Can anyone enlighten me about this?

[MH1]

On the recent dkos "bash-Kerry-on-gay-marriage" thread, someone just this response to one of mine, and I only just saw it:

(bolding mine)

* What he says and does, though, (none / 0)

don't jibe.

If he had been such an oh-so-strong supporter, the Kerry camp wouldn't have strong-armed state D parties into official neutrality on the anti-gay amendments out there last year, you know--the ones that were worded ambiguously enough to not be clear what the heck they outlawed. The MI Democratic Party was essentially forced to encourage its members to educate themselves on the anti-gay Prop 2.

Why did the Kerry camp do that?

...

by Matt in AA on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 08:48:18 PM EST

Huh? Kerry camp strong-armed the state parties? Well actually I have a theory why that might have been a good idea anyway, but I'm just curious whether it's actually true in the first place.


(For reference, my post, which the above post was replying to)

No. Actually, (none / 0)

He stated that he opposed DOMA because it did not contain a provision for civil unions with FULL equivalence of rights with married couples.

He has consistently opposed any same-sex marriage ban that does not provide for civil unions with full equivalence. However a same-sex marriage amendment that permits civil unions, is acceptable to him as long as all rights of marriage can be assigned to the same-sex partnership. Except of course, the marriage label, in the eyes of the law only.

There. That's pretty clear, isn't it?

by MH in PA on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 08:18:13 PM EST

Here's the link to the basher's post if you feel like replying to him (sandnsea already has posted a worthy response :thumbsup:, but an MI-centric reply might be good too):

http://www.dailykos.com/comments/2005/10/15/1310/8929/207#207

I can't hang out much more tonight but I'll check back on this tomorrow. Thanks for any light that can be shed. :-)

[sandnsea]

1. I saw that and responded

We had a gay marriage initiative in Oregon and I didn't get any sense that the Kerry campaign "strong-armed" us at all. There was a very strong campaign to defeat our amendment, mailings, phone calls, the whole deal. I really don't know what this poster is talking about.

[MH1]

3. Thanks, saw your response.

Good job!

:toast:

[blm]

2. That was BILL CLINTON and Terry MacAuliffe @DNC who did that - not Kerry.

Clinton even tried to get Kerry to come out for the anti-gay measures in some states. He wouldn't do it.

[MH1]

4. Thanks..

I knew about Clinton pressuring Kerry but I thought from other posts over there, that the "strong-arming" allegation might be based on something else substantive (not necessarily true or correctly interpeted.)

(I got in a blogfight over there tonight because Markos and the Majority Report people have started endorsing (at least sort of ) "fighting dem" candidates for next year - and they picked a guy who's trying to run in my district, who doesn't even live here, and we already have a good candidate. WTF are they doing anyway? I don't know about y'al, but we actually do have this thing called an "election" next month and don 't need this 2006 stuff right now - especially if they're going to undercut the good candidate who's already announced. :grr:)