HRC (Human Rights Campaign) Deeply Disappointed in Senator Kerry

[slinkerwink]

HRC DEEPLY DISAPPOINTED IN KERRY’S SUPPORT OF MASSACHUSETTS CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT

Like Many Americans, Kerry Needs Further Education on Real Legal Differences between Marriage and Civil Unions, Says HRC

WASHINGTON – Human Rights Campaign President Cheryl Jacques released the following statement today in response to comments made by Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry in the Boston Globe endorsing an amendment to the state constitution that would deny marriage rights to same-sex couples but allow civil unions.

"Senator Kerry’s endorsement of a discriminatory amendment in Massachusetts is deeply disappointing," said Cheryl Jacques, HRC president. "Make no mistake, civil unions single out a group of people for second-class treatment. That is discrimination, and it does not belong in any Constitution. While we acknowledge the Senator’s strong opposition to a federal constitutional amendment, supporting a divisive measure in his own state is exceptionally disheartening and frankly muddies the water on his actual position. Candidates who say they are against marriage for same-sex couples – but for civil unions – must clarify and affirm their support for the more than 1,000 federal benefits, rights and responsibilities that marriage provides but that civil unions do not.

"Marriage – not civil unions – unlocks the door to important federal protections. Civil unions do not provide Social Security survivor benefits – a system we pay into but that our survivors can’t access. Civil unions do not allow an employee access to the Family and Medical Leave Act – a law that allows an employee to take time off of work to care for a sick loved one without fear of losing their job. Civil unions do not ensure fair taxation on a partner’s health insurance or retirement savings. Civil unions are not portable and are currently recognized in only one state – Vermont. When a couple in a civil union leaves Vermont, they are strangers under the law. This list of protections goes on and on."

More at http://www.hrc.org

[arcos]

1. How dare they criticize Kerry!

Everyone should unite behind him!

[semass]

24. Ms. Jacques' hands are hardly clean in this matter

Instead of remaining in the Massachusetts State Senate as its' only openly gay member and leading the fight against the amendment she decided to leave her seat vacant and take the position at HRC on January 5 (so she could get credit for another year toward her state pension). One of the proposed amendments lost by a scant 98-100 vote.



http://www.hrc.org/Content/NavigationMenu/Press_Room/Cheryl_Jacques.htm

[I Lean Left]

26. Not the only openly gay member

There are at least two others who spoke openly about the personal impact at the convention. Both from Cambridge I believe.

[semass]

36. They are both State Reps I believe

[flpoljunkie]

38. Kerry supports civil unions with ALL the rights and privileges of marriage

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/02/26/kerry_backs_stat... /

Kerry backs state ban on gay marriage Says amendment must provide for civil unions

By Patrick Healy and Frank Phillips, Globe Staff, 2/26/2004

TOLEDO, Ohio -- Presidential candidate John F. Kerry said yesterday that he supports amending the Massachusetts Constitution to ban gay marriage and provide for civil unions for gay couples.

In his most explicit remarks on the subject yet, Kerry told the Globe that he would support a proposed amendment to the state Constitution that would prohibit gay marrriage so long as, while outlawing gay marriage, it also ensured that same-sex couples have access to all legal rights that married couples receive.

"If the Massachusetts Legislature crafts an appropriate amendment that provides for partnership and civil unions, then I would support it, and it would advance the goal of equal protection," the senator said yesterday, stressing that he was referring only to the state, and not the federal, Constitution. He has said he would oppose any amendment that did not include a provision for civil unions. "I think that you need to have civil union. That's my position," he said Tuesday.

[jpgray]

2. So Dean and Edwards fail as well? (nt)

[RogueTrooper]

39. No, Dean supporter the Mass Court Ruling

check my sig line.

[maddezmom]

3. Guess ya gotta go Dennis Kucinich

cuz Edwards is no better on this issue.

[maddezmom]

4. or Al Sharpton or Ralph Nader.

There are choices.

[Nlighten1]

5. oy

the fun never ends in GD2004

[onehandle]

6. That aside...

How thrilled are they with Bush?

I thought so.

[slinkerwink]

9. this is about Massachussetts, not the Federal amendment

read the article a bit more closely the next time....

[molly]

14. This is state endorsed CIVIL unions

where is the link for nationally endorsed MARRIAGE between gays?

[slinkerwink]

10. this is about Massachussetts, not the Federal amendment

read the article a bit more closely the next time....

[gottaB]

15. Ms. Jacques has no shortage of harsh rebukes for Mr. Bush

Which are all over the hrc front page, and their elections page.

But the one everybody should be aware of is her criticism of the Pickering appointment.

Voicing support for Kucinich or Sharpton, both of whom support the freedom to marry, is commendable and astute.

Tearing down Kerry at every opportunity is neither.

[molly]

7. Tell us what Dean said about it

oh, and provide links please.

[slinkerwink]

11. here you go....

Last paragraph

____________________________________________
Contact: Press Office
802-651-3257
February 04, 2004
Governor Dean's Statement on Mass. Court Ruling

MADISON, WI--Democratic presidential candidate Governor Howard Dean, M.D., commented on the Massachusetts Supreme Court decision to support same-gender marriages today:

"I believe firmly that we must do everything in our power to assure that all citizens of the United States are afforded equal rights under the law -- and that includes gay as well as straight couples. As Governor of Vermont, I was proud to sign the nation's first law establishing civil unions for same-sex couples. Today's decision by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court represents a different approach to the same goal. One way or another, states should afford same-sex couples equal treatment under law in areas such as health insurance, hospital visitation and inheritance rights.

"Some in Washington will use this decision to justify the proposed Federal Marriage Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. This would be the first constitutional amendment to authorize discrimination, and I oppose it. Marriage is a matter of state law, and gay bashing has no place in the Constitution."

http://www.deanforamerica.com/press/2004/02/04/mass_court /

[gottaB]

19. By "everything in our power" does Dean mean ignore?

Because that's the impression I got from reading this tidbit:

Dean reminded the campus audience that he opposed the war in Iraq "when it mattered" and showed he's a true leader through his early support for gay and lesbian civil unions. Dean signed the first civil union law in the nation in Vermont - just six months before an election when the idea wasn't popular, Dean said.

"Now of course," he said with a wry smile, "Massachusetts makes me look like a moderate."

Told that several same-sex couples applied and were rejected for marriage licenses in Madison on Thursday, Dean said individual states should decide the issue, not the federal government.

I guess I just don't get wryness. I think if the freedom to marry were the most important issue to me, I would vote for either Dennis Kucinich or Al Sharpton, and I wouldn't give Howard Dean a second thought.

[Bill of Rights]

8. A beautiful woman

just came to my door to ask for an HRC donation. As I put down my name, my eyes glanced up and down the list of names and addresses of supporters. There were many in my neighborhood.

[slinkerwink]

12. glad to hear that!

[NewYorkerfromMass]

13. In the end there will be no difference but the name

same rights, no difference. That's what Kerry is saying.

[slinkerwink]

17. look at the article----civil unions don't produce half the rights

that marriage does.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

20. they will

that's what Kerry said he wants them to do.

[slinkerwink]

22. no, they won't......republicans will only let civil unions pass with the

barest minimum of rights in order to avoid gay marriage.

[dsc]

18. that is just plain not true

First, it should be noted that we won the right to marry in a court case, not some box of cracker jacks. Kerry is advocating we give back rights we legitimately won.

Secondly, marriage and civil unions are not the same thing. Marriage is portable and civil unions are not. And he is not, I repeat not, predicating his support of this state amendment upon passage of federal civil unions. If he were, then it would be the same but he isn't.

[molly]

37. If you have ever been married and want a divorce

you need to go back to the state where you got married to get your divorce. Marriage is NOT portable. I know.

[dsc]

40. that is a load of hooey

People go to Nevada and Mexico for divorces all the time and have done so for years. My brother got married in Ohio and divorced in Florida (1st marriage) and married in New York and divorced in Ohio (2nd marriage). There are sometimes special circumstances if only one spouse wants the divorce but other than that you are flat out wrong.

[littlejoe]

16. My, but they have short memories. Sen. Kerry's 20 year record

on the environment alone has done more for human rights than any other candidate. Give me a break!

[AntiCoup2K4]

25. And what about his pathetic Bush enabling record of the last three years.

You guys might as well quit the lie about Kerry being a "liberal", because it's simply not the reality for a sellout who's funded by FAUX, backs the PNAC agenda and thinks Ariel Sharon is doing a great job with his tribute to the Berlin Wall.

If that's "liberal", I'm George Bush :eyes:

[Zynx]

21. I wish Kerry would stop taking gutless stands.

I knew I said I would hold off on the Kerry attacks, but Kerry is disappointing me with gutless stand after gutless stand. I know it's for "electability", but if we sacrifice too much more it will be little improvement at all. It's enough for me to vote for him, but I don't want to feel icky about it.

[Monte Carlo]

23. O they of little faith...

... who seem to ignore a 20 year history of doing the right thing to obsess on a march to the center come election time. Do they want a friend in office, or do they want Bush?

[Dookus]

27. When did Kerry endorse an anti-gay marriage amendment?

and also, I was deeply disappointed in the HRC years ago when they endorsed Al D'Amato over Chuck Schumer in the NY Senate race. They won't get a dime out of me ever again.

[slinkerwink]

28. he did it yesterday, I believe, for MA

[gottaB]

32. not really

The Globe story was misleading. Kerry did not endorse any particular amendment. It was hypothetical. The Globe claimed it was his most explicit statement to date, but it sure didn't seem any different than anything else he had said. I didn't see any indication that he was endorsing any of the amendments that have already been proposed.

An accurate headline would have been "Kerry reiterates position on hypothetical amendment ..."

Correct me if I'm wrong on that.

[dsc]

29. On at least three occasions

Once on NPR in an interview, once in a debate, and finally in Youngstown Ohio. On all three occasions he stated he would support an amendment to the MA constitution banning same sex marriage.

[Dookus]

30. Not exactly

he refused to rule out support for one, depending on the wording.

Not the same thing as an endorsement.

[dsc]

31. on planet bizarro maybe

but in any case I heard, with my very own ears, his Youngstown comments, and he said that he would support an amendment which banned gay marriage and permited civil unions. That is endorsing it.

[Dookus]

34. umm... ok

But just remember, this is EXACTLY what the right wants us to fight about. I'm saddened, but nor surprised, that the HRC is playing into it.

Kerry, as far as I know, believes that EVERY right available to married couples should be granted to gay couples. That's a good position, and is the same as Dean's and probably better than Edwards'.

But as long we keep fighting over terminology, the other side is happy.

[dsc]

41. Civil unions don't give every right

Look if he said "I will support an amendment AFTER the feds recognize civil unions" that would be one thing. But here he is telling his states gays to give back a right they won, legitimately, in the courts. I fail to see why on earth we should be doing that.

[tameszu]

33. Kerry's HRC Scorecard vs. Edwards' HRC Scorecard

Kerry:

107th--100
106th--100
105th--100
104th--100

Edwards:

107th-- 100
106th-- 71

Also check out the presidential questionaires: whereas Kerry gives clear answers down the line (around 90%+ in line with the HRC suggested position), Edwards punts and hits "Undecided," aka "I would review such legislation" over and over:

http://www.hrc.org/Content/NavigationMenu/HRC/Get_Informed/Campaigns_and_Elections/Presidential_Candidates/Questionnaire_Responses/2004_Presidential_Questionnaire_Responses.htm

[Dookus]

35. exactly

on issues where Kerry actually can DO something, he scores 100. People woudl rather pick fights over issues he has NO control over whatsoever, such as a federal constitutional amendment or a Massachusetts amendment.

[TruthWins]

42. Disappointed but not voting for Bush

Kerry is not going to lose the gay vote to Bush, so, while the issue is important, Kerry is going the right way here, at least as far as winning the election is concerned. He can always change his mind once he gets in office; Bush has proved that's easy to do.