Elizabeth Edwards has exactly the right attitude regarding this subject.

Perhaps next she can tackle the rampant discrimination of many HOAs regarding one's personal home painting orientation? I wonder if she's ever tried to get approval for painting her house purple... ;-)

In all seriousness, I do think that Edwards is terrific, and I wish her the best of luck in recovering from her medical issues.

"it's something that I struggle with. Do I believe they should have the right to marry? I'm not there yet. [...] I think it's from my own personal culture and faith belief. [...] I struggle myself with imposing my faiths [...] it's just part of who I am." [John Edwards, Feb. '07]

Sounds like a case of 'good cop, bad cop' to me. Members of the GLBTXQ# community can support Edwards for President with a clear conscience since his wife is so preciously progressive.

I suppose we can look to Obama's wife for the same kind of backdoor support.

"I'm a Christian, and so although I try not to have my religious beliefs dominate or determine my political views on this issue, I do believe that tradition and my religious beliefs say that marriage is something sanctified between a man and a woman." [Barack Obama, Sep. '04]

And so sadly, i get no warm fuzzies when i ponder any of the first tier presidential candidates. Either they're being honest,) in which case i really question their ability to govern a secular society, given their "struggle" to keep their church out of our bedrooms) or they've chosen their fucus [sic] group tested response, and they're sticking to it.

My ideal candidate would say something to this effect: "You know, i've got no problem with gays getting married. In fact, i think marriage strengthens families... all families. But as President, i will not push for gay marriage. As the people's representatives however progress on this issue, it would be my pleasure one day to sign equal marriage rights into law."

I agree. Elizabeth Edwards can afford to speak her mind on Gay Marriage in a way to solidify GBLT political support for her husband.

It is terribly unfortunate that middle america... those that actually carry the most weight in electing a president (sorry, it is not Portland or SFO.)... are scarcely ready for even civil unions let along gay marriage. So, national candidates are forced to be more religious than they prefer and more limited in their support for gay rights than they could. Is it right? Absolutely not! However, it is the only position for them to take to get elected. That is a fact.

Since the 1980s, our nation has been becoming more and more conservative. Regan started this process with his "moral majority", Bush Sr continued this, Clinton didn't do much for gay rights whatsoever, Bush Jr has taken things even further to the right.

Now, we expect our candidates to head FAR LEFT and be elected after twenty-seven years of conservative rule? It doesn't happen that way, much as I would like. Patience is required. We need to take what victories we can and pave the way for the next generation.

I'd like to see the Democratic presidential candidates ignore this (non-) issue entirely. It's important only to a tiny fraction of the population and it's a distraction from the substantive issues that should be on the table, such as the war, our outrageously unfair federal tax system and our disgraceful health care non-system.

The RepugniCONs have been sandbagging the Dems for three decades by using these "family values" issues to divert working people's attention from the fact that they are being screwed and that the Repugs are the screwors. The Dems need to stop playing into their hands.

Since the 1980s, our nation has been becoming more and more conservative. Regan started this process with his "moral majority", Bush Sr continued this, Clinton didn't do much for gay rights whatsoever, Bush Jr has taken things even further to the right.

Clinton is way ahead of Edwards in all the poles, so it's likely she will get the Democrat nod for '08. Which continues the Bush/Clinton reign in office. It would be nice to have Edwards in office, but I believe it will be Clinton in '08.

Clinton is way ahead of Edwards in all the poles, so it's likely she will get the Democrat nod for '08. Which continues the Bush/Clinton reign..

Hillary doesn't make me moist like Bill used to do, but it's precisely the Bush/Clinton baggage that makes her candidacy the most appealing to me. What better way to repudiate 3 terms of Bush than with a third (perhaps fourth?) Clinton administration. It would have really pissed off my mom (god bless her).

I never fully understood the negative factor vis a vis Hillary. I accept that it exists and recognize that it poses certain pitfalls regarding the general election. Sure, a liberal will say, "she's in bed with corporations" and from middle America to the far right there's a certain dose of misogyny. If Nixon could get elected after having had such high negatives, i don't see why Hillary doesn't stand a chance.

Isn't it great how pandering to religious voters is the basis for selectively denying man-made civil protections supposedly guaranteed by the US Constitution to every citizen?

It's particularly irritating coming from Obama, whose parents were denied the same constitutionally protected right in order to appease a similar pack of religious, primarily Christian, evidence-free (I did say religious) bigots who questioned, while quoting Bible verses, the equal humanity of their non-white neighbors.

But maybe we're moving in the right direction? Go Elizabeth - and thanks at least for the wink wink nod nod...

I'd like to see the Democratic presidential candidates ignore this (non-) issue entirely. It's important only to a tiny fraction of the population

"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere" - Martin Luther King Jr.

Oh - except for gays and lesbians (a tiny fraction of the population) My family's protected - why should I care about yours..?

"A tiny fraction of the population."

Shame on you.

And the country isn't getting more conservative. At least, not on this issue. Look at any polling data in the universe that breaks it down by age group.

We'll have gay marriage in thirty years.

Stan,

You are getting your Clinton's mixed up. When I referred to Clinton, I did so after referring to Bush Sr and before Bush, Jr. Who do we think that is means? Hillary? BILL!!

Bill Clinton's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy was a step backwards from the status quo, not a step forward.

I made no mention of Hillary Clinton in my previous post.

"We'll have gay marriage in thirty years."

Perfect! Who will marry my 70 something ass??

I agree that we will have gay marriage in 30 years. Hopefully nothing happens to my partner, me or our kids before then. I am one of those planners that actually sits down and thinks about the what ifs and how we can be prepared. Every year we get our social security statements and I figure that if we were eligible to receive death benefits we would be OK financially if something happened. As it stands, we pay into a system that we are unable to reap the full benefits from.

I guess something negatively affecting only a tiny fraction of the population is OK as long as you are not part of that tiny fraction. The person that made that statement is just ignorant.

I think that the amount of time we waste on this subject is getting ridiculous. Frankly, who marries who is not relevant as a concern of society nor is it any of my business. The bigger issue is separating purely religious issues that are completely private considerations (like gay marriage, abortion, etc.) from issues that are part of the general concern, like the impeachment of as many Neo-con scum as we can manage before they all leave for Dubai.

CWG,

I wholeheartedly agree. I truly wish that gay marriage and gay civil rights were a NON-ISSUE. But wishing for it, doesn't make it so.

So long as there are people out there, "tiny fraction" or not that believe that some of us are less than human, less deserving of equal rights and that we must live according to their religious or ideological ideal, we will always have social injustice.

Social injustice isn't fought by ignoring it. It is fought by highlighting it and by educating people that differences are something to be celebrated and appreciated. As long as there is inequality, there will be unrest.

I was honored to march in Portland's Gay Pride Parade. Over 65,000 people were there at the event. I was amazed. Yes, it was Gay Pride, but it was also a celebration for humanity; the humanity of gays and lesbians and the humanity of those that openly accept us for who we are. The people that were marching were young and old, religous and non-religious, Portland "weird and wacky", families, children, and straight supporters. This is what social justice is all about and it is where it can take further root.

"I guess something negatively affecting only a tiny fraction of the population is OK as long as you are not part of that tiny fraction. The person that made that statement is just ignorant."

Let's bear in mind that even without gay marriage (which we won't be getting in the next few years, regardless WHO controls government).. it's Always better, under Any circumstances, for gays or any minority when Democrats are in charge. Bear in mind that Dems generally don't care what you do nor whom you do it with, as long as you're not hurting anyone else. Repubs, on the other hand, generally want to punish you for being gay. Fire you from teaching jobs, jail you, etc.

Curt

Spouses being left of presidents has an honorable though not consistent Democratic tradition: Think of Eleanor Roosevelt, or Rosalynn Carter to a lesser degree.

With the Clintons, there's an interesting twist. Arguably Hillary was at least a bit left of Bill in his first term, but she has remade herself into such a DLCer that if Bill were to become the First Gentleman he'd probably be to the left of her now.

Dislike of Hillary C. takes a number of forms, across the political spectrum. Mine are that I don't like her policy positions, particularly her bellicosity in foreign policy, and I believe that she shares Bill C.'s lubricious orientation toward "triangulation" and toward rewarding your enemies and punishing your friends (I was a Bill C. hater from the left long before Monica Lewinsky -- went off him when he trashed Lani Guinier without even bothering to find out what she'd really said, then found out about Ricky Ray Rector, then there was the "Father of the Patriot Act" -- The Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, which was much WORSE as proposed by Clinton, Congress took out a lot of bad stuff, worst elements were put back in by Patriot Act, for which Clinton's original bill was a model, and of course his pandering welfare deform).

<h2>Unfortunately neither Obama or Edwards seems much better on Iran -- if the Dems keep acting like Bush on that, we are going to be remembered as "the Stupidest Generation" -- Edwards may be better on Iraq. But I don't think Edwards is a triangulator -- not so sure about Obama.</h2>