Boston Globe: Kerry backs state ban on gay marriage

[Timahoe]

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

Kerry backs state ban on gay marriage Says amendment must provide for civil unions

By Patrick Healy and Frank Phillips, Globe Staff, 2/26/2004

TOLEDO, Ohio -- Presidential candidate John F. Kerry said yesterday that he supports amending the Massachusetts Constitution to ban gay marriage and provide for civil unions for gay couples.

In his most explicit remarks on the subject yet, Kerry told the Globe that he would support a proposed amendment to the state Constitution that would prohibit gay marrriage so long as, while outlawing gay marriage, it also ensured that same-sex couples have access to all legal rights that married couples receive.

"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.

[slinkerwink]

1. GRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR!!!!!!!!!

:mad:

[flpoljunkie]

43. IF it ALSO ensured that same-sex couples have ALL legal rights of others

This is more than significant. A civil union with all the rights of marriage affords you equal rights and protection under the law--what you are seeking-and it is within the realm of the possible. You can have a civil or marriage ceremony performed by a judge or a minister. What finally matters is the rights obtained.

Most people, even in this overheated environment, disagree with a Constitutional amendment that would take away your rights. This is also a very good thing.

[nofurylike]

86. DITTO-PLUS, slinkerwink!!!!! n/t

[Timahoe]

2. So as I understand it, bigotry at the federal level is wrong, but okay

at the state level?

Can someone explain this to me. Speak slowly, because I can be dense at times.

[slinkerwink]

3. that's why Kerry has to come out in favor of gay marriage so

at the state level he won't waffle like this.

[Timahoe]

5. It makes no sense and is dishonest

At least we know where Chimpy is coming from. He doesn't like homosexuals and thinks they should be second class citizens. Period. End of story.

I don't get what Kerry is up to.

[Guaranteed]

7. He's not up to anything.

He's just weak. Weak weak WEAK.

Weak as FUCK.

Nothing's going to change if we elect this guy.

[jsw_81]

30. It makes perfect sense and is a good compromise

The fact is that Kerry will lose the election if he supports gay marriage. It's that simple.

Civil unions are for the most part identical to marriage with regard to benefits, and it's a compromise that most Americans, myself included, can live with.

[Jersey Devil]

37. Yes, but why can't those who favor gay marriage understand that?

Sometimes I think they'd rather see the Democrat fall on his sword and lose rather than do what it takes to get elected and most importantly, end the Bush presidency.

Does anyone think gays would be better off with Bush as President?

[jsw_81]

31. You want us to lose a 49-state landslide like McGovern?

Because that's what well get if Kerry supports gay marriage.

[sandnsea]

8. States can make their own laws

He supports the rights of states to do that. He supports defining marriage between a man and woman, while guaranteeing civil rights to gays. At the state level. Doing it at the federal level does not allow states to make their own decisions. Like Massachusetts if they choose to legislate for gay marriage, even though he would disagree with that.

[Timahoe]

10. Strom Thurmond also believed that civil rights was a state issue!

That argument doesn't even pass the straight face test!

[sandnsea]

12. What's the alternative?

A federal Constitutional Amendment denying gays any rights at all? We aren't talking about a Constitutional Amendment giving gay people rights here, like civil rights laws, we're talking about the opposite.

States pass laws regarding marriage licenses and always have. That's where the laws need to remain.

[MSchreader]

28. The alternative? ENFORCE THE XIV AMENDMENT!

n/t

[Jersey Devil]

38. Who will enforce the XIV Amendment? Scalia? Thomas? Rehnquist?

You need a Democratic president to appoint judges to the Supreme Court who understand what the 14th Amendment means. In the long run, no matter what states do, the 14th Amendment is indeed the vehicle for upholding equal rights for gays. But trashing the Dem candidate and thereby assuring a Bush victory will assure the opposite, that right wing judges like Scalia will block the way.

You have to see the forest from the trees.

[IndianaGreen]

46. Criticizing the Dem candidate for trashing our rights is now verboten?

Screw that school of thought! Screw that candidate as well!

What part of equality under the law do some people fail to understand?

What Kerry is enabling the rightwing to do is to create a form of apartheid for gay and lesbian Americans.

[Jersey Devil]

57. "People"'s understanding is not what is important

Only the Supreme Court can say that gay rights are protected under the 14th Amendment and until the court rules that way no president can do anything about it.

In the meantime you will have to be satisfied with incremental steps and civil unions are a big step incrementally. Otherwise you are asking the Dem nominee to commit political suicide for one issue.

[IndianaGreen]

Screw incremental steps!

Easy for heteros to shove their patronizing bullshit on everyone else, just as the Democratic establishment used to tell progressives to not rock the boat regarding desegregation for fear of offending the Southern Democrats.

[Jersey Devil]

59. And you would sacrifice all else for this one issue?

Patronizing? How about those who would toss aside the important issues dealing with the medically uninsured, the poor, the unemployed, etc., so that they can get everything they want? I would call that selfish.

[MSchreader]

64. "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere" -- MLK

n/t

[Jersey Devil]

68. So you answer is that Kerry should fall on his sword

The Dem candidate should sacrifice himself in the name of principle. Very nice. Four more years of Bush.

[MSchreader]

71. No, he should USE the sword

Not offer it up to the Right, like he's doing now. THAT is what will give us four more years.

Truman was right: given a choice between a Republican and a Democrat who acts like a Republican (or, in this case, kow-tows to the Republicans), they will go with the real thing every time.

Martin

[Waverley_Hills_Hiker]

78. Kerry could have spun this alot different.

He was put on the defensive by Bush, when he could have taken a princpled stand for equality & equal protection, and turned the issue against Bush.

The way Kerry handled this looks too "political",....too much "me too!...but...however....!"

Kerry may be finessing the issue, but it makes him look weak.

[MSchreader]

81. He is what he looks like:

Unprincipled and weak. That's why I expect he will lose in November (but then, I don't expect this "election" to be legitimate anyway, so take it as you will).

Martin

[MSchreader]

53. It is the responsibility of the Executive Branch to enforce the law

That means that it is up to the President, his (or her) Cabinet and other officials to do the job. Obviously, the fascist Bush will not do it. And, apparently, neither will Kerry (or Edwards).

A.B.B. my A.S.S.

Martin

[Jersey Devil]

55. Then re-elect Bush since that is what you seem to prefer

Do you think for one second that Kerry will appoint a Scalia or a Pickering to the federal courts?

The executive cannot "enforce" laws that do not exist. Only the Supreme Court can interpret the 14th Amendment. Suggesting that a president has the power to order the states to stop violating the 14th Amendment according to his personal interpretation of it regarding gay marriage is absurd.

[IndianaGreen]

56. Democrats are using the politics of fear just like the GOP

Raising the spectre of a Bush reelection is nothing more than a pathetic attempt to keep progressives bound and gagged in the back of the bus.

[Jersey Devil]

58. I do not fly around in the world of Walter Mitty

or Snoopy in his Sopwith Camel as some others. You can dream all you want but sooner or later you have to face reality. A long journey has to start with short steps and all the impatience in the world will not change that.

[MSchreader]

63. These folks who tell those of us who respect the Constitution

To "be realistic" remind me of those who told African Americans to "be realistic" during the Civil Rights Movement.

Martin

[Jersey Devil]

66. Can you be "realistic" and expect the Scalia/Rehnquist court

to give you what you want? They are the only ones who can do it. Are you going to demand that they accept your interpretation of the constitution? Do you think that will work?

What's your plan? Maybe have the Dem nominee set himself on fire in protest? Isn't that what you are asking him to do?

[MSchreader]

69. I am asking the Democratic candidate

To stand up for the Constitution and democratic rights. That's all -- nothing less.

But, do I expect that to happen? No. I haven't made those kinds of assumptions since November 2000.

Martin

[Jersey Devil]

74. Reality says what you are asking is for him to commit Hari Kari,

to sacrifice himself for the "greater good", wherever that exists. It all sounds so noble and at the same time so terribly naive.

[MSchreader]

76. If a Democratic candidate standing up for democratic rights

Is now equivalent to "commit(ting) Hari Kari", then it can rightly be said that the Democrats are not worthy of their name.

Again, A.B.B. my A.S.S.

Martin

[GodHelpUsAll2]

83. Ummmmm Hello

That's what senators are suppose to do. They are suppose to stand up for the PEOPLE they are there to represent. Remember them??? The people who allowed them their jobs in the first place. But hey, since most seem to think it's far more important for them to protect their political careers I guess we might need to rethink that job description. Goodbye "for the people", Hello "all about me and my career".

[seaglass]

96. If the MA legislature agrees on an amendment, the people

will be voting on it in 2006.

Perhaps the people will not be smart enough to vote on the right side of this issue, I don't know.

[MSchreader]

61. Bush would had to have been elected in the first place

To be re-elected. STRIKE ONE!

I think it is irrelevant who Kerry will pick, since it is clear that he will not even support the idea himself. Therefore, there is no guarantee that he would pick a SCOTUS justice who would "interpret" the Constitution that way. STRIKE TWO!

The XIV Amendment exists, and is fully applicable to the situation. Go back and read Section 1 again. There is no need for "interpretation" at all. The Section is clear: all persons born or naturalized in the U.S. have equal rights and privileges, and equal protection under the law. That means a gay couple, as two citizens of the United States, have as much of a right to purchase a marriage license from the state as a hetero couple. There is no need for any kind of further "interpretation" A SCOTUS decision might be nice, but it is not necessary. STRIKE THREE! YOU'RE OUT!

Martin

[Jersey Devil]

65. Pitchers and catchers inspire your baseball meme?

Look, the 14th is certainly clear to me and to you but unfortunately not to the current supreme court. You can point out how obvious it is all you want but unless you have your fannie in one of the high back conference chairs on the other side of the bar of justice you may as well be preaching on a street corner.

Kerry would appoint judges with a more liberal views. That cannot be questioned. At least there would be a chance. Right now there is no chance.

[MSchreader]

67. I do a lot of street-corner preaching

I'm an agitator. Piss me off and see how agitated you get. :evilgrin:

And, yes, I CAN question whether or not Kerry will appoint "judges with a more liberal view" in this instance. I cannot count on him to appoint someone who is to his left on this issue -- i.e., supports my understanding of the XIV Amendment. That would be reckless and irresponsible on my part. What I would need to see is a statement from JK that he intends to nominate judges for SCOTUS that will take a similar view to mine before I can agree with your assessment.

Martin

[Jersey Devil]

72. Allow me to pass you a soapbox

You not only want liberal judges but insurance that these liberal judges will agree with you on this issue when you know darned well (or should know) that nominees for the Supremes have long refused to answer specific litmus type question on specific issues. Christ, when they come before the Senate they cannot even get them to answer about abortion so what do you think the chances are that they can get them to answer about gay marriage?

At least with abortion there is sometimes a track record. Not so with gay marriage, a brand new issue that I for one have never heard raised before ever on a federal level. Except for the MA Supreme Court what judges have a record on gay marriage?

Back to baseball since that seems to be the theme today. What you are basically saying is that if you don't get to choose up the sides you are going to take your ball and go home.

[MSchreader]

75. If I don't think "my team" is playing to win, then...

No, I won't support them. I'll accuse them (quite justifiably) of rigging the game, taking a payoff, etc. Get it?

Quite honestly, judges can build a "record" on the issue right now, by ruling in favor of gays and lesbians who petition the courts for equal protection and the right to purchase a marriage license.

If a judge does not want to answer those kind of questions, then they would be suspect in my eyes, and I would not support their elevation to the SCOTUS or any other court.

Martin

P.S.: I have my own soapbox. Thanks anyway.

[HFishbine]

45. The "alternative" is simple

and one which any candidate with a friggin' spine would understand. Uphold the Constitution as written, with equal protection for all. It's so basic that it's not even an alternative, it's the law. All other suggestions are the alternatives.

[Jersey Devil]

60. Tell that to Rehnquist and Scalia - they disagree

and until you can get a Dem president to appoint some progressive judges you can talk all you want and it will change nothing.

[HFishbine]

84. You mean progressives like Kerry

who voted to confirm Scalia?

[Jersey Devil]

85. The vote was 98-0 so that should disqualify Kennedy, Wellstone

(I believe Wellstone was in the Senate) and every other Democrat in the US Senate in 1986 as acceptable to you. Throw Al Gore in there too though I imagine a "conservative" like Al was never on your list of progressives to begin with.

[KurtNilsen]

11. Do you know Kerry's general or previous views on

states rights?

I've got a feeling this one is a bit dangerous for Kerry. I mean being bigoted is bad enough, but dodging this issue based on states rights might be even worse.

[sandnsea]

13. Marriage license laws

It has nothing to do with states rights. It has to do with where marriage license laws are written. At the state level.

[Timahoe]

15. The Supreme Court struck down the Texas sodomy law

I don't buy that state's right bullshit line when it comes to civil rights.

States rights has been a code word for racism and bigotry ever since the Civil War!

[sandnsea]

18. That's a separate law

If somebody wants to take the marriage license law to the Supreme Court, let them. In the mean time, states issue marriage licenses. Nobody is suggesting a federal Consitutional Amendment to allow gay marriage so there isn't anything at the federal level to support. There's only a Constitutional Amendment AGAINST gay marriage, which Kerry doesn't support.

[Waverley_Hills_Hiker]

79. in theory Kerry would be OK w. Texas passing a law banning gays

...yeah, its a different law, but if Kerry is taking a position that its up to the states to deal w. gay & lesbian rights issue, then where would he be in re the USSC striking down the Texas sodomy law?

It seems he could say he opooses the Texas law, but its "up to the states"?

[IndianaGreen]

47. How about denying teaching licenses to gays?

That's the same principle that is at stake here!

If a state can deny you a marriage license because you are gay, it can also deny you a teaching license, or a professional license.

[WyLoochka]

29. Balderdash

States cannot make their own laws to discriminate. Well, they can make them, but doing so violates the Federal Constitution.

Kerry is not a leader, he's a muddle maker. This is very similar to his IWR vote, trying to have it all ways for the sole benefit of his own political aspirations.

Like Slinker said, GRRRRRRRRRRRR!

[tobius]

17. he is for state's rights. nt

[lcooksey]

36. Because he's a politician

This is just ridiculous pandering to what he thinks moderates want. Or maybe he actually believes there is something special about the word "marriage". This pisses me off, but if he's the candidate he's still got my vote.

It's been entertaining watching right wingers on Larry King and other news outlets trying to explain how same-sex marriage damages traditional marriage. "How does letting two women marry have a negative effect on marriage?" "Well, well, it just does!"

[MurikanDemocrat]

41. One of the major objections to a Federal Constitutional Amendment

for Democrats and Republicans alike is that such decicions should be left up to individual states.

This is also NOT inconsistent with Kerry's statement 2 days ago in response to Bush

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

[David__77]

4. I will vote for the nominee eagerly in November, but not in primary.

I understand his position, but cannot agree. I vote on Tuesday. I think my household will go for Kucinich.

[redqueen]

87. Every vote for Kucinich goes toward improving the Dem platform!

Thank you!!!!

:yourock:

[codegreen]

6. VOTE KUCINICH. vote equality. STAND UP TO THE RIGHT!

it's not too late for us to really take a stand

[sandnsea]

9. It's the right & the middle

60-70% of the country. You can stand up to them if you want, but you'd lose.

[WyLoochka]

33. One doesn't "lose" by showing some guts

and standing up for what is right. Losers cop out.

Talked to a couple of repubs here in AZ about how Kerry is handling this - they were laughing hysterically, saying they can't believe how easily he played right into Rove's hands. And these particular repubs, being libertarians at heart, are IN FAVOR of the equal rights of gays and lesbians! Kerry actually had a chance to pick off their votes, but his waffling and muddling on a basic civil liberty issue failed to impress.

[Waverley_Hills_Hiker]

52. Great post.

....it is a copout. And this is a basic civil liberties issue.

[IndianaGreen]

40. Dennis Kucinich supports equal rights for all

which is what this issue is all about.

If a state can deny a marriage license to people on the basis of sexual orientation, then it can also deny a teaching license, or a nursing license, or a day care worker license.

Lukewarm support for civil liberties is just as reprehensible as overt bigotry for it enables the bigots by enshrining in the state constitution second class citizenship for gay and lesbian citizens.

The lesser of two evils is still evil!

[Waverley_Hills_Hiker]

50. Kucinich has come out unequivocally for gay marriage.

..I was going to vote for him anyway, but his non-waffle stand cinches it for me.

This is really an important issue for me, personally, so I will vote for the guy who supports gay marriage.

[KamaAina]

93. "Don't blame me, I'm from Hawai'i"!

and I did, indeed, caucus for Dennis on Tuesday night.

I would still like to know why Corporate News Network has Dennis with 981 votes while the HI Dem Party site say 1,112.

[Sliverofhope]

14. Discouraging

"while outlawing gay marriage, it also ensured that same-sex couples have access to all legal rights that married couples receive"

So, outlaw gay marriage, but allow gays to have unions, recognized by the state, that have the same legal rights as marriages.

Isn't that, um... gay marriage? So why not just come out and support it? Because otherwise, it's not the same legal rights.

I guess he's trying to avoid the religious concept of marriage?

[slinkerwink]

16. marriage isn't just a religious concept----it's also a secular concept

plenty of heterosexual couples get married in a courthouse instead of having religious ceremonies.

[tobius]

19. thanks, I've been trying to make that argument all week with the

people who said Kerry is for gay rights but marriage is a religious thing. That made no sense whatsoever, did he favor changing the term common law marriage to common law union? ridiculous. How about agnostics,atheists, wiccans, pagans..etc..etc they can't be married either?

his stance now sounds like the abortion opponents- "It's not in the constitution, it should be up to the states to choose if abortion is legal or not and restrict it as they see fit."

[sandnsea]

20. Go to the Supreme Court

That's the way abortion laws were before Roe v. Wade, at the state level. If somebody wants to challenge the law, take it to the Supreme Court. That's what they're doing in San Francisco. In the meantime, states issue marriage licenses just like they used to regulate abortion. And states still make abortion laws actually, so that argument is weak on its face anyway.

[tobius]

32. would the amendment proposed in Mass pass Federal Constitutional muster?

They are not challenging the law in SF, they are disobeying it. A legal challenge would be send a gay couple to get a marriage license, let them be turned down, and then sue.

States can't illegalize abortion w/o being overturned immediately, the challenge to roe vs wade is coming from the original roe in the case based on limited knowledge of long term negative mental health effects from abortion.

[aquart]

21. So would such a law forbid churches from marrying gays?

I'm almost certain that's completely unconstitutional.

[slinkerwink]

22. yes, the amendment would ban churches like the unitarian churches,

episcoplian churces, and reform synagogues from marrying gays. So far, those are the three religious branches that I know of that performs unions or marriages for gay people.

What I would like for the gay marriage argument to be clarified is that it is NOT forcing the churches to marry gays, just that gays can GET married in courthouses.

[Dookus]

23. That is untrue

Even people married in churches have to get a civil license. The government has no say over what churches do, nor would it in the extremely unlikely event the amendment passed.

You could still get "married" in a church. The government wouldn't recognize it, though.

[slinkerwink]

26. I'm talking about the misconception that allowing gay marriage

means that churches will have to be forced to marry gays---that's not true.

[BR_Parkway]

25. The proposed language of the amendment

says that Marriage will only be recognized between one man and one woman (or similar terminology)

This would not preclude MCC or any of the other churches from having a "marriage" ceremony, only reinforcing the fact that the government isn't going to recognize it as "marriage" even if they do recognize it as a civil union.

Kerry (and I'm leaning towards Edwards myself)is walking a fine line here. He alienates too many if he says Marriage is ok. He is consistent saying this shouldn't be a Federal issue, but a State one. He is saying civil unions must be included. I can live with that, because the logic behind it is too good to ignore.

If civil unions grant gays all the same rights of "marriage", then the same will apply for civil weddings or JP ceremonies. That is the start of saying, marriage is for religion only - like they do in Europe. It's the basis for getting the government OUT of marriage (which is viewed as more religious) and into civil unions for all.

But NO candidate can come out at this moment and say "Lets do away with marriage and offer all civil unions" This is too open to have a candidates words twisted by the fundies that the whole gay marriage issue is going to "destroy marriage". Alot of this is word play, we have strong support for equal rights for gays, we have strong opposition to calling it marriage - mostly because of their religious beliefs - and I have no interest in legislating their beliefs. Call it what you want, as long as my partner and I are given the same rights.

The rest is going to be a very complicated untangling. Sometimes in the law the word wife is interchangeable with husband or spouse. Sometimes, as in the case of some of the domestic violence laws, it means a woman specifically. The task of making all the laws gender neutral and non specific to any particular makeup of the couple is going to be a long process. In alot of ways, it is so much easier to create civil unions, make them nuetral laws from the beginning and then phase out the laws that are specific to "marriage" or man/woman or husband/wife. Everyone hears about the 1,049 laws across the spectrum of federal law, anyone have a count on the number of laws in your own state that have to change?

Even the legislators who are supportive of our treatment as full and equal citizens understand that this will be incredibly complex. What they need from us is support and an understanding of the practical realities, not alot of hyperbole over a particular word. We should not forget that we are the minority here and the deck is stacked against us - infighting only helps those who would deny us what should rightfully be ours. Winning the War is always preferrable to only winning one skirmish.

[monarch]

24. I am ABB but

I sure find it tough to like this guy.

[MSchreader]

27. In other words, Kerry supports "separate but equal"

A new Plessy decision. So much for the XIV Amendment....

See http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x1164014">extended comments here.

Martin

[IndianaGreen]

48. Another word for that is "apartheid"!

What's next? Bar gays from teaching in our schools?

[Waverley_Hills_Hiker]

51. in a US context the words are "Jim Crow"

...the policy of "seperate but equal".

Its pretty ironic seeing the Democratic candidate move to a states rights posistion when it comes to a equal protection/civil rights issue

[MSchreader]

54. Some states already do that, IIRC

n/t

[hippywife]

34. Here's why I think it cannot be left to the states

Many of the states right now are working in hard in their little homophobic state legislatures to change the wording of current laws and to pass new state legislation that expressly denies recognition of gay marriages.

If it is recognized in one state and not another, gay couples are then effectively prohibited from moving to certain states for any reason whether it be a more lucrative job or for a compassionate reason like taking care of an elderly family member because their union won't be recognized.

It's going to be a case like one of the one's mentioned above that will take it to the Supreme Court.

[waldenx]

35. Kerry agrees with the Confederate states

human rights should be decided by the majority??

Remember when one votes for him, they take on the same karma he has and it isnt good.

[edzontar]

39. Outrageous, disappointing, but not surprising....

Just keep saying to yourself---ABB ABB ABB........

[MurikanDemocrat]

42. Kerry's position is that it is a State issue. This is not inconsistent

Here's Kerry statement on 2-26-2004 from the article above 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

[janx]

97. So civil unions are a state issue? He clearly doesn't believe

that marriage should be a state issue.

Howard Dean led the way with his support of civil unions in Vermont, saying that he believed that MARRIAGE should be a state issue.

But it looks as if Kerry doesn't want marriage to enter the equation at all.

[lefty_mcduff]

44. Wow.

Against Gay marriage.
For the Iraq war.
For the Patriot Act.
For Tax Cuts for the Rich.
For *'s education debabcle.

As long as I say 'ABB' enough times I think I can get by.....

[bicentennial_baby]

49. Fuck you John

For real... fucking creep.

[tucson]

99. Agreed.

[emulatorloo]

62. 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 slinkerwink and 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.

[Waverley_Hills_Hiker]

70. Is this really a wedge issue?

Kerry said it was, which is interesting. I don't really think it is.

I think Bush took his stand as a way to shore up his Christian conservative base, as hes been sort of weak on their social issue agenda.

On the Democratic side, I suspect most Democrats don't really care about this issue, or if they do they more or less agree w. Kerry.

It's only a wedge for a subset of the gay & lesbian community like myself who want full equality w. straight people.

So I don't see this as big a wedge issue as others might.

[MSchreader]

73. Actually...

I kinda hope it is a "wedge" issue, since such things can be turned around and used against them.

Personally, I think Kerry could just as easily turn around and say: "Look, we put the XIV Amendment in the Constitution to guarantee equal protection under the law. Now, Bush and his band of right-wing extremists want to chip away at that. The Republicans accuse us Democrats of being 'anti-American', but they are the ones subverting the Constitution. They are the 'anti-Americans', because they are the ones attempting to tear apart the one thing that defines America the most."

But, he won't ever make such a statement. His paymasters won't let him.

Martin

[AntiCoup2K4]

77. John Kerry's Internationalist House of Waffles is open for business!

We welcome our gay, lesbian, and bisexual friends (as long as you sit back in that dark little corner and keep quiet)....

[emulatorloo]

80. Your post makes no sense

although I love the picture and the intended humor! However it doesn't make sense to say that JK wants gays to sit in a dark corner. I think you are thinking of GWB.

http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/glbt/

<snip>

John Kerry supports same-sex civil unions so that gay couples can benefit from the health benefits, inheritance rights, or Social Security survivor benefits guaranteed for heterosexual couples.

John Kerry believes that same-sex couples should be granted rights, including access to pensions, health insurance, family medical leave, bereavement leave, hospital visitation, survivor benefits, and other basic legal protections that all families and children need.  He has supported legislation to provide domestic partners of federal employees the benefits available to spouses of federal employees.  He was one of 14 Senators -- and the only one up for reelection in 1996 -- to oppose the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).

John Kerry opposed the Clinton Administration’s “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell Policy”  He was one of a few senators to testify before the Senate Armed Services Committee and call on the President to rescind the ban on gay and lesbian service members.

<snip>

[Waverley_Hills_Hiker]

82. I thought it was a Dodge dealship.

home of the new Dodge Issue! Test drive it today!

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

88. Why is this so disappointing to some when his view is entirely the same

as other frontrunners both past and present?

They all ADVOCATED for civil unions NOT marriage but for Kucinich and Sharpton.

Apparently people are so busy contending with their own waffling in the matter, they can't recognize this.

If Kerry backs civil unions and stops short of marriage, it is a federal crime...if other candidates do it it is a groundbreaking virtue :shrug:

[foo_bar]

89. to wit

“I think equal rights under the law are part of the American dream, and it is a decision made on a state-by-state basis,” he said. “Marriage is not a federal issue.”

- Howard Dean

[MSchreader]

91. I hate waffles!

And my position has been consistent from the beginning.

Martin

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

92. But waffles are better than pancakes are they not?

[foo_bar]

94. waffles are too Belgian-looking

I've yet to see a GOP memo that hasn't been enshrined by the DU loyal opposition.

[janx]

100. It is NOT entirely the same. I'm tired of hearing this line!

Dean wanted to leave the question of marriage up to the states and churches. Kerry doesn't want it in the equation at either the state or the federal level.

When his state decided in favor of gay marriage, he denounced the decision! What other proof does one need to understand this?

It is NOT the same, and I'm so sick of hearing Kerry and Kerry supporters insist that it is.

Kerry is fond of asserting that any one of his various positions is "the same" as another candidate's. He is often lying outright when he says this.

[askew]

102. There is a huge difference between Kerry's positions and the others.

While the other candidates support civil unions and not gay marriage, none of the other candidates came out supporting an amendment to the constitution (state or federal) that would discriminate against gay couples. That is a huge difference. This is a constitutional issue and an equal rights issue. Dean came out against amending the MA constitution. I have no problem with this issue remaining a state issue, as marriage has always been a state issue and I believe strongly in states’ rights. But, when states start altering their constitution’s to include discrimination I have a problem. This limits forward progress on the issue. It will be very hard to get this amendment removed from the MA constitution in the future. This is why ABB is becoming more and more unacceptable to me. ABB allows Kerry to take the base for granted and triangulate away from core Democratic principles. This is why the party keeps losing more and more of its base and power, not because Americans views have become more conservative. Say what you will about the Republican party, but at least they stand up for their core principles.

[TheStateChief]

90. Look For This To Be Added To The Repug List Of Kerry Flip-Flops

Sorry to be so negative folks, but Kerry writes a letter two years ago urging that an amendment to the Mass. constitution be blocked, now he says he's in favor of it. Like the earlier posters have said I just don't understand how Kerry can stand up and say he's against Bush's federal amendment plan but he wants (I assume from his statements) all 50 states to have their individual constitutions amended.

Sorry, but I'm not going to tow the company line today. I'm pissed at Kerry but will try to keep it to today and be a good Democrat again tomorrow.

[Uzybone]

95. Ahhh Kerry!!!

obviously he is already running as if he has won the nomination (which he basically has). I just dont like it. Lets keep the government out of the marriage business.

[Nashyra]

98. This is a civil rights issue

and should be treated as so. Eliminate the word marriage and have equal rights for "licensed partnerships between 2 consenting adults". You already have "common law marriage" in which some states recognize and some don't, why can't we have a domestic partnership license and a marriage license which is identical in context but only different, not separate or unequal in the name of the certificate. What is so important about the word marriage, it used to mean that men could own women as chattel. I would prefer to have what is called a domestic partnership instead of marriage because of the old adage of the husband/wife thing. What's wrong with an "equal partnership".

Doesn't a "marriage ceremony dictate that their is a husband and a wife"? Why would anyone one in a same sex union want to be considered a husband or a wife? I thought the issue was equal rights? Same sex couples can come up with another title other than marriage which is a lot more loving and equal than the biblical definition of marriage, let the fundies have the damn title, same sex couples are alot more creative when it comes to a legal title. The issue is civil rights. And as for some who say that the candidates are supposed to stand up for the people they represent, they are. The great majority of people in this country do not back gay marriage but they do back equal civil unions, if it is civil rights at issue what is the problem? They must represent the other faction of their consituents as long as they support equal rights for all. I would not vote for anyone that did not want to work toward this nation acknowledging same sex unions that equals marriage and if you want to use the "separate but equal term" to argue so what, I don't believe it is relevant, equal AND different is the case, using "but" conotates that there is less than equality. Every person in this country deserve the same rights and benefits no matter what our sex, race or gender and I'm sure as hell glad that we are all different AND equal. My sister is gay and her partner of 10 years are more loving than anyone else in our large extended family, this is exactly their argument about the issue as per the discussion at Christmas, my sis works for the state and my sister-in-law is a wonderful teacher. Oh and one other thing my employer American Airlines has same sex benefits for our employees and my "sister-in-law" is just as elegible for my benefits as anyone else in my family.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

101. If CU and marriage have all equal rights then they are the same

except use a different word.

Kerry's a genius. A legal genius. He had to have thought this one through long and hard.