Kerry’s, Edwards, and Deans position on gay marriage are exactly the same.

[MurikanDemocrat]

None of the 3 are FOR gay "marriage" outright.

All 3 consider gay "marriage" an issue to be left up for the individual states to decide. All three are for civil unions and EQUAL RIGHTS for gays.




Kerry statement 2-24-2004 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



Edwards statement on gay marriage 2-26-2004

Speaking to reporters yesterday afternoon, Edwards explained that he personally opposes gay marriage but supports civil unions, and believes each state should set its own marriage policy.


http://www.boston.com/news/politics/president/articles/2004/02/26/gay_marriage_issue_trips_up_senator/




Governor Dean's Statement on Mass. Court Ruling 2-4-2004

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/

Edit: 6 part post
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x409588
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x409593
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x409617
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x409625
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x409637
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x409593

[Cuban_Liberal]

1. No kidding. n/t

[Sly Kal]

2. bullcrap

Dean would not support an ammendment to any state constitution taking rights away from Gay people. Kerry would.
Dean put his life on the line to do the right thing in VT.

What are you affraid of? It must be clear to you that you are supporting an inferior candidate, otherwise you wouldn't have this desperate need to equate Kerry/Edwards with Dean.

[molly]

5. Dean put his life on the line - LOL!

[janx]

8. Apparently you aren't aware of what happened.

If you were I doubt you'd be laughing--or rather, that would be a pretty sick thing to do.

[molly]

12. I'm listenting

[slinkerwink]

18. let's see--Dean had to face death threats, and he wore a bulletproof vest

out on the campaign trail the last time he ran for Governor.

[molly]

23. Link?

[slinkerwink]

27. you already know about this, molly----we've said it here dozens of times

before.

[molly]

28. I must have missed it - where's the link?

[slinkerwink]

34. here ya go

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=38811

[molly]

42. LOL - I wanted a link citing facts - no another discussion thread

[chocolateeater]

31. Here try this.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=38811

[janx]

20. Fundamentalist Christians threatened to kill him the last time

he ran for governor. People came from other states and threatened him because he signed the civil unions bill.

Brian_Expat can explain it much better than I can. He was there at the time.

[sangha]

11. “I’m against gay marriage.” - Dean 1/4/2000

Marriage Issue Takes Center Stage at the Statehouse


"Early assumptions following the Court’s December 20 decision were that domestic partnership is the only real plan of action. Governor Howard Dean has said on several occasions that he would support domestic partnership legislation, but is uncomfortable with the idea of actual gay marriage. Dean has recently clarified his position, declaring in a radio interview, “I’m against gay marriage."

Well, he definitely upset some gays, but I don't htink they would try to kill him for it.

[sangha]

6. Dean has done nothing for gay marriage

and has sat idly by even though VT prohibits gay marriage. GLBT's in civil unions in VT are still denied SS spousal benefits, and get no Federal benefits from civil unions, even though heterosexual marriages get those benefits.

And Dean has done NOTHING for them, and you support that. What are YOU afraid of?

[Brian_Expat]

26. That's just silly

In 2000, when John Kerry safely voted against DOMA, Howard Dean navigated through the first steps towards marriage equality in Vermont, choosing to embrace the law rather than fight it.

He suffered numerous death threats and had to wear a bulletproof vest as a result of that.

[MurikanDemocrat]

10. *ahem*

Dean stand on gay rights and civil unions BEFORE the Vermont court decision in Dec 2000?:

snip from 12/20/2000


"Early assumptions following the Court’s December 20 decision were that domestic partnership is the only real plan of action. Governor Howard Dean has said on several occasions that he would support domestic partnership legislation, but is uncomfortable with the idea of actual gay marriage. Dean has recently clarified his position, declaring in a radio interview, “I’m against gay marriage.” "


http://www.mountainpridemedia.org/feb2000/news_centerstage.htm

snip

In the interview the Governor stated, "Since nothing is going to happen on this issue in the legislature until the court speaks there's no particular reason for me to take a public position on it." His attempt to link whether he makes his positions public to the actions of other branches of government is illogical and insulting. Failing any sense of responsibility on his part, the insistence of OITM and its readers' voting power should give him the "particular reason" he needs to decide to make his position public. Would environmental groups accept a refusal to take a position on clearcutting, NARAL a demur from supporting or opposing abortion, or even Wall Street a "no opinion yet" on capital gains taxes?

Clearly, Dean is either still waiting for the polling data to tell him his position, or he's seen it, and knows you wouldn't like it. But on an issue of fundamental civil rights, shouldn't "no position" or "secret position" be just as bad as the wrong position? The Governor is either with the GLBT community or he's against it. So far, he sure isn't with it.

More: http://www.mountainpridemedia.org/jul98/deanoped.htm



Where did Dean stand on gay marriage AFTER the court decision?:
“The Legislature will pass a domestic partnership bill and I’m comfortable with that,” Gov. Howard Dean said.

What was more interesting was what he was not comfortable with.

“It makes me uncomfortable, the same as anybody else,” Dean said of gay marriage. “The 4,000-year-old tradition of heterosexual marriage being an institution is something I think you have to respect. I think there are a lot of people in this state who are uncomfortable about the concept of gay marriage.”

There are thousands more who are not uncomfortable and at least some legislative leaders said they would be willing to consider enacting a marriage statute.

More: http://www.mountainpridemedia.org/jan2000/news_scyes.htm

[chocolateeater]

33. And here is what he said when he signed the bill

http://rutlandherald.com/vtruling/healing.html

At about 1:30 this afternoon, with my staff, I signed the civil unions bill. I want to tell you why I signed it. The Supreme Court, Dec. 22, found the civil rights of some Vermonters were being denied. There were opportunities for those of us who were able to get married under the law that were not available to those people who were unable to get married. The Supreme Court laid out a series of possible choices which the state of Vermont could make to remedy this situation. After an enormous amount of work on the part of the Legislature, tremendous and equally soul-searching on the part of each member of first the House and then the Senate. After the most prolonged period of public input that I have ever seen in 22 years as a Vermont citizen, and I would venture to say, possibly the most prolonged and intense period of public debate in the history of the state, the Legislature crafted a bill, which I believe does meet the Supreme Court's test.
<snip>

Certainly this is the most intense public discourse I think that we've seen in this state. And I think, starting today, and the reason I chose to sign this bill in private, is because the healing process now begins. I choose to sign this bill because I fundamentally believe it's the right thing to do, and I also fundamentally believe that in the long run it's the right thing for the state of Vermont and the United States of America.

I believe that because until every human being is treated with dignity, because they are a human being, and not because they belong in some category, then every American and every Vermonter is poorer because of that. This bill enriches not just the very small percentage of gay and lesbian Vermonters who take advantage of this partnership and get the rights that the court has determined that they are due. I believe this bill enriches all of us, as we look with new eyes at a group of people who have been outcasts for many, many generations.
I want to take just a moment to expand on why I chose again to do this privately. This bill is like no other bill I have seen, and I suspect that it's like no other bill that you have seen in many, many years of covering the State House. I suspect it's like no other bill that most Vermonters have ever seen. I've said repeatedly throughout this discussion that this is a bill that is not about politics. This is a bill that is about the deepest most personal feelings that human beings have. I personally have friends, supporters, that are furious with me over the fact that I have supported this bill. And I know that I have disappointed them and that's a very painful feeling.

I, like many of the people in this building, have not had a great deal of sleep for the past five months. In politics, bill signings are triumphant. They represent the overcoming of one side over the other, they're a cause for celebration. There is much to celebrate about this bill. Those celebrations, as the subject matter of this bill, will be private. They will be celebrated by couples and their families, by people making commitments to each other.
And I think we also have to respect and take note, not of the extreme rhetoric, but of the many, many decent people who feel strongly that this bill is not the right thing to do. They are Vermonters. We work for them in this building. I work for them. The state is pretty evenly divided. I remain the governor of all Vermonters, despite the fact that I have signed a bill that was supported by only half of all Vermonters. I want to acknowledge those feelings. I want to say I think the legislature did listen. I know I listened. In fact, after listening to all the people speak, I came to a different conclusion than many of those who urged me not to sign the bill.

But I think it is important that we reach out today to all Vermonters and realize that all Vermonters' input in this debate was thoughtful, valuable and helpful. There is no shame in having opposed this bill for most of the people who opposed it. We will now use the time to reconcile each other's viewpoints. But we will go forth forever more realizing that equality is not simply a matter of a concept that's written in history books; equality of opportunity, equality of treatment, equal access to the law, equal respect for the law, has been this year a living process in this state.
<snip>

[DuctapeFatwa]

3. All feel Equal Rights should be an opt-in choice for states

This would probably be very popular with most voters, but it would require the repeal of the 14th amendment, which could meet some opposition, and there would be some associated social costs.

[tryanhas]

4. Who cares???

People who focus on this issue represent the "WE LOVE LOSING ELECTIONS AS LONG AS WE FEEL GOOD ABOUT OURSELVES" wing of the Democratic party.

[HFishbine]

9. And people who dismiss the issue

represent the "WE DON'T CARE ABOUT PRINCIPLES AS LONG AS WE WIN AN ELECTION" wing of the democratic party.

[tryanhas]

13. No, people who DISAGREE WITH YOUR STANCE...

...actually care more about principles and morals than you do.

I would rather leave it up to the states!

If Mass. and California legalize it, then let every gay person who wants to get married flood those states and live there.

I could care less.

[HFishbine]

14. As for your opinion

I COULDN'T care less.

[tryanhas]

15. And I could care less that you...

...don't care, duh.

[HFishbine]

16. Thank you

That means that you have some degree of concern. I appreciate that.

[rucky]

19. I'm sorry you don't feel good about yourself

but maybe youre taking it out on the wrong group of people.

[molly]

7. Thanks for getting this together

it is very enlightening and will stop a lot of misunderstanding around here.

[janx]

25. Except it's not true.

[MurikanDemocrat]

38. All of it is documented with supporting links with comments form the

candidates. What part of it is not true? Back it up with some evidence, please, and not just some wishful dreaming on your part.

[glarius]

17. Isn't the NUMBER ONE priority to beat Bush in November?

Without that none of these arguments will mean anything....Once a Democrat is elected, THEN you can work on getting wrongs righted.....That's my Canadian point of view....Hope you don't mind my 2 cents....:)

[nancyharris]

21. Why not just

"elect" some one who supports gay marriage?

[sangha]

22. You say that like it's easy to do

so why don't you tell us how many pro-gay-marriage politicians you've gotten elected President?

[janx]

24. Dean wants to leave it to the states. Kerry supports a MA state

amendment banning it.

So no, they are not the same.

[MurikanDemocrat]

29. Dean is against gay marriage

Dean stand on gay rights and civil unions BEFORE the Vermont court decision in Dec 2000?:

snip from 12/20/2000


"Early assumptions following the Court’s December 20 decision were that domestic partnership is the only real plan of action. Governor Howard Dean has said on several occasions that he would support domestic partnership legislation, but is uncomfortable with the idea of actual gay marriage. Dean has recently clarified his position, declaring in a radio interview, “I’m against gay marriage.” "


http://www.mountainpridemedia.org/feb2000/news_centerstage.htm

snip

In the interview the Governor stated, "Since nothing is going to happen on this issue in the legislature until the court speaks there's no particular reason for me to take a public position on it." His attempt to link whether he makes his positions public to the actions of other branches of government is illogical and insulting. Failing any sense of responsibility on his part, the insistence of OITM and its readers' voting power should give him the "particular reason" he needs to decide to make his position public. Would environmental groups accept a refusal to take a position on clearcutting, NARAL a demur from supporting or opposing abortion, or even Wall Street a "no opinion yet" on capital gains taxes?

Clearly, Dean is either still waiting for the polling data to tell him his position, or he's seen it, and knows you wouldn't like it. But on an issue of fundamental civil rights, shouldn't "no position" or "secret position" be just as bad as the wrong position? The Governor is either with the GLBT community or he's against it. So far, he sure isn't with it.

More: http://www.mountainpridemedia.org/jul98/deanoped.htm



Where did Dean stand on gay marriage AFTER the court decision?:
“The Legislature will pass a domestic partnership bill and I’m comfortable with that,” Gov. Howard Dean said.

What was more interesting was what he was not comfortable with.

“It makes me uncomfortable, the same as anybody else,” Dean said of gay marriage. “The 4,000-year-old tradition of heterosexual marriage being an institution is something I think you have to respect. I think there are a lot of people in this state who are uncomfortable about the concept of gay marriage.”

There are thousands more who are not uncomfortable and at least some legislative leaders said they would be willing to consider enacting a marriage statute.

More: http://www.mountainpridemedia.org/jan2000/news_scyes.htm

[janx]

30. I saw this cut-and-paste in a post above, I believe.

Dean wants to leave gay marriage up to the states and churches. Kerry, on the other hand, is backing a MA state amendment banning gay marriage.

So they are not the same.

You can cut and paste cherry-picked editorials all you like. It's not going to change the reality of the situation.

[Name removed]

32. Deleted message

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

[MurikanDemocrat]

35. Dean is clearly on record as saying he is AGAINST gay marriage

No dancing around the issue can change that no matter how hard you try. it's a matter of public record. YOU can cherry-pick all YOU like. It's not going to change the reality of the situation.

[Jai4WKC08]

36. Just to complete the record...

Wes Clark was never (and is not) against gay marriage. His position was that whether you call it "marriage" or "civil union" should be left to religious institutions and state legislatures. But that the rights and priviledges afforded by marriage must be provided to all Americans, regardless of sexual orientation.

Part of the reason Clark was endorsed by The Advocate and The Washington Blade, among others.


Equal Rights for All Should Mean All

Gay City News
Volume 2, Issue 49 | December 4-10, 2003

By Wesley Clark

The ink was barely dry on the Massachusetts State Supreme Court's gay marriage decision, and the Republican Party was trying to use it as an election year issue to divide Americans. But this issue should not be a polarizing one. There's no reason why we shouldn't treat all Americans equally no matter what their race, religion or sexual orientation. That's why I welcomed the Massachusetts court decision with open arms.

I remember a conversation I had with a fellow Army officer a few months ago. He hadn't thought through my position supporting equal rights for gays. I asked him, "If you had a gay child, would you love that child as much as your other children?" And he said, "Yes, of course." And I asked if he would want his child to have the same rights and opportunities as every other child. And again he said, "Yes, of course." When we look at it in human terms, we recognize that this issue is about how we want our children to be treated. In America, every child should be equal in the eyes of the law, period.

Throughout the course of American history, too many groups have struggled for equal rights and opportunities. Growing up in Little Rock in the 1950s, I saw first-hand how wrenching the fight for civil rights was. In fact, I went to school for a year in Tennessee because they had closed the schools in Little Rock.

In too many ways, the struggle for equal rights is still on-going. Today, one of the frontlines in the civil rights struggle runs through the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) community. We must always stand by the principle: every American should enjoy the exact same rights as every other American.

The right wing says that the LGBT community wants special rights. But that is not true. Gay Americans want the same rights that all Americans enjoy -- rights to form personal, legal relationships that confer benefits and obligations. It is high time for the LGBT community to enjoy these rights as well.

The American people are fair-minded. They understand that two people who have been together for twenty-five years should be able to visit each other in a hospital. They understand that couples should be able to leave property to one another without crippling tax consequences. And they also know that the legal status of gays and lesbians has nothing to do with "protecting" traditional marriage.

Whether we call civil unions "marriage" is a decision best left to churches and state legislatures. The concept of marriage has always been thought of as a union between a man and a woman. Such deeply embedded traditions are not easily changed. As we debate and discuss this issue, we must be mindful that people of good will can disagree without demonizing each other.

This is why we need new leadership in Washington, leadership that will bring us together.

I know my position will not make everyone happy. I am sure some will think I go too far and others will argue that I do not go far enough. But I can assure the LGBT community that my heart is open to them and to their concerns. And when I am president, my door will always be open, too.

Former General Wesley Clark of Arkansas was Supreme Allied Commander in Europe from 1997 to 2000 and led NATO forces in Kosovo in 1999. He is now a Democratic presidential candidate.

[robbedvoter]

37. Clark is the only one who said he agreed with the Mass Court decision

being consistent with his states rights stand.
And that makes me happy to vote for him on Tuesday.

[Tom Rinaldo]

41. Yes. Me too n/t

[MurikanDemocrat]

39. All three candidates are n record saying it is a state issue

[revcarol]

40. Don't you love the smell of "separate but equal" in the morning?

Voting rights used to be left to the states too. How many blacks got to vote in the south?

Let's leave all things to the states.RIGHT?