Kerry’s positions on gay marriage ban at the State level but not Federal

[MurikanDemocrat]

level are not inconsistent with his previous statements

Kerry statement on suggestion of Massachusetts banning gay marriage (approx 3 weeks ago 2-5-2004??)

"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," Kerry continued. "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 kind of 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 by a mosque or by whatever religious connotation it has. Clearly there's a separation of church and state here. ... 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."

Here's Kerry statement on 2-26-2004 supporting Amendment that provides for civil unions

Massachusetts
"If the Massachusetts Legislature crafts an appropriate amendment that provides for partnership and civil unions, then I would support it, and it would advance the goal of equal protection," the senator said yesterday, stressing that he was referring only to the state, and not the federal, Constitution. He has said he would oppose any amendment that did not include a provision for civil unions. "I think that you need to have civil union. That's my position," he said Tuesday.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/02/26/kerry_backs_stat...


Kerry statement 2-24-2004 on Bush proposal for Federal Amendment to the Constitution against gay marriage


“I believe President Bush is wrong. All Americans should be concerned when a President who is in political trouble tries to tamper with the Constitution of the United States at the start of his reelection campaign.

“This President can’t talk about jobs. He can’t talk about health care. He can’t talk about a foreign policy, which has driven away allies and weakened the United States, so he is looking for a wedge issue to divide the American people.

“While I believe marriage is between a man and a woman, for 200 years, this has been a state issue. I oppose this election year effort to amend the Constitution in an area that each state can adequately address, and I will vote against such an amendment if it comes to the Senate floor.

“I believe the best way to protect gays and lesbians is through civil unions. I believe the issue of marriage should be left to the states, and that the President of the United States should be addressing the central challenges where he has failed – jobs, health care, and our leadership in the world rather than once again seeking to drive a wedge by toying with the United States Constitution for political purposes.”


http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/releases/pr_2004_0224b.html

[BayCityProgressive]

1. and he wont support a civil union bill..

unless it gives full rights.

[edzontar]

2. Once again, Kerry sells out , waffles, disappoints.

nt.

[IndianaGreen]

3. Kerry endorses aparheid!

How about requiring pink triangles for gays?

How about banning gay teachers, nurses, day care workers, etc.?

[emulatorloo]

9. I think you are thinking of George Bush

JK is pro gay rights. GWB is anti gay rights.

It is going to be a short trip from "Civil Unions" to "Gay Marriage."

It is going to be a long long trip from GWBs position.

JK has never advocated the nonsense you are ascribing to him. I am not so sure about GWB.

Please make a genuine argument rather that just spewing bumpersticker nonsense. Thanks.

[BR_Parkway]

4. Where is the waffle?

He says that marriage is a church thing, separate church & state, full rights for all under civil unions

And leave it at the state level, don't expand the federal government role.

What did I miss?

[IndianaGreen]

5. Marriage is not a "church" thing!

The wedding license is issued by the state, not by a fucking church!

Many people don't get married in religious ceremonies.

[tobius]

7. "full rights for all"- except if your state bans it.

full rights for all- except if you want to call it marriage.
full rights for all- except if you are an atheist heterosexual couple and want to marry

[MurikanDemocrat]

8. Kerry's position is consistent. He has not waffled or swayed in any way

on this.

[diamondsoul]

14. Except he doesn't say "separate church and state"-

I could go with that based on the first quoted statement, but he's not saying take the word marriage out of the law and make all partnerships civil unions across the board. Instead he says do nothing, leave it up to the States whether same sex partnership is allowed and leave the entire homosexual community going through hell as they do now.

The fact is that unless all personal life partnerships are federally recognized so that every State must accept the legalities of those unions, homosexual couples will be less than equal. As it stands now many states refuse to recognize aqdoptions by gay couples and the children can literally be taken by the state should a family unwittingly move to one of those states. That's disgusting and ought to be prosecuted.

THAT is why same sex partnerships must be federally recognized nationwide.

[BR_Parkway]

17. He cant come out and say take the word marriage out

the fundies would kill him with it (or any other candidate). Don't you hear all the "they are going to DESTROY marriage" comments being spewed?

It's interesting that so many people, who a year ago would have been THRILLED to have a state sanctioned civil union, with the hope of more later have become so enamoured of a word, that they are willing to put their heads in the sand and watch us get constitutionally amended into 2nd class - and then there's not one freaking thing you'll do about it, because you would never get that one repealed. Pollyanna and don't think they can pass it?

There are at this moment almost half the required sponsors already on board! They need 290 in the house to vote Yes, and they have 115 as co sponsors. They need 67 in the Senate and have 8 co sponsors. They need 38 states to pass it and guess what? 38 states have already passed DOMA's and a few are already rushing to pass State constitutional amendments.

So, while everyone is hacking whoever ISN'T their candidate over which word got used, the ReThugs are going to get this through, because 60% of the general population is against it - and that is quite enough to get ANY politition to vote for something.

Edit to say - I'm supporting Edwards.

[emulatorloo]

11. Once again, you misread what Kerry says

Full rights under civil unions.

Is it the end all and be all of gay marriage? No, but pretty much the same rights.

To me it is going to be a short trip from civil unions as advocated by jk and gay marriage.

OTOH it is going to be a long trip from GWBs position - ban on civil unions.

This is a time for chess players, not checker players.

JK is not the enemy of gays, GWB is.

[AntiCoup2K4]

15. Get your "Grand Slam the gays" breakfast at KIHOW*!

*Kerry's Internationalist House of Waffles

[tobius]

6. "Inconsistent?"..."Kerry?"......"Inconceivable!"

That is sooooo unlike him.

[emulatorloo]

12. At least you are consistent in your obstinate misreading of JK n/t

[MurikanDemocrat]

20. I have documentation to back me up

Can you dispoute it with documentation and quotes? I didn't think so.

[emulatorloo]

10. Welcome to Republican Divide and Conquer

Bush amendment is many despicable things, and one thing it is a Trap for the Democratic Candidates. To push them to say they are for "Gay Marriage" so that GWB can go on and on about how out of touch they are. This is a fact.

His amendment also is intended to divide Democrats on the issue. To get them imbroiled in arguments just like the one represented in this thread, so I am mad at indianagreen and and he or she is mad at me, etc etc etc and then the whole thing gets muddied with an end result that the Dems fall apart and GWB wins and takes forth his agenda. This is a fact too.

George Bush is against gays. George bush does not want gays to have any rights. This is clear in his position that there also be a ban on civil unions. This is a fact.

John Kerry is against Gay Marriage. That is a fact, and he has a justification for it that for most at DU is lame.

But John Kerry is for gay rights for protecting gay families for civil unions. And in all of his statements he has said this. Over and Over and Over and Over. This is a fact.

I have no doubt that if we begin w civil unions, we are going to end up w marriage at some point in the near future -- through civil disobedience, court action, etc, If we go with the Bush plan, we are just screwed.

This is a time for chess players, not checker players. It seems to me that we have a choice here. . .panicking about this and playing into GWBs hands, or understanding that this is going to be a struggle, and that JK is not the enemy, GWB is.

[MurikanDemocrat]

13. You can count on IndianaGreen to mischaracterize anything

that has to do with Kerry.

[BruinAlum]

16. His position is entirely consistent with his previous statement

[MurikanDemocrat]

18. kick for current discussions

[MurikanDemocrat]

19. kick for the day crew