John Edwards addresses marriage equality question at N.H. town hall gathering

I am, unfortunately, pessimistic about these "discussions"

It is rather difficult to engage in a discussion of "marriage" with heterosupremacists who overwhelmingly seem to have little idea of their own contracts with the state for "marriage" benefits. In my opinion, every statute should be examined not just for the favoritism afforded heterosexual "married" couples, but also for the hardship they create for single, taxpaying citizens.

The obligation of a legislature and the government is to ensure equal protection and equal access to ALL citizens, and I'm rather libertarian in the notion that the State should not have the right to extend control over our lives (and our deaths) beyond health concerns for the overall general population. Anything beyond that is, to me, tyranny.

---

by: kevinbgoode @ Fri Dec 29, 2006 at 17:40:09 PM CST

Marriage?

Hell, I'M reluctant to call it "marriage." I would much rather have some kind of civil union with all of the rights, responsibilities and privileges. The word "marriage" won't get us anywhere.

---

by: Holly in Cincinnati @ Fri Dec 29, 2006 at 17:48:30 PM CST

Uh....Holly..

What do you think a trip down to the justice of the peace is called?

A civil ceremony. . .a civil marriage. The whole obscene notion of "civil union" is a ruse - it isn't any different than the simple little ceremony conducted by the justice of the peace for a civil "marriage."

The whole stupid argument between "civil union" and "marriage" has always been a stupid joke. There isn't anything sacred about a five minute exchange of vows before the JOP or even an Elvis impersonater. Unless you believe the vows for a "civil union" should somehow differ in respect to the degree of interpersonal commitment between members of a couple, I'm afraid I'm having trouble understanding your argument.

This nation has had civil unions for decades - its called civil marriage.

---

by: kevinbgoode @ Fri Dec 29, 2006 at 18:18:50 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Kevin's right

It's a civil ceremony and in this country it's called "marriage." Yes, that's problematic, but until some law is passed converting all marriages to civil unions, the semantics shell game will continue. That's why we are fighting for "marriage equality."

---

by: Pam Spaulding @ Fri Dec 29, 2006 at 18:24:08 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Fuck You, JE

if the gay community wants a SERIOUS Presidential Candidate to push gay marriage, then they need to START A PARADE and get the public to join in, and then the politicians will follow, otherwise, they may as well shut up complaining, because no serious Presidential candidate is going to push for gay marriage without the public wanting it.

Go to hell, asshole.  "What the fuck does "the public" mean?  A majority?  Unless a majority of people who'll vote for you agree that marriage equality is inherently necessary for our republic, you won't agree with the position?  There's a word for that.  It's called PANDERING.  Asshole.

---

by: JackGoff @ Fri Dec 29, 2006 at 17:58:57 PM CST

it wasn't Edwards that said that batsh*ttery

it was some troll named "strategic thinker" commenting on his blog.

---

by: Pam Spaulding @ Fri Dec 29, 2006 at 18:01:49 PM CST

[ Parent ]

My bad

That was some other asswipe.  However, I still desperately hope that, when I vote in November of 2008, I am voting for someone who is whole-heatedly committed to marriage equality.

---

by: JackGoff @ Fri Dec 29, 2006 at 18:05:53 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Heh

Sorry, pam.  I should have read closer originally.  It is, after all, NaDruBloDa.  8^D

---

by: JackGoff @ Fri Dec 29, 2006 at 18:07:04 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Grassroots?

I noticed that someone down the blog applauded "Strategic Thinker" and said that the GLBT community should work from the grassroots level up.  That brings two things to mind:  1.  Well, duh!  What do you think has been going on since Stonewall?  2.  Hush up and get to the back of the bus.

Whatever you call it, marriage, civil union, state-sanctioned lifetime handfasting, it's still a basic right that is denied to same-sex partners in the vast majority of the states.  And we need to ask Pam's question of each and every candidate.

---

by: BetsyTX @ Fri Dec 29, 2006 at 18:15:11 PM CST

Great persuasion, Pam.

I don't have anything to say beyond, "Amen."

This is especially fine: "First off, no, marriage equality is not the single most important issue facing our country today. Our Dear Leader made sure of that, managing to f*ck up foreign and domestic policy in mind-blowing, budget-busting, eco-damaging, miltary-destroying, civil-liberty slashing ways.
That said, the lack of leadership in both parties as the rights of LGBT taxpayers have been subject to the public's whim at the ballot box is a disgrace and hurts real, not hypothetical people by creating a legal limbo and second-class status -- that is uniquely un-American."

I do have one more thing to say: "Pam for prez."

---

by: Holly Capote @ Fri Dec 29, 2006 at 18:23:14 PM CST

Strategy vs. Governance

Strategic thinker seems to be thinking in terms of power instead of governance.

Is the goal of the election to create a more progressive society and responsive government, or is it to give the Democratic Party more power?

What happened with the Republican Party over the last 12-years they were in control of Congress?  And the last eight years when they controlled the federal legislative and executive branches?  Did they stick to the goals of better, smaller governance that they espoused in 1994, or did they become enamored with maintaining power by buying allegiance with government largess and giving lip service to social conservatives?

I wouldn't want a Democratic Party in power that was so concerned about maintaining its power that they, like the Republicans, forget why we might want them to have that power in the first place.  Last election I cast my votes for good, progressive government; I didn't vote for perpetual Democratic Party dominance for the sake of Democratic Party dominance.

-----
~~Autumn~~

As if there were safety in stupidity alone.
--Henry David Thoreau

---

by: Autumn Sandeen @ Fri Dec 29, 2006 at 18:29:38 PM CST

Access

Autumn, i agree completely with your statements about voting to keep people in power for the sake of power.  Many lgbt political types confuse access with power as if having access to the candidates means they have power.  If that were true, we'd have passed many laws by now and not be debating these issues. 

---

by: miss wild thing @ Fri Dec 29, 2006 at 19:01:35 PM CST

Gay vote

We as a community can complain all day about the lack of equality, and it angers me as well, but at the end of the day what angers me the most is that only 2% of us make it to the polls! When you are a part of a minority group, roughly 10% to start with, you cannot afford to water it down. If EVERY gay man and woman would ACTUALLY VOTE this would be a different world. Until then, all many of us can do is complain from the sidelines! The most pressing issue for the gay community today is not making it to the polls!!!

---

by: RB @ Fri Dec 29, 2006 at 20:08:59 PM CST

if we all show up to vote

who do we vote for?  they're all slippery

Click HERE and sign up: Campaign For Military Partners.

Lurleen on Twitter.

---

by: Lurleen @ Fri Dec 29, 2006 at 20:42:37 PM CST

[ Parent ]

They're all slippery...

...is a cop out period. ALL politics are local. The president will NEVER have the power to provide gay rights. However, who are you local council members, who sits on your local school board, who is your mayor and who has the most control of your daily lives? What was the primary driver of equal rights in the 60's? The pressure to be allowed to vote and then to get as many to the polls as possible brought about real change in our society!

If we want real and lasting change in our lives we must be willing to go to the polls in high percentages and show that we are dedicated to our future! Then and only then will we be taken seriously and get what we deserve; equal rights. Your local city council has more authority over your daily lives than does W. Yet all we want to do is bash him and if he did a 180 TODAY on gay issues he would not be able to do a damn thing about it! He has no authority to do so, but every local and state politician can. Then, if the local and state politicians move those in Washington would eventually follow suit. It is a long process and many want results now, but you cannot sit back and simply complain. YOU HAVE TO ACT!

We can scream all we want about gay marriage and equality, but at the end of the day what is the incentive for those "slippery" politicians in Washington to provide our rights if they KNOW THAT ONLY 2% OF US WILL ACTUALLY VOTE ANYWAY? There is no pressure on them as our votes will not cause them to lose a re-election and we are relegated to the invisible!!!

---

by: RB @ Sat Dec 30, 2006 at 08:08:51 AM CST

[ Parent ]

my local pols

are all on board 100% for civil rights.  they'll even say so publicly.  but national figures are a whole different story.  yes, we must push from teh grass roots.  but when the current crop of nationals are communally silent on the issue and refuse to lead, it may be appropriate for us to loudly and publicly withhold our votes and especially our funding and volunteer time as a grassroots protest.  because voting for them will not help us, but not voting for them will hurt them.  they need to be reminded of that.

Click HERE and sign up: Campaign For Military Partners.

Lurleen on Twitter.

---

by: Lurleen @ Sat Dec 30, 2006 at 10:51:51 AM CST

[ Parent ]

btw

you are not doing yourself any favors by asserting to me or anyone in particular "YOU HAVE TO ACT!" unless you know who you are talking to.  you're assuming we're not acting.  you're talking to a long-time activist here, and i gather that is pretty true for most of the active members on this blog.  so, talk to us like equals who are also concerned and busy working on our collective problems, not like a kid who needs a dope slap wake-up.  you might raise fewer hackles and really accomplish something, because you are right about voter turn-ou - it is important and can always be improved.  just a suggestion.

Click HERE and sign up: Campaign For Military Partners.

Lurleen on Twitter.

---

by: Lurleen @ Sat Dec 30, 2006 at 10:58:48 AM CST

[ Parent ]

You have to act

I try to learn something new everyday. I do that by reading posts, from many who are far brighter than myself, that I may or may not agree with. I take what sticks and politely disregard that which doesn't. I am "preaching" to the other 8% that REFUSE TO VOTE and yet shout the loudest! If that is not you do not take it personal as I am not speaking to you. If it is you and I hit a nerve, do something about it. My posts are usually broad in scope and are not directed at any one person. When they are, that person knows it!

Take care

RB

---

by: RB @ Sat Dec 30, 2006 at 14:10:30 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I do apologize

I did not in anyway have any intentions of not treating anyone as an equal! I am very passionate about education and being involved with local politics! My comments were intended to be a broad generalization of what I have seen and not directed towards any one individual. If I offended you I apologize and realized that my previous post probably did not convey that sentiment very well!

Take care

RB

---

by: RB @ Sat Dec 30, 2006 at 14:34:04 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Voting is good, but not enough.

RB,

The civil rights movement of the 1960's would have gotten nowhere if all they did is vote.  Those folks also marched, protested, boycotted mass transit, and committed acts of civil disobedience.  That is how they achieved those results.  But, by your words, the civil rights marchers and leaders were "just screaming about equality".

Same with the protests against the Vietnam War.

Same with Stonewall.

Same with the huge immigrant protests earlier this year.

I get to vote at most, once a year.  What am we supposed to do, keep quiet and make nicey-nice the rest of the year?  Or, should we challenge homophobia, transphobia, and heterosupremacism where we see it?

I know what I will do.  My tranny ass is going to be out on the street, and I will scream all I need to.

Social outrage is power protecting itself; it is not morality. -- Andrea Dworkin

---

by: RachelPhilPa @ Sat Dec 30, 2006 at 11:26:30 AM CST

[ Parent ]

I get to vote at most, once a year...

Perhaps you missed my point. Please continue to fight everyday and do what is right! Protest, live out loud, but also VOTE! NO WHERE in my post did I suggest that anyone should politely stand on the sidelines and let anyone run over them. However, voice without action, ie. not voting, is fruitless.

What I have issues with are those that stand on the sidelines screaming and then never use the one right we have to fight with; the right to vote! If you do not participate in our government then why should I listen? I work very hard at the local level campaigning for gay friendly candidated for my mayor and council. I have spoken before my city council calling for the impeachment of a council member that made racist and homophobic remarks. The support I got was pathetic to say the least! I supose Macy's was having a one day sale while I was speaking out against racism and homophobia! 

---

by: RB @ Sat Dec 30, 2006 at 14:17:55 PM CST

[ Parent ]

LGBT turnout is as good as general turnout.

Granted, that ain't much to be proud of. Some LGBT kids may occasionally not bother to register to vote or be "too busy", but frankly, same can be said of straight kids. The bar crowd locally seemed perfectly receptive to get out the vote campaigns a month ago.

Our problem is that about 4% of the population (best current estimate of "lgbt-identified" people, not the number of ever-jumped-over-the-fence people) is not a huge percentage, and not surprisingly, not a uniform voting block, with about 25% steadily voting for Republicans. So, 3% of populace. We need to get the "otherwise possible Democratic voter, but highly offended by gays" population down under 3% for realistic success. Of course, the "fairness" argument may play well, since relatively few people without strong opinions re: gays are going to want to be identified as unfair and unreasonable. Particularly when the "fairness" argument can be expanded to include some straight people (see recent AZ anti-SSM amendment downfall).

---

by: NancyP @ Sat Dec 30, 2006 at 11:53:10 AM CST

[ Parent ]

LGBT turnout is as good as general turnout

This is my point! If we want rights then we have to turn out in record numbers. I would love to see every gay American show up at the polls and only 30% of the straight world show up! Could you imagine what would happen?! IF WE ALL VOTED and the overall turnout was light what would be the outcome?

Of course, NO MINORITY GROUP has ever obtained rights without members of the majority willing to cross over and vote for what is right. We need ALL OF US and a significant amount of straights willing to take up our cause. It does not help us that so many in our community do not make it to the polls!

---

by: RB @ Sat Dec 30, 2006 at 14:44:04 PM CST

[ Parent ]

What I don't get

I know that I have mentioned this before but I'll mention it again.  What part of
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
and
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
is so hard for people to understand?  Why is this up for discussion?  The invisible friend who lives in the sky and can only be seen by people who beg for money on tv getting angry isn't a good answer.

My America includes LGBT families.

---

by: Mena @ Fri Dec 29, 2006 at 21:30:14 PM CST

Please post comments on that Edwards for President Diary

Part of the reason that so many democrats are like "Strategic Thinker" - is they don't get challenged by gays in the mainstream areas of democratic blogs - instead, there's a GLBT area - where the issues are discussed - and it's considered a taboo subject elsewhere. 

Thanks to Pam for pointing out this person's comment - and it's rather typical.  I remember Freeper like anti-gay comments on John Kerry's forums when the gay marriage issue came up.  Anti-gay animus isn't exclusive to Republicans - and is part of the reason so many Democrats pander to gays privately at HRC fundraisers - but say different things publicly. 

Dems need to know there is a political cost - losing gay  votes - AND MONEY - if they don't deliver - otherwise, they will continue using gays like an ATM - and delivering nothing. 

Michele Bachmann's democratic opponent, Patty Wetterling returned a check from the Human Rights Campaign - Wetterling was more than willing to take big checks from gay  donors - she had many fundraisers targeted to gays - but she didn't want to be publicly associated with the gay community.  Late in the campiagn, she said to a Strib reporter that though she opposed the FMA, she fully supported the Federal DOMA law, which blocked civil union type benefits for gays - including social security. 

In 2004, I believe Edwards thought the federal provisions of DOMA went too far, but he did believe that one state had the right to refuse to recognise another state's marriage. 

---

by: lloydletta @ Fri Dec 29, 2006 at 23:31:38 PM CST

demo bigots

Didn't know that about Wetterling...doesn't surprise me tho...so few pro equality demos to vote for out there...last year when I got a fundraising call from the demo party for the Ohio guy (see forgot his name already) I asked the caller what his stance on gay rights and marriage eqaulity was.  The caller was silent, didn't have a clue not only what the answer was, but more importantly, didn't register with her why I would be asking....I responded...candidate doesn't support my equal rights, no money or support...unfortunately the candidate WAS for equality, only neither I nor the demo phone solicitor knew that....
Wetterling deserved to lose.

---

by: Karen in Kalifornia @ Sat Dec 30, 2006 at 11:57:48 AM CST

[ Parent ]

It really doesn't matter what he calls it...

...as long as he supports gay marriage/unions/partnerships in some form not to the detriment of others. Because of DOMA we will have to fight this fight in 50 legislatures  and 50 state supreme courts until, like the sodomy statutes, the SCOTUS comes in and levels the field across all states. It will all end up as gay marriage no matter what people claim as I do not see the SCOTUS giving full faith and credit to domestic partnerships, civil unions, or whatever is cobbled together by one state for domestication where no such flavor exists. The only universal is marriage. And it will come.

---

by: chandler in hollywood @ Sat Dec 30, 2006 at 04:36:36 AM CST

You say you want a revolution

well, you know...
http://www.dailykos....

---

by: Kurlan Naiskos @ Sat Dec 30, 2006 at 05:48:59 AM CST

"pragmatism" vs. "revolutionism"

The Kos diarist's points arguing pragmatism (or rather, incrementalism) over revolutionism is an interesting read, but the diary doesn't look at the bigger picture ("pragmatism is the only approach to progressive social change that is likely to accomplish its goals.").

What revolutionism offers, in my opinion, is primarily a satisfactory feeling of moral superiority:  I'm not a sell-out.  I won't settle for partial justice.  This is about morality.  But I would argue that a strategy without likelihood for success is as much of a sell-out of values as is just joining the Republican Party and saying the hell with it.  

One, I'd argue that "revolutionism" is a misnomer if applied to the vocal supporters of the gay civil rights struggle, but to each their own.

From my perspective, on the issue of marriage equality, the pragmatists thus far are actually faux pragmatists -- they have done everything possible to defer/squelch/deflect public debate on the issue because of fear of losing elections or power (DNC, Dem candidates, even some gay advocacy organizations), but say that they are supportive of the cause in some watered-down fashion.

This "Lucy and Charlie Brown with the football"  tactic (using gays as an ATM while producing few results) has allowed amendments to pass over and over again across the country, unfettered, as the Dems. It's the "leave it to the states" attitude that has had direct impact on the civil rights of gays and lesbians, rolling back or putting rights that they had gained into legal jeopardy (look at Ohio and Michigan). The real revolution has occurred in Corporate America, because they realize it's good business sense to treat your LGBT employees and consumers with benefits, respect and recognition; our lawmakers at the state and national levels have been out to lunch on civil equality issues in too much of the country.

The process of progressive political change requires revolutionists as well (though not in equal numbers to pragmatists) to push the dialogue further along to mitigate the timidity of those pragmatists willing to "go along and get along" with those baby steps. IMHO, the black civil rights movement required both Malcolm X (the "revolutionary"), Dr. King (the "pragmatist") to succeed. Even that's a stretch because MLK never offered up some watered-down version of equality as an option.

I can't tell you how many times those who might be our allies in marriage equality are woefully undereducated about the issues because they simply aren't on their radar (see this post). The issues won't be unless there are both revolutionists and pragmatists at work from the grassroots up to spur and shape debate.  Political timidity and incrementalism without more revolutionary forces pushing at the boundaries (making the noise that these faux pragmatists find too loud or distasteful) will not acheive the desired end results of equality.

---

by: Pam Spaulding @ Sat Dec 30, 2006 at 08:54:28 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Exactly

Without Malcom X and the Pnthers to scare the bigots - and make MLK seem attractive - Dr. King would have gotten nowhere.

---

by: tiponeill @ Sat Dec 30, 2006 at 14:27:51 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Good point, Kos

I was saying that the incremental changes in attitude towards the GLBT community have been going on for years.  Progress has been made.  But that doesn't mean that those of us who support gay rights (and have done so for as long as we've been able to vote) should be quieter.  The pressure should be kept up.  Pragmatists keep on.  We don't give up. 

I still remember a friend telling me over 20 years ago that I would not be welcome as an attorney for GLBT rights because I am straight.  Somehow, I don't think that's the case today,if it ever truly was. 

---

by: BetsyTX @ Sat Dec 30, 2006 at 09:01:05 AM CST

[ Parent ]

oh no.

straight allys rock.
And sometimes are the only people that some will hear. I'm looking for allied speakers as I type. My experience has been that my straight activist are sometimes the most reliable and dependable. AND that little bit of distance seems to take the emotional edge off of some of their discussions. I suppose it take a bit of fear out of the equation for the opposer as well...

http://EQFL.org

---

by: banshiii @ Sat Dec 30, 2006 at 10:31:32 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Different Questions

Pam and the Blenders:

Here are the questions I would dearly love to see answered by every politician running for federal office:

"Federal law mandates that only two classes of people cannot received death benefits if they are same-sex partners of Members of Congress who die: convicted traitors and gays.  Do you believe that homosexuals pose a similar threat to the USA as those who have betrayed their country to foreign powers?  If so, why and how?  Please be specific."

"In order to maintain an untenable position, you have to be actively ignorant."  The Colbert Report

---

by: Lev Raphael @ Sat Dec 30, 2006 at 09:25:25 AM CST

Lev, your question confuses me.

Are you envisioning a same-sex partner who isn't gay?

---

by: Holly Capote @ Sat Dec 30, 2006 at 10:48:15 AM CST

[ Parent ]

No - she is referring to the fact that

Congressman Gary Studd's marriage partner (from MA) was unable to receive federal benefits after his death - the only spouse in the history of the USA to be denied benefits.

---

by: tiponeill @ Sat Dec 30, 2006 at 14:25:31 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Edwards to appear in Chapel Hill today

I'm still battling the flu, so I won't be able to go see the crowds (this bug is dragging on badly; I felt a bit better yesterday, but still hacking up a lung and can barely talk).

I'm sure there will be coverage in the local media as to whether the topic comes up. Perhaps we'll see more over at BlueNC.

---

by: Pam Spaulding @ Sat Dec 30, 2006 at 10:16:29 AM CST

Edwards Remarks on Marriage Equality

While I join Pam and others in being disappointed that we currently have only one candidate on the Democratic side who supports marriage equality (Dennis Kucinich), I think that the first real remarks on marraige equality from one of the three candidates polling the best (Clinton, Obama, Edwards) do give our community some room to push for more.

I have said time and again to those at the Party Committees and on staff with the 08 candidates that the community will not accept an answer that begins with "I believe marriage is between one man and one woman."  We need to hear what the candidates are going to do as President to work with Congress to enact federal legal protections for our families and for us as individuals.  And we need to hear them talk them talk with a real human understanding of the struggles we face as a result of being strangers to the law.  This is not a technical, legal issue for us as families and individuals, it is emotional, heart-wrenching issue.

I am hopeful (always an optimist) that Edwards remarks may give our community some room to come back to Edwards and his camp with some "constructive criticim" of his opening statements on marriage equality.

Interestingly enough, I received a response from a consultant inside one of the other "Big 3" candidate camps who said (referring to Edwards remarks): "His answer shows that some politicians really want to support gay marriage but are afraid of the political consequences."  Of course, my rhetorical response is that it actually shows that these politcians lack the courage to come out in support of the most important human rights issue of our time.

But, because my previous work gives me the opportunity to have conversations with decision makers, I instead wrote the following response:

"My instinct (which was confirmed in the 2004 national exit polling and detailed in a post-election report I wrote for the DNC) is that those voters who are motivated to turn out based solely on social issues like gay marriage and abortion are never going to vote Democratic and that our candidates have nothing to gain by running hard on these issues in an attempt to gain Republican votes (see Harold Ford).  Our party is the party of "gay marriage" whether we like it or not and that embracing marriage equality would simply be a relfection of the reality that already exists among the electorate."

2004 DNC LGBT Post-Election Analysis
http://www.lgbtdems....

By the way, I am THRILLED that we are having this conversation in December 2006 and not December 2007 and am incredibly appreciative to Pam for creating THE forum for our community to have these critical discussion. 

Happy New Year to all---Eric

---

by: actvst75 @ Sat Dec 30, 2006 at 11:06:41 AM CST

Edwards judgement

Don't forget that Edwards co-sponsored the Iraq war resolution.

He now claims that he was acting on faulty information and made a bad judgement - should we believe him ?

Or should we believe that he will fail the test of political courage again and again if it comes down to taking an unpopular position ?

To me, it looks like his "judgement" has not improved and is unlikely to.

---

by: tiponeill @ Sat Dec 30, 2006 at 14:23:06 PM CST

admitting he was wrong

beats sHillary's or Joe Lieberman's water-carrying for Dear Leader on that one.

---

by: Pam Spaulding @ Sat Dec 30, 2006 at 14:24:50 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Find a way to make it appealing to the masses

I'm sympathetic to many of the arguments of the right in terms of the importance of tradition, etc.  But there's a question of basic fairness beyond "just feelings" that isn't being communicated by the LGBT community, and it was the reason I changed my position a few years ago:  taxes.

When the issue is framed about feelings, the public isn't going to respond.  But when you point to a near universal and common problem the LGBT community faces ... the higher taxes "single" people pay ... you can frame the argument as one of fairness vs. unfairness.

There are other things too, but they are deemed "less common" or otherwise manageable (i.e., you could write out a contract for inheritance rights, etc.)  But the IRS takes your money every year, and more of it if you are Tom and Joe than if you were Tom and Jane.

I have arguments for social conservatives and religious conservatives from a moral standpoint (I think gay marriage has benefits for society as a whole) but I won't bore you with those.  For middle America, it would be powerful to state that the discrimination against gay people in committed relationships takes the form of unfair taxation, and is a kind of "fine" just because you have a different sexual orientation.


Reviving the Art of Polite Political Discourse - http://www.politetalk.com

---

by: fshagan @ Sat Dec 30, 2006 at 19:48:03 PM CST

Much better than John Kerry!!

I'm amazed that anyone believes Edwards' recent statement about marriage equality is little different from what John Kerry said in 2004. That's just ridiculous.

John Kerry most infamously told the Washington Post in 2003 that same-sex couples were not fit for marriage because marriage was for procreation. He stopped spewing that bigotry only after someone apparently pointed out that he had married a post-menopausal woman, so his own marriage wasn't even procreative.

I also attended an HRC candidates forum in DC in 2003, where Kerry, having already been burned by his own failure to procreate with Teresa Heinz, decided to just lecture the crowd on how marriage was just inherently heterosexual. When some of us booed and hissed, he simply waved a dismissive hand and said "that's what I think." We apparently we're sufficiently human to merit an actual rationale from the pig. Only Lieberman was more contemptuous of us at that forum than Kerry. (Edwards didn't attend, which, as it turned out, was probably a better strategy than showing up and lecturing the crowd on how inferior to heterosexuals we were.)

Then, of course, let us not forget Kerry endorsing the state constitutional amendment in Massachusetts to destroy the greatest marriage equality victory we have won in the U.S. And he has continued even after 2004 to insist that same-sex marriage should be banned in Massachusetts.

There was also his pathetic flip-flopping on the Missouri constitutional amendment, which banned not only same-sex marriage, but also civil unions, domestic partnerships, and any rights and benefits for same-sex couples. Kerry endorsed it, then said he didn't endorse it, then said he didn't know what to think about it.

To his credit, Edwards at least was willing to oppose the grotesque state constitutional amendment that was just ratified in Virginia. That alone was more than we ever got out of that infintely arrogant pig John Kerry. I'll take Edwards' supposed struggling over the issue any day over the close-minded, preaching condescension of John Kerry!

---

by: uh_huhh @ Mon Jan 01, 2007 at 15:16:24 PM CST

his statement is different

but his political position is the same.

---

by: Pam Spaulding @ Mon Jan 01, 2007 at 16:27:52 PM CST

[ Parent ]

His position

is the best you're going to see from any major Democratic presidential candidate in 2008, which isn't to say they shouldn't all be criticized for it.

But my view is you calibrate the criticism to the context. I held my nose and supported Harold Ford for Senator in Tennessee, notwithstanding his disgusting remarks on same-sex marriage. He was a black candidate trying to win statewide office in Tennessee. But context is why I also said Linda Cropp was utterly unacceptable as a candidate for mayor of Washington, D.C., as was Eliot Spitzer's primary challenger for governor in New York. They had civil union-type positions (although Cropp tried to claim some grand election-eve conversion in support of marriage when her dim-witted campaign finally realized the gay community was saying "screw you" to her separate-but-equal position). In both places we could make support for same-sex marriage an absolute requirement, because our candidates could win with that position, as Adrian Fenty did in DC and Spitzer did in NY. For a Democratic presidential candidate who has to win in moderate places like Ohio, Florida, Missouri, Colorado, or Virginia, we can demand much better than Harold Ford's bigot-coddling, but we can't yet demand Fenty or Spitzer's open support of marriage equality.

Beyond that, I think message is important. By saying he hasn't made that leap (yet) and noting the different view of younger people, Edwards sent the message that the issue was in flux, that he humbly recognized that his position might be something he needs to overcome, and, basically, that he realizes that his daughter's position will ultimately prevail. That's about the most we can expect this time around, and it is much better than Kerry's stupid linkage of marriage with procreation and his dead-end absolute certainty that marriage "just is" exclusively heterosexual and that same-sex marriage must be eradicated in Massachusetts. Edwards' message helps move the ball down the field a bit or, at the very least, has him facing the right direction; Kerry's message amounted to handing the ball to the other team and cheering as they run for a touchdown. Even worse, ultra-liberal Kerry's position itself was undoubtedly not the position he would have taken if he weren't running for president, so not only was his lecturing so infinitely condescending, it was also a complete, deliberate, and obvious selling out of gays and lesbians. Edwards at least had the decency to signal a little conflictedness about it. Edwards statement conveys a significant measure of respect; Kerry's conveyed know-it-all contempt. Kerry was just a pompous, mercenary whore, and that's not only insulting to us but also makes us look toxic.

---

by: uh_huhh @ Tue Jan 02, 2007 at 04:47:57 AM CST

[ Parent ]