Here’s one question from the CNN/YouTube debate. Somehow, the question never really got answered.
From the debate transcript, here are the answers:
EDWARDS: I think Reverend Longcrier asks a very important question, which is whether fundamentally — whether it’s right for any of our faith beliefs to be imposed on the American people when we’re president of the United States. I do not believe that’s right.
I feel enormous personal conflict about this issue. I want to end discrimination. I want to do some of the things that I just heard Bill Richardson talking about — standing up for equal rights, substantive rights, civil unions, the thing that Chris Dodd just talked about. But I think that’s something everybody on this stage will commit themselves to as president of the United States.
But I personally have been on a journey on this issue. I feel enormous conflict about it. As I think a lot of people know, Elizabeth spoke — my wife Elizabeth spoke out a few weeks ago, and she actually supports gay marriage. I do not. But this is a very, very difficult issue for me. And I recognize and have enormous respect for people who have a different view of it.
COOPER: I should also point out that the reverend is actually in the audience tonight. Where is he? Right over here.
Reverend, do you feel he answered your question?
(APPLAUSE)
QUESTION: This question was just a catalyst that promoted some other things that wrapped around that particular question, especially when it comes to fair housing practices. Also…
COOPER: Do you think he answered the question, though?
QUESTION: Not like I would like to have heard it…
(LAUGHTER)
COOPER: What did you not hear?
QUESTION: I didn’t quite get — some people were moving around, and I didn’t quite get all of his answer. I just heard…
COOPER: All right, there’s 30 seconds more. Why is it OK to quite religious beliefs when talking about why you don’t support something? That’s essentially what’s his question.
EDWARDS: It’s not. I mean, I’ve been asked a personal question which is, I think, what Reverend Longcrier is raising, and that personal question is, do I believe and do I personally support gay marriage?
The honest answer to that is I don’t. But I think it is absolutely wrong, as president of the United States, for me to have used that faith basis as a basis for denying anybody their rights, and I will not do that when I’m president of the United States.
(APPLAUSE)
COOPER: Senator Obama, the laws banning interracial marriage in the United States were ruled unconstitutional in 1967. What is the difference between a ban on interracial marriage and a ban on gay marriage?
OBAMA: Well, I think that it is important to pick up on something that was said earlier by both Dennis and by Bill, and that is that we’ve got to make sure that everybody is equal under the law. And the civil unions that I proposed would be equivalent in terms of making sure that all the rights that are conferred by the state are equal for same-sex couples as well as for heterosexual couples.
Now, with respect to marriage, it’s my belief that it’s up to the individual denominations to make a decision as to whether they want to recognize marriage or not. But in terms of, you know, the rights of people to transfer property, to have hospital visitation, all those critical civil rights that are conferred by our government, those should be equal.
Besides the candidates, I’d love to see Rev. Reggie Longcrier’s fellow pastors answer his question.
You can view all of the debate questions here.
VIVIAN J. PAIGE | All Politics is Local 
Homosexuals ARE equal under the law — NO-ONE, heterosexual or homosexual, can marry someone of the same sex.
Without religion, how do we distinguish right from wrong?
That’s an intriguing question, Mrs. Mouse, that could be the subject of a very lengthy discussion. Are ethics and morality innate? Or do we need to be taught them? It’s a discussion that would be complicated by the fact that some people who have obviously taken their religion very seriously have operated in direct opposition to its tennants (a certain fundamentalist pastor out West who did cocaine while having sex with a male prostitutde leaps to mind), but all that proves is that people can be lawbreakers or violate their own codes of morality in spite of exposure to religion. Your question, more accurately, is whether people can be ethical in spite of not being exposed to religion. Let’s start a book club.
I will offer as a first thrust at an answer that codified laws have been found which predate most monotheistic religions, and they seem to all agree that killing people in anger or the comission of a theft is a Very Bad Thing.
I recommend Mere Christianity, by C.S.Lewis, as a start for our book club.
Is theft always wrong? If your family is starving, is it wrong to steal bread from a rich man?
Homosexuals feel monogamous only for people of their own gender. Heterosexuals feel monogamous only for people of the opposite gender. Of the two groups, heterosexuals are the only ones under law who can meet their monogamous needs through marriage, as well as reap the benefits associated with marriage.
Please explain to me how that is equal under the law?
We didn’t even hear John Edwards’ answer, we were so busy remarking over the fact that Rev. Longcrier leads a church in Hickory, N.C. (!).
“1. Anon E. Mouse – July 24, 2007
Homosexuals ARE equal under the law — NO-ONE, heterosexual or homosexual, can marry someone of the same sex.
Without religion, how do we distinguish right from wrong?”
Are you serious? That’s like saying “everyone was treated equally under the laws of slavery as long as they weren’t born black.”
right! because tons of heterosexuals want to marry someone of the same sex.
Terry, why are you bringing slavery and civil rights into a discussion about gay rights?
Civil rights and gay rights are not the same and should not be equated.
Blacks ARE equal under the law — NO-ONE, black or white, can marry someone of the another race.
Mordant–why should civil rights and gay rights not be equated?
Terry, some behavior is not accepted by society, and such behavior is made illegal. In some places, for instance, the sale of alcohol is illegal. In other places, cohabitation is illegal. In still more places, gay marriages are illegal. Society deems these laws good for society.
I guess everyone was treated equally under the laws of prohibition so long as they were not alcoholics. I guess everyone is treated equally under the law so longs as they are not a thieves.
Wow, Mordant. I didn’t realize that civil rights weren’t meant for everybody. My bad.
So tell us, do you think that it’s ok to use religious faith to justify taking from other people?
…some behavior is not accepted by society, and such behavior is made illegal…Society deems these laws good for society.
Can you say circular reasoning?
As I understand it, at one time society deemed it good for one group of people to own and forcibly extract labor from another group of people, on the basis of an arbitrary characteristic, and so it was “made illegal” for members of the second group of people to exist as equal citizens. Since that was the law, I guess everyone was treated equally as long as they weren’t someone defined as illegal.
The behavior that is not accepted within a democracy can be summarized as taking. A law prohibiting a person from stealing does not take something from that person. A law prohibiting a person from equal access to public accommodations does, as does a law denying a person the right to vote, as does a law denying a person the right to own property, as does a law prohibiting a person from entering into a legal life partnership (otherwise known as “marriage”) with the person of their choice.
The future destination of all such laws is the landfill, no matter how enthusiastically “society” defends them at one time.
Anon E. Mouse,
There’s at least two of you, right? There’s no freaking way the same person railing against “socialism” is suggesting that it might somewhere be morally okay for a poor man with starving children to steal from a rich man who lives with excess.
We can read “Mere Christianity” as our first book. For the second let’s go with “The Anti-Christ(ian)” by Friedrich Nietzsche. 😉
There was a time in this country when black man and black women were treated as chattel, to be brought or sold by white people or to simply be worked until they were used up. Not until 1964, a mere 43 years ago, did black men and black women in this country garner the basic human right to be treated like men and women. There are black men and black women alive today who can remember being treated as less than human by some people in this country.
So when homosexuals or gays try and equate their cause to the cause of human beings trying to garner the simple rights of human beings, I become offended. I find it rather insulting to my relatives who were at times treated as less than dogs.
Homosexuals and gays already have rights as men and women. Blacks did not have rights as men and women. How people can equate these two vastly different situations is beyond me.
Mordant,
I don’t really think it’s necessary for me, or anyone, to even stipulate to the travesty that was the slavery and the subhuman treatment of blacks in this country. Similarly, I agree that it would be offensive to equate the rights of slaves to the rights of homosexuals.
But we’re not dealing wih slaves anymore. We are dealing with a class of people (blacks) who are struggling, to this day, to garner true equality. Isn’t this struggle comparable to the struggle of homosexuals to also reach true equality. They were never treated as chattel, but then again, neither were any African-Americans alive today. The simple truth is that homosexuals are able to hide their homosexuality; if they were born with giant Gs branded on their foreheads, don’t you think they’d be subject to more derision and prejudice than any other group today?
When people talk about gay rights vis-a-vis civil rights, they aren’t talking about abolition. I think it’s a bit disingenuous for you to equate the civil rights movement with slavery. But that’s just me.