Differentiating the Obama, Edwards, Clinton positions on Gay Marriage

[Iceburg]

Some would argue that the candidates positions are virtually the same. I thought that too until I spent more time examining the candidate's relative position. After reviewing dozens of video clips of the candidates "in their own words", I'd like to share my findings, and ask you -- who do you think has the greatest will and capacity to initiate positive change for the GLBT?

All have stated that they are in favour of civil unions (separate but equal -- that's easy), and each has voiced objections to gay marriage. What's interesting to many of us in the GLBT ccommunity is understanding why the candidates endorse civil unions but object to gay marriage. Is it personal or otherwise? Does it make a difference to you if the objection raised is personal? If the candidate personally objects (to gay marriage) do you believe they are more likely or less likely to initiate steps that will lead to full equality under the law for the GLBT community?

On Obama
Obama has consistently stated that his objection to gay marriage is hinged on his personal and religous beliefs. And yet the very church that Obama belongs to (the United Church of Christ)has endorsed same sex marriage. Perhaps someone can explain Obama's apparent disconnect from his wider church's belief. Obama's contradictions and naiveté on the issue of gay marriage/religion are highlighted in this video clip of an Obama/Keyes debate.

Sadly, Obama (whose own parents' marriage would have been illegal in many states at the time of their marriage) has not made that connection that the same religous arguments were used to construct and uphold the ban on inter-racial marriages for decades.

On Edwards
Now Edwards' position is not that different from Obama's. Like Obama, his personal religous beliefs prevent him from accepting gay marriage, however he does state that his personal matters of faith shall not interfere with issues of governing. see video (FYI: Excellent question posed by on the contraditions of faith in this clip)

On Hillary
Contrast the above Obama & Edwards response to Hillary's response to the question on the :

Ellen: "you support civil unions but not gay marriage -- why"
Hillary: "uh huh..." Hillary then goes on in great length to explain what steps can be done immediately on a national level to end the discrimination and emphasizes the state role in marriage determination. Note that Hillary never says explicitly WHY she doesn't support same sex marriage. In fact she cleverly avoids answering the "why" in any direct sense. Although, we may glean the "why" from what she does and does not say in her remarks.

Hillary wisely states that she would terminate the military's "Don't ask don't tell" policy, and leaves the question of legalizing same sex marriage with state level government (where it has always resided). Hillary's experience and ability to project how to bring about change is illustrated in this footage -- she knows that a repeal of DADT must precede any expected state changes. She knows (as do the other candidates) that the legal entity of marriage IS a state issue and that it counter-productive and politically unwise to encroach on their turf regardless on the issue at hand. But I believe that she has faith that most Americans in most states (although probably not all) will eventually do the right thing once the federal branch put its own house in order and that begins with dismantling the discriminatory practices of DADT ASAP. As an aside, recall that before 1967 most state laws prohibited inter-racial marriage. And that it wasn't until 1998 and 2000 that SC and Alabama (the ClingOns) repealed its anti-miscegenation laws -- and not by margins that one would boast about either ...some 40% still objected!

So if Hillary has an "objection" to gay marriage, I assume it is that she believes that we are putting the cart before the horse -- i.e. not a personal objection, rather a professional one. Don't jump the gun -- Do what is achievable and within federal juristiction first.

In summary, on the issue of gay marriage IMHO Hillary is the only candidate that does not have a "personal" objection to gay marriage. Further, and more importantly she appears to have given the issue considerably more actionable thought than her fellow candidates. To which I conclude, that she is perhaps the only candidate that has the will, the intellect, and the experience to construct and execute a plan that will eventually lead to the lead to legalization of same sex marriage.

But heck -- You are the decider. What do you think?

[RaleighNCDUer]

1. I think a person's "personal" objections are meaningless. There

are plenty of politicians who have a personal objection to abortion, but who firmly stand for choice. This goes back to Kennedy's being Catholic - will the candidate let his personal feelings or religious obligations stand in the way of making decisions that serve the entire polity.

Hillary is playing politics - just as Bill did with DADT and DOMA - and will disregard her personal feelings to cater to the public block with the most money and most votes.

She is NOT the best GLBT candidate.

That's what I think.

[meegbear]

8. Then who is, pray tell

[TechBear_Seattle]

9. Kucinich, and only Kucinich

Sadly, he has been tarred as "unelectable," which really means the media does not want him and refuses to give him any opportunity to become "electable."

Face it: None of the three of the leading candidates are our friends in any way. They have nothing to offer us, and quite a bit to gain from "the middle" by fucking us over yet again.

[meegbear]

11. TechBear, are you sneaking on as "NCevilDUer"?

for shame.

Kucinich would be good and I think the others are paying lip service, but I am considering their actions, past and present, and it will be a factor for me during the primaries.

[TechBear_Seattle]

12. I am considering their actions past and present as well

I stand by what I posted.

[tekisui]

2. None of them go far enough.

Yet, they each are decades ahead of any repuke.

I guess it is a question of winning small steps, or fighting for what I consider full rights, now. Allowing states to legalize same sex marriage, while granting National civil unions seems like a good step, to me. Encourage and fight for marriage on state levels, then in time, a president will be receptive to full rights.

[Iceburg]

3. Agreed -- I am just thankful that at least one candidate did not throw the GLBT

community under the "religious bus".

A journey of 1000 miles begins with a single step -- dump DADT.

[TechBear_Seattle]

10. "Shoot them in the leg" rather than "Shoot them through the heart"

Thank God the Democrats are the lesser of evils. I suppose we must be abjectly grateful for that. :eyes:

[Glorfindel]

4. Thanks for the thoughtful post and the reasearch that went into it

I hadn't really thought about the issue in those terms, and after all, politics is the art of the possible. Furthermore, a person's private religious beliefs should have no bearing on his or her positions regarding public policy. You don't hear Muslims demanding that the raising of swine for food be outlawed or Jews wanting to forbid worship on Sunday. As far as I'm personally concerned, marriage is a strictly religious institution. The government has no more business regulating marriage than baptism, confirmation, or ordination. But that's just my opinion; even if I were straight, I'd be a confirmed old bachelor.

[Dhalgren]

5. Very well thought out and well put together! Good job.

I think that Obama's church is not the same as the national, United Church of Christ. There ar more than one kind of "Church of Christ", just as there are more than one kind of "Baptist" or "Lutheran". I may be wrong, but Obama's church (from what I have read) does not seem to be as liberal and progressive as the UCC appears to be (but I could be wrong).

I think that your analysis of Clinton's position is quite astute. I think that of the three candidates, she is the least likely to pander to religious concerns...

[xchrom]

6. edwards is my choice -- but

i think your dissection of mrs clinton's rational is fairly spot on.

[Iceburg]

29. Edwards is a good man ...

(Elizabeth is a GREAT woman) and they are running an good campaign inspite of the media blackout. I do wish he had come to grips with the gay marriage thing -- I think he will eventually (Elizabeth has). I would rather he avoided making a personal objection based on his religous beliefs. That said -- I still believe he is an excellent candidate and would make a fine president.

[cloudythescribbler]

7. reality check: OF COURSE all of their objections are political & ...

of course none of them say so, including HRC. The fact is that, although it is a "separate but equal" insult, civil unions are politically feasible now and can at least be recognized at the federal level, with at least partial reversal of the DOMA likely along with that. NONE of the Democrats have been asked, to my knowledge, and I gather that the answer of all three would be 'no', whether as president they would do ANYTHING to interfere with state governments like MA (where I live) that choose to recognize gay marriages. (The very question would give all three the opportunity to was enthusiastic about 'states' rights' -- IN DEFENSE OF, nb, not interfering w/state gay marriages; of course, all three could be sure (in the campaign) to say that they will NOT seek to abolish the established FEDERAL nonrecognition of gay marriage.

Their position(s) are indeed opportunistic, just like their comments about eg (one of many) the federal laws barring any federal aid to universities that neither have an ROTC program nor allow military recruiters on campus.

I think that it would make MORE sense to ask the candidates about their positions on a full range of gay rights issues, including positive support for national legislation against sexual orientation discrimination (that we have in many state and local venues), AIDS policy (including fast-track approval for Social Security disability for AIDS/ARC victims, and other crucial practical matters), and hate crimes legislation AND POLICY. Furthermore, the Senate at least passed a resolution back in the 90s barring federal aid to PUBLIC schools that merely taught about gay sexuality as (and I may not have the precise wording right) 'an acceptable or tolerable alternative lifestyle' -- ie AGAINST teaching tolerance/acceptance or rather, positive diversity.

Trying to parse out the justifications -- or evasion of same -- among three candidates determined NOT to draw major distinctions from each other is in my arrogant opinion a wasted exercise, especially as politicians are not to be believed anyway. It is VERY important, I think, that Kucinich be included in the debates so as not to crystallize the notion that no progressive alternative exists to the "three bears'" positions. His inclusion in the debates would be a concrete step NOW that would make more difference in terms of gay rights politics than whatever parsed differences there are between the candidates' rhetoric in justification for plainly politically taken positions.

[muriel_volestrangler]

15. The ROTC point highlighted in this Guardian opinion piece

Glossing over gay rights

US elections 2008: When given an opportunity to take a stand against the US military's discriminatory practices, the Democratic candidates demured

...

There's a federal statute on the books which says that, if a college or university does not provide space for military recruiters or provide a ROTC program for its students, it can lose its federal funding.

Will you vigorously enforce that statute?

Posing the question in these terms is tantamount to asking the candidates if they support literacy for children, adoption of stray puppies, apple pie and motherhood. Naturally, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and John Edwards each took the bait and pledged to enforce the law - before changing the subject and ticking off each item in a litany of (justified) complaints about how the Bush administration has mistreated American war veterans.

Anyone watching the debate who did not know the subtext of Russert's question would have been utterly baffled as to how such seemingly inarguable legislation could even be opposed, let alone allowed to go unenforced. Presumably, however, the Democratic candidates did know what lay behind the question - the issue of gay rights - which is precisely why they moved on as quickly as possible to unrelated talking points.

Here is the background: the law to which Russert referred is the Solomon Amendment of 1996, a maliciously ingenious little addendum to the US Code that, under the guise of bolstering national security by guaranteeing military recruiters access to the graduates of America's top schools, seeks to force academic institutions to dismantle their own non-discrimination policies.

http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/daniel_koffler/2008/01/glossing_over_gay_rights.html

[Iceburg]

16. I repeat , a journey of 1000 miles begins with a single step ...

DADT overturned a complete ban on homosexuals within the military.

From wiki...It was introduced as a compromise measure in 1993 and approved by then President Bill Clinton who, while campaigning for the Presidency, had promised to allow all citizens regardless of sexual orientation to serve openly in the military, a departure from the then complete ban on those who are not heterosexual. The actual policy was crafted by Colin Powell and has been maintained (vigorously) by Clinton's successor, George W. Bush.

Now is the time to overturn DADT. Much change will flow as a natural consequence.

Politics is the science of herding cats -- some of 'em rabid.

Effecting change requires full understanding of the issue at hand, knowing what bariers lie on the critical path. Where Obama and Edwards (and I do like them both) are content to duck and cover under a "personal" religious blanket, Hillary doesn't hide but she ducks (direct questions) strategically and moves quickly to addressing the barriers that must be resolved before the full equality under the law can be achieved.

[TechBear_Seattle]

17. Wasn't the Solomon Amendment signed into law by Clinton?

"Any effort to enforce non-discrimination policies will be dealt with harshly."

Why am I not surprised that this is part of the Clinton Legacy along with DADT and DOMA?

[cloudythescribbler]

22. because Bill the Shill made a POINT of betraying the Left at EVERY turn

Yes, I know they balanced the budget and had prosperity, for which credit is due, from REPUGS as well as Dems, but as for seeing the "Al From" Democrats as, at BEST, a lesser evil, I don't.

I know Obama has made compromises to run a credible candidacy. But there is something I hear in him -- just in the thoughtfulness and sincerity of his debate responses relative to the others -- leads me to feel strongly that he is the best of those who COULD get the nomination.

No doubt, I would then be spending years protesting Obama's moderate policies from the Left. But I'd rather be protesting OBAMA's policies (or even Clinton's) than W Bush's.

[cloudythescribbler]

21. The antigay discrimination in the military/CIA is evil ON TOP OF THEIR IMPERIALIST FUNCTION

years ago, before a lot of those on DU were born (back in the mid-80s) there was a protest at my law school (UC Berkeley) about the CIA recruiting on the grounds of anti-gay discrimination. I alone decided to carry a sign that said something to the effect of "CIA go home whether they discriminate or not!"

After all, as far as I am concerned, the issue of ROTC and military recruitment was an issue in the 60s (before my time) before gay rights crystallized as a movement after the Stonewall clash (1969).

BTW -- somewhat off topic
If you read stuff by and about Greg Calvert, the most prominent sds leader who was gay, and his experiences as a key New Left organizer, they can be very enlightening. In The Politics of Authenticity, the author, Rossiter, quotes Greg Calvert as noting how Bernardine Dohrn 'used' Greg's "bisexuality" against him. Calvert died in Aug 2005; Dohrn is very much a part of the reborn sds/mds, to the dismay of some (including myself) whose objections are unwelcome. The idea is that she has 'come clean' of the rather monstrous figure she was in the 60s, and of course, we must accept 'rehabilitation' at regarding those who are SO NOT of the trollagerie dimension of the at least ostensible left.

This blunt comment might not bother folk at DU, but in sds/mds it is simply beyond the pale; yes, I know political correctness in all its hypocritical and selective application all too well after 30 years of activism.

[bpeale]

13. as long as their personal belief does not interfere in matters of

governing, then i have no objections with my candidates stand, and this does not interfere with my vote. and while this issue is important, it is not the most important thing in the world right now ... at least not to me. the vanishing middle class, unending poverty in america, secret spying, accountability for the bush regime ... all these are most important to me.

[mitchtv]

14. Civil rights is always a top issue with me

especially when they're mine.

[Chovexani]

18. Thank you!

God people are so shortsighted. Who the fuck cares if jobs are created, if you're not allowed to keep them because of who you're in love with? Discrimination and inequality go hand-in-hand with poverty. How can you raise yourself up if the system is stacked against you?

[Chovexani]

19. Please don't come here trying to pretend any of them care

They don't. The only candidate who truly gives a shit about LGBT rights has been deemed unelectable by the media.

[FreeState]

20. Gravel is also pro-marriage equality n/t

[Iceburg]

23. SF Mayor Gavin Newsom on Clinton's Gay Marriage Stance

From Hardball on 3/18/05

Great video clip -- note how Newsom handles Tweedy

[fightthegoodfightnow]

24. You're Kidding Me

You write: 'Hillary is the only candidate that does not have a "personal" objection to gay marriage'

You add: 'She has no personal objection, just a professional one. Don't jump the gun -- Do what is achievable and within federal jurisdiction first.'

A professional one? Give me a break. I'm not going to elect a 'leader' who isn't going to get things ...important things to me..... done. She's talking out of both sides of her mouth, particularly sincy you acknowledge she 'doesn't support gay marriage.' What double talk.

[Iceburg]

25. What I am saying is ...

She has NO personal objections to SSM and probably has plenty of personal reasons why she does support it, but politically/professionally she believes it will not happen until other legal barriers are effectively removed ... i.e. DADT etc. One step at a time,my friend ... that's plain good project management from my perspective.

Do you honestly think that somebody that has publicly espoused that he is personally against SSM is going to lead the charge on changing it??? Surely you jest.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

26. Got It

I am so tired of politicians who are 'realists' and 'pragmatists' rather than dreamers.

We are probably going to end up with Clinton and McCain who are the strongest war advocates within their prospective parties. Over 70% of Americans want out of the war and the majority consider the war the number one issue facing our country (although the economy is climbing). There is something wrong with that scenario.

Clinton was once a dreamer and she's given all that up to be a pragmatist. That's the last thing I want. I want visionaries.

[Iceburg]

28. Clinton still is a visionary ...

and an proven planner -- but to get elected she also knows what to say and more importantly what not to say -- such as "my religion tells me ...". You will never hear any of that duck and cover shit from Clinton.

Clinton is NOT an advocate of war -- if you read her speech that accompanied her IWR vote you would know that her vote was conditional upon exhausting all diplomatic options, stepping up the inspections etc. She has promised to end the war, and barring opposition from the Republican machine -- she will.

And yes, political compromises are often part of it esepecially when you don't control all of the variables like the Congress and the Senate. That's how we ended up with DADT. Bill Clinton had campaigned on a promise to terminate the total ban on gays in the miltary. But since the Dems did not control both houses a compromise was brokered. Colin Powell drafted the DADT policy. Only in a dictatorship does the visionary get to execute his/her plan without compromise.

I hope you watched the video in the original post -- they are very revealing of where each of the candidates stand.

Visionaries are people who know where we need to go -- leaders are visionaries who know how to get there. I believe Hillary knows the way. Obama, like Reagan is an orator. While he was state senator he avoided taking a stand on all the controversial issues by simply voting "present" -- he did so a whopping 130 times! That's not leadership ... that's not even serving your country ... it's simply self serving. I think Edwards is running a great campaign on most issues -- and dissapoints me only with respect to his personal objection to gay marriage. I hope he stays in until the convention because at the very least he is pushing hard for universal health care -- an idea first promoted by Hillary in Bill's first term. Well we all know who robbed the citizens of that vision. But this time around, if the Dems end up controlling both Congress and the Senate who knows -- maybe that dream (of Hillary's & more recently Edwards) will become a reality. It certainly won't with Obama because he does not believe in the universality of health care.

Thanks for your comments.
May the best person win.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

30. I was a Big Clinton Supporter

....... but I have become disallusioned.

Hillary Clinton made a strategic decision to demonstrate she has a penis just like the men running and that she can be 'strong on defense' with the best of them. The fact that she had this need to do suggests that she isn't strong but weak, because her pragmatism makes her vulnerable. Unfortunately, in doing so, she has demonstrated that she is nothing more than an apologist for the war machine. Her votes speak for themselves. I don't care about her speeches. I care about her votes. I agree that Edwards stand on gay marriage is bad but unlike you, I think it's the same as Clinton. Neither is or will do a thing to make gay marriage happen. Obama may be a great orator, but I find most great orators are good because they have something important to say.

[Iceburg]

32. If votes mattered ... I would assume the 130 "present" votes by Obama

in the state senate would be an issue with you. Or perhaps his vote in favor of reauthorizing the USA PATRIOT and Terrorism Prevention, and all of the Iraq war funding bills.

Look anyone running for president must be both literate and strong on defense -- its nonsense to think otherwise. Obama has a very short resume on defense and foreign affair issues. He stated that he would unilaterally & pre-emptively bomb Pakistan, and referred to his neighbor to the north as the "President of Canada" in a recent debate. Comments like that worry me.

Re: "but I find most great orators are good because they have something important to say. "
You do know that they all have speech writers? Anyone can read a script. Bush does it regularly -- but look what happens when he's off the leash. It's the unscripted delivery that really counts wouldn't you say?

[fightthegoodfightnow]

33. You Misjudge Me

I haven't come out and supported anyone other than perhaps Gore despite his poor judgment in appeasing the right and nominating Lieberman.

The crap about 'Obama having a short resume on defense and foreign affairs' wasn't much of an obstacle for gosh.............. let's see............ Clinton..... Reagan.........Carter.......... now was it?

Anyone cannot just 'read a script'...... all one has to do is hear Bush botch up anything anyone writes for him with his inappropriate smiles to know that's not true.

[Iceburg]

36. I don't misjudge you ...

In fact I don't judge you at all. Each of us has our own pecking order with respect to issues and priorities.

And to be fair -- Clinton was running on a domestic agenda ... appropriate for that period in history. That said he came to the WH with quite a strong resume -- he had Bachelor of Science degree in International Affairs, 2 years at Oxford, England as a Rhodes Scholar, Attorney General of Arkansas, 2 term Governor.

I like Obama, but remarks such those made with respect to Pakistan are dangerous. He took the bait by engaging in a hypothetical question and his response hurt him. Even his handlers would agree on that one.

[GodlessBiker]

27. She does not support gay marriage. It is not "clever" to avoid an explanation, it is cowardly.

[Iceburg]

31. How do you know that? And it IS clever not to ...

hide under a blanket of religious babble. It makes one look silly, cowardly and unable to think on their feet.

Claude Debussy is quoted as saying "Music is the space between the notes" -- ie. what is not played. In the same way, our views can often be expressed by what we don't say.

[GodlessBiker]

35. It's in your post. She agrees with Ellen that she supports civil unions but not gay marriage.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

34. BRAVO

........ and well said.

[keepCAblue]

37. Oh, yes, Hillary has too voiced a *personal* objection to SSM

In this August 07 video, she states exactly that, that her objection to SSM is "a personal position."

video link (scroll down to "Hillary Clinton" video):
http://visiblevote08.logoonline.com/2007/08/10/video-the-candidates-on-gay-marriage/

HRC also offers the exact same cowardly lip service that Obama does in expressing that SSM should be regulated by the states and not mandated by the federal government - the equivalent to "passing the buck" in my opinion. We all know what many states are doing or have already done: passed constitutional amendments to ban SSM. Would the black community accept the same B.S. regarding THEIR rights, i.e., leaving it to the individual states to decide whether or not to grant blacks racial equality (be it in terms of voting, mixed race marriage, segregation, or otherwise). If that were the case, I think we could predict that most Southern states would still be forcing blacks to drink from separate water fountains and ride in the back the bus. Analogies aside, how ridiculous would it be for my marriage to be legal and honored in one state, but not another? Under the "states' rights" scenario, if I move to another state due to a job transfer, and that state does not recognize my marriage, then what? That is absolutely ridiculous and any candidate that passes the responsibility of protecting my family and marriage onto a state's whimsy is full of piss and shit.

Here is yet another example that debunks the claim that HRC "has never voiced a personal or religous-based objection to gay marriage."

Following up, Allen Roskoff, the president of the Jim Owles Liberal Democratic Club, worked to hold Clinton's feet to the fire. Recalling a conversation he had with her during her first Senate campaign, Roskoff said, "It was right after you said that you were against same-sex marriage on moral, religious, and traditional grounds and I found that incredibly hurtful." He also criticized the senator for volunteering her support for the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, even if not asked, and for not speaking during the Senate marriage amendment debate in June regardless of the work she did behind the scenes.

Clinton offered Roskoff some consolation regarding her earlier characterizations of marriage's history as an exclusively heterosexual institution, an argument that she made in an interview with this reporter as well during the 2000 campaign.

link: http://gaycitynews.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=17379741

Regarding Edwards, he, unlike Obama or Clinton, has at least made the distinction that, regardless of his religious or personal beliefs, he as president would still respect and defend the separation of church and state:

Edwards was further questioned on same-sex “marriage” to which he said he does not personally think homosexuals have the right to marry. However, he added that his own personal belief system is different than what he would support as president pointing out separation of church and state.

“First of all, my faith, my belief in Christ plays an enormous role in the way I view the world,” claimed Edwards. “But I think I also understand the distinction between my job as president of the United States, my responsibility to be respectful of and to embrace all faith beliefs in this country because we have many faith beliefs in America.”

The former senator also said the United States shouldn't be called a Christian nation.

link: http://www.christianpost.com/article/20070605/27801_CNN_Questions_Democrats_on_Evolution,_Same-Sex_%5C'Marriage%5C'_and_Abortion.htm

[Iceburg]

38. An excellent set of videos, and articles.

She does indeed use the word "personal" but it is couched in cloud of other words, innuendo both spoken and unspoken. It is a very interesting clip. And I was indeed taken back at her admission to her earlier religious based opposition to SSM.:-(

Fortunately for us, she has listened and has evolved ...
From the same article:
"Obviously my friends and people who spoke to me-we've had many long conversations and I think that the way that I have spoken and I have advocated has certainly evolved and I am happy to be educated and to learn as much as I can," she said.


Lastly, in the words of Ethan Geto (long time gay activist) from say article:
"We're engaged in a dialogue with someone who has the stature, who has the credibility, the viability to be the party's standard bearer in 2008," he said. "I think when you look at Senator Clinton's record, she may not agree with us on every last policy issue, but when you look at the totality of the record, there is no one in this country who may be the president of the United States with whom we have a warmer, a stronger, a closer productive working relationship."

What to say??? ...she's ain't no saint, she has the capacity to evolve and she's one hell of a fighter and strategic thinker. While Edwards and Obama are both fine candidates I still tilt toward Hil but would be happy to support any one of the 3.

So thar ya go ... xxx posts later, we can conclude that while none of the Dem candidates are perfect they are nevertheless all good candidates worthy of our support.

[zalinda]

39. I'll just give a short quote from Edwards

"LGBT Americans are entitled to equal respect and dignity under our laws. Discrimination is morally wrong. All Americans should have the same freedoms and the same responsibilities." -- John Edwards

If you want to read more, it's here http://www.johnedwards.com/issues/lgbt/

My understanding is that he has a problem with the word "marriage", and I think that is the problem with most people who object to it. But, he thinks same sex couples should have exactly the same rights as any "married" male/female couple.

zalinda