Kerry backs Mass. amendment to outlaw same-sex marriage

[central scrutinizer]

Mods: If this has already been posted, please lock.

http://www.advocate.com/new_news.asp?ID=11466&sd=02/27/04

excerpt:

Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry said Thursday
he supports amending the Massachusetts constitution to
ban gay marriage as long as such an amendment would
provide for civil unions for same-sex couples. He stressed
that he was referring only to the state, and not the federal,
constitution. The Massachusetts senator has criticized
President Bush's support for an amendment that would
change the U.S. Constitution to define marriage as a
heterosexual institution.

"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," Kerry told The Boston Globe. He has said he would oppose
any amendment that didn't include a provision for civil unions. "I think that you need
to have civil union," he said. "That's my position."

[Brian_Expat]

1. If Bush wasn't the competition, I'd vote third party

As such, after the election, Kerry will have MUCHO explaining to do.

[larco]

2. I'm confused...

How can anyone back a state constitutional amendment but not a federal amendment? So if Mass has the amendment, but say California does not, then it's ok to discriminate against gays and lesbians in his state? And he says it would advance the goal of equal protection? How is it equal protection if one group of people can be married but the other cannot? This issue is not going to affect my decision to vote for a dem, of course, but I don't understand why the government is even in the business of deciding who can and cannot get married. Just makes me even that more disenchanted with what's going on in our party.

[Brian_Expat]

4. This is typical "piss off everyone, please nobody" DLC politics

Kerry is terminally incapable of taking a stand that's unpopular with some segment of the population, thus, he must live in the "centre" and piss off both the right wing bigots who wouldn't vote Democratic if the party nominee was Jerry Falwell, and the liberal base who are under threat from third party candidates.

[sangh0]

8. And that is "I'm ignorant, so don't bother me with facts" politics

I'll post this anyway, for the others.

Because the Constitution assigns different powers and roles for the Fed and state govts, it is unreasonable to think that anyone, including politicians, should come to the same conclusions regardless of whether the issue is being addressed at the state level or the federal level

[Brian_Expat]

10. You're either pro-equality or anti-equality

John Kerry is anti-equality. Is he better than Bush? Yes, only because Bush is actually in favour of taking rights AWAY on a federal level rather than a state one.

Does that mean that John Kerry is not a waffling equivocator with a backbone made out of jello who will get quite a comeuppance and earful from non-sellouts after he wins the election? Heck no.

[sangha]

30. You are either with us, or against us

Cram the fundamentalistic arguments. I'm a liberal.

When MLK was fighting for civil rights, there were a number of civil rights bills he refused to support because they were TOO STRONG. He felt the courts wouldn't uphold them and the only lasting affect they would have would be to inflame public opinion against the civil rights movement.

Now tell me MLK was "anti-equality". I dare you

[newyawker99]

22. Hi larco!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[sadiesworld]

3. Why are civil unions not progress?

[larco]

6. Civil unions are not progress b/c

it's essentially throwing a bone to the gay and lesbian community. What if 50 years ago, when marriage between an African American and a white was considered as "horrible" as some consider gay marriage, it was written into the federal or any state constitution that marriage between two races was not allowed, but civil unions were? Would that be progress? No. It would still be discrimination. Civil unions are not equal rights. No equal rights = no progress.

[dansolo]

49. It's worse than that

I wouldn't object to the implementation of only civil unions initially. What I find offensive is that they will only do it if they can ban marriages at the same time. I find using the Constitution to restrict any rights is a really dangerous slippery slope.

[Brian_Expat]

7. They're yesterday's compromise

They were bold in 2000. In 2004, they're de riguer.

More evidence? The anti-gay governor of Massachusetts opposed civil unions during the 2001 elections, yet is now in favour of them. Why? Because "civil unions" make gays a permanent legal, social, political and economic second class when MARRIAGE is on the table (for the first time).

[sui generis]

18. civil unions aren't progress

unless every single right afforded to married hets without exception are afforded to members of civil unions. That just isn't the case in reality, but if it were, then it's even sillier to differentiate between marriage and civil unions if it's a distinction without a difference. As long as someone can say "the only difference between marriage and civil unions is...." then there is a difference. It should all be one or the other.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

20. what if the only difference is the name?

and all rights and legal status are the same.

[newyawker99]

23. Hi sui generis!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[Streetdoc270]

25. What is the difference?

Can someone give a good reasonable difference between Marrage and Civil Union? To my understanding all a marrage is a church sacrement that the government recognizes as a civil union. If this thinking is correct than according to the seperation of church/state law you cannot tell a church who they can/cannot marry. I see this as an argument of semantics, for example in North Carolina the Paramedics wanted to be licensed, but the Nursing board opposed it so we went to credentuling, which gives us the same rights and privlages as licensed personell, its just a word.

:edited for spelling

[tishaLA]

32. The difference is

marriage is not a church sacrament, but a legal contract (remember that the priest/pastor/rabbi says "by the power vested in my by the state/commonwealth/republic of X) and not all marriages are initiated in a church--a good number take place witha justice of the peace or at chapels in Las Vegas, NV.

Churches now are not forced to marry people they don't want to marry, which is why many Catholic churches refuse to do interfaith marriages.

There is no semantics. Civil unions do not give federal benefits while marriages do. To stand for states' rights but against marriage is to say you believe in reserving some federal benefits for straights and denying them to LGBT people.

[Streetdoc270]

34. That helps a little but..

Could you please clarify what a civil union is if it gives no benefits?

Also to be clear Marriage is a sacrament in the Catholic church, that is why many refuse interfaith marriages, they also will not marry a divorcee in the Church.

(please take into consideration that I am not trying to be confrontational or difficult, I just need to understand the whole argument)

[tishaLA]

36. I'll try

you said in your post to which I initially responded "all a marrage is a church sacrement that the government recognizes as a civil union" when in fact, as I see it--and as the government sees it--that is not true. Its primary status is conctractuall; if people choose to represent it sacramentally, that is fine, but it is not the ontological truth of marriage.

A civil union as they stand provide no federal benefits, although they can confer some state benefits (in, for example, California, where Grey Davis signed probably the most expansive LGBT union laws before the recall; it outlines "rights and responsibilityies" that are essentially the same on the state level as marriage). Where these state statutes fall down, though, is that they do not provide for Social Security benefits, for example, or for green cards for spouses. They do not allow federal tax benefits that heterosexual couples get, nor are they transferrable to another state, as marriage is. So, in effect, if you travel from CA to IN and your partner has a heart attack, you lose any decision making in his or her health care that you would have in your home state. And even in other states that offer civil unions, the amount of "coverage" offered to spouses can be racially different.

There are a number of other distinctions, but you get the point.

[Streetdoc270]

37. but if the definition is extended federally

Would that make any difference? I have been searching for info on the web but all I can find is the Vremont and Canadian definations of civil union which to paraphrase state 'all rights as marrage'
(full text http://www.thefreedictionary.com/civil%20union)

also see http://www.justice.gouv.qc.ca/english/publications/generale/union-civ-a.htm

[tishaLA]

38. So you propose a federal definition

of civil unions that give all the benefits of marriage but not the name? Why? It's not for religious reasons--after all, marriage is not necessarily a church event now--and it wouldn't be for legal reasons.

[Streetdoc270]

42. I guess thats my whole point....

Is this what we (the Country) are at odds about, just a word? If all the rights, benefits, responsibilities, etc are the same why not throw the religious right a bone and let them have their word. Making the fight about marriage takes away from the true problem, equal rights under the law for all people regardless of race, creed, color, or orientation.

[tishaLA]

46. Two thoughts

1. Perhaps heterosexuals should stop being so protective of a word then. If you are willing to go along with the concept, why have a sacrosanct vocabulary?

2. There is a good case to be made for keeping this out of the hands of the federal government and allowing states to maintain their say. DoMA will be struck down and same sex marriage will be recognized nationwide anyhow, but I still believe states can make laws about age of consent for marriage, etc. I don't believe in federal tampering on the issue.

[Streetdoc270]

47. Ok you have sold me on one but,

I'll concede on point one.... I think its the Sicillian/Catholic in me that won't let go of the word

Now on point two the problem I see is if you dont have a federally defended definition of marrage/union/handfasting whatever that extends to GLBT then whats to stop some states from not recognizing said union that was joined in a different state?

[tishaLA]

48. The constitution

full faith and cradit.

It's why DoMA will go down: it's unconstitutional on its face.

[dsc]

26. In this case they aren't because the status quo is marriage

If nothing happens, gays in Massachusetts will be married in a few months. Thus Kerry is making us give back rights we now have.

[liberalnurse]

5. kerry can't keep his stories straight.

kerry has played the game too long to remember his falsehoods.

[Mass_Liberal]

9. Kerry has no balls

nor has he had any for the last 2 years. He disgusts me utterly. Can't he stand up for equal rights? You can't stand up for anything if not equal rights.

Fucking gutless, and I hope gay people don't let him hear the end of it.

[gottaB]

11. Which Amendment?

Which amendment does Kerry back?

[Brian_Expat]

12. The anti-gay one that would take away the rights of MA gays. . .

. . . rather than the anti-gay one that would take away the rights of all AMERICAN gays.

This makes him a liberal lion, you see, standing up for gay people. :puke:

[gottaB]

13. So there is no amendment that Kerry is backing?

[Brian_Expat]

14. Now there's a way to win the election. . .

Piss off gays and not pick up any votes, and insist that an anti-gay marriage amendment on the state level isn't anti-gay.

Follow that up with a brilliant strategy to support segregation of the races, and insist that it's not racist because after all, it's separate but EQUAL, and it's only a state level amendment.

[gottaB]

15. Which amendment does Kerry back?

[Brian_Expat]

16. The anti-gay state MA amendment is backed by Kerry. n/t

[gottaB]

17. Which Amendment does Kerry back?

Perhaps you and I can agree that Rep. Travis's amendment was anti-gay.

Did Kerry say he backed Travis's H. 3190?

Is there a paticular anti-gay amendment which Kerry has said he backs?

[Brian_Expat]

28. You don't get it.

Any amendment that bans gays from marrying is anti-gay.

Any amendment that bans gays from marrying and creates a segregated system that provides a "separate category" for gays is anti-gay.

Kerry supports the latter as a constitutional amendment. That amendment, by definition, is anti-gay.

[gottaB]

31. Which amendment does Kerry back?

Kerry does not support any particular amendment.

Furthermore, Kerry does not support any amendment "banning" gay marriage, not even hypothetically.

[janx]

40. How many times are you going to ask that?

?

[gottaB]

41. Do you have an answer?

???

[janx]

43. I wasn't the one you asked, was I?

?

[gottaB]

45. You asked me about repeating the question

I'm going to repeat it until I get an honest answer, or the matter is dropped.

You want to pick it up, you tell me, what are we talking about here?

Which amendment does Kerry back?

[gottaB]

19. for your edification

Here's a site that has the full text of many of the amendmentments:

http://veecee.typepad.com/marriage/



Which one of the proposed amendments does Kerry back?

[dsc]

27. By my reading of those amendments

he might have supported both, but definately would support the one labeled text of new amendment.

[gottaB]

29. not even

"while recognizing that under present federal law same-sex couples in civil unions will be denied federal benefits available to married couples" is contrary to Kerry's stated position.

My criticism in this thread is with the fairness and accuracy of assertions being reported as facts.

Facts: John Kerry does not have a direct vote on Beacon Hill; Other Dems such as Tom Finneran do not do John Kerry's bidding; John Kerry has expressed his opinion that he's opposed to granting legal recognition to gay marriages, but that he supports civil unions; John Kerry has not changed this position during the primary; There is no specific amendment that Kerry backs.

If you have facts to the contrary, please share them.

[SaveElmer]

21. On issues like this the people have to lead

If Kerry took an absolutist position in support of Gay marriage, he could kiss the presidency goodbye. It is no use pushing to the logical end on an issue unless a significant portion of the country is ready for it. That is why candidates like Dennis Kucinich don't get very far. He may be right in what he stands for, but not enough people are yet ready to follow.

I equate Kerry's support for Civil Unions as an alternative to supporting gay marriage, to Lincoln's emancipation proclamation. He did what he could, within political reality, to advance the cause of freedom. Had he freed all slaves in one action, half of the Union Army would have deserted, and he would have been annihilated in the 1864 election. The Union wpould probably have been forced to either recognize the confederacy, or take them back in on such terms that slavery would have been perpetuated for many more years.

Kerry is on the right side of this...he just can't push to hard until the country is ready for it...and it is getting there!!!

[Mairead]

24. Send the only message that will be heard, folks: vote for Kucinich

As long as you give these guys what they want without their having to give you anything but lip-service back, guess how much you'll get from them? Right: bupkes!

Find out just what people will submit to, and you have found out the exact amount of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them; and these will continue until they are resisted with either words or blows, or both.
—Frederick Douglass

[DaveSZ]

33. You guys are missing the point

He has to sound like a centrist to win the election in Nov as does any candidate, but think of the judicial appointees, and the power of the White House regulatory agencies.

Do you want a Scalia Supreme Court? I don't.

As I type this, industry is drilling/mining our National Parks, and clear-cutting our National Forests because the Bush regulatory agencies gave them one tenth of the entire landmass of the US to exploit. President Teddy Roosevelt saved 240million acreas of land for conservation purposes, and Bush has handed over 234 million acres to industry.

The Bush Administration EPA has rewritten most of our country's environmental laws so that industry can dump more arsenic in our drinking water, and spew more methyl mercury into the air. In the majority of US states you cannot even eat the fish you catch because of methyl mercury contamination.

Isn't that more significant than gay marriage in the bigger picture? What good is it if we vote for Nader because of this Kerry position, and then Bush appoints more rightwing hacks to the Supreme Court? What good does granting gays the right to marry do if they don't have something as fundamental as clean air to breath?

I simply can't understand those who are unwilling to compromise on a few issues for the greater good of our country.

Listen, if Kerry wins, and nominates a few more good justices to the Supreme Court, they will be all set to rule that gay marriage is a constitutionally protected right.

Think about the future people I'm begging you! :(

[janx]

35. Is it possible for Kerry to refrain from talking out of both sides

of his mouth?

[graywarrior]

39. This is exactly what GOP wants

I can't believe this is the issue that will cream the dems this election. We're falling right into the rebups trap.

[janx]

44. This is a weakness of Kerry's--and a very real one.

I hope he can overcome it before the general election.