Kerry and Edwards position on gay marriage ban

[lojasmo]

Oppose it, but will not vote against it. Lovely. What is it that these folks do? Wait, aren't they senators?

AP story

pitch in, kids.

[Placebo]

1. I thought...

they weren't going to vote against it because it is now not a straight up or down vote? I could be wrong.

[Paschall]

2. Their votes are not needed

The GOP has shot itself in the foot and they're going down by their own hand. This was a trap for Kerry, but it's failed. Kerry and Edward's positions on the amendment are rock solid.

[physioex]

3. As long as they don't press for an Ammendment....

And keep it a states rights issue, I will be ok with it, and I know they won't press for an Ammendment. You can't expect people to change overnight, just give it time. Yes I agree the Repugs shot themselves on the foot with this issue, we have many other pressing problems...

[lojasmo]

6. This is an ammendment press

it will fail.

[Cats Against Frist]

4. Here's what I THINK happened

I watched the whole thing, basically, but I missed the end.

The Republican majority skirted committee to get this hasty and discriminatory amendment to the floor, so they could take a vote to get Democratic Senators on the record as to their stance on gay marriage.

When, after they couldn't garner anywhere near the support, they tried to change the amendment to get more support. When the Democrats said they would only OK the procedural vote on the ORIGINAL amendment, the GOP, knowing they couldn't get support -- even within their own party, they faces a potentially embarrasing split.

So, as a last-ditch attempt to fulfill their original goal, which was to muckrake some goods on the Democrats in a desperate attempt to keep from losing the Senate, and the Presidency, they decided they, then wanted a LEGISLATIVE VOTE. I missed this part, but I'm assuming that since they couldn't get it on record any other way, they stripped it down from an amendment to a piece of legislation -- so they could still get the Democrats on record.

Kerry and Edwards did ((not)) and should not have showed up for the GOP's childish, immature, divisive, hateful and political manipulation. Their votes were not needed -- unless this legislative piece passes, in which case a. since the GOP has a slim simple majority, and some Democratic support, their votes wouldn't mean anything anyway and b. the bill is absolutely useless, because it still would have to stand a Constitutional challenge -- which it would lose.

Simple as that. I'm OK with them not playing their reindeer games. Gay marriage will be legal. They don't even have a SIMPLE majority mandate in the polls, and they sure as hell don't have a 2/3. The only things they can do to halt gay marriage is on the Constitutional level, because the right to gay marriage is ALREADY implied in the Constitution. Someone just needs to challenge it and bada bing, bada boom -- it's legal. That's why they've gone fire engine on this.

It is a sure-fire loser for them.


*****edited to add the (( not ))

[lojasmo]

5. Bingo

Excellent analyses, there was no need to go. My cynacism is completely unfounded.

Brilliantly countered. Mods, feel free to lock, no further discussion is needed.

Paul Wellstone wouldn't have voted on this piece of debris either. I guess it (sort of) passes the smell test.

[wtmusic]

7. Yes, well stated

They are gaming the elections. Kerry and Edwards are both better off steering clear of the issue for now.

[emulatorloo]

8. You are WRONG. . .If amendment comes up, they WILL VOTE AGAINST

But they will not hang around for pre-amendment procedural votes. At this point it seem that the repugs do not have what it takes to even get the amendment up for a vote.

Stephanie Cutler from Kerry campaign has stated this clearly, and DUers have already misinterpreted it. Kerry and Edwards will not vote on procedural stuff, BUT WILL VOTE AGAINST THE AMENDMENT SHOULD IT COME TO A VOTE.

So repeating, and Sorry for Yelling:

IF THE AMENDMENT COMES TO A VOTE KERRY AND EDWARDS WILL VOTE AGAINST IT!!!!

However, at this point it is doubtful it will come to a vote.

[lojasmo]

9. I agree a vote is doubtful

I still wish we'd see some firey denouncements of this wrongheaded B.S. (so far McKain has been more vocally opposed) I'd also like to see no votes today from both of them. We'll see what time brings. Thanks for your soothsaying. Who's going to win the superbowl?

[emulatorloo]

10. Not Soothsaying, but a statement from Kerry Spokesperson

http://apnews1.iwon.com/article/20040713/D83Q0DF81.html

<snip>

Kerry spokeswoman Stephanie Cutter said Kerry and Edwards would be in the Senate to vote against the amendment if it came up, but they will not be there to vote on the procedural measure.

<snip>

I don't think Ms Cutter has predicted super bowl yet. . .;)


PS Kerry denounced it when it first came up.

[spooky3]

11. We've got to get them in office to have the greatest impact.

It's unfortunate that so many Americans have biases, but they do, and our candidates have to be aware of that. For the same reason, I as a woman understand that Kerry could not choose a female VP. There's a fine line between leading change and being too willing to pander to bias, but you can't lead change if you lose the election to *.

[emulatorloo]

13. Kerry Statement 7-14-04

For Immediate Release

July 14, 2004

Kerry Statement on Federal Marriage Amendment

Boston, MA - Senator John Kerry released the following statement today:

"The floor of the United States Senate should only be used for the common
good, not issues designed to divide us for political purposes. Throughout
history, amending our Constitution - the foundation of the nation's values
and ideals - has been serious business. However, even Republicans concede
that this amendment is being offered only for political gains. The
unfortunate result is that the important work of the American people -
funding our homeland security needs, creating new and better jobs, and
raising the minimum wage - is not getting done. Had this amendment reached
a final vote, I would have voted against it, because I believe that the
American people deserve better than this from their leaders. When I am
president, I will work to bring the nation together and build a stronger
America."

[dolstein]

12. They won't fly back just for a procedural vote

What is it that you don't understand? Edwards and Kerry have made it perfectly clear that they oppose a constitutional amendment prohibiting states from recognizing gay marriage. They have made it perfectly clear that they would make themselves available to vote against such a proposed amendment. So far so good. But they have also said that they aren't going to interrupt their campaign schedule just to take part in a procedural vote on whether to cut off debate. And why should they? They shouldn't allow their campaigns to be held hostage to Republican parliamentary tactics. Besides, look at what happened the last time Kerry flew back to DC to cast a vote -- the Republicans stalled and prevented the vote from taking place. They could very well do so again, particularly if they're going to lose the procedural vote by a large margin.

[AP]

14. I thought they said they'd vote agains tthe final bill but wouldn't be...

...able to make it in to vote on all the procedural bills leading up to the final vote.

[lojasmo]

15. many republicans had the cajones

To vote against this turd. I dig that.