Clark's statement on MA court decision

[Renew Deal]

Press Room

For Immediate Release
Date: November 18, 2003

General Clark Responds to the Massachusetts Court Decision
"As a society we should be looking for ways to bring us together and as someone who supports the legal rights of all Americans regardless of sexual-orientation, I appreciate todays decision. As President, I would support giving gays and lesbians the legal rights that married couples get.

If the Massachusetts legislature decides to legalize same-sex marriages, it will be up to each state to decide whether those marriages will be valid in their state-- and that is a choice each state, not the courts, will have to make.

My hope is that disagreements over this issue can be handled with tolerance and understanding."

http://clark04.com/press/release/085/

[dobak]

1. nice reply....

None of the candidates seem to be ready to support "Gay Marriage" publicly yet. That is understandable since a large majority of Americans are still ignorant enough to oppose it.

I like the direction that liberals and Dems are taking this. Make it an issue of equal rights and civil rights. Let the people come around to the idea and then they will be more open to using the word "marriage".

[Barbara917]

12. I see marriage as a religious institution....

The problem is that we have laws that codify certain rights to married couples. I agree with the notion of equal rights for all and that legal rights should be extended to civil unions. It isn't the business of government to define what constitutes a marriage, it is up to different faiths and religions to define that for themselves.

[ieoeja]

19. They already do.

If a Roman Catholic marries a Catholic in a Catholic ceremony, the Catholic church recognizes that marriage. Otherwise, it does not.

[xultar]

2. Well Done! Once one state does it...then it's just a matter of time n/t

[Tyler Durden]

3. HERE, HERE!

Spoken in a straight forward and honest manner, in a way that no one EXCEPT THE RELIGIOUS RIGHT FRINGE could have a problem with.

NEXT? Anyone else on our side going to speak up?

[E_Zapata]

4. And therein lies the DIFFERENCE between Clark and Dean

Dean: it's a state's right issue...solely. Translation: gee, that's politically risky ground.....I just won't take a positon. Same thing with guns. Sorry deanites....your man is just a politician. We NEED a statesman!

Clark has the gonads to say HE personally supports legalized marriage between same sex couples. He would encourage the states to do the right thing. That's called having a principle and standing behind it.

I never thought I would be cheering a military industrial complex candidate. But I think the man has my vote.........

[xultar]

5. Be careful, I'm a Clarkie...but he didn't say he supported marriage

he said that he wanted them to have the same rights that married people get. Just wanted to make sure you had it crystal.

(edit)

Don't get me wrong. I'm all for gay and lesbian marriage. Like I've told my Gay friends. Why should heterosexuals have all the miserable aspects of marriage. Spread the misery!

I think if gays married there would be no Queer Eye 4 the Straight Guy cuz they'd be all beat down and demoralized. With demoralization comes lack of style. Then they'd look pitiful too.
We'd all look pitiful together straight, gay, and lesbian.

[mobuto]

14. No the General doesn't "support" marriage

-although he doesn't oppose it either- because that's a religious concept and it would be inappropriate for government to tell religions what to believe.

But what he does favor is granting same-sex partners the same rights as married couples, the equivalent of Vermont's civil unions, and that kind of aggressive nationwide policy contrasts sharply with Dean's timid federalist approach. One wonders if a President Dean in the 1960s would have supported leaving Civil Rights up to the several states, for his states' rights approach is really indistinguishable from that of Faubus or Wallace, except this time its gays not blacks.

[Barbara917]

13. Clark didn't say he supported gay/lesbian marriage....

He said:

"As President, I would support giving gays and lesbians the legal rights that married couples get."

Let me repeat. I agree with Clark. Marriage is a religious institution. Let's not allow government get into the business of defining a religious institution.

[ieoeja]

23. See my earlier post.

There are already religious bodies that do not recognize the definition of marriage as defined by government or other religious bodies. So how does THIS definition of a legal marriage upset the cart, while those other unrecognized definitions do not?

[Barbara917]

26. If you want to call it a "legal union" fine......

By calling it a "legal marriage" government is taking a religious institution and defining it. That is the mistake. Marriage is a religious institution not a secular one. I don't want government defining my religion any more than I want the Conservative Coalition to define it. Government should be in the business of providing equal rights and equal opportunities to all citizens without regard to their religion, race, or sexual preferences. That doesn't mean they get to tell me what marriage is.

[TLM]

21. Clark said almost the exact same thing as Dean...

That while he personaly supports gays and lesbians having the same rights as straights, "it will be up to each state to decide whether those marriages will be valid in their state-- and that is a choice each state, not the courts, will have to make."

You attack Dean for saying it is a state's rights issue, then ignore the fact Clark just said the same thing... that it is up to the states.

Sometimes you Clark Corps Dean bashers are so desperate to bash Dean, you trip over your own spin.

[mrgorth]

27. Bullshit.

[chimpymustgo]

6. Excellent statement.

Have the other candidates issued anything?

[ThirdWheelLegend]

15. Kucinich's statement...

http://www.kucinich.us/

""As a candidate for president who publicly supports federal legislation for gay marriage, I applaud the Massachusetts Supreme Court for upholding the civil rights of citizens in their state by ruling it is unconstitutional for the state to deny marriage to gay and lesbian couples. The historic Goodridge et al. v. Department of Public Health decision can light the way for equality for all Americans."

snip>>>>>>>

""The right to marry is a civil right that should not be denied. I support federal legislation for civil marriage between same-sex couples. Civil Unions do not provide equal rights to LGBT Americans."

snip>>>>



TWL

[DemExpat]

7. With some apprehension I opened this thread.....such a risky

topic, but, once again, I'm pleased as can be with Clark's reaction and statement.

I think I can relax now about how Clark handles controversial issues!......:D

:kick:
DemEx

[RandomUser]

11. Yeah, me too

It was a bit risky, but I think he's struck the right balance. He's not shy about stating his principles, but will leave it to the states. Framing it as a question of civil rights and equality is the right way to go about it, I think.

[Rob in B_more]

8. I think this issue wont have legs

Will and Grace, Queer Eye, and all those other shows are too mainstream now. I think for any swing voter this is not going to be decisive issue, they are more comfortable with the idea of gay people. I don't think it has the emotional impact that they were able to add to the choice issue with"dead babies."

[RandomUser]

9. Not quite legless. It's an "optional" issue

That means that the republicans will use it in states where anti-gay marriage hysteria will benefit them, and totally ignore in states that are more tolerant.

[Options Remain]

10. He doesnt go as far as he could

He could support the "separate but equal" aspect of DPA with this statement. Which is as we all should know a bad thing in the long term despite it being a short term political life preserver for the candidates.

However of all the candidates statements I have heard so far his is the one I like best.

TearForger

[DancingBear]

18. Hi Rob in B_more

Welcome to DU! :hi: :hi:

[Tom Rinaldo]

22. That's way optimistic

As far as I'm concerned people could have legal communal marriages with alternating straight straight, straight gay, and gay gay couplings, but I don't think I'm a typical voter. Elections are typically won by motivating your base to turn out in force around a hot button issue. The NRA has been masterful at this. Most elections are determined by margins within a 55% to 45% spread, with half of the voters not bothering to cast ballots, so intentionally riling some group up is a great way to swing close votes. Republicans are trained at pulling off scabs and pouring on salt.

Comfort levels about people being gay are growing rapidly, true, mostly at the live and let live level. "What they do in the privacy of their own bedroom is their own business" type stuff. Atttitudes are evolving in the correct direction, but that's usually when backlashes are most dangerous. Marriage is still a highly charged concept to many straights even if they are increasingly becoming more open and tolerent. Get away from the North East or West Coast and that tolerence begins getting more thin skinned. The Repugs will play on this for all that it is worth. Bush will take the "middle road", meaning he will not take the high road, and he will let operatives from the Cristian Right take the low road for him.

[tishaLA]

16. Well, it's the best one can reasonably expect, I guess

Although it's not what is preferable. There was a great question in the CNN debate that Clark and Kerry answered with the mandatory empathy, but it never addressed the real issue: people get FEDERAL benefits through marriage that they cannot have if it is construed as a state's rights issue--green cards for immigrant partners, federal pensions, tax benefits, etc. TO make it about the states is simply to slide right over this problem.

It's a fine pragmatic decision, but not a good one if one really believes in equality.

[theboss]

17. Good response

Let's face it; this is time bomb of an issue. Clark struck the right balance.

[davidinalameda]

20. sounds good to me

[ThirdWheelLegend]

24. DK's statement...

on the MA decision

http://www.kucinich.us

"The historic Goodridge et al. v. Department of Public Health decision can light the way for equality for all Americans."

snip>>>

"The right to marry is a civil right that should not be denied. I support federal legislation for civil marriage between same-sex couples. Civil Unions do not provide equal rights to LGBT Americans."

[msmcghee]

25. Who says marriage is a religious concept?

IMHO - Marriage is when two people get together and form a family unit.

Up to now the marriage ceremony has been handled by the church, by the state, by sea captains, by justices-of-the peace and others - in western society.

If religious folks object to the state using the word marriage to describe this union - I say tough. The state sets up and recognizes the idea of marriage and maintains the laws and regulations that govern it and that apply to all its citizens. The state can call it anything they want. It is my tax money paying for it.

I'm not so sure that allowing churches to perform the legal ceremony of marriage is such a good idea any more. Certainly, they can perform whatever religious ceremonies they want - but people should have go to the county courthouse to get their marriage legally recognized and protected by the laws of the state.

All the rest is an intrusion of religion into my civic life. Until recently I had little problem with such things - and until now most religions were gracious about honoring that division.

But since some religions (the religious right) in this country now seem to believe they have some right to place religious messages on public property and tell me how to live my life and tell us that some couples that don't conform to their God's rules are not legally qualified in their eyes to be married - and are taking my tax dollars to do so - I say to hell with allowing any religious intrusion into government matters. I'd purge all religious references from civic institutions if I had my choice - and marriage would be one of the first.

Fortunately I'm not running for public office - but since I'm not I get to say exactly what I think. And that's it.