January 05, 2007

Edwards can't cross marriage 'bridge'

Posted by: Chris

I am of two minds about John Edwards' recent inability to explain his position on gay marriage.  At the former North Carolina senator's very first New Hampshire town hall meeting after announcing another run for the White House, he got hit with the question from a gay man from Boston:

QUESTION: Given that there's so much dissension in the country about gay marriage, what is your view, or what would you tell your gay supporters in the country what your view is on -- not gay marriage in a religious sense, but gay marriage as a civil right and as being able to get a civil license to marry your same sex partner?

EDWARDS: Single hardest social issue for me, personally — and there are lots of them — but most of the others, I don't have a lot of personal struggle with. I have a lot of personal struggle with this one. … Because the issue is, from my perspective, I think it is right and fair and just in America that men and women who want to live with their partner should be treated with dignity and respect and should have civil rights, as you refer to them. And the question becomes, 'Can you accomplish that through civil unions or partnership recognition and support of partnership benefits? Does that provide the level of dignity and respect that gay Americans are entitled to? Or do you have to cross the bridge into the issue of gay marriage?' I personally feel great conflict about that. I don't know the answer. Wish I did.

Given Edwards' slick, focus-group-tested responses to most other policy issues, the public stammering surprised me. Especially at the presidential level, candidates usually get away with rhetorical murder on gay issues because the focus changes so quickly. Using warm and fuzzy words can convey opposition to discrimination, even when the actual position isn't.

George W. Bush mastered the art in 2000, talking in terms of tolerance while opposing every basic gay rights initiative.  John McCain is already using the same playbook.

Democrats play the game pretty well also. In 2004, Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry portrayed himself as a champion for gay rights even as he not only opposed gay marriage but even backed a constitutional amendment to overturn the court decision in his home state that resulted in this country's first officially married gay couples.

Edwards, his running mate, did little better. At a Democratic primary debate in '04, Edwards said he admired Kerry's 1996 vote against the Defense of Marriage Act. On national television days later, Edwards spoke approvingly of the same law. Later, Edwards split the baby, saying he would have voted against DOMA because it deprived federal recognition from gay married couples, but he backed the provision in DOMA that lets one state ignore marriage licenses issued to gay couples in another.  Does that mean he would have voted for it, after he voted against it?

Back in 2004, Edwards refused to take a position on civil unions, saying the issue should be left to the states. At the Dec. 29 appearance in Portsmouth, he showed that in a few years, he's taken a few steps across the gay marriage bridge, even if he's not ready to cross:

It's very easy for me to say, 'Civil unions? Yes. Partnership benefits? Yes. Obviously all the other anti-discrimination stuff? Yes.' It's a jump for me to get to gay marriage, and I haven't yet gotten across that bridge. But it is something I struggle with, and that's just the truth.

Among the "anti-discrimination stuff," Edwards probably includes repealing "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," even though he largely dodged the issue last time around. When pressed by a 2003 National Gay & Lesbian Task Force survey, he said "the current policy does not serve our national interests and needs to be changed … so that it treats people fairly and protects our society."  Again, nice language, but not a clear-cut yes for DADT repeal.

Not surprisingly given these semantic catwalks, Edwards was one of two Democratic presidential candidates to skip a 2003 debate sponsored by the Human Rights Campaign that focused solely on gay issues. (Edwards still managed to ingratiate himself to the group by headlining HRC's Atlanta black-tie dinner.)

Still, there is a side of Edwards that looks quite prepared to demagogue, including on gay issues. In June 2000, when he was more worried about his North Carolina constituents, Edwards actually voted for an amendment by anti-gay Republican Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah that would have stripped "sexual orientation" from the federal hate crimes bill. Three years later, when he was running for the Democratic presidential nomination, he co-sponsored a gay-inclusive hate crimes bill. 

Later that year, Howard Dean was leading the primary pack and famously suggested that Democrats should not allow themselves to get tripped up in the South by "God, guns and gays," as they had in the past. Edwards pounced, saying in a speech, "Some in my party want to duck the values debate. They want to say to America, 'We're  not interested in your values; we want to change the subject to anything else.' That's wrong," he added. 

Edwards hinted that those Southern "values" remain the primary stumbling block for him on gay marriage. In an appearance last week on ABC's "This Week," host George Stephanopoulos asked  Edwards why gay marriage is so hard for him.

"Because I’m 53 years old, and I grew up in a small town in the rural South," replied Edwards. "I was raised in a the Southern Baptist church, and so I have a belief system that arises from that. It’s part of who I am. I can’t make it disappear. … I’m just not there yet." The same can't be said for Elizabeth Edwards, the candidate's wife, who said on the same program that she "comes from a more eclectic background," so the issue is "less problematic" for her.

I can't help but believe that there's really less light between the Edwards than he lets on. It's hard to believe Edwards really struggles with his Southern Baptist beliefs given his vocal pro-choice position on abortion. Why isn't that equally hard?

I began by saying I was of two minds about Edwards' position on gay marriage. Here's what I can't decide. I can't tell whether for him, like for so many others, gay marriage presents a conflict between what he knows is right and what is politically feasible. 

Or maybe, in the alternative, Edwards struggles so much with the issue because it cuts in so many difficult ways politically — not just between liberal primary voters and centrist general election voters, but between pro-gay early primary states (New Hampshire and Iowa) and newly emergent South Carolina. Playing the ever-important expectations game, favorite son Edwards can't afford to do anything other than spectacular in neighboring South Carolina in such an early contest, but voters there could be turned off by talk in support of gay marriage in places like New Hampshire.

Either way, all the babbling rhetoric leaves me grumbling, "Where's the beef?" — his actual policy positions. It's time gay voters and lobbying groups decide in concrete terms what we can reasonably expect from those seeking money, support and votes from gays and our allies.

Tags: gay marriage, John Edwards