I think this is the gay marriage amendment Kerry had in mind to support

[ringmastery]

It bans gay marriage but allows civil unions.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/11/national/11GAY.html?hp

BOSTON, Feb. 10 — Seeking to counteract last week's court decision allowing gay couples to marry in Massachusetts, state lawmakers on Tuesday fashioned what they called a compromise: a proposed amendment to the state's Constitution that would define marriage as a heterosexual institution but allow same-sex couples to join in civil unions.

The compromise was developed as legislators prepared for what is likely to be a divisive constitutional convention that begins on Wednesday and is expected to be dominated by the gay-marriage question.

[DuctapeFatwa]

1. The important thing is to establish a separate status for certain groups

Same sex couples who want to marry are a shrewd choice for this initial move, becuase it is such an emotional issue, and homosexuals are not popular with the affluent and politically active radical Christians.

It will be a rough ride, but once this first constitutional precedent is set, it should be easy enough to get broad bipartisan support for tiered protection under law applied to any number of unpopular groups!

[jpgray]

Yes. Separate but equal. Watch it go. Vroom

Closeted racism/bigotry is what it is. "You can't have what I have, but we'll create something ELSE for you that's 'equivalent'." Yeah, that would make me feel great.

[tobius]

8. Amen n/t

[NewYorkerfromMass]

13. There will be no tiered protection and Kerry certainly wouldn't allow it

cut it out please. It would never stand up in court anyway.

[kenny blankenship]

14. ahem

how many supreme courts have to explain to you that that is EXACTLY what Kerry's "compromise" position is ?
Separate and UNEQUAL.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

15. OK: Here's an example of seperate but equal

with about as much effect on denying equal protection:

Wheelchair riders can't use the front door nor ride in the front of the bus.

[kenny blankenship]

16. IS THAT IN THE CONSTITUTION ????

please, we were discussing a SERIOUS matter of constitutional law.

Kerry is extending his support to AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSTITUTION THAT WOULD ENSHRINE INEQUALITY AS A PRINCIPLE.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

18. Where's the inequality here?

[ShimokitaJer]

22. The inequality lies in the defining of marriage in religious terms

And Kerry has been quite explicit about that. He is more than happy to tie marriage to the religious sense of the word, to make that the definition the government uses, and to deny gays the right to that institution.

It is a positive thing that he wants gay unions to have the same legal rights as heterosexual unions, but don't pretend for a second that it is the same thing.

[kenny blankenship]

23. just read the rest of the thread

--or better yet read the Massachusetts Supreme Court's statement.

Creating a separate institution where none needs to exist and corralling certain groups into them is invidious discrimination BY ITS VERY NATURE.

There is no such thing as separate and equal. If the distinction between people is made JUST TO MAKE A DISTINCTION then the practice is discriminatory. Working it into a law, is writing a dislike for certain people into the laws as a principle.

Putting such a law into the US Constitution would deny this group or groups from being able to petition their representatives or bring suit in court to achieve the status of civil marriage.

In other words, the ONLY THING this amendment does IS TO DISCRIMINATE !

Do you understand why Judges would regard such laws or articles as a 3 headed monster from the underrealms of chaos, an abomination of illogic ??

Look at the rest of the Constitution. Nowhere in the Bill of Rights will you find articles which seek to draw out distinctions among people. Likewise, the 15th Amendment which was intended to guarantee the rights of blacks to vote DOESN'T EVEN MENTION THEM BY NAME. It's functioning is to assert that ALL people fall under its guarantees in exactly the SAME WAY, and that states may not create exceptions or special distinctions by any categorizing schemes of race or "previous condition of servitude".

What you and John Kerry want to put in the US Constitution or state constitutions belongs in Hitler's Nuremburg Laws. Different laws for different people.

If you can have separate legal institutions for gays versus straights, then racist state legislatures can enact legal segregation and discrimination against blacks again.

Why is it that lawmakers back in the benighted 19th century understood the importance of equality before the law, and apparently 21st century luminaries like John Kerry and some DUer's just don't get it?

[Feanorcurufinwe]

19. The important thing is to spread misinformation

The only way the Right Wing can use this wedge to divide us is if some of us willingly do their work.



(note to mods: I am not accusing anyone of being a conservative, etc., I am just commenting on the fact that the right wing relies on some of us to do their work for them.)

[DuctapeFatwa]

24. What other groups should be denied Equal Protection under the law?

I had no idea that one law for everybody was a right-wing concept.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

27. Yes, that is the misinformation you are spreading.

Maybe if you repeat it enough, you will convince some Democratic voters to stay home instead of voting against Bush, but I doubt it.


(note to mods: I am not accusing anyone of being for Bush, I am pointing out how certain actions can help Bush, despite the most noble intentions.)

[DuctapeFatwa]

29. LOL I asked you a question. You have indicated that you support

a two-tiered system and the setting up of a special status for certain individuals in a certain situation.

I have no reason to suppose that you are not a man or woman of principle, I am curious as to what other groups you would like to see the principle applied to.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

32. No, You have tried to put words in my mouth. I'll speak for myself.

First of all, for some reason, you have switched from talking about Kerry, to talking about me. Why, I don't know. I do support Kerry even though I do not exactly agree with him on this issue. (What a bizarre concept!)

You are wrong about Kerry's position. You can say a hundred times or a thousand times, that he support things he doesn't support, but it won't change reality.

[tobius]

33. where is ductape wrong?

If Kerry does not support gay marriage, he is supporting 2 different outcomes.
Like it or not some believe 1 outcome would be simple equality.

"Dammit, it's your duty to get married. You can't be always living for pleasure."
Oscar Wilde

[DuctapeFatwa]

35. I think it is a situation where different people interpret Kerry's remarks

differently.

When Kerry says, "I do not support marriage, I support civil unions" that is interpreted by some to mean that Kerry supports marriage.

My personal interpretation is that it means he does not support marriage, but does support civil unions.

Because he has been very outspoken about gay-bashing (according to my interpretation, he is against it) I infer that he is not anti-gay, therefore his support of a separate status for certain groups should not be seen as homophobic, but a question of principle.

While the principle of equal protection under the law is a popular principle with many people, it is by no means a universally acclaimed idea, and I believe that Kerry, like anyone else, is entitled to his belief, and has the right to defend his principles.

[DuctapeFatwa]

34. I am interested in your opinion

Kerry said he did not support marriage, he supported civil unions.

While that has been interpreted by many to mean that he supports marriage (equal protection under the law) my interpretation of his remarks is that he does not support marriage, he supports civil unions.

What other groups should have a separate legal status?

[tobius]

36. verrry interesting

Ha- a split personality manifesting itself in forum! I believe these symptons will soon start to become more obvious the longer someone tries to reconcile principles with compromise.

“One tequila, two tequila, three tequila, floor” — George Carlin

[IndianaGreen]

2. This is another version of "separate but equal"

Shall we have separate restrooms and drinking fountains for gays?

How about requiring gays to wear some sort of identification patch?

:puke:

[jpgray]

3. Yep. If this is the test, not only Kerry fails it

Every major candidate but Kucinich and Sharpton would.

[Blayde Starrfyre]

4. Please, SOMEONE take the obvious easy way out!

As many people have said, there are a few easy ways out for the candidates.

1) Just say "let the states handle it."

2) (The prefereable) Propose that the governments recognize only "civil unions" for both homosexuals and heterosexuals on an equal level, and that "marriage" is a term reserved for religions. BAM. Marriage is "defended," and no unconstitutional seperate-but-equal situation is established. Anyone who opposes this can be attacked as a bigot. Moreover, this proposition opens up an excellent counter-attack for the candidate to go after Bush, Ashcroft, and Scalia and their quest to become the (respectively) Henry VIII, John Calvin, and Pope of America.

[IndianaGreen]

5. Marriage is not reserved for religions

Many atheists and agnostics are married in a non-religious setting.

Don't buy the fundamentalist crap that marriage was instituted by Jesus. A ridiculous statement which if true would mean that Mary was living in sin with Joseph, and that Jesus himself was born a bastard, and Moses was never married.

The issue is the marriage license, which is issued by the state. Can the state withhold a marriage license from people solely on the basis of sexual orientation? Can a state deny a teaching license to gays? Or a driver's license?

[Blayde Starrfyre]

7. I understand, but . . .

In this issue, I think the best strategy for the Democratic candidate would be to call for a seperation of marriage in the eyes of the law (for which I used the term "civil unions") and marriage in the eyes of religion (for which I used the term "marriage"). I believe it would satisfy the liberals because it makes the state-recognized relationships between heterosexuals and homosexuals equal, and establishes a clear seperation between church and state. It would also satisfy moderate conservatives because it makes it very clear that we aren't forcing their churches to perform the ceremonies, nor are we taking any moral stance, it's simply an issue of Constitutional equality. This is nothing new. For the Catholic Church, life begins at conception, but the government doesn't put the date your parents boinked on your birth certificate. Different views of when life begins, why not different views of marriage?

I think it would be unreasonable and unrealistic to reject this stance just because we wouldn't have the term "gay marriage" or "atheist marriage" in the law.

[tobius]

9. a winning issue

The Dems want to take away marriage for heterosexuals!

[kenny blankenship]

6. What if...

What if 19th century lawmakers had drafted the 15th amendment in such a way that people of certain non-white races, or those recently escaped from "prior conditions of servitude" could vote henceforth, but never hold office?

...or perhaps own property, but never transfer it to their offspring like white folk are allowed to do. Or because they're not white, they'd have to meet minimal property requirements before being allowed to vote, while propertyless whites could vote without any such restrictions...

How about this one: instead of "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion", let's have it this way: Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, but members of the Jewish, Muslim, Hindu and Buddhist religions shall pay an Atheists Tax yearly.

Would that be something to celebrate? Would we consider that a finished job or a well done piece of law?

Didn't anybody read the Massachusetts Supreme Court's reasons for rejecting the idea of civil unions?

Or do people think enshrining inequality in a Constitution is a GOOD THING nowadays?

In the absence of any rational reasons for denying civil marriage to same sex couples, withholding marriage because the couple is gay is simply writing a group prejudice into the laws.

Creating public institutions as a consolation prize which you want to call separate but equal is INHERENTLY UNEQUAL treatment of US citizens.
Maybe that phrase rings a bell with some DU readers?
Ontop of that people now want to write these group prejudices into the Constitution no less, making it impossible for US citizens to bring a suit or petition their government for the status of marriage.

I can't imagine any other scenario where a group is told "here you go you uppitty bitches, this lesser status is what we're going to give you, and that's ALL --the good shit we keep for ourselves. And you better take it and be happy you're getting anything."

What I mean is, i can't imagine this kind of scenario AFFECTING ANY OTHER GROUP BUT GAYS--and the news of it being trumpetted as a cause for celebrations among Democrats.

[Mairead]

11. Great argument, well stated!

The Constitution is clear, and we should demand that it be followed.

[kenny blankenship]

12. if that's what he had in mind

then he'd better get his mind right before November
NO ANTI-GAY AMENDMENTS PERIOD

Make John Kerry PROMISE!

[Brian_Expat]

10. Completely, totally and utterly unacceptable. n/t

[slinkerwink]

17. I do NOT want a federal ban on gay marriage in favor of civil unions

I want the right to marry my girl in the state of Massachussetts!

[Feanorcurufinwe]

20. I would recommend voting against Bush in that case.

[Name removed]

21. Deleted message

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

[Feanorcurufinwe]

28. That is a false statement.

If you want to say it is not false, could you please back it up with some kind of link, reference or citation?

Thank you.

[Terwilliger]

25. he better re-consider his consideration

again, I don't care if he doesn't favor gay marriage, but if he favors laws AGAINST them, then he's a Republican.

[tobius]

26. so be a bigot..

but keep it quiet.

[DU GrovelBot]

30. ## Support Democratic Underground! ##

RUN C:\GROVELBOT.EXE
 
This week is our first quarter 2004 fund drive.
Please take a moment to donate to DU. Thank you
for your support.
 
- An automated message from the DU GrovelBot

Click here to donate.

[tobius]

31. This just in...