Reply #229: I read the quote .. did you read the question he was answering? [View All]

[Sushi-Lover]

As I said before I think it is a confusing quote, but I don't think people who read it as saying he would consider supporting a definition of marriage (as a heterosexual union) amendment are completely off. Actually, I'm not sure how it can be read as not saying this. It seems to me he is saying he would support such an amendment, if the language allowed for civil unions with equal legal protection. That is still saying he would consider a change to the constitution which specified some definition of marriage, in my opinion that is about as ludicrous as 'freedom fries'. It wasn't such a great answer, but hopefully it can be fixed or will be forgotten.

I am going by this version, is there another?

Broadcaster: Would you support a constitutional amendment that would define marriage as a heterosexual union.

Kerry: Well it depends entirely on the language, whether it permits civil unions in partnership or not. I’m for civil unions - I’m for partnership rights. I think what ought to condition this debate is not the term marriage as much as the rights that people are afforded. Obviously under the constitution of the United States you need equal protection under the law. And I think equal protection means the rights that go with it. I think the word marriage gets in the way in the whole debate to be honest with you. Because marriage to many people is obviously sanctified by a church it’s sacramental … clearly there is a separation of church and state here.