September 3, 2008

John Edwards: Gay Marriage Advocate?

Posted by Anika Brown at 7:18AM

• Comment Now
• Email
• Print
• Reprints
• Share

On a night when the country’s attention was on the Opening Ceremony of the Olympics, and with a barrage of evidence and rumors barreling down on him, populist hero John Edwards quietly admitted that for almost a year he had cheated on his wife Elizabeth, a woman who is possibly more respected than he is and has cancer. Oh, and there’s a baby involved.

Whenever scandals of this nature pop up and the public has to sit through another publicity shot of the apologetic statesman with his tail between his legs and dutiful wife by his side, the same reactions arise. Some see it as a strictly private issue that has nothing to do with a person’s leadership or civic duty. Others feel it one more example of how politicians -- or men in general -- are pigs.

For me, the flawed characters of men like John Edwards bring one question to mind – Why is gay marriage illegal again?

The Edwards scandal, despite its salacious details, has surprisingly been a minor blip on our cultural radar, swept away by the Jonas Brothers and Chinese gymnasts. Part of the neglect is due to the fact that the snooty main stream media was scooped by the lowly National Enquirer. Another factor is that if you remove Elizabeth Edwards’ illness from the tale, it is a story that pops up every few months: charming politician lets his ego and hormones get away from him (and it’s always a man). From Detroit Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick to Sen. Larry Craig to former NY Gov. Eliot Spitzer, we’re experiencing infidelity fatigue.

Still, there is something intriguing about watching politicians slither down that path. Like it or not, they really aren’t like the rest of us. They make a living promoting their good judgment and moral standards. So when they falter (especially when, like Edwards and Bill Clinton, they're seen as genuinely good people), my mind wanders to the so-called “sanctity of marriage” they are all so worried about protecting.

With polls showing that issues like the economy and health care will be the deciding factors for voters, the gay marriage debate has been almost nonexistent this election year. That will soon change if zealous opponents and desperate Republican strategists have their way.

Next month, religious leaders from California, Arizona, and Florida are hoping to mobilize one million members to descend upon the Golden State, which they describe as the “Armageddon of the culture war.” The plan is to rally support for Proposition 8 which would amend the California Constitution to ban same-sex nuptials.

For the GOP, tapping anti-gay sentiment in swing states could be the tipping point in what is sure to be a tight election. In 2004, President Bush was able to paint the Democrats as immoral, dangerous threats to American families and cited the impromptu weddings in San Francisco as proof. The gay baiting was a success. Bush was able to squeak out a victory despite the failing economy and the deepening Iraq war debacle.

The tactic has even more potential for success if used against Obama. The furor over his “terrorist fist bump” and the persistent myth that he is a closet Muslim show he is still seen as an outsider. McCain can’t openly play the race card, but society is more oblivious to homophobia. Given Obama’s gay-friendly policies, it would not surprise me if the Republicans imply that Illinois Senator would side with his lefty brethren in California.

It may be hard to believe, but there are people who see gay rights as a threat to their beliefs, their lifestyles. Even in this uncertain climate, things like the economy and the environment take a backseat to values.

It seems crass, but one way to ease the fears associated with civil unions is to de-value the institution of marriage and expose its flaws -- many of which were inflicted by straight, Christians like me. John Edwards’ dalliances show that membership to this “sacred” tradition is really that sacred.

As it stands, the confines of marriage are already opened to infidelity, narcissism, and unhappiness. Why not lower the bar to love – in whatever forms it may come in?