I'll make a deal with Kerry's supporters. . .

[Brian_Expat]

. . . I will support John Kerry as much as he supports me.

So if Kerry comes out again and says he might support an anti-gay law "if it has the right language," I might support a candidate other than Kerry "if he has the right language."

If there has to be "nuance" about Kerry's position on issues of civil rights, tax sensibility and balanced budgets, there will have to be "nuance" on my part in supporting him.

If there's a bit of a question as to whether me and my community are being unfairly attacked by the Republicans, and the Kerry campaign remains silent, I'll remain equally silent when the Republicans unfairly attack him.

Fair position? Why or why not?

[eileen_d]

1. Sounds like a deal with Kerry you're making

I support Kerry, and I support your right to do whatever you please.

[Brian_Expat]

3. I'd like to propose it with the Kerry campaign

and people on DU who are Kerry supporters. I think tit for tat is fair in such a circumstance, non?

I hear a lot about how criticising Kerry is a bad thing, yet Kerry and his campaign have done a lot of criticising of people like me, pretty much with impunity. That seems unbalanced to me.

[JI7]

6. well, if kerry's stepson still uses du

maybe he will answer. mr. heinz, if you read this, please respond to this post.

[eileen_d]

10. I think you are confusing Kerry's campaign with Kerry supporters

on DU. I am not actively involved with Kerry's campaign. Nor do I have any influence on the actions of other DUers who support Kerry.

I don't think criticizing Kerry is a bad thing, but if people disagree with your criticisms, they will most likely respond in kind. I doubt Kerry takes criticism of his positions on a personal level.

I renew my invitation for you to support Kerry, or not, in whatever way you see fit.

[Brian_Expat]

11. Lesson 1 from the Dean campaign. . .

The supporters ARE the campaign. Not the offices and personnel in the call centre.

[eileen_d]

17. Whatever.

I'm just a person posting on a message board who happens to think Kerry isn't Bush-lite and is a good choice for the Democratic nominee. I don't think he's the only choice. Nor am I a willing student of the Dean campaign.

I am not the droid you are looking for. Move along.

[Padraig18]

2. Good post!

*grin*

[JI7]

4. write to senator kerry,

this doesn't have much to do with those who support kerry it seems more directed at him personally. and kerry has a great record on rights for gays and everyone else.

[ShimokitaJer]

7. Then why would he be willing to support an amendment to ban gay marriage?

Stop talking about his great record and explain his current position. The campaign trail is the time to make promises, but Kerry's been forced to show his hand in a real decision and has been found wanting.

[JI7]

12. he was talking about state constitution

this would allow a lawsuit over the ban which the united states supreme court can take up and with enough left leaning justices they would rule it unconstitutional. that is the goal. to get the united states supreme court to rule any bans unconstitutional. it's the same with abortion rights. bush signing the late term abortion ban wasn't the goal for right wingers. the goal is to get the united states supreme court to declare it unconstitutional and it's close to doing it with the change of just 2 justices. all this talk or promises mean nothing if republicans achieve in using the issue as a wedge issue and appoint more scalia types to the supreme court who will just strike down any law giving same sex couples the right to marry. and not only that, but they would make sodomy unconstitutional.

[dsc]

15. that is unmittigated hooey

If the plan really were to get a federal court hearing the quickest way for that would be to approve marriage, someone will go to MA and back to another state and sue to get recognized. Your candidate screwed up here. Stop pretending he didn't.

[JI7]

19. not screwed up at all

it's politics. he wont say he supports same sex marriage because of politics. because people wont accept it. it's a losing issue. even california just about 2 years ago voted for an anti gay proposition even though our governor, senators, and most democratic officials were opposed to it. and not good to get a federal hearing on the issue right now since the current supreme court would oppose same sex marriage. you need the appoint about 1 or 2 more left leaning justices then take it to the court.

[For PaisAn]

61. When will he say

what he supports? Clearly, unequivocally and without nuance. I'd really like to know and not have to assume or guess or hope. I finding that politics is just who BS's the best.

[Brian_Expat]

16. He still supports an anti-gay amendment.

I guess Kerry wouldn't mind if I supported a state amendment that would ban him for running for president ONLY in Massachusetts -- and called myself a booster of his?

After all, it's not a FEDERAL amendment I'm supporting. . .

[JI7]

20. well, it depends

if in the end it helped him win the presidency, then you should do it.

[Brian_Expat]

9. I did write to Kerry

Last year, when it looked like his candidacy was dead in the water. I got back nothing but requests for donations.

[JI7]

14. write to him again

since his campaign was dead then that's probably why you didn't get a response.write to barney frank who is gay and supporting kerry also. barney frank would never support kerry if kerry was anti gay in any way.

[ShimokitaJer]

5. Yours is the only reasonable approach

It is ridiculous to assume that voters who are only Democrats in the first place because of the issues they support, will automatically vote for candidates who call themselves Democrats but don't support those issues. The demands to toe the party line and trust them to make the right decisions don't ring true when a candidate can't even bring himself to support an issue while he's campaigning.

When the Republicans browbeat their members into voting the party line, we call them fascists. Why should we praise the same techniques when used by the Democrats?

The voters of expedience seem to live in an Orwellian world in which we can only have our issues addressed if we vote for a candidate who doesn't support those issues. Thank you, but I prefer to use my vote to work for change rather than to support the status quo.

[Brian_Expat]

8. Precisely what I was thinking. Good, insightful post! n/t

[Granite]

13. Sounds like a recipe

for permanent minority (party) status. As a Kerry supporter from the beginning, I was (and am) willing to back whoever the Democratic nominee is. The Party transcends the candidates. The reason the Republicans have been able to get a stranglehold on all of the levers of power is their willingness to put Party first. If we (as Democrats) don't get our acts together and put our Party first, we will we will find ourselves in the minority for a long, long time.

Incrementalism works, and if you can't see the clear differences between John Kerry and George Bush, you aren't looking very closely.

[Brian_Expat]

18. Recipe for permanent minority status. . .

. . . is not standing up for what I believe in, but continuing to buy the line that I should hold my nose and push the "D" lever. After the nasty treatment of Dean AND the willingness some candidates have shown (including Kerry, IMO) to trade elected office for the well-being of people like me, I refuse to do it now.

If Kerry refuses to stand up for me, I refuse to stand up for him -- just as Dean stood up for me and inspired a similar result in response from those he supported.

if you can't see the clear differences between John Kerry and George Bush, you aren't looking very closely

On the issues most important to me, there's virtually no difference at all, other than in language used. Both support big tax breaks, deficit spending, international unilateralism, and enshrinement of anti-gay sentiment in law (albeit, Kerry's "kinder, gentler" approach is supposed to make me happy).

[Granite]

22. Fair enough

I respect your position. I don't like Kerry's stance on Gay Marriage either, FWIW. There really is no justification for it, other than as a compromise position to try to achieve something that is more palatable (civil unions) to more people.

Ultimately the decision is yours. I'm trying to take a bigger-picture view of this election, beyond a few policy differences. First is the Supreme Court Justice issue. Second is our standing in the world community. Third is knowing that 4 more years of a lame duck John Ashcroft scares the shit out of me. Fourth is the further eroding of a woman's right to choose (closely linked to #1). Fifth is the continuing encroachment of religion into public life. Sixth is the rabid anti-intellectualism of this administration.

There are more "big picture issues" for me, but I believe that all of our candidates are on the right side of these. While I may have disagreements with individual candidates (including my own) on specific issues of public policy, the bigger picture is so much more important to me.

But of course, I respect your opinion to vote your conscience and do what is right for you.

Peace.

[11 Bravo]

50. Nicely put. Pragmatism is not often looked upon favorably

at DU. Do I wish Senator Kerry would speak out forcefully in favor of full and complete rights for gay Americans? Hell yes! Do I believe the issue should be allowed to split the progressive vote and thereby hand Bush another term? Hell no! But the next president may shape the SCOTUS for generations to come. Worse, imagine the specter of Bush-Cheney-Ashcroft, free to pursue their baser instincts, secure in the knowledge that they never need face the electorate again. That, my friends, is the stuff of nightmares.

[ShimokitaJer]

36. What good is being in the majority...

if they continue to ignore the issues that are important to me?

Maybe you think just being on the winning side is enough, but some of us would actually like our win to have some kind of effect on the policy direction of the party.

If Kerry can't rule out a gay mariage amendment while he is running for the party nomination, why would he ever do so once he doesn't need the voters anymore?

How has incrementalism worked for you? Now the Democratic party has almost as many corporate donors as the Republicans, under Clinton we got NAFTA, WTO, and still more deregulation, the Democrats in Congress have failed to challenge Bush on Iraq, on the Patriot Act, and on the vast majority of his judicial nominees, and the New Dems are pushing the same agenda of unilateralist militarism. Just what do you think we are gaining?

[Granite]

42. See my comment to Brian_Expat above

I respect your decision to do what is right for you. But I believe (IMHO) that there are larger issues that would be better addressed by having a Democrat in office. I have policy differences with Kerry - I don't like his stance on marriage rights, for example. But I don't expect to be in lock-step with my candidate on every issue.

Incrementalism is the only viable option for the party, IMO. Unfortunately, the electorate is not going to support an entirely progressive agenda (while I like him and respect many of his views, see the success of Kucinich's campaign for an example of this). The way to create change in this country is to get hold of the levers of power, and begin to lead the country from the middle. Clinton started that process. I could have done without Welfare Reform and the DOMA, but I think we, as a party, were in a much better position to affect change under WJC then we are under GWB. That in itself is a justification for voting (D) in this next election.

I had this argument with my wife in the last election (she voted for Nader in 2000). Party trenscends candidates - IMHO.

Once again, I respect your opinion and your decision. But to me, I can't justify a protest vote if it leads to 4 more years of a Bush presidency. There are too many issues at stake that all of the Democratic candidates are on the right side of in 2004.

[ShimokitaJer]

44. Yet your decision affects me as well

If voters consistently accept the capitulation to the other side off supposedly progressive candidates, then there is no longer any option for voters such as myself. You effectively shut out any option but the two party system, which has no reason to change from within as long as their hold on power is not threatened.

You hold up the failure of Kucinich's campaign as evidence of the electorate's lack of support for a progressive agenda. But it was not the electorate as a whole who made that choice... it was Democratic primary voters, who have admitted to voting based more on electability than issues. In other words, they and you are assuming a lack of public support for progressive issues among the general public and attempting to choose a candidate based on the perception of what "they" will accept. This, despite the fact that polls have shown broad support for progressive initiatives such as universal health care, corporate accountability, workers' rights, preservation of social security, etc. You are letting a mistaken idea of electability cut off any opportunity for progressive candidates to gain a foothold in the system.

We may have been in a better position to effect change when we were in power, but that begs the question of why we didn't use that power. I have to question why Clinton, even when he was a lame duck, did not choose to use that power to further progressive goals, but rather chose the path of deregulation and free trade that the Republicans preferred. And if Clinton failed in his promises, why should we trust the next candidate who doesn't even make these promises.

The belief that the Democratic party will move to the left if only they hold onto power long enough should have been dispelled by now. Whether with a Democratic president or with Democratic control of the Senate, the trend through the center and toward the right has continued. Why do you expect this will change if we don't demand it with our votes?

[Granite]

52. People are expressing their wishes through the vote

Why do you expect this will change if we don't demand it with our votes?

We should demand change with our votes. That is what the primary has been for. Dennis Kucinich represents true progressive reform (across the board) based on his platform and his record in Congress. He hasn't been able to translate his vision for a more progressive America into votes. Democrats are in the process of deciding who they want as their Presidential candidate - and it looks like John Kerry is going to be that guy. The General Election is not the time to make protest votes - 2000 should have proven that beyond any reasonable doubt. To be clear, I'm a Democrat - I'm not a Green, or other third party supporter. For us to be viable, we need to be united.

Look, I respect your commitment to your core issues. If I were to vote based solely on what is best for me, I should probably vote for Bush (my father-in-law tells me that every time I see him). After all, I have a well-paying job, a decent amount of money tied up in various investments, and stand to gain a sizable inheritance when my in-laws die.

However, this election is not about me and my own personal issues. It's about the consequences of electing a Republican president who has the potential to really ruin this country and take us back to a place (policy-wise) that is less progressive than where we are now. Want proof? Look at what this administration has done to workers' rights, unions, abortion, look at their stance on affirmative action, separation of church and state. This is a radical, right-wing administration. If you see moderate Democrats as the "lesser of two evils," you ignore the fact that Republicans (especially those shaping and implementing policy in this administration) are MORE EVIL and have the potential to do far more damage to progressive ideals than do moderate Dems. Who do you think you will have more leverage with, policy-wise? A moderate Democrat or a right wing, conservative Republican? This administration has already decided to ignore Democrats on critical matters of policy (see the prescription drugs/medicate bill, energy, etc.).

If marriage-rights are the key issue for you in this election, then I'd caution you to consider what life might be like if Bush is given another 4 years, has the opportunity to appoint a couple of RW Supreme Court justices, and isn't accountable to the electorate in 2008. Do you really think that you will be in a better place policy-wise in that scenario?

These are my opinions. We are on the same page WRT the marriage issue - I also fully support equal protection and full marriage rights for everyone. On that, we completely agree.

Peace.

[paulk]

34. sometimes voting for what you might consider

the lesser of two evils is in your own best self interest. This is not expediency, it's plain common sense.

[maxanne]

45. and sometimes

it establishes a pattern. Einstien defined insanity as doing the same thing over and over, expecting different results.

If we continue to all hold our noses and vote for the lesser of two evils, why will we ever get a better canidate?

[paulk]

54. the pattern has been?

Democratic control of all three branches of government?

No, quite the opposite. And so far this election cycle it seems to be a minority that considers Kerry the lesser of two evils.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

21. I disgree with your assessment

Kerry specifically stated that that law would have to take into account civil unions and specifically stated that the law would have to take into account equal rights. As such that makes him the only candidate that required the law to acknowledge civil unions on a FEDERAL rather than state level.

Google would easily help you to find the NUMEROUS statements Kerry has made in SUPPORT of the gay community. I can't control the fact that you refuse to use it.

This gay woman KNOWS the reach of Kerry's statement and the fact that he was actually REQUIRING federal protection for equal rights. He already spoke the loudest with his vote against DOMA.

I give up trying to even communicate this with gay folks who REFUSE to get it and latched onto ONE SENTENCE while ignoring the rest of his statement. Either people can't read or are being deliberately dishonest regarding his stand. It's one or the other. I suspect the latter.

It might be useful to know, however, that his REQUIRING federal protection would HELP those who got their "civil union" in Vermont and then moved to Alabama. Right now their piece of paper is ONLY as good as the state stationary it is written on.

[Name removed]

23. Deleted message

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

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

24. And no amount of condescension from you will change his statement

it was NOT advocating for discrimination.

[dsc]

25. of course it was

Look, maybe it is a good deal to trade a permanent ban on gay marriage for enactment of civil unions. But it is nothing short of abusurd to say that isn't discrimination.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

29. It's what Dean did in Vermont

Be consistent.

It is nothing short of absurd that gay males would fuck themselves over a WORD!

[dsc]

33. No it isn't

Dean did not ban marriage. The state of Vermont, without amending any constitutions, could pass gay marriage tomorrow if it so wished. After Kerry is done, no one could do that.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

35. And what would they have accomplished other than a cosmetic

name change? And yes, Dean was and IS against gay marriage.

[dsc]

37. I didn't say he wasn't

but he publicly threatened to veto a Vermont DOMA and didn't amend the constitution. Thus, at any time, we could have full marriage. And, unless and until, there is such a thing as federal civil unions, there is a huge difference in portability.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

39. So Kerry already voted against DOMA

Now what is the difference between "full marriage" and civil unions?

[dsc]

41. portability

If I get civil unionized in VT it is no good anywhere else. If I get married in MA it is good in at least the 12 remaining states with no DOMA laws and in several countries.

[ShimokitaJer]

38. a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage is cosmetic?

Why don't you just be more honest and tell us you don't give a fuck about the issue? At least then I could understand how you could vote for Kerry.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

40. Nice try..I'm gay.

[Name removed]

48. Deleted message

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

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

49. My last name is not Sullivan, and I am clear Kerry is not a homophobe.

Any other personal attacks cloaked as debate?

[La_Serpiente]

55. Here is what I found

(H.847)

It is hereby enacted by the General Assembly of the State of Vermont:

Sec. 1. LEGISLATIVE FINDINGS

The General Assembly finds that:

(1) Civil marriage under Vermont's marriage statutes consists of a union between a man and a woman. This interpretation of the state's marriage laws was upheld by the Supreme Court in Baker v. State.

http://www.sec.state.vt.us/otherprg/civilunions/civilunionlaw.html

According to this law, Civil Marriage is between a man and a woman in Vermont. Marriage between one man and one woman is not enshrined in the Constitution.

I would also like to note that it appears Vermont has the most marriage-like benefits to offer to same-sex couples. The only thing that is different it the name.

[Brian_Expat]

27. If you believe that "a separate but equal institution" isn't discrimnatory

Then you probably also think that "blacks only" schools, separate but equal water fountains, and separate but equal eating areas in restaurants and seating areas in theatres for blacks and whites also aren't discrimination.

Separate but equal is a horrendous form of discrimination also known as segregation.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

32. Where's the segregation if you get the same rights?

There IS no corrollary since there is no separate institution providing the benefits..they would all come from the county clerk's office same as a marriage license.

And please don't use me like you use black people to prove an erroneous point.

[kenny blankenship]

57. you DON'T get the same rights

Marriage exists in a web of hundreds of local and state laws, and a myriad of private sector practices. It's not simple and theoretical like you make it.

If you get shafted with "civil union" you have a separate judicial track to enforce your "civil union" rights upon every state and local ordinance, every employer or landlord or insurer, or retailer or hotelier that has a practice or law that would interfere with those rights. And all of them would because all their laws and policies are written around the institution of civil MARRIAGE.

Now if you have a right to the SAME rights, benefits and obligations as married heterosexuals, then you ALSO have a right to perfectly equal access to those rights. Corralling homosexuals into a separate legal institution that has no accomodation waiting for it in the laws and ordinances and practices of a world built around marriage, FORCES HOMOSEXUAL COUPLES TO SHOULDER THE BURDEN OF TRAILBLAZING THEIR NEW INSTITUTION, so called "civil union", TO ALL THE REMOTE CORNERS OF LOCAL&STATE LAWS. Likewise, it forces homosexual couples to shoulder the burden of trailblazing their "peculiar institution" upstream against discriminatory private sector policies on hiring/firing practices, employee compensation, insurance, public accomodations, etc ad infinitum. That constitutes a burden that would be placed on homosexual couples ALONE, while heterosexuals continue to enjoy the friction free benefits of laws, ordinances, & private sector policies written around the institution and NAME of marriage.

It was considerations like these that prompted the MA Supreme Court to reject the idea of civil unions as a possible "separate but equal" legal institution for gays. "Separate is seldom IF EVER equal" --as the Court summed it up.
Yes, in theory, possibly separate could be equal, BUT NO ONE'S EVER SEEN IT HAPPEN. Since gay people are said to have a right to the benefits and obligations of marriage, and since they have a right to equal access to these benefits, and since something with "all the taste but half the calories" of marriage surely won't guarantee those rights the way MARRIAGE CAN, gay people cannot be denied the status of legally "married" couple.

Putting homosexual couples in the same logical category of "marrieds" relieves the discriminatory burden.of making all the laws out there in a MILLION different jurisdictions and million different areas of law conform to the rights of gay couples armed only with newly minted, untested "civil union" status. But that's almost beside the point.

In order to treat people differently, to make separate legal institutions YOU BETTER HAVE A DAMN GOOD REASON. So far, no one has shown --let's be honest, NO ONE EVEN TALKS ABOUT-- any reason to segregate heterosexual marriage from homosexual marriage that is based on a rational estimate of harm to heterosexual marriage. The ONLY reason ever implied or given to separate "gay" from straight marriage is that straight people DON'T LIKE GAYS. That's it. They don't want to share a "category" with them. They don't to share their status with gays. That dislike --if allowed to exclude gays from marriage-- is invidious discrimination in its essence. Our Constitution is SUPPOSED to be written in such a way that any law applies to everyone equally, because in this republic all are supposed to be equal in the eyes of the law. It's so foundational to our system of government that it was an established, venerated legal principle even before universal franchise.

You can't put an amendment into the constitution that elevates the opposite of the principle "all citizens are equal before the law". It's an attack on the consistency of the Constitution itself. Discriminatory flaws HAVE been part of the Constitution--they were in at the beginning. But that is no argument for PUTTING THEM IN NOW. As a historical matter, removing the taint of lesser/no citizenship for African-descent people from the Constitutuion was one of the most difficult and torturous things this country has ever undergone. Once the unprecedented thing happens and a gay-marriage ban goes into the Constitution, homosexuals will be marked as a group to whom certain rights are denied, by no less than the US Constiution. THAT WILL PERCOLATE THROUGH THE SYSTEM and have ramifications, I can promise you. Nothing that's in the Constitution exists in a vacuum. The ripples spread from every clause in the document, particularly those that deal with the rights of individuals, to all the laws of all the states. In this case the ripple effects will be spreading from a very bad origin. Can good things come from a bad beginning? Maybe, but I don't want to find out.

A civil-union grant/gay-marriage ban would be terrible for the Constitution (and unique example in Constitutional history of trading away a right to get a right enjoyed by others) and a bad, bad precedent for gays.

Which probably explains why THE RIGHT WING IS SO HOT TO PUT IT IN THERE.

[Brian_Expat]

26. The difference again, is. . .

. . . you're willing to support a candidate who refuses to support my basic civil rights, and who would trade a constitutional amendment banning full equality for a law that would make us 80% human under the law, rather than 60%.

I want the whole enchilada, and am especially unwilling to support someone like Kerry who first supported us wholeheartedly, and now appears willing to sell us down the river for votes, and call it a "compromise."

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

28. He isn't advocating separate but equal

If one gets all the inherent rights he is advocating equal but equal. Are you willing to sell yourself down the river over a word?

[dsc]

30. that depends on if his NPR statement is about the federal marriage

amendment or a state one. And again, there seems to be a great deal of confusion on that from Kerry's own supporters. Also, no where in that interview does he say he would require civil unions. He uses the word permit.

[kenny blankenship]

58. Is it confusion, or obfuscation on their part?

Nobody could be THIS dense for THIS long.

They just stick their fingers in their eyes and yell I can't hear anything!

[DU GrovelBot]

31. ## 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.

[rucky]

43. Don't just make this a one-sided dialog:

WRITE KERRY & tell him how you feel.

We can still steer him right.

I think I'll take my own advice & do just that.

[KFC]

46. I prefer Kerry over Bush

But that is just my opinion.

You can support anyone you want. No "deals".

[Name removed]

47. Deleted message

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

[Dookus]

51. So don't vote for him...

how much grovelling do you really expect?

Either vote against Bush, or vote for him.

[Name removed]

53. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

56. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

59. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

60. Deleted message

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

[kenny blankenship]

62. kick