Kerry gets to pick his own poison (DOMA )

[windansea]

The Washington Post reports today that John Kerry is considering--or at least refusing to rule out--supporting an amendment to the Massachusetts constitution outlawing gay marriage. According to basic political logic, this shouldn't be a tough call. The Republicans have made no secret of their plans to attack Kerry as a Massachusetts liberal during this fall's campaign; he isn't likely to be helped by the fact that the Democratic National Convention will take place in Boston--possibly at a time when gay men and women are flocking to the state to take advantage of its recent supreme court ruling on gay marriage.

The problem for Kerry is that the character flaw that's most dogged him over the course of his career is his tendency to take whichever side of an issue he deems (often incorrectly) most politically expedient. Worse, the one counter-example Kerry supporters tend to point to when confronted with this rap is Kerry's courageous opposition to the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996, which he derided as politically-motivated "gay-bashing" (and which it almost certainly was).

For a lot of other Democrats, the gay marriage decision might be seen as a rare deviation from a record of either relative moderation (if they decided to oppose an amendment banning it) or relative principle (if they decided to support it). For Kerry, the gay marriage issue puts his two biggest weaknesses in direct conflict with one another--whichever way he decides to go, his decision risks crystallizing a major character flaw in a way that's likely to define him for the duration of the campaign. The question for the Kerry camp, I guess, is whether he'd rather be defined as a hopeless liberal or a hopeless panderer. Not a choice I'd want to make.

http://www.tnr.com/etc.mhtml

[windansea]

1. kick n/t

[jpgray]

2. I'll be tremendously disappointed if he supports this.

If you feel strongly about it, feel free to send off an email to Kerry at his senate site and his campaign site. I will call, if I have time today.

[windansea]

3. seems he is still watching the weathervane

on this issue

[Raya]

4. Kerry has maintained a consistent position even before the options were

defined.

As a Catholic (who once considered the priesthood) he believes "marriage" is a religous sacrament which has a definition separate from rights accorded by the State.

At the same time, Kerry has opposed any kind of gay-bashing consistently throughtout his career.

[windansea]

5. therefore Kerry will support DOMA??

[Feanorcurufinwe]

24. What does your question mean? Kerry voted against DOMA.

[ShaneGR]

6. If Chomsky thinks we're going to let the Repugs divide us on gay marriage

He's sorely mistaken. This election will be about jobs, healthcare, education, and foreign policy. All four of which Bush has no legs to stand on.

[IndianaGreen]

7. Will the Democrats put a gay marriage plank in the party's platform?

I didn't think so...

Anymore than a plank for Palestinian justice...

or a plank condemning the IWR vote and the war...

or a plank calling for outright repeal of PATRIOT Act.

[DuctapeFatwa]

8. It's a pretty basic question, and it's not really about gay marriage

It's about equal protection under the law, versus second-class status for any group, any person.

And it's about whether the US is a secular state, or a theocracy with doctines of certain religious sects hardwired into the constitution.

[jpgray]

10. Yup (nt)

[windansea]

14. correct n/t

[Mairead]

16. Yes, exactly. And we shouldn't use or allow the misnomer "gay marriage"

to go unchallenged for even a moment (I think this is the very first time I've ever seen you make such an error, DF!). It's another one of those 'special rights' canards. The issue is not about creating a special type of marriage, but about everyone having the same rights to marriage.

[DuctapeFatwa]

20. LOL that's the popular name for it, I should have said not about marriage

It is about everyone having the same rights. To everything. :D

[windansea]

22. no worries

we knew what you meant

[PATRICK]

19. I would think

listening to all the legal turmoil about partner and parents' rights that some sort of equity and logic can get past the 'religious" non-issue. Something like the famous "palimony" suit where a relationship and legal rights and responsibilities do define each other materially and demonstrably. and where the lack breeds injustice and suffering.

And remember the days, not that many millennia ago, even in Biblical times, when there was no fixed heterosexual marriage except as the society settled upon it for its own convenience and order. If you define progress by eliminating polygamy you probably come up to minimum of a human adult couple, all rights and privileges clear and ordered. It's about property and secular society as such. Even various religions are having at least considerations about going further.

But the important thing is to refuse to be hoodwinked and swindled by the hypocritical Right for whom there is nothing sacred. Control the debate. Keep it in the framework of our laws and American traditions. You can shrug this off as whether the people are ready to decide on this. Certainly no Democratic President is going to legislate morality. Our do we have to counter with an "No Gay Bashing Amendment"?

[w4rma]

9. IMHO, the best thing to do would be to oppose it on the basis that

it is a constitutional amendment rather than a regular law. Neither the U.S. Constitution nor state constitutions should be cluttered up with frivilous (and extremely discriminatory) bullcrap like this.

[jpgray]

11. A second yup

But he ought to denounce this as he denounced DOMA--it is an amendment to be bigoted towards gays.

[windansea]

12. issue will come to a head this summer

Massachusetts' highest court, the Supreme Judicial Court, ruled 4-3 in November that same-sex couples had a right under the state constitution to the benefits of marriage. This past week it ruled by the same ratio that only marriage - not civil union - would satisfy its initial decision.

The court gave the Legislature a mid-May deadline to comply with its ruling. Legislators, meanwhile, are meeting Wednesday for a constitutional convention to consider an amendment banning gay marriage, but 2006 is the soonest voters could approve such an amendment.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uslatest/story/0,1282,-3725039,00.html

[Mairead]

13. Chomsky? Where does Chomsky come into it? I'm not seeing that.

[windansea]

15. he wrote the article

but I just changed the title to reflect what article is about

[Mairead]

17. He wrote the article? It looks to me as though

Noam Scheiber wrote the article. What am I missing here?

[windansea]

18. you are correct

title is changed

[MercutioATC]

21. Somebody should tell Marlette that not EVERYBODY has Clinton's face

He does that Clinton/Leno face a lot. It really doesn't work for Kerry...

[windansea]

23. Marlette????

no comprendo

[MercutioATC]

26. Marlette is the cartoonist (look on the lower left side of the cartoon)

[windansea]

25. told you so n/t

[Atlant]

27. The Republicans telegraphed this move at least a month ago.

And it's likely to be a VERY effective attack on Kerry in those
heartland and Southern states so many people here think are so
important and "winnable". And the best part for the Repuiblicans
is that Kerry is check-mated here: he loses no matter which way
he falls on the issue and he looses if he fails to state an opinion.

He has no winning option here.

Atlant