She ’strayed’ and civil unions suck

Some people, like me, skim article titles to find subjects of interest. I love my newsreaders (two of them now) because I don’t have to read every single article. Today I see two different titles relating to the same person, neither seeming to agree with each other. I said to myself “What the fuck is this nonsense?”

MSNBC says: Elizabeth Edwards strays on gay marriage

Yahoo! News says: Mrs. Edwards comfortable with gay unions

From looking at those two titles you could say that both stories were different. MSNBC’s title would, theoretically, tell you that Mrs. Edwards doesn’t care much for gay marriage. She’s “strayed”- a good indicator of changing one’s mind or position or something. Yahoo’s title tells you that Mrs. Edwards isn’t the slightest bit put off by gay marriage. Pretty straight forward, that.

So, what’s the story?

SAN FRANCISCO – Elizabeth Edwards, wife of Democratic presidential hopeful John Edwards, kicked off San Francisco’s annual gay pride parade Sunday by splitting with her husband over support for legalized 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.”

The stories are identical in that they go on about how Mrs. Edwards’ belief differs from that of her husband. But the headline at MSNBC gives no clue of that, unless you thought that Mrs. Edwards had already come out against gay marriage. Now, if one were, say the president, and gleaned all your news from the headlines and you stumbled across MSNBC’s article you might decide that there was something to use against the potential Democratic candidate and run with that. Like a fool. On the other had, if one were a conspiracy theorist of any type you might think that MSNBC is trying to cause issues with the Edwards campaign simply by wording the title of that article the way they did.

It does seem like there’s someone trying to get the screeching howler monkeys out of their beds today. Very funny. And, I think, they wanted those of us who fully support gay marriage to get bent out of shape because of the headline. That bitch strayed! How dare she!

I actually won’t be voting for Edwards in 2008 simply because he doesn’t support gay marriage all the way. I don’t want religious ideologies determining who has the right to get married in this country. I want every citizen who is of age and who can legally consent to be able to get married. None of this half-assed garbage. If marriage is so sacred and has to be “preserved” for the good of all mankind then adults should be able to enter into it without regard to their sexual orientation (this goes back to “Why divorce should be illegal“). Or just scrap the whole damned thing. So, someone saying that they support a separate-but-equal clause is not someone who would garner my vote. Ever.

Considering that John Edwards is running for president and that he cannot bring himself to approve of equal marriage regardless of sexual orientation, his wife’s “coming out” may not be such a shock. How better to pander to those of who support equal marriage and still not shock the pants off of the separate-but-equal crowd?

She made the remark almost offhandedly in answering a question from reporters after she delivered a standard campaign stump speech during a breakfast hosted by the Alice B. Toklas Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender Democratic Club, an influential San Francisco political organization. California’s presidential primary is Feb. 5, one of the earliest contests in the nation.

We get all kinds of happy to see his wife (whom we presume has some influence over the man) come down on our side and they get to be happy because she goes on to mention what a strong, religious, Southern gent he his- and that his “morals” won’t let him support calling Jane and Kim’s union a “marriage”. Works out well for both sides. Right? What a bunch of bullshit. I don’t for one second believe the remark was “off-handed”.

John believes that couples in committed long-term relationships should enjoy the same rights, benefits and responsibilities regardless of whether they are straight couples or same-sex couples,” Edwards said earlier during her speech. “He supports civil unions.”

Then why doesn’t he actually say “gay marriage”? If people should enjoy the rights and benefits of marriage, then why not call it marriage?

When John Edwards was asked about gay marriage during a debate earlier this month, he emphasized his support for civil unions and partnership benefits but said, “I don’t think the federal government has a role in telling either states or religious institutions, churches, what marriages they can bless and can’t bless.

Oh, I get it. He wants to say he supports “civil unions” (gods I hate that phrase), but also wants the kindly folk of Ohio to keep their goddamned bigoted state constitution amendment, defining marriage as “between one man and one woman”. Because, really, what’s wrong with that? He wants states to be able to pass laws stating that domestic partnerships are not eligible for “rights, benefits and responsibilities” of marriage- such as insurance and family leave- , which they have, of course, in an effort to keep away the icky gays who find themselves blessed by “civil unions”. He sees nothing wrong with that. But, because his wife supports the word “marriage” regardless of sexual orientation, we’re supposed to jump up and down and turn all around.

Here’s an idea. Maybe it’s not original, but I don’t really care. Why don’t we insist that states stop issuing “marriage” licenses, and start handing out “civil union” contracts? Let the religious have their damned word and truly keep the church and state separate. Then everyone who was previously “married” will now be in a “civil union” and there won’t be any damned need for this nonsense of making a whole group of people second class citizens based on their sex lives.

Let me know when we get a candidate with some real balls, will ya? Someone who isn’t afraid to say, and mean, “I believe that ‘couples in committed long-term relationships should enjoy the same rights, benefits and responsibilities regardless of whether they are straight couples or same-sex couples’”.

I like geeky stuff, politics, squirrels and monkeys.

%d bloggers like this: