Don't they talk?

I agree with Amy in TN who is getting hammered for stating that this isn't top of her "I care list", mine either. That doesn't mean it isn't important, just not top of the list.

I don't care what any adult does in their love life, but I am purely for marriage being what has always been - one man and one woman. No 6 wives, no sisters, one man and one woman.

I live in the state that ignored the wishes of the people and allowed 4 unelected judges to make the rules and many of us are unhappy about it.

To those that are saying remarks like this is just about religion, right-wing nut bags, bible thumpers, haters etc etc, how do you account for the FACT that 45 states (that were allowed to vote) all voted against the changing of the definition?

If this is just the groups I mention above, the Republicans would win in a landslide in 2008.

Civil unions with all attached benefits would be championed by many of us, but it is easier to label us as haters.

Something else I could care less about? Being called selfish when I admit the issue of same sex marriage isn't even a blip on my radar. My initial comment was about how pathetic it is that Edwards wasn't even aware of his wife's opinions on this subject, it could’ve been any subject and I would’ve pointed it out in the same way and I’m sure been attacked in some way shape or form, which is fine with me. Because if attacking me, or anyone else with a difference of opinion makes you feel better about your kids going to school with mine, please - knock yourself out. Wait, why would you care if your kids went to school with mine if you are gay and I’m not? I don’t get that. Are you saying that all straights teach their kids intolerance of other lifestyles? That’s simply not the case here. Anyway, and this isn’t meant to offend anyone but if it does, you’re entitled. We do after all live in the United States of the Offended now-a-days. Personally, I'm going to worry about issues that do affect me; seriously, a gay couple getting to file joint tax returns just isn't one of them. Sorry.

(satire)

1. Being gay is not natural. And as you know we have always rejected unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning.

2. Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.

3. Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because, as you know, a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.

4. Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn’t changed at all; women are still property, blacks still can’t marry whites, and divorce is still illegal.

5. Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed. The sanctity of Britney Spears’ 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed.

6. Straight marriages are valid because they produce children. Gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn’t be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren’t full yet, and the world needs more children.

7. Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.

8. Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That’s why we have only one religion in the US.

9. Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That’s why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children.

10. Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms. Just like we haven’t adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans.

Like so many issues, there is no solution to this question that makes everyone happy. Is gay marriage okay? Personally, I don't know. Should we put it to a vote and let the majority decide? obviously, that wouldn't satisfy everyone, either.

It's not like this is a question for the ages…it's just come up in the past 10 years. Before that it wasn't even on anyone's radar because conventional wisdom held that (rightly or wrongly) homosexuals were second class citizens and belonged "in the closet."

How do we manage to get ourselves so emotional and worked up about things that never seemed to matter before? Do we just feel compelled to be the devil's advocate and to throw out every single conventional value that society has held throughout the ages?

To our detriment, bleeding hearts continue to wear down a once great nation.

The issue of government sanctioned marriage is about a whole host of issues that affect the lives of millions of gay men and women who live in this country. They are tax paying citizens like myself who have good paying jobs and give back to the communities in which we live. You can argue that a man and a woman make the idea parents (I personally would rather see a loving gay couple raise a child in a secure and safe environment than a set of straight parents in a trailer park with a batch of meth brewing in the tub), but what about the 1,138 other federal protections and benefits afforded to straight marriages? This issue is much bigger than what kind of couple makes the best parents. How about simple rights such as the right to make decisions on my partner's behalf in a medical emergency. If my partner of 14 years is in a car accident wouldn't I know his wishes better than the mother who disowned him 20 years prior? The Family medical leave Act of 1993 permits individuals to take up to 12 unpaid weeks of leave to care for a serious ill spouse, children, or parent. Why shouldn't I be able to take care of the love of my life in such an event too? What about the ability to purchase continued health coverage for my domestic partner after the loss of a job, or the right to inherit property from a partner in the absence of a will? Let's say that I do have a child that I parented either via adoption, surrogacy or some other means. Should a child who grew up in a loving home be committed to the foster care system should I die rather than be raised for my surviving partner who has been the childs parent for the child's entire life just as I have? The right to assume parenting rights and responsibilities are non existent in most states. There is no law to provide a means for a noncustodial, biological, or adoptive parent the right to visit a child or provide financial support. What I were to divorce my domestic partner (it happens in almost 1/2 of straight marriages afterall), shouldn't I be entitled to child support to help raise the child?

Check out the offical US General Accounting Office (GEO) report to see all 1,138 rights that I'm missing out own with my own partner: http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d04353r.pdf

How nice that the spouse of a candidate has an opinion, but why should voters care?

To Amy in Tennesse: That’s mighty selfish of you to disregard issues that don’t affect you. I suppose you also ignore rights for Black people or handicapped people or the elderly because you’re not Black, elderly or handicapped. Do you think a person shouldn’t care much about the education system if he/she doesn’t have children? Maybe you are even one of those people who say, “I don’t care about the environment because I won’t be here when it gets really bad.” Since you’re not gay or lesbian, why worry about their problems either? Since gays don’t live on your block or have children going to school with your children, why worry about them? You said you don’t care about those who are sitting at the back of the bus. I’m sorry to tell you, Amy, but you’re the reason we’re all sitting back here. Meanwhile, your tax money is being eaten alive just so all these other “less fortunate” people can even debate their rights.

And also, I justed wanted to tell those of you who are against same-sex couples with children: I'm going to have a gay lover and several children whether you like it or not. I don't need a wedding ring to prove my love and endless devotion to my man, and I don’t need to get married to adopt children. My kids are going to be in the same schools as your kids, just as many children of gay couples already are—USA Today estimates over 3 million children are already being raised by gay couples in the US. Maybe they won’t have a woman in the house, but at least their parents won’t be self-minded bigots like you. But listen. What happens in my family when my husband is in the hospital and I can’t visit him but the kids can? What do I tell my children when they ask why his/her parents don’t receive the same rights as their friends’ parents? I’ll tell them about Amy in Tennessee, and the 177 million other selfish Americans who only look after their own interests. (177 million = the 59% who support a gay marriage ban.)

Shawnie in Oregon brings up a good question. Why not let cousins or siblings have marital rights? If you allow them that right, it doesn’t mean the government supports incest. It means that they can see each other in the hospital when they’re sick, or inherit one another’s estate, or get healthcare benefits, or consent to after-death examinations and procedures, or take bereavement leave if the other dies. Imagine two old women living together who are sisters and have been widows for thirty years. If they spend all their time together, share property or even raised a child together, why not give them these rights?

Marriage is a stupid word. It refers to something in law as well as something in religion, so we argue about the law, and the religious-minded get in a tizzy, or vice versa. Maybe we should refer to the legal side of marriage as the “civil union” for gays and straights alike. This way, those religious people won’t have their ideals of marriage threatened—gays will never be able to get “married” at those churches. Religion and law should have absolutely nothing to do with each other. This country should not print money saying “in God we trust” or make our children pledge to “one nation under God.” Stop shoving Christian beliefs down everyone else’s throats.

In response to Amy of TN's mentioning that gays "wouldn't give a flip" about this "if the benefits of legal marriage were taken out of the equation." Ummm… that IS the equation. The WHOLE equation. That is the ONLY thing this issue is about. It's NOT about religion. It's NOT about the church. It's NOT about a word. It IS about tax benefits, inheritance rights, health care rights, insurance rights, custody rights and all the other automatic privileges that are awarded married couples. It's the fact that a man and a woman who barely know each other (drunken weekend in Vegas, anyone?) can get married and instantly attain all of these rights, while a gay or lesbian couple who have been together and committed for 10, 15, 20 or more years cannot!! People really need to understand what this issue is actually about!

How about this? Let's TAKE AWAY all the above listed rights and privileges from straight couples. Problem solved!! Now we're all equal and no one has to be upset that the WORD "marriage" is being defiled. (That's all it is, folks, just a word!)

Of course, I'm being sarcastic with that comment (just so nobody thinks I'm really advocating that as a position.) But, it gives you something to think about. Would the anti-gay marriage activists still be singing the same tune if that were their only option? The "haves" are quick to attack the "have nots" until they are faced with the possibility of being "have nots" themselves.

To Amy in Tennesse: That’s mighty selfish of you to disregard issues that don’t affect you. I suppose you also ignore rights for Black people or handicapped people or the elderly because you’re not Black, elderly or handicapped. Do you think a person shouldn’t care much about the education system if he/she doesn’t have children? Maybe you are even one of those people who say, “I don’t care about the environment because I won’t be here by the time it gets really bad.” Since you’re not gay or lesbian, why worry about their problems either? Since gays don’t live on your block or have children going to school with your children, why worry about them? You said you don’t care about those who are sitting at the back of the bus. I’m sorry to tell you, Amy, but you are the reason we’re all sitting back here. Meanwhile, your tax money is being eaten alive just so all these other “less fortunate” people can even debate their rights.
And also, I justed wanted to tell those of you who are against same-sex couples with children: I'm going to have a gay lover and several children whether you like it or not. I don't need a wedding ring to prove my love and endless devotion to my man, and I don’t need to get married to adopt children. My kids are going to be in the same schools as your kids, just as many children of gay couples already are—USA Today estimates over 3 million children are already being raised by gay couples in the US. Maybe they won’t have a woman in the house, but at least their parents won’t be self-minded bigots like you. But listen. What happens in my family when my husband is in the hospital and I can’t visit him but the kids can? What do I tell my children when they ask why his/her parents don’t receive the same rights as their friends’ parents? I’ll tell them about Amy in Tennessee, and the 177 million other selfish Americans who only look after their own interests. (177 million = the 59% who support a gay marriage ban.)

Can someone who espouses that marriage is for the sake of children explainto me why heterosexual couples who don't want children are allowed to marry? Shouldn't we ban those too?

Who was it that said: "With God, there is neither male nor female?" I believe it was Jesus.

That's enough for me to rule out the Bible literalists who insist that outdated rules of the Old Testament must apply to all people for all time.

I agree with Elizabeth Edwards. What business is it of our who marries who. I think we as Americans need to start taking care of our own lives and not make everyone in this world think as we think. Same Sex Marriage is not going to harm me so who cares!!

I cannot believe that a couple that has been married as long as the Edwards have been, do not know what each others beliefs are on the gay marriage issue.

It's fascinating that people get sucked into this ridciulous debate every election cycle.
Our current administration has:
rendered habeas corpus useless,
condoning torture while ignoring human rights,
is illegally spying on US citizens, has taken us to war to do "big oil's " bidding while they gouge us at the gas pumps and post record profits as our tax dollars by the billions are sent to Iraq to gain western control of their oil fields so we can continue to drive our SUV's and shop at Walmart. Not to mention the health care crisis and the fact that there are at least 45 million Americans uninsured and many more opting out because they cannot afford to put food on the table, keep a roof over their heads and pay for health care.
Yet good "Christians" would rather concern themselves about these wedge issues and breed contempt , hatred and discrimination not unlike those who believed the Bible condoned slavery back in "the day".
Wake up , we have much more to be concerned about in this country.

Marriage ought to be defined and interpreted by religious leaders? Are these the same religious leaders who allow childern to be molested? The same religious leaders who claim to claim to heal cancer in big tents around the country? The same religious leaders who claim that jihad against innocents is okay?

Religion as an institution has a lot to learn about what is right and what is wrong. Its seems that over the centuries religion is concerned about one main thing: power.

How does one honestly read the Bible and walk away with a hatred of homosexuals? You'd have to ignore most of the teachings of Jesus to come to this conclusion. This was supposedly the main who helped the leapers when no one else would and the one who had dinner with the tax-man, when no one else would, and opening his heart to a supposed prostitute.

There is a huge difference between faith and religion. Homosexuality appears to be a genetic occurance, whereas gender and one's physiology don't mix. Just like some men are more masculine than other men.

For all those bigots, if Jesus came back to the earth today would he likely embrace you for kicking gays to the curb…or would he walk over the gays and help them to their feet and leave you standing alone? The Christ like thing to do is not be full of hate, contempt, and ignorance.

For all those who say marriage is the cornerstone of society: Yes, a loving family is important. In the best world every child would have a loving mother and father. But a 'marriage' doesn't make a loving family. How many abused childern have a mother and a father? How many childern grow up in orphanages without a mother or a father? When almost as many marriages end up in divorce than those that work, how do striaght people have the soap box to preach the sanctimony of marriage? Those who love childern should be happy to place childern with two loving parents, a gay couple if need be, in order to give a child with no parents a loving home. Or we can keep kicking kids around foster homes and in orphanages or in abusive homes (with an abusive mother and father).

I'm striaght and married.

I don't understand why this is a religious issue, someone please explain it to me. The argument is to allow marriage from the state for same-sex couples. From what I am aware of, most churches do not recognize any marriage (gay or straight) as valid if it is not performed in a church by a minister/priest. So what are people threatened by? Churches aren't marrying same-sex couples, its just the states themselves, so religion is a moot point.

Ryan of New York, I could care less about gay marriage, it does not at this point in time affect me in any way what-so-ever. I think if the benefits of legal marriage were taken out of the equation, gays wouldn't give a flip if they could be legally 'married' or not. Again for those at the back of the bus….I don’t care …Just because this issue IS at the forefront of American's minds right now, doesn't mean I put it there. OBVIOUSLY it’s something the presidential hopefuls are fielding questions about or else this article would not have been written and we wouldn’t be splitting hairs here. I'm more worried about the candidate's stance on the war, the illegal alien issue and the threats to America's sovernity and her safety….so go bark up someone else's tree.

It is a bit alarming that this man had to read the newspaper to get his wife's opinion, especially on such a target issue. I support gay marriage and Elizabeth Edward's courage to speak differently from her husband.

If marriage is to be defined by however consenting adults want to define it, polygamy should be a right as well. It’s inconsistent to decry discrimination and turn around and discriminate some other definition of marriage as wrong. And while we’re at it, why not bisexual marriages, you know, being able to be married to one of each. Or how about if a respected, responsible adult wants to marry a cow? As long as they were completely financially responsible and raising their children well, why should it be anyone's business? The list of variations goes on. At some point your morals and scruples say, hang on, wait a minute!

There is nothing stopping the ridiculous slide of what marriage is. Marriage is the framework for families and children. Children do best with a positive role model parent from both genders. It is our social responsibility and in our children's best interest to uphold the ideal family and then get as close to it as we can, as often as we can.

Marriage is also a religious institution, and it is defined by God in the scriptures and interpreted by religious leaders. It is between a man and a woman. Period.

dmw, you clearly mis-read my post.

Of course, he will not take a hard stand on it until the election is over. It's all about votes, and no matter which side he chooses, he makes the other side mad. That equals lost votes. He even said "She actually says what she thinks" about his wife, which implies that "he actually doesn't!" Chances are, he feels the same way that his wife does.

I'm glad that Amy of Cedar Grove, TN has her priorities in check and realizes that gay marriage is "one of the most defining questions of the upcoming Presidential elections."

There's so much wrong with this country that gay marriage shouldn't even be on the radar. It's you people who care more about gay marriage, abortion, prayer in schools, etc. that voted in these idiots who are driving this country in the wrong direction.

Look at all the turmoil that's been created and guess what, abortion's still legal, there's still no prayer in school, and there's no amendment banning gay marriage. Congrats on all the good work that's been accomplished. But hey, at least the President has the same values as you on these issues, even if he's not able to do anything about it.

Who cares? Let the states decide. The right wing doesn't get it. Nobody cares. The gays are what they are. We can't change that.

Quit wasting my hard-earned tax money debating this topic and make the politicians do real work to solve the more urgent issues.

I don't care…this topic belongs in the trash can along with Paris Hilton media coverage.

“I don’t know why someone else’s marriage has anything to do with me,” but does that apply to cousins and step-siblings?
I would have no problem with that but I do hold with one man - one woman for marriage.

To Manny: So can homosexual couples stop paying taxes for you and your family to support all of the federal/state benefits that you and your straight friends receive?

I don't recall anything in the bible that ascribes to Jesus where he judges gay people or implies they are evil.

The rest of the bible is a bunch of white guys making sure they keep a superior position to everyone else.

What does this say about Edwards and his communication skills? Dude is 'suprised' to learn about his OWN WIFE'S opinion about one of the most defining questions of the upcoming Presidential elections - an election that he hopes to win? I don't know about ya'll my my Edwards confidence level just went down a few points.

Travis, by your view then (that marriage is about raising children and that should be done with a man and a women), should single-parent families not exist? Should we take children away when a father leaves or when a mother passes away? Do you have any empiracal evidence done by any scientific research that children raised by one man and one woman are better off than anyone else? I would think many children of single-parent families, homosexual couples or any other family unit would disagree with you, as they have grown up to live amazing lives like you and I.

I don't feel that as a Christian I should pay taxes to in any way shape or form benefit a homosexual couple, but with that said, I believe more in God's spoken word. One day we may come to know all the secrets of the universe, but for now we should be weary of granting imperfect men the power of imposing their religious beliefs on others. Jesus Christ did not pay attention to Roman law nor attempt to use it too his advantage, and when asked about paying taxes to Rome said "give to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's."

Has every self-centered person forgotten that marriage is the framework for raising children? And that framework is best defined as one man and one women. A child needs these two different influences. Certainly many, many other types of family settings exist. And any adult committed to raising a child needs applauded and supported. But all family types would all be strengthened by one committed man and one committed woman. It is not about the adults, it is about the children. This is "marriage". You can talk about "domestic partners" if you want but leave marriage alone.

thank you Elizabeth Edwards. Same sex marriage is not about destroying traditional marriage, it's about ending discrimination. Two people who want to spend their lives together should be afforded all the rights regardless of their sex. As for the other candidates, except Dennis Kucinich, grow up!

I disagree with you, Julius. Setting the definition of morality nor its implementation is nowhere to be found in the Constitution. Your reasoning that same-sex marriage is 'abominable' is based off of opinion. I believe that smoking is 'abominable,' but I do not believe that anyone is going to pass legislation banning smoking. My point is that we cannot make laws based off of opinion.

The fact is that the homosexual community has done nothing to harm the rest of the population, and in fact, many gay couples have adopted children and raised great families.

I believe that Elizabeth and John Edwards' debate is a great one. They are both in agreement that homosexual couples should have rights (though they disagree to which extent).

It is amazing that some people can function in our society. Where in the constitution is there either an express or implied ban against polygamy and bigamy? While I assume there are statutory bans in all 50 states, there is no federal constitutional prohibition. Laws against bigamy and polygamy make sense given the financial interdependencies that exist in marriage. Show me one good reason (other than your bigotry or personal religious beliefs) to limit marriage to one man and one woman.

Same sex marriage or legalizing union of any sort between same sex partners is immoral and abominable. Any presidential candidate who supports this is not fit to be a leader and is lying to the American People. There is a constitutional ban against polygamy and bigamy. There should be a ban against same sex marriage as well.