Kerry Supporters---Upset with his stance on Gay Marriage or Not?

[littlejoe]

Do you feel he has allowed himself to become vulnerable on this issue?

Should he have taken an unequivocal stance on the issue? One that doesn't have to keep being re-explained?

[soleft]

1. I'm cool with it

As long as he keeps saying up front that he supports civil unions and states deciding on gay marriage. I don't think it's not unequivocal or difficult to comprehend.

[nickinSTL]

3. Kerry on gay marriage

I do wish he'd support gay marriage, but if he supports civil unions, I'll deal with it.

The fact is, his stance isn't equivocal. In my opinion, like a lot of his positions, it's well thought out, not just a sound-bite.

Of course, that makes it more difficult to get across to the lazy electorate, who want soundbites.

[littlejoe]

15. But to many, anything short of endorsing the right to be married

would be construed as supporting discrimination.

Just an observation.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

24. ...

Neither the zealots against nor the zealots for gay marriage should be taken very seriously.

[Nicholas_J]

68. To many

Gay marriage is a side issue, and to support it at the price of risking every other benefit to be derived from getting Bush out of office would be a decision of tragic proportions. Sort of like Lincoln. As he said, if he could preserve the union by freeing the slaves, he would do it, it he had to keep them all slaves to preserve the union, he would do it, If he could do so by freeing some and leaving others in slavery, he would do it. While many heterosexuals are sympathetic to this issue, and support it, many will not do so at the peril of risking leaving all of the other issues in Bush's hands. Like womens right to choose, universal health care, fair progressive taxation, the environment, foreign relations, getting out of Iraq without causing a regional war, and so on. Leaving Bush in control in order to support gay marriage, you increase the risk of losing it all.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

2. i am ok with it as well

aside from being gay i am also rational..and his approach is the only one a candidate for presidency can state and this point if they ever hope to win

[mmonk]

4. not really

I would have been upset if he was against any form such as civil unions or if he was for a constitutional amendment banning it.

[redqueen]

12. Didn't he say before he didn't know if he'd support an amendment?

and that it depended on how it was worded?

:shrug:

[mmonk]

16. so that gays wouldn't be denied

civil unions.

[Dookus]

19. Yes

and anybody who would support or oppose an unseen amendment without knowing what it said would be an idiot.

[redqueen]

21. So only idiots would outright oppose altering the Constitution

in order to separate a sub-group of Americans from the rest of us?

I disagree most strongly.

[Dookus]

26. No

You misunderstand.

It would be idiotic to say you support or oppose ANY amendment, bill, proposal, resolution, etc. if you don't know what's in it.

It's very simple, actually.

[redqueen]

33. I don't misunderstand. I disagree.

I don't know what's in the proposed constitutional ban on homosexual marriage, but I don't need to know the details to know it's utter crap.

Never before in this country's history has an amendment been added to DISENFRANCHISE and SEPARATE a group of people from the rest.

The fact that dem candidates won't stand up and say this (well, with one very obvious, glaring exception) is why the repubs paint them as weak. No moral center. No vision. Just react to the polls, and cross your fingers.

:grr:

[mmonk]

I don't think he's for amending the constitution

of the U.S.

[redqueen]

67. Thanks,

kplongco already cleared that up.

But isn't it still abhorrent to put divisive amendments in any constitution?

I wonder if there are any in other states.

[sangh0]

65. No you misunderstand, and it's so simple it's hard to mess up

but somehow, you managed

"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."

John Kerry

[ModerateMiddle]

42. that was for the state of Mass.

they contemplated an ammendment to their state constitution to ban gay marriages in MA. His take on it depended on whether or not they allowed for civil unions.

[sangh0]

58. Statement from John Kerry on Bush Constitutional Amendment

For the folks too busy to read the actual position because they are too busy posting their opinions on the subject (not you kplongco)

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

Statement from John Kerry on Bush Constitutional Amendment


February 24, 2004

For Immediate Release


“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.”

[redqueen]

66. No need for such nastiness

kplongco managed to calmly state where I was confused.

If you'll notice, I asked, and was engaged in debate with someone else until I saw the information kplongco posted.

Thanks for showing up and trying to re-start some ugliness. There's nowhere near enough of that right now.

[Name removed]

72. Deleted message

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

[redqueen]

74. IMO you need to brush up on your reading comprehension

DOOKUS made the 'only idiots' comment, sangHO.

You really need to go back and re-read that exchange. You totally did not get it the first time, obviously.

[sangh0]

79. Speak for yourself

Your comments on this issue show that you were not just asking about Kerry's position. Several of your posts clearly assert that Kerry would support a Constitutional amendment, and other posts of yours imply that you DO KNOW what Kerry's position is. I also notice that you do nothing to explain why you said "I don't misunderstand. I disagree" if you didn't really know what Kerry said.

In another post, you respond to someone else who claims that Kerry might support a Constitutional amend with the statement "Good points" when the truth is, they are inaccurate points. How do you know if the points are good if you don't even know if they are based on the truth?

[redqueen]

83. *sigh*

I NOW know that Kerry has said he may support an amendment to the Mass. constitution BANNING gays from marriage. That is wrong. Period.

There should be no reason for laws to be involved in religious matters at all, ever. If the church wants to refuse to marry people based on their sex, fine. But to step over that line (the one dividing church and state) is wrong.

The good points still stand, because marriage should not be a states' rights issue. It is a federal issue because you cannot expect married couples to tiptoe around the country so that they can be ensured of equal protection under the law.

I don't know why I'm even bothering, really.

[sangh0]

85. Still misleading?

I NOW know that Kerry has said he may support an amendment to the Mass. constitution BANNING gays from marriage. That is wrong. Period.

Both you and I know that you left a lot out of that mischaracterization of Kerry's position wrt MA's State Constitution

The good points still stand, because marriage should not be a states' rights issue. It is a federal issue because you cannot expect married couples to tiptoe around the country so that they can be ensured of equal protection under the law.

More poppycock. Marriage *IS* a state's rights issue because that's what the Constitution says. It's ALWAYS been a state's rights issue. If it weren't a state's right issue, then the Repukes wouldn't need to pass a Consitutional amendment; All they'd have to do is pass a law.

[redqueen]

75. It would also help to note WHEN posts were made

*sigh*

Why do I even bother?

[Scott Lee]

64. The Waffle King at work.

Now I've heard him, as usual, speak out of both sides of his mouth. He's going to try and figure out a way to take a stand and not take any stand at all, to keep his ass safe.

It makes me sick that this guy is supposed to be our answer to Bush-hole.

[sangh0]

69. "I will vote against such an amendment if it comes to the Senate floor"

Yep, real wishy-washy

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 /

[fishnfla]

5. I dont want a wedgie

Rove is hoping to give us all a wedgie on this one. Jobs, Health care the economy, foreign policy are more important

[Not Me]

8. Exactly...

I am hoping he keeps this wedge in the background.
We all know that he would not obstruct the progress that is being made all over the country.

When I hear him speak, I know he is talking to us.

[fishnfla]

17. I should clarify

I dont mean to belittle the civil rights of our homosexual friends. It is important too, but we play into the shrubs hands if we make this the #1 issue. The progress as you say, is a natural process. Shrubs political construct is but a minor interference.

there is no way an article of discrimination will be ratified into the constitution.

[littlejoe]

20. Agreed. I think this is another prime example of a Bush

smoke screen, to muddy the issues. It is also another example of the hidden dominionist agenda that the Bushies are pushing.

[adriennel]

6. yes, quite!

Who knows what Kerry really thinks on this issue? I think Kerry took the stance he felt was most marketable, and the Dems have decided that anti-gay marriage, pro-civil union is the most marketable strategy. I fear this strategy will fail in the long run. Kerry keeps mentioning that each state will have to decide for themselves how to handle the civil union issue. WTF is that? My parents were married in MI and are considered married in all 50 states. And the state-by-state argument conviniently omits the Constitutional aspect of EQUAL protection under the law.

[redqueen]

35. Excellent points

Not surprisingly, no responses. :eyes:

[sangh0]

59. Terrible points based on inaccuracy

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

"I will vote against such an amendment if it comes to the Senate floor"

Please stop repeating your ignorant and false mischaracterizations of Kerry's position. He opposes any and all amendments to the Constitution regardless of it's language

[Name removed]

70. Deleted message

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

[sangh0]

73. "Not surprisingly, no responses"

Practice what you preach,. At least I have the honesty to not hide my intent.

[redqueen]

76. Do you understand the difference between general and personal?

Think about it.

[sangh0]

81. Don't need to

I already know you are deceitful and will use any sohpistry to hide it from others. Now, you are claiming/implying that the post you were responding to was somehow "general and personal" when it discusses the constitution and how it requires states to recognize other states marriages.

Since when is the Constitution "general and personal"?

[redqueen]

84. I almost can't believe this.

Almost.

By referring to the the DIFFERENCE between general and personal, I was trying to show you that there is a big difference between my stating that there were no responses to the post I replied to (that would be a slight towards no one in particular, but a group in GENERAL); and your direct insults towards me (PERSONAL).

Clear yet?

:eyes:

[sangh0]

86. "a slight towards no one in particular, but a group in GENERAL"

And which group would that be?

[redqueen]

89. The group wanting to fob it off on the states, of course. n/t

[sangh0]

90. WHy should they respond

to a post based on nonsense. The issue of states recognizing the marriages of people who were wed in other states has nothing to do with the equal protection clause.

Maybe no one responded because they prefer to respond to the intelligent and knowledgeable, not the Constitutionally-challenged

[dtseiler]

7. Interview on NPR

I was listening to an NPR interview with him a couple of weeks ago. I might get this wrong but here is what I believe he was saying: It is a separation of church and state issue. "Marriage" is a church concept. Even in heterosexual marriages, a state-issued marriage license is no more than a civil union.

I'd like to see this concept instituted. The straight and gay civil unions from the state. Marriages would be just another decoration from your church, but have no extra legal benefits or obligations.

[mmonk]

9. you got it

[curse10]

13. I would even go as far as to argue that marriage is inherently

discriminatory to everyone. Even non-gays. It's a nasty institution. Civil unions for all? And if you want "marriage" do it in your damn church?

[MurikanDemocrat]

10. Kerry's position on gay marriage has always been consistent

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 /

[littlejoe]

28. Thank you for posting that, although it is information that I am

aware of. Yet, others may not know his stance.

But the problem is that his explanations cannot be explained away in cute little ten second sound bites.

It seems as though many American's attention spans have been shortened to that length of time.

[Old and In the Way]

54. One word bugs me in his statement.

“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

He would have been better to replace 'states' with 'religious institutions', IMHO.


Does he really want 50 different states wrestling with the definition of marriage in the context that this debate is being framed, as a religious institution?

[curse10]

11. I think his position is quite clear

although I wish he could come out for gay marriages, we all know it's not politcally prudent. Bush would slaughter us on the issue. And we don't want this to be the main issue of the campaign.

I think he's handling it well. He's turned it around. This isn't about gay marriage, this is about a desperate incumbent president trying to change the constitution. This will resonate with people. Everyone knows that we don't change the constitution lightly or on a whim. We can portray Bush as a power hungry desperate man. He's not getting his way so we'll amend the constitution! Sounds ridiculous. This is good.

[BayCityProgressive]

14. well for a while

I was upset but it is all just semantics. He has supported full marriage rights for gays since the 80s when no one else would and the only difference is he would call it a civil union. If that will appease the red necks out there and still ensure me all my rights then whatever.

[Uzybone]

18. What are you talking about?

How has he become "vulnerable" on this issue? Is this some more of that vaunted DU conventional wisdom that never seems to relate to real events? How does his position need reexplaining? Its quite simple. He is for CU and he is against an amendment to bad gay marriage. Like an above poster said, I also think all unions should be CU. Leave the "marriage" thing to the churches and mosques and synagogues.

[littlejoe]

22. I think it has been very clear that I am a Kerry supporter. I don't

understand how you feel that this isn't a real issue. It is here and he has to deal with it.

As a fair minded heterosexual, I think that anything less than legal marriage rights smacks of discrimination. I feel he has left himself vulnerable, that's all.

[Uzybone]

32. I think its a real issue

its a losing issue for Bush unless we foolishly allow ourselves to be wedged over it.

[littlejoe]

52. What I think Kerry should do is continue to hammer Bush on

the main issues, and not let Bush define the campaign dialogue.

But when faced with reporters questions on the issue of same-sex marriage, Kerry should make Bush look foolish by painting Bush as a political Houdini.

Bush, unable to adequately defend his record of three years is doing nothing more than a slight of hand with the voters.

[sangh0]

60. This wasn;t good enough for you?

"“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. ...

,,,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.”

[littlejoe]

77. Of course, but he must keep beating that drum, until the media

moves on.

[sangh0]

82. Who says he isn't?

Even you said he should be saying this only when asked. As far as I can tell, that's exactly what he's doing.

[littlejoe]

88. That is the way I see things. Kerry has been somewhat on the

defensive, since Bush's henchmen started hitting him below the belt.

[sangh0]

91. I don't see it

Calling Bush* AWOL, raising the Chickenhawk issue, calling Bush* policy on Haiti "stupid and inept" doesn't sound like he is on the defensive.

This claim has as little justifcation as your implication that Kerry hasn't been responding to gay marriage questions by attacking Bush*

[rucky]

27. Here's how he's vulnerable

George W Bush:

"He assails the Patriot Act -- but he voted for it;

He opposes the War in Iraq -- but he voted to authorize it;

He attacks (the President) for "misleading" us about WMD's --
yet he believed the same intel as the President;

He ridicules the "No child left behind" education reform act, co-written and sponsored by his patron and mentor, Ted Kennedy -- yet he voted for it;

He touts his Vietnam record -- yet threw away his ribbons after he got home;

He boasts that he fought Communism -- yet, as leader of Vietnam Veterans Against the War led protests which included addressing audiences waving theViet Kong flag, people not demanding mere peace, but Communist victory;
He courts the support of Veterans -- yet testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in 1971 that his fellow GI's were committing "war crimes" in Vietnam, not just occasionally, but "every day."


DU-er: Add gay marriage to the list (supports the "sancity", opposes an amendment). So here's the pattern (and the GOP strategy): He may have a decent explanation for all of these positions, but he's still be having to explain himself over & over again. This is Kerry's weakness. This was Dean's weakness when he was frontrunner. I don't see a difference. How can Kerry overcome this & win over an electorate that always goes for the simplest explanation?

Too bad the strongest horse in this race is the one with the worst odds.

[Old and In the Way]

37. Should Jerry Falwell be forced to marry gays?

Should gays be forced to attend Jerry Falwell's church? I don't think so. It's not the government's domain to dictate what "marriage" is, in relation to a religious interpretation of the act.

However, I see no reason why the legal union of two people, which bestows a privilaged status to couples who are legally bound together, be limited to a male and female couple.

[redqueen]

43. JOP's marry people, not just churches n/t

[Old and In the Way]

47. OK......I don't think that really changes anything though.

A JOP who doesn't want to marry someone should not be compelled to. A JOP who has no problem, should. Still shouldn't effect the civil aspects/legality of the union, though.

I really haven't thought about the role of a JOP in the context of a religious ceremony. I've always thought the Las Vegas "chapels" were a tackey substitute for a real religious event, though.

[redqueen]

71. I didn't want a church wedding.

So I used a JOP. I'm Catholic.

I didn't think it was tacky. Do you?

[Old and In the Way]

87. Las Vegas chapels? Sure!

BTW, I, too, got married by a JOP and I'm Catholic, too. Only way to fly.

[Uzybone]

38. I don't agree

If Bush wants to wave his FAILED policies in our faces and we still fall for it then we might as well be doomed. The only thing Bush can run on is national security (which is all but dead for him since we have one and maybe two war heroes on our ballot) and the contentious social stuff like gay marriage. All our candidates were "vulnerable" if you chose to see it that way, I'm glad that the process and the voters chose the strongest one of the bunch.

[rucky]

44. I'm not saying we're doomed

I'm just saying that's the GOP's plan. So what's our plan to convince the voters? Shine the light back on Bush - GAWD I hope it's enough. Trouble is, it leaves these GOP-raised (non)issues unresolved. If we dodge, we're playing politics & they keep the heat on - we may lose progressive support but maybe maybe keep some swing support. If we take a stance, we're sucked in & marginalized - but we may gain progressive support and lose some swing votes. The real problem is there is no way out of these problems. Kerry's in a box & either path we take is frustrating.

Maybe this whole thing won't sway anybody. But it may give swing voters on all sides of the spectrum one less reason to go to the polls.

The war of 10-second sound bytes continues.

[Uzybone]

80. There is the problem

America is not as progressive as we would like to believe or hope. A sure way for Kerry (or any other Dem) to lose in Nov is to say "I'm in full support of gay marriage and in fact I encourage it just as I would encourage hetero marriage". This is a game, and yes I'm tired of playing it but unless people are calling for the overthrow of the government or a war, change comes in small steps. Its just they way it works.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

23. also he voted against DOMA

so i know his stance on making random laws restricting gay rights

[lovedems]

25. He made a very ineresting point on The Today Show this morning.

When it comes to a constitutional amendment he was asked how democrats would vote. He said it is his belief that democrats will not support it and neither will alot of republicans. Of course there are the "political arm republicans" who will use this wedge issue but he is of the belief there are a number of republicans who will not touch a constitutional amendment JUST TO GET BU$H FOUR MORE YEARS. And that is obviously what is this, a political ploy and people see it as just a that. A desperate attempt to change focus on a miserable 3 years. He doesn't think the chimp will have the full support of his own party on this one.

Kudos to Kerry for calling the chimp out on it.

[robbedvoter]

29. Nicely done, Kerry. No one here should base their vote on this

There are 1000 more important issues - including the one that W must go PRECISELY FOR BRINGING THIS BIGOTTED ISSUE UP! (and destroying the world too)

[lovedems]

46. My husband, who is not a big "fan" of Kerry, was impressed.

He said Kerry looked stronger than he had seen him before. I didn't see the interview, it was all relayed to me by my husband but he was impressed with what he saw this morning. It must have been a good interview if I was getting positive feedback from my hubby.

[politick]

30. I'd agree on his stance

supporting civil unions, if he weren't so wishy-washy on everything. The guy has been on both sides of everything from Vietnam to the Iraq invasion. Haven't we learned that you can't have it both ways?

[tobius]

31. why is he against gay marriage?

some people feel that his stances on the issues are very clear, but he seems to always have to respond to his votes/statements with an explanation that fits the question. on this issue he seems pretty clear that he is for civil unions and against marriage.

but why?, why would he oppose gay marriage?

[Old and In the Way]

39. See my post 37.......it really is an issue of the seperation

between church and state, IMHO. Do we really want our elected officials trying to devine/legislate the intentions of the Great Being in the Clouds?

[tobius]

40. so he will come out against hetero marriage for agnostics,atheists,pagans?

nt

[Old and In the Way]

45. He's a Democrat....hypocritical bloviating on religious issues

is the domain of the psuedo-moralists who populate the Republican Party.

[tobius]

48. taking your posts together, i take it that the solution

is to remove the term marriage so there is equality? Or is it something else that I missed?

[Old and In the Way]

53. Well, wasn't seperation of church and state a tenet of the

Founding Fathers? I think this is the reasonable middle ground. Accepting the objective legal aspects allowing socially recognized legal unions for purposes insurance, visitation, inheritance, etc. and leave the various religious institutions to decide who are and are not acceptable couples in the eye(s) of the Infinite Cloud Being.

In fact, it seems that civil unions should be encouraged as that seems to be in the best interests of an orderly society. Not that I'd want the Grand Hypocritical Party to do a constitutional admendment that would force people to be legally bound in order to cohabitate.

[tobius]

55. so a reasonable middle ground would be to run on the slogan--

Kerry is against marriage!.....??

not a winner

[Old and In the Way]

56. Is he running for marriage czar?

Who would suggest he run on that slogan? Not I.

I don't need John Kerry or any government official lecturing me about marriage. I've endured 23 blissful years of it!

[tobius]

57. for crying out loud, that would be the

slogan run against him if he chose the route you suggested. why is he against gay marriage?, everyone agrees that it is constitutional.

btw-I've had 9 great yrs myself.

I was married by a judge. I should have asked for a jury.
-- Groucho Marx

[Old and In the Way]

61. You think so? I don't.

I think he can seperate the 2 easily. Something to the effect, "I'll protect everyone's right to join in civil unions, the Republicans will try to legislate morality and tell you what God thinks."

Every year this country is getting more secular. The traditional family unit is becoming a minority reality. I think we need to take the high road and frame this as a civil rights issue while painting the Republicans as the wannabe Taliban theocrats.

[sangh0]

62. What a cheap ploy!

Ask OITW what he thinks, and then pretend that OITW's position is Kerry's position, and then use that to create a pretend Repuke smear campaign.

Kerry's position is "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.”

Spin that!

[tobius]

93. just pointing out the dangers of not taking a stand.

I believe people would respect a firm stance either way. Gay marriage should be supported in the name of equal rights and the 14th amendment, but if he doesn't then he should say so and explain why. Trying to have it both ways leads to convoluted positions which he is already vulnerable on.

why is he against gay marriage? These questions may get snuffed out on forums like this eventually, but they won't go away with the general public.

[curse10]

94. many, many churches won't marry any of the above

I've looked into it- I'm an atheist. I would have to lie to be married in a church.

[tobius]

98. you are correct. but you could still be "married" which

is the point I was trying to make. the argument put forward suggested that to make it fair the church would be the only institution granting marriage and the state would grant "unions". Therefor, it would lead to taking away marriage for some heterosexuals.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

34. No I am not upset with it

I mostly resent being used as a political tool by the left leaning my own party that could give a flying fuck about this issue a year ago or the year before that or the year before that.

Talk about your fucking bandwagoneers.

[Old and In the Way]

49. Do you see a correlation here NSMA?

Those that seem to think we need to take an extreme position on this issue also have a problem with Kerry. WWDD?*









*What Would Dean Do?

[sangh0]

63. And few, if any, are gay

They also seem to think they are "the base"

[Monte Carlo]

36. I am aware of certain political realities right now in America.

And that Kerry as a candidate is in no position to challenge them directly. If and when he becomes President, I think he'll become one of the best friends the gay community ever had.

[ModerateMiddle]

41. I'm gay and I'm ok with it

He has been a consistent advocate for "gay rights", and that's good enough for me. The word "marriage" is making a mess of a civil rights issue. His stand is a-ok with me.

[bigtree]

50. I wish I didn't have anything to do with whether or not folks marry

But I want to see partnership rights effectively established and defended through civil unions, whatever. These are fundamental rights that should not be the sole preserve of mixed-sex marriages.

The government however, should have no say in what a couple affirms before God. The supposed 'values' of the majority shouldn't be a determining factor in any consideration of these fundamental rights of property, guardianship, or any other benefit of the freedoms and privileges that the rest of Americans enjoy.

Kerry will stand where the community needs him to on this issue.

[West Coast Democrat]

51. I don't want Kerry to get caught up in Rove's Trap

I'd like Kerry to just distance himself from what Bush is trying to make into a much larger issue than it deserves to be at this time. It's not a primary concern of the American public right now, no matter how many stupid polls are released.

I don't want the Democratic candidate to risk losing the election over this issue, which may be very important to some voters, but definitely not to most. I don't think gay voters would want this issue--in any way. shape or form--to help Bush into office, am I right?

[MAlibdem]

78. The tide for gay marraige at the moment

Which would suggest to me he could benefit himself and the movement, seems ephermeral.

I think he chose the right middle ground as a candidate for president, but I also think that he honestly feels the way he says he does. It is similar to his position on abortion (as a catholic he opposes it but feels it should not be legislated)

[Lexingtonian]

92. Nope, he's doing things just right

He's taking the centrist position and leaving himself plenty of room to go in the right direction as/when Democratic voters start going there. It's a position Bush and Cheney have taken previously (though they never meant it or cared, really) so it's 'safe'.

There's no use in becoming martyred over this at this moment. It would be a stupid, wasted, sacrifice if he did just to give a few people a thearpeutic morale boost. People like Kucinich can afford it- they have nothing to lose personally nor do they presently have the high hopes of the Party to reverse ten years of Republican domination and destruction of the social fabric greatly invested in their career.

I believe that gay marriage will have blown over as a wedge issue by the time the 'real' general campaign begins in August. I'm sure Kerry will look more progressive to folks here than he does presently by then. Democratic Presidential contenders can't get ahead of the present, that's a lesson Bill Clinton demonstrated, they have to run very closely behind it and prove that the Republican is stuck in the past- that's the winning formula. It's not compatible with needs and wishes here, but I think there's far too little trust being shown here than is warranted by Kerry's record.

[Piperay]

95. No (nt)

[mmonk]

96. I guess the question is

isn't civil unions marriage by an official of the state? If so, Kerry's making the distinction between church and state as I see it. And denying rights should never be written into the constitution with an amendment.

[californiahippie]

97. Not cool with it but...

i'll vote for him anyway. He'd have to do something pretty stupid for me not to vote for him and give my vote to a third party. I am liberal but I want Bush O U T!