Only DK supporters have the right to be "outraged" at Kerry for gay stance

[George_Bonanza]

Personally, I think gay marriage is okay and I believe it's a fear-driven issue with little practical values. Civil unions, and marriage in the practical sense are no different. Yet there is so much reluctance when civil unions becomes marriage, even though both give gay couples basically the same things (legal benefits, etc.). That's because gay marriage has never been practised before and people are naturally hesitant to delve into unknown circumstances.

If you are a supporter of Dennis Kucinich, then you have the right to be critical about Kerry. After all, your candidate proudly supports gay marriage and nothing short of it.

However, if you are a Clark, or Dean supporters, it's very hypocritical of you to be angry at Kerry while your candidates propose exactly the same thing but in more evasive terms. Has either Dean or Clark courageously come out in favour of gay marriage like DK? No. On Larry King, Howard Dean stubbornly evaded having to answer a solid YES or NO (and Dean supporters say that Kerry is too difficult to understand).
DEAN: If what were -- we don't have a referendum in my state, and we have civil unions, and we deliberate chose civil unions, because we didn't think marriage was necessary in order to give equal rights to all people. So apparently, Dean does not believe that marriage is necessary for full rights, which is the antithesis of what pro-gay marriage people feel (civil unions is a 2nd-class slap in the face to gays). Dean has said, however, that he would be willing to recognize unions and marriages from other states and countries. To me, that seems like a very neutral position by leaving the responsibility and haggle to other people and champion nothing yourself.

I'll tell you what I will do, though. If Massachusetts decides that they're going to do gay marriage, I believe there is a federal involvement, and the federal involvement is not to recognize marriage or civil unions but it is to recognize equal rights under the law. So that if a couple enters into a domestic partnership, or a gay marriage in Canada, or a civil union in Vermont, I think those couples are entitled to federal benefits. - Howard Dean

Comparing this to John Kerry's position, does it mean that Kerry will strip the federal rights of union off of legally married gay couples from Canada? Note how that Dean says that he would recognize the federal benefits of marriage, while evading whether or not he actually would recognize it as a true marriage. Again, exactly like John Kerry's position except avoiding the decisive terms.

So in conclusion, I do not agree with Kerry on this, but I can certainly understand his position. To undermine Kerry's work for gays is stupid. JK was one of the first pro-gay advocates regarding the military. John Kerry had high-ranking gay staffers in his senatorial campaigns. He was a strong backer of gay philanthropist Fred Hochberg's nomination to serve as deputy administrator of the U.S. Small Business Administration. He spoke at Matthew Shepard's memorial. Must I go on? Kerry is not a Kucinich, but he's no Bush by far. And Dean is definitely not a Kucinich either.

[lastknowngood]

1. Every American should be outraged

leave a little room for those of us who don't agree with the appointed leader.

[bushwakker]

2. Dean is not for gay marriage either

[adamrsilva]

12. Dean says let the states decide how to do it

Kerry says he is against the Massachusetts decision. Meaning that universally, he thinks there should only be civil unions and no gay marriages.

[NashVegas]

35. As Well As

He's on record as saying if he were president, he'd work to see that gays legal rights were the same as any married hetero couple in ALL the states.

I haven't heard anything about Kerry saying he would do the same.

[Democrats unite]

3. You need to get your facts straight (no pun intended)...

About Clark!

"The ink was barely dry on the Massachusetts State Supreme Court's gay marriage decision, and the Republican Party was trying to use it as an election year issue to divide Americans. But this issue should not be a polarizing one. There's no reason why we shouldn't treat all Americans equally no matter what their race, religion or sexual orientation. That's why I welcomed the Massachusetts court decision with open arms."


http://clark04.com/articles/013/


Kerry is the one that wants to make me a 2nd class citizen! You know what? OVER MY FUCKING DEAD BODY!

ON EDIT: Now who's being hypocritical?

[JasonDeter]

16. Over your (*&^^) dead body?

So who you gonna kill? Or are you going to let them kill you? What does that mean? Over your dead body?

[Cascadian]

4. Not just Kucinich supporters....

There are plenty of Dean supporters who are equally outraged. I wished Kerry would just stop playing like a Republican on this issue. He must be bold. My lack of respect for him just risen.


John

[MoonRiver]

5. There's no reason on earth why gays shouldn't be able to marry

each other. I just cannot get riled up about whether it's called "civil union" or "marriage" though. As long as they have the same rights and privileges (and responsibilities, btw) WHO THE F%#@ cares about semantics?? We really are a nation of idiots.
:crazy:

[Cascadian]

7. I think Kerry may have lost the Gay vote because of this.

eom


John

[JasonDeter]

17. But picked up the Independent

Christian vote. A much larger voting block that the Democratic Party needs to destroy bush*.

[no name no slogan]

23. They already vote Republican-- why do we want them?

They're perfectly comfortable in the Republican party-- why should we be appealing to them, if they're only going to drag this party even FURTHER to the right?

We can appeal to a possible 5% "Independent Christian" voting block, but we'll alienate a 10%+ secular/non-Christian block in the process. Why are Democrats so bound and determined to make this party Repub-lite?

It simply boggles the mind.

[King of New Orleans]

20. Exactly

I totally agree with you on the this one. I don't understand what the big brawl is about.

[joshcryer]

6. The difference is Kerry said he was against a decision...

...and Dean said he wasn't.

I assure you if you were to ask dean, straightforwardly, if he was for gay marriage, in name, not just in law as civil unions are, he would say sure. I guarantee you 100%. Ask him.

[youngred]

8. Wrong

He OPPOSED the Civil Unions law in his state. Further he said he would NOT support a federal Civil Unions law and leave it to the states.

Anotehr Dean waffle

[joshcryer]

9. Source?

Thanks.

[youngred]

13. Dean himself

“What I am not going to do is tell every state they have to pass civil unions”
- Howard Dean, Spetember 14, 2002.

[dsc]

10. flat out false

and you usually know your stuff. Dean did not oppose civil unions he came out in favor of them within hours of the decision.

[youngred]

11. within hours

prior too he opposed it. Only after the legislature passed it did he accept it

[dsc]

15. flat out false

and not only I but Nicholas J who is no fan of Dean have posted the link saying that over a dozen times. The decision was handed down in December of 1999. That day, that very day, within hours of that decision being handed down, Dean came out for civil unions. The law was passed in April of 2000, which is not one, not two, not three, but four count them four, months later.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=108&topic_id=75508

Note paragraph four of the original post of the thread linked above. It is quoted yet again here.

OITM: Immediately after the Supreme Court’s Baker ruling, you sided with domestic partnership legislation. How did you come to make this decision and what role do you think your position played in the ultimate outcome of the debate?

Note this question if from the paper Out in the Mountains. It is the official gay and lesbian newspaper of Vermont. Note the use of the word immediately. Most people don't define immediately as four months. This quote is from a press conference hours after the Baker decision.

[corporatewhore]

21. I hear ya but at least he didnt condem it once itpassed like kerry did

I rember when that happened and my fundie teacher was like its the end of western civilization!!!!

[JasonDeter]

18. Dean has not waffled on this. He has said plainly

it is a states issue. Each state is different, as it should be. He is not for gay marriage, a majority of American's agree with Dean and agree with Kerry on this issue.

[no name no slogan]

26. A majority of Americans thought segregation was good once, too

This is NOT a "states rights" issue-- it's a "civil rights" issue, plain and simple.

Leaving this issue to the states is an invitation to disaster for GLBT people. For example, if you get married in one state, but move to another state that does not recognize gay marriage/"civil unions", you are SOL.

Suppose you get married in MA, but move to TX. Your partner gets in an accident and dies. Since TX doesn't recognize "civil unions", YOU HAVE NO RIGHTS under the law to inheritance, estate, benefits, or survivorship. That's right NONE. NADA. ZIP.

We tried using a "states rights" approach to civil rights, too, and we all know how that worked out. Forced segregation in Alabama, but not in Michigan. Second-class citizenship in Mississippi, but not quite so bad in Massachusetts.

At the time, we thought that "separate but equal" was good enough, too. We deluded ourselves in thinking that "those people" thought it was good, too. After all, what did they have to complain about?

Gay marriage is a human rights issue. As long as marriage is a civil institution enshrined in our laws, GLBT folk should have the same access afforded to others.

Anything short of full rights is un-American.

[George_Bonanza]

29. Good point

But the four contenders have all proposed a federal civil unions plan. It's on gay marriage that they believe it should be left to the states. So I do not think a gay widow's legal property would be confiscated because they moved to Texas while getting married is Mass. They'd still be protected under the federal civil unions bill.

[JasonDeter]

30. To equate the two seems to me to be offensive to what Blacks went through!

You can have all the relations you want if your gay, no one is stopping you, there's gay bars in every town. You can go to any resturant with anyone you want, you can kiss anyone you want, hold hands walking down the street if you want. Blacks would be murdered for doing any of that in the days of racial segregation. There are no 'normal' bathrooms and 'gay' bathrooms. There are no 'normal' drinking fountains and 'gay' drinking fountains. Its silly to compare the two!! Its your opinion and a majority of American's disagree with you. You probably should let it go because if America is pushed it will pass DOMA in every state because in every state the majority is against gay marriage!

[dsc]

33. Care to tell this to Matthew Sheppard

or the thousands of other gays murdered each year in hate crimes. Oops there dead you can't.

You can go to any resturant with anyone you want, you can kiss anyone you want, hold hands walking down the street if you want. Blacks would be murdered for doing any of that in the days of racial segregation.

Yes there are differences but they cut both ways. Since blacks are visible they got all discrimination all the time. But conversely, no one's parents rejected them for being black. There is a unique aloneness that gay and lesbian teens face due to the fear, real or imagined, that their families will disown them, their friends hate them, and their lives will be empty.

It should be noted that even now one can by gay travel guides in pretty much any decent gay book store. They list places where gays can eat, spend the night, etc. The reason being that in wide swaths of this country a gay person or couple who kissed each other or held each others hands in public would be facing at best a beat down and at worst murder.

[xultar]

14. Sharpton & CM Braun are also 4 gay marriage nt

[George_Bonanza]

25. One's out and the other's is an amusing novelty at best

[Laughing Mirror]

32. yes, very amusing novelty for 800 people in Detroit

http://www.freep.com/news/politics/mcamp6_20040206.htm

[dsc]

36. the amusing novelty

has more elected delegates than Kucinich does.

[TheDonkey]

19. Everyone can be mad, but only DK and Al are non-discriminatory

Clark and Dean off the top of my head have said they would ackowledge gay marriage, which is a good step over Kerry's.

BUT

is just as disciiminatory just a more toe in the water.

[George_Bonanza]

24. Dean has said that he personally felt that civil unions were enough

Which was why he did not pursue gay marriage in Vermont. So to me, his stance is one of appeasement, where he personally opposes it but does not consider it important to force others to believe it as well. Kerry's stance is the same, although he words it differently (probably too strongly for my tastes). However, his clear support for civil unions and his DoMA vote indicates the exact same position that Dean has: Civil unions, against gay marriage but not willing to codify it and force others to follow it.

[ConsAreLiars]

22. Here is what Clark actually said:

From: http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3660578

MATTHEWS: We’re back with General Wesley Clark. By the way in the middle of the audience is the general’s wife, wonderful wife Gert (ph). There she is. Right in the middle. And there, my wife is on her right.
Although she may be on her left, for all we know.
Let me ask you about, since we’ve brought up marriage here, on gay marriage, I asked you a couple of weeks ago about this, it’s a domestic issue. You want to talk domestic issues?
CLARK: You’re going to go back to gay marriage again?
MATTHEWS: I just want to ask you if you believe that gay people should be out, able to have marriages or something else?
CLARK: I think they should have exactly the same rights that every other American has.
MATTHEWS: Should they get a marriage license? Should they get a marriage license?
CLARK: You’re talking about a...
MATTHEWS: The Supreme Court of this state has specifically said that the legislature, as we call the great and general court of this state, is required, mandated by the courts under the constitution of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts to write legislation allowing gay couples to apply for and receive marriage licenses. What is your opinion on that, General?
CLARK: My opinion is that I was ready to answer the question before you asked it a second time.
(LAUGHTER)
I want to get more questions in here. Now on gay marriage, I think that gays and lesbian couples need exactly the same rights as every other American, right of joint domicile, survivorship, inheritance, putting people on the same insurance policies. But the word marriage...
MATTHEWS: Separate but equal?
CLARK: ... the word marriage, that’s up to the church, the synagogue, the mosque, and it’s up to the state legislatures. So I’m in favor of civil unions, but ...
MATTHEWS: How about civil marriage?
CLARK: Civil unions is the term, and then it’s up to the states or the churches to whether they label that a marriage. I think the issue is equal rights..
MATTHEWS: So you don’t have an opinion, any state can do what it wants?
CLARK: ... under law.
MATTHEWS: Civil marriage or not?
CLARK: Equal rights under law.
MATTHEWS: Separate but equal?
CLARK: Equal rights under law.
MATTHEWS: Separate but equal?
CLARK: Equal rights under law.
(APPLAUSE)

[George_Bonanza]

27. Kerry believes in state's authority, not federal

But the Massachusetts senator added the issue should be addressed at the state level and not by the federal government.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=615&ncid=2043&e=9&u=/nm/20040206/pl_nm/campaign_kerry_dc

Even though I do not see eye-to-eye with Kerry on this issue, I certainly sympathize with his situation. Gay marriage is an issue that should not decide an election but almost certainly will if the opportunity is opened up for the RNC. There are more important issues like healthcare, economy, and foreign affairs, than a battle of words and semantics.

[corporatewhore]

28. if hes for state level why did he disapprove of THE STATE OF MASS's

opinion

[George_Bonanza]

34. He may personally disapprove

But has he said anything but repealing it, or that he merely disagrees with it? From Dean's perspective (sorry to be so Dean-centred), he would take the same position, since he personally does not like gay marriage, but is willing to tolerate it in other states.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

31. Dean on Gay Marraige

Elected leaders are trying to figure out their options and all of them, from the governor down, seem to have latched on to the court’s suggestion that domestic partnership might be legal.

“The Legislature will pass a domestic partnership bill and I’m comfortable with that,” Gov. Howard Dean said.

What was more interesting was what he was not comfortable with.

“It makes me uncomfortable, the same as anybody else,” Dean said of gay marriage. “The 4,000-year-old tradition of heterosexual marriage being an institution is something I think you have to respect. I think there are a lot of people in this state who are uncomfortable about the concept of gay marriage.”

There are thousands more who are not uncomfortable and at least some legislative leaders said they would be willing to consider enacting a marriage statute.
http://www.mountainpridemedia.org/jan2000/news_scyes.htm