June 29th, 2007
05:30 PM ET
3 years ago

Elizabeth Edwards on same-sex marriage

WASHINGTON (CNN) - Former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards and his wife Elizabeth disagree over whether same-sex marriage should be legalized, but Elizabeth Edwards told CNN Friday it's not an issue the two spend much time discussing.

"We don't sit around and talk about gay marriage at home," Elizabeth Edwards told CNN's Wolf Blitzer Friday. "Honestly, I don't think many American couples do because it doesn't honestly affect our lives."

"It certainly doesn't threaten our marriage," Edwards added.

John Edwards has said he does not believe same-sex marriage should be legal, while Elizabeth Edwards has said she thinks it should.


Filed under: John Edwards
soundoff (18 Responses)
  1. Jonathan, New York, NY

    Every time this couple brings up gay marriage their tone is so uneasy! John Edwards reeks of homophobia! It's just great.

    June 29, 2007 07:06 pm at 7:06 pm |
  2. Bill W, Coatesville, PA

    Why do we care what Elizabeth Edwards thinks? She's not the candidate, her husband is. Worthless article.

    June 29, 2007 07:07 pm at 7:07 pm |
  3. Deb, Tempe, AZ

    I think any two people who want to marry should be allowed to do so. I don't think it is illegal. Don't understand why there is so much debate on this issue.

    June 29, 2007 08:34 pm at 8:34 pm |
  4. Arnie

    Of course she is for it. After all, she did marry a girlymon..

    June 29, 2007 09:09 pm at 9:09 pm |
  5. ewhitley

    My late husband and I must be weird, then, because we discussed it quite a lot.

    A brave candidate would propose civil unions for everyone and letting religious groups provide marriage. Gays would get the same rights the hets get, and it would calm the religious fervor about marriage.

    June 29, 2007 09:09 pm at 9:09 pm |
  6. Scott, NY

    John Edwards doesnt not believe that same sex marriage should be illeagal. He believes the state should decide.. thats a big difference!!

    June 29, 2007 09:48 pm at 9:48 pm |
  7. Ann Brunswick ME

    Hey, is she running for president too? Another two-fer? Hillary can't go anywhere without Bill to hold her hand.

    June 29, 2007 09:50 pm at 9:50 pm |
  8. Chris, Carlsbad, CA

    Why does a potential first lady's opinion matter? Reeks of the Bush v Clinton cookie bake-off.

    June 30, 2007 01:24 am at 1:24 am |
  9. Shawnie - Grants Pass, OR

    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 marriage and family and then get as close to it as we can, as often as we can.

    June 30, 2007 04:21 am at 4:21 am |
  10. Linda, St Augustine, Florida

    Sorry Shawnie, but your argument doesn't wash.

    My morals and scruples tell me that if an adult is told that he or she is prohibited by law to marry another adult they love because of a gender issue(or age or race) then that is discrimination because the law isn't being applied to all adults equally. I can recognize a social injustice when I see it. Do your morals and scruples prevent you from that ability? If they do, then I would suggest that you stop calling them "morals" and "scruples."

    I can't even comment on the mentality that slippery sloped into human/cow ceremonies.

    June 30, 2007 12:07 pm at 12:07 pm |
  11. P. Murphy Charlottetown PEI Canada

    Marriage has been defined for centuries as the Union of a man and woman sanctified by God, under the sacrament of Marriage for the procreation of children and a family unit.

    If two people of the same sex want to unite let them call it a union, a cohabitation, whatever, but don't call it marriage. Two people of the same sex in my opinion should not be legally permitted to call themselves Parents. A mother is a female and a Father is a Male. What warped sense of morality finds it morally right for children to be raised by parents of the same sex? Don't you have to ask yourself if our world and people are not warped enough?

    If it was God's Plan for those of the same sex to marry than he would have created both sexes with the ability to produce children.

    Our world is in the state it is today because we are allowing minorities to rule and denegrate moral values and the fiber of our societies. Just because a few don't fit into the normal mold doesn't mean we should stip morality bare to accomodate their differences and ultimately reek more havoc upon the world and our children.

    In my mind this is wrong. It was never meant to be and should never be legalized. IS there nothing sacred in our world today? Once we dissolve the normal family unit and allow children to have a mother and father of the same sex our world will cease to have any morality. We mays well all accept the theory of relativity and live as apes. I have to believe the end of the world is near. The number of God Fearing people is on a rapid decline. Where there are no morals or values for the sanctity of life, life will cease to exist.

    July 1, 2007 01:06 am at 1:06 am |
  12. juan carlos, chicago, il

    And to add to what Shawnie said, what about if someone wants to marry their own sister or their own mother or grandmother? I mean if they're both "consenting adults", right? Where does one draw the line without being "discriminatory"?

    July 1, 2007 07:48 am at 7:48 am |
  13. spirhed33, SF CA

    Warped sense of morality? You clearly live under a large enough rock not to see that there are thousands upon thousands of children who have been raised by parents of the same gender who have been given the same love and care that heterosexual couples have given. The fact is that anyone who says gays shouldn't have every right extended to everyone else is a facist. They are the last people to be consulted about warped senses of morality.

    And marriage is not only just a family framework anymore. Under the law, it provides invaluable financial security which, also by law, must be provided to everyone. Denying this is also facism.

    Don't call it marriage? Only if you want another church and state debate. The church can recognize whatever they want. But you're an idiot if you say that we can't call it marriage because the church says so.

    July 1, 2007 12:51 pm at 12:51 pm |
  14. Ann Brunswick ME

    Look! Who's running for president here??? Elizabeth or what's his name; Hillary or Bubba? Can't these women get it straight? You're making all women cringe, girls, smarten up.

    July 1, 2007 08:09 pm at 8:09 pm |
  15. Amy - TN

    Scott in NY has a point...Edwards is saying it should be left up to the STATES to decide the definition of marriage. And they have.... or at least the 45 states that were allowed to vote, all voted against changing the definition of marriage. Which IS STILL one man and one woman.

    July 2, 2007 12:06 pm at 12:06 pm |
  16. ewhitley

    Juan Carlos–I'm sorry that people accuse you of that, but I don't see that anyone wants to marry their parent. As opposed to say, millions of gay people who line up to get married.

    I have friends who married in middle-age, and they couldn't have children. Guess they aren't really married, then.

    And if you're married, and one partner is sterilized either by disease or surgery, then I guess they should be divorced.

    I don't see anyone attacking Bob and Libby Dole for not having a real marriage, which they can't because they can't reproduce.

    By contrasts many lesbians and gay men are raising children via previous marriages, being surrogates, or adopting. Interviews I've seen with children of such unions indicate they're as OK with their parents as my son is with me.

    July 7, 2007 12:45 pm at 12:45 pm |
  17. Tom, Newport, Minnesota

    There has been no scientific, historical, mathematical, or Constitutional reasons for the government to promote homosexual conduct with a license. In addition, the biological design of the human species reproductive system is completely inconsistent with homosexual conduct.

    ONLY political reasons exist to terminate current one-woman one-man marriage laws while science, studies, biology, history, math, and moral values must be discarded. What grounds would the governent have to deny groups, threesomes, four women, brothers and sisters or any combination of individuals imaginable from obtaining a marriage license?

    July 7, 2007 01:49 pm at 1:49 pm |
  18. Debs of LoveJots.com, Airdrie Alberta

    Wow – the heat is on in here. How I wish I discovered this a while back, but I must agree with Tom. He hits it right on the nail. A marriage license is the foundation of a traditional family.

    Hey, if you are gay, you're gay and you want to stay that way, continue.
    If gays want to unite as a unit, call it such. Give them a Unit License but not a marriage license. They don't procreate, rather "use" others to do so.

    I'm running out of time or I'd have gone more in depth, but thanks for the chat.

    December 19, 2007 04:46 pm at 4:46 pm |