John Kerry op-ed in favor of gay marriage in the Boston Globe

[karynnj]

One theme is that politicians have a right to evolve on this issue. But, in the course of the article he strongly defends marriage equality (which he defended as early as 2008) and speaks of the need to repeal DOMA.

Seeing is believing. Many of us who once believed civil unions were sufficient to protect legal rights because we thought of marriage as a religious sacrament between a man and a woman, have seen that no church has been forced to do anything that contradicts its teachings. But when two committed people apply for a Massachusetts marriage license, they are equal whether they are gay or straight. It’s not about a word - it’s about equality under the law.

Last March, when the Boston Globe asked if I supported marriage equality I answered yes. But in light of the increased discussion after passage of New York’s law, more is required than a simple “yes.’’ We cannot afford to be imprisoned by politics that say your views are not allowed to grow as you gain knowledge and experience. There’s nothing wrong with acknowledging you’ve changed your mind when your views have evolved. Don’t we pride ourselves on learning by living? Muhammad Ali, said it best: “The man who views the world at 50 the same way he did at 20 has wasted 30 years of his life.’’

These seven years of marriage equality in Massachusetts might as well have been 30 years: they erased decades of myths. It’s hard for a lot of young people to even understand the controversy. For them, including my daughters, the right of gay Americans to marry has never been a question. It’s been a longer journey for my generation from Stonewall to Albany, but the tide of history has still led us in one direction: understanding has replaced apprehension.

We still have miles to travel. People have to make up their own minds in their own time. But when we grant a right to some citizens but deny it to others, we create a second, unequal class. The America we aspire to doesn’t have any second class citizens.

[Unvanguard]

1. He makes a much better Senator than presidential candidate. n/t

[karynnj]

2. I thought he was a damn good candidate given all that was arrayed against him

I never saw a less fair race as far as the media was concerned - they condoned character assassinations of both John and Teresa Kerry. They also blocked people from seeing much of the campaign - unless they went to CSPAN. Consider that there are puff biographies every year - for both major candidates. The biographies are graphed to make the plot be why the life led to the Presidency - they even created ones for W! Kerry with a biography that needs no embellishment to do this - had none. The closest thing was the double Bush/Kerry biography on Frontline.

He had the Catholic Church, most of the anti-gay evangelicals, the coal and oil companies all actively fighting him.

What is remarkable is that he would STILL have won if there were enough voting machines in Ohio.

Kerry himself thoughtfully explains his own evolution on this, but one key thing about all his positions was that he always was 100% for giving equal rights. He also had the guts in 1993 to speak in favor of gay soldiers serving openly - even testifying before Strom Thurmond's committee.

I think he would have been a very good President, but he, unlike Obama, would have taken office with both Houses controlled by the Republicans. He could have done better getting us out of the wars and on foreign policy than Bush, but pushing a domestic agenda would have been basically impossible.

[Unvanguard]

3. My intent was not to criticize Candidate Kerry.

Rather simply noting that, without the pressures of running for national office, he's been a much more independent and much more progressive voice. His strong stances on gay rights are one of several examples.

[karynnj]

4. Completely agree

He is far less guarded in what he says. I think he ran a campaign where he did stay true to who he is, but you are correct that he is far more outspoken and independent, which seems far more natural to him.

[politicasista]

5. Sounds good,

He is taking some heat over this article/stance via Facebook (though there are good replies with likes). Although nothing can be done about those people?. this is the MSM's strategy of divide and conquer. Go figure.

:kick:

[karynnj]

9. Not bad

One was likely not even responding to the op-ed, because he spoke of the direction that Obama and he were taking the country - it was far more general than just gay marriage. The other was someone, obviously from Massachusetts, hurt that Kerry in 2004 did not take a more pro-gay rights stance than he did. The fact is that in saying he wanted civil unions to have the full federal rights of marriage, he went far beyond any previous nominee. It might have been hurt as on gays in the military and civil rights, he was a stand out since he entered the Senate.

[politicasista]

10. Makes sense

Both went after Obama also, but as sensitive as this issue is, you will not please everyone. The Op-ed is a start though.

[ruggerson]

6. He was one of the few Senators who originally voted against DOMA

and gave an incredible sopeech on the Senate floor.

[Bluenorthwest]

7. Yes indeed he did.

He has on more than one occasion, risen to say that which he could have simply not said.

[karynnj]

8. Your sentence makes a very eloquent statement nt

[DevonRex]

11. I really like this man. And...

this is exactly the kind od thing our politicians need to be saying publicly. I'm also sure there's another reason Kerry did this. And it's a really good one.

[BlueIris]

12. Nice to see him embracing reality.

Now I'd like to see him embrace it some more.

Do your duty, Senator.