Edwards on CNN: transcript of answer on gay marriage question

[beyurslf]

<http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0401/25/le.00.html>

BLITZER: Where do you stand exactly on what the president said in his State of the Union address, that, if necessary, he would support a constitutional amendment to protect marriage as a union between man and woman?

EDWARDS: I'm against it.

BLITZER: Because?

EDWARDS: Because I don't think it's necessary. I think that this is something that individual states should be allowed to decide.

<clip>

BLITZER: So the federal government should stay out of it?

EDWARDS: With this exception: The federal government should recognize what the individual state decisions are. For example, if Massachusetts -- we'll use Massachusetts, they're an obvious example. If they recognize gay marriage, then for purposes of federal benefits, they should recognize people who live in Massachusetts being eligible.

I this he the right answer but I am focused on this last part. This seems like it would create huge problems. Wouldn't it create unequal rights being granted by the Federal Govt. If Mass. allows gay marriage and the Fed Govt recognizes that and grants rights based on that, then wouldn't they also have to grant those rights to citizens of other states? Why should married gay couples in Mass get rights from the Fed gov't that aren't given to gay couples in KS? Would it matter if I married in Mass and lived in another state (even if that state had laws that stated they would not recognize the marriage)? How can the Federal Govt grant Social Security benefits to married gay couples of one state but deny those rights to others. What about Govt jobs in other states. Would they not have the same rights as Govt jobs in Mass. What if they lived in Mass and worked for the Govt and transferred somewhere else? Military?

Just seems like he should have stopped without adding his "one exception" in.

[THUNDER HANDS]

1. either way

It'll eventually be an issue the U.S. supreme court decides.

[cheezus]

2. maybe he should quit being a bigot and come out for gay marriage

I say that in the nicest way possible. I'm and Edwards supporter, but I really think the democrats need to make gay rights the next big civil rights issue.

[beyurslf]

3. I think Democrats need to get elected to the White House

before they try to do that. We lose the White House this time and we lose a lot more than gay marriage, IMO.

And I say that as a gay man.

[AP]

5. They'll only be able to do that if they're running the government.

[AP]

4. He has also said that he think that it would be a violation of the equal

protection provisions of the constitution to deny same-sex couples the same rights that married couples get from the government, regardless of whether they're married.

Of course, you'd need a little more detail to know what he's talking about. However, it seems like the bottom line here is that he's dividing the label "marriage" from the issue of federal rights.

He thinks that every state should confer the rights, regardless of whether you live in a state which calls it "marriage" or "civil unions" or whatever, so that there shouldn't be a patchwork.

However, one way to get the proper case law to set these rights in stone would be for a Mass same-sex couple to move to NY and sue to get their fed rights recognized there. Obviously, the Edwards justice department is going to stand with the plaintiffs in a case like that.

Remember, civil rights were won gradually throught legal strategies like this.

[HFishbine]

6. Nothing better

than letting the candidates speak for themselves. Very telling.

[tryanhas]

7. I repeat, no matter how insensitive it seems!

No one is going to risk losing an election over this issue.

NO ONE!

That's why all of the candidates are AGAINST GAY MARRIAGE!

Some were raised against it. Others are not STUPID ENOUGH to say that they support gay marriage, because it's political suicide!

How out of touch are some people on this board??? If you all think that ANY OF THE CANDIDATES are going to go out there promoting gay marriage, civil unions, and homosexuality, and I repeat, PROMOTING IT, then you are definitely out of touch with reality. By PROMOTING, I mean, making it a central part, a major part of their campaigns. It's not going to happen.

This is nothing but a wedge issue, and no one is going to pander to 10% of the democratic party (10% = gays and people who support gay marriage), when it means DEFINITE, DEFINITE, DEFINITE, DEFINITE political suicide.

I don't even understand why you all keep bringing up this issue like someone is going to try and argue that their candidate is the closest to wanting gay marriage.

THAT ARGUMENT AIN'T GON' HAPPEN!

And like I said, I'm not bashing anyone or trying to be insensitive, but people need to think. I'm fed up with losing elections over wedge issues like this. Issues that 3/4s of Americans are on one side of. Some may say, "this is more than a wedge issue, it is life for a group of people." Regardless, it is an issue that would keep Bush in the White House and no one is going to blow an election over that, so stop bringing up what John Edwards said about "gay marriage" or "civil unions" because it's not even an argument that would cost him a general election.

[Adapter44]

8. Wow

Was this blatant lie intentional, or just made out of ignorance/bigotry?

Dennis supports same sex marriage totally.

"Others are not STUPID ENOUGH"

So Dean must be a moron. True, he doesn't support "marriage", but he supports "civil unions". Same thing for Clark and Kerry et al. I seriously doubt the word play effects many people. You either support same sex unions or you don't.

Hell - I believe EVERY candidate (except Lieberman) supports civil unions. Where have you been during the past several months? Everyone knows this.

The only person who I can think of that you wouldn't find "stupid" on this issue is Bush.

[tryanhas]

10. Don't ask me if Dean is a moron or not

Because I have a history of HATING Howard Dean that would make me say yes.

I have no respect for him at all or how he screwed the people in Vermont. And there is a difference between saying anything (pandering) and truly believing something.

Dennis Kucinich doesn't even really support abortions, so I highly doubt that he supports gay marriage.

Kucinich has a SOLID HISTORY of being pro-life (don't like those terms) and Chris Matthews brought it up to him last year, and he couldn't refute it. Dennis Kucinich has been against abortions for a long time, but now he isn't?

Like I said, people will say anything (pander).

HOWARD DEAN WAS FORCED TO SIGN THE CIVIL UNIONS BILL IN VERMONT! It's not an issue that he fought for, they made him do it.

If most of these candidates could just avoid talking about this issue, they would, because they know that the will have to pander, making themselves vulnerable to sure defeat in November.

You may not like what I'm saying, but it's a fact.

Run PROMOTING this issue and you are toast.

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[AP]

9. Not only that, but there's a way to coopt this whold issue for the left.

Forget about framing it in terms of "I want to be married" (did African Americans say "we want to be white" in the 60s?).

Frame it in terms of wanting to be treated equally, regardless of differences. Frame it in terms of getting health insurance benefits, and getting treated the same in every aspect of the law which benfits married people.

All studies show that married couples are MATERIALLY better off than unmarried people not because of the spiritual benefit of being able to use the world "married" to describe what you are. It's largely because government confers a set of rights which reduces the friction between you and the rest of the world and which make you a more effective consumer, and employee, who can amass more wealth and therefore political power as a result.

That's how to frame this issue. It's actually the way Edwards is talking about it.