Kerry promises married gay couples complete federal rights

[Cannikin]

Democratic presidential hopeful John Kerry (D-Mass.), under fire from gay Democrats for opposing same-sex marriage, has promised that if elected president, he would grant state-sanctioned married gay couples the same federal rights and benefits married straight couples enjoy, according to several people who met with Kerry in San Francisco last Friday, reports The Washington Post. Kerry, who says he personally opposes same-sex marriage, said he would, however, bestow all federal marriage benefits--such as the right to file joint income taxes and collect survivor benefits--on same-sex couples who unite legally in civil unions, domestic partnerships, and even marriage under their state laws. The number of federal benefits for married couples was recently adjusted by the U.S. Government Accounting Office from 1,049 to 1,138.

Kerry made the comments at a gay fund-raiser in San Francisco's Nob Hill neighborhood, the Post reports. Until the event, he had talked mostly in general terms of providing federal benefits and the "same basic rights" to same-sex couples. "It's the first time in history that a presidential candidate has ever supported full and equal protection for same-sex couples," said state representative Mark Leno, a San Francisco Democrat and an early Kerry supporter who attended Friday's fund-raiser and queried Kerry about his position. "He told me that he would grant all 1,049 federal rights to same-sex couples in whatever legal union their states recognize," said Leno, who has sponsored a bill that would legalize gay marriage in California.

Kerry spokeswoman Stephanie Cutter did not dispute Leno's characterization of the meeting but said Kerry was responding to very specific yes or no questions put to him. She portrayed his answer as in keeping with his general support for "providing federal benefits for state-recognized same-sex couples.... He has not reviewed the over thousand benefits but stands by his commitment to equality." Kerry is carefully trying to reach a middle ground in one of the most explosive political, cultural, and legal debates of 2004, his advisers say. He has been inundated with complaints from gays and lesbians since he told The Boston Globe last week that he supports a state constitutional amendment banning gay marriage in Massachusetts as long as it contains a provision for civil unions. His home state is set to begin performing gay weddings May 17. Some Democrats were threatening to pull back on financial support. "There were a lot of people who were very upset at the way his position was described," Jeff Soukup, who along with his partner has hosted several fund-raisers for Kerry, told the Post. "And there were a lot of people who had been planning to attend the fund-raiser who said they would not attend until Kerry clarified his position."

Kerry might have a hard time upholding his promise. Granting federal rights to same-sex couples contradicts a major provision of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, Tobias Wolff, a professor at the Stanford University School of Law and an expert on gay legal issues, told the Post. The provisions state that federal benefits for married people may not apply to same-sex couples and that judgments stemming from a same-sex union are not portable from state to state. While marriage and civil unions are not considered a "judgment" in legal terms, divorce, child support, and probate are judgments. That means, Wolff said, that a legal mess could ensue if a partner who is dissatisfied with the litigated decision regarding, say, divorce, in one state decided to litigate in another state.

http://www.advocate.com/new_news.asp?ID=11549&sd=03/05/04

[IndianaGreen]

1. How does he propose to do this, particularly since DOMA is on the books?

Talk is cheap!

[Feanorcurufinwe]

2. DOMA is unconstitutional under the 14 amendment.

[JI7]

3. the united states supreme court

and that's why we need a democratic president to appoint justices that are not like scalia who will ignore the constitution. if we get enough left leaning justices on there they strike down doma and any state laws banning same sex marriage. but if bush stays in office, even state laws allowing same sex marriage will be declared unconstitutional and laws supporting a ban will be declared constitutional.

and the supreme court argument applies to many issues from abortion rights, separation of church and state, disability rights etc.

[IndianaGreen]

5. Only the Supreme Court can decide if a law is unconstitutional

While an appellate court can rule that a law is unconstitutional, its ruling only applies to the court's district, not to the entire US.

Only the Supreme Court can decide if a law is unconstitutional. It does that one of two ways:

1. By hearing and ruling on a case, or

2. By not granting cert, thus letting stand a ruling from a lower court.

Opinions from laypersons, politicians, or elected officials are just that, opinions. They have no force of law.

[JI7]

7. the president appoints supreme court justices

and bush would appoint justices that oppose gay rights, not just same sex marriage, but things like the sodomy ruling would be overturned and they would say states do have the right to arrest people based on private sexual relations between consenting adults .

not to mention things like abortion rights, separation of church and state and many other things a right wing court would overturn.

[IndianaGreen]

8. If those justices are members of the Federalist Society

they are not liberals, but conservatives. Clinton appointed Federalist Society judges. I guess as long as they were to the left of the fascist Scalia, they were okay by Bill!

[JI7]

10. Clinton appointed Breyer and Ginsberg

which one of those do you have a problem with ? and which court cases do you disagree with them on ?

[dsc]

12. The Supreme Court isn't the only Court

My guess is she is referring to some of Clintons district and circuit court appointees. Though the bad ones were necessary deals IMO for getting good ones on.

[JI7]

13. but supreme court has final say

and bill clinton had a republican congress to deal with. we can't get everything we want. the republicans in the senate refused to allow even a vote on james hormel just because he is gay so clinton had to do some recess appointment thing.

so it's important to save the biggest fights for the united states supreme court as they will have final say which can only be overruled by amending the consitution which would be very difficult, especially without a president to push for one.

[IndianaGreen]

15. The Supreme Court doesn't have to hear any case involving gay rights

and it could let stand lower court decisions that adversely impact GLBT rights.

[JI7]

17. right

but if they do take up the case and it's heard by a right wing leaning court they will strike down all gay rights.

they will do the same with abortion rights, separation of church state, etc. the fact is the court has been taking up many of these cases in recent times and they struck down a state law allowing for arrest of consenting same sex couples engaged in sexual relations in their own bedroom. scalia and some other right wing justices dissented and said states do have the right to arrest them. if they get more right wing justices it's very likely they will take up a similar case again and overturn the previous ruling. same goes with abortion rights, separation of church and state and many other issues.

[IndianaGreen]

14. The 7th Court of Appeals in Chicago: Okay to discriminate against gays

The 7th Court of Appeals in Chicago ruled that it is okay for an employer to harass, mock, and fire an employee for being gay. Title VII does not protect gays from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

Title VII prohibits discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex and national origin; but the term "sex" has never been defined by Congress, or interpreted by the Courts, as including sexual orientation. As a result of that, in many parts of America, people are fired or refused to employment because they are seeing as, or perceived to be, gay or lesbian.

Gary Hamner was the head nurse at the St. Vincent Stress Center. Hamner's superior was Dr. Joseph Edwards, the Medical Director of the same unit. Their working relationship was very poor! According to Hamner's complaint, Edwards would constantly yell at him and "harassed him by lisping at him, flipping his wrists, and making jokes about homosexuals." St. Vincent's managers ignored Hamner's complaints. Following a dispute involving the admission of a patient, Hamner was fired. Hamner sued under Title VII, alleging "Edwards harassed him because of his sex and sexual orientation." The trial court denied the claim because Hamner had failed to show that he had been harassed because of his sex. Hamner appealed to the Seventh Circuit. The appeals court denied the motion because the "the alleged harassment, and Hamner's complaints about it, were based exclusively on his homosexuality" and not on sexual harassment. (Hamner v St Vincent Hospital, 1999)


Hamner v St Vincent Hospital (1999). . Retrieved October 23, 2003, from http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op3.fwx

[DuctapeFatwa]

16. What I am hoping is that ACLU or somebody will take it to SCOTUS

on the behalf of some kids/widows who were denied equal protection due to DOMA, although this is the court that appointed bush, and is pretty much a rubber stamp.

There are a lot of grass roots things that could happen, could be done, but I will not put anyone in a position of violating the Patriot Act by reading them here ;)

[Feanorcurufinwe]

20. You are actually afraid to speak out because of the Patriot Act?

You need to have more courage of your convictions if you want to achieve any good in this world.


I don't see anyone else around here who is intimidated into silence. Why are you?

[KenLayedOff]

4. Not while DOMA is active

Why not fully support Gay Marriage and be done with it?

[DuctapeFatwa]

6. Well, the important thing is, he saved his fundraiser!

And got those pledges in. Reading the fine print is not a popular pasttime.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

9. I'm still wondering why you are here - is it only to discourage Democrats

from supporting their nominee and party, or is there another reason? Do you spend an equal amount of time on Republican message boards, telling the folks there that there is no difference between Republicans and Democrats, or is this boon reserved for those on the left? (oops I forgot, there is no left, only an evil center)


In short, what are you for? What are you in favor of? Anything? Or are you just mindlessly opposed to everything?

[IndianaGreen]

18. It seems to only bother some moderate Democrats, which is just too bad!

Progressive Democrats still care about the issues! Gays and lesbians are entitled to the same rights as heteros, and that includes MARRIAGE!

ABB is a shotgun wedding! We all want Bush defeated, but we ain't gonna sit quietly in the back of the bus!

The war is still wrong. We still want the troops to come home, NOW. We still want PATRIOT Act repealed.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

19. You are an honest poster, and I respect your opinions

but I wasn't talking to you.


Btw, no one who actually knows my opinions, would ever describe me as 'moderate', lol. That doesn't mean I'm never willing to support a Democrat who is more moderate than myself.

[JI7]

21. most people in this country don't

most people in this country don't support same sex marriage, even california voted for the anti gay proposition just a few years ago. our governor davis had to later sign a civil unions bill to give gay couples rights they never had before. if you leave it up to voters most will vote against marriage, it's a losing issue. just as it's a losing issue to take out the "under god" in the pledge of allegiance. i'm not of the monotheist faith, but i don't demand elected officials to supporting taking it out since i know it's a losing issue. i would rather try to save separation of church and state rather than have them speak out on something just to end up losing and lose separation of church and state al ong with it.

same with gay rights. i would rather a politician be cautious on the issue and help to improve the rights which most gays don't have rather than speak out on something most oppose just to end up losing and lose all rights along with it. if losing meant gaining the rights it would be different. but in this case there would be nothing to gain in speaking out and losing.

(and the anti gay proposition in california was started by a republican who had a gay brother, and has a gay son. his brother ended up dying of aids. his son was in combat during the persian gulf war. there are people like this who have gay relatives but are still pushing for anti gay laws. )

[Vas Liz]

11. This won't mean a damn thing

If we don't do well in the congress in november. If the repubs get any more seats I am 100% sure the FMA will be on the top of the list of things to do.

[slinkerwink]

22. just another false promise if they can't overturn DOMA

[JI7]

23. and that can be said about anything

if you don't get a congress to support your proposals then it's a false promise.if you don't win elections then everything you promise during a campaign can be considered a false promise. there is nothing false in kerry supporting gay rights though. kerry himself voted against DOMA. there is nothing false about that, it's a fact.

[MurikanDemocrat]

24. Just as I thought. Those who have already decided to be anti-Kerry

will continue to be so NO MATTER WHAT position he takes. There is truly NO POSITION he can take to make some people happy, because his crime is that he is not THEIR candidate. The same would have been true of Edwards if HE had been the one to knock THEIR candidate off his throne. True statement.

Time for people to just admit the truth - that nothing Kerry can say or do will please them - they will find fault NO MATTER WHAT.

Truly petty.

[DuctapeFatwa]

25. Luckily, you have the Patriot Act to help in the war against anti-Kerryism

Smoke em out of their holes! Bring em to justice! You got em on the run! No hole is deep enough to hide from the specially trained counter anti-Kerryism Ninja Task Force!

they thought you were weak but you have resolve and you will prevail against evil anti-Kerryists

It will be stamped out! Zero tolerance!

[MurikanDemocrat]

26. And deprive you of your roles as self annointed victims and martyrs?

Not a chance!

It will keep you busy while the rest of us do the heavy lifting!