Don't insult our intelligence

[dsc]

I have no idea exactly what Kerry will end up doing on the issue of amending the Constitution to ban gay marriage, as I have no idea what wording will eventually be settled on. But there is an immense difference between choosing civil uniions as a solution to recognizing gay relationships as several of our candidates have done, and amending the Constitution to enshrine civil unions as the only possible solutions to recognizing gay relationships. The first advances the debate in favor of gay rights with no cost to us and the second does so at a huge and permanent cost.

I have no idea if this is a deal breaker for me or not. But, don't you dare tell me there is no difference. There is, and I know it.

[IndianaGreen]

1. A marriage license is a civil document issued by the State, not the Church

The issue is whether the State can deny a marriage license to couples on the basis of sexual orientation, as many states used to do on the basis of race.

This is a no brainer!

[H2O Man]

3. exactly

This is an issue that can be diffused with logic; the bush forces want to create an emotional storm. IndianaGreen hits the nail on the head.

[creativelcro]

5. What would be a similar case ?

I really really really DON'T understand what is the problem with people... If gay people want to get married, that does not harm anybody else... Why should this be an issue ? In my opinion, the psychological core is not different from when white people did not want black people to get certain rights. These people feel good about themselves because they think they have something that some minority does not have. The point is that allowing the minority to have it lowers the self-esteem of these people, it deprives them of some sense of superiority. And that hurts. But is a psychological mechanism that should not be encouraged because it's at the core of racism and segregation...

[DuctapeFatwa]

7. You are right. It is essentially the same question

And the question for those who support writing discrimination into the constitution is what other groups should have a legally mandated second class status?

After careful consideration, I hope they will bring the amendment on. It could be the catalyst to bringing a lot of things to a head.

[lastknowngood]

2. Look this is going to hurt Kerry no matter what ,he has taken

a fuzzy position on this and he will have to either take a stand or piss of people on both sides. The repugnants are pushing this as the new abortion issue, they have already won the abortion issue but it will continue to be brought up until every woman is classified as property. This is their new product, and the party as well as the candidates need to be clear. Clark was clear and uncompromising on his support for marriage and Dean has a history and clear line. Kerry and Edwards are trying to skate around it. Someone needs to add a plank to the Democratic platform and make it clear where we stand. If the DLC/DNC have their way it will be half a loaf at best.

[Jerseycoa]

4. Unless I've missed something?

"Clark was clear and uncompromising on his support for marriage"

Clark supports civil unions.

[NashVegas]

6. At least He's Clear About It

..

On edit:

OOOH, you're gonna pull that train outta the station any minute!

[Tom Rinaldo]

8. Clark supports equal rights and is fine with calling that marriage

If the people who sanction marriages, those being Religious Institutions and States, want to call a Gay or Lesbian Union a marriage, Clark is fine with that. IF not, he is fine with that too, as long as Gay Couples are guaranteed all of the same legal rights as heterosexual couples are. That, as I understand it , is his position. The Federal Government isn't in the labels business, it is about insuring equal legal rights for all Americans.

That is very different than advocating banning Gay and Lesbian marriages while allowing Civil Unions, and it does matter. I am straight and I agree with the original poster.

[disenfranchised]

10. Edwards, Clark & Dean have a similar stance.

Kerry has set himself apart by saying he might support a discriminatory ammendment to the constitution.

[DannyRed]

9. As I said

in the other giant thread:

Kerry has an excellent record on GLBT issues.

He needs to stand up with that record, and stand up on this issue in a way that both energizes his constituency, AND defuses the wedge attacks.

That tactic is an easy one, a no brainer, in fact, that any competent 5th grade civics teacher should be able to answer (or this constitutional republic is in more trouble than we thought!)

That tactic is, simply this:

THIS IS NOT AN ISSUE APPROPRIATE FOR CONSIDERATION AS A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.

Thank you very much.

[tobius]

11. It bothers me

that Kerry is always explaining something he has said or done in the past so frequently. Take a stance, one that you believe, because no matter what it is you will be criticized.
"Political necessities sometimes turn out to be political mistakes."
                            -- George Bernard Shaw

[oxymoron]

12. Kerry has the strongest, most verifiable record on GLBT issues

of any of the candidates. He has supported and championed gay issues for 30+ years. I heard this interview live on NPR today, and as a Gay man, I thought that his support of equal rights for gays was unequivocal. I prefer not to let Rove play me. I'll judge Kerry by his record. He is a friend to the gay community and always has been.

His rating from the Human Rights Campaign:

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

[IndianaGreen]

13. Kerry is the "Phony Deal'

There is no substance to the man! He is as phony a liberal as Bush is a "compassionate" conservative.

[Moderator]

14. locked

2. The subject line of a discussion thread must accurately reflect the actual content of the message.