Kerry interview on NPR, might support anti-marriage amendment

[lcooksey]

I heard a short Melissa Block interview with Senator John Kerry about 5PM ET this afternoon. NPR does not have a transcript up but they do have a link to the audio at
http://www.npr.org/features/feature.php?wfId=1667397

She asked him whether he would support an amendment to the US Constitution to ban same-sex marriage. He replied that it would depend on the wording of the amendment.

That is deeply, deeply disheartening. I can understand that he personally does not approve of same-sex marriage, and I haven't minded too much his statements that he thinks civil unions are the way to go. But to even hint that a constitutional amendment might be acceptable is just disgusting.

I'm going to vote for Dean in tomorrow's Virginia primary. If Kerry wins the nomination, I'll vote for him in November. But I'll be doing it while holding my nose.

Laura

[Cuban_Liberal]

1. If he does, he loses my vote!

I will NOT support ANY candidate who would support such a bullshit amendment.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

3. What amendment?

What is the proposal you object to?

[Cuban_Liberal]

5. Please read the initial post.

THAT amendment.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

12. I read it.

" THAT amendment. " -- you mean the amendment that doesn't actually exist, except in people's imagination?


Oh, that one. What is the wording of that amendment, anyway? Could you please post it for us?

[Cuban_Liberal]

26. That he would even CONSIDER IT is a betrayal!

How DARE he? Would he support an anti-Black amendment 'depending on how it was worded'? FUCK A BUNCH OF THAT!

[Feanorcurufinwe]

29. Consider what? Your mischaracterizations are not persuasive.

It is simply false to say or imply that Kerry said he would "support an anti-gay amendment 'depending on how it was worded' "

[Cuban_Liberal]

32. I mischaracterized NOTHING!

"...She asked him whether he would support an amendment to the US Constitution to ban same-sex marriage. He replied that it would depend on the wording of the amendment...."

[Feanorcurufinwe]

34. Your quote belies your statement. And YELLING DOES NOT IMPRESS ME

[Cuban_Liberal]

39. Your OPINION of my quote means ZIP!

The quote says what it say! No reasonable reading of it could lead to any other conclusion than that Sen. Kerry is willing to make me a second-class citizen--period, end of discussion. That a Democrat would even consider such a thing is an abomination, and makes me wanna :puke:!

[Feanorcurufinwe]

56. You can say: "end of discussion", however, that doesn't end the discussion

LOL

Broadcaster: Would you support a constitutional amendment that would define marriage as a heterosexual union.

Kerry: Well it depends entirely on the language, whether it permits civil unions in partnership or not. I’m for civil unions - I’m for partnership rights. I think what ought to condition this debate is not the term marriage as much as the rights that people are afforded. Obviously under the constitution of the United States you need equal protection under the law. And I think equal protection means the rights that go with it. I think the word marriage gets in the way in the whole debate to be honest with you. Because marriage to many people is obviously sanctified by a church it’s sacramental…clearly there is a separation of church and state here.

http://www.npr.org/features/feature.php?wfId=1667397

Your characterization is false, whether you capitalize it or not.

[Rowdyboy]

91. Thank you for providing THE WHOLE QUOTE

Makes quite a difference when read in its entirety. As a gay man, I have no problem with what he said as long as my rights are equal and that is spelled out in said amendment.

Marriage is a religious matter. Let those who have a religion deal with it. I want equal rights-I don't care what they call it.

[Andy_Stephenson]

97. Oh so lets codify

discrimination. Fat chance our rights will be equal. Watch, Rove will spin this to Bush's advantage when the amendment comes up in the next 2 weeks. Kerry will have to vote for it now. I give the fuck up! If a gay man is not even incensed by this we are in real trouble.

[library_max]

103. But you know what's funny?

Kerry never said he would vote for such an amendment. He never said "If the wording was such and such, I would vote for it, I would support it." Never said it. He said he supports civil unions and equal rights for partnership. Don't you? Don't we all?

It's called finessing an issue. Kerry did it in a perfectly legitimate way, by distinguishing between marriage, which is a matter of religion, and civil unions which are a matter of law. But he didn't say he'd support any such amendment, regardless of wording. He just left open the possiblity.

See, gay marriage is a wedge issue for Democrats because some Dems support it and others oppose it, while all Republicans oppose it. A smart politician finesses a wedge issue.

[IndianaGreen]

169. This is the same way Kerry "finessed" the Iraq war vote

He was against the war so he voted for it.

He is against denying gays equality under the law, so he voted for the Amendment denying gays the same right as heteros to marry.

Screw him!

[library_max]

177. Yeah, how dare he be a politician!

I know I'm not going to vote for any politicians in the fall election. I'm gonna vote for . . . uh . . .

[CTLawGuy]

174. the fact that Kerry would support such an amendment

even if it is substantively not a big deal, it's still a slap in the face. It says, "I'm ashamed of my gay constituents, I think they are a liability to me."


"stop embarassing me in front of the swing voters" - Kerry

[library_max]

178. He didn't say he'd support it.

That's not a fact, it's a lie. There is a difference.

[CTLawGuy]

200. I forgot

what Kerry supports and what he votes for are not always the same thing.

[library_max]

203. Didn't say he'd vote for it, either.

On edit: oh, but he DID vote against DOMA, one of the few senators who voted against it from either party.

[jadesfire]

250. stop making up positions and quotes from the candidate

this man is pushing for partnership rights and for civil unions. he is pushing for equal rights. who the hell cares what it is called?

marriage is a religious institution and is SEPERATE from federal government. that has been kerry's consistent stance.

ASK Human Right's Campaign they've given him a 100% rating every year since 1995.

Stop making shit up just because you're pissed your candidate is tanking. It does nothing to further the discourse, it just fills cyberspace with lies and trash.

disagree with the candidates, but disagree with their actual stance rather than things people make up.

[IndianaGreen]

254. Don't tell me, Jesus invented marriage!

A marriage license is a civil document issued by the state, not by a church or a Pope.

I suppose atheists are not truly "married" or that being married by a judge or a ship's captain is not a marriage either.

Bullshit!

[For PaisAn]

192. You know what's not so funny

is that Kerry never says anything except that which can be spun both ways. I'm sick of finesse, give it to us straight for once. I like to know what I'm dealing with. Kerry just can't clearly commit to anything, why is that? Blah, blah, blah. He needs to stop the BS.

[library_max]

194. Yeah, how dare he be a politician!

I know I won't be voting for any politicians in the fall election. I'll write in my own name, so I won't have to put up with any of that darned old finesse.

[tishaLA]

109. Sorry. Marriage is NOT a religious matter

It is a civil one and, despite what Kerry says, the reason to fight for marriage is so people can enjoy the same rights, benefits, and responsibilities.

The Mass. Supreme Court rightly noted the near impossiblity of "separate but equal" in terms of constitutional claims. I agree with the court and not with Sen. Kerry.

However, one has to credit Kerry with this: he doesn't fall back on some "states' rights" argument like one of his competitors and he knows what DoMA says.

[Iverson]

116. righto

Atheists marry, for example.

[library_max]

126. But the distinction is a religious distinction. /nt

[tishaLA]

129. How?

When people marry without a priest now, we don't say they had a heterosexual civil union. We say they got married.

The only distinction, as far as I can ascertain, is orientation.

[library_max]

134. That's because civil unions do not, at this time, have a status in law.

But they could. That's what Kerry has said he supports. Read the quote. He wants gay civil unions to have all the legal rights of heterosexual unions, bar none. The distinction is that "marriage" is also a sacrament, and the government has no right to require churches to provide a sacrament against their will. First Amendment, remember?

[tishaLA]

140. Churches NOW have the option

of not marrying people based on their religion, views, church attendance, etc. Nothing would stop them from not marrying people in the future--and if churches didn't marry same sex couples, so be it; queers can find other houses of worship, if they choose to have religious ceremonies, than those that are willing to discriminate. So it's not a "First Amendment" issue at all.

Kerry acts as if this were a religious issue and it is not.

[library_max]

142. You've got it exactly backwards.

The legalities of the issue are resolved by the civil unions proposal. What Kerry supports would give same sex couples exactly the same legal rights as heterosexual couples. It's right there in the quote. Then the question of whether it is a marriage or not would be up to the church. And as you say, many churches would be willing to hold gay marriages. So, problem solved.

[tishaLA]

148. With all due respect,

Kerry has it exactly backwards. First, you say marriage is a sacrament. It is not--unless a couple chooses to make it a sacrament. And churches would be welcome to opt in or out of that, depending upon how the congregation feels. Nor is there any First Amendment consideration, as your post above indicates.

Bottom line: Kerry is willing to say that, depending upon the language, he might support a constitutional amendment that defines marriage as a heterosexual union. It strikes me as an untenable position.

[library_max]

152. Webster's equates marriage with matrimony

and defines matrimony as "the ceremony or sacrament of marriage."

So your saying "it is not" doesn't make it not so. Millions of people in this country consider marriage a sacrament. Politically, that makes this a "third rail" issue. Legally, civil unions can be defined to include all legal protections traditionally enjoyed under marriage. Which leaves only the religious distinction. This is what Kerry said he supports, in the interview that has got you all worked up.

Bottom line, Kerry didn't say anything definitive about what he might or might not support, except that he supports civil unions and equal legal protection. It's called finessing an issue.

[tishaLA]

162. Newsflash:

A Webster's definition is not the LEGAL definition, and matrimony is not the same thing as marriage. The law, unlike Webster's, does make it so. And what "millions of people" believe doesn't make it so, either.

It's too bad he'd be willing to entertain an amendment to define marriage, at any rate.

[library_max]

166. We're down to "entertain" now?

Well, that's an improvement. Meaning, I suppose, that he would listen to an interviewer talk about the amendment without punching her in the nose. Which I guess Kerry would have done if he was a real Democrat.

The funny thing about legal definitions is that when you change the law, the definitions also change. Kerry is proposing a change in the law that would change the legal definitions. The point about millions of people is, of course, a political point. I don't suppose mere politics matter to everybody, but some of us are actually trying to win this election.

[dansolo]

216. So if it's covered by the first amendment

Why the hell is he even talking about a constitutional amendment?

[mondo joe]

232. Churches aren't required to provide anything

But the government doesn't require churches to providethe sacrament NOW.

Churches are free to perform marriages or refuse to do so as they wish.

[Iverson]

136. uh, not really.

You will find that atheists are exactly as married as the religious.

[library_max]

141. Read #134 above, please.

As a legal matter, marriage would be replaced by civil union. They would be the same in law.

[Bonobo]

183. Yeah, the back of the bus is still ON the bus, right?

I mean as long as you get to ride, who cares if you have to sit in the back, right?

[library_max]

184. Kerry is proposing civil unions

with the complete legal rights that heterosexual married couples have. Full and complete equality. How does that translate into "back of the bus"?

[Bonobo]

190. I think it is self-evident.

Separate but equal has never been and never will be 'equal'. History has proven that over and over again.

Is that clearer? Gays would be 2nd class citizens without the right to call themselves married. Does the term 'linguistic determinism' mean anything to the people here defending the idea of signing an amendment that would render 'marriage' the sole domain of heterosexuals?

[library_max]

193. Where do you get "separate"?

A) and for the millionth time, Kerry did NOT say he supports, would vote for, or would sign any such amendment. Read the interview.

B) What Kerry does support is civil unions with full legal parity between gay and heterosexual couples. The interview does say that. This would relegate the "marriage" issue to a purely religious matter, over which government has no jurisdiction.

C) Once that was done, you and I both know that there are many churches that would be only too happy to marry same-sex couples. So then they'd be married, same as heterosexual couples. Same in law, same in "linguistic determinism," same in fact.

Which leaves nothing whatsoever to quibble over, unless, of course, one were merely trying to spin the issue to hurt a candidate not of one's own choosing . . .

[Bonobo]

197. I read it.

But don't you think an amendment that defined marriage as 'between a man and a woman' would relegate others to a separate status?

Oh, I know. Kerry didn't say he would sign such a thing. He merely said he would consider it 'based on the wording'.

Let me ask you a question and see if you will be honest enough to answer it. Here goes:

Do YOU think that any type of amendment which narrowed the defiinition of marriage so as to preclude anything BUT a man and a woman would be appropriate?

As a poster above said above, and I paraphrase:
Is it really too much to ask to have a Democatic candidate who will stand up and say that he is against ANY proposed amendment which would curtail the rights (in spirit as well as in law) of any US citizen?! C'mon now!

[library_max]

201. He didn't say he'd consider it.

I defy you to find the words anywhere in the interview where Kerry said he'd consider voting in favor of any such amendment, regardless of wording. Yes, he didn't clearly commit to voting against it, yes, I know that's not good enough for you, and yes, I know this is a very convenient issue to use against him. But could you at least do it without making up quotes.

As for your question, no I don't. I would oppose any such amendment. And I have the luxury to be able to say so unequivocally, as I am neither from Massachusetts nor running for president. Easy for us, harder for him.

[Bonobo]

211. I don't like to go to bed mad, so I'll just say:

Kerry will have my vote if he is the nominee. But this, to me, is a board where we discuss our hopes for the Democratic party. So in addition to just hoping we will beat Chimpoid, I must add that I fervently wish my fellow Democrats would put their money where their mouths are andstand up and TELL our nominee that we expect better than political business as usual.

That's it. Goodnight.

[SW FL Dem]

204. Marriage is not necessarily religious

I am definitely in favor of equal rights for any couple willing to make a commitment to live together as a family. I disagree that marriage is a religious concept. If marriage is religious, why can couples get married by judges, ship captains, justices of the peace, etc. Marriage is a legal concept. Allowing people to be married in the eyes of the law doesn't force churches to accept them. This issue doesn't just affect gays. There are many heterosexual couples who are legally married but their marriage wasn't blessed by a church. Are interfaith couples who opt for a civil ceremony "married"? Are athiests or agnostics able to "marry". Are divorced Catholics who don't get an annulment able to "marry"?
It is easy to define marriage as a religious concept for political purposes. Unfortunately, it doesn't work in real life.

[mondo joe]

231. But it's not a religious matter

Marriage is a secular matter - that's why the law is involved.

[DFLer4edu]

This quote should be added to the original Post

The original is very misleading and distorts his opinion.

[agingdem]

46. Exactly...

One blurb in a stupid interview and you guys are ready to vote what... third party? The guy is a liberal from Mass...enough said.

[corporatewhore]

80. would you be so apologetic if he said i might support an ammend

that said latinos shouldnt have equal rights you see civil rights are not a maybe issue

[Bertha Venation]

127. Current text of the proposed amendment that DOES exist--ALL PLEASE READ.

SENATE:
S.J. Res. 26 (Senate Joint Resolution)

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating to marriage.

November 25, 2003

Mr. ALLARD (for himself, Mr. BROWNBACK, Mr. SESSIONS, Mr. BUNNING, and Mr. INHOFE) introduced the following joint resolution

JOINT RESOLUTION

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating to marriage

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years after the date of its submission by the Congress:

`Article--

`Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the Constitution of any State, nor State or Federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups.'.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

HOUSE:
H. J. RES. 56

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating to marriage.

May 21, 2003

Mrs. MUSGRAVE (for herself, Mr. HALL, Mr. MCINTYRE, Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota, Mrs. JO ANN DAVIS of Virginia, and Mr. VITTER) introduced the following joint resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

JOINT RESOLUTION

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating to marriage .

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years after the date of its submission for ratification:

`Article --

`SECTION 1. Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution or the constitution of any State, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups.'.

<emphases added>

Feanorcurufinwe, you wrote, "you mean the amendment that doesn't actually exist, except in people's imagination?"

Do you now see that it does in fact exist, not in our imaginations, but in reality?

To see for yourself, visit THOMAS. I would post a link to the text, but this site runs "cgi-bin/query" searches.

NOTE: Sen. Kerry said, in answer to the question of would he support this REAL proposed amendment, that it would depend upon the wording. Given his statements in the rest of the interview, it is clear that he would not support the amendment in its current form. I will be dismayed if he supports it in any form, but keep in mind that he was one of only a handful of senators who voted against DOMA -- and why? Because it brought gay bashing to the Senate floor and he thinks that gay bashing doesn't belong ANYWHERE, let alone there. (Paraphrasing his words from the interview.)

I was as unhappy as the next queer w/ Senator Kerry's statements on our right to marry in this interview, but it will not stop me from voting for him if his name is on the ballot in November.

I am so tired, people, and I am willing to compromise -- only if that compromise comes in the form of the absence of the word "MARRIAGE," if they have to stay so fucking hung up on one god damned word -- as long as whatever they put in place is 100% exactly the same thing that straight married couples have. That means every single one of the 1,049 rights, benefits, responsibilities and entitlements that married couples get in this country.

[scottxyz]

176. Yeah, "THAT" amendment

The amendment that doesn't exist, that Bush only hinted at, and that if it were ever drawn up, would never pass - THAT amendment.

THAT amendment - that non-existent amendment about GAYS which the Republicans KNOW will be so much more exciting to talk about than:

2 needless Wars
Ongoing economic Depression
Trillions in deficits
Shredding of the Constitution
Enron

Hey! Look over there! A Constitutional AMENDMENT banning gay marriage!

You guys got to learn how Karl Rove operates.

He's a follower of Leo Strauss. Strauss has a very simple strategy for running a country:

(1) Lie.
(2) Exploit religion.
(3) Invent a common enemy.

The non-existent "anti-gay-marriage amendment" which some fools are now saying they want to use as a litmus test for their Democratic candidate DOESN'T EXIST. If it were proposed, IT WOULD'T PASS.

This is what's know as a "wedge issue." Don't waste your breath on it. Go back to the important stuff (the stuff that was turning the tide against Bush): the War. The Economy. The WMDs. AWOL. The Plame affair. Healthcare. Jobs.

You've got a dozen or so hot issues the Democrats can WIN on. If you let the Republicans turn this election into a debate on the one issue that we CAN'T win on (Where do YOU sir stand on the non-existent "anti-gay-marriage amendment?") then you're playing right into Karl Rove's hands.

Once again, repeat after me: THERE IS NO ANTI-GAY-MARRIAGE AMENDMENT. Never was, never will be.

[Bertha Venation]

179. "THERE IS NO ANTI-GAY-MARRIAGE AMENDMENT." Bullshit.

Read the post directly above yours. The text of the Senate & House Joint Resolutions is right there.

The radical right has in fact proposed this amendment on the Senate and House floors. It's in the Congressional Record. It's been referred to the judiciary committee. They're mobilizing all their bible thumpers.

Why do people insist that this thing isn't real? I don't think it will pass, but jesus, man, that doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.

Look it up! Senate Joint Resolution 26, House Joint Resolution 56.

[Cascadian]

139. He does that and he will lose the Gay and Lesbian vote.

eom

John

[scheming daemons]

208. Will Gays and Lesbians vote for Bush in that case?

Do they think THAT will be a more advantageous result?


Pickering and Estrada types on the Supreme Court... does THAT help Gays and Lesbians?


It amazes me how people are so eager to cut off their nose to spite their face.

[scheming daemons]

205. I told you.....

Kerry has put himself in the position of either pissing off his base, or in the position where Rove can beat the Gay Marriage drum until November and watch Bush win in a walk.

I'm sure Karl Rove would be delighted to read posts like the one I'm responding to ("...if Kerry does this, he lost my vote....", etc.).

This is *EXACTLY* why the repukes are working so hard to make this election about cultural issues instead of foreign policy and the economy.

Kerry is in a lose-lose position, mainly because he has been unfortunate enough to be from Massachusetts. This is the worst possible year to be a democrat from Massachusetts in a general election.

If we don't stop this train wreck RIGHT NOW and nominate Edwards or Clark, we WILL be toast.

Rove's plan is already working on you and others... he's got it so either the base is upset with Kerry (and stays home or sends less money) or middle America is upset with Kerry and the Dems lose EVERY red state and probably Michigan, New Mexico, and Pennsylvania too.

Rovian politics has forced Kerry to waffle, and it is causing people to threaten to bolt if Kerry makes the political choice to take Gay Marriage off the table for Rove.

We're pawns in Rove's game and we're behaving EXACTLY as he wants us to.

The Repukes are loving this right now.... Gay Marriage is a wedge issue... and it is wedging democrats away from the vital middle. We need to make sure that this issue is *NOT* what people are thinking about when they enter the voting booth.

Don't worry, Kerry/Edwards/Clark/Dean will nominate judges that support gay rights... but if they actually SAY SO, they're toast. And they know it.

But what the hell.... let's be "right" on principle and watch Bush nominate more Pickerings and see them sail through nomination. That will advance the cause of Gay rights....{/sarcasm}

[Feanorcurufinwe]

2. In other words, Kerry might support something, but who knows what?

I 'might' agree to have my left arm cut off, depending on the situation.

You are assuming that the wording Kerry might agree to is wording you would object to, based on no evidence whatsoever.

[killbotfactory]

9. He might vote for a friggin AMENDMENT to ban gay marriage

So long as he likes the wording.

This from a guy who voted against the DOMA.

What a bunch of shit.

[Democrats unite]

28. Thats right Kerry might support...

He has to do a poll first. Just one of the many reasons He will not get my vote!

[Mass_Liberal]

37. Look

Cuban_Liberal is being perfectly clear on this. There's nothing complicated about what he's saying. His post directly quotes the text.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

58. Look

I don't know what you are talking about.

" His post directly quotes the text. "


:wtf:

The text of what? Where? What post?

[waldenx]

4. Democrats deserve Kerry

vote for percieved "electability" while ignoring issues, don't cry when Kerry betrays us all.

[Skwmom]

42. The real irony is the whole "electability" of Kerry has been

created by the Republican propaganda machine.

[kenny blankenship]

6. Totally Unacceptable -- DEMOCRATS BEWARE !!!!

Nothing less than a rejection of anti-gay amendments is acceptable.
Just as it would be for anti-black amendments or anti-Jew amendments.

Sure as hell looks like this guy wants to trade my full rights as an American citizen away for a lease on the Whitehouse.

If he wants to keep the Democratic vote in the general election he will straighten his shit out on this subject IMMEDIATELY.

Maybe he thinks he can win with the Republican vote....

Please DON't ANYBODY ASK ME TO VOTE FOR THIS PUKE !!!!
It's indecent and insulting.

[Cuban_Liberal]

11. I agree 100%

I have EARNED my right to marry, if I so choose, and Kerry had better get his shit together on this issue FAST, unless he wants to lose every vote cast by gay men and women in November!

[oxymoron]

90. Kerry has had his "shit together" on GLBT issues for years.

And has a far more verifiable record than any of the other candidates. He also has a higher rating from The Human Rights Campaign than Edwards.

http://www.hrc.org/Content/NavigationMenu/HRC/Get_Informed/Campaigns_and_Elections/Presidential_Candidates/2004_Candidates.htm

[Andy_Stephenson]

92. OOOOPS....

Looks like the Human Rights campaign picked the wrong guy.

[tishaLA]

112. Well HRC also endorsed D'Amato over Schumer

so their rating doesn't impress me much (hi Elizabeth Birch, who supports Kerry!)

BTW, they are right vis-a-vis Kerry and Edwards. Kerry knows what DoMA says.

[kenny blankenship]

124. And then he decided to run for President

and now he's "crawfishin'" on us. Selling us out to the 3 or 4 swing voters out there who aren't happy with Bush anymore but don't like homosexuals.

His DOMA vote was _then_, when he represented a famously liberal state.
This is _now_. He's not just running in Massachusetts anymore.

If that was his position then, he should have no trouble understanding that an anti-gay rights Amendment is an invitation to a season of legalized discrimination. He should have no trouble categorically rejecting any proposed amendment that puts INEQUALITY back into the Constitution, 136 years after we took it out.

if his record is such a STRONG PREDICTOR of where he is on civil rights, LET'S HEAR HIM DENOUNCE THE MASSACHUSETTS AMENDMENT.
????

If John Kerry's such a stand up guy then he should have no trouble finding his voice to condemn the idea of Constitutional Amendments barring people from access to the courts and legislatures on the basis of their sexual preference.

This isn't a plug for Edwards or Dean or Clark. Kerry has to earn my vote regardless of what anybody else does or has done in the past.

[Name removed]

7. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ibegurpard]

8. Big surprise

eom

[corporatewhore]

10. would we be apologetic if he said this about a constitutional ammendment

that said latinos and african americans should not have equal rights

[Loki]

13. This has always been one of my big worries about Kerry

the politics of expediency and not conviction. A constitutional ban of same sex marriage, why would he even consider supporting such a blatant example of right wing bigotry and hipocracy. What next, an amendment banning divorce or co- habitation.

[creativelcro]

14. Of course, he has to see the polls closely before he decides...

What is the most convenient thing to do ? That is the dilemma for the person without conviction...

[killbotfactory]

15. How the fuck do you expect us to rally around this guy?

He votes against the Defense of Marriage Act, then says he would vote for an amendment banning gay marriage if he likes the wording.

He votes to give Bush the discretion and authority to wage war against Iraq whenever he wants, supports the war, and then complains loudly a year later about how badly Bush messed up... but golly gee, capturing Saddam proves he was right to vote the way he did...

He votes for that shitty NCLB bill, and then says the only thing wrong with it is lack of funds.

Is there anybody this guy won't stab in the back to get elected?

[Andy_Stephenson]

21. "Is there anybody this guy won't stab in the back to get elected?"

No.

[Toucano]

16. I heard that too.

I was going to wait for the transcript because I wanted to be sure I understood him right.

He should have rejected ANY monkeying with the constitution for the sake of "defining marriage" as an outrageous right wing ploy to distract from their failures.

On one level I'm annoyed and saddened by Sen. Kerry's lack of leadership on this issue, but on another level, I'm not suprised.

His campaign was pronounced dead in the fall for a reason! I like this zombie candidacy less and less.

[corporatewhore]

17. KERRY CAN KISS MY QUEER ASS

[Andy_Stephenson]

27. Mine too...

:eyes:

Gay brothers and sisters...if things keep up...start making for Canada or Europe. We can ask for political asylum. At least Europeans are more tolerant than the faux liberals here in Amerika.

[Cuban_Liberal]

44. HE CAN KISS MY QUEER ASS, TOO!

:grr:

[oxymoron]

98. Have you seen his rating from The Human Rights Campaign?

He has the MOST verifiable record of supporting the GLBT community of any of the candidates. His rating his higher than Edwards.


http://www.hrc.org/Content/NavigationMenu/HRC/Get_Informed/Campaigns_and_Elections/Presidential_Candidates/2004_Candidates.htm

[Andy_Stephenson]

100. That is exactly why this disturbs me so much.

Kerry waffling again and again is not pretty.

[oxymoron]

110. Did you look at his record?

Seems to be very consistent for MANY years.

[Andy_Stephenson]

114. Yes and consistently

bad since 9/11/01.

[oxymoron]

118. Uh...care to elaborate? nt

[Andy_Stephenson]

121. IWR

Patriot Act

Fatherland Gestapo etc etc etc.

[oxymoron]

123. LOL

and what has that to do with GLBT issues?

[ibegurpard]

131. A lot

It shows that he won't stand up for anything he thinks might hurt his ambitions.

[library_max]

137. That's like saying that two plus two equals sunflower seeds.

You have your opinion of Kerry. Fine. You think it's justified. Also fine. But it is nevertheless an opinion. People not already of your opinion are not going to be impressed by an attempt to correlate the IWR with gay marriage.

[Andy_Stephenson]

145. The Fact is he voted for the war.

Prove other wise.

It is part of his record.

Just like his statements on NPR.

At a point in time when he could havae made a uge difference what did hew do? A classic John Kerry Waffle.

He does not represent me. Leaders Lead! They do not waffle. Kerry's vote on the Patriot Act is quite telling. If he will trample on the COnstitutional rights of us all...there is no need really to regard the fags opinion. Bet ya $50 the amendment is up for a vote soon. I'll bet you another $50 He votes for it. Want to bet?

[library_max]

149. He voted against DOMA.

Oh, wait a minute, that's a fact and we're all about speculation here. Sorry, my bad.

[Andy_Stephenson]

132. If he tramples everyone's rights

he will trample mine.

[oxymoron]

135. Uh...he has fought for GLBT rights for 30 years.

http://www.hrc.org/Content/NavigationMenu/HRC/Get_Informed/Campaigns_and_Elections/Presidential_Candidates/2004_Candidates.htm

[Andy_Stephenson]

138. And trampled my Constitutional rights

with a yes vote on PATRIOT ACT.

[library_max]

143. Just like Paul Wellstone. Just like Ted Kennedy.

Just like every other single senator except Russ Feingold. It is ridiculous to hold the PATRIOT ACT vote against Kerry unless what you're really saying is that a politician by definition isn't pure enough to merit your vote.

[Andy_Stephenson]

156. I hold ANY Senator in disregard over the PATRIOT ACT

even the venerable Wellstone. It was misguided and is compounded by the fact that it is allowed to stand. Then we have the war vote, wether or not Kerry was lied to is irrelavent. There were millions around the world imploring the US not to go to war. Kerry, ignoring the counsel of the people he works for, voted yes. Where are the WMD? "Homeland Security" do you feel safe now? I hope so. Ben Franklin said "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." John Kerry's assaults upon The Constitution, his rush to war and his disregard for liberty leave me cold!

John Kerry will never get my vote. He cannot beat Bush. He is exactly like Bush only the "Kinder Gentler" version. You vote for him. Loose to Bush again. The people want change and John Kerry is not it. There was a post here on DU today. It had pictures of the Candidates homes. I think Dennis Kucinich knows were my heart is, far more than John Kerry. I wonder when the last time John was in a grocery Store doing the family shopping?

He is weak on my righs both as a Gay Man and an American Citizen. Leaders Lead...they don't make waffles.

[library_max]

158. No politician will ever get MY vote.

In the fall election, I'll be voting for . . . uh . . . is Jesus Christ running? No? Well, I'll just have to write in my own name, then. Wouldn't want to compromise my principles or anything.

[Andy_Stephenson]

168. Perhaps if we all vote our "principals"

We would have someone in the lead position who had principals.

[chimpymustgo]

18. Kerry stated CLEARLY that he supported civil unions and protections.

I heard the interview, and it was not disturbing in the least.

[Toucano]

24. Maybe you weren't listening.

He said he might support an ammendment to the Constitution to define marriage.

That is disturbing.

[CTLawGuy]

180. don't forget that how Kerry votes...

and how he believes are two different things. See IWR.

[TheStateChief]

228. Thank you...

why anyone would believe anything Kerry says really escapes me at this point...how many subjects does he have to embrace completely divergent opinions on before someone starts asking whether or not there may be a real character flaw at work.

[oxymoron]

105. I heard the interview too.

And as a gay man there was nothing offensive at all. Kerry is a strong supporter of the GLBT community and any attempt to characterize him differently is bullshit. He was very clear in his support. I would recommend to those that didn't hear the interview to read a transcript before they buy this spin.

His rating from The Human Rights Campaign:

http://www.hrc.org/Content/NavigationMenu/HRC/Get_Informed/Campaigns_and_Elections/Presidential_Candidates/2004_Candidates.htm

[Killarney]

117. THANK YOU!

:)

[Name removed]

171. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Andy_Stephenson]

19. Kerry SUCKS

That settles it. I will NEVER vote for him. If the democrats want him fine by me. But he won't ever get my vote. EVER! The man has no spine.

[mitchum]

64. Is that an insult?

Now I'm confused...

[anti-NAFTA]

20. I oppose gay marriage and wouldn't care about an amendment... BUT

if he betrays the Democratic base on this issue, then who knows what else he'll sell out on.

edit: It may be a plus in terms of electability because it will prevent Bush from politicizing this issue. I'm not really sure where I stand.

[Andy_Stephenson]

30. Who are you to care if I marry the person I have been with

for 17 years? Why do you deny me the right??? Are you a fairweather liberal?

[anti-NAFTA]

151. What's a fairweather liberal?

I don't think it's a right-left issue to begin with. I've already stated that I'm very religious. But don't worry, it's the least important issue for me. NAFTA is the most.

edit: I have no problem with DOMA, but I don't support an amendment. I support state's deciding what's best for them.

[Andy_Stephenson]

159. Well perhaps I should just go quietly

when they start taking us away. Would you be more comfortable with that? Reminiscent of NAZI Germany if you ask me.

From the Nuremberg laws

October 29 1935: Jews are not allowed to work as pharmacists.

2004 Fags are not allowed to work as pharmacists.

July 25 1938: Jews are not allowed to work as physicians.

Fags are not allowed to work as physicians.

Jews are removed from the association of art historians.

Fags are removed from the association of art historians

September 27 1938: Jews are not allowed to work as lawyers.

Fags are not allowed to work as lawyers.

May 4 1939: Jews are not allowed to rent property.

Fags are not allowed to rent property.

May 11 1939: Jews are not allowed to work in the travel agency business.

Fags are not allowed to work in the travel agency business.

The list is by no means comprehensive.

[anti-NAFTA]

248. That's a bit of an understatement

of Nazi atrocities.

Don't worry. I'm not going to vote on this issue. I only think that homosexual marriage as an issue should be put on the shelf until there's less at stake.

[AP]

22. There's a smarter way to talk about this issue. Being from Mass,

however, and being a "NE liberal" might mean that Kerry feels the need to go farther to the right than is required.

[ibegurpard]

25. Which also explains his IWR vote

eom

[AP]

36. That vote was a national vote. He knew he was running for president and

couldn't vote in a way that made it look like he didn't care about national security.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

23. This gay woman loves being used as a tool by the fearmongerers in my

party.

Thanks folks.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

31. It's as if they had never seen the right divide us before.

"Those who do not remember history are doomed to repeat it."

[tobius]

35. used

That's how he works, this quote will be used when appropriate and his support for gay civil rights at other times. Fits his MO."The politician is an acrobat. He keeps his balance by saying the opposite of what he does."
                                -- Maurice Barrès

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

55. YES FUCKING USED by the extreme right and the extreme left

who up until te SOTU could really give a SHIT about this issue.

Kerry's and Dean's opinions are nearly identical on the matter but some would have me believe that if Howard Dean is NOT elected, I will be relegated to scond class citizen by the very man who was standing AGAINST discrimination of gays in the workplace before GAYNESS was even on Dean's radar screen.

I'm not a fucking fear tool.

Not by George Bush and not be Howard Dean.

[eileen_d]

59. NSMA

:hug: I thought you might need one.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

73. Thanks

and they're all the more special when I get them from straight women :evilgrin:

[Rowdyboy]

99. How about from a admiring gay man?

:grouphug: from Michael, Champion (the spaniel) and me...

Lady, you speak with some serious passion!

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

106. Sure

Hugs are not to be declined by people and spaniels who bathe regularly :D

[Iverson]

75. I think you have a good point, at least in part.

Framing this in terms of Howard Dean is silly. They are hardly polar opposites. Rather, they are approximately equally opportunistic, as are those who use this issue as the flavor du jour.

Some of your friends and allies here are responding to the issue, and this issue of equality under the law transcends candidates and supporters, as does the egalitarian spirit which animates it. Some of us have been on the right side of this issue for a hell of a lot longer than this election cycle. I hope you realize that.

Just as Kerry's positive, longer-term legislative record is part of the full context, so is his boneheaded opportunism right now.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

81. Kerry didn't invent the politics of SCAPEGOATING

I can only think of two people in the race..one on the Republican side and one on the Democratic side using it for those purposes.

I've been around politics long enough to know which one can use it better and it ain't the one who is (allegedly) on MY SIDE.

[ibegurpard]

120. Jesus!

Is it too fucking much to ask for a Democrat to say they wouldn't support an amendment banning gay marriage? I'm not asking them to be out there endorsing or supporting it but can they AT LEAST say they're against BANNING it?!

[library_max]

130. Yes, it's too much to ask.

Kerry's from Massachusetts, where the much-reviled court decision came down. The Republicans are looking for a way to hang that decision around his neck. Any strong and unambiguous statement from him on that issue at this time would be idiotic and suicidal.

[ibegurpard]

133. yeah, well then my vote is too much to ask.

eom

[library_max]

144. Oh, he had your vote before?

Pull the other one, it's got bells on.

Support who you want. It would be nice, though, if you could support your candidate by supporting him and not by tearing the others down.

I suppose you'll be happier seeing Bush get four more years. Much better on GLBT issues, isn't he?

[cprise]

33. Kerry bends over for neocon radicals

He is willing to subject this country to another dose of Jim Crow, only at the national level this time.

And he lost my vote by even entertaining the idea of a Constitutional amendment.

[Skwmom]

38. Kerry does what he thinks will benefit him politically.

His vote on the Iraq War resolution is just one example.

[nomaco-10]

40. Typical Kerry.....

He might... but then again he might not.... but then again he'll have to think it over, it all depends... which means, I have to find out first, how will this effect ME, cause it's not about gays, it's about ME ME ME, then I have to find out how many votes would I lose or gain. Nothing from the heart, nothing genuine, nothing that might appear, god forbid he's taken a real stand on any issue ever comes out of his mouth til he's checked to see how it's going to effect his electability. It's sickening.

[Name removed]

41. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[nomaco-10]

43. Yep, they're all furiously looking for.....

old links that might, maybe, well, perhaps put everybody's mind at ease.... It will take awhile, they have to sift thru all the IWR stuff first to get to it.

[Cuban_Liberal]

47. They're already here.

They're currently trying to explain why Sen. Kerry chains and shackles are SOOOO much more preferable to the ones we have now. :puke:

[corporatewhore]

51. would they be as apologetic if he said he might support an amend that

said latinos and african americans shouldnt have equal rights?SAME FUCKING DIFFERENCE!!!!!

[seventhson]

45. Personally I think Marriage as an Institution sucks. BUT So Does Kerry

I think civil unions or "marriage" for any people who want to is fine.

Having it licensed and regulated by the State is absurd and an affront to our dignity as human beings.

But having rights and insurance for your loved ones and partners, etc. and even oaths before God or the Goddess or before the "Fates" or the town clerk (binding oneself to a financial/social relationship where your property and life is shared and respected as a unit) or whatever is beautiful.

OUTLAWING it for people is a crime against humanity IMHO.

And once again Kerry wants to have it both ways.

CHANGING THE CONSTITUTION TO OUTLAW SUCH RELATIONSHIPS? FORBIDDING THEM? "It DEPENDS" Kerry says?

Kerry is IMHO a duplicitous asshole and I look forward to joining all of you in protesting against him at the convention in Boston.

[nomaco-10]

49. More people protested this in the streets of Boston....

over the gay marriage issue today than turned out for most of the anti war protests. You can bet your ass he won't be for gay marriage.

[kenny blankenship]

66. He doesn't have to be FOR gay marriage

he just can NOT be for altering the Constitution in such a way that gay people are prohibited from petitioning the courts and the legislatures.

That is the crucial thing: the issue is not Marriage per se, but equal access to the courts and legislature. In other words that ALL ARE CREATED EQUAL. And remain equal in the eyes of the law. All these amendments violate that principle. It doesn't matter what the specific wording is.

Kerry's ABJECT WEASELING on this subject is almost more than i can stand to talk about. But if he repudiates any Anti-Gay amendments he's dallied with so far, like Massachusetts' version, and CATEGORICALLY REJECTS the idea of any discriminatory changes to the Constitution of the United States, then I could put my revulsion for him aside and vote for him --should he be the nominee in November. Of course for the sake of Democratic victory, I hope someone else is.

But I really hope everyone understands that the time to stop this whole nasty Nazi bandwagon to " get the queers" is RIGHT NOW. And that the longer we wait to make John Kerry take a stand for us, the worse our chances are of getting any loyalty or semblance of Democratic principle out of him.

He doesn't have to be for gay marriage. He just has to be AGAINST codifying discrimination into the Constitution.
It's not too much to ask.

Make John Kerry PROMISE !

[Cuban_Liberal]

48. Repost of Sean Reynold's locked inital post:

http://www.npr.org/features/feature.php?wfId=1667397

Broadcaster: Would you support a constitutional amendment that would define marriage as a heterosexual union.

Kerry: Well it depends entirely on the language, whether it permits civil unions in partnership or not. I’m for civil unions - I’m for partnership rights. I think what ought to condition this debate is not the term marriage as much as the rights that people are afforded. Obviously under the constitution of the United States you need equal protection under the law. And I think equal protection means the rights that go with it. I think the word marriage gets in the way in the whole debate to be honest with you. Because marriage to many people is obviously sanctified by a church it’s sacramental…clearly there is a separation of church and state here.
---

Clearly what I get from this is that Kerry would support a constitutional amendment that defines marriage as between a man and a woman - IF gays are included in civil unions. Which IMO is exactly like the separate but equal laws of the 1950s. I might add, Kerry should have said NO right off the bat.

[knight_of_the_star]

53. What a sleaze

He doesn't deserve the nomination if he's going to pull bs like that. How can we even be sure he will stand firm on ANYTHING if this is his response to this issue?

[adamrsilva]

79. GOD

That's a horrible position. I think saying that you think an amendment is too much and you support civil unions is moderate. Supporting this amendment is just plain conservative.

[killbotfactory]

102. And he voted against the Defense of Marriage Act!

BushCo will paint him as the opportunistic waffler he is.

[library_max]

125. Good thing he didn't say he supports it, then.

Read the quote again. Kerry never said he supports or would support such an amendment, regardless of wording. He just didn't promise to oppose it. He stepped around the political trap. Would you rather he had stepped right into it and pissed away a significant percentage of swing voters with a single statement?

[ibegurpard]

50. I'm gay and "marriage" isn't a big issue for me.

If civil unions entail the same rights as marriage then I couldn't care less. HOWEVER, saying you would support a constitutional amendment BANNING gay marriage is taking it too far. These kinds of statements from Kerry are why I can't support him. He has no convictions that aren't poll-tested.

[mitchum]

52. Howard Dean might call you a bunch of silly, hysterical twittering...

since we're playing the "might" game and all

[nomaco-10]

54. I doubt it, but atleast he wouldn't ...

tell you to quit crying in your teacups.

[corporatewhore]

74. I wouldnt have liked it if he said i might accept an ammend that said

latinos gays or african americans shouldnt have equal rights

[quinnox]

57. Another good reason to vote for Kerry!!

John Kerry 2004 "America's choice"

[Andy_Stephenson]

61. Straight America

you mean.

[library_max]

154. Well, suppose all straight America votes for Bush

and all gay America votes for the Democratic nominee. Who wins that election?

[Andy_Stephenson]

163. Bush...

Remember BBV?

"I am committed to delivering Ohio's Electoral votes to george Bush"
Aug 2003 Walden O'dell CEO Diebold Corp

[scottxyz]

60. I'm gay, and I hope Kerry's just trying to "finesse" the issue

Gay marriage is the flag-burning issue of 2004 - just a distraction from bigger things, like the Wars and Depression Bush got us into. And no way is there ever gonna be an amendment banning gay marriage. Bush knows this, so by hinting he supports an amendment against gay marriage, he plays to his base knowing he'll never have to deliver on this "promise."

While I'm gay and I think gay marriage (or civil unions) would be nice to have, I'm not so stupid as to make it a rallying cry or litmus test for 2004 - I'm realistic enough to know there are a lot bigger problems the country is facing than my inability to get legally hitched. I wouldn't want ideological purity on the gay marriage issue to derail the Anybody-But-Bush campaign, which is steadily gaining momentum.

So I hope Kerry's just trying to neutralize this issue by being no-so-different-from-Bush on it. I know it's not the idealistic thing to do - but this is politics and this is about forming a coalition and getting rid of Bush. Believe me, the right wing is VERY up in arms about gay marriage and it's really helping to energize their base. The last thing we need is to play into this distraction.

Because Gay Marriage is a BIG rallying cry for the right in 2004 - now that reproductive rights and civil rights are no longer big "direct-mailers" for the right.

See an earlier DU thread on this (including a NYTimes article about how the right is using gay marriage as its new rallying cry and fund-raising tactic):

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=1095819#1095930

[Feanorcurufinwe]

63. Judge Kerry by his record.

Not how he answers questions on the latest RW wedge issue.

[Andy_Stephenson]

67. ok

War Patriot Act and homeland gestapo.

What an outstanding record...

Oh and lest we forget. Kerry has missed more votes than any other senator in history.

What an outstanding record.

[Democrats unite]

68. What you consider a wedge issue

Is rights to other people, until you can understand that, you will never understand.

[Andy_Stephenson]

71. Amen!

I am tired of being the whiping post for the right and the left.

[library_max]

115. What rights exactly?

Every right you want could be guaranteed through civil unions. The only distinction is a religious one, and the government has no right to dictate religion (First Amendment, remember?). Kerry said he supports civil unions and full equality of rights with heterosexual couples. So what rights do you want that he isn't supporting?

[corporatewhore]

82. Civil rights are not a maybe wedge issue they are a stand your ground and

do what is right kind of issue

[library_max]

150. Or, in this case, a stand your ground and get killed issue. /nt

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

83. If that were so then you would vote for him on this issue

His record is 100% from Human Rights Campaign.

[kenny blankenship]

146. Marriage just iceing on this cake -- the inside is all about CITIZENSHIP

Once an amendment banning gays from petitioning courts and legislatures for the status of marriage or civil unions is ratified, it will form the constitutional grounding for a host of NEW anti-gay state laws, local ordinances and unfair private sector practices in the areas of hiring/firing, employee benefits and compensation, public accomodations, and rental property, etc, etc. . Cities may try to enact pro-gay domestic partnerships and the like but will find that state legislators will bring suit in State Supreme Court to overrule these ordinances using the precedent of the Anti-gay Amendment. We'll win some and lose some, but the WHOLE THING will be a LOSS for us. That's just scratching the surface. Once this thing is in the Constitution, it's going to be like a sore that never heals.
(that's why coquettish games of footsie like the one Kerry is playing are unacceptable.)

The truth is once you create an ambiguity about what rights people have, only a torturous series of court cases can ascertain what rights remain to them. People will base any number of demeaning policies on the reduced legal status of homosexuals and it will be up to us to fight uphill against the precedent created by the anti-gay amendment.

This is not just about marriage, it is about codifying discrimination against homosexuals into the US Constitution. Once it's there it will be open season on your rights --Forever-- basically until the Amendment is repealed. The 14th Amendment was supposed to make African Americans (indeed, everyone) equal in the eyes of the law. It took generations for the spirit of that change to finally overcome the prevailing practice of _legal_ discrimination. We do not want to get into that kind of constant fight for our legal lives.

That is why this queer bashing bandwagon of amendments has to be stopped NOW.

[Iverson]

62. Here it comes. 3 ... 2 ... 1 ...

- He had to! You just don't understand the pressure he's under!
- Most of the country thinks so, and you can't get 100% of what you want all of the time, ya damn Green!
- He's not actually saying he'd ban it. He's just trying to do it procedurally correctly.
- He's not Bush, so it must be the right policy!
- He's just running to the center. In his heart, he means the exact opposite.
- Jeez, if the GLBT community expects equal rights, then pretty soon we'll expect our candidates to vote against making war on civilians in countries that haven't attacked us! LOL, LMAO, and ROTFLMAOWCUB.

Make up your own. You will hear it.

[eileen_d]

65. Thanks for putting words in everyone's mouth

Edited for being a bit too "YEAAARGH"

[Democrats unite]

72. So much for supporting gay rights.

[eileen_d]

78. As I said previously, I support gay rights.

Whether you choose to believe it or not is your affair. There is no way I can prove it by posting on DU. And I do not understand how you drew the above conclusion from the post you are replying to.

I've had my intelligence "virtually" insulted quite enough for the rest of this week, so farewell DU. See ya next Monday.

[oxymoron]

84. You might consider looking at his record...

and his rating from the Human Rights Campaign.

http://www.hrc.org/Content/NavigationMenu/HRC/Get_Informed/Campaigns_a...

[Iverson]

87. Well, you know,

I get exasperated just like everyone else.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

70. OK master of reasonable discourse.

The candidate's statement in the matter was that the word "marriage" invokes religious sentiment which IS the state impinging on the church's right but that he supports civil unions which would, if barred under this law invlove the church impinging on the state's rights.

How does this vary from Dean's position that the Mass Court took a "different approach" to the same (civil unions) thing?

How does this compare with Ralph Nader who ditched THIS and the ABORTION question in '00 by calling it all "gonadal politics?"

[Iverson]

85. Well, you can see my response to you above

... or you can buy a copy of our home game for only $19.99.

As for that stupid remark of Nader's in '00, it was stupid. For alert participants, his support of abortion rights, at least, was later made unequivocal, even while NARAL was buying up expensive television time to smear him. Also, I am thinking that you would strongly agree with the Greens on gay rights.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

93. I do and thanks and I posted this before the above response

As far as I am concerned this issue was created by Republican fundamentalists to SCAPEGOAT. I resent ALL the parties using me in that scenario...

The whole point of scapegoating was learned by the Jews in Germany in the 30's. It is a losing game for the less popular side.

Why I CAN be OK with Kerry's statement is that instead of RATCHETING UP the issue, he is attempting to diffuse it. Diffusing it makes much more sense in a polarized electorate where ONE MORE Bush victory could kill off my rights whether I am a straight or a gay woman.

[Iverson]

104. mm hm

You can be assured that I know how the rhetoric works.
Similarly, not all efforts to defuse a problem are equally worthy. This is a trap for Kerry, and he is supposed to have the smarts to deal with it.

I understand well that what I see as mealymouthed and pandering centrism may "play in Peoria," but I don't have to applaud it. Trying to be all things to all people is a larger problem that is deep at the root of the successful shifting of the political landscape by right-wing extremism. Granted, I did not hear the interview, but so far that's my impression of a coy answer that sort of implies this and that.

edited typo

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

119. I don't applaud it but I don't see a polarizing issue disappearing by

further polarizing it.

The way people frame the civil rights issues on this board absent all history is rather humorous...you would think the minute the voting rights act passed, all mixed marriages were miraculously accepted simultaneously in the communities where they existed.

You are correct. The question was a trap. Kerry refused to be trapped. I distinguish between what is politically smart and what stand you and I might take over a dinner table.

BTW....the last constitutional amendment was passed when?

One thing I now for sure...one WON't PASS if there is at least a TWO party system in place after the next election.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

242. Yes. Excellent point. That is exactly the intent of Kerry's position. eom

[Terwilliger]

95. no she wouldn't...they're not Democrats

they can afford to stand up for principles

Nader didn't say that in 00, but I agree...poltical discourse shouldn't be about sex, sexism, or women's issues....the fact that it is says more about the two-party stranglehold on discourse than it does about Nader's political prowess.

[Terwilliger]

89. oooo...so I'm to look to Nader for what Kerry should and shouldnt do?

That seems in opposition to the usual Nader fearmongering I see.

[Iverson]

96. Let it be, Ter.

:donut:

[oxymoron]

69. I am gay

and I heard the entire interview at work. Kerry said that he would support a constitutional ban on gay "marriage" as long as it INCLUDED guarantees of civil unions and sequel rights for gays. This sounds like a brilliant way to take the issue away from the Repugs, and still accomplish our goals.

Kerry has been a strong supporter of the gay community for years and has a stellar rating from the Human Rights Campaign.

http://www.hrc.org/Content/NavigationMenu/HRC/Get_Informed/Campaigns_and_Elections/Presidential_Candidates/2004_Candidates.htm

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

76. yes but his record doesn't count. If we rely on his record there's nothing

to FEAR FEAR FEAR and we MUST MAKE PEOPLE FEAR so that DEAN won't lose!!!!

[library_max]

161. Hey!

Just 'cause you're fighting monsters doesn't mean you have to turn into one. I'm pretty sure Howard Dean isn't on this board trashing Kerry, and I doubt that most of his supporters, even most of his DU supporters, are here either. So let's keep it fair and positive. Please don't blame this shitty thread on Howard Dean.

[Bonobo]

186. Back of the bus? Okay? As long as I get to ride...

[revcarol]

77. Any GLBT's in TN and VA?

Take action!! Get on the phone and net TONIGHT and tell them that DK and AS are the only ones FOR gay marriage.

If this is your make or break issue, you can't sit around on your hands without taking action...can you?

[disenfranchised]

86. I don't get this

If "marriage" is a church issue, then why can the Federal Government say who may and may not marry? If it's a church issue, shouldn't the church decide?

[Andy_Stephenson]

88. You'd think so...but apparently

George and John think the Constitution needs to define marriage so there are no misunderstandings.

[disenfranchised]

108. I hope you don't have to change your screen name

to God_n_Kerry

[Andy_Stephenson]

111. I have recently been thinking of changing my name

but believe me...Kerry will never be in the new one

[janx]

245. That's what is so horrible. You worded it perfectly.

Once we let this kind of thing get into the Constitution, it's over for all of us.

[IndianaGreen]

175. Marriage licenses are issued by the State not the Church

therefore if you are going to issue marriage licenses to hetero couples, you must also issue them to gay couples.

[library_max]

94. Can you give us a quote (in context) or anything

to support your assertion that Kerry said he might be willing to vote for such an amendment? Because I read the most damning quote they could find on another thread on this very topic (locked, by the way, for making unfounded and inflammatory accusations against a primary candidate), and all he said was that the wording of the amendment would be important. He didn't say he'd vote for it under any circumstances. He just didn't promise to vote against it.

Gay marriage is a wedge issue, a political trap set by the Republicans because all of their supporters feel the same way about it while ours are divided. Taking a hard-line stand on a wedge issue is just plain stupid.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

101. Here you go

Broadcaster: Would you support a constitutional amendment that would define marriage as a heterosexual union.

Kerry: Well it depends entirely on the language, whether it permits civil unions in partnership or not. I’m for civil unions - I’m for partnership rights. I think what ought to condition this debate is not the term marriage as much as the rights that people are afforded. Obviously under the constitution of the United States you need equal protection under the law. And I think equal protection means the rights that go with it. I think the word marriage gets in the way in the whole debate to be honest with you. Because marriage to many people is obviously sanctified by a church it’s sacramental…clearly there is a separation of church and state here.

http://www.npr.org/features/feature.php?wfId=1667397

[library_max]

107. Thanks for proving my point.

Nowhere in that quote does Kerry say that he would vote for such an amendment under any circumstances, regardless of wording. He just doesn't say that he definitely wouldn't. That's hardly the same thing, particularly in politics.

[disenfranchised]

122. It's a spineless response.

He could have said 'no." Edwards said no to the same question.

There is a big difference between 'maybe' and 'no' in my opinion.

[library_max]

147. Fine. Edwards isn't from Massachusetts.

Not much chance of the Republicans hanging the MSSC case around Edwards's neck. Nice for him.

[Sushi-Lover]

113. The full quote is a bit confusing

I am willing to give Kerry a little slack here because it seems like he got a bit confused, seeing as how he talks about separation of church and state after saying he might support an amendment to the US constitution that defines marriage. However, if he really meant that he would support an amendment to the US constitution telling states and churches what sorts of marriages they can sanctify/recognize or more likely what words they can use to describe marriage/unions .. well isn't that a bit absurd? I like to see the good in people, so I am going to assume he sees this as a sneaky way to say he wants civil unions in all the states and didn't think about the implications too deeply. <Disclaimer: I am a Dean supporter>

[ramapo]

128. How about "Just leave the Constitution alone"

That would've worked for me. I heard Kerry and his answer was a bit disappointing. He might've talked about trivializing the Constitution. Seems there's an amendment of the month club.

So he danced around the question. He was unequivically for equal rights, civil unions, etc. He's trying not to give the Republicans a campaign commercial.

Who do you think will be better for gay rights? Kerry or Bush?

[WillyT]

153. If This Is True... It's A Deal Breaker For Me !!! --- ABB Goes Down...

with me, as far as Kerry is concerned, if he supports this move.

I will NOT support Senator Kerry, if he fudges with this issue.

I can tolerate his 'opposing' gay marriage, while supporting civil unions, but...

For him to even hint of supporting a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, will be the final straw with me, and confirmation of the very things I fear about a Kerry candidacy\presidency in the first place!

Don't fuck it it up John, your base is watching!!!

:grr::nuke::mad:

[library_max]

155. Well, he didn't say he'd support the amendment

regardless of wording. He basically reiterated his support for civil unions and equal legal rights for gay couples and then sidestepped the rest of the question.

[scottxyz]

157. Look at the numbers on this thread. An hour and a half and already 150

Gay marriage is the BEST wedge issue ever invented.

Better than flag-burning.

Better than abortion.

Better than Willie Horton.

Remember the Mass court that made this decision was a majority REPUBLICAN court. Just like the US Supreme Court that struck down Texas's anti-sodomy laws. Hmmm... (Meanwhile, AIDS funding gets cut.)

The gay marriage issue is already the HOTTEST fund-raising issue in the history of the right wing. It is RE-ENERGIZING the right. Have any of you read Leo Strauss's works? His stategy is a playbook for the radical right. It consists of three basic tactics:

(1) Lie all the time.

(2) Leverage religion.

(3) Invent a common enemy.

The gay marriage issue is a perfect example of Straussian strategy. Believe me, the Republicans know this and they'd be THRILLED if gay marriage remained a hot topic in this election.

And judging by the amount of posts in this thread, it is also succeeding in hijacking the left.

I'm gay, and the LAST thing on my mind in Election 2004 is gay marriage, believe me.

Have you ever heard of triage? The Republic is hemorrhaging from multiple wounds inflicted by the Bush dynasty - we are bogged down in two useless wars, our intel before 9/11 was ignored, our intel before Iraq was overhyped, ALL social programs are being gutted moreso than ANY time in history, the Constitution is being shredded, people are being denied their right to a lawyer or to freedom of speech or to assembly, we're losing 10s of thousands a jobs a month, our media is being strangled, and we're racking up TRILLIONS in deficits which will DESTROY the Federal government in years to come. And in the midst of all this the HOTTEST topic in this forum is of course... "gay marriage." Get a life people. Yeah, what we gay-boys do in bed is VERY hot. But you've got more important things to think about, don't you - such as the hijacking of our democracy???

I'm gay, and I know that this whole "gay marriage" this is just a distraction. The rest of the Democratic party needs to figure this out and recall our PRIORITIES: restoring the civil rights FOR ALL PEOPLE which Ashcroft rescinded, restoring the surplus FOR ALL AMERICANS which Bush spent, restoring our relations with the rest of the world, restoring the jobs FOR ALL PEOPLE that disappeared, and restoring the taxes that used to fund our social programs. Gay marriage is a nice-to-have, but it's nowhere near the top ten or even top 50 points that should make up the Democratic platform. DON'T LET THE REPUBLICANS SET THE AGENDA! Remember Enron? The biggest financial debacle in the history of the world - perpretrated by the biggest campaign contributor to W's campaign? Are you telling me you're gonna fight for gay marriage more than we fought against corporate corruption? Well... gee... thanks, I'm flattered - but no thanks.

In politics you have to have priorities. Anyone who wastes any breath yacking about "gay marriage" is falling into the trap the Republicans want to set for us. (1) We're talking about an item that was NEVER on the agenda up till now. (2) We're alienating a lot of people who think gay marriage might not be the most important thing the election should be about this year.

This election is about restoring Democracy, getting out of War and ending this Depression. It is NOT about "gay marriage". Kerry probably knows this and his doing his best to finesse the issue. We should have the smarts to recognize this and give him a "pass" on this, instead of letting the Republicans divide us like this.

I'd be quite happy continue sleeping with my boyfriend WITHOUT a marriage licence in a FREE country with a BALANCED budget and good HEALTHCARE and EDUCATION and MEDICARE and JOBS and ENVIROMENTAL PROTECTION.

If you tear down the Democratic nominee by in-fighting over this, or if you throw more fuel to the Republican fund-raising machine by accepting "gay marriage" as an "issue" in 2004 -

Get over your ideological purity, and UNITE Democrats. This gay man would rather see you fighting for EVERYONE'S civil rights and economy. A marriage license isn't gonna do gay-people much good in a broke, jobless, terrified, polluted police-state.

Wake up and stop letting the right wing manipulate you. Stop being idealists and start being pragmatic. The right wing is just playing you. Stop making it so easy for them. Show them that you know how to remain UNITED no matter what kind of distractions they try to DIVIDE you with.

[oxymoron]

165. Thank You!

Very well put.

[Andy_Stephenson]

167. Wanna go on a date?

I'm old and mean...but I make great pasta.

edit: Good Lord...I didn't just ask that did I?

[kurtyboy]

221. Gee Whiz, Andy, you're not that old...

I don't know about the pasta, though!

I think you have my Email--drop me a line. We need to chat about your concerns and I'll do what I can (perhaps very little, perhaps more) to pass them on to Senator Kerry.

I will not try to make you change your mind about him on the Patriot Act issue alone---it sticks in my craw also---but I hate to lose your support if it is over Kerry's defense of civil rights (for EVERYONE). Senator Kerry's record on supporting the GLBT is long and well-documented, and we'd miss your support this fall.

Kurt

[theoceansnerves]

160. sigh

and people are voting for this man because...?
unbelievable.

[library_max]

164. Read the message directly above yours (#157)

and see if it helps you figure that out.

[scottxyz]

170. The phantasmagorical "anti-gay-marriage AMENDMENT"

Kerry's full response has been posted several times below in this thread. What he ACTUALLY said sounded a lot better than the paraphrasing used by LCooksey (the original poster of this very HOT thread). Hmmm...

I have long suspected that the "gay marriage" issue is a wedge the right wing is going to try to use to distract voters from bigger issues like War, Rights, Economy, Environment, Healthcare, Jobs - and to energize fund-raising efforts on the right as well, now that being anti-abortion or racist isn't drumming up so much money with the base any more.

The fact that you worded your original posting in an ever-so-slightly misleading fashion is playing right into the Republicans' hands on this issue. Unfortunately, in order to get what Kerry said, people have to scroll WAY down in this thread.

Kerry said he supports civil unions.

I liked Dean too, but I'd have no problem voting for civil-union-supporting Kerry WITHOUT holding my nose.

And by the way I'm gay.

The Republicans must be laughing now seeing how much energy we're putting into this gay marriage thread on DU. They know one of the weak points of Democrats is "ideological purity" and they must be delighted to see all the in-fighting going on now among Democrats "outraged" that Kerry hasn't said the right thing on the "anti-gay marriage amendment".

Remember, until BUSH started talking about amending the Constitution, there were a lot of more-important, more-energizing issues we used to talk about. Jobs. War. The Bill of Rights. Deficits.

My, my, my. Looks like Rove's little trick is working. Have Bush drop a hint about amending the Constitution to ban gay marriage, and watch the terms of the debate shift from Bush's disastrous record on intel, war, economy, social programs, Enron - to ALL GAY MARRIAGE ALL THE TIME!

Brilliant stroke, Mr. Rove.

And shame on any Democrat who is stupid enough to fall into this trap.

Kerry did a good job deflecting the question - saying he's in favor of civil unions. Heck, that's enough for me - that will give me health benefits and inheritance benefits and all that.

Remember the ERA (a proposed Constitutional amendment) went NOWHERE. Constitutional amendments NEVER get anywhere - and Bush knows that. Too bad so few people on this board seem to remember that.

Now I'm going to kiss my gay boyfriend WITHOUT THE BENEFIT OF A MARRIAGE LICENCE and wonder if the Democrats are EVER going to get any political savvy.

A few weeks ago the top topic on DU was Captain Kangaroo's death. Now the top topic on DU is Kerry didn't say the right thing on the anti-gay-marriage amendment.

WHAT anti-gay-marriage amendment??? Stop talking about the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin and go back to our strong issues: War. Economy. The Bill of Rights. Jobs.

THESE were the issues that were starting to make the Bush dynasty crumble. If you let Rove set a new agenda where the issue becomes "THE" ANTI-GAY-MARRIAGE AMEMNDMENT (WHAT anti-gay-marriage amendment?), then you're talking about non-existent garbage while the country collapses.

Why not just talk about Janet's boob. It's about as relevant as the non-existent anti-gay-marriage amendment you want to make sure every Dem candidate takes the correct position on. Rove's got you all worked up demanding ideological purity on a FIGMENT OF EVERYONE'S IMAGINATION.

Repeat after me: There IS no "anti-gay-marriage amendment." What there is is a slow trend where a lot of courts and legislatures and corporations passing rules giving gay couples many of the civil and economic advantages of marriage. And that's a good thing.

But there is no "anti-gay-marriage amendment". So stop being upset that Kerry didn't say the exact right thing about this figment of Karl Rove's (and LCooksey's?) imagination.

[kenny blankenship]

189. This ANTI_GAY AMENDMENT

>>>>>>>>>>SENATE:
S.J. Res. 26 (Senate Joint Resolution)

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating to marriage.

November 25, 2003

Mr. ALLARD (for himself, Mr. BROWNBACK, Mr. SESSIONS, Mr. BUNNING, and Mr. INHOFE) introduced the following joint resolution

JOINT RESOLUTION

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating to marriage

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years after the date of its submission by the Congress:

`Article--

`Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the Constitution of any State, nor State or Federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups..<<<<<<<<<<<<<


Right there Scotty. RIGHT THERE. There's one just like it in the House too. You'll see that "civil unions" are put totally out of the question by the language of the Bill. If this crap is ratified, and the statehouses are busily preparing to ratify by warming up with amendments of their own, no "civil unions" will exist anywhere in any state or metropolitan area. Ever.

Marriage as described in these bills can only be between one man and one woman and NOTHING ELSE can receive the "legal incidents" of marriage. That should be clear enough for you to see, and clear enough for SUPPOSEDLY civil-union supporting John Kerry to reject on sight as inimical to "civil unions" and let's not forget to add also , Anti-Gay and tending to promote legal discrimination against gays. A civil rights nightmare in black and white & in your face.

LET KERRY SPEAK FOR HIMSELF AND REJECT IT. I'm tired of hearing people who claim to be able to speak for him. I want to hear the man who wants my vote ANSWER THE GODDAMN QUESTION FOR ONCE.

-ahem-

Here's the corresponding verbiage of the proposed Amendment to the Massachusetts state Constitution that Kerry has likewise declined to speak out against.:

"It being the public policy of this Commonwealth to protect the unique relationship of marriage in order to promote, among other goals, the stability and welfare of society and the best interest of children, only the union of one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Massachusetts. Any other relationship shall not be recognized as a marriage or its legal equivalent."


Again, civil union --already discarded by the MA Supreme Court as an unConstitutional half-measure-- is put totally out of question by these proposed changes to Massachusetts' basic law. And again it should be amply clear enough for a bright fellow like John Kerry to understand that it is incompatible with his previous positions on the chimera called "civil union".

But nobody has heard him reject it yet!

Many hereabouts seem to want to give Kerry the credit for "being opposed in principle" to such attacks on gays, but --hey, call me skeptical!-- I want to hear HIM say it. I think some people are being VERY PREMATURE. I want to hear it from KERRY before I belive it. Indeed I have no intention of voting for the man unless he does and about face and condemns these proposals as the Un-American bigoted trash that they are. It's not that i don't believe you good people. I know you would never lie to me. It's just that I know the deceiving ways of career politicians, and John Kerry fits the profile to a "T".

I keep hearing him say only "I'm opposed to gay marriage, period."

Where's the rest of it ??? How about expressing your rejection of these gay bashing Amendments John Boy?

Make John Kerry PROMISE !

[gottaB]

195. Kerry has criticized FMA

As documented in this post, Kerry has already taken a stand against the FMA.

As for the Mass proposed amendment, it's ridiculous to say he has declined to speak out against it when you have no evidence that he has read it yet. Last I heard he hadn't read it. The statements he has made leave him room to reject it on the basis of the phrase "or its legal equivalent." But that's just speculation, pointless either way.

[kenny blankenship]

234. Kerry has to stop EQUIVOCATING

Now that it's published and even I have read it, I eagerly await Kerry's repudiation of the Massachusetts amendent. Do you think I should hold my breath?
Will I be waiting a long time?

Kerry has definitely put himself on record saying
"I am opposed to gay marriage, period"
and now he "might" be persuaded to support a Constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, if the price is right.

Instead I want him to be _equally as definite and emphatic_ in denouncing the Massachusetts amendment. And I don't want to EVER hear him say " I might support an amendment banning gay marriage."
Period.
Instead of telling the world how opposed he is to gay marriage, I want Kerry to make it clear to the world that he is opposed to legalized discrimination, PERIOD. I want him to make it plain that as the Democratic leader he could never be part of a consensus to put inequality back in the constitution. Seems to me he's been putting his emphases and his PERIODS on the WRONG THINGS.
For a Democrat that is.

A constitutional ban on gay marriage is a constitutional ban on gay marriage is a constitutional ban on gay marriage. It doesn't matter what ELSE you wrap it up in. That was the point of the MA Supreme Court decision.

The bottom line of such "compromise" positions is that a group of people would be forbidden from bringing their case to court or the legislature, forever. That's an abridgement of the rights of citizens. PERIOD. Kerry wants to stick in a consolation prize from a box of crackerjack and get us to take our eyes off the ball.

The State Supreme Court (it's the court of his state so he should keep abreast of their decisions whether he READS them cover to cover or not) has declared "civil unions" to be a chimera. Either people can marry or they can't. You can't create something for gays with all the taste and half the calories of marriage and forbid them from seeking full married status because you gave them a squeak toy to play with. That forbidding is the infringement. That's what Kerry's "compromise" is good for. He's already been told it's a non-starter but still he clings to it.

Now if one supreme court found that civil unions can't substitute for marriage, then why should other people accept this deal? We're being told "here you can have this, but once you take it you can never petition for Marriage" Why should people accept a lesser abridged citizenship deal? Particularly when you know damn well republicans will block it anyway.

That just brings this topic around to the matter of who really has the momentum now: Civil Unions aren't on the menu anymore. It's an irrelevancy. Dead issue.
Bans on gay marriage ARE on the menu. And if we don't look sharp we'll be stuck with one in our Constitution pretty soon.

What we need is leadership that is determined to hold the line. We need a leader who doesn't make equivocal statements in public that give aid or comfort to the enemy by painting all principles including citizenship as "negotiable".
Kerry's position is to offer me an irrelevancy in place of a principle. It reminds me of Stephen Douglas' position on slavery. Douglas proposed the idea of letting territories vote on slavery up or down. But when he proposed it, the referendum idea was already an obsolete and irrelevant offer since the SCOTUS had ruled in Dred Scott, that slavery goes wherever a slaveowner takes his slaves. Douglas was offering a "compromise" that would give away the store if people voted for it/him. Kerry's solution is likewise stuck in the past ignoring the new reality. This battle is on already and it's ours to lose. Instead of acting like a General, we see Kerry in an apron puttering around the mess tent. Kerry says, You can't criticize my soldiering because, if it were up to me, i'd bake you half the loaf of bread you want. 3/4 even! Maybe I'd give you more but that's all I'm good for-- half a loaf. See, I'm basically a swell guy and your best officer! (but on the other hand I won't stop the enemy from raiding all your loaves if that's their intent --coz I don't want to alarm anyone or make a target of myself by carrying a sword or a pistol standing up at the barricades. ) Well we need someone who's less of a chickenshit.

I'm not interested in his half a loaf. Right now I'm interested only in not getting my citizenship defined down to a second class status. Kerry is talking funny like he's not really on my side. Maybe he's got a Republican phrasebook he studies at night getting ready for the hour they swarm over the wire. Well then, I can't be on his side either.

He can turn this thing around. But it's all on him. He needs to make some clear statements that show he would never agree to an amendment that blocks people from petitioning for their rights. (Muffed a good opportunity to do it today) He needs to make it plain that shit like this Massachusetts amendment is NOT OK with him instead of equivocating about it.

I'm not saying I'd trust him, only that I could consider voting for him if he was to straighten out. He doesn't have to be for gay marriage he just cannot be for amendments to the constitution that forbid people to petition their legislatures and bring suits in court for the right to marry.

[TheDonkey]

172. Look at JK's HRC record... then look at bush's. nuff said (nt)

[TheDonkey]

173. Look at JK's HRC record... then look at bush's. nuff said (nt)

[Name removed]

181. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Bonobo]

187. DannyRed, you rock for that post!

Yaru na!

:yourock:

[library_max]

191. Thank goodness, finally a fair-minded post without bias or insults.

And yeah, easy issue, no brainer. Because it's not as if Rove could put together an ad saying that Kerry opposes a constitutional amendment to protect marriage, using the quote "This is not an issue appropriate for a constitutional amendment" (even better if Kerry hollers it real loud, like in all caps). It's not as if Kerry is from Massachusetts, where a very unpopular court decision just declared marriage open to same-sex couples.

The fairness and good manners of your post are exceeded only by the contribution it will make to removing Bush from the White House. Thank you. God bless you.

[ngGale]

182. I'm not even gay but damn...

what in the heck did he say that for? I need to get my head straight. Bush wants to pay the poor to marry and end poverty. Kerry wants to change the constitution that really doesn't exist anymore. Isn't same sex marriage a state issue? You can't use the constitution to put people down--it's to raise them up. Now, I'm confused. Right--Left ???????

[library_max]

185. Read the quote. Read the text of the interview.

Kerry did NOT say he wants to change the Constitution. No matter how many people on this thread try to put those words in his mouth, he didn't say them. He said he supports civil unions and complete legal equality for gay and heterosexual couples. Other than that, he sidestepped the question.

[DannyRed]

188. No, you read the quote.

Kerry said "it depends on the wording"

That means that he would consider amending the constitution of the united states to define marriage in a specific way.

That is unacceptable on an emotional/political level for many of the members of Kerry's core constituency, regardless of their sexual orientation.

That is ALSO unacceptable from a legal/philosophical standpoint - there has NEVER been an amendment that specifically LIMITED the rights of a SPECIFIC group. Never.

Constitutional framers would gape in dismay at such tomfoolery.

[library_max]

196. You can say "that means" until the cows come home.

Kerry didn't say he would consider a constitutional amendment under any circumstances whatsoever. You're reading that interpretation into what he did say. Couldn't possibly be because you're trying to whip up sentiment against a candidate you don't like, eh?

[Bonobo]

198. Moooooo!!! eom

[Sushi-Lover]

229. I read the quote .. did you read the question he was answering?

As I said before I think it is a confusing quote, but I don't think people who read it as saying he would consider supporting a definition of marriage (as a heterosexual union) amendment are completely off. Actually, I'm not sure how it can be read as not saying this. It seems to me he is saying he would support such an amendment, if the language allowed for civil unions with equal legal protection. That is still saying he would consider a change to the constitution which specified some definition of marriage, in my opinion that is about as ludicrous as 'freedom fries'. It wasn't such a great answer, but hopefully it can be fixed or will be forgotten.

I am going by this version, is there another?

Broadcaster: Would you support a constitutional amendment that would define marriage as a heterosexual union.

Kerry: Well it depends entirely on the language, whether it permits civil unions in partnership or not. I’m for civil unions - I’m for partnership rights. I think what ought to condition this debate is not the term marriage as much as the rights that people are afforded. Obviously under the constitution of the United States you need equal protection under the law. And I think equal protection means the rights that go with it. I think the word marriage gets in the way in the whole debate to be honest with you. Because marriage to many people is obviously sanctified by a church it’s sacramental … clearly there is a separation of church and state here.

[CalProf]

251. He said he'd support an amendment if it included full civil union rights

and since the GOP would never allow a constitutional amendment enshrining full partnership rights for Gays, Lesbians, and Transgender people, Kerry has told us how he will deal with this wedge issue in the general election. The GOP will say, "will you support an amendment forbidding gay marriage?" and he'll respond, "I'm for full rights of civil union and partnership rights for all Americans under the constitution. Do you want to write an Amendment that includes them? If so, I'll agree we can't let gay and lesbian Americans use the word 'marriage' in any government documents."

That's what the offending quotation indicates.

If that's not good enough for any of you, by all means vote for Kucinich.

[WillyT]

199. "Depends On The Wording"

Fuck THAT, Senator Kerry!

:mad:

[library_max]

206. Awwwwwwwww.

And we were counting on your vote!

:cry:

[WillyT]

214. LOL !!! --- Hey Man, If Ya Wanna Sell Yourself, I Can Recommend...

a couple of street corners for ya.

:evilgrin:

BTW - You ARE counting on many, many of our votes. After 'Theft 2000', don't laugh at the voters you may need.

:shrug:

[Hell Hath No Fury]

212. Thank you Willy!

This ISN'T about gay marriage -- it't about wanting to hear a straight answer from a man I have trouble with because he too often doesn't just come out and say plainly what he means.

Question: Would you support a constitutional amendment that would define marriage as a heterosexual union.

Answer: No, I don't. I think this is an issue that can be worked out without tampering with the Constitution.

Just how the fuck hard is that????

[WillyT]

217. Apparently WAY Too Hard For A Politician With 'Presidentitis' !!!

'Hmmm... How can I answer that question in a way to maximize my vote potential???'

One Mass. Senator writes a book called 'Profiles In Courage', becomes President. Another Mass. Senator needs to read the fucking book, BEFORE he becomes president.

:grr:

Hey, Hell!!!

:loveya:

[library_max]

220. Yeah, how dare Kerry be a politician!

Boy, I know I sure won't be voting for any damn politicians in the fall election! I'm gonna vote for . . . uh . . . is Jesus Christ running?

[library_max]

219. And there's the quote

for the Karl Rove ad about why Kerry hates marriage so much that he opposes a constitutional amendment to protect it.

Kerry's from Massachusetts. A Massachusetts court just handed down a tremendously unpopular ruling that marriage is open to same-sex couples. The RW would love to hang that ruling around Kerry's neck. Kerry isn't dumb enough to cooperate. Just how the fuck hard is that to understand????

[Hell Hath No Fury]

225. How the fuck hard is it?

Well not so hard that other Dem candidates have been able to get the words "No I don't support a constitutional amendment" out of their politician's mouths.

Which is one more reason why I will be supporting a candidate who isn't afraid to just lay it one the line and speak his truth in the California primary.

[library_max]

227. Quotes, links, please.

Anyway, it's easier for pols who aren't from Massachusetts, where the much-hated court ruling came down.

[library_max]

243. No quotes or links forthcoming, I see. /nt

[Hell Hath No Fury]

246. For starters...

www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/11/19/elec04.prez.dems.gay.marriage/

"Only three are on record supporting full marriage rights for same-sex couples -- Rep. Dennis Kucinich of Ohio, civil rights activist the Rev. Al Sharpton of New York and former Sen. Carole Moseley Braun of Illinois. All three are considered long shots for the nomination."


www.ngltf.org/electioncenter/Edwards.pdf

“I recognize that different states will address this in different ways, and I will oppose any effort to pass an amendment to the . . . Constitution in response to the Massachusetts decision.”

(note Edwards formally opposes gay marriage)

[library_max]

247. The Kucinich/Sharpton/Moseley-Braun thing isn't a quote.

Not from any of the three of them. So all it demonstrates is that whoever did say what was quoted is satisfied with their positions.

The Edwards quote is, in its way, as clever as the Kerry. He will oppose any amendment "in response to the Massachusetts decision." Easy enough to support an amendment whose sponsors insist that it is not in response to the Massachusetts decision, then, no matter what it says about gay marriage.

[mondo joe]

230. Nothing hard about: "No constitutional amendment"

He could take a state's-rights stance.

He could say all sorts of things.

He could say "I don't support chahnging the United States Constitution over a divisive social issue."

[RetroLounge]

202. But I thought Kerry was the LIBERAL candidate

or is that just his finger in the air again...

[Guaranteed]

207. Another vote for truth and justice from John Kerry!

:puke:

Such courage and principles from this man!

[library_max]

209. "Another fair and helpful post opposed to John Kerry!"

I will see your :puke: and raise you :puke::puke::puke:

[Guaranteed]

218. What, you disagree with me?

He's a stand up kind of guy! Tell me I'm wrong!

[library_max]

222. What, your post wasn't fair and helpful?

There wasn't anything constructive, pertinent, or factual in it anywhere? Naw, can't be!

I can do this all day long . . .

[OneBlueSky]

210. I'm gay, and it won't bother me if Kerry finds a way to finesse . . .

this issue . . . face it, folks, gay marriage is a losing issue among the American electorate . . . Kerry has a stellar record supporting equal rights for gays and lesbians, and that's not going to change . . . if he has to compromise (that's what politicians DO) to get this issue off the table, that's fine with me . . . marriage vs. civil unions is a distinction without a difference anyhow . . .

[IndianaGreen]

213. Wait until they force you to wear a pink triangle

Where is the outrage?

[library_max]

223. I'm guessing the outrage is hiding in that totally fictional universe

in which Kerry is going to start making people wear pink triangles. Here in the real world, there is nothing to be outraged about.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

236. Ever the harbinger of the truth

NOT

[library_max]

215. Thank you. /nt

[RafterMan]

224. Losing issue?

Of course it's a losing issue -- as long as the right fights against it and the left is too timid to fight for it.

I thought the early Democratic rhetoric -- casting it as a civil rights issue instead of a gay rights issue -- was a good play. Too bad Kerry now seems to be pandering to bigotry.

[library_max]

226. Read the quote. Read the interview.

Kerry supports civil unions and full legal equality between same-sex and heterosexual couples. He said that right in the interview. He's just not going to give them a quote they can use to paint him as anti-marriage.

[RafterMan]

233. I read it

Along with his quote from last week saying he opposed gay marriage, but was for civil unions (I don't have a link, but you probably remember). Why does it depend on the wording? Why can't he just say it's wrong because it's a civil rights issue?

Try it this way: substitute "interracial marriage" (once a hot topic) for "gay marriage" in these questions and equivocating answers and see if it doesn't make you cringe.

The civil rights answer is good by itself -- Kerry should not appease prejudice.

[gauguin57]

235. kerry should have said

"leave the U.S. constitution alone!"

Can someone explain to me how allowing gay marriage threatens the sanctity of marriage? Sounds like it would make more marriages possible ... isn't Georgie Porgie trying to PROMOTE marriage, to the tune of $1.5 billion?

How does someone else's gay union threaten George's marriage? Or Rick Santorum's? Or John Ashcroft's? In what way is what a gay couple does in a Peoria church affect the sanctity of George and Pickles' marriage in Washington, D.C.?

Makes no sense whatsoever.

[RafterMan]

239. Good answer Kerry!

I liked it when he gave it to the Flag Burning Ammendment, why wouldn't it work for him here?

And I couldn't agree more with the second point. If Bush wants to protect the sanctity of marriage, he should get a divorce.

[LosinIt]

237. No surprise, he swings with the wind.

Such a poli-freakin'-tician.

[HazMat]

238. Kerry is a seasoned pol who knows how to avoid a trap -

which is all this issue is. The GOP is floating the idea of an amendment simply to distract, divide and conquer.

Kerry is smart, and he won't be played by the left or the right on this issue.

As the days wear on, Kerry consistently show that he's truly ready for the challenge of taking down Bush. Someone like Dean would stepped right into this.

[He loved Big Brother]

240. If he even shows up for the vote.

[Bertha Venation]

241. FEANORCURUFINWE and SCOTTXYZ: Do you still doubt amendment's existence?

Feanorcurufinwe wrote, "you mean the amendment that doesn't actually exist, except in people's imagination?

Scottxyz condescendingly wrote, "he amendment that doesn't exist, that Bush only hinted at, and that if it were ever drawn up, would never pass - THAT amendment.

"THAT amendment - that non-existent amendment about GAYS which the Republicans KNOW will be so much more exciting to talk about....
<snip>

"You guys got to learn how Karl Rove operates.

<snip> You can keep your condescension, scott. We gay folk get enough of that from Republicans.

"The non-existent "anti-gay-marriage amendment" which some fools are now saying they want to use as a litmus test for their Democratic candidate DOESN'T EXIST. If it were proposed, IT WOULD'T PASS.

"This is what's know as a "wedge issue." Don't waste your breath on it. Go back to the important stuff (the stuff that was turning the tide against Bush): the War. The Economy. The WMDs. AWOL. The Plame affair. Healthcare. Jobs.

"You've got a dozen or so hot issues the Democrats can WIN on. If you let the Republicans turn this election into a debate on the one issue that we CAN'T win on (Where do YOU sir stand on the non-existent "anti-gay-marriage amendment?") then you're playing right into Karl Rove's hands.

"Once again, repeat after me: THERE IS NO ANTI-GAY-MARRIAGE AMENDMENT. Never was, never will be. <emphasis added> "


If you two still doubt the existence of a proposed constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, please see this post --or-- see this post.

After reading one or both of those posts, please reply to this one and tell me again how there is no constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage.

(I don't know of anyone, scottxyz, who is trying to use this valid issue of our equality under the law as a litmus test. I have read countless posts from queer folk who've said we will vote for the Democratic nominee no matter what. Have you been missing those posts?)

I am looking forward to both your replies.

edited to fix a link

[MoonAndSun]

244. Many Americans are against gay marriage, but are against an

amendment to deny gays the right to marriage.

Why can't Kerry just say, "I will not support an amendment to the Constitution taking away an American's right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness".

He will not be going against the majority of Americans.

[jadesfire]

249. You are misquoting Kerry

I actually listened to the entire interview. He said that he would not support any amendment that defined marriage because "marriage" is a religious institution and is NOT a matter for the government to legislate.

He also said that he supports equal rights for ALL americans and partnership rights and civil unions would be 100% supported by a Kerry administration.

[WillyT]

252. So... If A Republican In Power In Congress, Can Find The Right 'Wording'

that allows for Civil Unions, but Constitutionally bans Gay Marriages, some of you guys are gonna be alright with that???

Let's up the anti. Let's say they get the right 'wording' and then introduce the thing into congress for its part in the constitutional process THIS SPRING OR SUMMER.

Then the press will have to ask Senator Kerry to comment on this amendment. And he will say.... What???

More important... YOU will say WHAT???

If I were a rePuke strategist, I'd be designing language as we speak. I'd get some religious yahoo in Congress to introduce the thing if for no other reason than to get Kerry to have to VERY PUBLICLY comment on where he stands. And if they can remind the good Senator, that he said he WOULD support it, if their was language there for Gay Civil Unions, then the trap is sprung.

He will either be forced to defend his fence straddling support of an amendment that hopefully goes nowhere, but is used to beat him up with, or...

He is on record as supporting one of the STUPIDEST Amendments to the U.S. Constitution ever devised by political hacks!!!

He will be on record as supporting BIGOTRY being once again enshrined in our national document. Y'all remember the 3\5ths plan?

:wtf:

DO NOT fuck around with the Constitution in this manner. The last time they put some popular (at the time) moralistic piece of shit in it, they had to create a second one ten years later to remove the first one. (18th and 21st Amendments - Prohibition)

And THAT is all Kerry has to say when it comes to this particular piece of right-wing fecal matter.

The Constitution is TOO IMPORTANT to bandied about like a political ping-pong ball, especially during an election year.

No???

:shrug:

[library_max]

253. But you're missing the fact that Kerry didn't say that.

He didn't promise to support such an amendment if they found the right wording. He didn't say any such thing. His statement is open to that interpretation, but it isn't a commitment. Parlez-vouz politics?

If you're really worried about how Kerry might stand on this issue once in office, look at the record. He was one of very few Senators of either party who voted against DOMA. He has almost 20 years of standing up for GLBT issues. He has a 100% rating from the HRC.

If, on the other hand, you're merely interested in smearing Kerry any way you can, possibly to help a candidate you prefer, then carry on.

[Bertha Venation]

255. Exactly right. That's not what Kerry said.

I posted the transcript of his two minutes spent discussing gay marriage on NPR yesterday -- it's posted in its own thread.