If Kerry or Edwards wins the Presidency, expect to see gay marriage

[absyntheNsugar]

Why do I say this? When Kerry and Edwards have both come out against it?

My friends, this is called the march to the center. Dems do it, Repubs do it...everyone does it. Kerry has already stated he will not support the Constitutional ammendment, and I think Edwards has said the same.

If in 2004, a Dem wins, expect him to call off the dogs, and you will see states like Illinois and California continue. I know once this hits Cali courts, any anti-gay discrimination will be thrown out. Lockyer (the AG for California) may say he does not support the gay marriages in SF, but he is getting this ready for the courts in a way that will ensure victory.

This is all subtle, and you have to read between the lines - but it's all there.

So...if you want to see gay marriages, vote Dem in 2004.

[goddess40]

1. works for me

But the right trotted this out 8 years ago and it went no where. I hope it does this time.

[NC_Nurse]

2. I hope you're right...

the public opinion polls are discouraging, but if it stays in the courts (not the Pickering type courts) maybe it has a chance.

[nadinbrzezinski]

6. The public was also against

removing separate but equal... and the whole SOUTH was against getting rid of slavery.

If we wait for the polls to catch up we would never advance

Now in personal converstaions DO NOT let anybody go into the morality issue. Just paint this as a civil rights issue... and ask...why would you opose civil rights?

[Zookeeper]

16. Another good argument...

...is to keep our hands off the constitution. "Slippery Slope:" If we start passing amendments to deny people equality, where do we stop?

[RFK MLK PW]

3. I believe

they will leave it to state's rights.

If I am correct, that's not okay. Imagine my husband and I going to another state and not having our marriage recognized? Insane!

However, it's certainly better than what the repukes will pull in this and other areas.

Vote Dem in 2004.

[absyntheNsugar]

10. But the US Constitution

requires any licenses issued in one state MUST be honored in all others.

So states rights is a good thing here...trust me.

[RFK MLK PW]

11. I want to trust you.

The corporate media keeps hammering about the marriages not being honored state to state, so, if that's wrong, I am thrilled.

Thank you.

[ordentros]

17. states rights only half of it...

"requires any licenses issued in one state MUST be honored in all others."

ummm... what about joint federal tax returns and your significant other getting your social security, etc..

[newyawker99]

20. Hi ordentros!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[ordentros]

18. what about the other thing

"requires any licenses issued in one state MUST be honored in all others."

the other thing: if you get divorced and want to remarry, what happens if you move to a state that doesn't hand out licenses?

[LiberalBushFan]

4. read between the lines... exactly

Why is the left too stupid to read between the lines? When Bush says something moderate, far right wackos know he's just trying to stay popular. A Democrat has to either act left and lose moderates or act centrist and lose the lefties who can't read between the lines.

[Mick Knox]

5. Just on Constitution...

and you doubtless know this.. as do many here..

The president can neither vote on, nor veto, nor sign, a constitutional amendment.. They are not involved

Thats strictly legislative of US and states.. outside the executive branch and of course SCOTUS has nothing to say as well.. save enforce it.

Odds are obviously better with Kerry or Edwards ... this is just a game by repugs... it wont be in the constitution IMO.

[nadinbrzezinski]

7. Make sure taht you make your feelings known to

your legislators.

Yes, send letters to both Federal and State legislators

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

8. No way it passes

I don't see them getting 2/3 of the House of Reps, but vote Dem anyway, for good measure.

[tedoll78]

9. This is their last chance to stop equal marriage.

If it fails, the younger population will come-in naturally to participate in voting, and they're much more liberal on this topic than their elders.

If it fails, we'll see a state-by-state battle, with maybe the USSC jumping in at some point.

[Nicholas_J]

12. Kerry cant state it directly

Bush would immediately be repeating it. But yesterday, Kerrys wife stated it was inevitable.

[blm]

13. Yes...Here's her statement:

Teresa Heinz Kerry calls Bush's anti-gay amendment `divisive'


February  25,  2004

San Jose Mercury News

By Lori Aratani
San Francisco, CA -


Teresa Heinz Kerry, philanthropist and wife of Democratic front-runner Sen. John Kerry, swept through the Bay Area on Tuesday, accepting the endorsement of California firefighters on behalf of her husband and dismissing President Bush's backing of an amendment to ban gay marriage as "divisive politics."

"I think culturally we're going through a huge change," Heinz Kerry said. "I look at it in a human context, because I have friends in those situations and it's terrible. All we owe people is dignity, respect and civil rights. I think the country will evolve."

She added that her husband would vote against such an amendment if it's introduced in the Senate, and that while he supports same-sex civil unions, Kerry believes defining marriage should be a question left to the states.

"I think with time and without a lot of politicization of this we'll get there," said Heinz Kerry. "I think our country is basically a tolerant country."
>>>>>>>>>

[flpoljunkie]

I am really impressed with her humanity and intelligence.

She will, indeed, make an great first lady. I can't wait!

[turnhardleft]

14. Can we get that in writing?

With both Kerry and Edwards signing it?

[Monte Carlo]

15. Right - you can't take what they say at face value.

If you take everything politicians say strictly literally, you're setting yourself up for a world of disappointment and useless anger. JFK during the 1960 election was rather safe and bland on civil rights issues, without ambitious rhetoric. After he was elected, he was the black man's best friend.

[PurityOfEssence]

19. Those of us with a few years behind us know you're right

I remember watching an episode of All in the Family back in the early seventies when I was in junior high. The story line was where Archie had to have a surgery, and Edith suggested a Doctor who was...A WOMAN (gasp) Archie couldn't abide by that ("What if she cuts the wrong string and my keester falls off?") so overrules her by going with the Doctor recommended by his pals on the loading dock. The payoff at the end of the episode was that this Doctor WAS A WOMAN TOO.

Hell, that was just barely thirty years ago, and you couldn't have that plot line now; it's too accepted in peoples' minds that Doctors come very much in either sex. A mere thirty years, mind you, and even with all the retrograde paranoid retrenchment of the eighties, we're still steadily marching forward.

One thing I find irritating about that hand-wringers is the panic, and the other thing I find deplorable is that GAYS ARE THE ONLY MINORITY GROUP THAT'S HAD STEADY IMPROVEMENT IN THE LAST FEW YEARS. Since this hideous administration took over, everyone has gotten his/her pigeon-holed status kicked around the block, but gays have actually made a few gains. Most of that is just the inexorable march of time and the stilling of the waters and realization through acquaintance that it's not such a big damned deal. As a result, my knickers are in a bit of a twist when people rage at the cruel gods about the mistreatment and demand to bring forth a wedge issue at a time when our very civilization hangs on the cliff. Not only is it selfish, it's irrational, unfounded and unseemly.

Geez people, you'd think none of the rest of us are marginalized for anything. You'd think all the rest of us are only out for our own selfish subgroup interests, when many of us (the non-religious, let's just say for transparent example) are sucking it up and shutting the fuck up for the common weal.

Wanna know what happens if the nazis retain Congress and keep the Presidency? Roe will be overturned, the draft will be re-instituted, we'll invade Syria (with help of our "friends" next door) the judiciary will be stacked, tort reform will keep you from suing corporations, the environment will be ruined, social security will be reduced on the way to being done away with, water supplies will be privatized, your personal freedoms will be further eroded, pornography will be radically curtailed, more public money--what little there is--will be shoveled into religion, and it'll just be a swell place all around.

If you want to be pissy and scorn the Democrats for not being vocally perfect, the wrath of the right will smite us all.

This thread is dead-on correct. Talk to people who've lived long enough to see some change happen.

[dsc]

21. We won a few court cases

and that is it. Give me an fing break. And BTW we did lose stuff too. Ashcroft banned any recognition of gay Justice Department employees. Both Houston and Dade county removed laws which protected gays.