Kerry position on gay marriage

[MurikanDemocrat]

This post is in response to the position taken yet again last night that Kerry is an ANTI-gay candidate. One can only come to such a conclusion by mischaracterizing Kerry’s consistent position and statements on gay marriage, civil unions, and long history of working for civil rights for GLBT’s..

**disclaimer – this post is not intended to change anyone’s mind who is firmly determined nothing Senator Kerry can say or do will change their pure and principled position that the language of “civil unions versus marriage” alone should be a litmus test for deciding whether he is ANTI-gay or deserving of their vote as the Democratic nominee. This post is intended to provide actual statements from Kerry and an explanation for those who seek the non-BS version for their own edification.

Here's Kerry statement on suggestion of Massachusetts banning gay marriage (approx 3 weeks ago)

"Well, it depends entirely on the language of whether it permits civil union and partnership or not. I'm for civil union. 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," Kerry continued. "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 kind of gets in the way of the whole debate, to be honest with you, because marriage to many people is obviously what is sanctified by a church. It's sacramental. Or by a synagogue or by a mosque or by whatever religious connotation it has. Clearly there's a separation of church and state here. ... Marriage is a separate institution. I think marriage is under the church, between a man and a woman, and I think there's a separate meaning to it."

What Kerry is doing is taking the religious connotation out that the term "marriage" gives it. Marriage is religious, or sacramental. He simply points out that "marriage" is a religious institution, and therefore has separate consideration under the separation of church and state.

And because of the separation of church and state, the Constitution cannot address "marriage", because it is a religious issue. That's basically his point.

That is not to say gays cannot still get “married”. That is an issue between the individuals and the church.


Kerry statement yesterday on Bush proposal for Federal Amendment to the Constitution against gay marriage


“I believe President Bush is wrong. All Americans should be concerned when a President who is in political trouble tries to tamper with the Constitution of the United States at the start of his reelection campaign.

“This President can’t talk about jobs. He can’t talk about health care. He can’t talk about a foreign policy, which has driven away allies and weakened the United States, so he is looking for a wedge issue to divide the American people.

“While I believe marriage is between a man and a woman, for 200 years, this has been a state issue. I oppose this election year effort to amend the Constitution in an area that each state can adequately address, and I will vote against such an amendment if it comes to the Senate floor.

“I believe the best way to protect gays and lesbians is through civil unions. I believe the issue of marriage should be left to the states, and that the President of the United States should be addressing the central challenges where he has failed – jobs, health care, and our leadership in the world rather than once again seeking to drive a wedge by toying with the United States Constitution for political purposes.”


http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/releases/pr_2004_0224b.html


Kerry Record of Working on Behalf of Gay and Lesbian Americans

With a 100% rating from the Human Rights Campaign since 1995, John Kerry is a powerful voice in the ongoing fight for civil rights for gay and lesbian Americans.

Ending Discrimination
One of John Kerry’s first acts as a U.S. Senator, in 1985, was to introduce a bill prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. He supports passage of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, and has adopted a nondiscrimination policy for his Congressional offices based on sexual orientation and gender identity.

HIV/AIDS Funding
John Kerry cosponsored the first Ryan White Comprehensive AIDS Resources Emergency Act (CARE) - which represents the largest discretionary federal investment in treating individuals with HIV and AIDS. Kerry also sponsored the Vaccines for the New Millennium Act, aimed at boosting contributions to the International AIDS Vaccine Initiative, a non-profit group working to promote development of an HIV vaccine in 2000. Kerry introduced the U.S. Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, TB, and Malaria Act, which would increase the U.S. government’s funding of international HIV/AIDS efforts from approximately $1.7 billion in 2003 to $1.9 billion in 2004. This effort led to the unanimous passage in May 2003 the United States Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, TB, and Malaria Act of 2003. AIDS activists characterized Kerry as one of Congress’s top leaders on HIV/AIDS policy.

Preventing Hate Crimes
John Kerry is an original cosponsor of the Hate Crimes Prevention bill, which would extend federal jurisdiction over serious, violent hate crimes. These would include crimes motivated by sexual orientation. Hate crimes rose a disturbing 3.5% from 1999 to 2000.

Protecting Gay and Lesbian Families
John Kerry believes that same-sex couples should be granted rights, including access to pensions, health insurance, family medical leave, bereavement leave, hospital visitation, survivor benefits, and other basic legal protections that all families and children need. He has supported legislation to provide domestic partners of federal employees the benefits available to spouses of federal employees. He was one of 14 Senators -- and the only one up for reelection in 1996 -- to oppose the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).

Lifting the Ban on Gays in the Military
John Kerry opposed the Clinton Administration’s “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell Policy” He was one of a few senators to testify before the Senate Armed Services Committee and call on the President to rescind the ban on gay and lesbian service members.

Support for Civil Unions
John Kerry supports same-sex civil unions so that gay couples can benefit from the the health benefits, inheritance rights, or Social Security survivor benefits guaranteed for heterosexual couples.

http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/glbt /

[Bombtrack]

1. Niether of the major candidates are anti-gay

Both appose the constitutional amendment and believe that states should allow what they want to allow.

[DuctapeFatwa]

2. Both believe that Equal Rights should be an opt-in choice for states

With a little skillful management, this could mean some really significant savings for businesses.

Both candidates should take pains to emphasize that aspect.

[Blue_Roses]

3. some people

just don't want to believe it. They are determined to paint each candidate as the "boogie man," all the while, the real "boogie man," continues to push his tripe.:eyes:

[MurikanDemocrat]

4. still some insisting Kerry is antigay, regardless of the facts that show

otherwise.

[oasis]

5. kick

[exotrip]

6. There is a very simple solution to all this

I believe Kerry should come out in favor of the amendment (don't hit me, I am Gay). However, he should come up with another requirement to gain his support. The amendement should ban ALL regular marriages. Instead, we would have civil unions exclusively for homosexuals, and covenant marriages for heterosexuals. It would be perfect. Kerry could advocate an amendment that still gives equal rights to the LGBTs while apearring more pro-family than Bush! Also, this would end 55-hour Britteny Spears type "marriages".

[MurikanDemocrat]

7. Surely you jest

Such a suggestion would make the person suggesting it a laughing stock.

[exotrip]

8. How?

What is so funny about strengthening marriage? How could this be bad? Kerry would force Bush to either support "covenant Marriage", or reject the idea, and admit that the purpose of the amendment is for discrimination, and not to "protect marriage".

[MurikanDemocrat]

9. Get serious will you? You want to ban ALL marriages?

And then redefine the one for heterosexuals?

The amendement should ban ALL regular marriages. Instead, we would have civil unions exclusively for homosexuals, and covenant marriages for heterosexuals.

That's tantamount to suggesting we raise the river instead of lowering the bridge. Or to fix something that isn't
t broken. The definition of heterosexual marriage is not broken, so there is no need to fix it.

[exotrip]

11. I disagree

Divorce rates are going up, heteros can get married at the drop of a hat. Marriage is supposed to mean something. To allow it to be makeable or breakable at one's wimsy does much more disservice to the institution than gay marriage. The Christian Right has made this suggestion and I agree with them. This will go far in eliminating the cultural hypocracy we currently live in.

[MurikanDemocrat]

12. Amending the Constitution is not the way to address that

[exotrip]

14. Of course not

I was being completely hypothetical. I oppose an amendement on a states' rights basis. I was just saying that this could be a good way of showing Bush's hypocracy (and the right's hypocracy in general) on this issue. The divorce rate has been the pink elephant in the room in this debate for a while now. If we are going to discuss the institution of marriage this election, THAT should be brought up to.

[tobius]

10. what does Kerry base his opposition to gay marriage upon?

religion?

[MurikanDemocrat]

13. "marriage"

as a religious institution has separate consideration under the separation of church and state.

[tobius]

15. I've been down this road before and wonder if it is wise

to use that argument. there are many heterosexuals who are agnostics, atheists, pagans, wikkans, non baptised believers, have different faiths from each other, etc.. that get married with a justice of the peace or in vegas, whatever w/o the blessing of the church. Is his stance that these people should not be joined in "marriage"?

[MurikanDemocrat]

17. It is a valid Constitutional argument

marriage is rooted in religion, although it is a legal status as well. I'm not well versed on the history on this.

[tobius]

19. If he stays consistent on this he will be in the position

of supporting taking away marriage from some heterosexuals. There is no easy way to be halfway on this, Kerry needs to make a stance one way or the other and take the heat, but don't continue the dance.

[MurikanDemocrat]

20. No, that is not the case.

Heterosexual marriage will not be affected in any way, shape, or form by his position.

Marriage is rooted in religion, even though the term is still used by non-religious married folk. Just because I am not familiar with the history does not mean it does not exist.

Don't create an issue with heterosexual marriage that does not exist with this proposed amendment. We get enough misinformation here without making things up as we go along.

[tobius]

21. making things up? you were the one who suggested marriage be

reserved to the religious sphere. The outcome of that argument still ends up leaving non-religious heterosexuals with a civil union, and not marriage.

Again the question comes down to- Why does Kerry oppose gay marriage? irregardless of his distancing from the amendment, he has stated that he is opposed to gay marriage and people like myself who are in favor of it deserve a coherent reason why he feels gays are not entitled to the word marriage.

[nancyharris]

24. If "marriage" is a "religious" institution

why does the "state" of Massachusetts issue the license?

[MurikanDemocrat]

25. Because married is also a legal designation

[arcos]

16. Thanks for clearing this up...

I have to admit I thought Kerry's position on the MA ammendment was actually his position on the FMA.

[MurikanDemocrat]

18. Well! Glad to know that was clarified for at leat one person!

Thank you for saying so!:)

[MurikanDemocrat]

22. kick for current discussions

[MurikanDemocrat]

23. kick for the day crew

[George_Bonanza]

26. Kerry's real stance on gay marriage

Opposes Federal Marriage Ban.

Would consider a Massachussetts gay marriage ban only if it would provide civil unions in its stead, aka a secular union for gays.

It seems to me that this is the one issue that bitter Dean supporters want to attack Kerry on now that the war issue has been flayed to its bones. Well, Dean was the one who could have opted for gay marriage in Vermont but did not b/c he does not support gay marriage and is rankled by it. What does that say about his commitment? Sure, he may talk about how he would let states decide (which is actually a messy appeasement "solution" if you think about it), but when it comes political crunch time in the WH, we all have Vermont to observe as a Howard Dean precedent.