John Edwards and John Kerry both claim the gay marriage issue should be left up to the states. However, the main argument for legalizing gay marriage is that it is supposedly a "civil rights" issue. Nevermind how offensive it is to compare a person's sexual behavior to a person's race, or the right to vote and live free with the right to marry.
If one really does accept the argument that this is a civil rights matter, then how can they say that it should be left up to the states? How can you possibly allow a person's rights to be violated in some states, but not others? Isn't that exactly the argument that Strom Thurmond used with regard to racial segregation back in the '60s? He said he didn't necessarily believe in it, but it should be left up to the states.
Strom Thurmond was so vilified by these people that Trent Lott lost his job for saying Thurmond was a good guy on the man's 100th birthday. Yet now the two top candidates for the Democratic nomination both take the exact same position Thurmond did, on something that most on their side call a civil rights issue.
Do these guys really stand for anything? Their entire campaigns seem to be to complain about George Bush, and take no positions of their own.
Richard; Nicely
ADVERTISEMENT
Rochester;
