If only Kerry could be as courageous as Diane Wilkerson

[Brian_Expat]

http://www.advocate.com/new_news.asp?ID=11296&sd=02/12/04

With scuffles breaking out inside the Massachusetts statehouse and hundreds of people chanting slogans for and against gay rights on Wednesday, lawmakers took up two separate proposed amendments to write marriage discrimination into the state's constitution and overturn a recent court ruling ordering equal marriage rights for same-sex couples. Both amendments failed to receive the necessary votes to pass. The votes bring the commonwealth of Massachusetts one step closer to complying with its top court's order to allow same-sex marriages no later than May 17.

. . . snip. . .

In arguing against the gay marriage ban, Sen. Dianne Wilkerson drew upon her experience as a black woman growing up in Arkansas, where the hospital did not allow her mother to deliver her children. "I know the pain of being less than equal, and I cannot and will not impose that status on anyone else," a teary-eyed Wilkerson said. "I could not in good conscience ever vote to send anyone to that place from which my family fled."

Now that's class. That's what Democrats are supposed to be about.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

1. If only Dean could be.

Where is he on this issue?

Early assumptions following the Court's December 20 decision were that domestic partnership is the only real plan of action. Governor Howard Dean has said on several occasions that he would support domestic partnership legislation, but is uncomfortable with the idea of actual gay marriage. Dean has recently clarified his position, declaring in a radio interview, "I'm against gay marriage."


http://www.mountainpridemedia.org/feb2000/news_centerstage.htm

[Brian_Expat]

2. Kerry supports the MA amendments that went down

and ALSO declared that the MA court ruling was "wrong." Dean, and in fact, every other candidate OTHER than Kerry, welcomed the ruling.

This isn't about Dean. It's about Kerry's willingness to sell gay Americans down the river to get elected.

He shouldn't be surprised if gay Americans return the "favor."

[Cheswick2.0]

8. lol, try again

Dean said he favors civil unions rather than Gay marriage. However he also said the ammendment was nothing but gay bashing. Kerry has said he is considering supporting the ammendment. There is the difference between Dean and kerry. kerry would support an ammendment to the constitution institutionalizing for all time 2nd class citizenship for gay people.

[Laughing Mirror]

3. John Kerry needs to be reminded of that hospital in Arkansas

And needs to look at Amendment XIV one more time and then make a statement.

[gottaB]

4. If only we could all be so courageous and honest

It has been all too common to see supporters of Dean ranking him with Braun, Kucinich and Sharpton when it comes to support of gay rights.

That opinion is not supported by the hrc or the ngltf.

I fully agree with you that Diane Wilkerson's position represents the ideal position for Democrats, and the future direction of the Party and the nation. But when you insinuate that John Kerry is not a genuine Democrat, or lacks political courage, you are promulgating misinformation and spin.

If the issue is gay marriage, and you are here criticizing John Kerry, you better be sending money to Kucinich and/or Sharpton. Otherwise, you have no credibility. It's painfully obvious that Dean supporters have been willing to interpret his statements and positions on marriage rights in the best possible light, while maligning, misrepresenting and downplaying the progressiveness of the positions that John Kerry has taken.

It's long past being ridiculous. It has become self-defeating and profoundly unwise.

John Kerry will be Democratic nominee. The Republicans will be pushing the issue of gay marriage. Kerry has taken a position which is substantially different from Bush's. You can side with Kerry, and continue to press for the freedom to marry in the nation's courts and legislatures and the court of public opinion. Or you can side with Bush and risk further erosion of civil rights and liberties.

[Brian_Expat]

5. It's been all too common to see supporters of Kerry

link him with Clark and Dean on gay issues.

That's not supported by his interest in supporting an anti-gay constitutional amendment in order to get elected.

[gottaB]

6. hrc and ngltf have endorsed John Kerry?

Kerry never said he had an interest in supporting "an anti-gay constitutional amendment." To the contrary, he has spoken against the FMA because it's just a stupid excuse for gaybashing.

You know you're misrepresenting his statements from the NPR interview, taking words out of context and spinning them. But that's not enough. You have to put words in his mouth. Why?

On gay issues I believe Kerry is a better choice than Clark, if only because he's better on civil rights overall. But that's neither here nor there.

Some rational comparison between Dean and Kerry is in order when Dean's supporters claim that his position represents true Democratic bliss, whereas Kerry's represents lesser evil DINO Bushlite corruption. It's baloney. It is not supported by the hrc and the ngltf, who monitor such things objectively and without particular bias for or against John Kerry.

[Cheswick2.0]

9. not true gottab

Kerry has said he would support the ammendment depending on the wording.

[gottaB]

10. I hate to quarrel with you, but

The transcript was posted here by Bertha Venation.

Let's be exact. Kerry never said he would support an anti-gay ammendment to the Massachusetts constitution. That particular allegation is false. He did say he would support an amendment defining marriage as hetero if it included civil unions.

You know that as a former Braun supporter that I do agree with Wilkerson, and that I believe that the freedom to marry is constitutionally guaranteed. So I am not in complete agreement with Kerry's position. Neither do I completely agree with Dean's position. My argument here is that it is unfair and misleading to represent Dean as having a substantially more progressive position than Kerry. To sustain that illusion, one must interpret Kerry's statements in the least favorable light, while giving Dean the benefit of the doubt. I don't see any reason to do that.

[Brian_Expat]

12. You don't get it.

Let's be exact. Kerry never said he would support an anti-gay ammendment to the Massachusetts constitution. That particular allegation is false. He did say he would support an amendment defining marriage as hetero if it included civil unions.

Such an amendment is an anti-gay amendment. It's legal segregation and creation of a second-class, lesser "civil unions" structure since we're not "good enough" for civil marriage in Kerry's eyes, apparently.

[gottaB]

13. yes, I do get it

And I also get that you're willing to use shorthand in a way that John Kerry's support for civil unions is utter turpitude whereas Howard Dean's support for civil unions is the political embodiment of valor and pulchritude and the wisdom of the ages.

So again, brava Ms. Wilkerson--and that's a good opportunity to bash John Kerry exactly why?

[Brian_Expat]

14. For the 15th time. . .

. . . civil unions aren't good enough.

Dean's position wasn't good enough, but it is light years better than Kerry, who not only supports second-class status, but also thinks that state constitutions should ENSHRINE that second-class status.

Kerry's position is like reacting to racism in the south by supporting constitutional amendments that mandate separate but equal schools for blacks and whites, but with "language" that ensures black schools are at least 65% as good as white ones. Dean's is pushing for a law that makes the schools equal, but that doesn't enshrine segregation within the law.

You also need to learn more about gay politics. HRC and NGLTF endorsements are not the end-all (or even that important) to most gay people.

[gottaB]

16. Thanks for the analogies, and pointing out the obvious

The lies and insults you can keep to yourself.

Yes, I know that most gay people didn't endorse Braun, and don't endorse Kucinich or Sharpton.

There's nothing in anything Kerry has said to suggest that he believes anything like what you attribute to him. Did he say he would accept enshrining second-class status for gay couples? Did he say something like, if 65% of the rights and privileges afforded to straight couples are afforded to gays, I could accept that as a compromise and move on. Hell no, he didn't.

You and I can agree that civil unions is not the way to go, that nothing short of the unabridged freedom to marry is just. The candidates we are supporting do not share that view. For Dean supporters to attack Kerry on this issue, well, that's just a little too comfortable for comfort, if you know what I mean.

[dsc]

18. He didn't mention a specific percent

but he sure did say he would accept an amendment which banned marriage if it had good enough wording on civil unions.

[Cheswick2.0]

23. no you really don't get it

What you are talking about is indeed two different levels of civil rights, one for gay people, a better one for straight people. Sickening.
Dean doesn't support this ammendment at all. He calls it gay bashing.
I see that you have accepted kerry double-speak now that you are one of his supporters. Very sad.

[gottaB]

24. You're right, I don't get it at all

I feel profoundly alienated by the cult of Dean and the willingness of his supporters to beleive that his equivocations never happened, whereas those of his former rival must be Orwellian.

Very sad, you say, but the context of this sadness is a thread that was intended to bash John Kerry for the purpose of winning votes for Howard Dean. Okay, that's politics. Call it differentiation. But you can't make a decent case for Dean and Kerry being different on this issue without ascribing motives and positions to John Kerry that are contrary to his stated views.

Very sad indeed.

[Brian_Expat]

11. HRC also endorsed Alfonse D'Amato over Chuck Schumer.

Not exactly the gold standard.

[gottaB]

15. attacking the messenger is a fallacy

The fallaciousness is all the more apparent when other messengers are saying the same thing, and anybody who wants to can check out their criteria and their sources of information and reach the obvious conclusion that both John Kerry and Howard Dean support civil unions and oppose gay marriage.

[Cheswick2.0]

7. bravo Diane

I love a person with moral courage.

[Loonman]

17. Wilkerson the tax evader?

http://www.s-t.com/daily/06-98/06-13-98/a02sr011.htm

[gottaB]

19. Judge Harrington?

Let's not get into ad hominems. Wilkerson's statements were courageous and right.

[Loonman]

21. It's a matter of public record

Not an ad hominem. She evaded taxes and was convicted for it.

That is the truth.

[gottaB]

22. Nonetheless, it is an ad hominem

How does her criminal record alter the rightness of her statements? It doesn't. That's why your comment qualifies as an instance of the fallacy of an ad hominem attack.

You also cited an authority (AP, courtesy of the New Bedford Standard Times, is it?) which was not the public record, but a news story about a certain judge's censure of Ms. Wilkerson. That is very questionable, because it raises issues about the character and temperment of these two people that really have nothing to do with the issue at hand. It's a distraction.

For the record, I will stipulate that not everybody who supports the freedom to marry has never run afoul of the law, it being understood that the converse is equally true, that not everybody who opposes the freedom to marry has never run afoul of the law. I still maintain that one of these positions is eminently courageous and right, the other not so much.

[HFishbine]

25. See post #15. (eom)

[seaglass]

26. It refutes the opinion that she's courageous, not that she's right.

Courage requires risk and she's taking none.

[seaglass]

20. Diane Wilkerson may be right but she's not courageous.

Courage involves taking a risk. This woman was reelected after spending time in jail for tax evasion, she's not risking anything.

[Laughing Mirror]

27. She risks not getting elected, for one thing.

She risks physical violence for making that statement, for another.

Those are two very obvious risks she's taking right there.

What does her having been in jail have to do with her standing up and defending a basic human right, the right to equal rights for all citizens?