Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Human Rights Law Blogs -> Never In Our Names

Human Rights Law

: Never In Our Names

No Gay Marriage; Edwards Redux

By Alexa

Yeah, yeah . . . I'm going there. You don't have to come with. But I dare you not to.

Q: You said your opposition to gay marriage is influenced by your Southern Baptist background. Most Americans agree it was wrong to use religion to justify slavery, segregation, and denying women the vote. So why is it still acceptable to use religion to deny gay Americans their equal rights?

A: I do not believe that's right. I feel enormous personal conflict about this issue. I want to end discrimination. But I personally have been on a journey on this issue. My wife Elizabeth supports gay marriage. I do not. But this is a very, very difficult issue for me.

Si. That opposition is a very difficult one for me. More hypocrisy, same low price.
I think I was taken to task a bit yesterday on several blogs I've never even heard of until, because I mentioned the Edwards affair on Sunday in the context of hypocrisy. In Late for The Sky, I detailed my reasons for resentment about John Edwards -- dishonesty, duplicity to voters, throwing the election to McCain. It wasn't about the sex; it was all about the narcissim of high stakes political gambling with voters used as pawns.

But let's talk about sex, baybee. Let's talk about you and me. (Salt N Pepa, circa 1988.)

It's none of my business what John Edwards does in the privacy of his marriage. But he wants to define the rules for marriage for others?

That's some fucked-up logic, amigos.

The Baptist influence? Subjective, to say the least.

In San Francisco today at the Gay Pride event, Elizabeth Edwards endorsed gay marriage:

"I don't know why someone else's marriage has anything to do with me," Mrs. Edwards said at a news conference before the parade started. "I'm completely comfortable with gay marriage."

When asked about her husband's objections to gay marriage, Elizabeth Edwards' answer was:

He has a deeply held belief against any form of discrimination, but that's up against his being raised in the 1950s in a rural southern town."

Rilly? ZOUNDS. That explains everything . . . . not.

If John Edwards had become the Democratic presidential nominee, the news of his affair in 2006 would have caused serious damage to his candidacy. If Barack Obama had selected Mr. Edwards as a running mate, Mr. Obama's candidacy would have been jeopardized. Both scenarios make the story of Mr. Edwards's affair much more than a private matter.

Mr. Edwards says he told his wife about the affair in 2006. Instead of joining him in his presidential bid, Mrs. Edwards should have dissuaded him from running.

Call it egotism, narcissism, ambition or a combination of all three, the couple misled the voting public by promoting a flawed candidate who had the potential of harming the Democrats' chances of winning the presidency in 2008.

Susan Bienen Johnson gets it.

Harper's reports John Edwards Ends Fling With Anti-Poverty.

And you know what surprised me most about all of this?  It appears that there was not much of a serious effort to build the perception that Edwards' anti-poverty initiative was the real deal:

The foundation has no website

I mean, no website?  That's the least you can do to build credibility, right?

But I'm also surprised that the media didn't take more time to follow up on stories like this one from the New York Times, which indicates that the purpose of the center was to boost Edwards' own career:

The main beneficiary of the center's fund-raising was Mr. Edwards himself, tax filings show. (WHAM News)

"Whenever I want to write him off as a total fraud, I tell myself that if Elizabeth Edwards loves and respects him, he can't be all bad." -- Eugene Robinson.

Really, what's not to like? Damn. World hates a sanctified vato, no? Marriage is well, you know, sacred and Others need not apply.

 

Full post as published by Never In Our Names on August 12, 2008 (boomark / email).