not likely to happen.
Clinton and Obama both in the race sucks up all the air in the room: both media attention and money. Hillary has the money and the organization to take her to the end of the primaries. Obama has the youth and enthusiasm but may ultimately wilt under the glare of the media lights. Edwards has -- what? I don't know. I guess he's just a good white bread alternative to Hillary and Obama.
Like I said: a nice decent guy but essentially DOA.
Posted by: LightningLad | Jan 3, 2007 2:20:22 PM
I have a personal conflict with someone who can't state he's even for civil unions. Edwards has about as much chance of winning the White House as I do the Lottery anyway.
As for the poster who mentioned Rudy Guliani, why do I think his stance will harden in the national spotlight when it comes to gays?
Posted by: Marco | Jan 3, 2007 2:20:52 PM
Well, politics IS a game. Even Hillary thinks Edwards is a threat, so all this talk about his campaign being dead in the water is ridiculous. Yes, you can stand up for gay marriage, and you can demonstrate, and you can try influence state legislation, but that doesn't change the fact that politicians have to appeal to the center if they want to get elected. Hillary thinks that marriage should be defined as a man/woman union. Is this what she believes? Proabably not. She is trying to get elected. So is Edwards. So would you be happy if a Republican presidential candidate who says "no gay marriage" gets elected? All because we have some guy/woman Democratic candidate who doesn't understand the realities of American elections?
Go ahead, vote to your hearts' content. Meanwhile, I'll be trying to get a Dem elected to the White House, so that we don't get another religious fundatmentalist trying to write discrimination into our Constitution. You'll sleep well at night, but so will I.
Posted by: Anon1 | Jan 3, 2007 2:33:21 PM
This is the reverse of the Non-denial Denial...here is the non-answer answer. So much for leadership without CYA or self-interest.
Posted by: Mike M | Jan 3, 2007 2:49:37 PM
"Let the hetero's own the word marriage."??? We are our own worst enemies.
julianadotsr: would that enough others thought as passionately as you. Bravo!
Sorry, Lightninglad, but you have got to be kidding me with the fantasies about Guiliani. Did he switch parties while I was out buying Dixie Chick CDs for all my friends for Xmas? Have you forgotten his internationally televised rimjob of Bush at the 2004 convention? And, more recently, from "The Advocate,"
April 20, 2006:
"Rudy Giuliani appears to be distancing himself from pro-gay past
There are signs that former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani may be trying to distance himself from his reputation for supporting abortion rights and gay equality as he eyes a possible run for the Republican presidential nomination in 2008. In a 1999 Interview with CNN's Inside Politics, then-mayor Giuliani said, “I’m pro-choice. I’m pro–gay rights”
But as the midterm election draws near and Giuliani gets closer to what many believe will be a shot at the presidency, the former mayor is campaigning for some very antichoice, anti–gay rights GOP candidates. Some political experts say he's "mending fences."
On Tuesday, Giuliani appeared at a rally for U.S. senator Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, a vocal opponent of gay rights, who has said that states should regulate homosexuality "the same as they regulate human sexual contact with animals." Giuliani said of Santorum, "In any age you don't have many leaders. Senator Santorum is one of them."
The New York Times reports that Giuliani will head to Iowa later this month to campaign for U.S. representative and gubernatorial candidate Jim Nussle. Nussle is also an opponent of gay rights, having voted for the federal constitutional ban on same-sex marriage in 2004 and a ban on adoptions by gays in Washington, D.C., in 1999. Iowa is also home of the first national presidential caucus—and one of the first stops for most presidential candidates.
And earlier this week former Christian Coalition leader Ralph Reed announced that Giuliani would headline a fund-raiser in May for Reed's campaign for lieutenant governor of Georgia."
Posted by: Leland | Jan 3, 2007 2:55:37 PM
If the Democrats played along the rigidly ideological rules that Leland prescribes, they wouldn't have won the Congress in the last election, since many ostensibly pro-gay and pro-choice Democrats campaigned and voted for candidates who are not steadfast supporters of gay rights or abortion rights. For example, the Democrat who beat Rick Santorum for the Senate seat in Pennsylvania, Bob Casey, is pro-life and conservative on many other social issues, including gay rights. It's also notable that many anti-war voters still ended up voting for Democrats who voted for the war in Iraq (as, for example, Hillary did) so that the Democrats could become the majority and have more say over how the war is prosecuted.
So the fact that the pro-gay rights Giuliani campaigned for Republicans who are not pro-gay proves nothing other than that Giuliani is a canny and strategic Republican soldier who realizes that he has to reach across the aisle and support people who he agrees with on 90% of the issues even if he disagrees with them on 10% of the issues - just as the Democrats did in the last election when pro-gay and pro-choice Democrats voted for pro-life Democratic candidates like Bob Casey or like Jon Tester in Montana, who does not support gay marriage.
Rudy Giuliani is undeniably the most pro-gay candidate in the race. If you're going to base your vote only on a candidate's stand on gay rights issues, then your vote should automatically go to Giuliani.
Posted by: LightningLad | Jan 3, 2007 3:30:38 PM
"I personally feel great conflict about that. I don't know the answer. Wish I did..."
The answer is that you have no balls, check with your wife, I think she has them. Too bad Elizabeth doesn't run.
I'm hoping Former Gen. Wesley Clark gets the nomination. He is for gays serving in the military and is for Gay Marriage.
There is no way the GOP is going to give the nomination to Guiliani. As was reported yesterday, an internal report from his campaign committee that was leaked to the press showed them discussing his troubles with the far right on his pro-choice, pro-gay and his sleezy marital front page messes.
Posted by: patrick nyc | Jan 3, 2007 3:37:57 PM
Couple of thoughts.
If we as a community - the people for whom this issue has the most impact - can't agree on whether this is important or whether or not it should be "marriage" or civil partnership blah, blah, why should any politician come out in support of this?
Those who are in opposition to same-sex marriage are pretty clear and unambigous about it and they don't seem to be afraid to express that at the ballot box. Gay people? well, a significant number of us don't even vote, and still others think things like a strong foreign policy and lower taxes are more important than basic civil rights - hi, Log Cabin Republicans.
In my view, the arguement should be that state sanctioned unions be available to everyone straight or gay and either that is called marriage for everyone or it's called civil union for everyone. If you then choose to have a second recognition of your union by your church, mosque, synagogue, temple, meeting hall what the heck ever, God bless you - but that recognition should bring you nothing more than the gifts from your guests and whatever blessings God chooses to bestow.
Unfortunately, the genie is out of the bottle and the state has ceded it's authority in this area to the church.
Posted by: hoya86 | Jan 3, 2007 4:03:45 PM
If I lived in South Africa, I could get married. In America I am denied this priveledge. I remember the woman from S.A. who said, "Equality does not exist on a sliding scale." She was so right. Fortune 500 companies and academic institutions are all way ahead of the government on this one. Edwards is not fit to be president if he really believes this is the single hardsest social issue he faces. What a lack of leadership. Bye bye John......
Posted by: busytimmy | Jan 3, 2007 4:56:04 PM
Well what does everyone expect from a former "ambulance chaser?" He's always been a bull-shitter. However, I do agree that there needs to be an electable Democrat candidate in order to appeal to all the moderates out there. Especially the moderates in the Bible Belt, etc, who are thinking about voting for a Democrat for the first time in their life, but then get scared away by the whole gay marriage thing.
Posted by: Juliagulia03 | Jan 3, 2007 6:13:16 PM
If John Edwards gets asked the same type of question as this at every town hall from now to the New Hampshire primary, do you think he can be bothered to formulate an articulate answer by then? Keep up the pressure each time you see him canvassing for a vote--for YOUR vote--and see if he coasts on "i don't know" much longer.
Posted by: Daniel | Jan 3, 2007 6:33:19 PM
I agree with a lot of the comments here, and like Daniel's, I look forward to the evolution of this answer.
I do, however believe Edwards doesn't have a shot at the White House. He let Dick Cheney prison rape him in their VP debate. Deplorable.
Posted by: Marco | Jan 3, 2007 6:39:01 PM
"If the Democrats played along the rigidly ideological rules that Leland prescribes"—Lightninglad, I'll thank you not to put words [or anything else] in my mouth.
But if you want to effectively put whore of the GOP Guiliani's greasy dick in yours despite his having campaigned for three of the most ruthless homohysterics we've ever had [Bush, Santorum, Reed], be my guest. Last year, civil rights legend and gay MARRIAGE supporter Julian Bond refused to attend the funeral of his old friend, Coretta Scott King, because it was being held at the church of a raving homophobic minister. I guess Mayor "Santorum is a great leader" Giuliani just doesn't have the same ethics.
Posted by: Leland | Jan 3, 2007 7:10:03 PM
What an uncourageous response. In all civil rights struggles, leaders have had to stand up and say, "I DO know." Edwards seems ready to let history pass him by, rather than to take the reigns of the moral conscious of America.
Posted by: Sean | Jan 3, 2007 7:53:02 PM
Not to get in the way of the posters and their opinion, but for many political leaders civil rights have been an evolution rather than a revolution. Study JFK, Bobby Kennedy, Earl Warren, etc. hell, read up on Lincoln, the great African American emancipator himself. The point is that where someone who says he doesn't know today is far better than someone like Bush who wanted to definitely say no, and not as good as someone who says gay marriage all the way like Feingold, but to be so arrogant as to claim that we know where he will end up in this process - well history is against you. Peace.
Posted by: akaison | Jan 3, 2007 8:29:39 PM
We will probably end up with a system like the UK just put in place. Since all marriages in the UK are civil first, and religious if the participates wish, it wasn't hard for them to legalize gay unions with all the attending rights there of. If enough states and politicians will commit to civil unions, it will eventually have the same attendent rights as marriage does today.
I guess I have never understood why we, as gay men and women want so badly a hand off from the very people who hate us in the first place. All I want is the ability to legally be united with the man of my choice and to have ALL of the rights that a union of 2 people has now. They can call it Happy Muddabber Day....I don't give a rats ass...as long as we have inheirtance laws, legal tax standing and all the other goodies that hetro marrieds get now. Oh, and no-fault divorce(might as well be real here).
As to Edwards, and any politician running for President, he can't make up his mind because his polling hasn't told him which answer will get him the biggest amount of money and votes. Cynical, but unfortunatly true folks. And Lighteninglad is correct....Guliani is the ONLY major possible candidate that is unabashedly, and outspokenly pro-gay rights. The guy even lived with one of his gay friends when he left Gracie Mansion during his seperation with his last wife....tell me what other politician of either party would have done THAT....not even Ed (i'm not gay) Koch would have.
Posted by: Joshua Haught | Jan 3, 2007 9:08:41 PM
*"Let the hetero's own the word marriage."??? We are our own worst enemies.*
Very true Leland. Very true.
Posted by: lulu | Jan 3, 2007 9:47:20 PM
Poor sad Leland. After being demonstrably proved wrong once again, he lashes out with profanity laced personal attacks.
It would probably just be easier and more honest for you Leland if you just admitted that you're opposed to Giuliani because he's a Republican, not because he's anti-gay.
A pro-choice politician campaigning for a pro-life politician (such as new PA Senator Bob Casey) doesn't make the former automatically anti-choice.
Similarly, the extremely pro-gay Giuliani campaigning for extremely anti-gay politicians such as Santorum doesn't make Giuliani anti-gay in the least.
Posted by: LightningLad | Jan 4, 2007 12:30:17 PM
It's a game of inches, folks. "My daughter...and her generation believe that this issue will disappear with their generation, and they may be right about that." Not much, but has ANY serious candidate for the presidency ever gone as far with their statement? Not in my recollection.
Posted by: Adam | Jan 4, 2007 3:45:58 PM
John Edwards serves a great "waffle sandwich"!!
Posted by: alan brickman | Jan 6, 2007 2:31:43 PM
I firmly believe in gay marriage rights, not merely civil unions.
Idealistically, I would want John Edwards to come out with a statement in full support. However, we know that if he did make such a radical statement, he would not get elected in this country at this time. Complete honesty is not rewarded in the game of politics.
If you want a politician sympathetic to your views, you should look at their past actions and voting record. No candidate with a viable opportunity to win has come out in full support of gay marriage, so I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss John Edwards for this intelligent answer, albeit potentially unsatisfying.
I like him and I will decide whether I will vote for him when it gets closer to the election.
Posted by: Elle | Feb 7, 2007 7:48:48 PM