I have no right to make a deal on other's behalf

[dsc]

People keep pretending there is no difference between opposing gay marriage and amending the constitution to oppose gay marriage. The most charitable interpretation of Kerry's interview on NPR is that he is proposing a federal amendment which would require states to institute civil unions in return for banning gay marriage. Frankly, I think that is way too charitable, but for the purposes of this post, I will assume it to be accurate.

Then Kerry is proposing is that I promise that not only I, but every gay person who is ever born in the US until the sun dies out, will forswear their right to marry in return for civil unions. There have been four amendments in after the Bill or Rights that have given political rights to minorities. The 13, 14, 15th were passed at bayonette point after the Civil War. The 26th (18 year old vote) was passed at the height of VietNam while 18 to 20 year olds were dying in droves in VietNam. There will be no war that would give us gay marriage. Thus, Kerry is asking me to give up not just my right to marry but every gay persons right to marry forever.

Dean, asked us to give up temporarily, our marriage rights. We have every right to do that. Dean specificly opposed both a DOMA type law and any amendment to the Vermont constitution. In point of fact any person, at any time, may relitigate the issue of civil unions versus marriage in Vermont. The legislature could pass gay marriage tomorrow if it so chose. Neither could happen if Kerry had his way.

I have no right to tell my figurative great, great, grend child to accept a deal I made.

[Padraig18]

1. And there you have it, ladies and gentlemen!

WELL SAID! :hug::loveya:

[Cocoa]

2. isn't it weird...

Dean has exactly the right position on every single issue, and Kerry has exactly the wrong position on every issue.

[Padraig18]

3. Dean's right on this one!

Too bad Kerry isn't.

[Cocoa]

7. not just this one

on every issue, the truth belongs to Howard Dean. He's like a sage.

[Padraig18]

8. Appeal to ridicule.

A very poor debating technique.

[Cocoa]

12. see post #6

[Padraig18]

14. Your point?

:wtf:

[dionysus]

29. straw-man

nt

[dsc]

4. In point of fact I have and have publicly stated

several disagreements with him on issues. Please look things up before making false charcterizations of my positions. That isn't much to ask, is it?

[bluestateguy]

5. Kerry voted against the Defense of Marriage Act of 1996

He was one of onlt 16 Democrats to do so, and he did it in a year when he was up for re-election against a tough Republican opponent.

[Padraig18]

6. Yee....... ha!

8 years ago. *champagne cork sound* Whoop-de-fucking-doo! :eyes:

[bluestateguy]

11. Believe it or not there are other issues in this campaign than gay rights

I don't care for Kerry's pro-gun control position, but I will vote for him without hesistation should he win the nomination.

This is serious business here, and there is no place for adolescent thrid-party discretions this year in the name of "conciousness" and other New Age silliness.

[Padraig18]

13. My civil rights are NOT "New Age silliness', thank you very much!

:grr:

[bluestateguy]

15. OK fine

but don't go complaining to the people here when you get up in the morning on November 3rd to find out that its four more years of George W. Bush and nothing will change.

John F. Kennedy's civil rights position in 1960 was not ideal to the leaders of the civil rights movement, but it's hard to make the argument that the civil rights movement would have been better off if Richard Nixon had won in 1960.

If you can't see the difference between Kerry and Bush than you really need to get out more.

[Padraig18]

16. I didn't say theere was no difference.

In point of fact, I said nothing of the sort, and resent the HELL out of having words put in my mouth! :grr:

[Terwilliger]

18. hmmm....gun-control?? -> rights of individuals to do what they want....

OHHHH yeah...THAT's equitable :eyes:

[Padraig18]

19. Thank you, Ter!

Sad, isn't it, when my right to marry is equated with owning a gun. :eyes:

[Cocoa]

24. why didn't Dean achieve gay marriage in VT?

why only civil unions?

[Padraig18]

25. He left the OPTION, which Kerry would not.

Next question?

[Cocoa]

27. what does that mean?

why didn't Dean enact gay marriage?

[Padraig18]

Governor's can't enact anything.

He signed the bill that came before him, however. (See: Civics 101---Duties of the Governor).

Kerry's stance, however, would PRECLUDE any gay marriage bill from EVER becoming law.

CLEAR difference.

[Cocoa]

37. Dean ACTIVELY opposed gay marriage

I think Dean deserves a lot of credit for having the courage to sign the historic and important civil unions law.

But the fact is, full marriage was also on the table, and Dean fought against it, in favor of the compromise that passed.

[bluestateguy]

39. Also

Dean only went along with civil unions when ordered to do so by the Vermont Supreme Court. It's not like it was part of his agenda. He was very much in the caboose on the issue. Still, I credit him for having the courage to take the political risks at a time when tempers were running high on the issue.

[Cocoa]

41. he showed great leadership with that law

and so far, he's the only governor that has done it. I think he could make a good president. Maybe he can give it another try some time in the future, he's still young.

[bluestateguy]

21. Yes, including the rights of gay people to protect themselves

Try this group on for size www.pinkpistols.org

Gun control is incompatible with support for gay rights.

[Padraig18]

23. As a gay gun owner, it's not. n/t

[Terwilliger]

35. oooo....gooody...you'll give gays guns but no other rights

:eyes:

[bluestateguy]

36. I support legalized marriages or civil unions,

adoption rights for gay couples and lifting the ban on gays in the military.

I also live in the Red States and I know what sells in Middle America and what doesn't in 2004.

[Padraig18]

38. This isn't a matter of what's popular.

It's a matter of what's RIGHT. My constitutional rights are not for sale.

PS-- I also happen to live in Middle America.

[Cocoa]

40. Dean disagrees with that

he explained his opposition to gay marriage was based on the fact that it wasn't popular. He favored civil unions because it was less contentious. He didn't want people bitterly divided over it.

[Padraig18]

42. When did this thread get hijacked, and become about Dean?

The initial posting is about KERRY. I'm bringing it back on track.

[Cocoa]

46. a distinction is being drawn between Kerry and Dean

I think this distinction is as false as a lot of the other distinctions.

I think both Kerry and Dean, and most of the rest of the dems, are in favor of civil unions, and are much more reluctant to try for marriage.

The real distinction is between the dems and the republicans, who want to discriminate against gays wherever they can manage it.

[Tinoire]

28. New age silliness? Maybe you're talking about the war ?

You know- the death and destruction Kerry knowingly enabled. Some of us consider that serious business.

But what the hell- occupation all the way! What's a few dead GIs, Afghans, Palestinians and Iraqis when you can have someone who pays lip service to social justice?

... recently surveyed 100 of the estimated 800 living Bonesmen on their preferred election winner - Sen Kerry or President Bush. Perhaps not surprisingly, given that both are pledged to advance the interests of fellow Bonesmen, "They answered that they didn't care. Whichever way it went, it was a win-win for them."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/02/01/wyale01.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/02/01/ixnewstop.html

[bluestateguy]

31. Kerry would not have started the war in Iraq

He voted for the resolution because he was bullied into it by the media lapdogs. Voting for the resolution is entirely different from whether or not he would have started the war had he been president. He would have let the inspections work, and once no weapons had been found there would have been no war. I hate to burst your bubble, but had the resolution in Congress failed there still would have been a war. As for the war in Afghanistan, I am comfortable with Kerry's position: we were attacked by Al Qaeda with the aid and comfort of the Taliban and we had a right to defend ourselves.

[Padraig18]

32. "...he was bullied into it by the media lapdogs...."

Just exactly who we need as President--- a man who can be bullied into disregarding his duty (as a senator) to the country by the media. Yeah, that's the kind of leadership I'm looking for! :eyes:

[Name removed]

33. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Padraig18]

34. IF he's the nominee, I'll vote for him.

I resent any other implication.

[JVS]

45. That is not germane to this discussion

[JVS]

44. " he was bullied into it by the media lapdogs"

Ohh, so Kerry can be bullied around. Do we really want to give this man the nomination in light of such cowardice?

[Tinoire]

49. He wouldn't have?

Please. Clinton tried to start that war and had been assured of Kerry's support back in Deb of '98. Let's cut the weak Bush-blaming denials. The US was chomping at the bit to get to that oil, ensure the dollar remained as OPEC's currency, and further their geo-political re-arranging of the Middle East before Bush ever came on board. Kerry knowingly went along with the war because he wanted to. To say that he was bullied by media lapdogs is to paint him as a gutless, stupid man who ignored his constituency and rejected the future support of Progressives like me who beseeched him not to.

How simple for Democrats to blame the war on Bush (after enabling him) and to wail that we had no idea he would ever use all those tools we put at his disposal the way he did. Shocked. They must have been so shocked which would explain why we never heard much from Kerry denouncing what Bush did. Kerry was pro-war & is now pro-occupation which is nothing more than another form of war.

I remember Senator Byrd pleading with the gentleman from Massachusetts. I remember Kucinich reciting "A Prayer for America". Kerry? I just remember him gutlessly voting "Aye".

Kerry, as a friend of mine put it, is a "typical lying politician. He says things like, What this country needs is leadership and I am
that Leadership. He speaks in generalities which allows him to lie like a rug."

I am glad you are happy with his position on Afghanistan. I am not.

I am not at all happy with a candidate who is a proud member of the Centrist Democratic Leadership Council (aka the Republican Wing of the Democratic Party), and who voted for NAFTA, Welfare Reform, and the Authorization of Force in Iraq.

I never had a flag decal on my car or cheered in glee as Afghan children were being pulverized and terrorized by the same country that created Al-Queda. What absolute inexcusable evil. Appalling. US security had NOTHING to do with the war against Afghanistan or the war against Iraq. That was some impressive defense. You must sleep soundly at night knowing that US soldiers are still stuck in Afghanistan protecting your freedom. 7 more died, in Afganistan, on January 30th. Many more are becoming total drug addicts. Glad some people think it's worth it.

===

An Open Letter to Senator John Kerry on Iraq
by S. Brian Willson
October 10, 2002
FROM: S. Brian Willson
TO: John Kerry

Dear John,

It has been a long time since we have had contact. As you might remember, our very first meeting was at VVAW's Dewey Canyon III, "A Limited Incursion Into the Country of Congress," April 19-23, 1971, in Washington, D.C. I'm sure you remember asking the Senate that week in an impassioned speech, "How do you ask a man to die for a mistake?" You also stressed the importance of being "totally nonviolent."

Our second and many subsequent meetings occurred in Massachusetts after you were elected Lt. Governor, 1982-84, while I was active in veteran's issues in Western MA. As director of a veterans outreach center in Greenfield, and the Western Massachusetts Agent Orange Information Project, I served on the Massachusetts Agent Orange Task Force under Governor Dukakis' veterans commissioner and your office as Lt. Governor. I subsequently also served on Dukakis' homeless veterans task force.

When you decided to run for the Senate in 1984 against Ray Shamie, a wealthy businessman, remember that I loyally supported your campaign as one of the dozen or so Vietnam veterans the press called Kerry's Commandos, you called "Doghunters." We accompanied you throughout the state, and fended off right wing criticism from folks such as General George Patton III, who accused you of "giving aid and comfort to the enemy" for your earlier VVAW activities. I'm sure you remember with fondness that critical time that launched you into national office. Your lawyer brother, Cameron, concluded that it was the veterans' support that pulled your first campaign out of a nose-dive and created the necessary "galvanizing energy."

Your critics had suspected that your activities, both in the war, and in years following, were prompted, at least in part, to an intense political ambition, even as you addressed your Yale graduating class with an anti-Vietnam War speech shortly prior to enlisting in the U.S. Navy. Your career in the Senate has revealed your all-consuming ambition, but that is quite typical of politicians.

The first hint of a bit of disconnect in your style was when during your first Senate campaign you denied returning your war medals, with a thousand other veterans, in protest of the war during Dewey Canyon III. That was a bit of a shock, since for most veterans who returned their medals in that emotional ceremony on Friday, April 23, 1971, it was a very proud and healing moment. Your 1984 campaign response: You had returned the medals of a WWII acquaintance at his direction. All those 13 years everyone thought you had had the courage and leadership to return medals that to veterans who returned them represented medals of dishonor drenched in the blood of innocent Vietnamese who did not deserve to die for a lie, any more than our fellow US Americans. I guess you knew then that you were to be running for office.

The second hint occurred at the celebration party you organized for us "doghunters" at your friend John Martilla's Beacon Hill house in Boston in late June 1985, 6 months into your term as a junior Senator. In the wee hours of the morning, you made two comments that troubled me: (1) you stressed your initials as "JFK" that would help you one day in your quest for the White House, and (2) that after War Department briefings (and perhaps CIA as well) about the need for funding and training contra terrorists in Afghanistan and Nicaragua you had a new appreciation for their importance in furthering U.S. policies. That did not mean that you necessarily voted for Contra aid but that once in power, information becomes part of an elite circle preempting genuine democracy.

I had driven in from Greenfield for that celebration party, and after those remarks I immediately left the party and drove the two hours home. I never forgot it, obviously.

In late September 1986, you, along with some other Senators and Representatives, reluctantly supported the four veterans (myself being one of them) participating in the open-ended Veterans Fast For Life (VFFL) on the east steps of the Capitol building, protesting aid to the Contras. During that fast one of your fellow Senators, Warren Rudman (R-NH), stated in October 1986 that our "actions are hardly different than those of the terrorists who are holding our hostages in Beirut." Shortly thereafter, both our VFFL offices and separate housing accommodations were broken into with many files of our activities and addresses of supporters taken. The FBI initiated a "domestic terrorist" investigation of the members of the VFFL which was revealed later when an FBI agent refused to comply and was fired after nearly 22 years service in the agency.

In September 1987, as you remember, I was severely assaulted by a US weapons train in Concord, CA, during a peaceful protest of a Pentagon munitions train moving lethal weapons to Central America, suffering permanent injuries. Later it was revealed that they suspected me of planning to "hijack" the train, and had accelerated the train 12 miles above the legal speed limit of 5 mph rather than stopping and awaiting police arrest.

Such is life. Contra "terrorists" in Nicaragua called freedom fighters by US presidents, while nonviolent protestors of terrorist policies are labeled the "terrorists" to be investigated. Then look what happened with our terrorists, the Mujahideen in Afghanistan. Now the Congress is giving the resident of the White House virtual carte blanche authority to launch pre-emptive strikes against more evil lurking beyond our borders. It is a no-brainer to many outside the beltway that we are really experts at knowing how to create rage, then revenge, with our policies of aggression and arrogance.

In the life of being a Senator, John, I'm afraid that your career again proves that power corrupts (and blinds), and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Of course you have many friends in the same camp.

With your vote for essentially agreeing with the selected resident of the White House's request for incredible authority in advance to wage wars against whomever he wants, you have contributed to finalizing the last of the world's empires, and the likely consequent doom of international law, peaceful existence, and hope for the future possibilities of Homo sapiens. Of course, it also means that searching for the motivations of other people's rage and desperate acts of revenge will be overlooked, dooming us to far more threats and instability then if we had seriously pursued a single-standard in the application of international law equally with all nations in the first place. We are too much of a bully to do that, and have stated over and over again that the American Way Of Life is not negotiable. Can you understand that this means species suicide?

I'm sorry and terribly fearful for this state we are in. Your vote is terribly misguided, John. Now that veterans have reorganized throughout the nation as once again an important part of the growing movement, know that we shall work hard for your defeat, whether as a Presidential candidate or for another Senate term.

Sincerely,

S. Brian Willson, Arcata, CA
Veterans For Peace

http://brianwillson.com/awolkerry.html

((Reprinted with permission from the author, a fellow Vet for Peace))

[bluestateguy]

51. I'll repeat this message

The Democratic primary voters have spoken in 14 of 16 states, and they have chosen Kerry. The race is not over yet, but if the final verdict is for Kerry it is the responsibility of every person who participated in the process to respect the choice of the primary voters by supporting the nominee in November. I promise you that all of the 10 candidates will end up endorsing the nominee. If you want to do Karl Rove's work for him by dredging up old votes from 20 years ago and a rambling letter from a Kerry hater I guess I can't stop you. But forgive me if I don't take seriously the further rantings of the "out-to-lunch" wing of the Left when Shrub is allowed to slither back into the White House for another 4 years. Sometimes I think these Naderities, Greenies and sore losers just LIKE being out of power so they can have more to agitate about. Social movements and activism are fine, but not much changes when you don't control the machinery of government. The civil rights movement is to be commended, but would they really have accomplished much of anything had Nixon and Goldwater been elected in 1960 and 1964?

[JVS]

43. Pro-gun and pro-gay-rights people could compromise and vote for Dean!

[diamondsoul]

17. '96, huh? Thanks for posting this.

You just helped me with a charge I've suspected was bogus against Kucinich but hadn't gotten around to checking until just now.

[dsc]

47. I made that charge

and it isn't bogus. I never claimed Dennis voted for it. I claimed he supported it. Those are different things. He has been quoted, including in an article on his very own website, as having supported the bill while campaigning in 1996. The charge isn't bogus.

[Baconfoot]

9. It's even worse than that...

If there was an anti-gay marriage amendment to the constitution then all kinds of cases would have to be revisited.

It would mean that (until the amendment could be repealed) separate COULD be equal under US law.

[Padraig18]

10. Kick

[MsUnderstood]

22. have we forgotten someone here?

Oh yea, the states, senators, and reps who will have to approve the amendment before Kerry even sees it. I've focused my energy on contacting these folks about the issue.

Right now, Kerry has no power to do anything. If *small prayer to the gods of politics* Kerry is President, I believe he will do the opposite of Clinton--talk small and act big (as oppossed to Clinton who talked big to homosexuals but acted small by passing Dont ask dont tell and signing DOMA).

As a lesbian, I'm okay with Kerry doing the "Against Gay Marriage, for civil unions" BS because he voted against DOMA so I know that Kerry can make a good decesion.

And, as much as I want equal rights (whether in the form of union or marriage) I'd much rather have a world for my daughter--so I gotta stick with the ABB plan (and continue investigating Canada!).

[asjr]

20. The USA

has no right to be in our bedrooms and with whom. Marriage is a private affair and should stay that way. The president and those in congressional offices, if this should go through, will find some other issue to push through.

[Padraig18]

26. Kick

[DU GrovelBot]

30. ## Support Democratic Underground! ##

RUN C:\GROVELBOT.EXE
 
This week is our first quarter 2004 fund drive.
Please take a moment to donate to DU. Thank you
for your support.
 
- An automated message from the DU GrovelBot

Click here to donate.

[union_maid]

48. You're right. But it cuts more than one way.

"I have no right to tell my figurative great, great, grend child to accept a deal I made."

It's all good to support the candidate you think will best represent your views in the primary. If you decide to stay home, vote third party, or write in someone who's not in the running, what are you asking that future child to accept? Not to mention that to extrapolate from what Kerry said that "his way" is to forever ban gay marriage is a big stretch. He said he'd look at the language, I think.

[Mairead]

50. I have no sympathy. You could have supported Kucinich, who wants

us to have actual equality now, not pie in the sky when we die.

But you didn't, and this is the outcome.

[dsc]

52. When it mattered Kucinich felt DOMA didn't need changed

sorry but no dice on that one.

[Name removed]

54. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

56. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

57. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

60. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[lcordero]

53. if that's the case then why did he "make deals for us" and

fuck us in the goddamn ass with freetrade.

[Calico4000]

55. Totally freaking NUTS

"he is proposing a federal amendment which would require states to institute civil unions in return for banning gay marriage"

Now I'm GLAD Nader is running. Hell, even Bush would go for this.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

58. Kerry specifically voted AGAINST DOMA

These attacks are completely disingenuous. I can no longer even debate with you.

Fine...don't support Kerry and let a more restrictive version pass...you will have traded off everyone's right..straight, gay or indifferent.

[kenny blankenship]

59. And NOW he's running for President

DOMA was 7 or 8 years ago. Kerry was representing a famously liberal state and wouldn't be punished for his vote.

Now he's running for President. It's all different. For the last 3 years Weasel has voted like a Republican, knowing he was going to be running for the Presidency.

WHat matters is what he's saying NOW. And what he says is he AGREES IN PRINCIPLE to a Constitutional Amendment that will ban gay marriage and inject "separate and unequal" back into our Constitution.

SORRY ! It isn't a matter of Kerry being too left or not left enough for me: I can't vote for him (or anyone) if he's talking about trading away my equal rights under the Constitution for some homophobic swing votes in the November election.

All he has to do is to "clarify" his previous remarks and say, "I am completely opposed to a Constitutional Amendment affecting the status of gays." Like Edwards did.

It's NOT THAT HARD, Senator Kerry !