Does This Mean Edwards is Now For Gay Marriage?

Asked about his position on same-sex marriage a year ago, John Edwards said that he "personally [does] not"support gay marriage, citing his religious beliefs as basis for his opposition. Even without the hindsight we have recently acquired about Edwards' own marriage, this was the response of a bigot.

We now know that as with most bigots, Edwards is a hypocrite. As he was spewing inane statements about being "on a journey" on the issue of gay marriage, he surely had to remember the journey that lead him just months earlier to break his civil obligations and spiritual vows in his union with his wife Elizabeth.

Of course, Edwards is not alone among Democrats, let alone Republicans (the story of John McCain dumping his first wife for heiress Cindy needs to be told more often.) The Clintons, for instance are in a wide open relationship of convenience. Bill has in the most grotesquely public fashion made a joke of his marriage, fully enabled by his wife. They both compounded the original sin (according to both their religions) by lying about it, and putting the full weight of the presidency behind a public assault on Monica Lewinsky, among others. That Bill then had the indecency to sign the Defense of Marriage Act, which bans the Federal government from recognizing same-sex marriage, was perfectly fitting. And, of course, the Clintons still "oppose" gay marriage ("I think a marriage is as a marriage always has been, between a man and a woman," she has said, possibly the most stupid thing she has ever uttered.)

Barack Obama has been marginally more subtle, with a wink and a nod in private meetings with gay supporters, and, at least for now, his marriage is not the public sham that the Edwards' and Clintons' are. Obama has also been somewhat less patronizing, saying in at least one private fundraiser that it is not for him to tell gay people what to ask for and when, or to tell them to be patient. He has also said that he feels America is "not there yet," a dispiriting cop out that leads him to do his civil union dance in a bid not to alienate more conservative voters while throwing something to gay Democrats. He knows as well as anyone that a separate and equal treatment of gay and straight relationships is impractical, imperfect and simply is not equal in fact, in law and in spirit. The disastrous result of recent civil union legislation in New Jersey, especially contrasted with the smooth marriage transition in Massachusetts is the plainest evidence so far that anything but marriage does not grant equal rights and obligations.

It is shocking that politicians with personal lives as deeply flawed as Edwards, the Clintons, McCain and hundreds of others (including self-styled progressives), set themselves up as defenders of an institution they have raped of all moral significance. And it is nauseating that in the process they have the power to deny millions of couples the option of whatever social recognition and legal and financial security comes from marriage.

Perhaps most irritatingly, gay people are told to be realistic. That the marriage issue simply isn't important, especially compared to war in Russia, war in Iraq and war in Iran. Compared to the housing crisis. Compared to the recession. Compared to high taxes. Compared to the deficit. This is ironic because, in fact, for most same-sex couples in the United States, the inability to marry has far more impact than any of those other issues. Every day without equal marriage rights means that millions of gay people are unable to receive proper health care because they can't afford to be taxed on the premiums that the more enlightened employers grant to significant others. It means hell for uncounted numbers of immigrants in long-term relationships who are in the US illegally because they can't marry. It means that couples are torn apart at the most fraught moments of their lives, at hospitals, for instance. It means, all in all, a ridiculously high financial, emotional and legal cost, every single day.

It may be that politicians do not realize this, as the gay people they encounter in New York, Los Angeles, Washington and San Francisco are the ones who raise millions for them every year, and are hardly among the most affected. It may also be that many straight voters do not realize this, either, so effective is the establishment media, enabled by homosexual court jesters, at portraying gay people as frivolously wealthy or at least solidly middle-class. The gay media is not really much better: they are desperate to show that their readers can afford $100 vodka, $1,000 shoes, $100,000 cars and $1,000,000 homes, so that advertisers flock to this magically wealthy market, thanks to warped, unreliable polling.

Right-wing conservatives and their Democratic allies on this issue also like these stereotypes as it makes gay people look like a bunch of whining rich spoilt brats, who on top of that are sexually deviant. Interestingly, war, taxes, housing, etc, do not seem the priority of a lot of people devoted to denying rights (ANY rights, not just marriage) to gay people, if the continuing flood of "anti-marriage" (really anti-gay) referendums and initiatives is any indication.

There is little doubt that in the not so distant future, full marriage rights will be available to same-sex couples in the United States, but not if those who support such rights, including straight people, simply sit back and relax. Politicians need to be held accountable on this issue as they are on others, and should know that a wink and a nod, no matter how flirtatious, will not do it in 2009, even if we will close our eyes, hold our breath and vote for an "opponent" of gay marriage one last time in 2008.

Follow Paul Jenkins on Twitter: www.twitter.com/PaulcJenkins

Comments

[amamomofsons]

All of these guys who are against gay marriages are going to look back on their lives and see the hurt and meanness that they have imposed on this segment of our community. Gay marriage will happen sooner or later in our society because homosexuality is a fiber of the human tapestry. We owe it to all people to be open and celebrate their love for one another. Gays deserve the rights we all enjoy. These stupid people who are so short sighted will look back and see that they were the ones who caused so much sadness and heartbreak to others. I feel sorry for them for their ignorance in a perverse sort of way.

[TheBlackCat]

There will always be issues that seem more expedient than civil rights, but the answer isn't to tell them to keep waiting. They can fight for their rights simultaneously. I have seen many posts by those who claim to be progressives on HuffPo saying that gay people are being "selfish" because they are worried more about themselves than issues that affect everyone. This is IDENTICAL to what people told blacks and women when they fought for their civil rights. Women suffragists were told they had to wait because of the Civil War; then because of Reconstruction; then because of WWI. They finally learned that if they kept being respectful of politicians who gave them lip service, asking them to wait until the "bigger issues" got dealt with, they would never get the vote.

What amuses me is how gay rights are such a divisive issue here when in my other home in the Netherlands its not even an issue. Gay marriage is legal and socially accepted, and even the most rabidly conservative right wing politicians don't have a problem with gays. In fact some of the most famous and successful right wing politicians in the last decade in Holland have been openly gay! Being gay is just not a big deal there, they are just regular people and treated as such. They just don't get America in that regard and find us very backwards, comparing us often to Middle Eastern nations who also condemn homosexuality on antiquated religious law.

[Pragman]

"the story of John McCain dumping his first wife for heiress Cindy needs to be told more often..."

It needs to be told a HECK of a lot more often to be proportional to story about the guy who came in 3rd for the Democratic nomination.

[kjdwyer]

Any excuse to call attention to the duplicitous position of anti-gay marriage initiatives is worth taking.

I do think, however, that you're a bit too vitriolic about both the Edwards and the Clintons. Not with respect to their position against gay marriage, which is reprehensible, but when you say that they've "raped [marriage] of all moral significance."

There's a danger of falling into some strict religious model of what it means to be married which I think is completely beside the point. The point of marriage, as relates to being a member of a free democratic society, should only have to do with a civil contract that provides two people the legal protections that all couples who wish to enter into this contract should enjoy (community property rights, default power of attorney status, health care coverage, child adoption rights, survivor benefits, etc.).

When you start delving into the private decisions within any given marriage, however, you start down a road that frankly has nothing to do with the issue of marriage rights whatsoever. We can never know what two people feel for each other unless we're one of those two people and we shouldn't be getting into some debate about the moral validity of anyone's marriage contract. It's off the mark.

Having said that, I totally understand your frustration given their hypocritical opposition to gay marriage. I just think it fuzzes the issue to start condemning them on that "moral" level.

[matthew25]

Excellent post kjdwyer, thanks. I very much agree.

[Strepsi]

I will tell you why it does not fuzz the issue. Bill Clinton signed the DOM, and Edwards and Hillary came out as against equal rights for gays on marriage for "spiritual reasons". All three are spectacular hypocrites. They broke commandments, the letter, AND the "spirit" of their vows. They can not possibly be seriously against gay marriage with a straight face. You know who else can;t be against gay marriage? ANY WOMAN. The most radical challenge to "traditional" marriage was when the Supreme court decreed that a man did not "own" his wife, to do with as he pleases, and to FORCE to procreate. When the Supreme court called that "rape", and called husbands and wives equal partners, it ENDED "traditional marriage". And Obama should know better than any candidate not to pursue the evil of "separate but equal"... There simply is no reason whatsoever to deny civil marriage rights to gay people. PERIOD.

[lewes17266]

scripture also prohibits extramarital sex
let us all hope and pray for the day when all sins are treated equally

[WillNYC]

actually lets pray for day when fantasy and myth in the scriptures is treated exactly as that. This is 2008 not 208.... time to move away from archaic religions that only purpose is to subjugate the masses...

I pray for the day when we don't need a 2000 year fantasy piece to act like decent human beings.

[georgiabluecoast]

i second that!

[antaeus]

You call one's position in the 10 Commandments equal tot he other's obscure place among "laws" about circumcision and eating shellfish "equal"?

[TheBlackCat]

That's one of the worst sentiments I've ever heard. All sins treated equally? If that were true we would have no society, because everyone would be paying for their sins. NO ONE is without "sin" - are you seriously suggesting that stealing a pack of gum is the same as murder?

Then of course there is the question of who gets to define sin? In some cultures/religions drinking is a sin. In others eating pork is. In some homosexuality is. But then there are plenty of other cultures/religions that have no problem with any of these things. So what is your standards for who decides what sin even means?

Oh wait, I already know, we'll all go by what YOUR religion defines as sin, correct? How convenient for you!

This kind of thinking is what happens when the Bible is the only book you've ever read. And probably not all of it, either. My bet is you conveniently skipped the parts that say wearing two kinds of cloth is a sin, or planting two crops in the same field, or slaves defying their masters.

[Pragman]

Are you sure lewes17266 wasn't just making a point about stones and glass houses?

[slaxx]

i think that was his/her point. according to christianity, all sins are equal in the eyes of god. so yes, telling a lie or not being charitable is no better or worse than homosexuality or murder, according to god.

i think his/her point was how we focus on one "sin," in this case the "sin" of homosexulaity, and punish it more than others in a very hypocritical way. who is anyone who uses the bible to support their prejudices to say that one "sin" is worse than another when in the eyes of god all sins are equal; a sin is a sin is a sin.

and of course she/he wasn't saying that stealing gum is the same as murder; maybe according to the bible it is, but according to our society and laws which typically judge the severity of actions based on the impact they have on others, murder is of course much worse than stealing gum. i think his/her point was the hypocricy and lack of common sense or logic with regard to people who are against gay marriage.

[Bettysdad]

"Politicians with personal lives as deeply flawed as Edwards." Really?

What exactly do you know about John and Elizabeth Edwards?

Not everyone who has sex with someone other than their partner is cheating.

Don't walk around thinking that your morals are THE morals.

That's the mindset that creates gay-bashers, and you are just as bad as them.

[lewes17266]

But don't you agree that our leaders should be trustworthy people? loyal people? don't you think our leaders should lead by example?
I mean, shouldn't a married man be faithful to his wife?
A person who has authority over others and who guides and directs others needs to be honest, in my opinion, above all else. John Edwards presented himself as a selfless and MORAL man and he brought out his wife and children with him into that political light. This is the problem, I think, the hypocrisy of the way he presented himself and what was going on when no one was looking. This hypocrisy is immoral, in my opinion. This is not about sex really but more about the outright lies which are immoral.

[Apov]

Do you feel the same way about Republican lies?
How do you feel about the morality of the Iraq war?
Let me know.

[TheBlackCat]

While I do agree that it is unfair to say that the Clintons or Edwards "raped" marriage as this article suggests, I think the author's charge of hypocracy still stands. Clinton and Edwards have both said REPEATEDLY that the reason the can't approve of gay marriage is because it goes against the "sanctity" of the institution, which is sacred and must be upheld in it's traditional form.

They then lived lives in which THEY did not respect the traditional "sanctity" of marriage by cheating. We can all have our own opinions on whether or not open marriages are immoral or not, but I think that it's non-debatable that open marriages and cheating do NOT adhere to the traditional precepts of marriage, which the Clintons and Edwards espouse as their rationalization for being against gay marriage. So, even if we were to find that they had open marriages the wives approved of, in which Bill and John did not betray their wives in any way, that doesn't change the fact that they are denying a non traditinal marriage to others while enjoying a non tradittional marriage themselves. THAT is the point of the article.

[mosh]

Which brings us back to the other issue - lying - not to each other necessarily but to the American people.

I couldn't care less of John and Elizabeth Edwards choose to have an open relationship or not, I just don't want them lying about it when asked. Both Edwards should have told the press that their personal life is off limits OR the truth about their sexual arrangement.

But they chose to lie outright instead and that's where they went wrong in my book.

Being anti-gay marriage as well makes them liars and hypocrites. A bad combination.

[SethBLiNK]

If these issues are important to you, Obama is the best hope you've got. If you keep demanding that he publicly support you on these issues that will alienate millions of voters, you'll get what you deserve... four more years of Republican rule.

[goodgravy]

they used the same argument against LBJ and the civil rights act.

surely you can come up with a more plausible argument than that.

[celticjag]

What do the infidelities of the aforementioned people have to do with gay marriage? They just show that they are liars and cheats.

[Strepsi]

Because all those people were against gay marriage. They held themselves up as some sort of moral standard and proved to be wildly hypocritical. And -- oh, yeah -- they debased the "sanctity of marriage" far more than any committed gay couple ever could. That's why.

[goodgravy]

i applaud your eloquence and i agree with nearly everything you say. however, you cut obama way too much slack.

bama threw us under his bus last year when he went on his brother love salvation show with the homo hating homo rev. donnie mclurken. the question de jour was whether he was black enough and he decided it was better to be half black (instead of half white) with a ranting lunatic christian talabangelist gay hater than to perceived as being sympathetic to marriage equality.

his unbaked notion that he supports civil unions over marriage equality is nothing less than 21st century jim crow and he's an idiot if he doesn't realize it. and we know he's not an idiot.

he'll be an ok president but he's no friend of our community.

[NTO08]

I said this last year...and that's when I knew I never, ever could back Obama...as time moved on, he threw countless others under the bus who proved poltically inconvenient for him...but the biggest mistake was doing it to gay voters, thinking that they would never be so stupid as to vote for McCain, and so where else would they go (the same idiotic meme has been handed to Hillary's backers, who BTW, aren't flocking to Obama...)?

When the Human Rights Campaign had a debate on gay issues, Obama and Edwards were AWFUL...Hillary kicked their ass at that debate...and Dennis Kucinich was wonderful, also.
Obama assumes that some Dem constituencies will fall lockstep and vote for him...not so fast, buddy.

[BaileyWo]

I agree. I saw Obama's move to the middle after the primaries as the most act of duplicity I could imagine coming from someone kissing up to us progressives throughout the entire primary season. He's not going to move back to the left. In fact, he has started to kiss up to lobbys, of special note: AIPAC. He's playing a shell game in the Middle East claiming he'll withdraw from Iran but he only intends to move troops to Afghanistan. And with three carrier groups to arrive in the Middle East later this week, I'd like to hear his take. I won't vote for McCain. No way. But I'm not voting for a two-faced pandering slimeball either. I'm on the verge of yelling "Larry Sinclare for President" just to see his face and the memory of the back seat of that Limo.

[Pragman]

If you don't want a Republican to win, you know what you have to do.

Don't cut off your nose to spite you face.

[TheBlackCat]

I'm not defending Obama in any way, you are correct that he will throw a group he actually sides if it is politically expedient, but you are fooling yourself if you don't think that almost all politicians do this.

Hilary is the one of the WORST in my book for this (out of this year's candidates). When she was first lady she was the #1 person fighting against bankruptcy reform. She had a Harvard team assemble to find out who would be most affected and found it would be single mothers with deadbeat fathers, and poor families who experience a health crisis. She lobbied tirelessly and famously kept Bill from signing a bill when he was in office. When she became Senator of New York and had her Wall Street Constituents, she caved in an instant and signed the very bill she'd spent years fighting against.

Politicians throw people under the bus out of necessity, real or imagined. Before you decide to not vote for a candidate for doing something like this, look into the OTHER CANDIDATES histories, you will likely find they are no better.

The only politician I can think of off hand (with national recognition) who has never done this is Dennis Kucinich. Of all the candidates this year, Kucinich by far has the most integrity, is the most honest, and genuinely cares the most about his constituents. If those qualities alone were all you need to be a good president, I would have voted for him.

[SILVANUS]

Couldn't have said it better to these HYPOCRITES. Thanks.

[Rjchinook]

Check out these hard core hypocrites:

http://www.republicansexoffenders.com/


At least Dems mostly have opposite sex & LEGAL AGE affairs, unlike the Repubs who preach high moral & family values but go after children, boys & meth addicts, pick up men in bathrooms, etc.

[mergina]

Oh please, leave gays out of this heterosexual fiasco.

[harriscrl3]

Personally I think the romanticizing should be removed from the insitution of marriage and we should call it what it is a legal contract. What I frankly dont understand is women like Hilary Clinton and Elizabeth Edwards why the heck would they put up with these men? Imo it looks worse on them putting up with that there is just something weak and dysfunctional about that.

It never fails to amaze me how we can obsessed over things like who people should marry we want to make it our private business to but into people's personal lives but doing something like ensuring children get a good education we want to leave that up to parent government shouldnt be involved. Our ethics is so screwed up I blame religion we really need to get that stuff out of our politics because in some ways we are just like some of these religious fundamental countries basically designed to continue the oppression of women.

Religion makes us crazy and thats why folks can have two and three divorces and then say nonsense like gays shouldnt be allowed to get married there is no logic to statements like that its just something that comes from religious fervor. We need to live in the 21st century and stop this nonsense.

Carol

[OtayPanky]

Paul Jenkins: It is shocking that politicians with personal lives as deeply flawed as Edwards, the Clintons, McCain and hundreds of others (including self-styled progressives), set themselves up as defenders of an institution they have raped of all moral significance. And it is nauseating that in the process they have the power to deny millions of couples the option of whatever social recognition and legal and financial security comes from marriage.

===

If you're going to tell the truth in such incendiary language, we're going to have to ask you to leave.

[KISSman]

I totally agree with this article. The thing that I cannot stand is the hypocricy that goes on with the gay marriage issue. These people love to cite their religion, but privately they do all sorts of things that don't jive with what the Good Book says.

[DenverJim]

Wow! I couldn't have said it better, Paul. You hit the nail on the head. When I first heard about the John Edwards incident, I remembered his tortured response on trying to "understand" us, and how condescending he was. I also recall how many times people have diminished us by stating there are more important problems in the world. God, I get sick of that bullsh-t! It's amazing how dismissive the majority of people are regarding what gays face in the world. The truth is, gays are survivors, not privileged.

[NTO08]

So true...people say as a gay or black person, how can you vote Republican?
Dems have taken AA and GLBT votes for granted, and offered little more than lip service to many issues affecting each community, such as poverty, jobs, or the ability to marry. Enough is enough...our votes will no longer be automatic for Dems who want our vote, but don't care or wish to do anything for us.