Edwards Needs To Support Gay Rights

edwards_hrc.jpg

John Edwards has a troublesome position on Gay marriage.  He supports civil unions.  Gay rights are a foundational issue, and John Edwards needs to step up and show some backbone.  His current position is untenable:

This isn’t a tough issue. You either support equality, or you do not. You either support separation of Church and State, or you argue that marriage is “sacred” and the state has a say in what constitutes a “sacred” marriage.

“Civil Unions” are a piss poor attempt at having it both ways, a return to the “separate but equal” bullshit that the civil rights movement knocked out of the water.

Either John Edwards supports separation of Church and State or he does not.  There are two consistent approaches to Gay marriage.  Either make civil unions the business of the state for all couples (leaving marriage up to religious institutions), or make marriage available for all couples.

Edwards is on point for every other position he’s staked out on LGBT issues.  One more bold move will not have an adverse conclusion.  It will further set him apart from the tepid front runners while reinforcing his own core message of equality and backbone.

Advertisements

4 Responses

  1. Check out our trailer on Gay Marriage. Produced to educate & defuse the controversy it has a way of opening closed minds & creates an interesting spin on the situation: http://www.OUTTAKEonline.com

  2. interesting… an unintended, genius aspect of democracy is that the state of the government will represent the state of the people. We needn’t impose any particular religion on our government. Whether or not our government is morally stable will reflect the moral stability of us, the people. So how are we doing?

  3. Charlotte,
    Ok, I am a really bad person. Aside from sighing at “Its 10 minutes? For a trailer?”, my very first thought was “wow this is Gay”. Its the over the top music and all the sparkle. Dear lord the sparkle!

    But that first line was electric. I never realized how much you give up, legally, by going with civil unions vs marriage. That’s a very very good point to make.

    A good watch, thanks for the link.

    Patrick Roberts,
    If we had a democracy, yeah. Yay oligarchy?
    As for how we are doing, some of us quite well. Others? Not so much. We are tossing out love (gay marriage) and embracing violence (the war in Iraq). That reflects something other than morality.

  4. This isn’t a church/state issue.

    The definition of marriage is a union of one man and one woman, so “traditional marriage” is a redundancy and “same sex marriage” is an oxymoron.

    Claiming that marriage can be for two men or two women isn’t a little different than saying it is between a man and a woman, it is the opposite. It is claiming that marriage is not just between a man and a woman and that “marriage” is now whatever we want to define it to be.

    I am sympathetic to hospital and estate issues of gay and lesbian couples, but I think they can be addressed without redefining marriage and generating a slew of unintended consequences.

    For example, estate taxes should be done away with altogether. The government should not profit when you die, regardless of your sexual preferences. And hospital patients should be allowed to have anyone they like visit them.

    The issue is often framed as if gays are being denied something. Gays are free to marry in this country and they do it every day. Some apostate churches will be glad to perform the ceremony. Whole industries are set up to help you plan and execute the festivities and set up a household. The debate is whether the government has an interest in recognizing these unions.

    By nature and by design, homosexual unions cannot and will not produce the next generation. It is only by exception that these relationships involve children. Therefore, the government has no reason to interfere with or regulate those relationships. (Please spare me any arguments that heterosexuals must have kids for this reasoning to be valid. We’re talking rules, not exceptions.)

    Sometimes the “but they love each other” argument is used to support same-sex unions. I realize that some gays and lesbians love each other. So what? What possible reason would the government have to be involved in a relationship just because love is involved? Plenty of marriages don’t have love. Many marriages in the world are still arranged.

    Aside from the marriage question, remember that adding sex to a loving relationship doesn’t make it better. There are plenty of loving relationships (parent/child, siblings, pastor / parishoner, teacher / student) that are made worse by sex, not better. Whatever happened to just having friends of the same sex?

    I realize this isn’t satisfying for them, but gays and lesbians have the exact same rights that heterosexuals do: They can marry someone of the opposite sex. Heterosexuals can’t marry someone of the same sex either.

    More here – http://4simpsons.wordpress.com/2007/10/16/same-sex-unions/

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: