I just got done watching Edwards and I just don't get it

[dsc]

First, let me give credit where credit is due. I am glad to see Edwards has decided to support civil unions. I am glad to see him in favor of non discrimination in other areas as well.

But what I don't get is this. Edwards stated that being gay isn't a sin. But he still feels, from his personal values, that gays shouldn't marry. So my question is this. If being gay isn't a sin, then why should we be banned from marriage?

On edit, this really should be the first question a conservative opponent of his would ask not just a liberal one. This isn't just an Edwards thing. All supporters of civil unions over marriage are going to have to answer this logical inconsistancy unless they fall back on "the public isn't ready" which was Dean's position on the matter and to a lesser extent Kerry's.

[kenny blankenship]

1. That's why he's the lawyer dsc!

Things that just don't make any sense to you or me are practically self-evident to lawyers.

[graywarrior]

2. He wants that evangelical vote.

[BayCityProgressive]

4. good

he can get the taliban vote and lose mine. I am not voting for anti-marriage candidates anymore. My partner and I have given enough time and money to ungreatful Democrats.

[graywarrior]

8. I'm with ya.

[MasonJar]

3. Edwards will never get the evangelical vote anyway.

[demnan]

5. Where are you from?

My guess is, you aren't from the south. Anybody from the south understood him perfectly.

You know my beliefs are as liberal as they come, but I live in a transitional area of Northern Virginia that is traditionally conservative. I sort of understand. Edwards answered that as honestly as he could. His background is very conservative and he has a leg in both camps. I think he was very sincere and honest about his answers there.

[Rosemary2205]

6. I believe he's differentiating between religious and civil marriages.

I believe he's calling for a separate state approved civil union that is the same thing as marriage but without the church involvement. I don't think he's picturing it being limited to homosexual unions, but to anyone who doesn't care about a religious union. (for instance since I was married by a judge at the courthouse mine would be called "civil union")

I could be wrong, but that's the idea I get from the total of his comments over time.

[noamnety]

10. In order for the gays to gain legitimacy

The atheists have to give up some of theirs. That way it kind of all evens out.

And this way, the atheists and gays can all have big pink triangles - whenever anyone asks "are you married" they can answer in a way that marks them as different.

[Rosemary2205]

15. No, EVERYONE who's married would have a civil union.

People who want a religious union could get married in the church in addition to fulfilling the requirements of the state sponsored civil union. No one outside of that church community is going to care whether you have a religious endorsement for your marriage.

I certainly could be mistaken but I do think this is what Edwards is talking about....making all marriages civil unions and then require those wanting a religious marriage to go to their own church for that extra step. And there will be independent churches that will marry homosexuals, there already are church leaders willing to do commitment ceremonies..... I believe the only concession Edwards is making is that the churches can keep the word "marriage".

[dsc]

16. Ah no

Edwards doesn't believe that we should be civilly married he feels their should be a seperate system for gays.

[Rosemary2205]

20. Like I said, I could have misunderstood the comments I've heard.

however, anything less that the same for all is unacceptable to me.

[xxqqqzme]

46. but you posted

'I am glad to see Edwards has decided to support civil unions.' so I fail to see what has upset you. Rosemary 2205 is correct - marriage is a social/cultural event. The minister/priest even says 'by the power vested in me by the state of......' W/O that statement even that ceremony would not be recognized by the 'state' and that 'marriage' ceremony would not be a recognized binding contract, which is what marriages are - whether performed in a church, at the beach or a judges chambers.

[noamnety]

25. And the rest of us aren't "married"?

Or we are married? This isn't making any sense to me.

If we're all "married" (gays and atheists and religious folk) then I don't understand the need to have "civil unions".

If we aren't all "married" then it's being used as a marker to denote those who are "less married" than others.

[jobycom]

7. Well, just wait, if gay marriage turns out to be a key issue in the primary

then he'll change his opinion on that, too.

[Jackpine Radical]

9. Just in case you wondered if he's trying to tailor his positions

to maximize his vote (rather than, say, standing on his principles).

[FrenchieCat]

12. But, but, but....I thought that John Edwards wanted us to

stand and be courageous?

Isn't that what he said over and over again in his speech? :shrug:

[Jackpine Radical]

14. Ahem. Yes. However....

did he ever say he was going to do the same?

[Pithy Cherub]

23. This was the sit down portion of the political speech.

:rofl:

[Telly Savalas]

41. His position is the same as Clark's on the issue

(Assuming this link has Clark's stance right: http://lesbianlife.about.com/cs/workschool/p/WesleyClark.htm )

It's pretty much the standard line for most Democrats: recognize the same rights for GLBT domestic partnerships as for heterosexual ones, but be too much of a coward/panderer to use the term marriage.

I think it's sort of a bullshit stance, but there's no reason Edwards should be singled out for it.

[flpoljunkie]

11. You ask a very good and logical question, dsc. Edwards' reasoning inconsistent.

[Mz Pip]

13. He's a politician

trying to have it as many ways as he can. He wants Gay people to vote for him so he supports Civil Unions and says Gay isn't a sin. But then... Oh, dear he's got to throw something to the fundies (who probably won't be voting for him no matter what)

What's a politician to do? :shrug:

Mz Pip
:dem:

[Colobo]

17. Two options

1) Pandering to social conservatives and centrist democrats at the same time.
2) Hypocrisy.

Pick one.

[teenagebambam]

18. Because our weddings would be so fabulous

the straights could never hope to compete.

[PresidentObama]

19. I like Edwards but he didn't make much sense.

How can you believe homosexuality isn't a sin and you could possibly be born that way, but then believe they can't marry and cite your beliefs?

I thought his religious belief system wanted marriage defined as between a man and women because being gay was our 'choice' and we were sinning according to them.

I just don't get it Johnny boy, I like you. But you can't walk on egg shells and double speak in tough interviews with Timmy who will try and nail you out cold.

[neoblues]

21. Too many confused Americans...

and politicians are not only included in the confused part, but want the votes of as many as possible... so they hedge their bets, trying to please as many as they can while not alienating more than absolutely unavoidable.

Strangely (or not), it's the "Christian Values" (CV)that gives liberal politicians the worst of such problems. Mostly, to get elected, they need to be Christians or seem like they are or at least not offend Christians. Some liberal politicians are indeed Christians and have been infected with those CV's all their lives, so it's hard for them to go against them--even when their rational mind has come down on the other side of an issue.

Edwards seems to be in this situation, struggling against what is claimed to be Christian Values but whether they are or not, they're intolerant and inapproriate--such as homophobia. So, while he's able argue that it's not a sin, truth be told, if Christian theologians mostly agree that it is a sin, by their definition, it is a sin (they get to decide these things for themselves and the particular subset of Christians who follow them; their followers can choose to redefine it to their own liking--but must be prepared to face some consequences if they do). Of course, to a secular citizen, it's not a sin--indeed, the word "sin" doesn't even strictly mean anything. Such a citizen might use it in a way that resemble's the common usage produced by the Christian majority, to refer to 'bad' behavior, but "sin" is really just a Christian creation and therefore doesn't have any secular definition. So, he can say "it's not a sin", and since Christians can indeed interpret the Bible for themselves, he can mean it even if he's not relying on the lack of a Secular definition. Fudge factorI haven't analyzed or searched for everything Edwards has said, so I don't know what he believes for sure or what he's said he believes or whatever. It's just a tricky subject politically.

Anyway, it seems he's bowed to the Christian majorities resistance to a Secular definition of "Marriage". Sticking with his religion, he'd have to reject gay marriage whether it's a sin or not. Still, there are plenty of married people who sin, so the preclusion of gays from marrying can hardly be based on whether it's a sin. Indeed, the argument is merely sexist, based on genders. Only a man and woman can marry. They would and do allow a gay man to marry, he'd just be required to marry a woman.

[illinoisprogressive]

22. Not into Edwards at all but, thought he did well on MTP.

[donco6]

24. Cognitive dissonance?

Got me. It really isn't logical at all.

[Ian David]

26. Then let Edwards propose a Federal Civil Union and get the government out ot the marriage racket. nt

[tnlefty]

27. Please help me to understand these items please:

1. I applied for my license at the county courthouse. I was married at an outdoor poolside ceremony by a JP, so in no way was a "church" involved, but it seems as though it is certain factions of churches that are opposed to gay marriages, so why is mine any more valid in their eyes.

2. I know MANY hetero couples who married for convience, and some who were married on their lunch hours by a judge. Again why are these marriages more valid in the minds of the anti gay marriage crowd than a marriage of a gay couple? Both require the involvement of a government entity - not a church - and ending them gets the government involved, also.

3. Your proposal of a Federal Civil Union to get the government out of the marriage racket really compounded my confusion because the process begins with governing entity.

I'm truly not trying to be snarky because this has had me confused for years.

[Ian David]

29. What the state has called a "marriage" for about 200 years is in fact a "Civil Union."

Marriage is a religious ceremony.

What the state performs, regulates, and recognizes is a civil legal arrangement.

Let's just get it all straightened out once and for all.

[tnlefty]

37. What you mentioned about civil unions is what I was thinking,

also. But then, I've seen this gent, Steven Goldstein of NJ, www.gardenstateequality.org, on Gay USA, and the last time that I saw him on that program he was pushing for marriage equality in NJ, and he mentioned the years that have passed since VT passed civil unions legislation and that nothing much had been done to push marriage forward.

It does seem as though civil unions sets up a discriminatory tier, hence my ongoing confusion. :hi:

[Ian David]

44. It's not discriminatory if EVERYONE (gay and straight) can ONLY get Civil Unions. n/t

[beaconess]

28. I think he makes perfect sense on this - a very honest answer.

He says that he personally has problems with it, but knows that his issues are based upon his own upbringing and that he's not as open-minded as he probably should be. He clearly recognizes that his point of view is probably not right or fair or even particularly logical. But, he adds, he also understands that he cannot foist his personal opinion - especially one that's so wrapped up in his own upbringing - onto others or make it government policy.

I think it was a very good answer.

[dsc]

32. If it isn't a sin then what is his problem

It makes no sense at all. It is one thing if you think gays are sinners and that people will choose to sin if you make it easier, but it is quite another to think being gay isn't a sin but still think they should be treated differently.

[beaconess]

34. People have inconsistent views all the time - Edwards admits that his personal opinion may not be

logical or even right and that he's working on it. Would you rather he lie about how he really feels?

To me, the important thing is that, while he's working to reconcile his own personal feelings, he doesn't impose that view on other people.

[dsc]

35. but he is imposing those beliefs

That is why he won't support gay marriage.

[beaconess]

36. He is NOT imposing those beliefs on anyone

He opposes a ban and he is not standing in the way of gay marriage. Insisting that he go against his personal beliefs to support something he does not believe means that YOU are imposing your beliefs on him. He's doing the honest and morally consistent thing.

[ruggerson]

40. Would you feel comfortable voting for someone

who knew he was racist because of his upbringing, but did not feel that it was proper to bring his racist feelings into the public, civil sphere?

[Freddie Stubbs]

30. Perhaps he is simply being pragmatic

A majority of Americans are oppsed to same sex marriages. If he pushes for the compromise, that may be doable. In time, public opinion will sway in favor of gay marriages. Why should gay people get nothing in the meantime?

[dsc]

31. then say that

don't tell transparent lies.

[Apollo11]

33. Look at the experience in England

Since about 2 years ago same-sex couples can get civil unions in the UK.

"Straight" couples can get married - but they cannot get civil unions.

Same-sex couples can get "civil partnerships" (some say they are getting "garried").

Elton John and George Michael are among those who already made use of the new law.

The legal protections are pretty much the same for all legal and financial matters.

Adoption rights are currently in the process of being equalized (as part of anti-discrimination laws).

As far as I know - most gay rights organisations are mostly satisfied with this solution.

And the Christian churches and other religious organisations are also satisfied.

Even if it is not exactly "equal treatment" - it gives access to the same rights.

I think (even tho' I don't know) if I was gay - it would probably be enough for me.

Maybe John Edwards has been reading from the Tony Blair playbook?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_partnerships_in_the_United_Kingdom

[saltpoint]

38. Hi, dsc. I believe the problem lies in the theory advanced by

Gore Vidal.

Vidal believes the United States is not only conservative, but hyper-conservative, and for the reason that the people who founded it -- he means the first white Europeans who got off boats, not the Founders -- were in significant percentage religious nutcases, often people booted out of England for example because of their extreme religious views.

He goes on to assert that the anti-intellectualism that pervades American political life (at all levels) is the weed that grows from that original nutcase-settlers' garden.

One of his quotes (I'm paraphrasing) is "The policeman is the way he is because Americans have never understood the Bill of Rights."

Our marriage laws are the way they are for much of the same reason. Jim Dobson and Pat Robertson and that bunch are the modern-day descendants of those first nutcase-settlers. Fred Phelps gets all the freakshow attention because he seems so off the charts, but Vidal would likely say that there's not any significant difference between Fred Phelps howling like a jackal at a soldier's funeral about "encroaching gay" agendas and Senator Brownback, who behaves more moderately but who is just as religiously insane.

A hyper-fundamentalist might also tend toward the anti-pleasure end of the scale. Not always the case, but very often so, and that would explain admonitions against sockhops and rock'n'roll and of course, same-sex pleasure, whether sanctioned by legal ceremony or not.

I would love to see more Baptists like Bill Moyers. Sadly he's a minority. But I think as a nation we are centuries behind many European cultures, even as our dimwit President taunts our European allies as being "old Europe." But in the Netherlands, one of the oldest of countries, same-sex pleasure is entirely absorbed and understood as a cultural expression. In Lynchburg, it's an unpardonable sin.

[ruggerson]

39. Maybe he's enlightened enough

to know that it's not a sin, but still has a hard time condoning using the word "marriage" between two members of the same sex. In other words, he's gotten over the religious idiocies about homosexuality itself, but has not quite yet arrived at the *cultural* place where he understands and supports "marriage."

I don't see that believing that homosexuality is not a sin necessarily leads to one supporting marriage rights. They are two different steps to conquer, and he's either not there yet or he is there but does not think it is politically possible.

IOW, I disagree with your logic that he is being illogical.

[goodhue]

42. Sure, but which candidates favor gay marriage rights?

Dennis Kucinich, for one.

[Dean Martin]

43. It's the religious stuff

Marriage is a religious institution. The government's got no business involving itself in marriage to begin with. Everyone opposed to gay marriage thinks some invisible being in the sky is going to condemn them for accepting it. So even if Edwards claims he thinks its not a sin, his opinions indicate he does think it's a sin.
We now know from science that gays and lesbians are born that way, so IF there is a supreme being, how can it be opposed to a lifestyle where people are born that way?

I will never understand why anyone cares who someone else wants to marry, other than an adult wanting to have relations with underage children.

[Moloch]

45. Edwards has no principles...

He's simply trying to appeal to both sides of the issue, similar to his stance on the war.