John Kerry considering supporting anti-gay marriage amendment

[Brian_Expat]

http://www.sltrib.com/2004/Feb/02062004/nation_w/136289.asp

Asked if he would support a state constitutional amendment barring gay and lesbian marriages, Kerry didn't rule out the possibility. "I'll have to see what language there is," he said.

I know one thing. Any Democratic candidate who doesn't immediately rule out anti-gay laws can forget my vote. Period, end of sentence.

[aquart]

1. You will unquestionably do better under Bush, won't you?

[Brian_Expat]

4. Doesn't matter to me. . .

. . . if an anti-gay law is signed by a Democrat or a Republican. It's an anti-gay law. I think it's sad that our party has sunk so low that Democrats can support anti-gay laws (especially amendments that permanently define an entire group of people as second-class citizens with fewer rights), and have people jump up and say "at least he's better than the Republicans."

The Republicans' big anti-gay push is anti-gay amendments. If John Kerry would also support anti-gay amendments, how, exactly, is he so great for those of us who believe every American should have equal opportunity under the law?

[Dookus]

5. well...

presidents don't have anything to do with the constitutional amendments, so there's nothing for him to sign.

Also, this is a dupe of at least three other threads.

[Brian_Expat]

6. Well. . .

. . . presidents who support anti-gay amendments, even if they "don't have anything to do with passing them" can hop skip and jump over to the GOP where they belong.

I will NEVER AGAIN vote for a politician who supports anti-gay laws. Period. If that means John Kerry loses by a single vote, that was his choice to kiss my vote goodbye. I will not apologize for standing for what I believe in any longer. This sort of "compromise" has gone too far and makes Kerry inch closer to Bush every day.

[Dookus]

and Kerry does not support any anti-gay laws

it's disingenuous to say that he does.

His position on equal rights for gay couples is the same as Clark's and Dean's.

[Brian_Expat]

8. He's considering supporting an anti-gay amendment. . .

. . . which is about the biggest law he is. The fact he wouldn't immediately condemn such a law, as every other Democratic candidate (including Lieberman) did, tells me he's not the man for the job.

[Dookus]

9. No..

he's not considering one. It would be silly to, since Presidents have nothing to do with constitutional amendments.

But I repeat, his position on gay unions is the same as Dean's and Clark's.

[Brian_Expat]

12. LOL

he's not considering one

Read the article again carefully:

Asked if he would support a state constitutional amendment barring gay and lesbian marriages, Kerry didn't rule out the possibility. "I'll have to see what language there is," he said.

Whether or not he has a direct impact on the law has no difference. He is considering whether to support an anti-gay constitutional amendment.

Your argument is akin to a Log Cabin Republican arguing that Bush isn't anti-gay because he has no role in actually passing the DOMA Amendment to the US Constitution.

But I repeat, his position on gay unions is the same as Dean's and Clark's.

No it's not. Both Dean and Clark oppose, without reservation, any anti-gay constitutional amendments.

[Dookus]

14. well...

there seems to be nothing more to discuss, since we can't even agree on basic terminology. He was asked about a hypothetical amendment and said he'd have to see it. That seems reasonable to me.

Kerry has a long history of supporting gay rights. Longer than Dean's, in fact. And I repeat again: Dean's position on gay unions is the same as Kerry's. So is Clark's.

No, my argument is NOT akin to defending Bush on gay rights because he clearly has no history of support for such rights - Kerry does.

[Brian_Expat]

15. My position is simple. . .

. . . I refuse to vote for anyone for president who believes that constitutional amendments that restrict or eliminate one's rights based on sexual orientation are a good idea or even something to consider. I'm sorry you disagree, but Dems da breaks, so to speak.

I smell another Bill Clinton style betrayal, and I've played that game once before, thanks. Not this time.

And I repeat again: Dean's position on gay unions is the same as Kerry's. So is Clark's.

And as I've said, that's just plain not true. Repeating it won't make it any more true.

Dean and Clark have BOTH ruled out ever supporting anti-gay constitutional amendments. John Kerry is considering supporting one. If that's "the same position," you need to do some re-examining.

[Dookus]

17. I'd argue your position is simplistic instead of simple....

so even if kerry comes out next week and clearly opposes a marriage amendment, the fact that you say he's "considered" it makes him anathema?

By the way, "considered" is YOUR term, not Kerry's. He never said he's considering such a thing.

The smears from a certain camp have changed from Clark to Kerry, but they're still just as meritless and tawdry.

[Brian_Expat]

20. If Kerry declares he opposes all anti-gay amendments

then I'd reconsider.

The fact is, he has avoided declaring such at every opportunity, and now he's announced he's "considering supporting" an anti-gay amendment. Nothing I've seen shows he's ready for such a sea-change.

Did you know that Kerry is more to the right on the Massachusetts amendment than the prior three REPUBLICAN governors of Massachusetts?

By all means, insist it's no big deal. 'Tis your right. But please stop selling the mendacious line that he's no different from Dean or Clark on these issues. That's just wrong.

[Dookus]

24. he has never said he's considering supporting

such an amendment. That is your spoin.

And I'm not wrong about his position relative to Dean's and Clark's. They all support equal rights under the law for gay unions. None of them has come out in favor of marriage - nor should they.

Marriage should be a church institution and I would oppose any attempt for the government to force churches to perform gay marriages.

However, as a gay man in a committed relationship, I welcome being given full and equal rights to straight couples. Kerry supports that. Dean supports that. Clark supports that.

[Brian_Expat]

26. *sigh*

he has never said he's considering supporting such an amendment. That is your spoin.

Here's what he said:

Asked if he would support a state constitutional amendment barring gay and lesbian marriages, Kerry didn't rule out the possibility. "I'll have to see what language there is," he said.

Let's break this down, shall we?

1) John Kerry was asked "Do you support a state constitutional amendment barring gay and lesbian marriages?"

2) Kerry didn't rule out the possibility he would support an anti-gay constitutional amendment.

3) In order for Kerry to support an anti-gay constitutional amendment, he stated his primary condition, which is "I'll have to see what language there is."

Kerry's position is very conservative, agreeing with GOP gov Mitt Romney and Speaker Tom Finneran, but disagreeing with the former three GOP governors, the GOP-appointed Supreme Judicial Court, and a majority of the legislature which consists of bi-partisan opposition.

[Dookus]

27. sigh away....

doesn't affect me. You're making up a position and applying it to Kerry that is based only on your semantic interpretation.

His position is the same as Dean's.

[Brian_Expat]

29. You're in denial, bro

I've laid out the logic, clear as day. That you continue to deny the nose on the man's face isn't my concern -- it's ultimately you who will be disappointed, not me.

[Dookus]

30. No... i think not

You will be disappointed to find that

a) your candidate has crashed and burned and
b) your unfounded smears against Kerry are pointless

I don't expect to change your mind - you've made it very clear over the months that you're zealously aligned to Dean and only Dean. But other people will read this thread and see the quality of the attacks against Kerry and laugh.

Your logic is not "clear as day". In fact, it's downright muddy. You're putting words in Kerry's mouth and you're ignoring the fact that Kerry's position is the same as Dean's and Clark's. They all support equal rights under the law for gay couples.

[Brian_Expat]

32. Your subject line is clearly accurate :)

But no, "my candidate" grows out of principles I support, not cult-like devotion. One could make similar arguments about your "candidate" as well, and it would be equally meaningless.

The real distinction here is that you're willing to support someone who's considering active support for an anti-gay state constitutional amendment, and I am not. I respect your right to support him, but please cease insisting that the verifiable public record is wrong on this issue. It's downright silly.

[Dookus]

34. I'll say for the tenth time...

you are mistaken when you say Kerry is "considering" such an amendment. That is your spin entirely. It is not backed up by anything he's said.

But we're just talking past each other - I'll leave it to other readers of this thread to determine who's talking smack and who's making sense. good night.

[Brian_Expat]

36. Kerry also said he'll consider the amendment on NPR. . .

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=113&topic_id=6275#6289

And this is for the Federal Marriage Amendment, not the Massachusetts state one.

But go ahead, keep up the denial. It's endearing.

[JasonDeter]

2. Kerry will make a great president. His wife a great first lady.

[RogueTrooper]

3. Just a shame about the people' rights he has to trample

over on the way there.

[liberalnurse]

7. All American citizens

will have to make that choice as to where they will draw the line. As a registered voter, I will have to prioritize my candidates issues, then make the best pick.

[Brian_Expat]

10. I have done similarly

And after years of holding my nose and voting, I refuse to do it anymore. If John Kerry does not reverse course on this front, I will not only refuse to vote for him, but will actively encourage Democrats to consider their alternatives. I REFUSE to support someone who would consider selling an entire group of US citizens down the river, or support an amendment policy originally formulated by Karl Rove as an election gambit.

[DemBones DemBones]

11. You won't be voting for a Democrat then,

I'd guess. As far as I know, only Dennis Kucinich supports gay marriage.

I can give you at least two or three good reasons not to vote for any particular Dem (including Dennis.)

If you think about what George Bush has done in three years, though, much less what he might do in a second term, you know there is no such thing as a good enough reason not to vote for the Dem nominee.

Things could get much worse if Bush wins.

[Brian_Expat]

13. There's a difference. . .

. . . between opposing gay marriage as a concept and considering supporting a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT banning it.

[Dookus]

16. "considering"

a meaningless word in this context. He was asked about a hypothetical amendment and he simploy said he'd have to see it.

That doesn't mean he supports it. Pretending it does is silly.

I see the same tactics, used by the same people, that were used against Clark for months are now being directed at Kerry. They were despicable then and they're despicable now.

Do you really think this is going to get Dean nominated?

[Brian_Expat]

18. You seem more willing to compromise than I am

I would hope that a president would not "consider supporting" any amendment that shuts out gay and lesbian Americans from the full life of the nation.

Your standard is lower on that front, which is your right, but please cease repeating the "Kerry is equal to Dean/Clark on gay rights" meme. It's not true. Neither Clark nor Dean would "consider" supporting an anti-gay constitutional amendment.

Do you really think this is going to get Dean nominated?

My concern isn't getting Dean nominated, it's ending the homophobia that exists within many areas of the Democratic party. Recently, one of my colleagues here experienced it first-hand. To pretend it doesn't exist is foolishness.

I am also speaking my opinion -- I refuse to support a Democrat who would support a constitutional amendment that makes me a second-class citizen. I'm sorry that bothers you, but last I checked, this was "Democratic" Underground.

[Dookus]

19. You know nothing of my standards....

and again, "considering" is your term, NOT Kerry's.

He's not considering it. He was asked about a hypothetical amendment and said he'd have to see it before commenting. That seems reasonable to me.

I know it sucks for you that your guy flamed out, but making up stories like this is uncalled for.

[Brian_Expat]

21. LOL

considering" is your term, NOT Kerry's

Again, from the article I quoted:

Asked if he would support a state constitutional amendment barring gay and lesbian marriages, Kerry didn't rule out the possibility. "I'll have to see what language there is," he said.

In other words, Kerry is "thinking about," "mulling over" or "considering" support for the amendment. Choose whatever word you like that means "thinking about whether or not to support and refusing to rule out support." Note that every other candidate in this race for Dem nominee has already ruled out support for such a law, along with three Republican former governors of Massachusetts and a large bipartisan group of legislators.

it sucks for you that your guy flamed out

Unlike you, for me, this is about far more than "my guy" for president. This is about my spouse, and the rights I have under the US Constitution, and whether I get equal treatment under same.

Obviously, equal rights aren't as big a concern for you, and that's your right. Just don't tar me with an inaccurate brush.

[Dookus]

25. Again...

you know nothing about what's important to me.

I'm a gay man in a committed relationship. I welcome equal rights. Kerry will support that, as will Dean and Clark.

You can parse all you want, but Kerry is NOT considering such an amendment. Saying he is implies that he's thinking about supporting such a thing. He has not said he is.

Howard Dean COULD have provided marriage rights for gay couples in vermont. He did not. He chose Civil Unions instead. If I applied your logic, Dean shouldn't be a consideration for you.

You're using semantics to create a difference where there is none. It's not a new tactic for Dean supporters - only the target is different.

[Brian_Expat]

28. I guess my rights are just less important to you

I'm a gay man in a committed relationship. I welcome equal rights. Kerry will support that

But not my rights as an expatriot in a committed relationship with a foreigner.

I suppose if you're all set, and an anti-gay amendment doesn't hurt you that much, congratulations.

The rest of us are looking for a candidate who will unquestionably oppose anti-gay constitutional amendments, regardless of what "the language" says.

Howard Dean COULD have provided marriage rights for gay couples in vermont.

Except this is not about Howard Dean. Howard Dean is pretty much out of the race if he doesn't win Wisconsin, as you well know.

This is about our rights as a group of GLBT people, and whether the rest of us should suffer under a constitutional amendment because some in the community choose to support Kerry (or Bush) and argue that anti-gay amendments aren't that bad.

Is the party's strategy for victory going to be to sell us down the creek again, yet claim it supports us at the same time? Vote for DOMA and then complain the Republicans brought it up? Support anti-gay amendments with "the right language" and insist they fought for us? Because if so, that's wearing mighty thin.

[Dookus]

31. but you haven't made the case that Kerry is supporting

any anti-gay amendment.

No matter how hard you try to put words in his mouth.

[Brian_Expat]

33. I said he is CONSIDERING support

And that's bad enough.

As the SL Tribune article clearly explains Kerry said, whether Kerry will support an anti-gay amendment "depends on the language." I refuse to support someone who would consider supporting an anti-gay amendment, period.

I frankly think such a move by Kerry is stupid, since homophobes will vote for Bush, and alienating those of us who believe in full equality will hurt his turnout, but whatever. I am speaking for a large group of people who shouldn't be ignored or belittled.

[Dookus]

35. then don't vote for him...

it's as simple as that.

You're so determined to make up lies about his positions, even though they match YOUR CANDIDATE'S positions EXACTLY, that there's little point in going forward with the discussion. You want to attack him on something that isn't there. Good luck and good night.

[Brian_Expat]

37. More "lies about Kerry"

From the Civil Rights Forum. This time, Kerry's apparently waffling on the Federal Marriage Amendment too.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=113&topic_id=6275#6289

[tobius]

47. the answer to

that last paragraph of yours-- yes, yes, yes, and yes.
"It is better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it."
                        --  Eugene Victor Debs

[Brian_Expat]

52. Argh

We can do so much better as a party. This "Republican lite" strategy is our Hindenberg. It fails every time yet we stick stubbornly to it and wonder why we lose, lose, lose.

[sandnsea]

22. Not what he said

He was specifically talking about marriage and specifically stated he supports civil rights for gays. I don't understand the need to twist John Kerry's words. He's on your side as much as any leading candidate. Has been for twenty years. What good does it do you to bash him?

[Brian_Expat]

23. Here's what Kerry said:

Asked if he would support a state constitutional amendment barring gay and lesbian marriages, Kerry didn't rule out the possibility. "I'll have to see what language there is," he said.

In other words, if an anti-gay constitutional amendment in Massachusetts has "the right language," Kerry would support it.

[sandnsea]

39. If it protects civil rights

It depends on the language. The post below addresses marriage as a sacrament of churches, which he has also said. That has to be respected too. I've read what he has to say, even in recent days, and understand it plainly. Again, I don't quite know what purpose you think you're serving by bashing him, he's on your side.

[WyLoochka]

38. Kerry is blowing it on this issue

From the link provided above:

"Kerry told reporters querying him on the gay marriage issue after a Portland rally that if Republicans "want to turn this into some wedge sort of issue and distort my position, I will fight back very clearly.
"I support equal rights, the right of people to have civil unions, to have partner rights. I do not support marriage" for gays and lesbians, he said.
Asked if he would support a state constitutional amendment barring gay and lesbian marriages, Kerry didn't rule out the possibility. "I'll have to see what language there is," he said."

He should have immediately said - marriage is a sacrament that falls within the purview of the churches, not the government. (Dean's position) Thus, he should support no amendment that extends church doctrine to secular life.

It was dumb, dumb, dumb to give an inch on this issue. After all his years in the Senate he should have been prepared to say, "of course I don't support an amendment banning gay and lesbian marriages, that is not for the government to decide, it is for the churches to decide as they see fit. But it is the appropriate role for the government to rectify the abridgement of civil rights that the churches have long inflicted on gays and lesbians through the secular codfication of church doctrine. I stand firmly for separation of church and state."

Gays and lesbians need to take their issues about "marriage" up with their churches, not the government. They are barking up the wrong tree, undermining the separation of church and state and playing directly into the hands of the Fundies by even entertaining the idea that government should have one word to say about "marriage" one way or the other.

Gays and lesbians need to press government on civil unions and churches on "marriage." If the right to "marry" is important to you, I'd suggest becoming a member of the Episcopal Church.

[sandnsea]

40. No, he needs to be clear

Sorry, he is NOT going to allow the word marriage to be the debate this year and I am glad he's doing what he's doing. He's clear on his support of civil rights for gays and it ought to be enough. If it's not, let Bush get back in for 4 years. I don't get everything I want in this world either.

[WyLoochka]

41. You missed the point

By not immediately stating, in response to the question he was asked, that he does not in any way, shape, or form support an amendment which bans gay "marriage" because it would breach the separation of church and state, while denying citizens their constitutionally guaranteed civil rights, he missed the opportunity to be "clear."

and muddied the waters!!!! But that's what long time Washington insiders do - they cloud issues rather than clarify them. They can't seem to help themselves.

It's very likely that Kerry does not support gay marriage because he is a Roman Catholic. But like the JFK who went before him, he should clearly state that he will not allow the doctrine of his church to abridge the constitutional, secular rights of the citizens. No matter what the Pope says.

[sandnsea]

44. Actually

He doesn't support gay marriage because he doesn't think the country is ready for it.

I think that you're probably right about gay marriage and the separation of church and state. But, frankly, that's too "nuanced" for most people to grasp. If people want a fight about gay marriage and church and state all year, I guess he could have said that. It would never work and he'd lose. I'm sorry, but this is just the wrong damn year for it. If he loses, we get a Bush Supreme Court and everybody can forget about anything resembling civil rights for years to come.

[Brian_Expat]

45. Had to chuckle here. . .

It's very likely that Kerry does not support gay marriage because he is a Roman Catholic.

If that's true, I'm sort of amused, since Kerry is a divorcee who was thrown out of the Boston diocese over his support for abortion rights and his divorced status. To suddenly be "pure" on gay issues would be most ironic.

What Kerry's really doing is eroding his support. Nobody who is anti-gay-marriage to a high degree will vote for him regardless of what he does. Those of us who are pro-equality, however, will not vote for someone who sells us down the river. The result of such waffling is a net loss of votes for Kerry.

It's stupid tactically, stupid strategically, and most important, stupid MORALLY.

[WyLoochka]

65. Was extending the

"benefit of the doubt" to Kerry here. I really can't say why he supports equal civil rights for gays and lesbians while at the same opposing gay "marriage."

I would like to hear him clarify the distinction he is making. If you are correct in what you maintain that he was "thrown out of the Boston diocese over his support for abortion rights and his divorced status," he would look really foolish trying to defend his statements that he opposes gay marriage on religious grounds.

[Sam Lowry]

43. Kerry is being as clear as mud

He's being a big fat boner. Natasha H. is not twelve years old.

[tobius]

54. like your natasha

campaign.

[Brian_Expat]

42. My church has married GLBT people for 40 years

Yet the government won't recognize my Quaker meeting's marriages.

When they try to make it a religious issue, they should keep in mind that there are many religions and churches that WILL marry gay people today, right now. Why should other religions' beliefs infringe upon my religion?

[RogueTrooper]

46. Good Point Brian

:yourock:

[sandnsea]

49. And they'll continue to

But that doesn't mean the legal rights of partnership have to be provided through marriage. They don't. I suspect marriage will end up being a religious right and civil unions a legal right. Whether we do it sensibly, or through a nationwide uproar, will mostly be up to gays.

[Brian_Expat]

50. So some religions are "better" than others under the law?

All the marriages of one religion get recognized, whereas my religion remains "second class." Great!

[sandnsea]

53. Didn't say that

I said I expect marriage will become something left to churches to decide on and civil unions will become the method provided by law. That's also why one really can't say what they'd support in a law until they actually see the law.

[Brian_Expat]

56. So why consider supporting a constitutional amendment. . .

. . . if it's something "left to churches"?

And why discriminate against MY church's beliefs on marriage?

[sandnsea]

62. Who said that?

Maybe the Amendment would read a ban against gay civil marriage, partnership rights granted through civil unions, churches do what they want. How is that discriminating against your church?

[WyLoochka]

63. No religion as yet

performs for gays what is routinely performed for heterosexuals and that is a "double-header" so to speak. When a marriage between heterosexuals is performed in most any church, the officiant and guests are witnessing the entering into of a civil union as well as a sacramental one.

Since gays and lesbians are prohibited in 49 states from entering into civil union, these "double-header" witnessing ceremonies in churches cannot possibly take place except in Vermont.

It's not like the old canard - which comes first the chicken or the egg? In this case it's clear. Civil unions come first.

[WyLoochka]

57. Brian, it isn't

appropriate for the government to recognize or not recognize Quaker marriages. What the Quakers, the Episcopalians, The Roman Catholics or the Southern Baptists do or don't do about marriage is none of the government's business.

What you need, as a citizen, is to be able to enter into a recognized civil contract with your intended life partner. It is your civil right to choose to do so. No one can rightfully abridge it.

That your Quaker meeting would bless your choice by recognizing that a marriage exists is great news to me.

The recognition of a "marriage" takes place in the church. The recognition of a civil union takes place in secular society. Gays and lesbians need to fight the battles in the right spheres. They damage their cause to finally start enjoying the civil rights they should have been enjoying for 218 years by demanding that their religiously blessed marriages be "recognized." And they chip away at the wall between church and state by doing so.

It's the right to enter into secular civil contracts that is the key. That's where the recognition you speak of is denied. The government cannot force the Southern Baptists to recognize what has taken place in a Quaker meeting. But it can force the Southern Baptists to have to live with the fact that there are people who will not live under their edicts and they can't do anything about it. Government can and should prevent the Southern Baptists etal from continuing to codify what they see as Biblical Law into secular law and it can and should wipe all the laws that do exist to prevent gays from enjoying life together off the books.

[tobius]

48. seperation of church

and state - man and woman in front of justice of the peace, they say" I do". For the life of me I can't recall these words "hey, don't forget your civil union certificate!"

The point- w/o the word marriage many find it insulting to the basic meaning of equality that GBLTs should not be able to have official sanction of the gov't for these relationships. On the other hand; it is just a bit more slippery on the other side, if some are not careful the impression can be made that their is a push to get rid of the word marriage for "the good of everybody".
"It is better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it."
                        --  Eugene Victor Debs

[sandnsea]

51. Well you will

Unless of course people insist on making the word marriage more important than the legal rights. If they do, Bush for four more years and all civil rights down the toilet for decades to come. People better start thinking, they sure aren't now.

[Brian_Expat]

55. The word "marriage" is what it is. . .

. . . it's marriage. Gay people can get married religiously everywhere in the USA and civilly in lots of places worldwide.

Why cater to SOME religions and discriminate against others?

[tobius]

59. wtf

..."gay people can get married religiously everywhere in the USA..." ?

sure about that..?

[sandnsea]

61. Why?

Why do you do this? Complete and total distortion and you know it. I just do not understand why.

[tobius]

58. those damn people

, always insisting and stuff. Marriage is not just a word that can be tossed aside so Kerry doesn't have to strain himself.

"Damn your principles! Stick to your party."
       -- Benjamin Disraeli, British prime minister

[sandnsea]

60. Have Bush then

That's the choice this year. The word marriage or George Bush. This election isn't just about gay's rights, it's about the rights of Americans and people around the world for decades to come. I wouldn't sacrifice the entire world for the word marriage, no matter how right I thought I was. Some things are just more important.

[tobius]

64. ok

that did it, ya got me. I'm convinced, gotta drop that stupid word-"marriage'. Never liked it anyway, I can see it now- Kerry " my fellow Americans, you have a choice; the word marriage or George B*..