Visible Vote 08 » VIDEO: John Edwards rewind

By: Sarah Warn

More on: John Edwards, Live Blogging, Video

Watch John Edwards talk about gay marriage, homeless gay youth, and why he’s really, really not uncomfortable with gay people.

On health care benefits for gay couples:

On educating children about LGBT families:

HOW TO EMBED VIDEO: See the little blue downward-facing arrow in the blue cube at the bottom of each video? Click that, and then click “Embed.” Copy the code and post the video wherever you want!

On Republican hate-mongering and Ann Coulter:

How he would react to a transgender staff-member:

On how his religious beliefs affect his views on gay marriage:

Where his “journey” on gay marriage has taken him:

On his plan to do away with Don’t Ask Don’t Tell:

Comments (43)

Posted: Aug. 9. 2007 at 11:23 PM EDT

Permalink | Email This Post

Digg This |

Add to Del.icio.us

You can leave a response or trackback from your own site.

Comments

Brianne Cook says:

12:38 on 11/28

I met John when he was in my home town of Milford, NH, asked him about the recently House passed ENDA, and his position on the Baldwin amendment. His support for both was reassuring although he only publicly addressed the sexual orientation version of the bill. In private he confirmed his support for the Baldwin amendment but I think that in any future interviews on such places as LOGO which have huge HRC banners, he should denounce the lack of support for the trans community shown by the HRC and question their effectiveness as a Human Rights organization. This would reinforce his stance on equality for all in the workplace.
Mike says:

12:46 on 09/25

ok every bit of what these candidates say is false. you cannot support rights for gays and lesbians, but do not support same sex marriage, its lying. people will do anything to get into office. why not keep it real and honest?
Dennis says:

2:12 on 08/14

Lets get real here. Obama has no interest in supporting the GLBT community. He will not even recognize his own familys Muslim heritage. And by the way he trys to portray a less than fortunate childhood when he come from big money! Richardson, Obama and the "K" guy are out of touch with our interest.
Jes says:

7:44 on 08/12

I am transgendered, and I totally believe in equal rights for everyone, yet I agree with the candidates that DON'T support gay marriage. And that is only because I think that marriage is a religious concept that is defined by the church. The governmental benefits to married couples should and are required by our consitution to also be given to gay couples as well as straight and queer or whatever, the rights are guarenteed to every citizen regardless. And I agree with them being called civil unions and separated from marriage, like I said MARRIAGE is a religious concept. Churchs, especially those that support their alternative members, should be the ones opening marriage to these gays, lesbians, transgendered, whatever. It is not up to the state/government to force 'marriage' to be inclusive, it is up to the state to see that everyone gets the benefits and rights endowned by our consitituion. Religions and places of worship and faith should be opening their doors to lgbt community, many already have and that is how to change 'the institution of marriage' through its creator...RELIGION and FAITH.
Marshall says:

7:35 on 08/11

Edwards says he will not try to impose his faith on the American people if he becomes president, yet he maintains the position of denying gays/lesbians the right to marry. Am I the only one confused by this? I'm wondering what other motivation (besides faith) is behind this? It is the DEFINITION of INEQUALITY, yet he states he is running a campaign based on equality...

I just don't get it! Everyone, gay or straight, should have the right to experience, as my wife and I were "allowed," the tradition of getting married. In all honesty, I was sickened by the responses of most of these candidates.
susan says:

4:27 on 08/11

I like Hillary and John Edwards and Obama...but I'm sorry it is hypocritical to say you want equal rights for gays and lesbians but you won't support same sex marriage..it is just wrong...and I believe done for political reasons...it's just a word...just an institution. And why should straight people have a monopoly on that word....it is the churches and religion that start all the troubles in the world! Without them we could all think for ourselves.
kathy abogada says:

12:20 on 08/11

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cYODHQNvDEc

Will the real Ann Coulter step forward?
David says:

3:43 on 08/11

I like Ann Coulter; she can make me laugh while dealing with very serious matters.

But even without that ability I'd still like her more than I like John Edwards. She's far more honest.
George says:

3:23 on 08/11

Can we just vote for Melissa Etheridge?
MARK says:

10:36 on 08/10

Doug,

I was very sad to see your comments. This event is so historic, and it was so exciting to see so many presidential candidates with the courage to attend and answer direct questions. (And by the way, did you miss the question to Edwards about how he would handle the coming out of a transgendered staff? I thought the question was very on-point.)

Moving on, I want to comment on the language used by the candidates. Did anyone notice that Hillary continually used the term "these" people when referring to the GLBT community? It was almost as bad as saying "you people." It sounded very strongly as if there is a huge divide between her and us. Further, she promised almost no support in many respects. She understands where we're coming from, and she thinks we're doing the right things. But, she doesn't think Bill could have done more, and her statements of support were weak. From previous debates, I thought I supported her as one of my two favorites. Now, far from it.

In stark contrast, Edwards used "those" people referring to people in the south who were historically against racial equality. It was obvious who stands with whom.

Senator Kucinich obviously has the message that matches up most closely with our community's views and goals. After the You-tube debates, I decided I wanted to hear more from him. I enjoyed his courageous and direct answers. I don't know, however, if he ultimately has enough support to get elected. That is very unfortunate.

I changed my mind at then very end of viewing the video clips from supporting Barack as my favorite candidate. His messages of hope are truly needed as we repair the fear and mistrust that has overtaken the country due to GW. However, NO ONE more clearly demonstrated (not even Barack with his message of hope) that in their heart they have felt and they can empathize with our struggles and us as a people than Edwards. As he spoke on homeless gay teens, transgendered persons, and his upbringing and his family's stance on racial inequality, I felt his conviction, understanding, and empathy at a person level not shown by any other candidate. Further, while he's not there on marraige over civil unions, he was honest and direct. I thought Richardson's comments on "what is achievable" sends too much of a message of "we achieve only what others allow us to achieve." Edwards simply stated that was his view.

Also, I am impressed that his wife so strongly supports gay marriage, and is open and honest about her views. Part of GW's problem is that no one has been able to sit him down and give him a reality check during his term in office. I think that Ms. Edwards, and any effective first spouse for that matter, could play a strong role in bring the president back to reality. Who better to help us see when we've made a mistake? This could be very valuable asset in Edwards.

So... for now Edwards for President, Kucivich as Vice! (Or maybe Barrack, or here's a radical idea, maybe Guliani?
Sue says:

10:20 on 08/10

As a straight, can I ask a dumb question? Why not declare marriage in the realm of religion? We would all have civil unions if we wanted our pairing recognized by the state - and by extension our employers, the courts and the law. If we wanted religious institutions to sancton our unions, we'd have a religious marriage - which would not be recognized by the state as anything other than that. Am I missing something?

By the way, I thought the format used was the most interesting and informative so far this political season. I hope it set the bar!
AMY BUTTERS says:

10:14 on 08/10

John did great - his only flaw (but give him kudos for saying he IS against marriage for GLBT) is his stance on gay marriage - all people are created equal. I think if he does all he said in these videos - I'd be PLEASED.

The final point is if you can find someone to marry you before God, who cares what the govt thinks, or John as long as he isn't pushing against GLBT rights, which is obviously isn't - because you will have been joined together as two people who love one another...

we don't ASK to be gay - we just are - surely my LORD knows my soul better than anyone and knows I made no choice to be attracted to women.
Debbie says:

2:16 on 08/10

John Edwards was the co-sponsor of the Local Law Enforcement Act, to add sexual orientation to hate crimes legislation. He was co-sponsor of Employment Non-Discrimination Act, outlawing job discrimination based on sexual orientation. He supports rights of gays and lesbians to adopt, to serve openly in the military, supported the Domestic Partnership and Obligations Act, and the Early Treatment for HIV Act. The HRC gave him 100% score for his work in the Senate.
Highlights from the HRC and Logo forum on LGBT issues says:

1:40 on 08/10

[...] Edwards (see more highlights here): [...]
Craig says:

11:52 on 08/10

I like John and he is most certainly a politician. He's charismatic and a decent statesman. I do believe he as the part of the ticket with Obama is what we will ultimately see... as to which one will be the Prez and the VP I'm not certain... I'd really like to see it with Barak on top of the bill but we need to see how the polls fall leading up the the big day of announcements.
My money however, lays on the idea of this being the ticket... too many people distrust Hillary (who comes with a huge amount of luggage) and the Charisma shared by Edward & Obama casts a strong shadow on all others.
I will make one slight augmented point though... I could see Edward or Obama as the Presidential nominee and Gravel as the VP as well... you just can't beat that dear old grandpa thing Gravel has going for him...
Doug says:

10:34 on 08/10

I was unable to watch the debate Live last night, so maybe I'm missing content that these online videos don't provide, however...

Is it just me, or was there:

A) No trans representative on the panel
B) No questions asked about Trans rights issues -WHATSOEVER.

Good job HRC... keeping the LGBT image squeaky clean for TV (once again) by not letting those Tranny's around...
Liz Rice-Sosne says:

10:19 on 08/10

I am a born again Christian and as one I will say that until all people have the same rights we are deluding ourselves and not only hurting the GLBT Community but we are sending that pain back into the world as it multiplies and reverberates. I believe that it is sinful to deny anyone the right of marriage. We are put on this earth to love. To deny another their right to experience that love has disastrous consequences for not only the two involved, the GLBT community but for the entire world. Personally I believe in monogamy, doing so how can I possibly be against marriage for others? To be against marriage for others says that I am not for monogamy. It says that I support promiscuity. I do not. A strong marriage between two people gay or straight strengthens my own marriage. What is wrong with people. I have been to gay marriage services, if I were a pastor of some sort i would officiate. I truly hope to see legal gay marriage in my lifetime!
Scott says:

8:26 on 08/10

Same-sex marriage is the only true equality on the issue of seperate but equal. John Edwards is the only true candidate who seems to understand the Democratic Party belief that the Government is a seperate entity that lives and breathes on it's own. His religious beliefs are something he lives with and he uses that to guide his life. But, he has made it clear those beliefs would not be part of his governing. I hear no one else saying this. GLBT (or LGBT) equality is not a "single deciding issue" for the Democrats as it is for Republicans; they use their God, Guns and Gays issues to devide all Americans. Democrats are trying to bring together people who feel strongly about one issue or another into a tent of people who feel strongly about ALL issues and reunite America. To me the same-sex marraige debate is a no brainer; marriage is bringing together two entities with a common bond -- Period. Whether these two entities are "blessed" by a higher power is never mentioned unless they happen to be of the same gender. John Edwards has stated that his religious beliefs will not affect his governing. He has proven, outside of his government life, his devotion to equality and his ability to bring about change.
He is my candidate.
Scott
Aireen says:

8:13 on 08/10

Kucinich and Conyers wrote the bill for universal healthcare. It's HR 676 and is endorsed by Michael Moore as well. Anyone who has seen Sicko or has had a loved one unable to receive medical care when they needed it will wholeheartedly agree that we need universal NOT FOR PROFIT healthcare in the U.S. now. Unlike Obama, Edwards, and Hilary, Kucinich has a plan that stops the insanity of a for profit healthcare system. Obama, Edwards, and Hilary - in cooperation with contributions or perhaps a lack of courage and vision - would keep the greedy insurance companies with blood on their hands in charge! It's wrong, and HR 676 is right. Check out michaelmoore.com and Sicko. Thanks
Darrell says:

4:31 on 08/10

Edwards hasn't gone as far as I hope he'll go, but I sense a sincerity in him about his commitment to equality issues that fills me with hope. And for better or worse he respects our concerns enough to face the questions head-on without equivocating.

And while his talk about "struggles" and his "journey" sound phony to some, it reminds me distinctly of my own evolution away from my casually homophobic, sheltered Southern Baptist upbringing to the point now where the fight for LGBT rights is so important to me. I can only hope being confronted with these issues more frequently now is helping him to critically reevaluate his feelings, and that Elizabeth is whispering in his ear!
James says:

4:23 on 08/10

you at least have to credit Edwards for one sentence in his segment:

"i do not support same sex marriage"

he's the only "equality civil unions" candidate that had the guts to come right out and honestly say it succinctly and directly.

Hillary Clinton was given an opportunity to avoid giving a direct statement by being given an easier question to answer : why? "its personal" is an inadequate and insulting answer.

As for Barack Obama, i was quite shocked that he tried to find charming and eloquent ways of saying that separate is equal. civil unions with all the rights of marriage is still not marriage, so its not equal. i wonder how the concept of separate being equal would have gone down if he had proposed this nonsense at Howard University.

oh, and by the way, Mr Richardson, although i do accept your apology, i will judge you on your words as well as your working record. your speech *is* a part of your work. if you have any trouble understanding this, ask any gay man how he felt when he heard the label "faggott" spoken when he was in High School.
April Vargas says:

2:31 on 08/10

Obama was superb. He answered the questions and was honest in his responses, expanding on the beliefs he has held and acted upon throughout his career of public service.

Thanks for organizing this forum!
The Ugly American says:

2:14 on 08/10

Charles, wake up and vote for someone who cares about your issues, not for someone who helps you hold onto the money you've made by staying in the closet.

DailyKos much?

His name is Charles, not Matt Drudge.
Dave says:

2:05 on 08/10

Thank goodness he has NO chance of being elected. Offers nothing in the least to the GLBT community.
The Ugly American says:

2:03 on 08/10

Why is this so biased? Why must everyone assume that just because I am a gay male, that I am a liberal democrat? You are asking me to vote for my candidate on here, yet you do not give a choice for repub. candidate.

Charles: That "Chemistry.com" banner at the top should clue you in as to how your fellow "community" members feel about your political affiliation.

Gay conservatives are the Rodney Dangerfield of politics....we get no respect.
Anthony says:

1:10 on 08/10

EDIT:
He would NOT afford GLBT people rights under his presidency.
Anthony says:

1:07 on 08/10

IMHO I don't trust that he would stand by GLBT people. I believe that his religious faith is too strong and he would afford GLBT people rights under his presidency.

Next!...
Nicole A says:

1:06 on 08/10

Is he kidding? His whole campaign is about equality but he doesn't support same sex marriage? Seems his statements and his beliefs are a little incongruous. Is he that dumb or does he think we are?
yarddog says:

12:47 on 08/10

When he said last year, "We have to be patriotic besides something other than way." Mr. Edwards got a banner on my home page ... I like him, he's like the guy next door ... and he is right on most issues; I just wish he could cross over the line with the marriage business ... it is about FULL equality.
jjsplash says:

12:46 on 08/10

uh, first of all, Logo is not a "news media outlet".

as for the "who's your candidate?" poll, i don't think it's meant to be a serious poll with high statistical accuracy that's representative of the entire lgbt community. i'm no rocket scientist, but i thought that was obvious.
Piedmont says:

12:19 on 08/10

Wow... looks good and hot in here ! Love the party/food sucking line... may I borrow that in the future???
Paul Bot says:

12:10 on 08/10

To Charles Wallace - Then don't take the survey. As a gay man, the single most important issue in this election is the assurance and protection of my rights. If those rights are not equal to those of other citizens, how can I be expected to care about the crappy health care, the idiotic war, or the failing education system that your republican politicians have foisted upon us. To make it simple, so republicans can understand, if I'm not invited to the party, why would I care if the food sucked. Charles, wake up and vote for someone who cares about your issues, not for someone who helps you hold onto the money you've made by staying in the closet.
Kriss Evanson says:

12:08 on 08/10

Jacob,
Bless your heart. You really were paying attention and with great insight. I have seen John Edwards speak many times and I don't think he was ever so relaxed and real. That say's a lot in my opinion.
Roger Lund says:

12:01 on 08/10

I am aware that they were invited. I was stating that there should be a NONE, so that I could say that none of them were my candidate. Luckily for me, I am aware that I am not one sided. I realize that I am more than just Gay. I have many other concerns, fiscal, uselessness of social reform and so on. Therefore, I choose to vote with republicians. There is no train, only democracy. Funny how you forgot that.
John says:

11:56 on 08/09

Im gay and I know nothing about lesbians or transgendered people. I dont know very many lesbians and I really do not understand much about transgendered or transexual people. I think the APA might even identify one of the two as a mental illness. I consider myself to be an intelligent person, but if gays are 1 or 2% of the population, then transgendered must be like .001%. I understand that Edwards doesnt know much about them.They deserve equal rights, enough said.
charles wallace says:

11:53 on 08/09

Wow, you really don't get it. I should be able to say that NONE of them are my candidate. I KNOW that the others were invited and did not participate. That is not the issue. The issue is that the poll is assuming that ONE of the ones that did would be my candidate. There needs to be a place for None. Thank you.
Craig says:

11:53 on 08/09

John is a nice man, but seems to miss the essence that all people are created equal.
Roger Lund says:

11:53 on 08/09

To CHARLES WALLACE:
Your precious Repubs WERE invited, and it is they who said "no." You need to go to them to whine.

God bless those who came and decided to talk to our community, Dem and Repub alike. It is time that we see who are the floks that will work with us and hear our concerns and then stand with them. I have now made my choice and it will be amoung those who appeared tonight.

To the gay Repubs: Step out of the way please, because this train is leaving without you.
ADKFan says:

11:49 on 08/09

Charles --

"This" is not biased -- it is asking who, of those who appeared in the forum, do you prefer. Alas, although invited, all the GOP candidates refused to appear. What do you think of that behavior?
clay thompson says:

11:47 on 08/09

in response to charles wallace, umm...none of the repub. candidates signed up for this debate. if u noticed the poll only included the dems who are in the debate. IF a republican had the balls to go to this debate, THEN he would be up there. duh.
charles wallace says:

11:42 on 08/09

Why is this so biased? Why must everyone assume that just because I am a gay male, that I am a liberal democrat? You are asking me to vote for my candidate on here, yet you do not give a choice for repub. candidate. Logo is a news media outlet, and I should think that you would try to be a little less biased.
Thank you.
Peter Lemos says:

11:38 on 08/09

Although I believe Edwards needs some education, I think his heart is in the right place. All the candidates were good, of course, they're Democrats! He most likely will not get my vote but if based on looks, he would definitely! :o)
Jacob Hale says:

11:35 on 08/09

Edwards is confused about sexual orientation and gender identity; he needs to learn the difference. But he brought about more issues of importance to all LGBT people than any of the other candidates; his answer to Melissa's Etheridge's question which became a unviersal health care answer was right on, and he made a point of bringing up other issues he wasn't asked about. He readily admitted past mistakes and spoke from the heart. He seemed to be able to communicate in a humanizing way about the impact of seeing throwaway kids at the LA Gay & Lesbian Center. Some might see that as his naivete, but I see it as his ability to communicate to a country needs to see our kids -- and our adults -- as fully human. Of the candidates who have any chance -- and I don't need to hear about love love love love from Kucinich and Gravel -- he struck me as the most honest, heartful, and on point, without getting stuck in endless insider politics (as Clinton did).