Kerry : people are born Gay but not guaranteed right to marry

[corporatewhore]

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry says he believes people are born gay but are not guaranteed the right to marry within their own gender.

"I think it's entirely who you are from birth, personally," Kerry said in an interview to be broadcast on MTV. "Some people might choose, but I think that it's, it's who you are. I think you have ... people need to be able to be who they are."

http://www.mlive.com/newsflash/michigan/in...ws&election2004

[BattyDem]

1. If you can't say anything intelligent ...

don't say anything at all! Sen. Kerry ... do you have any idea how ridiculous you sound?

You think gay people are born that way, but it's still OK to discriminate against them. Should we also be free to discriminate against people who are born a particular color or a particular gender or if they're born with a disability? :eyes:

[Union Thug]

2. I'm was excited...

when Kerry was talking about universal health care and community service mapping to university education... but then came the corporate tax thing, and now this...

Kerry...just let yourself be a liberal. It's ok. really... it is..

[roguevalley]

3. he really needs to shut his mouth.

[VeniceBeat]

4. Well...

When polls are 90% against GLBT marriage what's a politician to do? Kerry is dodging this issue so as not to alienate the swing voter and play into Rove's hands.

Somehow I think that when he becomes President he'll appoint Gavin Newsome Secretary of Whatever It Is That Makes Recommendations on These Red Herring Issues.

I think Kerry will do the right thing after he's sworn into office.

[corporatewhore]

7. i think bush has already got the homophobe vote though

[JI7]

8. california voted for anti gay marriage bill, california also voted gore

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

23. That is true...it passed overwhelmingly here..something like 70%

[brainoverload]

9. Not only homophobs

I'm proud to live in the only county in the USA that is currently issuing marriage licenses to same sex couples.

That being said, Kerry is a politician and sometimes he has to make decisions based upon politics. For Kerry to come out and declare support for full same sex marriage rights would be for Kerry to fall right into the trap Bushco set for him.

Look - Bush still has over a 50% approval rating! People are stupid - and there are people out there stupid enough to get distracted by this issue who otherwise would not vote for Bush.

I say grin and bear it and pressure Kerry after he gets elected.

[Kanary]

28. You hit the target

"pressure Kerry after he gets elected."

That's it, plain and simple.

I really can't understand why all the fuss and bother, and continual defending of Kerry. He is clearly NOT the liberal that he once was, and he clearly isn't what MOST DUers were talking about before the primaries started.

So, why not just admit he isn't what most of us had in mind, graciously accept where he is falling short rather than defending him, and PROMISE TO KEEP HIS FEET TO THE FIRE.

REally, it's that simple.

Kanary

Another Delusional Diehard for Dennis!!

Kucinich 2004!

[HFishbine]

11. "90% against GLBT marriage "

You have a source for that?

[VeniceBeat]

21. I Know I Saw It Somewhere

Atrios comments?

It seems a little high, doesn't it?

Probably a UPI Poll. :)

I still say that forcing the issue at this point is political suicide for Kerry.

Two of seven kids in my immediate family are GLBT and I want them to have the same rights and privelages as every American.

Let Gavin Newsomb remain the point man on this for now and encourage your local leaders to sanction GLBT marriage. Civil Disobediance in the grand Thoreau tradition!

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

24. Polls are overwhelmingly against gay marriage but FOR civil unions

You don't need a link..if you have been following the issue you know that already.

[HFishbine]

29. I have been following the issue

which is why I issued the challenge. It was a bogus assertion.

40% think gay couples should have no legal recognition. 55% favor either civil unions or marriages.

http://www.pollingreport.com/civil.htm

[dsc]

49. Please don't tell stories you like on this

There has never been a poll that has shown 90% of the American public against same sex marriage. The actual number is around 2/3. Incidently same sex marriage polls better than partial birth abortion. Something Kerry has no problem whatsoever supporting.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

55. I never said 90%..that was another poster

[AntiCoup2K4]

34. FAUX News?

Sounds like one of their "fair and balanced" statistics.

[bitchkitty]

12. Screw the polls -

In the 60s I'm sure that if you had taken a poll in any southern city (and in some northern cities) you would find that most people didn't want black people to vote.

[ButterflyBlood]

26. It is NOT 90%

high, but never that high. 2/3 at the most.

[WitchWay]

53. Hmmm....

First, what polls are you reading? Could you provide a reference to that? As I recall, there is more and more support for GLBT marriage.

Politicians make promises before they get into office and with luck will follow through.

You think that Kerry is going to mislead some people into supporting him by being disengenusou about where he stands on the issues, but then do something else all together (that he is basically lying to some people to gain their support). If this is the case, how would anyone really know where he really stands on anything or what he really intends to do?

Besides, basing stances on polls shows damn poor leadership skills. If, according to your opinion, this is the case, why would he not base his "leadership" on the same polls while he is in office? Would he not want a reelection?

This is a basic civil rights issues. Marriage is a union between two people. Gender (and thus, sexual orientation) should be besides the point, if we really have gender equality.

[meow2u3]

14. Who's being ridiculous, batty?

Comparing banning same-sex marraige to mistreating people of a different race, gender, or having a disability is a specious argument, batty. Since when does a demand to alter the very definition of the family amount to discrimination?

Gay militants are using scare tactics, such as blanket, and often unfounded accusations of bigotry, intolerance, and discrimination against anyone who can't or won't give into their radical agenda relating to marraige and the family, to further their cause.

Mind you, I have nothing against gay and lesbian people--no one has a right to discriminate in terms of housing, employment, and personal safety, among other basic rights; what turns--and pisses--me off is the extremist wing of the gay-rights movement. These gay-rights fundamentalists are using the same propaganda tactics they accuse their right-wing religious counterparts of doing: namecalling to silence opposition to their agenda; vicious and false anti-religious hatchet jobs on any person or group who can't or won't capitulate to their demands; a tendency to impose their will on entire cultures; crying "bigotry, discrimination, intolerance" when they themselves are intolerant of people who oppose them.

I don't know about you, but I've had it with extremists on both sides of the political fence.

[Nadienne]

17. Sorry, but

I don't think equality is a radical agenda. If you were to become different in some way and have hurdles in your path for being different... when all you want is to live the same kind of life that "normal" people can live... I don't call it a radical agenda. Nor have I, myself, seen any evidence of scare tactics. Name-calling... yes, I've seen that... but imho the only people eager to impose their will on entire cultures are fundies. I have yet to see a gay or lesbian demand that we strait folk stop being strait.

[kiahzero]

18. Here's a logical inconsistency

Comparing banning same-sex marraige to mistreating people of a different race, gender, or having a disability is a specious argument, batty. Since when does a demand to alter the very definition of the family amount to discrimination?

Since Loving v. Virginia, the Supreme Court case that overturned anti-miscegenation (interracial marriage) laws. Not surprisingly, the loonies who want to go back to the 12th Century had this to say about the ban on interracial marriages: it "stands on the same footing as the prohibition of polygamous marriage, or incestuous marriage, or the prescription of minimum ages at which people can marry" (Virginia's Atty. General at the time).

The problem is this:

X can marry Y, but not A.
A can marry B, but not X.
Y can marry X, but not B.
B can marry A, but not Y.

X, Y, A, and B all have rights and restrictions that the others do not - the notion that this is consistent with the Equal Protection clause is laughable... just as laughable as the notion that banning interracial marriage is consistent with the Equal Protection clause.

You speak of "basic rights." Let's see what the Supreme Court has to say, from Loving v. Virginia:

"Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival. To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis <...>, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious <...> discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry <...> resides with the individual, and cannot be infringed by the State" (Chief Justice Warren).

[corporatewhore]

20. As a Latina from the bisexual wing of the gay militant brigade

i say your post is Bull shit. You dont think we should have equal rights .Listen when a heterosexual couple is entitled legal right that the gorenment says a gay couple couldnt have is discrimination.you have a problem with calling bigots bigots? why? but at least you dont have anything against gay people :eyes:

[hippiegranny]

39. "alter the very definition of the family " ???

please do reference where the "very definition of family" is written. how self flippin righteous! how so very definitive of hijacking the word "family" to try to make a bigoted point.

[corporatewhore]

44. that poster seems to hold a very freeper esque view

of family i challenge that poster to read this http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?...LVGH65GQB01.DTL

[slinkerwink]

48. you call ME a gay militant? WTF? All I want is the right to marry and have

my children with my partner, complete with insurance and legal protections.

[corporatewhore]

51. yep we are all part of the gay militant brigade for wanting equalrights

:eyes:

[WitchWay]

54. There is nothing extremist about equal rights

I like to present this argument for same-sex marriages in terms of gender-discrimination (just because I think that's what it boils down to at its essence), because I think it gets to the heart of the issue.

Banning "same-sex" marriage is simply an expression of sexism. Our gender shouldn't be something that changes our rights. We are all people, and one person ought to be able to marry another person (irregardless of gender).

You say that you have nothing against gay and lesbian people -- and allow them all other rights, but by denying this right you do not treat them fully as people.

"a tendency to impose their will on entire cultures" you say -- but then it would stand to reason that imposing "different-sex" marriage on people (usually due from religious convictions) is a tendency of will-imposition on others.

I don't see any intolerence when people demand equal rights and treatment, and its not equal or tolerant to deny some rights based on their sexual orientation.

If you think of the matter more simply, what is marriage? If you say it is between a "man" and a "woman", that is making gender differentiations between people and codifying them in law. So, that is in essence, a form of sexism. If you wrote the law treating people as people (irregardless of their gender), marriage becoemes a union between two people.

Besides, why do you find the matter so disturbing and why does it make you so angry? Why is it going to hurt you if some people get married? You don't have to associate with any GLBT married couples, if you do not wish to do so? Everyone deserves equal treatment under the law.

[eileen from OH]

5. Oh, CRAP

Some people might CHOOSE. Jeebus.

eileen from OH

[cindyw]

33. eileen- I don't know what college you went to, but in my college

there was a lot of drunk experimentation going on. In my opinion gay people are born that way, but it does not mean that there are not people who choose to act in a manner contrary to the way they were born. Think of it in the opposite direction. There are people who are born gay and choose through fear to act in a heterosexual fashion. I'm 100% in agreement that gay people are born gay, but it is so very true that some people do choose to dabble. Not to be confused with bisexual, which I also think is the way people are born.

[hippiegranny]

40. i take exception with the idea

that people who "choose" are somehow betraying something or someone. what's all that about anyway? yes, there are people who just know they are gay from as soon as they can remember, but some of us do choose. i choose to live out my life with the person who makes me the happiest, and she happens to be a woman. i put in my time of 20 years in an unhappy "traditional" marriage, and now i choose joy.

[cindyw]

42. I hope your not talking to me, I did not make that suggestion.

In fact I was making the point that there are people who choose. I think that is fine. I made the point about the gay person choosing to be in a straight relationship to show that people do choose. And in my opinion there is nothing wrong with that. If you say that you were straight and changed then I believe you, but I think for the most part gay people are born that way. I was talking more about choosing to act in a manner that is not how you were born. That is not to be confused with people who are bisexual.

[hippiegranny]

43. no, just responding in general

to the concept of "choice!" thanks tho, for the clarification!

[WitchWay]

56. Causation shouldn't even really matter...

I am happy that you found a wonderful relationship! And I agree with you that there are many reasons for what determines our relationships and sexual preferences.

I think sexual preference is very complex, and can be anything from somehting that a person is born with to something a person chooses (or anything inbetween, or maybe something else altogether, even!) -- and in terms of the right to marriage, it shouldn't really matter.

PEOPLE (irregardless of gender, gender identity, sexual preference, etc.) should all enjoy the same rights. If marriage is a right that TWO PEOPLE have (who are of "opposite" genders), it should be a right that TWO PEOPLE have (irregardless of gender). Not too long ago anti-miscegenation laws prohibited people to marry because they were of different "races", so how does that differ from prohibiting people to marry because they are of the same "genders"?

It's a very simple matter of equal rights.

[Alenne]

6. Your link doesn't go to the article. nt

[corporatewhore]

10. try this one

http://www.mlive.com/newsflash/michigan/index.ssf?/newsflash/get_story.ssf?/cgi-free/getstory_ssf.cgi?a0667_BC_Kerry-GayMarriage&&news&election2004

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

25. That link doesn't work either..it says the story is no longer available

[THUNDER HANDS]

13. I think it's a descent answer

If Kerry comes out for gay marriage he should just throw in the towel now. He won't win.

Personally, I'd love for gay marriage to be the law. But I'd much rather have Bush out as president and hope to take this issue along at a slower, more incremental pace.

[TheDonkey]

15. nice to read a sane post

Gay marriage is essential but it's NOT and election issue. If you want bush 4 more years then let's make it one :eyes:.

Kerry is doing the correct thing in this situation.

[Thrill]

16. So what?

He is going to get the gay vote this time anyway. And besides this it the very thing Chimp wants people to talk about. This is not an important issue.

[corporatewhore]

22. Typical Heterosexual privilege

yeah keep fooling yourself do you really believe civil/equal rights are not an important issue

[emulatorloo]

19. Kerry's answer is more Gay Marriage friendly than Bush's

Kerry is advocating full partnership and family rights under civil unions.

He is talking 'marriage' as some kind of religious/non-government thing.

It sounds to me that when he is President he might be able to be talked out of that flimsy distinction.

OTOH - I see nothing from GWB that he is in favor of ANY rights for GLBT.

[Zolok]

27. Beats the hell out of...

Bush's thesis that homosexuality is a disease best treated by deportation.




Look, no politician no matter how well intentioned is gonna get anyone the right to marry.
It is a notion that is gonna require a great deal of persuasion and protest from the ground up if we are to get it.
Kennedy couldn't have cared less about the freedom riders in 1961...but time circumstance and moral suasion changed him up.


www.chimesatmidnight.blogspot.com

[zulchzulu]

30. Ladies and gents! Your choices are:

Door Number One:

George Bush
- Against civil unions
- Wants constitutional amendment inserting bigotry about marriage
- Part of homophobic GOP

Door Number Two:

John Kerry
- 100% rating from the Human Rights Campaign on LGBT issues
- Supports same-sex civil unions so that gay couples can benefit from the health benefits, inheritance rights, or Social Security survivor benefits guaranteed for heterosexual couples.
- Voted against Defense of Marriage Act

Door Number Three:

Third Party candidate
- See what remains the same since it's a vote for Door Number One

Find out more about Kerry's proven LGBT record:
http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/glbt/

[IndianaGreen]

32. I don't think you understand the meaning of ABB. Let me explain...

Being ABB means that we all sit in the back of the Democratic bus for the Presidential Election.

Being ABB does not mean that we are going to sit quietly in the back of the bus, or that we are going to be singing patriotic songs.

Being ABB does not make the war and occupation of Iraq okay, nor does it mean that we are going to ignore or be silent about any of the issues we care about.

Being ABB is not reform school.

Being ABB means that even if Kerry is elected in November, we will be marching against the war and occupation of Iraq on March 20, 2005, if Kerry persists in pursuing his reckless decision to keep US occupation troops until he gets a "peace with honor" out of Iraq.

[IndianaGreen]

31. Kerry is trying to have it both ways on this issue

This habit of Kerry is what gives rise to charges that he waffles or flip-flops on the issue.

It could also indicate something far worse than trying to please everyone: lack of core values.

If being GLBT results from nature, as race does, then GLBT people are entitled to the same rights and privileges as all heteros, including the right to marry.

[mdmc]

35. naughty, naughty, Mr. Kerry

I wish Bill Clinton would come bail him out again.
Nader will support full rights.
Kerry will be the 'lesser of two evils'.
Bush will push for no rights.

Kerry is the smart vote. A vote for Kerry is one of conviction. But still...

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

38. Would that be the same Bill Clinton that signed DOMA?

[cindyw]

36. Okay everybody stop freaking out, you misunderstand Kerry's position

and I would venture to say that there are posters here who like it that way. Here is the section that was left out of the first post and I dare to say that it is the crux of what he was saying.

"Asked why he favors civil unions instead of marriage if people are born gay, Kerry replied: "What is distinct is the institutional name or whatever people look at as the sacrament within a church, or within a synagogue or within a mosque as a religious institution. There is a distinction. And the civil state really just adopted that, and it's the rights that are important, not the sort of ... the name of the institution."

Let's clear up Kerry's position here. Kerry believes that states should have a right to decide the definition of "marriage". He does not think that states should have a right to decide whether gay couples should have equal "rights" to straight couples. He would on a federal and state level ensure that all gay couples would access to the SAME rights as straight couples. There are over 1,000 rights associated with marriage that are currently denied to gay couples who have received civil unions (in Vermont for example). Kerry would correct that inequity.

Kerry is not having it both ways. He is doing the only thing that can be done to get equal rights to America's gay couples. Rights first, language later.

For those here who seek to parrot the right wing, by suggesting that Kerry is on both sides of this issue, I would ask you what the central issue is here. I would say it is rights and Kerry is firmly on the side of recognizing the rights of gay couples. I would further suggest that the having it both ways argument is more welcome on the Freeper site. Try it there.

[IndianaGreen]

37. Marriage is a contract, not a bloody "sacrament"

There are rabbis that are willing to perform same sex weddings. Why should the fundamentalist religious position on gay marriage, or GLBTs in general, be the only position that is allowed to prevail.

Kerry misses the entire point!

A marriage license is a civil document. One can not refuse a marriage license to people on the basis of their sexual orientation than on race.

The fundies want to deny teaching licenses to GLBTs. Is Kerry going to agree to this as well?

[cindyw]

41. Oh God, you are taking this too far and you know it.

Denying teaching licenses? Please. Oh right yeah, Kerry is for that. Come on.

2nd point, Kerry has no problem with states giving marriage licenses to gay couples. he feels that it in their right to determine that. What he is against is states denying gay couples the right to have that "contract" you are referring to.

In an America with a President Kerry a gay couple who received a civil marriage would see no difference with a couple who received a "civil union" in their state, except the word marriage.

Be honest, if we could institute Kerry's ideas, after about 5 years people who start saying how silly it was that one paper contract was called a civil union and one was called a marriage license. It would become more popular to legalize marriage. Now compare this to a Bush presidency where there is a federal definition of marriage and a denial of the 1000 rights to civil union couples. I think Kerry's strategy is fucking brilliant.

So choose idealogical purity if you will, and I will take pragmatism and equal rights.

[Hav]

45. right

It's so fucked up that a step towards the right direction is vehemently refused while the other alternative would be so counterproductive to what they claim to believe in.
It wouldn't matter what Kerry did, some people here would still have nothing better to do than crucifying him.
These people spit on progress being made and they do it on the backs on those who would profit.
These people would spit on the Dems fighting to make some progress and they'd joyfully say "I told you so." if Bush manages to win this election.
For many people, including the groups they pretend to fight for, this election is of crucial importance.

[nancyharris]

47. You can kid yourself all you want to

"I will take pragmatism and equal rights"

But civil unions are NOT equal rights.

[Snivi Yllom]

46. that would be consistent with the other stupid things Kerry has said

on this issue.

[Forkboy]

50. What a yobbo

[usscole]

52. Kerry should say as little as possible about this subject

It is a Republican trap made possible by the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts and Mayor Newsom. I support the result, but I resent the fact that the Massachusetts court and Mayor Newsom have distracted the debate from the issues on which the position of the Democrats have the most popular support (jobs, taxes, education, etc.).