Further, Edwards stated that any civil union or gay marriage should receive, and is entitled to receive all the “1100” protections that married couples receive under federal law.
He did go on to say that while he fully supports civil unions, and that registered civil unions must have 100% of the rights, privileges, and protections of marriage, he is not comfortable with the term “gay marriage.”
He also stated it was time to get rid of “don’t ask, don’t tell”. I do not claim to have “gotten it all down” but I am certain of what I did record.
Some other nuggets:
“We don’t need a surge in Bagdad, we need a surge in New Orleans 9th Ward.”
“George Bush has destroyed our reputation in the world”
“The first day I am president, I will close Guantanamo.”
“There is nothing unpatriotic about dissent.”
“I am looking for the most capable, independent people I can find for the cabinet, including Republicans.”
“Right now, most other countries see Iraq as George Bush’s war and they are not interested.”
I’m sorry, but Edwards is using language that bolsters the confusion people have about which entity, church &/or state certifies a legal marriage. He is doing no one any favors by saying stuff like this
This of course implies that the federal gov’t does sometimes tell churches who they may or may not marry. If he is unaware of the 1st Amendment, what other constitutional basics is he unclear on? He really underwhelms me on matters of civil equality. If he were trying to do the best for LGBT people despite his personal hangups, he’d be careful to help clarify the difference between a state-certified civil marriage, and a church blessing on a civil marriage.
more than just the “fence sitters” but our Presidential frontrunners too!
i am certain that the candidates know the law. well, the dems do, anyway. they just prefer to spin their rhetoric in a way that will not frighten the religious right. this requires them to speak out of both sides of the mouth, making it appear that they are ignorant. no, they don’t need to be educated on the law so much as reminded that they’re competing for the job of Defender of the Constitution. like the religionists they placate, they wish to cherry pick from the constitution. they need to be reminded that we notice this sacrelidge, and won’t play their game.
I was on the floor behind him taking pictures and trying to write a diary. Was that you in the corner in the green top?
I did the day with him yesterday starting in Nashua and then doing the 4 house parties. I'm thinking of splitting it into 2 diaries.
Smithie, as you know he talked about a lot more than what I reported – I was in the foyer and really could not get it all.
Actually, Laurel, effectively the Federal Government DOES tell churches who they may marry, by DOMA – so I disagree. If a state cannot issue a marriage license, a church cannot do a marriage.
The reason Massachusett's gay marriages don't get federal benefits is DOMA. So I respectfully disagree…and I see continuing progress from Edwards on this issue.
As far as I know, he is the only candidate willing to go after revoking DOMA which hurts every civil partnership and GAY marriage in numerous ways.
I try not to view the world in “all or nothing” terms, but as to “progress – not perfection”.
Frankly, I had not known there were at least 1100 federal laws and programs confering benefits on the married not available to unmarried life partners.
Obama has taken the position that DOMA should be repealed, not because he's a proponent of full marriage equality (he's not – he's for civil unions as are Clinton and Edwards; Richardson has been unclear, as on other issues, but seems to be for domestic partnerships) but because he sees the law as unnecessary and a symbolic insult to g/l couples.
Clinton has voiced support for repealing just section 3 of the law
Clinton, however, opposes repealing the full statute
Section 3 is the part of DOMA that prohibits extension of the federal benefits associated with marriage to same sex couples. Clinton would leave intact the part of the law that says that states do not need to recognize same-sex marriages from other states. Obama, following the lead of Lawrence Tribe, thinks this part of the law is the symbolic insult – that it's not necessary, that even without DOMA, marriage law falls to the states and they could choose not to recognize marriages from other states under a public policy exception to the “full faith and credit” clause of the constitution.
I'll leave it to the lawyers to debate the fine print.
All of the Dems are better than the Republicans. If you are voting glbt issues exclusively, Kucinich is the most enlightened. Obama is probably a hair better than Clinton and Edwards, but their positions are very close, betray more than a whiff of inconsistency and wanting g/l support without losing religious voters, and are hard to defend on principled grounds.
Edwards has come late to this party.
edwards is outspokenly anti-marriage equality. so now we’re supposed to interpret that comment to mean that he cares that DOMA prevents any agent of the state (justice of the peace of clergy) from conducting a civil marriage for people of the same sex? yeeaaahh, riiiight.
<
p>
but most importantly to your understanding of DOMA, DOMA does not forbid anyone marrying anyone. what it does is a) forbids the federal gov’t from recognizing civil SSM marriages, and b) says no state needs to recognize SSMs conducted by other states. it absolutely does not say anything about which states may or may not conduct SSMs. read up on DOMA here.
<
p>
many many many people misunderstand the dual roll of the church in marriage. it is shockingly common that people do not understand that clergy act as an agents of the state when they conduct the civil part of a marriage ceremony. the government has NO SAY in who a church decides to provide a religious marriage to. none whatsoever. but religious bigots like pat robertson loooove to cry how the government is going to FORCE them to marry faggots. well of course that’s just ridiculous. but statements like edwards made are interpreted by those types to mean just that. edwards is a trial lawyer, for god’s sake. he must understand the mixed (up) message he is sending. if he really means as you suggest, that he wants any church to be able to provide a civil marriage to any couple it wants to, he’d be in favor of SSM. he’s not.
Laurel, I am going to respectfully disagree as to the federal government, DOMA, comity, full faith and credit, and federal law.
In 28 USC 1738a and 28 USC 1738b, the federal government spelled out which state “owns” decisions of custody and child support – and in the process made clear that the version of the UCCJA [Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act] enacted by a state does NOT control, 28 USC 1738a controls. This is simmilar to the impact of 28 USC 1738b which controls child support, not the various enforcement and long arm statutes.
Further, family law is a specialty. Most attorneys know little, or nothing about family law – and for a reason. It is detailed, fact specific, and utilizes statutes that no one but family law attorneys read or follow.
So that fact that John Edwards is an attorney, and Hillary Clinton is an attorney does NOT mean I expect them to know beans about family law.
Another prime example is ASFA [the horribly misnamed Adoption and Safe Families Act] which enlarged the control by the federal government over when states terminate parental rights, and led to a vast growth industry in adoption and expedited termination of parental rights [the federal government pays thousands of dollars to a state for terminating parental rights and moving children to better classes of people for parents – but not one penny goes to a state when a child goes home to mom or dad. That tends to be an orphan issue because minors in foster care and low income parents don't have much in the way of clout and voting power.
At least with Edwards, I find he is accessible, and he listens, and has the unusual quality in a politician of admitting when he discovers he was wrong.
Most politicians seem to follow Henry Ford II's maxim of “don't complaint, and never explain” and by inference, never admit you were wrong.
But in issues like medicare, federal pensions, and so much more, DOMA eviscerates even Massachusetts same sex marriage; I consider that willingness to place revoking DOMA on the dance card is positive.
On the economic issues, and most social issues I care about, Edwards is the best of the crop. Do I agree with him about everything? Of course not. But then I have never met ANYONE I agreed with about everything. I have concluded that Edwards is the best human being running for president – and do not require that he agree with me about everything.
It is, if you will, “personal” for me. It is not only that his father was a mill worker and my mother was a mill worker, but the kind and quality of his life, to the best of my understanding and research, has led me to choose him for my candidate.
Just compare him to our former governor, Mr. Flip-Flop. [I imagine an audience of pink bunnies nodding their heads to Mitt, all named Flipsy, Flopsy and the like.]
federal DOMA. i linked to it above. then come back and tell me that it dictates to states what marriages they may perform. alternately, please explain how MA can be conducting SSMs today if your interpretation of DOMA is correct.
<
p>
if you think DOMA is so specialized that the candidates don’t necessarily understand it, how do you feel about them making policy statements about changing it? that should frighten you.
<
p>
i understand that you like edwards. i also see a lot to like in him, as i do with the others. but i cannot agree with your current take on the DOMA stuff.
http://www4.law.corn…
Cite for 28 USC 7 – this prevents benefits from being extended to same sex spouses even if a state wished to do so, as well as extension of such benefits under any federal law, such as a military pension.
http://www4.law.corn…
Cite for 28 USC 1738C
This statute denies full faith and credit to same sex marriages and civil unions. Were it abolished, then same sex marriages and civil unions would be entitled to full faith and credit.
The “DOMA Watch” site to which you linked really does not tell what I coniser to be the truth, or explain the impact on state's rights. Most attorney's practices are within a single state – they neither deal with conflict of law issues, nor with comity.
As it happens, I was lead counsel in two appeals, both of which led to published decisions and involved conflict of laws and comity. They are Care and Protection of Vivian, and Delk v. Gonzalez. In both these cases, comity was required, which protected access between a father and child which would otherwise have been denied.
It is my personal, as well as legal, opinion that in denying comity and enforcement to same sex marriages in this fashion, equal protection has been denied, even disallowed to states, and specific benefits otherwise available cannot be protected in either state or federal courts.
There is no substitute for the statute itself.
As an example, 28 USC 1738a controls what parents in our state may or may not put in their separation agreements. See:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=ma&vol=appslip%5C/96p1345&invol=1
I did not find online listings for either the Vivian case or the Delk case, and as cut and pastes, they are too long for this site.
It is the impact that I tried to give an example of, with the case law link.
I had a great uncle who lived with the mother of his children for 60 years. They did not 'marry' because in their view, the State did not belong in the marriage “business” .
In this day and age, many of those I know married to share health insurance or other benefits.
It is these 'benefits' that are affected by DOMA and rendered non – portable as well as other procrustean problems.
Personally, though, I happen to believe that all the state should grant are domestic contracts either for a term of years, or life with explicit terms to them – and the “term marriage” should be awarded by NGOs of various types. For those that “qualify” per that NGO which may be either religious or secular.
I will be honest, I am having a hard time getting my brain around your replies. Perhaps we can revisit this again at another time? I’m sure there will be ample opportunities!
because taking notes was too much for 5 events. I haven't listened to it yet, still working on the Carpenters transcript, but if there is something particular you want then let me know. I can't seem to figure out how to post pictures here anymore but perhaps you are in one of these.
http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u113/sobermomdkos/sortthem637.jpg
http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u113/sobermomdkos/sortthem635.jpg
I stayed in the foyer [remember, where the clip boards were] as with the hip replacement, I do not jostle into crowds, you know? So I am not in your pictures. You can see from your photos how hot and sweaty it was. If you remember a “noisy child” – that was out where I was. [Not my toddler though, I am far past the toddler care years]. The estimate was an attendance of 200.
…the correct term is “repeal” not “revoke.”
<
p>
DOMA should absolutely be revoked as far as the federal part of the statute is concerned.