There is a difference between amending and not amending

[dsc]

I have no idea exactly what Kerry will end up doing on the issue of amending the Constitution to ban gay marriage, as I have no idea what wording will eventually be settled on. But there is an immense difference between choosing civil uniions as a solution to recognizing gay relationships as several of our candidates have done, and amending the Constitution to enshrine civil unions as the only possible solutions to recognizing gay relationships. The first advances the debate in favor of gay rights with no cost to us and the second does so at a huge and permanent cost.

I have no idea if this is a deal breaker for me or not. But, don't you dare tell me there is no difference. There is, and I know it.

[IndianaGreen]

1. A marriage license is a civil document issued by the State, not the Church

The issue is whether the State can deny a marriage license to couples on the basis of sexual orientation, as many states used to do on the basis of race.

This is a no brainer!

[oxymoron]

7. Kerry has the strongest, most verifiable record on GLBT issues

of any of the candidates. He has supported and championed gay issues for 30+ years. I heard this interview live on NPR today, and as a Gay man, I thought that his support of equal rights for gays was unequivocal. I prefer not to let Rove play me. I'll judge Kerry by his record. He is a friend to the gay community and always has been.

His rating from the Human Rights Campaign:

http://www.hrc.org/Content/NavigationMenu/HRC/Get_Informed/Campaigns_and_Elections/Presidential_Candidates/2004_Candidates.htm

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

2. Well the choice is simple

There are three houses. Right now the Republicans carry all three of them. The best way to ensure that the numbers are not there to amend the constitution which has not occurred since the 27th amendment and rarely occurs would be to place a different party between the party that wants autocratic rule.

I am pretty certain given Kerry's record, he would not vote nor allow a vote to discriminate against gay people.

[Paulie]

3. Problem is recently, when he actually votes....

...it's not been good.

It's frightening, even thinking about codifying anything like that into the constitution, even if you like the wording.

Seriously!

[IndianaGreen]

4. I didn't think, based on Kerry's record, that he would have voted for war

or for PATRIOT Act, but he did.

Kerry is a fair weather liberal, and he will do a Sister Souljah on GLBTs if he saw a personal gain in doing so.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

6. I've read enough of your posts concerning him to know

I can only count on pure conjecture and hyperbole.

[dsc]

5. Pretty sure

Look, Kerry isn't Satan but if we don't put pressure on him now, it will be to late later. 8 years of Clinton, and not a thing permanent to show for it. I don't want that again. Fear of Bush, isn't going to make me be silent now. Maybe in June or November but not now.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

8. Fair enough

But I really DO think we (meaning you and I as gay people)benefit more when the issue is diffused rather than polarized. My evidence is all the states including my own state...California that have ballot initiatives on the books defining marriage as a man and a woman.