Will John Kerry oppose the Federal Marriage Amendment?

[election_2004]

At first I was fairly pleased that John Kerry has been doing so well in the primaries. He and Dean have been my two favorite candidates for the nomination. I even updated my Kerry bio page with much more comprehensive information as I felt it would help educate voters on his platform.

I have particularly liked John Kerry's progressive record on LGBT issues, including how he voted against the Defense of Marriage Act.

However, now I am suddenly reading all of these posts here at DU that speculate how Kerry will probably come out in favor of the Federal Marriage Amendment (which would amend the U.S. Constitution to ban gay marriage and civil unions), and that it will be passed through Congress easily with the support of both Bush and Kerry (assuming he's the nominee).

Cynical DUers seem to be basing this assumption on the fact that Kerry supports a proposed amendment to the Massachusetts state constitution barring same-sex marriage.

Here are my two questions:

Does Kerry support making civil unions legal in Massachusetts (and elsewhere in the U.S.)?

Does Kerry support the Federal Marriage Amendment?

If Kerry supports FMA, sorry, but there's no way in hell that, as a homosexual, I would be able to vote for him in the General Election.

I really want to believe that Kerry will do the right thing and condemn the Right Wing's attempt to rape the U.S. Constitution - - but if he can't even find that small moral fiber to oppose social conservatives' abuse of the amendment process, then what good will he be as president? What would be the point of LGBT people remaining American citizens in a society where we can't even get a civil union because judges will ultimately *interpret* FMA as outlawing civil unions as well as gay marriage? (read the text of FMA if you don't believe me!)

And before Dean/Kucinich/Sharpton/Clark/Edwards supporters use this as simply an excuse to attack Kerry, I want to hear what Kerry supporters think about this issue too. Do you believe your candidate will do the right thing by condemning FMA (the same way he condemned DOMA)?

[flpoljunkie]

1. Kerry supports civil unions with all rights and privileges of marriage as

a matter of equal protection under the law. No way in hell he would support FMA, and I do not think the leadership of the Democratic party will either--altho I am sure the Rethugs will peel off some our DINO's if FMA comes up for a vote.

[election_2004]

2. hmmm

Then why are people condemning John Kerry for ducking the FMA issue and speculating that he'd vote for it if confronted with it in the U.S. Senate?

And there are already eight DINOS in the U.S. House who're cosponsoring FMA (but no Dems in the U.S. Senate are - - in fact, only five Republican senators have signed onto it).

[polmaven]

3. Do you mean people here at DU

are condemning Kerry for "ducking" the issue? ...Ummm...There are people here who would condemn John Kerry if he developed a cure for AIDS because he stole it from an un-named candidate.

John Kerry is anti DOMA, anti FMA, pro-equal rights. He has not ducked the issues. He will not, however, allow this to become the centerpiece issue of this campaign.

(edited to add)...I will challange anyone to show me where Senator Kerry has said he supports the Massachusetts amendment proposal.

[Democrats unite]

5. He has a funny way of showing it!

[IndianaGreen]

8. Another name for "separate but equal"

Here in Indianapolis we had Crispus Attucks High School. It was for African-Americans!

Equality under the law means that gays have as much right to a State-issued marriage license as heteros, with all of the benefits that entails.

[kenny blankenship]

32. It also means

that citizens have as much right to petition the courts. What you do in your bedroom does not make you a lesser citizen.

If the Anti-Gay Amendment passes (and I advocate people call it that because it has more to do with gaybashing than marriage) then there will be a slew of subjects that citizens will never be able to bring before a judge. I can't stress this enough. Denial of marriage benefits and obligations will be the least of our worries if the Anti-Gay AMendment passes.

You file your papers --maybe you're alleging discrimination in public accomodations or rental properties--and the Judge will toss the case in short order because a constitutional article trumps anything. You can't win.

This thing has to be OPPOSED CATEGORICALLY by any candidate who wants my vote. It's not a matter of "o well let's see what the states do, or let's wait and see what the exact language is...I can't comment on a bill i've never seen yet....
NO. The whole idea is wrong. Failing to stand up and be counted on it and call it wrong is just as bad as supporting it. Without visible strong leadership that opposes the Anti-Gay Amendment, it will pass. They know this. It's our job to make them act like Democrats if they're too cowardly to do it on their own.

[Nicholas_J]

56. No one was paying attention

But while Kerry was saying he didnt personally support gay marraige, he also stated if legislation came across his desk stating that congress wanted to pass a bill allowing gay marriage, he would sign it. He then went on to state that he thought there would be no support for such legislation, so we would have to see what happened with civil unions over the next few years, and go from there.

His historical stance is far more consistant with the historical stnce of all of the other candidates.

[Nicholas_J]

4. Kerry has stated

That he will leave this as a stat issue. He didnt sogne DOMA, he will not sign a federal marriage act becasue as an attorney he has stated that this violates states rights. He is the only major candidate who has said that while he opposes gay marriage personally, he would sign any federal bill that supported the states if they decided to authorize gay marriage. though hje said he does not see that occuring in the foreseeable futre. As he said, we will have to see how civil unions work out, and then go on from there.

[Democrats unite]

6. Then why did he come out and say

He did not like MA Supreme Court ruling? (That was a State ruling) Or is this where we see Kerry flip flopping yet again?

[NewJerseyDem]

7. No

Kerry opposes gay marriage. However, he believes the federal government should not intervene to stop those gay marriages in the states.

[Democrats unite]

16. He stated he was against the decision!

It's a states decision! He's flip flipping again!

[NewJerseyDem]

19. No!!!!

This really isn't that complicated. He believes that the federal government should not stop states from legalizing gay marriage. However, he doesn't think that the states should legalize them. It isn't flip flopping at all. He said he opposed the decision but opposes the federal government from intervening. Also, he is from that state so he is part of the state's decision making process so he definitely has a right to take part in the state's debate on the issue.

A flip flop requires him changing his opinion and I don't see how he had done that.

[IndianaGreen]

9. Why don't we leave abortion as a state issue too?

Kerry has stated that he will leave this as a stat issue.

Why don't we leave abortion as a state issue too? I just love the way Kerry "stands up" for civil rights!

[dsc]

10. try being a gay pro lifer

and think on that one. I see the candidates, one and all, take utterly principled and in many cases very unpopular positions on abortion, yet I repeatedly get thrown an anchor.

[IndianaGreen]

14. What if a prenatal test can tell if the fetus will grow up to be gay?

I am sure many of pro-lifers will justify abortion on sexual orientation grounds!

I remember a TV story on those homophobes from Kansas, and they asked a woman member of Shelton's church what would she do if one of her children turned out to be gay. Her unhesitant reply was that she would kill him because that's what the Bible says.

Pathetic!

[dsc]

15. It is hardly the only reason

but it is a reason, that I am pro life. Whatever else is said about me it won't be that I am a hypocrite. Clearly some number of alledgedly pro life people will changed their tunes but so will a number of pro choicers when, not if, such a test is found.

[Crowdance]

17. Amazing position, yours....

and others' like you on this board. Your statements here imply unhappiness that Kerry doesn't support your human rights. Yet you blithely state that you don't support women's human rights. That, dsc, IS hypocrisy.

Despite your hypocrisy, I will continue to fight for human rights--yours as a gay person, and my daughters' and sisters's as women. And I hope that, when you have gained your full rights, you'll discover in yourself a heart that is more willing to see women as a group as entitled to a similar consideration. In the meantime, I'll continue to shake my head over the "logic" of your thinking.

[dsc]

18. I stand up for fetuses

I know that is not popular here. But that is too damn bad. But I am against the DP in all cases, against anyone other than the person him or her self deciding to end his or her life. I think women should have all rights short of killing their unborn children or any other people. Again, I know it isn't popular but that is too damn bad but it isn't hypocracy.

[Crowdance]

20. Many thanks for not addressing my point

It does so much credibility of your position.

[dsc]

26. I did

I think one person's rights end when another's right to life begins. I think fetuses are life and thus women, nor anyone else has a right to kill them due to them being inconvenient.

[redqueen]

47. Kudos

for having the courage to stand up for your beliefs. FWIW I agree with ya. :)

[IndianaGreen]

22. There is the pure pro-life position, which is quite honorable

I know quite a few of them when I marched with Pax Christi against the Bush visit to the Notre Dame campus in South Bend.

They oppose abortion, but they also oppose the war and the death penalty. They stand for social justice, and some of the members of Pax Christi International have been imprisoned and murdered for their pro-peace views.

They are clearly on our side of the barricades.

Most people when they debate abortion end up debating talking points rather than have a serious discussion of the proper role of government, which is to enhance and protect life (including providing people with the tools to prevent unwanted pregnancies, and teaching family responsibility), and to take care of expecting mothers and their children after they are born. A total package which is only possible in a socialist society, not in a exploitative society like ours.

I am amazed as to how many people defend Roe without knowing that Casey gutted Roe, and that other acts of Congress have pretty much killed what's left of Roe. Roe remains as a symbol, but it is largely devoid of substance, as the so-called "partial-birth" abortion and parental notification votes in Congress (with major Democratic support) have shown.

The choices on abortion are neither pure nor simple.

In their essay Breaking Through the Stereotypes*, Daniel and Sidney Callahan give an account of a study that they conducted on the beliefs and views of women on either side of the abortion issue. The Callahans found it difficult to label prolifers and prochoicers as having values that were either totally conservative or totally liberal. Both groups shared common values that could be used as a basis for dialogue. The Callahans found in their interviews that most of the women, regardless of which side they were on the abortion issue, were concerned about the socio-economic and cultural conditions that cause women to seek abortions. The women were willing to work together to find ways to limit abortion choices made solely because of poverty, oppression, or lack of social support. The women were also willing to work together to further social reforms that "would be more supportive of troubled pregnancies." The women also rejected the views of many in the prolife movement that any choice for abortion is due to "crass expediency," and its prochoice flipside that seems only interested in the availability of abortion.

Suggested reading:

* Pojman, Louis, and Beckwith, Francis, eds. The Abortion Controversy: 25 Years After Roe v. Wade. Belmont: Wadsworth, 1998.

[Crowdance]

23. Again, this has nothing to do with my point

And in addition, you are substituting assumptions and sweeping generalizations for argument. I don't agree that being against capital punishment and war lends honor to a position seeking to deny women their reproductive rights. And just when did we all agree on the government's proper role? Though I am so appreciative to receive an element of your reading list.

[IndianaGreen]

24. Women are only one half of the equation

that's the part of the argument that some of the more vociferous defenders of abortion rights have already lost: no one thinks of abortion as a virtue!

The false choice we are given on abortion lies between two extremes: the Chinese model in which women are forced to have abortion, and the American Taliban model in which women are forced to carry a pregnancy to term.

We already have the techonology to prevent unwanted pregnancies, but the American Taliban want to restrict its use.

We also have the means to help women that want to have their babies, but can't afford them, to receive the pre and post-natal care they need, and the emotional and economic support that they require. Of course, we would have to topple capitalism to get things like free health care and education, guaranteed jobs, paying parents for staying home and raising children, 24/7 day care, etc.

[Crowdance]

25. Except for your headline, we agree to a degree

In order for women to truly have a choice, they must be afforded both the ability to care for wanted children, and the ability to terminated unwanted pregnancies.

However, when it comes to pregancy, the choice ALWAYS lies with the woman. The woman IS the pregnancy equation, the only human being, the only entity with standing.

I've always contended that those who are sincerely anti-abortion would spend their energies gaining legislation and funding making it possible for women to "choose life".

[kenny blankenship]

29. Exactly

This issue goes to the heart of what citizenship is. Two married people take on the character of a single indivisible citizen in some aspects of the law. On the other side, making it Constitutionally impossible for some people (singled out on the basis of sexual orientation) to petition their government for relief from unfair discrimination or for access to marriage benefits creates a class of sub-citizens.

We might as well have left slavery a "state issue". That route was tried for a long time, but the slaveowners could not rest content until they had legally extended slavery to all the states and territories. They got their wish in the Dred Scott case, and the Civil War was the result. One Presidential candidate (Stephen Douglas) in the campaign of 1860 wanted to make slavery a referendum issue in each territory (Freeport Doctrine). People didn't put Douglas in office because the Supreme Court had already decided that slavery was legal wherever a slaveowner took his slaves. His proposal was simply flying in the face of the new reality. Candidate John Kerry is like Stephen Douglas, proposing a solution and a principle that ALREADY is not applicable and obsolete.The forces of gay hatred are going to press for a Constitutional Amendment to make it legal to discriminate gays. The bill is in the Senate. When released to the states it will likely pass anywhere anti-gay state amendments are passing. Kerry is addressing the issue like it's 3 or 4 years ago instead of where it is: a tidal wave about to break on our Constitiution.
And he's betting we won't notice.

At this point in the game, "Federalism" is nothing but a cop-out. And that goes for any other candidate who was planning to duck behind federalism on gay civil rights, too. I think there were a couple that would when push came to shove strenuously oppose putting inequality back into the Constitution. Unfortunately everybody seems to want this Kerry guy who IMO is conning us just like he's been conning Democrats in general about his Iraw War Resolution vote. "I was misled" is the same brand of bullshit that we're hearing now with "It's just a state matter." Like hell it is.

[Nicholas_J]

58. Because federal law

Has significant precedent for regulating medical practice, but NONE in regulating marriage. There are not federal level courts in which you can get married. But there are plenty of federal agencies dealing with medical practice and have been for almost the entire existance of the federal govenrment. Food and Drug Administration, Department of Heath, Center for Disease Control, and probably a million others.Ther are none that even vaguely deal with marriage or anything that applies to it.

[LizW]

12. Equal rights can never be a "state" issue

It's like saying Massachusetts could desegregate their public schools but Alabama could keep theirs segregated.

We can't tell people they can have equal rights only if they live in a state that allows it. Can't you see it? Alabamians would be saying to GLBT people, "Alright, if you gay folks want to get married you can go to Massachusetts to do it, but not here!" It's the antithesis of equality. It would invite states to institutionalize bigotry. They could effectively use equality as a tool to get the "undesired" group to go live elsewhere.

[funky_bug]

28. Not good enough

A "state issue" is not good enough. That means that if one state recognizes it as a marriage, it's not recognized as such in another state with different terminology. Sorry, but it's not good enough. I can carry a firearm in Indiana that becomes illegal when I drive through Kentucky.

It's not a "state issue," it's a human rights issue. If they want to say that homosexuals are only entitled to civil union benefits, then they'd better just do away with the term "marriage" altogether. If my gay friends who attend church every Sunday aren't entitled to be married, then my husband and I (who don't attend church every Sunday) shouldn't be privy to the title either.

[NewJerseyDem]

11. He will oppose it

First of all, the federal marriage amendment doesn't stand a chance in hell of passing the senate as it is written now. Already, 4 republican senators, Hagel, Snowe, Chafee, and Collins, have basically said they will oppose it. Other republicans like McCain, Smith, Voinovich, DeWine, and Specter have mixed records on gay rights and could possibly oppose the amendment. Even Orrin Hatch says that he doesn't think that there should be an amendment until DOMA is struck down by the courts, if it ever is. And that won't happen for a while. Unless the amendment is changed to allow civil unions or perhaps to place DOMA in constitutional amendment form, it won't pass.

However, it is unclear if Kerry will support a constitutional amendment in Massachussetts to overturn the ruling there.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/02/04/politics/main598106.shtml

Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry opposes gay marriage, yet he is also against a constitutional amendment that would ban it.

[kenny blankenship]

30. It Should be Clear that he would oppose it

It's not unclear that such amendments are discriminatory by nature, after all.

When asked about it Kerry does not criticize the gay bashers who are formulating an amendment in Massachusetts. He does not say "this is a bad idea."

He says he "Personally believe the Supreme Court was wrong"

and " I am opposed to gay marriage, period."

If he wants my vote he had better CLARIFY that position to say :

Any amendment to the Constitution that names classes of people who have less than full rights to petition their government is WRONG FROM THE START. I will oppose such bills in the Senate, and I will oppose them as a voting resident of Massachusetts.

[Lefty48197]

13. The right wingers are trying to distract you

Instead of spending our time talking about how Bush Inc. has destroyed our economy, as well as, America's standing among the world community, we can look forward to a summer of defending civil unions.

[funky_bug]

31. Only if we nominate the wrong candidate

Clark said at the NH debate that we need a president who can walk and chew gum at the same time. He's right, and we need that from our candidate as well.

If we have a nominee that can't handle more than one issue at a time, then we're screwed. This nation ISN'T a one-issue nation. We have an economic crisis, and civil rights crisis, and educational crisis, a health care crisis, etc... all things Bush has done. If he single handidly destroyed us, we need a nominee that can multi-task.

[HFishbine]

57. Actually, that was Edwards

Edwards took the lead on denouncing Bush’s economic policies, a major issue in South Carolina, which has lost the most jobs in the nation per capita in the last few years. He accused the president of ignoring the plight of manufacturing workers whose jobs had disappeared.

“There's a lot the president’s not doing, about jobs lost, about a health-care crisis in this country,” he said. “The president of the United States has to actually be able to walk and chew chewing gum at the same time, has to be able to do two things at the same time.”

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4099821/

[windansea]

21. Kerry's position

[Feanorcurufinwe]

27. Why not base your support on facts instead of speculation?

The fact is, Kerry is one of only 14 Senators to vote against the DOMA, the only one who was up for re-election. Kerry has been a consistent champion of GBLT rights.


Look at what Kerry says and does and base your opinion of him on that, rather than on what other people say about him.

[dsc]

33. what part of if don't you get

Are we now not allowed to say that if a candidate does x we won't vote for them if that candidate's name is Kerry? If he sides with that federal marriage amendment, and I am assuming he won't, he is over with me. If he sides with a Massachusetts state one, I have no idea what I would do. It would depend on what the amendment said and what Kerry said. But I will be God damned if I am going to let this bandwagon crap extend to not being able to discuss even hypotheticals.

[George_Bonanza]

34. Kerry will not approve of FMA because he is anti-DoMA

He has stated that personally he does not approve of gay marriage but that will not equate into a codified anti-gay piece of legislature. When he talked about the Mass. ruling, he was talking about his personal opinion. He will not seek to repeal it or anything. It would make no sense to me if Kerry risked his rep back in 96 by opposing the DoMA, only to approve of a FMA 6 years later.

[dsc]

35. Has he said that

because both CNN and FOX have reported he hasn't made up his mind on supporting a state amendment repealing the MA ruling.

[kenny blankenship]

40. That was then this is now

In 96 Kerry represented a liberal state constituency.
Now he's running for President of all the states including the Midwest and the Bible Belt.

That should make all kinds of sense.

"His personal opinion" isn't very personal when that legislature, which may be days away from voting on an anti-gay amendment , is ALSO only a few weeks away from voting on a similar measure that would amend the Constitution of all the states.
It's not "personal" at all --it's as public as anything he wants to say on the matter. And what he says is "If in doubt, count me on the side of the bashers."
He'd very much like for this thing to pass him by quietly, and if it passes him by taking away the rights of certain US citizens, so be it.
That is not an acceptable position!

People seem to see a great distance and disconnect between what is happening in the states with regard to the Anti-Gay amendment and the Congress. They couldn't be more mistaken. The anti-gay amendment is a tidal wave about to crash down on our Constitution.
ANything a public figure says now about "gay marriage" is spoken in the national context no matter where they say it. It's also taking place in the time frame that matters --which is RIGHT NOW-- because there ain't gonna be no "later" with this thing. It doesn't matter if the candidate was on the porch of Billy Bob's General Store back home relaxing with consituents when they said it. It doesn't matter if they prefaced their remarks with "This is just my personal opinion".
What matters is speaking up for what's right. Only that. Anything less in this emergency is a betrayal. A knife in the back.

The contest over this issue is already underway in earnest.
What counts is finding national leaders to speak up clearly for what is right, or to make the national leaders we're stuck with ACT like they know what's right if they can't find it in themselves to speak up on their own.

[election_2004]

36. Okay, let me clarify...

Over in the "Politics & Campaigns - Civil Rights" section on DU, people were screaming about how Kerry supports the MA state constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. They were basically saying Kerry will roll over and support FMA (or at least, not speak out against it), giving it legitimacy and allowing it to easily pass through Congress.

I am trying to confirm whether this assertion is true or not. That's why I was basically asking Kerry supporters if they know Kerry's stand on FMA.

[gottaB]

38. I don't believe he would sign the FMA

Is Kerry too nuanced--or too clear?

Here's one statement from Bay Windows:

While Kerry expressed support for civil unions, in a statement to Bay Windows, he reiterated his previously stated opposition to gay marriage.

"I would not vote to recognize same-sex marriage and I would not support the recognition of gay marriages by state governments, an action that would, I believe, forever alter the definition of marriage in our society," said Kerry.

Nonetheless, he expressed perhaps the harshest critique of the FMA. "I believe that the amendment is nothing more than an unnecessary act of gay-bashing and that those seeking to do so are chiefly motivated by political considerations and the desire to divide Americans," he charged. "I also have concerns that the amendment could have the effect of denying gay and lesbian Americans important and basic equal benefits."

Also, see this article in which Tom Daley says Kerry will vote against FMA.

Hmmm. But he has been coy, or has he?

My gut. I disagree with Kerry on gay marriage. If it were the most important issue for me, I would have chosen Kucinich. But I do believe Kerry genuinely supports equal treatment for straights and gays. His voting record demonstrates that.

Last summer, on the eve of the hrc forum, Kerry was interviewed by the Advocate. He was asked about the comparison between gay marriage and miscegenation laws.

But what about the parallel with bans on mixed-race marriages? In that case the issue was race. In this case it’s gender. But it’s still discrimination.

I don’t know if it’s discrimination. I’d have to think about that. I haven’t done the comparison between the two. It’s worth analyzing, but my quick reaction would be that there is a distinction between them. It’s really about the integrity of a certain institution rather than a form of discrimination. But I’d have to go think about that a lot harder.

My gut, then, is that he's still thinking about it. I think it would be possible to persuade him that Loving v. Virginia and Brown v. Board make it clear that gay marriage is already the law of the land, and anything short of that is discriminatory. But he's clearly not there yet.

And neither is the country. On that point, Kerry is right. But neither do most people support unmitigated gay bashing. If Kerry's being coy, rather than subtle, imo it's not out of a fear of commitment. He's letting the Republicans make the next move because he suspects they'll cross the line and bring on a backlash. What line? Kerry has drawn it pretty clearly, and expressed willingness to defend that position in no uncertain terms.

[kenny blankenship]

39. John Kerry is to gay Civil Rights as Bill Clinton was to welfare

Let me clarify by first giving my understanding of what the issue is _not_:

The issue is _not_ whether Kerry supports "civil unions" for Massachusetts. Obsolete idea. The Massachusetts Supreme Court has already declared the obvious on that one: you can't have half-measures in issues of citizenship ->14th Amendment-> QED. And marriage is most definitely a citizenship issue. The Anti-Gay Amendment will create a class of citizens who do not have the ability to petition government for the legal status of marriage, sue to obtain marriage benefits, enforce marriage obligations, etc. And aside from that, which is bad enough, it will be a Constitutional grounding for a plethora of new discriminatory state and local laws, and a shield for discrimination in private sector practices of unfair hiring/firing, unequal employee compensation, and discrimination in public accomodations and rental properties. Some of these laws and ordinances and practices will be struck down. In the long run. But many won't be. Meanwhile, we'll be fighting a desperate struggle just to regain or consolidate our rights circa 1990 for the next 50 years. If the anti-gay amendment passes, the result is _not_ the freezing of today's status quo. Please understand, it is a _giant_ step backwards.

The issue is likewise not whether Kerry would "not sign" something like the Anti-Gay Amendment as President. Presidents don't pass Constitutional Amendments. What he says in that regard if he ever says anything is totally meaningless.

The issue is also not whether Kerry is for "states' rights" to decide this sort of thing. The question is about CITIZENSHIP and since 1868 the concept of citizenship is one that cannot be anything other than a Federal matter by nature. That was one of the intents and results of the 14th Amendment. States can't make their own rules about citizenship and dish out special rights accordingly.

When asked about the Anti-gay amendment in Massachusetts, Kerry does not condemn it as a dangerous precedent, opening the door to legally tolerated discrimination against homosexuals. He doesn't say "This is an entirely mistaken and dangerous idea." He does not say "America should be better than this." Instead, his _response_ is to criticize the Massachusetts Supreme Court as "wrong." What he is saying is "I don't want to take a clear stand, but I am not willing to apply the 14th Amendment to homosexuals. I am more unwilling to stand with gays clearly or unclearly than with their oppressors. I'll hide this cowardice behind a 'personal opinion' and hopefully my gay constituents won't punish me because they don't want to believe I could be betraying them."
He says also "I am opposed to gay marriage, period," in case knuckledragging homophobes out there in tv-land had missed his point about the court. But unfortunately knuckledraggers aren't the only ones missing the point: See if you are "against gay marriage" and gay marriage is put completely out of the question with that statement, and the highest legal authorities consider it obvious that the "civil union" is an Unconstitutional half-measure, a sleight-of-hand and a traducement of 14th amendment rights, then all that remains is

no legal status for gay couples at all.

Civil unions can't be squared with the Constitution. Because it is so intertwined with citizenship, marriage is an "ALL OR NOTHING" proposition, according to the Court. So then what Kerry is really doing is offering to agree to a compromise position that cannot happen. That's the deal he's holding out to you. A deal that is a legal impossibility, barring an Amendment to the Constitution. Accept his offer in good faith and you'll be left with nothing. Oh HE didn't do it to you. Other people more hostile to you screwed you over. He just didn't take your side.

Now, he _could_ be hiding behind the fact that there's no precise language announced for this anti-gay amendment in Massachusetts. One could argue that. But that's not really the point. He should declare his opposition to ANY SUCH AMENDMENT, ON PRINCIPLE no matter what it says. He should have no trouble stating his opposition because any such amendment amounts to denying full access to the courts and the legislatures for certain citizens based on their sexual preference.

Moreover you can't let him pretend this is just his "personal" choice as he says, a limited choice only for his own home state. The context is not limited local and personal. The context is already federal --as Kerry of all people should know--and the time frame is NOW! He is giving encouragement to people seeking to pass a state Anti-Gay Amendment in the middle of a federal movement to pass one for the nation as a whole. You don't need to wait to hear more. You are hearing Kerry's policy right now, which ---surprise, surprise-- is a lot like his Iraq War Policy: "Bad people want to pass a murderously bad law, and I John Kerry, will go along with them." Many states are passing anti-gay amendments. An anti-gay amendment is working its way through the Senate. WHen passed in the Senate or released to the states, it could be passed in the states in a matter of weeks if not days. If you _wait passively_ for Candidate John Kerry to make an explicit, unambiguous, public statement in support of your full rights as a citizen, marriage among them, the Anti-Gay Amendment will go into the books and the paper will curl and yellow in the meantime while you pine away waiting for John to speak up. He's not saying anything helpful to us, unless and until we make him.

This thing is upon us now. We need the leadership of the Democratic Party the party that we give our votes and money and support to, to clearly state their loyalty to us. Beginning with the Democratic frontrunner John Kerry. To hell with these party loyalty oaths going around on this site! If the Party does not exist to advance the interests of its voting members then it is serving some other completely mistaken purpose. If the Party is not loyal to us, and loyal to the idea of equality before the law for all citizens, then we need a new plan.

Trading my citizenship away for possession of the Whitehouse is unacceptable. TOTALLY UNACCEPTABLE. And that is what John Kerry is doing. He cannot get my vote until he repudiates the Massachusetts amendment and publicly rejects the idea of a federal Amendment too. Presidents do not pass amendments to the Constitution but they often form part of the consensus that does pass them. If we go into November with both parties' most visible leaders supporting anti-gay amendments we can certainly expect to see the Amendment ratified. In that case with my citizenship cut down and under attack it's not going to matter to me and people like me WHO is in the whitehouse.

Make John Kerry PROMISE!

[Nicholas_J]

59. Kerry wouldnt sign an anti gay amendment

He wrote a gay Civil Rights Amendment that another candidate who is widely thought of as pro gay said he opposed when that legislation was before Congress. Kerry also openly came out in support of gay rights, while the same candidate refused to give his stance on the issue of gay rights to civil unions when it was in his ball park, until the matter wsa thrust upon them.

Lets be honest here, Kerry has been more actively involved with supporting gay rights, doing things writing legislation actually fighting for the passage of legislation as well as writing it, and standing up in front of congress supporting it. Another candidate who is given great credit for gay rights actually never actively fought for gays rights, but took a great deal of credit for gay rights legislation that he would not take a stance on before its passage.

[dusty64]

37. He'd better.

Equality and freedom for ALL is not up for debate. It would be extremely harmful if Kerry does not take this opportunity to offer leadership on this issue. This whole thing is a perfect example of what happens when the extreme right is allowed to frame the issue.

This is NOT about the ruination of our Country and the decimation of churches, this is about civil/equal rights PERIOD! How Kerry handles this will be VERY important to me and my views of the real candidate. I'll be watching, if he is willing to throw at least 20 million (mainly strong Democratic supporters) under the bus in search of the votes of social conservatives and the misinformed who probably wouldn't vote for him anyways it will be the biggest mistake of his career. I hate to say it, but another sellout by him would pretty much seal the deal and I WON'T be voting for him in November.

[Justice]

41. Text of MA Amendment Re Gay Marriage

Text of the MA proposed amendment. Notice the last four words. There is no way Kerry can support this as written.


The proposed constitutional amendment states that "It being the public policy of this Commonwealth to protect the unique relationship of marriage in order to promote, among other goals, the stability and welfare of society and the best interest of children, only the union of one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Massachusetts. Any other relationship shall not be recognized as a marriage or its legal equivalent."

[dsc]

45. If he supports that it is all over

No money, no work, and maybe a vote.

[kenny blankenship]

49. "So now the question is to you, John Kerry..."

Great. Now that the language of the Massachusetts amendment is published and known,
LET'S HEAR John Kerry REJECT IT.

No more mumbled evasions, Senator, if you please!

[TexasSissy]

42. I think you're incorrect about what the Const. Amendment would do.

It would ban "marriage," not civil unions. That's my understanding.

BTW, Clinton passed the "Defense of Marriage Act" in mid-1990's. This Act seems to be Kerry's position (as well as Bush's---Bush says he's okay with contracts, just not "marriage" among gays).

[dsc]

51. wrong on all counts

First, the amendment would ban marriage and civil unions both. The language is marriage or legal equivalent.

Second, Kerry did vote against DOMA.

Third, Bush is in favor if enough activist judges actually uphold the constitution and make states treat us correctly.

[HFishbine]

43. Compare Dean to Kerry on GLBT Issues

Background

DEAN: As Governor, Howard Dean signed Vermont's landmark civil union legislation. The law grants gay and lesbian couples the same basic legal rights as married couples.

KERRY: John Kerry has been a Senator from Massachuttes since 1984.

Employment Non-Discrimination:

DEAN: Howard Dean promises to fight for the enactment of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA).

KERRY: Kerry supports the Employment Non-Discrimination Act 2003. He co-sponsored ENDA in 1996.

Gender Identity Employment:

DEAN: Dean supports passage of a federal bill to outlaw discrimination in the workplace based on gender identity and expression.

KERRY: Kerry has not made it clear if he will support a bill to end workplace discrimination based on gender identity and expression.

Hate Crimes:

DEAN: Dean supports the inclusion of sexual orientation and gender identity in Federal Hate Crimes Law. Currently laws do not include gender identity or sexual orientation, but do include race, religion and national origin.

KERRY: Kerry supports the inclusion of sexual orientation and gender identity in Federal Hate Crimes Law. Current law does not include either, but does include race, religion and national origin.

Same-Sex Marriage:

DEAN: Dean opposes same-sex marriage, but thinks the federal government should recognize legal unions created by states and other countries.

KERRY: Kerry initially said he does not support same-sex marriage, but supports civil unions. In the candidates' debate on November 24, when asked about the Massachusetts ruling he said, “I would urge the Legislature to do precisely what the Constitution requires. It is a matter of equal protection under the law.” (Fishbine note: Kerry has since said that he disagrees with the Massachusetts' court ruling.)

Family Medical Leave:

DEAN: Dean supports extending the Family Medical Leave Act to domestic partners and their children.

KERRY: Kerry supports extending the Family Medical Leave Act to same-sex couples.

Same-Sex Immigration:

DEAN: Dean supports the Permanent Partners Immigration Act (H.R. 832) which would allow American citizens to sponsor their same-sex partner for immigration into this country.

KERRY: Kerry supports the Permanent Partners Immigration Act (H.R. 832) which would allow American citizens to sponsor their same-sex partners for immigration into the country.

Gay and Lesbian Adoption:

DEAN: Dean supports same-sex adoption.

KERRY: Kerry supports gays and lesbians having the same rights to adopt children as heterosexuals.

Don't Ask, Don't Tell:

DEAN: Dean supports the repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" which would allow gay, lesbian and bisexual soldiers to serve openly in the military

KERRY: Kerry supports the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell, which would allow gay and lesbian soldiers to serve openly in the military.

Source: Lesbian Life

[Feanorcurufinwe]

44. What Federal Marriage Amendment? Does it exist?

Are you asking if Kerry supports something that doesn't exist?

[dsc]

50. Yes it has been proposed

This was introduced at least 3 months ago in the House and Senate. It has cosponsers and everything. Remmeber the State of the Union.

[terrya]

55. 92 co-sponsors in the House. So far.

And if the White House officially comes out in favor of the FMA, it can even draw more support.

Terry

[Bertha Venation]

60. 108 co-sponsors, Terry. The Senate bill has 6 so far.

And I am baffled by people who continue to insist that the proposed amendment does not exist!!

[terrya]

62. Oh, Bertha. 108????????!!!!???

A 2/3's vote in the House will pass this thing.

And for all of those dummies who think that this amendment doesn't exist....

Just Google "Federal Marriage Amendment".

Christ, some oblivious people are so dense.

I'm running out of patience with some people.

Terry

[maxr4clark]

46. As a heterosexual,

I cannot possibly support the very first Amendment to the Constitution that explicitly strips people of civil rights. I cannot call someone who would do so a Democrat!

[MaddogTerp]

48. Kerry is in a no-win situation here

he can't come out against FMA, because he's already trying to move to the right for the national election. he can't come out for it, because he KNOWS he would lose the mainstream Democrats adn would have only the DINOS and the ABB crowd. either way, he can't win. the tough issues separate the men from the boys, and Kerry is just boy trying to do a man's job.

far as I can see, only Dean and Kuchinich have the cohones to do the right thing and speak out in support of homosexual rights.

[election_2004]

52. The problem with that is...

If Kerry is the nominee, we must get him elected, and we must prevent the Federal Marriage Amendment from passing. And we'd better quit whining about how Kerry is waffling and find a way to do both.

Why are there no DUers offering insight or suggestions as to how we can do that? Instead, all I hear are a bunch of defeatist attitudes about FMA saying, "Dollars to doughnuts it's going to pass..."

Yeah, I'll give them some fucking dollars and doughnuts...

[Brian_Expat]

53. That's why the party loses support and voters every year

Our preferred candidates are those who DON'T stand up and speak against the right wing.

Speak up for the rights of the poor like Kucinich? You're a wild-eyed radical commie who cannot win.

Speak up for common folk, the young and the disillusioned like Dean? You're a wild-eyed angry radical who cannot win.

Speak up as a military man horrified at Bush's foreign policy like Clark? You're a wild-eyed crazy militarist.

The only way we can "win," you see, is running someone who thinks that Bush's position is great (just not great enough), that gays should be equal (just not REALLY equal), that amendments that take away rights are OK as long as they don't take away CERTAIN rights, that the PATRIOT Act was hunky-dory, that a candidate who calls for Osama bin Laden to be tried in court as our constitution dictates is "extremist," and that voting for a war in Iraq wasn't endorsing a war in Iraq.

That's the road straight to victory -- for Bush and the conservatives. They cannot lose even if Bush does lose the election -- just bully the Democrat into supporting their wars, anti-gay stuff, etc. just like he did as a senator. Sickening.

[election_2004]

65. Bu there's a difference...

Does opposing gay marriage have to be synonymous with supporting a federal Constitutional Amendment?

[HFishbine]

61. It's called "leadership"

A leader stands up for what's right. A great leader then pulls, pushes, prods and pursuades people who are on the wrong side of an issue to see things differently. Kerry is no leader.

[Edge]

54. He'd better...

otherwise he'd be throwing away certain individuals rights as well as the Constitution.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

63. WHAT STARTED IT ALL...

Was a posting about an NPR interview:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=299938

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.


Kerry does not suport gay marriage.
Kerry does support civil unions.
Kerry weaseled when asked about possible support for a Constitutional Amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman.

Kerry very easily could have simply stated he does not agree with an amendment and that the issue could easily be worked out via other means.

[mondo joe]

64. If he won't oppose it, I won't support him

This constitutional amendment is wrong in every way.

And if Kerry won't oppose such an amendment, I won't support him.

Before anyone responds that I should look at the big picture and blah blah blah, here's my response: I have no interest in supporting a candidate who will sell out a minority group to get ahead, and I'm not going to sell out my own civil rights to improve someone else's.