Atrios rightly notes that many Democrats are waffling on the FMA issue, and getting a free pass:
I’m quite disappointed in the response of many of the Democrats on the issue of marriage rights and the Hate Amendment. I recognize that politics is always to some degree local, and at the end of the day of people can’t get elected there isn’t too much point in fighting courageous but self-defeating fights. On the other hand, people respond to leaders, and leaders are people who can get people to follow them despite disagreements. We need a few more leaders.
As I’ve said many times, I’m not a fan of the “I’m personally against same-sex marriage but we should leave it up to the states and I’m for this civil union thing which is just like marriage under a different name” position. I’m against it in principle and perhaps more importantly I’m against it in practice — I don’t for the most part think it’s sensible practical politics either. But, I recognize that it is the default position of the Democratic party and it’s sadly the best we’re going to do.
Which is precisely theposition of Kerry and Edwards. Atrios continues:
The Herseth campaign should sit down with Daschle’s people and come out with a position which is consistent with the principles of the Democratic party.
Waffling on the issues and slandering the opposition are key Democratic principles, Atrios.
See also, Iraq war, the War on Drugs, and today, the indecency hearings.
Kimmitt
“Waffling on the issues and slandering the opposition are key Democratic principles, Atrios.”
Or, you know, there could be a genuine difference of opinion within the Party as to how the principles of the Party are best applied. This doesn’t really happen within the Republican Party — or, rather, the dissenters are pretty quickly purged — so I can see where that might look confusing.
M. Scott Eiland
“Or, you know, there could be a genuine difference of opinion within the Party as to how the principles of the Party are best applied. This doesn’t really happen within the Republican Party — or, rather, the dissenters are pretty quickly purged — so I can see where that might look confusing.”
Which reminds me: the pro-life caucus of the Democratic Party is holding a meeting tomorrow night–in a phone booth in the middle of the Mojave Desert. Under assumed names.
M. Scott Eiland
Kerry claims to be in favor of letting states decide the issue of gay marriage, but he voted against the Defense of Marriage Act, which was written to allow just that to happen. Edwards claims to be against DOMA, but he also claims to be in favor of state by state resolution of the issue.
Sounds like they’re trying to have it both ways.
CadillaqJaq
And M. Scott… no major media player has had the stones to ask either of them “why?”
Please awaken me when that happens…
Rosy
DOMA also prevents the federal government from recognizing gay marriages in any state. I know that’s Edwards’ precise objection. I don’t know about Kerry’s.
Kerry and Edwards, unlike Herseth, have made their position on the FMA quite clear.