Kerry treads cautiously on gay marriage ban

[rodbarnett]

MEMPHIS -- As Massachusetts lawmakers convene tomorrow to consider amending the state constitution to ban gay marriage, Senator John F. Kerry is attempting a difficult balancing act: preserving his reputation as a national leader on gay rights while remaining silent on the amendment debate that has gripped the gay community.

Kerry has said for months that he opposes gay marriage, as well as the ruling by the Supreme Judicial Court that cleared the way for such marriages starting in May, but that he supports civil unions that guarantee gay couples the same rights and benefits that married couples receive.

But for the fifth day, Kerry declined to say yesterday whether he would support a state constitutional amendment to prevent gays from marrying, even as the Massachusetts Republican Party chairman accused Kerry of being "evasive" on the issue.

Speaking at campaign rallies yesterday in two culturally conservative states, Virginia and Tennessee, which hold primaries today, Kerry laid out his plans for creating jobs, improving public school, and expanding health care in the nation. Civil rights for gays did not come up. But over the course of his career, Kerry has stood as "a hero on gay issues," said Boston media consultant Mary Breslauer, for supporting antibias laws protecting gays, and during his 1996 reelection race, denouncing the politically popular Defense of Marriage Act as "gay-bashing on the floor of the United States Senate."

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/president/articles/2004/02/10/kerry_treads_cautiously_on_gay_marriage_ban/

[mojo2004]

1. Kerry is already on record as being....

against Constitutional amendment. Why doesn't he stick to his guns?

[Bombtrack]

2. Unless you're a Sharpton or Kucinich supporter, u don't have grounds to

bash Kerry on this issue. He's a distant third choice of mine, but I'd like to keep the hypocritical attacks off DU

[WyLoochka]

5. I am a Dean first, Kerry second

supporter. And I'll bash Kerry all I want on this. In the same old overly cautious way he has learned from being in DC for decades, he has succeeded only in mucking up the waters for himself and damaging the chances of a segment of the population, that has been discriminated against for 229 years, to finally fully realize what life is like living with the full set of civil rights that are inalienable to humankind.

For the life of me, I cannot fathom how the man could entertain, even for an instant, the thought of supporting an amendment to ban gay marriage. It's up to the various churches to decide for themselves whether or not they want to continue banning gay marriages. The government cannot legislate one way or the other on a sacrament of the church.

But while the churches can go their own ways on marriage, they cannot any longer be allowed to perpetuate, through force of any law, the discrimination against gays and lesbians which precludes them from exercising their civil right of entering into life partnerships of their choosing, that are duly recognized by the government as having all the rights and responsibilities of heterosexuals who enter into life partnerships of their choosing.

It isn't about a word - it's about civil rights and equal treatment under the law.

[Laughing Mirror]

6. Nice post, and it's exactly as you say

And I will repeat it. Equal treatment under the law.

[library_max]

8. I think we've reduced it to a micro-issue

when we're talking about how a politician "could entertain, even for an instant" a thought not to our liking. He hasn't said he supports the amendment, hasn't said he'd vote for it, has been on the record against it earlier. He's just trying not to provide a sound bite for the Rove ad claiming that he's anti-marriage.

Has Dean come out in favor of gay marriage? I don't remember hearing anything about that.

[WyLoochka]

14. So he provides a "sound bite"

that angers and frustrates his own potential voters?

Dean has not "come out in favor of gay marriage," nor will he because he sees it the same way I do - it's up to the churches to decide whether or not to sanctify the union of two people with a marriage ceremony.

The government has no business legislating to the churches and the churches have no business dictating to the government.

We will have civil unions nationwide - it is inevitable because the right to choose how to live one's life is constitutionally guaranteed, so long as that choice brings no harm or infringement to another's rights. It is the infringement of the rights of any particular segment of the citizenry that is unconstitutional.

I'm not impressed with Kerry's handling of this issue - AT ALL. No matter how much he "tries not to provide sound bites for Rove" he will fail. Rove will be Rove, Kerry doesn't have to please him. He has to please us. He can please me only by talking straight, not by waffling, weaving and trying to stay out of the earshot of Rove.

[library_max]

18. You're not getting it.

Dean's position, as you describe it, is exactly the same as Kerry's, which you decry.

The sound bite thing isn't a matter of trying to "please" Karl Rove. It's a matter of not handing him ammunition. It helps to have some basic understanding of politics as it is practiced nowadays. Amazingly enough, it isn't all about clear stands on issues and twinkly-eyed idealism.

[Bombtrack]

10. so why does Dean get a pass on this and Kerry doesn't?

Dean freaked out when the Vermont Supreme court made a similar ruling, but then took the more conservative option of civil unions, the same thing that Kerry supports, and did an about face as if he had been the champion of the whole thing all along so he could get the gay money/support in the primary

If you really cared about a nominee who could get real change done on these issues at the federal level, you know what really matters more than what the state government of a senator is doing, then you should support Clark, a guy with the best chance of influencing the brass in defense to change or abolish don't ask, don't

[dsc]

11. Please find a quote

in any source, any place, at any time, in which Howard Dean said that he might support an amendment to either the Vermont or the national Constitution banning gay marriage. If you find it, and it is real, then you can lecture.

[Bombtrack]

15. that's minutae, Dean could have easily legalized gay marriage

as many, many powerful and prominent people in Vermont favored, but he found a way to stop it from happening by signing civil unions into law in the dark

All the power in Massachusetts in in the democratic party legislature, and since the ruling in Massachusetts is way more strongly for marriage than it was in Vermont, the democratic majority who favor the same thing as Dean favored need some action to do that.

[dsc]

16. that is a crock

First according to the person who literally wrote the book on this subject, David Moats, the Chair of the Vermont House Judiciary Committee had fewer than half the votes he needed to pass marriage. Dean singlehandedly told a squimish Senate to "do the right thing here" and not try to get a commission.

Source: http://freshair.npr.org/day_fa.jhtml?display=day&todayDate=02/05/2004

Claim 1 minute 4, claim 2 minute 16

Also an amendment, banning for all time, any gay, any time, any place, from getting married is not minuta. My rights aren't minuta.

[library_max]

19. Find me a quote where Dean said he'd oppose it.

Kerry didn't say he might support such an amendment. He just didn't say that he wouldn't. Dean also hasn't said that he wouldn't, as far as I have heard.

[dsc]

20. Yes Kerry did

On NPR's all things considered he said it would depend on the wording. What part of that isn't "might". And Dean praised the MA decision as correct and the day after the SOTU he said he would oppose any national amendment. He also publicly threatened to veto any Vermont DOMA laws.

[library_max]

21. You can put words in Kerry's mouth all day long.

But that isn't what he said, that's your "interpretation."

As for Dean, do you have any links for those quotes?

[dsc]

23. No they are not my words

Kerry said it depends on the wording. Those are his exact, precise, words. He did say what wording he was looking for but that is irrelevent to the issue at hand.

As to Dean's things. I have posted a radio interview from David Moats in which some of what I said is backed up. You can also look at Out in the Mountains which is Vermonts LGBT paper. I have posted before and am going to work. If this thread is still up and you still need the links maybe when I get home.

[dsc]

24. Since I see no post below I assume this was satisfactory

if not then pm me and I will find the links.

[library_max]

26. "It depends on the wording" does not equal "I will vote for the amendment"

You can interpret it that way if you choose, but that's only your interpretation. It's not a fact. The fact is that Kerry did not say he would support or vote for the amendment under any circumstances whatsoever. He also didn't say that he wouldn't - in other words, he didn't commit himself. That's not the same as saying that he would vote for the amendment or support it.

Where did you post the Moats interview? I can't find the link. Also, what was the date? That's a relevant detail.

[dsc]

28. i posted the link in this thread

and I never said he would. I said he might. And yes, it depends on the wording equals might. If you have any doubts what I said, you can look at the posts.

On edit. This is what I wrote. Note the underlined, bold word in italics. It is might.

in any source, any place, at any time, in which Howard Dean said that he might support an amendment to either the Vermont or the national Constitution banning gay marriage. If you find it, and it is real, then you can lecture.

and yes. I stand behind the idea that "it depends on the wording" is the same as "might".

link to interview is in post 16

[library_max]

29. Stand behind it all you want.

It is an opinion, not a fact. The fact that it is your opinion doesn't make it any less an opinion or any more a fact.

Thanks for the link. I'll check it out.

On edit: oh, dammit, my computer doesn't have sound. Not your fault however, you did post the link. I just can't use it.

[dsc]

32. sorry on the sound

that show doesn't do transcripts sadly, I would have posted it had they did them. But it is not my opinion what might means. Might means he may or he may not do something. It depends means he may or he may not. I can't see how it is opinion that he said "I might vote for that amendment."

[library_max]

33. Because he didn't say "I might vote for that amendment."

I'm sure you think your opinion is valid, and that you think you have good reasons for holding it. It doesn't change the fact that it's an opinion. In fact, when you put what isn't a quote in quotation marks, you slide from opinion in the general direction of outright falsehood.

[dsc]

35. Look I don't claim to be a linguist

but if you can tell me what the difference between it depends and I might is I really would like to know. I am being deadly serious here. The exact wording of his answer was "it depends on the wording of the amendment." I said, he might vote for an amendment. Now I realy would like to know the difference between those constructions.

[library_max]

36. The difference is that they are different.

"Different," in case you're having trouble with the word, means "not the same." I am deadly serious too. This business of taking a statement and saying, "Here's what he really said," is reprehensible. The candidate said what he said. He didn't say what you "interpreted" him as saying. You are of course free to interpret his statements any way you want, but that's your opinion, and shouldn't be presented as fact. Only direct quotes qualify as facts.

[dsc]

37. well you are really one to talk

I had to requote myself in bold underlined and italics because you made up what I said. Now I will ask one more time. What is the difference between the meaning of depends and the meaning of might. As in tell me how I might vote for amendment x is different from It depends on the wording. I really would like to know that. Because, while admittedly I am no linguist, I think a linguist would agree with me.

[library_max]

39. On the necessity of bold underlined italics,

I made a mistake ("will" instead of "might"), which I corrected in several subsequent posts.

For the rest, you are merely repeating yourself, and the only possible reply would be to repeat myself, which I won't.

[HFishbine]

3. Kerry on Constitutional Amendment: "Wont' rule out the possibility."

Democratic presidential candidate Sen. John Kerry told a crowd of Maine supporters on Thursday that he would fight Republican attacks that attempted seeking to tie him with the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court legalizing gay marriage.

Asked whether he supports the rights of gay couples to marry, Kerry told reporters that if Republicans "want to turn this into some wedge sort of issue and distort my position, I will fight back very clearly."

"I support equal rights, the right of people to have civil unions, to have partner rights. I do not support marriage" for gays and lesbians, he said. Asked if he would support a state constitutional amendment barring gay and lesbian marriages, Kerry didn't rule out the possibility. "I'll have to see what language there is," he said.



http://www.datalounge.com/datalounge/news/record.html?record=21195&continuebutton=Not+Now

[Laughing Mirror]

7. "I'll have to see what language there is"

Try looking at the 14th amendment to the US constitution, John.

[jmoss]

4. good luck with all that....

Good luck "treading lightly" if he's the nominee come November. Moderates in our party are going to hesitate about supporting the 4-term Senator from the State that has legalized Gay Marriage.

By the way, John Edwards could satisfy a much wider range of voters come November, if given the chance; in addition to maiking GW look silly on the debate stage. He would have very little to muck-up on Edwards. But not vice-versa!

[LizW]

9. Mother Jones on this issue:

The Feb. issue of Mother Jones has an article by George Packer called, "Battling Bush: The Fight Plan." It's in the form of a memo to the Democratic "front runner". Here's an excerpt on the gay marriage question:

"Their first move is to galvanize those 4 million non-voting evangelicals, while boxing you into a corner, by putting gay marriage into their platform and up for a constitutional amendment. We need to be on top of this as soon as the first rhetoric comes out of their campaign.

Call it what it is -- divisiveness that pits groups of Americans against each other, which is un-American and what the Republicans always do when they need a wedge. Get the focus off the issue and on the tactic.

Ditto with every cultural issue. Tone is everything here -- you're sorry the president of all people feels compelled to divide us. Don't dodge, obfuscate, or hedge -- neutralize with a short, direct answer and head for higher ground. For every outraged evangelical that gets off his ass and down to the polls, we'll snag an upscale suburbanite whose office pal or nephew is gay."

(Sorry, no link -- I'm quoting from the print edition.)

The "balancing" act referenced in the original post is exactly what this article warns against. By giving an "it depends" answer, Kerry is stepping right into the wedge.

Furthermore, I'm disturbed that Kerry doesn't seem to know that an actual amendment, with actual wording, has been proposed. Why is he hedging about hypothetical wording when actual wording is out there? He's missing a great opportunity to say, "No. The so-called Defense of Marriage Amendment denies gays not only the right to marry, but also to 'the legal incidents thereof'. That is discriminatory and wrong and I will vote against it."

[lulu]

22. Excellent post!

Pinpoints my biggest problem with Kerry. He doesn't know how to quickly frame the issues to his advantage. Dean and Edwards are masters at this. Why is Kerry so resistant? Why does he keep playing into the right wing's rhetorical traps? This is my biggest fear with a Kerry nomination.

[dsc]

12. Here is my problem with Kerry in a nutshell

Speaking at campaign rallies yesterday in two culturally conservative states, Virginia and Tennessee, which hold primaries today, Kerry laid out his plans for creating jobs, improving public school, and expanding health care in the nation. Civil rights for gays did not come up. But over the course of his career, Kerry has stood as "a hero on gay issues," said Boston media consultant Mary Breslauer, for supporting antibias laws protecting gays, and during his 1996 reelection race, denouncing the politically popular Defense of Marriage Act as "gay-bashing on the floor of the United States Senate."

end of quote

It never comes up and that is the problem. Dean doesn't give a speech, ever, where that topic doesn't come up. Tone matters.

[Northwind]

13. The headline should read:

"Kerry treads cowardly on gay marriage ban"

Just like in every other issue, Kerry is too cowardly to take a real stand.

[library_max]

27. Yes, it should.

Because then this cheap-shot, duplicative thread would have been locked by the Moderators.

[Mile Hi]

17. Kerry flip - flops

Kerry is again on both sides of an issue, yet the media hardly mentions it.

Kerry in 1996
During his 1996 reelection race, denouncing the Defense of Marriage Act as "gay-bashing on the floor of the United States Senate.

Kerry 2004
Kerry may support a constitutional amendment against Gay Marriage depending on the language.

Which is it John?

Also Kery sounds a little Rush-like when he claims the Mass. Supreme Court is legislating from the bench. They only ruled that there was nothing in the State Constitution that would prohibit Gay marriage. Thye even stated that it is up to the State Legislation to amend the State Constitution.

Is Kerry trying to be more like GW?

[IndianaGreen]

25. I remember the "White Only" signs

Kerry now supports the "Hetero Only" when it comes to marriage.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

31. I know you can read. Here's his whole statement from yesterday

Block:
I'd like to turn to the subject of gay marriage. The highest court in your home state of Massachusetts has said that same-sex couples do have the right to marry. I know you've said that you oppose gay marriage, but would you support a constitutional amendment that would define marriage as a heterosexual union?

Kerry:
Well, it depends entirely on the language of whether it permits civil union and partnership or not. I'm for civil union, 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" kinda gets in the way of the whole debate, to be honest with you, because marriage to many people is obviously what is sanctified by a church -- it's sacramental -- or by a synagogue or a by a mosque or by whatever religious connotation it has, and clearly there's a separation of church and state here.

Block:
And why would you support, say, civil unions or what you call "partnership rights" and not gay marriage?

Kerry:
Because I think marriage is a separate institution. I think marriage is under the church between a man and a woman and I think there's a separate meaning to it, that's why.

Block:
Even for marriages that aren't conducted in a house of worship?

Kerry:
Correct, even those that aren't there's still two meanings. I mean, the state picked up the concept afterwards; it's a latecomer to the state. You know, for those who have separate beliefs there ought to be a way here to be able to deal with it, but what you call something is not that critical

Block:
You were one of fourteen senators who voted against the Defense of Marriage Act back in 1996 that was signed by President Clinton.

Kerry:
Correct.

Block:
Why did you oppose that?

Kerry:
I opposed it because I thought it was gay bashing on the floor of the United States Senate. It was one of those examples of ideological Republicans trying to drive wedges into the electorate of America and I objected to the Senate being used for that -- even as I still said at the time I don't personally support marriage as we understand it within the context of religion.

[IndianaGreen]

41. I read his statement. Kerry flunked the test.

Kerry should have spoken of equality under the law. Instead he goes on that bullshit and erroneous statement about marriage being a religous thing. He might as well said something as equally stupid as Jesus instituted marriage, like the fundies say.

I can only assume that Kerry does not consider marriage between atheists, or marriages performed by a judge or by a ship's captain. to be legitimate because they lack the religious element.

Kerry has borrowed the language of bigots!

[DU GrovelBot]

## Support Democratic Underground! ##

RUN C:\GROVELBOT.EXE
 
This week is our first quarter 2004 fund drive.
Please take a moment to donate to DU. Thank you
for your support.
 
- An automated message from the DU GrovelBot

Click here to donate.

[Professor Hoodoo]

30. Sorry to inform you guys -- but Kerry drowned

and a lot of angry GBLT members out there are starting to light up torches and grabbing pitchforks to shoo away Kerry from being nominated once the issue hit the mainstream..


And ignore the Grovelbot above....

[library_max]

34. Bah.

We had a mega-thread on this silly non-issue just yesterday, and half the GLBT posters were defending Kerry. It's easy to make this look like something on DU. It's nothing in the real world.

[IndianaGreen]

43. I am telling all of my GLBT friends that Kerry is against gay rights

because Kerry opposes a state issuing a marriage license to people just because they are gay.

What else will Kerry compromise on?

What if the state denies a teaching license to someone because they are gay?

The same principle is at play here. If you don't believe in equality under the law, you are just like those bigots that put signs outside the doors of businesses saying "White Only"!

[library_max]

45. Wow, thanks for all your "help."

You must really be desperate to see Bush get four more years, to just make stuff up and use it to try to turn people against Kerry.

[IndianaGreen]

42. I got the hots for the Grovelbot

He is GREEN!

[kaitykaity]

38. "Treading cautiously" is Kerry's watch phrase.

Guess he doesn't have Howard Dean out front on this one to copy sound from. :eyes:

[library_max]

40. Well, look how Kerry is doing and look how Dean is doing.

Gee, maybe treading cautiously isn't such a stupid idea after all . . .

[kaitykaity]

47. Oh, yeah, and being wimpy and flip-floppy isn't going to play

into the hands of the criminals in the Bush administration.
/sarcasm off/

[library_max]

48. All the difference between being smart and being "wimpy and flip-floppy."

When you take a hard stand on a wedge issue, you hurt yourself politically. That's what wedge issues are for. The only smart thing a candidate can do is dodge them.

Anyway, any argument that the guy who is losing the elections is more electable than the guy who is winning them rather obviously flies in the face of reality.

[kaitykaity]

49. Winning elections NOW.

Now means squat. Nothing. Let's see how he does when the RW slime machine gets cranked up.

Agree that wedge issues are traps. However, my original post was about Kerry's 'treading cautiously' and my point is that Kerry always 'treads cautiously' and when it counts he waits for somebody else to take the heat before he takes a 'stand'.

That's the truth, and trying to denying it 'flies in the face of reality'.

[library_max]

50. But you fail to notice that I'm not denying it.

It proves he's a smart politician, which is what we need right now. Does it mean he's guaranteed to come out on top after the Rove machine gets through with him? Of course not. But if he's not a sure thing, how much less of a sure thing would be anyone who can't even beat him - can't even win one primary away from him?

[Name removed]

51. Deleted message

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

[kaitykaity]

52. I repeat, winning NOW means squat.

Kerry's support might be a mile wide, but it's about an inch deep. People thing he's 'electable' and that he is the candidate who stands the best chance of beating Bush. It has nothing to do with Kerry the person.

He may very well be a smart politician. But that's not what we need to beat Bush. We need somebody who has the courage of their convictions who can stand up and do the right thing even if it isn't the popular thing.

I stand by my statement that that ain't Kerry.

(Deny it all you want, but Dean is the candidate with guts, with a sense of purpose and passion. All the needed, required things that Kerry sadly lacks.)

[library_max]

53. You like Dean. You don't like Kerry. I hear you.

That and four dollars or so will get you a latte at Starbuck's.

Obviously, I don't agree with you at all about Kerry, and I don't entirely agree with you about Dean. But regardless, there's no reason in the world to think that a radical-talking, politics-be-damned candidate would do better in the general election than the kind that ordinarily wins elections. Every time we run to the base in a presidential election, we get killed. Every time. Same with the Republicans. The only way to win is to woo the center, and you don't woo the center by taking inflexible stands on principle.

What you want and what actually works in politics are not the same thing. Saying it is so will not make it so. Neither will wishing it to be so.

[kaitykaity]

54. You are so wrong you are light years away from being just

merely wrong. Bush got close enough to steal 2000 by uniting his base. He says things like 'quotas' and 'sanctity of marriage' to play to this unified base. They were all united in their antipathy towards Clinton, transferred to Gore, and they won on that basis alone.

A united Democratic base (which we have, by the way, thanks to our unified hatred of the Bush bastard) could defeat these people. The US is divided ideologically right now as never before, and the squishy center is irrelevant.

And hey, I think it'd take a couple of million to buy John Kerry a backbone and a sack, but hey, if you'd rather make snarky comments about latte's that's your problem.

I want a candidate who believes in something, not some doofus who licks his finger and sticks it in the wind to figure out which way he's going to vote today.

Why should we have to settle for someone so easily attacked by the RW slime machine. Say what you want about Howard Dean, but he has the courage of his convictions. Whether you want to believe it or not, that means something. Even in politics.

[library_max]

55. Saying so will not make it so. Wishing will not make it so. /eom

[corporatewhore]

44. Treads Cowardly is more like it! He should stand firm and say NO FUCKING

WAY IN HELL and be beholden to the republicans and their sick homophobic ideas I am going to stand up for whats right no two ways about it!!

[library_max]

46. Scream a little louder, please, we can't hear you. /nt