YouTube Democratic Debate: Clergyman Asks Why Edwards Uses His Faith To Justify His Stance On Gay Marriage -
By Logan Murphy Sunday Jul 22, 2007 7:55pm
Tonight's YouTube Democratic debate has been refreshing, to say the least. One of the questions was raised by a Southern Baptist Minister to John Edwards dealing with his opposition to same-sex marriage based on his religious beliefs. Can you imagine a MSM pundit framing the question that way?
CNN threw Edwards a curve ball by announcing that the Reverend was in the audience. Not only was he in the audience, he was allowed to respond to Edwards' answer - and he didn't really think his question was fully answered.
Login or Register to post comments.
I was very proud when I heard that question come from a minister but, I also felt a little bad that Edwards was put on the spot like that. He really need to clarify his position on this issue. Hell, he should just adopt his wife's view...
Damn, that man asked the right question. And he didn't really answer the question.
Who wants to bet Hillary isn't asked any hard questions tonight?
for such a smart lawyer Obama certainly is stupid with regard to the concept of civil marriage.
I really am not a fan of CNN's handling of the debates. Whoever it is -- Wolf or Anderson -- they only use former Sen. Gravel to create some tension. Also, nearly 80 percent of the questions are for Hilary, Barrack and John Edwards, who are all placed right next to each other. The remaining questions are split between Joe Biden, Sen. Dodd and Bill Richardson.
I agree with Edward's answer.
Yeah and I don't Hillary got any hard questions. If you look at her "actual" stand on the issues by digging into them, she could run as republican.
No we need a real Liberal president, not a silly lobby sucking moderate.
I fail to grasp why some fool who says 'I am a Minister...', now I don't doubt he is anybody can be one, is entitled to take cheap shots at somebody in the name of 'religion'. This looks like self-promotion to me and....
Why not ask all the candidates what their answer is on this question.
Yes, and ask them about marriage among 3 or more consenting adults. Why not? I don't see why that should not be allowed, especially where same sex marriages are allowed. I am serious here.
[deleted - refers to deleted post]
Didn't we make a federal law against that over some creepy sex in Utah?
Ohioian for Obama!!
Cooky, if so, that federal law should be against the constitution (at least in Massachusetts) in the same way that a ban on same sex marriage was against the consitution in Massachusetts.
An honest but still disappointing answer from Edwards. I do believe that he's struggling with this, but he should do the right thing and take the hit from the haters who wouldn't vote for him anyway.
I'd say Obama's answer was disappointing, too, if I hadn't learned to expect that Slick Obama stuff from him.
Chachi, retarded people have rights too!
Burt @ 9:
could someone else answer this?
He should just say, "because most americans oppose gay marriage and Id like to get elected".
I would prefer that Anderson Cooper didn't do anymore of these "debates". Surely they have people at CNN whom can perform better at moderating a political debate.
chachi - totally agree- who let the retards out?
This debate is a joke, the clips are a joke, you tube is a joke
Well, that's a strike against Edwards in my book, using "religious beliefs" to justify his stance against gay marriage. It's none of anybody's business, if 2 gays get married or not. I'd have to say, I can't vote for a man who discriminates against ANYONE. And, based on religion? Will these candidates please stop mentioning "religion"?
So far, I'm voting for Gravel or Kucinich, these other Dems are corporate stooges or religious freako's. Anyone who mentions religion anymore, is OUT! If there's a god, he's doing a lousy job.
""""""""bubba Says: He should just say, “because most americans oppose gay marriage and Id like to get elected”.""""""""""""
YOU GOT IT, BUB!!!!!!!!!!! This is bullshit!
I say this as an Edwards supporter. He's trying to have it both ways. By saying "Elizabeth supports gay marriage but I do not" is his way of appealing to the left and the right. He is a highly successful lawyer. That was a lawyer's answer. I believe he probably supports gay marriage but can't say he does lest it sink his chances of getting to the White House. A politically expedient answer, not a politically courageous one. Southern politicians are used to invoking the bible and God to pander to the right, and rarely for anything other than their own political objectives. I think Edwards is doing the same thing with this gay marriage issue.
[no flamebaiting]
And the more they're talking about gay marriage, the less about national health care. Is this going to happen...AGAIN????????????? WHO CARES ABOUT GAY MARRIAGE, GODDAMMIT!
[deleted - refers to deleted post]
Dennis Kuchinch is the most honest Candidate in my opinion. At least he is a true liberal with real answers to our people's primary problems.
I've become more of a Kucinich fan as the race has progressed. There is no way I will vote for Hilary, and Barrack and John Edwards are beginning to come off as flaky, IMO.
Big Dan @ 24:
Point five percent of the population cares.
Big Dan @ 20:
I'm with you Big Dan. It's time for people to have a stance on issues based on facts and reason, not faith. Faith is what has gotten us into the mess we have today.
cook @ 16:
Because our culture isnt based on being rational. Its based on voodoo rituals or whatever they call it nowadays. Beyond the religious objections you have the practical matter of how difficult it would be to regulate polygamous relationships of every conceivable flavor. Imagine the family court nightmares. So my answer would be "the love of Jesus" and sheer bureaucratic laziness.
He didnt say he wasnt satisfied with the answer, he literally didnt hear the answer, he said the audience drained it out.
The most interesting part about this clip is Obama's Bushesque mangling of the English language. Talk about incoherent mumbling . . .
I'm not a big John Edwards supporter, but it sounded to me like he provided a resonable answer. He stated that he personally does not believe in gay marriage, but did not intend to legislate his faith. I don't understand why anyone would get spun up about this.
Why is everyone so inlove with Hillary? Just because she's a woman?? I'd rather have Obama or Edwards as our president.
Or imagine a Obama/Edwards or Edwards/Obama ticket. That would be great!
At the Cris Dodd site, they had a ticker that kept track of all the time the candidate got to answer questions. It was pathetic. Kucinich got like 6 minutes and Gravel got 4 and then Clinton and Edwards were over 12 each and Obama was at 15. Cnn is just as slanted as Fox.
to be fare and balanced...
He opposes Bush's attempt to amend the Constitution to ban gay marriage.
· He thinks the issue of civil unions, however, should be decided by individual states.
· He supports partnership benefits and believes that civil rights need to be extended and insured for gays and lesbians.
· He says the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy should be looked at and revised.
quotes:
"As I have long said, I believe gay and lesbian Americans are entitled to equal respect and dignity under our laws. While I personally do not support gay marriage, I recognize that different states will address this in different ways, and I will oppose any effort to pass an amendment to the United States Constitution ...." 11/18/2003
· "They (gay and lesbian couples) deserve, in my judgment, partnership benefits. They deserve to be treater fairly when it comes to adoption and immigration." 01/22/2004
why do we take a gray area and intend to make it a black and white issue that is not inclusive.
One is theological, the other is secular.
one deals with the interpretations of a religious laws learned thru a life time,
The other deals with the interpretations of secular law with precidents.
The question is not whether edwards is against gay marriage, but whether he would support gay couples enjoying the same secular rights priviledges and obligations as hetero couples.
I believe he would, as any other of our democratic candidates would.
to frame it any other way means Rovian political techniques are being used by dems on dems...
why do I say this???
a littlehistory on reggie..
n 1997, the Rev. Reggie Longcrier, a former inmate who became prison chaplain at Catawba Correctional Center, founded Exodus Missionary Outreach Center Church, a multi-ethnic, inner-city ministry. In 1998, the church established the nonprofit Exodus Homes and began providing supportive housing for recovering addicts and alcoholics.
"Ten years ago, we were a small group sitting in a new church, listening to Rev. Reggie Longcrier describe his vision for Exodus Homes," she said. "I am blessed to be part of such wonderful work with so many dedicated people."
The White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives has invited Exodus Homes, the housing ministry of Exodus Church in Hickory, to participate in a White House Compassion in Action Roundtable, "Faith and Community-Based Partnerships to End Homelessness."
here is the link...please everybody do your homework and not be swayed or manipulated by emotions generrated by the right.
http://www.charlotte.com/catawba/story/197766.html
Does anyone on this thread believe in polygamy?
The EXTREME RIGHT WING MAIN STREAM MEDIA (ERWMSM) is more concerned about gay marriage than the future of our country.
I believe in poligamy if I'm drunk and they are twins. Is that the question?
There is no need to hate "gays" for what they want politically. However I cannot envision sexual equality as having any real meaning. It's undefinable.
Burt, I really don't care as long as you don't have men marrying 14-year-olds and creating large families they can't support and are forced to tax our welfare and Medicaid systems.
Pistol @ 34:
Because unless a candidate is supports a individuals right to marry everyone and his goat the far left isn't happy.
and unless a candidate is for the outlawing of everything but vanila sex between married people the far right isn't happy.
these two jerk sides do their damnest to get everyone else up set about it.
willyloman, I believe you are poking fun at a serious question.
i am so sad he is struggling with something that in the end doesnt even involve his life, or quality of it. I am so sad for him to be wrestling with such a hard decision about other peoples freedom and life, the people that pay tax's obey laws, contribute greatly to employment in social fields that help others, and have to sit by while they are told by those that this issue will never effect that they are third class citizens but they still want the tax money, hell illegals who cross the border illegally have their marriages recongnized
Burt @ 32:
Well, we should all be allowed to have sex with people for money, smoke dope, have six wives, and kill ourselves when terminally ill (or if said wives become too much hassle). Good luck getting elected on those positions though. Since when did politics have much in common with right and wrong? Let alone actual freedom....
Isn't is funny that Republican "christ-thinkers" always compare homsexuality and beastiality in the same breath? Is it ignorance or just pure lust? the world wants to know?
Frybread, thank you, are you interested in getting involved in a polygamist rights group now being formed?
haha american political debate. a lot of words but nothing much said.
..
They all did great. I will support which ever one of them gets the nomination. I thought Bill Richardson had his best debate so far.
America tends to elect Governors as their Presidents.
Nixon twice, Carter, Reagan twice, Clinton twice, Bush 2 twice. The trend is very clear.
Bill Richardson is the only Governor in the Democratic field. He has a terrific resume.
Do not overlook him, if you want a chance to win in 2008.
The voters elect Governors to the White House because they have actually run at least a whole state executive branch. Everyone else on the stage have never managed anything of consequece. Hillary comes the closest to it, next to Bill Richardson, due to having been the wife of a governor, and an active first lady.
Keep Bill Richardson in mind.
...
Salmineo @ 26:
And stands no chance of getting elected....unfortunately.
Nah, Burt, I don't support polygamy, nor am I against it. I'm just ambivalent, to be honest.
Honestly, Bill Richardson is too pudgy and weak looking.
the debate was refreshing
only problem i had was with how little time health care got, but some great issues were raised
this was a good example of why the old media is dying and the internet is taking over - the mainstream media would never have asked this question - and with all due respect civil marriage think if it was proposed for interracial couples
This "debate" stunk to high heaven.
I resent the fact that the candidates with the most money get the most air time.
I lay this at CNN's door. They chose the questions and in most cases directed who would answer.
I don't think there was a single question that Kucinich was given to answer that Cooper didn't interrupt him.
Democracy down the drain.
About religion: I remember when the Challenger disaster happened in the early days of Bush. He addressed
some gathering of people who were mourning the loss of life and said, with that peculiar smile of his, that the astronauts
were now "home". This was his weird take (which I don't even believe is sincere) on some religious concept or other.
I thought - no. They are not home. They did not come home because of the sloppiness of NASA and the tremendous
bureaucratic pressure put upon them.
Religion has no place in public life.
good move frybread. It was a set up. He and his 15 wives and their "flipper-hands" children would have moved into your house and never left.
Biil Richardson should NOT be considered.
He is a wimp.
Ruthless People @ 51:
We shall see.
richardson would make a good replacement for Alberto Gonzalas
Honestly, Kucinich is just to ugly looking.
dr. wolfie pooh is now quizzing andy cooper about the outcome..
ahhh put a sock in it wolf!! ya know damn well come time this weekend you will slam it . like lynn cheney slamed his ass.
Wolf? dont you want freedom to win?
willyloman, I have enough problems fitting myself into my own apartment, much less 15 wives and kids. Although I do have a crawl space.
But to be perfectly fair to everyone marriage shouldn't be recognized by the government at all. God doesn't require a marriage license. Not all gods demand the same ceremonies. Or have the same marriage rules.
however i think any 2 consenting adults can get a civil union.
More religion? Must hatred always come in to everything involved with human behavior? Can't we rise above this primitive activity designed to highlight differences and promote division?
Sad and pathetic that someone makes a living at selling hot air, and ridiculous that a presidential candidate would have an opinion he is willing to state about people and their own personal relations that is akin to racist hatred.
What an shining example of xenophobia for all to see. Edwards because he answered an idiot that hasn't grown up enough not to play god, and he answered him truthfully by saying he has an opinion about how other people want to live their life, and how he is against it? I respect Edwards for answering, but I don't want another child as president
Is this what this country has become, a lot of children that are arguing 2nd grade philosophy?
Salmineo @ 58:
Stop kidding yourself.
Dennis couldn't win a swing state if his life depended on it.
willyloman @ 59:
Actually I would prefer Robbert Kennedy Jr.
I think Bill Richardson would be great as the kind-hearted but craggy reservation sheriff on some CBS weekly drama. He could wear a cowboy hat and have one of those wool lined western jackets. Maybe kucinich could co-star as his well meaning... Oh, this is Andy Griffith.
Burt @ 32:
Burt @ 9:
Burt @ 7:
Although my post got deleted, I was trying to point out that Burt is using the tired, " If gay marriage is allowed, then polygamy, pedophilia, incest and bestiality will be allowed also argument ." Why allow his comments to stand?
alan landau @ 55:
You have a point and I would agree with you to a point, but Hillary will more than likely get the nod and I want to hear what she thinks about all these questions. Not often does she have to face a lot of these issues.
I'm VOTING for Kuchinich.
Anybody could beat the weak and pitiful republican line-up this time around.
Don't forget, lincoln was ugly too.
frybread; the crawl space would be perfect for the "flipper kids"! they can just flop on back there out of the way when company comes over to talk to this guy about his next, 14 year old wife.
Burt @ 9:
Review simple contract law. There you will find your answer.
Honestly, where do these people come up with these things?
Chachi @ 11:
C&L reader asks on C&L msg board what moron bothers to highlight this ridiculous issue when there are more important things to focus on.
Salmineo @ 70:
lincoln predated the tv.
cook @ 43:
So you are equating the left's desire for sexual relations between gay consenting adults not to be outlawed by the Christianistas (not sex with kids and goats) with the bible thumping right's desire to ban everything but missionary sex between a man and a woman? Good thing you we're around when the reich wingers were holding up the ban on interracial marriages, you'd be making the same argument against the left's position then as well I quess.
Kucinich is a great candidate. But thanks to CNN avoiding him during the health care issue, no one will hear his plan on "universal health care".
Thanks CNN.
Retarded people have even more invested in the process now that they have one of their own in the WH. Theyve been empowered and they know it.
Burt @ 53:
He is running for President of The United States of America, not your dream date. Who do you support; Mitt, The Verminator, because he is so dreamy looking that he makes you swoon.
....
Pistol I agree with you. Edwards says at the end it is "absolutely wrong to use faith basis as a basis for denying anyone their rights." Jimmy Carter opposed abortion but he upheld the law. The law regarding gay marriage would have to be changed in Congress not by the executive branch anyway. The real key for a President is his stance on don't ask, don't tell.
Obama flubbed horribly there when he had an opportunity to stand on firm ground. This blather about "civil unions" is crap. Either you recognize the rights under the law or you don't.
I yelled at a Kucinich fundraiser who called me the other night and told him no self-respecting Democrat is going to give money to a guy who supports Fox news. The kid clearly had no idea what I was talking about. *eyeroll*
Burt has a good point. Who can forget that when women were granted the right to vote, next thing you know all the farm animals wanted it too.
Hold your breath until you feel dizzy and you will be better able to see from Burt's point of view.
seamus, Obama looks good, physically.
Burt @ 73:
Sure they do. The Bill of Rights does not mention polygamy. Therefore, there is no "Right" to polygamy, or gay marraige or anything of the such.
Ruthless People @ 76:
You've never met a pansexual or a fundiementalist mormon I take it?
Why didn't they have retarded people asking about issues important to them?
cook @ 75:
lol.....have you seen his wife? Obviously YOU are no judge of people's looks.
Burt @ 73:
Especially if they are relatives, I would imagine.
Salmineo @ 70:
Yes indeed. It took four score and seven cases of makeup to get Lincoln ready for those nationwide TV debates.
...
What about the retarded people! Does no one care about the 'Tards! Where is their voice to be heard!
seamus @ 87:
Yeah but he won. To bad he was in the wrong party.
I wonder how Obama would answer this follow-up question: Would it be okay if we told all interracial couples that they could get civil unions with all the rights of marriages, but it's up to the individual churches as to whether or not they can actually get married?
Salmineo @ 86:
His first, second, or third wife?
Kuchinich seems to trade them in like used cars.
Salmineo @ 70:
Right, and last time we voted for "most electable" candidate it didn't really go well.
Seriously, Burt. STFU. Try to stay on topic
Salmineo, well, the Massachusetts consititution was held to ban discriminating against homosexuals in marriage by not allowing gay marriage, and the Massachusetts constitution was held by its state supreme court to protect same sex marriage. So, Sal, who are you to question the Supreme Court of Massachusetts?
cook @ 84:
No, is it a kid or a goat?
Ruthless People @ 95:
bit of both.
*joke*
Mike @ 90:
Actually, Obama seems to be saying that marriage is religious and civil unions are not. He needs to work on it a bit, but I think the point he was making is that he wants the two to mean the same thing. He didn't explain it well but I have heard him say it in the past.
I'll Vote for Richardson on One Condition. That he lets me raid the White House fridge every night.
Gotta be good stuff in there if he gets elected.
cook @ 91:
We can not attack the Republicans for having trophy wives, and then let Dennis slide. He is more than twice the age of his current wife. One more wife, and Dennis will be good to go as a Republican Family Values candidate.
...
DrBadger @ 92:
What are you talking about? He was elected! Can't do anything about the supreme court at the ballot box....yet.
[deleted - refers to deleted post]
Burt @ 98:
Define growing.
How severely limited and mean-spirited it is to judge anyone upon their physical appearance. This perverted perception is the product of a sick and non-substantive glamour-fixated culture and serves only to perpetuate it. Look within.
Burt @ 97:
It is short hand for Shut The F Up. I am not saying it to you. Just explaining what it means.
...
[deleted - refers to deleted post]
Let's not feed this one. Thanks.
Sorry to be rude, just frustrated that the thread was getting hijacked.
[deleted - refers to deleted post]
The Constitituion of the United States leaves such questions as states rights issues IMO. So whom are you to question the Constitution of the United States regarding national gay rights legislation?
I didn't think so.
Burt @ 51:
Was this re: his candidacy or your interest in polygamy?
seamus @ 94:
So you are saying that Dennis Kuchinich's wife is TOO GOOD LOOKING?
Well, for one I'd say the last good Looking First lady was Jackie Kennedy. Be nice to see some real legs up there for once. Who knows, maybe she will run for president after Dennis Kuchinich leaves office in eight years. Imagine the success for the liberal cause.
I love Dennis Kucinich. He has my vote. He's right on every single issue, as far as I can tell. He's the one true progressive on that panel.
I haven’t read through all these comments, but the question of whether gays should be allowed to marry is a no brainer, of course they should be allowed to marry. The question I have is if what constitutes a marriage is a blessing by the church; doesn’t separation between church and state play a roll here? How can government enact laws dictating churches perform marriages to gay couples?
cook @ 3:
Absolutely right on .. She is Rahm Emanuel's /PNAC protege (always for sale, all the way from Arkansas trailer lot, to Chapaqua house bought by PNAC related 'friends'!!), they push her down our throats.. The result will be another repig in the WH - she is NOT electable in GENERAL election !
Jesse @ 105:
Liberal. I'm NOT ashamed of being called a LIBERAL.
cook @ 3:
Back to the topic of the candidates - I will be interested to know if Hillary does get any hard questions and who decides who gets what question? The Media seems to choose the candidates for us and it kind of makes me sick.
As for polygamy - who cares? People should be able to marry whomever and however many people they want, if they aren't hurting anybody. Frankly, there have been a few times in my life when I wished my husband did have a couple more wives to help me out! And I'm sure my sons would love to have more siblings to play with and help with the chores.
I would like to see a Kucinich Richardson ticket.
wijg @ 106:
My wedding, like many people's, was done by a justice of the peace and not at a church. It's a canard that "marriage" belongs to religion.
Vast Left @ 110:
Thanks, and of course you're right. I'm an Edwards supporter and can't get around the fact that he struggles with this question.
wijg, the marriage ceremony that is conducted by the church should be seperate from the benefits that a married couple recieves from the government. Seperation of church and state should exist in this instance.
Frybread @ 111:
Big time.
But if gay couples are granted the benefits/rights that a married couple recieves from the government but a church will not conduct a ceremony for them will that church be subject to lawsuits?
It was definitely a setup, but in the end after the minister said he did not get a direct answer, Sen. Edwards clarified what his beliefs are and what he views to be the duty of the POTUS. He recognizes that there is indeed a seperation of church and state.
wijg @ 110:
wijg @ 110:
Sorry, I messed up the "quoting" thing...
I feel your pain. He’s my top choice until and unless Gore gets in, so I’m not too thrilled about it. I truly think it would be a net positive to take the high road on this and show some leadership
Actually, I think Edwards answer, while not polished, was honest and technically correct. He opposes it personally, but will not use the state apparatus to enforce his religious beliefs on others.
I also agree the whole gay marriage thing should not even be asked over such topics as health care or terrorism, but there you go.
Gosh, if only Anderson Cooper would follow up that strongly when he asks questions of the powerful on his TeeVee show and they talking back in talking points...yeah, like that could happen.
I agree with Truly Equal #121 comment.
Pistol @ 32:
He certainly did - it's a Rove playbook trick by CNN on Edwards, bc he IS the most ELECTABLE dem in GENERAL election. Civil union is in a SECULAR domain of State (federal or 1 of 50), marriage is in religious, from which each POTUS should STAY AWAY !!!
Edwards gave a very reasonable, intelligent answer. The reverend was sneaky as hell ==> 'pple were moving around, so I dunno'. Am a church going person, but am TOTALLY fed up with religiosity/bigotry constant crappola in America - it has NOTHING to do w/ ANY religion ! And, certainly should not be any part of political process.
As in another today's C&L post, Bush is a disaster of a salesman, idiot-extraodinaire, confused at all times which pulpit is he at: the POTUS , or local church ?! He only contributes (willingly ?) to the sheeple confusion about STATE and CHURCH SEPARATION !! ("It's easier to catch a fish in a muddy water"..- in many Euro languages)
Obama is also as flowery and word-creative in his speeches as a parochial pastor - knows not, but rehearsed by minions better than bush. He has a LOOooong way to go.
BTW: in France for the longest time in memory the LAW provides for CIVIL UNIONS, for any gender human partners. Since they also have UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE, FREE and the best in the world for 100% ALL, the issues of gay marriage do not hijack national debates - they are beyond that. Some do, some don't. Church has to bite the bullet, or, not. As much as it is an important problem, there are MANY MUCH MORE IMPORTANT ones ! Gays married or not, just as traditional couples - married or not, will have their properties confiscated by Cheney/Bush paratroopers, and be sent to and kept in Halliburton detention centers and prisons just as bad.
Just see today's C&L topics, and chill, and FOCUS !! Call your reps to cosponsor Conyers, and support deFazio . NAZI system is ante-portas !! Gay or straight will be persecuted, ALL of us ! Please think of it before you flame the threads. And, remember, CNN is using Rove's playbook putting dems against the dems. Just as Orally tries.
Seems to me that the belief in civil unions is the safe answer...but specifically in response to the 'marriage' question - assuming they mean in the religious sense - I can't wait until one of these guys, or gals, says, 'tell me Reverend Whatsyourname, where in Jesus' teachings does he take a position on homosexuality? And don't even bother telling me about Leviticus...there are so many lame 'blasphemes' and 'abominations' in that book, it's laughable - tell me Reverend, when's the last time you ate shrimp, pork or had a haircut?'
Can someone explain the mumbo jumbo Obama was spewing in response to that question?
I enjoyed the debate but couldn't stomach the analysis-as usual they immediately went after John Edwards and wouldn't let up-he really has corporation panties in a twist-I will continue to support him because he will make a superb President-gays and haircuts-that's it-those are his crimes-I can live with that-he believes in equal rights for everyone and I think that is fair-I could never support Obama after hearing his support for nuclear power-he obviously isn't as well informed about it as John Edwards-anyone with children could never support nuclear power-a great book is Walter the topic.
my above comment was cut off-A great book is Walter Russell's "Atomic Suicide"-I might send a copy to Mr. Obama so he can get up to speed on the topic-
Senator Obama should take a look at the state of New Jersey. They recently enacted civil unions. Now they are finding out that multi-state employers can't be compelled to offer benefits to civil union spouses because ... ta-da!... their corporate policies say they follow federal guidelines for doling out benefits and that mean married couples, not civil unions couples. United Parcel Service is the latest to take this position.
Do you remember "separate but equal", Senator Obama?
It didn't work either.
John Edwards HANDLED THE SITUATION WELL, regardless of what you think about his answer. It was clearly a set up. Anderson Cooper told Obama ahead of time that his questioner was seated in the audience. He didn't tell Edwards. He tried to set John Edwards up, and John Edwards answer the question well...for a majority of Americans.
ashton @ 96:
What difference does it make? Some people obviously just want a Presidential candidate to "agree" with them. Fact is, the President of the United States doesn't marry anybody. The federal government doesn't control the marriage issue...states do.
If people want gay marriage, they need to get their states to change it and stop worrying Presidential candidates to death over an issue that's not even their jurisdiction, but I guess, it matters more that they agree with you than you actually doing something to get gays equal marriage rights, because if the latter mattered, you'd be asking Gubernatorial candidates about it instead of Presidential candidates.
Why is a minister using his faith to justify his stand against gay marriage?
Please Please Please stop using the word "faith" when you mean religion. The Rev said nothing about "faith." I have faith in my local meteorologist and it has nothing to do with my religion.
cook @ 117:
license @ 111:
wijg, the marriage ceremony that is conducted by the church should be seperate from the benefits that a married couple recieves from the government. Seperation of church and state should exist in this instance.
Big time.
But if gay couples are granted the benefits/rights that a married couple receives from the government but a church will not conduct a ceremony for them will that church be subject to lawsuits?
This has always been my argument to those who oppose gay marriage. Marriage is a legal contract. You could stand in front of every minister from every religion on earth, but until you file that license with the state you are not married. As such, to discriminate on the basis of gender is just as wrong as it was to discriminate on the basis of race. I really don't think that it would be difficult to find a minister to perform a ceremony if that is what a couple wants. The churches that are most adamantly opposed to gay marriage most likely would not have any openly gay members.
As far as Kucinich goes, I believe that his current wife is also his first wife. She is younger than him, but I don't think he traded in an older model for a trophy wife.
A.Citizen @ 7:
Some people are overtly racist, others, like yourself, attempt to cloak their racism with what seems like a rational argument at first, but soon falls flat on its face. Edwards is the only candidate who has said that his opinions about gay marriage stem from his religious beliefs. It seems the reverend was asking a valid question and not trying to self-promote, as you declare.
Sure they do. The Bill of Rights does not mention polygamy. Therefore, there is no “Right” to polygamy, or gay marraige or anything of the such.
According to your logic, there is no "right" for men and women to get married either, since that right is not listed in the Bill of Rights either.
Read up, my friend.
On the description they wrote, "...and he didn’t really think his question was fully answered."
That wasn't correct.
He said that:
a) It wasn't the answer he wanted to hear, and;
b) He didn't quite get to hear all of his answer because people were "moving around."
Edwards then went on to state his full answer to say that his religious beliefs should not -- and would not -- play into that role concerning gay marriage. He also went on to state that gays and lesbians do deserve all the rights, just that he personally does not believe in gay marriage.
The way the statement was phrased on the top of the description was quite loaded.
Obama is right. All marriages should be civil unions. In Mexico, which practices separation of church and state better than we do, couples get married twice: once before a judge and once in a church if they choose.
The government should have no more role in saying who IS married than it does in saying who CAN'T get married.
Chachi @ 18:
Oh, cool. Chachi agrees with Chachi. How sweet.
Number 134...Elizabeth Harper is Dennis Kucinich's third wife.
"Gay marriage" is not not only a wedge issue, it is a non-issue - from both left and right.
Even if gay marriage is outlawed across the country, nothing would prevent two men from going to a mountain top with their preacher and proclaiming their undying love and devotion. The right gains nothing except "recognition" that its views on homosexuality are the "correct" ones.
Even if formal gay marriage is legalized across the country, homosexual couples gain nothing that cannot be accomplished using existing contract, power of attorney, and probate law. The left gains only the "recognition" that its views on homosexuality are the "correct" ones.
We need to stop taking the bait on these wedge non-issues. Counting the short list of more important topics already has me running out of fingers and toes.
fiver @ 141:
You're wrong. There's no easy way to say this, but you're wrong. There are over 1800 identified benefits provided to married people. I can't find the link which lists them, but here's a link that lists a few of them:
http://www.benefitscounsel.com/archives/001139.html
Some of these 1800 could be reclaimed by spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on Lawyers, which of course most people can't afford, and male/female couples don't need to do. Additionally, there are benefits which can not be reclaimed by lawyers, contracts or any other method. Retirement plans, health insurance and Social Security Benefits can not be written into a contract between partners.
What I've been saying for many years is that I'm 100% against any government recognition of a religious marriage. That should be between people and their church. The government comes in for the contract part, the legal benefits and responsibilities of said contract for all people, straight couples, gay couples, and to address what was mentioned up here in a few comments, ya, multiple people in the contract - why not? Seriously, I know people in 3 partner relationships, and for them it works extremely well. I've never heard a valid argument against it.
Mike @ 89, very well said!
Salmineo @ 39:
Like the so-called 'war on terror'.
ST @ 130:
And the question should also have been put to all of the candidates. And the good reverend should have also been allowed to answer to each of them, once the people in front of him were made to stop moving around so that he could properly hear the replies.
This pretty much sealed the deal for me. I will not vote for Edwards. At least Richardson was honest about the practicality of it. John Edwards has been coming off more and more as a phony who wants to come off as the nice guy. And I hated the way he at first rephrased the question in order to answer the question he wish he could have been asked. That's the oldest law school trick in the book.
Jacob @ 145:
Yes, and he's also a graduate of the 'oldest institution in the University of North Carolina System'
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_North_Carolina_at_Chapel_Hill
Watching a repeat-cast of the debates (the 'No Child Left Behind' issue is being discussed now) and just wanted to say that it's to Anderson Cooper's and CNN's credit that they even arranged for a debate like this. Will it change anyone's minds about practically anything? Probably not.
It's 'compellivision' though, and it sure beats what CNN and the rest of the MSN normally air, imo
Jacob @ 145:
You are free to think/vote whatever (splitting the votes works for repigs), but, from what you say here you did swallow the repig/corporate anti-Edwards bait. You've earned your few bucks tonight.
I thought that both Edwards and Obama handled the question well. Edwards spoke about a matter of faith, which, by definition, isn't something easily changed or even questioned. He acknowledged that his belief bothered him. I don't know what people expected him to say. "I believe X is wrong, but my belief, which I would never make law or even influence law, doesn't match up with yours, so I'll change it."?
As for Obama, "separate but equal" referred to one set of laws for whites and another for blacks. He said he wanted all the laws to apply equally to gays and straights. Churches already have their own rules as to who can "marry" (Catholics can't remarry, for example). A division between Church and State is the right way to go.
2x @ 142:
2x,
Thanx for your comment - and some food for thought. I checked your link and found one assertion that was flat out wrong, others which are misleading in the context I'd mentioned, and some I hadn't, but should have, considered.
Domestic violence protections are available to all, regardless of marital status, in the form of criminal laws proscribing battery, among other laws. Orders of protection, in my experience, are also available against former partners (including unmarried ex-girlfriends/boyfriends).
"Spousal" type privileges regarding medical care, visitation, decision making, etc. are easily available through medical "powers of attorney" which are not only available, inexpensively, through private attorneys, but are also provided free through legal aid, pro bono, law school, and other programs. The legal arrangements involved in formalizing other agreements regarding inheritance, 401(k)/IRA accounts, etc. may require a fee, but not hundreds of thousands of dollars (though I'm sure you were exaggerating only to make a point).
Some items, such as "Access to 'family memberships'" and "Ability to inherit jointly owned property without incurring tax penalties" were so vaguely or poorly worded that they made no sense.
Other items, such as spousal immunity from testimony and standing to sue for wrongful death, I confess, I simply hadn't considered - yet should have.
Yet none of these items undercut the basic point that I was trying, poorly, to make: these are matters of state law, irrelevant to the presidency, and serve only as a wedge to divide people.
Until I read your point about Social Security and the item in your link regarding the Family and Medical Leave Act. These are matters of federal concern and proper areas of questioning for presidential and congressional candidates.
I continue to believe that there are far more important issues in our very @#$%^&-up nation and that this issue serves mostly as a wedge, but I recognize that I have obviously not thought this through thoroughly enough.
Thank you.
Login or Register to post comments.