My Friend Mike

[HFishbine]

I want to tell you about my friend Mike. He's a sophisticated, witty and intelligent man. You can count on an engaging conversation on just about any topic with Mike. And he has a heart of gold. Need a ride to pick up your car from the shop? Mike's there. Short a few bucks on your bar tab? If Mike overhears, he'll pay you up without even telling you.

He's a hard working guy, holding down a full time job as an ad designer. He pays his taxes. He's gay and is HIV positive.

A few weeks ago, Mike was attacked in the bathroom of a Waffle House. Several of his teeth were knocked out and he had massive contusions on his head and face. With his weakened immune system, any infection from such injuries could have been fatal. He spent several days in the hospital, his face so swollen that he was barely recognizable.

Mike was attacked because he's gay. He doesn't "flaunt" it, but he tries to live his life like straight people, spending time with his companion, another man, who also happens to be of a different race. Like any "ordinary" couple, Mike and his companion were simply enjoying a meal together. Little did he know how dangerous such a simple thing could be.

Mike's attacker decided that Mike was deserving of some twisted sort of vigilante justice because of who he loves. Along with the blows, Mike's attacker meted out hateful epithets so that Mike would understand exactly why he was getting his punishment.

The police were called. The attacker had long since fled, and the scores of "witnesses" saw nothing. No description of the attacker. No license plate number. Nothing. Case closed.

When our presidential candidates stand for making legal distinctions based on sexuality; when they fail to make clear that we are all equal under the law, they are enabling, justifying, the kind of bigotry that prompted Mike's attacker. They are willingly segregating a group of people from "the rest of us." It is this prejudice, however nuanced, that gives credence to hatred.

I simply cannot, in good conscience, vote for a person who cannot, will not, stand up for Mike. I'll work to subvert the intentions of the Bush administration by helping to get candidates who are on the morally correct side of this issue elected to congress. But a choice for the man at the top between bad and not as bad is no choice at all. I will not vote for John Edwards or John Kerry in November.

[molly]

1. Which candidate(s) don't support gays?

BTW - I have a brother who is gay and HIV positive so don't even go there.

[Sly Kal]

98. Kerry in particular

He would support an ammendendment to the constitution giving gay people permanent 2nd class citizenship. His position is just another waffle on his part to suck up to the swing voters. He has no character.

[molly]

100. Who do you support and what does your candidate say?

[w4rma]

102. Kerry does NOT support an amendment to the U.S. Constitution on this.

He does support an amendment to the MA *state* constitution, however.

[molly]

103. Positions - look here

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=409661&mesg_id=409661&page=

[Cuban_Liberal]

2. Sorry to hear about Mike.

I'm gay, too, and I'll vote for survival in November--- I'm ABB. There simply is no other credible strategic choice.

[Vernunft II]

3. Vote Kuchinich while you can, vote Kerry once you must.

The other options are far worse.

[Monte Carlo]

4. You must recognize the march towards the center.

Every candidate does it during election time because that's where the votes are. Bush is doing it, and so are Kerry and Edwards. Gore did it, Clinton did it, Bush Sr. and Reagan did it. Those that don't are almost never contenders.

When JFK ran in 1960, he was lukewarm at best for the civil rights movement. Once he was into office, he became the movement's best friend. Keep a little faith, my friend.

[MurikanDemocrat]

5. Cheap Shot unwarranted. Edwards and Kerry support equal rights for Mike.

[Cuban_Liberal]

6. Thank you!

*salute*

:hi:

[diamondsoul]

8. No, they don't.

You can pretend all day but that won't make a falsehood truth.

[Monte Carlo]

10. Yes, they do.

These are two children of the 60's. Don't take the rhetoric around election time at face value, because it's all compromised.

[diamondsoul]

12. No it is not ALL compromised.

Dennis Kucinich has been entirely consistant on every position from the very beginning. He's also sensible enough to realize it is impossible to leave the question of civili unions/marriage to the States and EVER assure homosexual couples equality. It can NOT be done.

You want to chase around candidates who are too pink tu-tu to stand up for an entire class of citizen and accept the BSing, go right ahead. Don't expect others to accept such shoddy standards.

[Monte Carlo]

17. For any serious candidate it is.

Instead of seeing these things as all-or-nothing tests of morality, try to see it as steps in a progression. Overcoming the superstitions and prejudices of old is slow and shaky progress.

Dennis Kucinich might be in the right, but that will do nothing to help him get elected. You can stand on the outside forever and preach about how the wrongs of the system, but that will accomplish nothing. Jump in and grab hold instead of waiting for things to work themselves out.

Think Kucinich is free from compromised stands? His sudden switch to a pro-choice platform for his campaign comes to mind.

[diamondsoul]

23. Wrong on both counts.

1.) I DO NOT compromise on civil rights, ever. Equality is equality, there ain't no such thing as "almost equal but not quite".

2.) Kucinich spent nearly two full years, BEFORE the Draft Kucinich movement even began, considering his position on abortion, abstaining from many of the abortion related votes and seriously contemplating whether he was on the just side of the issue. His first Pro-Choice vote took place just 1 month after the Draft Kucinich effort got off the ground. Prior to that he'd abstained from most of them while he considered his position.

[Monte Carlo]

26. Oh, you don't compromise?

There's only room for total, pure equality in your eyes? How noble. Let me let you in on a little secret - we all want equality.

Yes, there is such a thing as "almost equal but not quite". It's what you have to go through before you reach "equal". and it's not going to happen overnight.

I know where Kucinich has stood and stands now on abortion. His Catholicism took a back seat to politics when it came time to consider a run for the Presidency.

[diamondsoul]

30. Bullshit again, on both counts.

No, I don't compromise on civil rights. How is it you think we GET civil rights if not for people like me refusing to compromise on them? Did MLK compromise? Did Rosa Parks compromise? No, and neither will I.

"His Catholicism took a back seat to politics when it came time to consider a run for the Presidency."

Now who is mischaracterizing? As I already explained, Kucinich was reconsidering his position on abortion a FULL 2 YEARS PRIOR to his being ASKED, BEGGED and DRAFTED to run for the Presidency. So no, his Catholicism did not "take a back seat to politics". It did take a back seat to legislating for the entire country once he realized that legislating based on spiritual beliefs is counter to the founding principles of this country.

[Cuban_Liberal]

32. How convenient.

I'm so pleased his examination of conscience just happened to occur at the same time as his Presidential run. I wish we could all have coincidences like that happen to us...

[diamondsoul]

34. And another who replies without

actually READING the contents of the post. Try again! I SAID he began re-examining his position on choice a FULL 2 YEARS PRIOR TO BEING DRAFTED TO RUN! WTF, are you trying to tell me he started to reconsider because he's psychic and knew he was going to be the recipient of a draft movement in 2002?!

[Cuban_Liberal]

54. Oh, please!

Hell, even I knew he was gonna run 2 years ago, 'draft' movement, or not. As soon as Wellstone died, there was NO doubt that Kucinich would step into the vaccum. You don't have to be psychic to see the lay of the land, diamondsoul...

[diamondsoul]

55. That's funny. I didn't even know

who Kucinich WAS too years ago. Hell MOST of the public doesn't know who he is NOW so I guess you can just claim intellectual superiority now and condescend to your hearts content.

[Cuban_Liberal]

58. Sorry, not gonna condescend.

Please do not attribute motives to someone else. I'm sorry you didn't know; neither that nor the fact that I did makes either of us bad people.

[redqueen]

64. What tipped you off?

What was it about Kucinich or what was it that he did which made you think he would run?

[Cuban_Liberal]

67. That's easy.

Chairman of the Progressive Caucus, his virtually identical views on issues of major importance to the party and the fact that no one else of any stature seemed likely to have the guts to step forward and do it. I'm not a supporter of DK's, but he's a gutsy little guy, and it never occurred to me that he wouldn't 'step up to the plate', frankly.

:)

[redqueen]

88. So you think his "Prayer for America" speech was meant to

somehow hypnotically convince people to draft him to run?

I'm not getting it yet.

[Monte Carlo]

33. Rosa Parks and MLK weren't running for office.

Kerry and Edwards are, and because of that they have to make themselves appear to be the greatest good for the greatest number of people.

How do I think we get civil rights except for people like You? Steady, consistent pressure over time through the consent of MANY people. MLK and Parks were important figures, but they were only part of the whole story.

As for Kucinich "... legislating for the entire country once he realized that legislating based on spiritual beliefs is counter to the founding principles of this country," there's a word for that; politics.

[diamondsoul]

35. No, the word would be

secularism and you can add a comprehension of justice to that.

Steady pressure from WHO? The people who "compromise"?? Funny, last I heard "compromise" meant making concessions not continuing pressure.

[sangha]

38. Yes, steady pressure from people who compromise

People like MLK (who you seem unfamiliar with beyond the legend) and Gandhi, the Dalai Lama, and other weak and impure compromisers

[Monte Carlo]

43. That's your interpretation.

And your viewpoint long with the viewpoints of the 300 million other Americans with an equal say make up politics.

Who? The regular people who get up and go to work everyday with maybe a few kids and a pile bills to pay who don't have the time or money to nitpick and obsess over political ideals all day, yet think that they've had enough and its time for a change in the country.

Compromise is not synonymous with yielding. Beneficial compromise is getting some of what you want and continuing to push for the rest later.

You are setting yourself up for a world of useless frustration and disappointment by demanding all or nothing. In this process, EVERYONE thinks they have morality on their side; committment to that morality alone will get you nothing.

[redqueen]

52. Hey now

I am a regular person who works everyday with a couple of kids and a pile of bills. Luckily I can do this while at work.

What are you implying, that SAHM's aren't 'regular people'?

I know a lot of working moms that would love to see Kucinich's free pre-K through college succeed.

Too bad for them, eh?

[sangha]

36. Rosa Parks and MLK DID COMPROMISE on civil rights

Months before Rosa Parks was arrested for refusing to move to the back of the bus, another young lady had been arrested for the very same thing. MLK was informed of this, but he decided NOT to take any action because the young lady had a previous arrest and MLK did not want to base his protest on anything but a person of unquestionable character because he didn't want the issues of discrimination that he wanted to emphasize clouded by a debate over whether the young lady was a criminal.

If you read any biography of MLK that goes into more detail than the fairy tale version most people learn in elementary school you'd see that MLK often compromised and was regularly savaged by others in the civil rights movement for being too timid.

[no name no slogan]

87. Compromise is fine, but not before the fight even starts

Anybody who's ever done serious negotiation knows that you go in asking for MORE than what you want. That way, once you compromise, you'll end up getting something close to what you really wanted.

Why the hell would I want to go into a negotiation asking for LESS than what I really want? I would be seriously deluded to think that somehow my opponent would be willing to give me MORE than my initial offer.

That's what it's all about. Why would I ever start negotiating from my most-compromised position? Are the Rethugs going to EVER give me more than that? Are they really THAT big-hearted?

It just boggles the mind why we'd want to start compromising before we even begin the negotiations. Any labor boss would fire your ass and bring in a REAL negotiator who's not afraid to demand what you REALLY want FIRST.

[rhite5]

104. to nnns: Bingo!

[MurikanDemocrat]

14. That's just bullshit. They both stand for EQUAL RIGHTS for gays

The suggestion they don't is inflammatory slime worthy of Drudge and right wing Rovian tactics. Cheap.

[diamondsoul]

18. equal rights means recognized

in every state nationwide. Since neither man would insist on same sex unions being recognized in every state in the union, they do NOT support full equality.

No amount of spinning or twisting can change the FACT that both men want to leave it in the hands of individual states thereby rendering a union in one state useless in another which refuses to recognize it. No matter how you try to excuse the Bull-shit it's still bullshit. 2+2=4 and states decision is not full equality.

[sangha]

39. Wrong. Equal rights do no mean recognized

Both men want equal rights for gays and both have said so explicitely.

[diamondsoul]

45. Uh- rights aren't rights unless they're

recognized and protected.

[sangha]

50. bait and switch

First it was "recognized in every state nationwide", Now it's just "recognized and protected"

You need to learn the difference between state's rights and Constitutional rights which are considered inalienable and are protected by the Fed govt.

Marriage is a state's right.

[diamondsoul]

53. Wrong. My marriage license is

legally recognized in EVERY STATE and by the Federal Government across the board, everywhere. Until the same applies to same sex unions they are not equal and never will be with the positions of the candidates we're discussing.

[sangha]

59. Wrong

It's not because the Constitution garauntees you the right to marry. It's because your state does, and the Constitution requires, in Art IV, Sec 1 that "Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof. "

on edit: Above you falsely claimed that MLK didn't compromise on civil rights, a point I refuted. Could you please respond to that?

[diamondsoul]

63. You made a counter claim

not a refutation. I concede the point because I failed to qualify the statement and I chose to drop the side discussion in favor of debating the point raised by the thread's OP author which is that Kerry and Edwards' positions on gay marriage are not supportive of equal rights.

Your post above supports my contention. Mass has passed a gay marriage law. According to the section of the Constitution you just quoted, gay marriage must be recognized in all states and should be clearly supported by Federally legislated General Laws.

Kerry doesn't support this and would allow one state or more to ban gay marriage. Please, if you're going to say "No he wouldn't." provide some evidence for it won't you? If he's going to leave it to the States to decide then the State can just as easily opt to ban same sex unions and there is nothing John Kerry could to about it based on his own position.

[sangha]

No, a refutation

According to the section of the Constitution you just quoted, gay marriage must be recognized in all states and should be clearly supported by Federally legislated General Laws.

And since no state has yet to refuse to honor those unions, neither one of us know how it will play out in the courts.

Kerry doesn't support this and would allow one state or more to ban gay marriage. Please, if you're going to say "No he wouldn't." provide some evidence for it won't you?

Very, very misleading. You left out the part where Kerry will vote for a ban ONLY if it gives gay civil unions the same benefits anad priviliges as heterosexual marriages. That's my evidence. Kerry wants EQUAL RIGHTS for gay unions compared to heterosexual unions.

he's going to leave it to the States to decide then the State can just as easily opt to ban same sex unions and there is nothing John Kerry could to about it based on his own position.

True, Kerry can't stop a state from banning same sex unions, but neither can anyone prevent a state from recognizing them. If just one state allows them, people from other states can go there --as is being done as we speak --enter into a same sex union, and then EVERY STATE must honor it. Art IV, Sec 1 of the Constitution does NOT require states to allow same sex unions, but it does require the states to recognize out of state unions.

[no name no slogan]

89. The IRS recognizes my married status

When I file my taxes, I checked the "Married, filing jointly" box on the 1040. That means that the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT recognizes marriage, and affords benefits to married couples.

The minute a Federal agency gets involved with marriage in ANY WAY, it's a federal issue.

Sure, we could try some sort of state-by-state "civil unions" approach, but that would work as well as "State's Rights" did for African-Americans in the south. IOW, "Seperate but Equal".

The only REAL solution will have to be done at the Federal level. Anything else is just second-class citizenship.

[sangha]

90. The Fed govt does not force states to recognize marriage

It merely recognizes those marriages itself.

[littlejoe]

72. I am a staunch Kerry supporter, yet I strongly disagree with you.

Anything short of a marriage certificate is less than equal.

[Sly Kal]

99. No they do not support equal rights for Mike

Kerry supports a MA constitutional ammendment against equal rights for gay people.

It is one thing to be more comfortable with Same Sex Unions and favor states making their own laws. It is a whole different ball park when you are willing to support a permanent ammendment to the constitution of any state, whick take rights away from people. That is Kerry's stated position and it is calculated to get him votes.

[CWebster]

7. This is still a common experience for gay people

And when I listen to Kerry's gross disdain, when he utters, rather pronounces, his personal disappoval in such a elitist matter, it sickens me. He had to add his personal stamp of disapproval. The insensitive clod.

[diamondsoul]

9. {{{Fishbine}}}, Tell Mike

a fellow DUer is lighting a candle or two and sending some blessings his way. NOBODY deserves to be treated like that, EVER.

[ncrainbowgrrl]

11. Calling your bluff. Records on the senators "John"

I'm an Edwards supporter, but not because I really like Edwards or dislike Kerry. However, both have supported legislation that support Mike.

Examples:
ENDA (Employment Non-Discrimination Act- S1705)
Co sponsors:
Edwards, John-NC
Kerry, John- MA

Federal Hate Crimes Act (S966)
Co Sponsors
Edwards, John-NC
Kerry, John- MA

Early treatment for HIV/AIDS (S847)
Co Sponsors:
Kerry, John- MA

Permanent Partners Immigration Act: (S1510)
Co Sponsors:
Kerry, John- MA

[diamondsoul]

13. There is no bluff.

Both men have stated outright they will not support federally mandated acceptance of same sex unions. Thus ensuring Mike will fall prey to this sort of viciousness according to the whims of the State he happens to be in at the time. Not good enough and I'm ashamed of both of them after being so very proud of their past records. They've wussed out on the gay community as because of that don't deserve the votes of those people or people like me who support full equality.

[molly]

15. What if this "marriage" definition had never come up?

my bet is that you would have found another avenue.

My husband and I had a civil ceremony. I am married.

[diamondsoul]

19. Not really, Molly.

If Kerry had followed through on the first quoted statement and said something to the affect of "Tkae the term marriage out of the law entirely and call all personal civil partnerships civil unions, nationwide and federally recognized." I'd be thrilled to support him. Unfortunately he didn't do that, and instead leaves homosexual couples prey to the whims of the State.

[MurikanDemocrat]

16. That is a LIE. Kerry and Edwards both support same sex unions.

[diamondsoul]

21. But only if the States want to recognize them.

Sorry, there are 50 states, and a good number of them are comprised of conservatives who would happily ban same sex unions of any kind. Kerry and Edwards would allow this. Not acceptable and not equality.

[MurikanDemocrat]

24. That is not correct. They have ALWAYS fully supported civil unions

AND ALWAYS supported equal rights for GLBT's. Find me a source that says otherwise. You are either grossly misinformed or grossly mischaracterizing.

[HFishbine]

25. It's simple really

Will they allow a distinction in the law (think states) that will allow one class of people to be treated differently than another?

[MurikanDemocrat]

28. They support equal rights for GLBT's, your inflammatory propaganda

notwithstanding.

[HFishbine]

29. The inability to provide a direct answer

is an answer in and of itself. What you demand be called "equal rights" is in fact discrimination.

[sangha]

42. The direct answer is "No"

Will they allow a distinction in the law (think states) that will allow one class of people to be treated differently than another?

Kerry has explicitely stated that gays unions should have all the same rights and priviliges as heterosexual unions.

Statement from John Kerry on Massachusetts Gay Marriage Ruling

http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/releases/pr_2003_1118a.html
"“I have long believed that gay men and lesbians should be assured equal protection and the same benefits – from health to survivor benefits to hospital visitation - that all families deserve. While I continue to oppose gay marriage, I believe that today’s decision calls on the Massachusetts state legislature to take action to ensure equal protection for gay couples. These protections are long over due.”

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

http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/clips/news_2004_0225d.html

"...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..."

Statement from John Kerry on Bush Constitutional Amendment

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

“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.”

[HFishbine]

46. Big ol' glaring logic flaw

in your first sentence.

Putting aside for a moment discussion of how civil unions vs. marriage still perpetuates a seperate class of citizens, read your first sentence carefully:

"Kerry has explicitely stated that gays unions should have all the same rights and priviliges as heterosexual unions."

Yet, and this is the important part, Kerry is willing to allow states to circumvent the Constitution in deciding whether or not they will even allow civil unions at all. He's saying that where civil unions are offered, they should be equal to heterosexual marriages. That's not equality by a long shot because it leaves the door open to no civil unions at all in some states.

It's the equivelent of saying, whether or not women should be allowed to vote is an issue for the states, but if they are going to vote, their voting rights should be the same as everybody else who can vote in that state.

[sangha]

56. Big ol' glaring logic flaw in your post

Yet, and this is the important part, Kerry is willing to allow states to circumvent the Constitution in deciding whether or not they will even allow civil unions at all.

You have an odd understanding of the Constitution, so I'd like you to show me where in the Constitution it defines marriage as a Constitutional right and not a state's right. IOW, it's not Kerry that allows this; It's the Constitution.

It's the equivelent of saying, whether or not women should be allowed to vote is an issue for the states, but if they are going to vote, their voting rights should be the same as everybody else who can vote in that state.

Voting isn't a Constitutional right either. Check the Constitution. Tell me where it garauntees your right to vote.

[HFishbine]

66. Please see

post #59 to your first point.

As to your second question:

Amendment XIX

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.

Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

[sangha]

69. confused

in response to my #59 you say "Please see post #59"

As to your second question:

Amendment XIX

That article does not garauntee a right to vote. It garauntees that your vote can't be denied on account of sex. It can be denied for other reasons, such as a criminal record

[HFishbine]

75. Please note

the difference between 59 and 56.

And let us also note that because any number of rights may be taken away by committing a felony, that doesn't make them any less of a Constitutionally protected right -- unless you are going to proceed to equate homesexuals with felons.

[sangha]

76. Thank you, but I don't see your point

My #59 states that marriage is a states right. Again, could you please tell me where in the US Constitution it says people have a right to marry?

And let us also note that because any number of rights may be taken away by committing a felony, that doesn't make them any less of a Constitutionally protected right -- unless you are going to proceed to equate homesexuals with felons.

Misleading. If convicted of a crime, your rights can be withheld (not taken away) but only during the time you're sentenced for.

[HFishbine]

81. And thank you

My assertion is not that the Constitution says that people have the right to marry, but that they must be afforded equal protection under the law. Therefore, it should be unconstitutional for a state to allow one class of people to marry, but not another. (I may see where you are going with this. You might be setting up the argument that Kerry and/or Edwards are saying this should be left to the states because they think that the courts will ultimately ensure it's resolved properly. A possibly valid argument, but one which still leaves the candidates short as defenders of equal rights.)

On the second point, there are some instances where suspension of constitutional rights do indeed extend beyond a felon's sentence. Voting and gun ownership are two that come to mind (varies by state).

[sangha]

84. That makes more sense, but I still disagree

My assertion is not that the Constitution says that people have the right to marry, but that they must be afforded equal protection under the law.

Unfortunately, the Constitution has not been interpreted to mean that. The Consitution gives states the power to define marriage, and equal protection is considered to have been provided because each state, and each citizen in those states, have an equal right to participate in the democratic processes that results in the state's definition of marriage. Saying that the different definitions (amongst the states) represents unequal protection is like saying the different treatment of estates (amongst the states) is also a case of unequal protection. The same could be said for the environment, and the differing regulations that apply in the various states.

On the second point, there are some instances where suspension of constitutional rights do indeed extend beyond a felon's sentence. Voting and gun ownership are two that come to mind (varies by state).

Ahem. "varies by state" - That's because they are issues of states rights. The Constitution does not specify a right to vote. That's why, in the early days of our nation, Presidential elections were not the result of voters voting. President's were elected by Senators.

[HFishbine]

86. "varies by state"

I knew you'd pick up on that, but I had to be honest.

[sangha]

93. heh

You're doing a good job of arguing your posittion. Unfortunately, those aren't just irrelevant details. They vary state by state precisely because of our Constitution.

And I can understand why you feel the way you. The idea that some group could be denied govt benefits and priviliges based on their sexuality offends our sense of decency, and justifiably so. However, we ignore the limits our Constitution places on our rights and the govt's power at our own peril. I want homosexuals to have every right every other citizen has, but I don't want to do that by putting everyone else's rights at risk.

I would also like to point out that there is nothing in the Constitution that prohibits anyone, including the Fed govt, from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation. Until homosexuality is protected by a Constitutional amendment or Federal civil rights law, the states will be allowed to discriminate against them and their rights are in danger.

[diamondsoul]

31. Reapeating a lie doesn't

make it truth, especially when proof that it is a lie has been provided repeatedly.

Stamp your feet if you like but you aren't proving a thing.

[redqueen]

40. That's funny - I pointed this out yesterday in another thread

and got called ignorant for it.

Guess the truth is still not pinned down on these two where equal rights for gays are concerned.

:shrug:

[sangha]

44. And you were wrong yesterday - Kerry supports equal rights for all

http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/releases/pr_2003_1118a.html

Statement from John Kerry on Massachusetts Gay Marriage Ruling
November 18, 2003
For Immediate Release

“I have long believed that gay men and lesbians should be assured equal protection and the same benefits – from health to survivor benefits to hospital visitation - that all families deserve. While I continue to oppose gay marriage, I believe that today’s decision calls on the Massachusetts state legislature to take action to ensure equal protection for gay couples. These protections are long over due.”

[diamondsoul]

48. A thing is either equal or it isn't equal.

Either you make all domestic partnerships "civil unions" across the board, or you make all domestic partnerships "marriages" across the board. As long as the decision and definitions rest with individual states it is NOT and will NEVER BE equal.

If I adopt a child in Mass. and move to Mississippi, they can't take my adopted child. If a homosexual couple adopts a child in Mass and moves to Mississippi the child can be taken by the state. That's NOT equal.

My "marriage" is federally and locally recognized as legally binding in all 50 states and by every Federal agency. Until the exact same thing is true for same sex unions there IS NO EQUALITY. No amount of claiming they support it when they clearly don't will change the facts.

[sangha]

60. Yeah, and "either you're with us or against us"

Typically simpleton logic. In the real world, not all unions, nor all marriages are created equal. Marriages of less than a year can be annulled. Over a year, and the process is much different. As a matter of law, if unions and marriages provide the same protections and benefits then they are the same.

If I adopt a child in Mass. and move to Mississippi, they can't take my adopted child. If a homosexual couple adopts a child in Mass and moves to Mississippi the child can be taken by the state. That's NOT equal.

A different issue, and I agree with you here, but it's pretty weak of you to prove one thing is wrong because something else is wrong.

My "marriage" is federally and locally recognized as legally binding in all 50 states and by every Federal agency. Until the exact same thing is true for same sex unions there IS NO EQUALITY.

And that's exactly what Kerry supports. If one state allow gay unions, then all states will have to recognize them due to Art IV, Sec 1 of the US Constitution.

[diamondsoul]

65. Sorry but that argument doesn't quite work.

The process for terminating the legal contract between the two parties may vary but the benefits and recognition bestowed on the parties involved is EQUAL no matter if you've been married 24 hours or 24 years.

"A different issue, and I agree with you here, but it's pretty weak of you to prove one thing is wrong because something else is wrong."

No, it isn't a different situation. The reason they can't take my child from me is because my marriage and familial arrangements are legally recognized in all 50 states and by the Federal Government. The reason they can take the homosexual couples child is because their union and familial arrangements are not legally recognized in that State. Hence my objection to leaving the issue up to the States. Obviously the article of the Constitution YOU laid out is selectively if ever enforced.

[sangha]

68. Wrong, the law says "equal treatment" under the law

not merely "equal benefits and recognition". Furthermore, the way contracts are broken, and how the law treats it when they are, is a matter of equality.

No, it isn't a different situation. The reason they can't take my child from me is because my marriage and familial arrangements are legally recognized in all 50 states and by the Federal Government. The reason they can take the homosexual couples child is because their union and familial arrangements are not legally recognized in that State. Hence my objection to leaving the issue up to the States.

And if same sex unions are given equal rights and protection, then no state would be able to take away the child due to the Constitution.

Obviously the article of the Constitution YOU laid out is selectively if ever enforced.

Actually, the article I referred to is rarely infringed

[diamondsoul]

27. You've read the exact same

quotes I have, and I know this because YOU posted one of them and you've posted the same refusal to face facts on the same gay marriage threads I've been posting to.

I've explained it every concievable way so that even a 3 yr old could grasp that a refusal to legally recognize same sex unions on a federal level is NOT supporting equality for homosexual couples, period. You persist in telling me I'm wrong. I submit it's YOUR turn to provide evidence that homosexual unions would ever be universally recognized in every state under a President holding the positions espoused by John Kerry or John Edwards.

[sangha]

61. You mean ONLY "a 3 yr old could grasp"

because 3 year olds also have little familiarity with the Constitution. The same sex unions CANNOT recognize at the federal level until a Constitutional amendment is passed allowing them to.

[dsc]

73. that is flat out false

The full faith and credit clause is not limited to marriage, as you seem to think it is, it covers any and all rights and priviledges granted by states. It is that clause which lets your drivers' licences be recognized, your degrees be recognized, and your marriages be recognized. A federal civil union bill or a bill which requried states to recognize same sex unions perfomed by other states wouldn't require a Constitutional amendment.

[sangha]

77. No, it's accurate and true

The full faith and credit clause is not limited to marriage, as you seem to think it is, it covers any and all rights and priviledges granted by states

I never said anything differently. What "seems" to be is in your mind. If my words contributed to the confusion, I apologize for that, but I never said it was limited to marriages.

A federal civil union bill or a bill which requried states to recognize same sex unions perfomed by other states wouldn't require a Constitutional amendment.

You are right. I misspoke. Congress can pass a law requiring the states to recognize ssu's performed by other states, but it's not necessary. The Constitution already requires it.

What I should have said is that a law which requires states to allow same sex MARRIAGES would be unconstitutional.

What diamondsoul said was :

I've explained it every concievable way so that even a 3 yr old could grasp that a refusal to legally recognize same sex unions on a federal level is NOT supporting equality for homosexual couples, period.

The Feds can NOT recognize ssu's from states that do not allow ssu's because the Constitution gives the power to define and regulate marriages to the states

[dsc]

78. a law requiring states to recognize same sex marriages wouldn't be

unconstitutional. Arguably it would be upholding the full faith and credit clause. But by no means would it be unconstitutional.

[sangha]

79. You misinterpret full faith and credit

It does not require any state to recognize anything except what other states do. If anything, the ability to force a state to recognize the gay unions within it's borders would rest on equal treatment, which is rendered moot if civil unions are given the same priviliges and benefits as marriage.

[dsc]

82. I was refering to marriage here not civil unions

and states do perform marriages.

[sangha]

85. Still wrong

Full faith and credit does not require any state to allow any sort of marriage. If a state chose to do so, it could prohibit ALL marriages. Full faith and credit doesn't require anything. It PROHIBITS a state from not recognizing what's recognized (ie publics acts, etc) in other states

[diamondsoul]

96. Um. If it prohibits them from

not recognizing, then it requires them TO RECOGNIZE. And here's where John Kerry and John Edwards blow the entire issue-

BROWNSTEIN: You also said in that statement that you believe the Defense of Marriage Act was fundamentally unconstitutional. And if the Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional, isn't President Bush right, that the only way to guarantee that no state has to recognize a gay marriage performed in any other state is a federal constitutional amendment?

KERRY: In fact, I think the interpretation -- I think, under the full faith and credit laws, that I was incorrect in that statement. I think, in fact, that no state has to recognize something that is against their public policy.

And for 200 years, we have left marriage up to the states. There is no showing whatsoever today that any state in the country, including my own -- which is now dealing with its own constitutional amendment -- is incapable of dealing with what they would like to do.

Then Edwards-

Well, the part I agree with is the states should not be required to recognize marriages from other states. That's already in the law, by the way, without DOMA.

Can I just say one other thing, because the other people have talked about this? On the constitutional question, it is really important for us to step back from this.

Senator Kerry just talked about the political use of the Constitution. What's happening here is this president is talking about first amending the United States Constitution for a problem that does not exist. The law today does not require one state to recognize the marriage of another state.

That's number one. And that's been the law for many, many years.

Number two, we have amended the United States Constitution to end slavery, to give women the right to vote. This is clearly nothing but politics. It's a problem that does not exist today. And we need to stand up very strongly on that.

Both of these interpretations render your assertion that one state MUST recognize what other states do, under Full Faith and Credit, false.
Ince again I contend neither candidates supports equality because if they did every state would be required to recognize the marriages of other states because they already do so with heterosexual marriages.

[sangha]

101. DOMA is fo questionable constitutionality. Even it's supporters

acknowledge that it might be struck down by SCOTUS. To have an argument (yours) depend on legislation of questionable constitutionality demonstrates the weakness of that argument. It depends on a presumptive answer to a question that hasn't yet been resolved by the courts.

And BTW, Kerry was one of only 14 Dem senators who voted against DOMA, and the only one to do so in a year when he was up for re-election.

[GodHelpUsAll2]

22. I wonder...

When Bush tries to push through this constitutional amendment, will Kerry and Edwards be too busy campaigning to bother to show up for a vote?

[HFishbine]

20. You miss my point entirely

There once were legislators who "supported" slaves by proposing laws that limited the number of lashings they could receive.

The point is not whether or not a candidate has, at one time or another, supported upholding this or that portion of a person's rights. The point is, that by continuing to treat one class of people differently than the "rest," they perpetuate the notion that "those" people are different in the eyes of the law. That is a position void of moral leadership and one which perpetuates bigotry.

Additionally, if you want to look at individual pieces of legislation as examples of a candidates "support," then there is further incriminating evidence.

According to Lesbian Life, Edwards is undecided on a federal bill to outlaw workplace discrimination based on gender identity and expression, undecided on extending Family Medical Leave Act to same-sex couples and undecided on legislation that would allow American citizens to sponsor their same-sex partners for immigration into the country. (1)

Also according to Lesbian Life, Kerry has not made it clear if he will support a bill to end workplace discrimination based on gender identity and expression. (2)

Furthermore, and most telling, is that both have declined to give the full force of the US Constitution's equal protection clause to gays and lesbians, instead they take the position that states may violate the Constitution if they so choose on this issue.


1) http://lesbianlife.about.com/cs/workschool/p/johnedwards.htm

2) http://lesbianlife.about.com/cs/workschool/p/JohnKerry.htm

[redqueen]

41. That is awful. n/t

[redqueen]

37. I'm so sorry to hear about your friend.

That's heartbreaking. :(

I hope he recovers fully and is able to get past the incident. He'll be in my prayers. You're a great friend to keep his situation in mind when making your decisions about who we will send to Washington to act as a leader and set the tone for this country.

:hug:

[MuseRider]

47. HFishbine

I am with you and with Mike. The same thing happened to my brother and he never recovered from it. Full equality on this issue means no distinction and no difference. There is no compromise. I understand and feel that Kerry and Edwards are probably playing the game but that in itself is insulting and perpetuates the intolerance. I will vote DK and this is absolutely one of the reasons.

[HFishbine]

49. Thanks

for getting the point. Who knows what game Edwards and Kerry are playing? There's plenty of speculation about what they "really" mean, but you grasp the central point -- by being less than unequivocal on the issue, they are simply making room for bigotry. I'll be voting for Kucinich in my primary and leaving the presidential vote blank in November if Kerry or Edwards are the nominee.

[WI_DEM]

51. well your post really makes you think

Thank you and shame on those who attack what you wrote--they are the winning is everything people--who don't understand that change will take more than simply switching presidents.

[mrgorth]

57. and what candidate

would you have supported who's stance is so much more progressive than Kerry's/Edwards'?

[BruinAlum]

62. Seems to me non-gay Kerry haters are the ones mischaracterizing this

with propaganda like this. I think it's shameful to exploit your gay friend like this because of your hatred for Kerry.

[Cuban_Liberal]

71. I'm gay, and an Edwards supporter.

I have no problem with Kerry on this issue.

[HFishbine]

74. Let's get a few things straight

I am nowhere close to a "Kerry-hater." Such ad hominem attacks only serve to divert discussion away from the issues at hand and deserve no further response.

Secondly, your histrionics aside, how to you perceive that I have exploited my friend? Are you suggesting that by posting on this board I have somehow harmed him, or is this simply another way for you to justify diverting your attention away from the real harm he suffered because of bigotry?

[littlejoe]

70. A powerful story, and a perfectly understandable position.

I am a Kerry supporter, and a heterosexual who is disappointed in Kerry's position on the issue of same sex marriage.

Naturally, as a lifelong democrat, and a fair-minded person I am against discrimination of any kind.

Kerry's position is wrong, in my opinion. But yet, I will still support him, because at least with him, there may be hope. I believe he will come around when the majority of Americans come around.

[Nashyra]

83. So sorry about your friend

No one, No one deserves to be treated like that. A friend of mine from high school was killed in a knife fight because he was gay, thank god the perp was caught and it was largely due to the fact that the people who were there caught him. At the trial there were actually people who supported the asshole who claimed they were Christian. We can not legislate against hate or for tolerance only against crimes committed against others because of hate, it's a shame that we even have to. That's why it amazes me to hear people call us civilized. Thoughts and prayers to your friend and there are plenty of the "right Christians" like Sharpton refered to them (as opposed to the Christian right)that will also send healing thoughts.

As for the candidate thing, I thought when the subject came up for Clark the first thing he said that it was a "civil right issue" period which should be protedted by the constitution. I hope you can find in yourself to come around to getting rid of * with a vote for Dem candidate, change always starts small.

[dpbrown]

80. Dennis is the only candidate supporting federal protection

That's a clear difference between Dennis and the rest of the candidates running for the nomination.

My deepest sympathies to your friend Mike.

Fear Ends
Hope Begins
Kucinich 2004

Dan Brown
Saint Paul, Minnesota

[GreenPartyVoter]

91. I am so sorry this happened to him :(

[liberalitch]

92. Mike's lucky to have you as a friend...

and vise versa. :-)

[dsc]

94. I hope he recovers well

I don't think there is a gay or lesbian who doesn't either know a person who had this type of thing happen to them or hasn't had it happen to them. The fear, shame, and horror one feels upon knowing that it happened to you is just brutal to bear. I wish Mike luck.

[HFishbine]

95. Thank you

and to everyone who has expressed their well-wishes for Mike. He is doing fine.

[Sly Kal]

97. Very disturbing

I thought this type of thing didn't happen anymore. I certainly understand your position.