dKos post for anyone feeling feisty

[MH1]

Responses to this post are out of control:

http://www.dailykos.com/comments/2005/10/15/1310/8929/7#7

Kerry was against gay marriage, pro civil union (none / 0)

...

by diplomatic on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 12:48:11 AM EST

The op is about Paul Hackett's position (non-position?) on gay marriage, so naturally someone had to make a false statement about JK's position, diplomatic responded as shown, and it devolved from there. Alot of accurate posts have been made, but it looks like only a couple Kerry defenders against the usual GLBT marriage absolutists. Maybe they'd appreciate some support.

I'm tapped out (and not so knowledgeable on this topic as I know some other folks here are). Anyone else have the energy to go smack those LF's around over at dkos? Or at least up-rate the accurate posts defending Kerry.

Just thought I'd mention it... I think we're allowed to post like this about other sites...

[Mass]

1. A lot of revisionnism from a few people who know perfectly well what

Kerry's position is.

- a civil union that will carry all FEDERAL and STATE advantages for same-sex couples; in other ways a marriage that is not called marriage.

While I think he should have gone all the way (because he did not convince anybody with this position), I can also understand that he did not do it. Being excommunicated for supporting gay marriage would not have been great for running a campaign (this not presuming of what is actually Kerry's position on the subject - I know however that many people that I know think this is only a political position, but once again, it is only their opinion).

As Frank put it during the campaign, if they cant see the difference between Kerry and Bush, there is nothing I can do.

[Mass]

2. The worse is that Hackett seems to understand what they do not understand

that making gay marriage a central element of the race in Ohio is the best way to lose the election.

[LittleClarkie]

3. I think diplomatic might be alright

And that's actually about right, stance-wise. He and Edwards both were for civil union as opposed to marriage.

[MH1]

4. Yes, diplomatic is one of the good guys (gals?). n/t

[sandnsea]

5. Kerry didn't really care, either way

If he had to make the law, he'd choose to go civil unions, that's just where people are at right now. But if a state wanted to go for marriage, that's the state's right too. That's why he wouldn't do what Clinton suggested and come out against all the gay marriage amendments. Like DOMA, he saw them as anti-gay legislation that serve no purpose except to bash gays.

[LittleClarkie]

6. In 2000, isn't that what Bush was saying too?

States Rights?

The difference between Gore and Bush: one of them was lying.