Clue for Kerry: If anyone asks you about whether you would vote for DOMA

[BurtWorm]

The answer is no.

The Constitution prohibits Congress from making laws proscribing religious dogma. The question of whether the state should recognize gay marriage will hinge on the scope of the Fourteenth Amendment's equal protection clause. DOMA would only confuse the issue.

The answer is no.

[Dookus]

1. I'm confused...

DOMA was passed in the 90's (though Kerry voted against it) and signed by Bill Clinton.

[BurtWorm]

4. There's a new piece of legislation bubbling

that seeks to make it a Constitutional Amendment. Kerry did not unconditionally rule out voting for it when asked about it by NPR.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

2. Clue for everyone: Kerry already voted against DOMA

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[BurtWorm]

6. What's the bit about "It depends entirely on the language"?

What's the problem with a straightforward, unconditional "No"?

[Feanorcurufinwe]

7. Do you oppose or support the proposal I might write next week? Yes or No?

[BurtWorm]

8. No.

;)

And I don't support any proposal the Republicans are cooking up to make Democrats "look bad." If I were Kerry I'd be sick of playing anymore of those games.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

13. Why do you oppose it?

[BurtWorm]

16. Are you talking about your hypothetical law or the GOP's?

I oppose yours for the hell of it. I oppose the GOP's sight unseen because it is without doubt going to be designed to be a trap. What is so hard about calling a Republican piece of shit a Republican piece of shit? Can you conceive of a single piece of legislation written by this breed of Republican during an election year on a hot-button, base-rallying social issue that will not be a piece of shit?

[Feanorcurufinwe]

18. How about a real answer?

You oppose it 'for the hell of it' ?

Kind of a bankrupt argument.

[BurtWorm]

20. You mean you want a serious answer to an unserious question?

Why? :shrug:

[Feanorcurufinwe]

22. No. I mean I don't want to play games but to have a real conversation.

Are you willing? If so, I will continue.



You have objected to Kerry not being willing to take a position on something he hasn't seen. I am showing you what the consequences are of agreeing to something, or disagreeing with something, when you don't know what that something is.

[BurtWorm]

28. Kerry should know the language in the amendment.

According to dralston (see # unnumbered post below)

Here's the full text:


JOINT RESOLUTION
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating to marriage .

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years after the date of its submission by the Congress:

`Article--

`Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the Constitution of any State, nor State or Federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups.'.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c108:20:./temp/~c108HAT98e ::

This is the Senate version introduced on 11/25/03.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

33. Well there's no doubt Kerry would oppose that

I haven't checked but off the top of my head it sounds word for word like DOMA which Kerry already voted against.

[BurtWorm]

34. Then the answer is flat out "No."

Just as I said. Agreed?

I would love to see Kerry take just this much from Dean: stop playing the game by their rules on their ground.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

36. No, because although you trotted out that text.

That text was not what Kerry was asked about. Kerry gave the right answer to the question he was asked.

[BurtWorm]

38. If you say so.

;)

[Name removed]

39. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[BurtWorm]

40. I'm not sure what to add that isn't already here.

We have a disagreement about how clear Kerry should be on this issue. I think he should be clear that he's against any legislation the Republicans write on the issue during an election year. He's in favor of equal protection under the law. He's opposed to an amendment defining marriage. Period.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

41. That was a much more polite answer

thank you.

[MercutioATC]

43. If it restricts civil rights, YES, I oppose it! Any "DOMA" or similar

legislation does. The thread author is right. The answer is "NO".

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

9. What are the odds of them creating an amendment the affords equal

protection under the law?

[BurtWorm]

10. Zero. Which is why he should oppose any attempt

to constitutionalize the issue sight unseen. I would think Kerry would be sick of being burned by Republican fucking around with hot button legislation during election years.

[BruinAlum]

12. Because it was a trap and Kerry diffused it

It's being used as a wedge issue, whether you agree with that or not, and they way Kerry responded was politically smart.

The bottom line is he's not going to support anything that doesn't give equal rights to gays. Period.

[BurtWorm]

17. I'll give you this: I'm unfairly focusing on the "it depends"

and not focusing enough on the "I?m for civil unions - I?m for partnership rights," which may not be an unambiguous statement in favor of equal protection, but which at least is not "I'm opposed to 'gay marriage.'"

[BruinAlum]

5. ROTFL!

okay

[DuctapeFatwa]

11. Kerry has been very candid about his opposition to equal rights for all

Americans. He supports a second-class separate tier legal status for some citizens.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

14. Really? What bill was this?

[DuctapeFatwa]

15. The remarks I heard were in connection with same sex marriages

However the basic principle could easily be applied to any number of groups and rights.

I have no reason to doubt that Kerry is a man of principle, do you?

[Feanorcurufinwe]

25. You have falsely characterized Kerry's position.

In fact, you described the exact opposite of Kerry's position.

[DuctapeFatwa]

32. Could you repost the link where he indicates support for full marriage

rights for all couples, regardless of gender?

It didn't come through in your earlier post.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

42. Could you please post the amendment or federal court decision

that talks about a federal right to marriage?

I've never heard of such a thing before your post.


I have a 'right to get married'?


That's bizarre, I never knew that.

I look forward to seeing your documentation of these 'marriage rights'.

[DuctapeFatwa]

45. Excellent Point! Best one I've seen yet! I assume you wish to argue that

marriage is a privilege, kind of like driving?

So who besides same sex couples should not be allowed to marry?

Should gay people be allowed to drive?

[Toucano]

Here's the "language". Please pass it on to Sen. Kerry.

JOINT RESOLUTION
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating to marriage .

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years after the date of its submission by the Congress:

`Article--

`Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the Constitution of any State, nor State or Federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups.'.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c108:20:./temp/~c108HAT98e::

This is the Senate version introduced on 11/25/03.

[BurtWorm]

21. To be fair to Kerry, he hasn't been around the Senate much

lately, so he can be excused for not knowing the language in the bill.

[Toucano]

23. You're right.

I haven't been around the Senate too much lately either, and I had a heck of a time finding out the language of the amendment.

Plus, it's so long and convoluted. It could take days to sort it out.

[BurtWorm]

24. Right. What exactly do they mean by "union," for example?

;)

[Sam Lowry]

19. "When someone asks if you are a God,"

You say "Yes!"

[JVS]

26. Amen!

[Name removed]

27. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[BruinAlum]

29. Ditto

[Dookus]

30. well....

they did it for me months ago. But this latest series of attacks is particularly lame.

[BurtWorm]

31. It seems unfair of you to blame your feelings about Dean on his supporters

when you've been pretty consistently negative about him from the beginning. But that's your prerogative. He's not to everyone's taste. I don't understand the antipathy to him anymore than I presume you understand the antipathy to Kerry.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

35. That's absolutely not true.

I was very supportive and defensive of attacks on Dean himself for a very long time. I had two issues with him. While I felt his message was correct, I thought the confederate flag statement was patronizing to some and inflammatory to others.

The ONLY other issue I consistently had was his position on guns.

YOu are welcome to search the archives if you wish...those were always my issues and even with those issues, I posted FAR more positive than negative posts about Dean.

I defended him on the Osama ad. I defended him on the scream.

Following Iowa, I continued to support him to a degree and defend him.

The constellation of his actions ( like his whiny appearance on MTP) calling other Dems repubs (real presidential there) combined with everything from conspiracy theory potpourri to vote stealing, idea stealing and every other allegation of wrong doing by other campaigns void of solid proof has now made me beyond hope.

He unleashed a torrent of piss and vinegar. Sorry if my diet has no room for such fare.

[BurtWorm]

37. I'm finding his post-NH behavior puzzling myself.

I think a lot of what you point to, with the exception of his calling Clark a Republican and the Washington insiders Bush lite, which he definitely has done (unfortunately), has been taken out of context. Dean never defended the confederate flag, for example. It was unfortunate that he mentioned the words "confederate" and "flag" in the same sentence because they obscured his actual point about the need for Democrats to appeal to Southern white men who have faithfully voted for Republicans for decades and gotten jack shit for it. His point being, simply, that Democrats should not write anybody off, certainly because of where they live. Give them a reason to vote for you--because Democrats are better at bread and butter issues for everybody than Republicans can ever hope to be--and they will vote for you.

As for guns, you have a problem with Dean but not with John "Nuge" Kerry, proud NRA member and lifetime hunter? Dean opposes one size fits all gun laws, I'm guessing because he doesn't want to give the NRA an issue to use their clout against Democrats on. (Kerry supporters ought to be able to appreciate that kind of politics.) But he's in favor of closing the gun show loophole in the Brady bill and legalizing automatic weaponry.

I apologize if I mischaracterized you as being always negative about Dean. But I would hope you wouldn't blame Dean supporters for any change of feeling you've had about him.

[dusty64]

44. He could also

clearly state that he would NEVER change the Constitution to deny citizen's rights because of who they are. He didn't say this however and appears to be trying to appease the lowest common denominator in this Country. His statement on this was mealy mouthed at best and (sorry) once again lacked that "leadership" quality. This guy looks destined to get a vote from me with fingers firmly clenching my nostrils together, but if he keeps up with this BS he sadly may not even get that.

PS. Most here seem to think this amendment has little chance of passing, I don't see it that way at all. This is an election year and it looks like our Party is lining up to kiss the ass of that ignorant demographic group that they are never going to get votes for, while screwing their most loyal without vaseline. With a heavy heart I swear if this abomination gets through with Democratic complicity, only the few deserving candidates will receive my vote. The rest of them can go to Hell.