"Kerry/ believes people are born gay/ not guaranteed right to marry" WTF?

[mstrsplinter326]

What kind of fence riding crap is that? What does it mean?

Would Kerry say he believes people are born black but not guaranteed the right to marry??

I believe that gay people are people and deserve rights accordingly. Should they not get to exercise the legal benefits of being married simply because they are gay? I thought this was a liberal party - How is this ok with anyone with a progressive mind?

I am astounded. Is this what Kerry believes, or is it a swing vote half-truth? (The true half being that he won't 'legalize' marriage among gays, and the untrue half being that he believes that they should be allowed to marry) And if he doesn't believe that they deserve the right to marry, doesn't that make him a discriminator/bigot/homophobe (Christian right-wing ideology aside)?

Does Kerry get away with this simply because he's not Bush? And if so, what other liberal tenets will he abandon before people begin to abandon him?

[Cursive_Knives512]

1. Maybe he's worried about the swing-vote

I'm disappointed in him, but I think he does understand the separation of government-sanctioned unions vs. religious ceremonies. Still, I wish he wouldn't be so "centric" just to appease the bigots.

[noahmijo]

5. I don't get this hostility

Okay pure and simple there is a difference between personally being against something and then trying to that belief become law.

I don't like country music, but I wouldn't ban it if I was president. Therefore those who do like it can listen to it if they want. No freedoms taken away there.

Although we don't hear Kerry calling for legalization of marriage he's allowing it to be left up to the states which in my opinion is the way it should be. I support marriage for guys despite my Catholic background because quite frankly a couple of guys or girls getting married really doesn't bother me, I could care less.

Those of you who just want Kerry to scream "Let the gays marry!" it's not gonna happen, it's political suicide, but what he is doing is allowing the gates to be open for it by opposing Bush's amendment banning gay marriages, and allowing states the freedom to allow it.

On another note, I think all states will have to allow it anyway should the amendment not pass, as thanks to Mass. I believe other states have to support the marriages under the Full Faith and Credit Clause.

[mstrsplinter326]

6. Leave it up to the states

"Again the civil rights comparison: What would have happened if we 'left (civil rights in the 60's) up to the states?'"

Should all gays just move to liberal states then? No way in hell most of the deep south states legalize gay marriages.

Of course I'm pissed, I believe in equality of opportunity. Its a right. When someone I am almost forced to support says he doesn't believe in it, I am going to be fired up.

[LeahMira]

11. Well, we sort of did...

Again the civil rights comparison: What would have happened if we 'left (civil rights in the 60's) up to the states?

We did until it became clear that some states were enacting laws that basically undermined black civil rights. Perhaps we have learned from that? I don't know.

It would be nice if we could trust the people to see the essential fairness of permitting people who are homosexual to enjoy all the rights of full citizenship, but the people seem bound to disappoint.

In spite of the 60s, we still have those who oppose affirmative action, but at the same time I think things are generally better... just not perfect yet. The fight for equal rights for homosexuals will also be long and hard, I'm afraid.

Merely passing laws doesn't make things so. We are seeing this with women's rights also. We thought we had a decision, but as we now see there are those who will undermine our rights as much as they can get away with it.

I do believe that people who are homosexual will be married legally in my lifetime but don't for a minute think that your rights are won when that happens. The fight is never over.

[dsc]

7. He has called for an amendment to the MA constitution

banning gay marriage though it does allow civil unions.

[noahmijo]

10. Okay if that's true

I wasn't aware of that never heard of it, but assuming it's true I still hold my ground under the fact that maybe in Mass Kerry wants to keep the civil union thing going but he's not calling for EVERY state to do that, just his.

[foreigncorrespondent]

14. Oh you bet your ass it is true.

Kerry backs Mass. marriage amendment, opposes federal one
Feb 26, 2004
By Staff

NASHVILLE, Tenn. (BP)--Democratic presidential frontrunner John Kerry said Feb. 25 that he would support an amendment to the Massachusetts Constitution that would ban same-sex “marriage” while legalizing civil unions.

But that is the only type of amendment he would support, he said in an interview with The Boston Globe.

Link: http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?ID=17732

[Goldom]

2. misleading headline

read the whole thing. He says they are not guaranteed right to marry because "marry" is a term of the church, ie, something the gov't is supposed to stay out of. he says they -should- be guaranteed all the same rights to 'marry' under the law, but just doesn't think the government has any place telling religion what they can and cannot allow.

[mstrsplinter326]

Ok, for his rhetoric, what about action.

Do you think he'd legalize it?

Isn't his plan to leave it up to the states??

Again the civil rights comparision: What would have happened if we 'left (civil rights in the 60's) up to the states?'

[LiberalTexan]

3. I must have missed something

When did he say this? I'm not a Kerry expert, so if it's common knowledge, just know I'm not trying to be confrontational.

I support him now that he's our front runner, but I don't know how in blazes I'm supposed to defend him on so many issues (this would be one). Let me know when he said it and what the context was (exact words would be nice), so I can add this to my stuff to try and be prepared for when people bring it up.

Is this going to be a long election year or what?

[mstrsplinter326]

4. I copied from another post

I think the post is still on the front page of 'Latest.' But it's locked for responding.

[peacetalksforall]

8. I feel out of it...I am not enthusiastic...I am disheartened about Kerry

Why the heck do we have to debate everything Kerry says? I'll tell you why - because he is not clear, because he must be pandering. Who else is not clear and panders? Bush and his handlers.

Do we have to chalk it up to politics and accept pandering? Seems like it's a deliberate attempt to fuzzy things up to fool a few. Let's have less of the political manuevering and more feet on the ground declarations. Is he not a risk taker?

Left to the states, we are going to end up in a horrible legal mess. Whether it's tomorrow of 2007 or later - this has to be a nationwide decision.

I am wholeheartedly for the marriages, but it sure is a sorry mess that it is all coming to a peak at this time. Since it has - go for it. It's inevitable. To fight it for bible interpretation reasons is crossing the line of church and state, imo.

So how darn important are the votes of this crossover crowd. He goes half way. What kind of message is he sending? Just how many votes does being wishy-washy buy?

I am beginning to loath all this centrist stuff. I tried to open up my mind to it under Clinton. Going to the center is going to the right and Zell Miller will be waiting for us.

Of the people, for the people, by the people - fits same genders as well as opposite genders.

[LeahMira]

12. Maybe, but maybe not.

Why the heck do we have to debate everything Kerry says? I'll tell you why - because he is not clear, because he must be pandering. Who else is not clear and panders? Bush and his handlers.

He may be, but I wouldn't jump to that conclusion right away. The one thing I noticed about Kerry a while ago was that he did not talk in sound bytes. He tended to give thoughtful answers... "in this circumstance, yes, but in that circumstance, no" kinds of replies. At the time, I thought the guy was screwed because his ideas couldn't be stated simply, while Americans generally want things spoonfed in easy to digest portions...but I really liked him for being thoughtful and looking deeper into an issue.

I don't think he has changed, and I think some of the frustration lies in that fact. I do hope that he supports equal rights for all citizens, but I plan to listen carefully to whatever he says because he does have nuanced opinions... a really pleasant change from the "shoot first and ask questions afterwards" idiot we have running the show right now.

[foreigncorrespondent]

9. It means...

...he supports a separate but equal thing for us.

If he truly believes we are born gay, then he would bloody well support our right to marry.

This is an attempt by him t make peace with the LGBT community before the election.

As I said in the other thread yesterday, choosing to play politics with peoples lives is nothing more than a bad cop out.

[LeahMira]

13. Sounds that way, doesn't it?

...he supports a separate but equal thing for us.

I'd like to see all unions, hetero and homo, be called civil unions and only those performed by ministers, priests, rabbis, imams, etc. be called marriages.

It would let the religious continue to feel "special" and at the same time give equal rights to all people.

Would that be a plan you could go with? Or if not, would you say why?

[foreigncorrespondent]

15. Well the thing is...

...what gay marriage is all about is civil marriages.

If the government allows the word marriage to remain with the church, and changes civil marriages to civil unions, then what happens about the churches which do support marriage for same sex couples? That would be a violation of the freedom of religion.

So no, I wouldn't support a plan like that, because not only is still a spearate but equal idea, it is hinging on the freedom of religion as well.

[Deja Q]

16. He cares only about votes... this isn't the only issue he's waffling on

Look at his TV ad. He made Gore look like William Shatner's acting ability by comparison.

In other words, Kerry's even more of a dull robot because he's too damn scared to say anything, under a fear he might lose a vote.

This is the sign of a leader, a guy who waffles out of fear he'll lose some votes?

Man, do I miss Dean... At least we all knew he STOOD for something and wasn't ASHAMED to say it with confidence!

What next? When * wins again, will Kerry come out of the woodwork 2 years later with conviction and charisma?! That's 2.5 years too late.

We do not want Gore Redux.

[John_H]

17. Damn It! I'm voting bush 'cause his civil liberties record is so great!!!

[foreigncorrespondent]

18. And that isn't the point us LGBT duers who...

...are hurt by Kerry is making, and you know it.

A lot of us happen to be ABB, and people who make such a rash comment like you have need to realize that those who are ABB will have to close their eyes come election day, because they are voting against their very lives no matter who they vote for.

And please don't question me about who I am voting for, because you my answer would be Mark Latham.

[mstrsplinter326]

19. Missed point entirely

You're voting for Kerry because he's not Bush. That's warrant for Kerry to do whatever he wants, without question.

[dsc]

20. I will vote for the man

but that doesn't mean I am going to praise all he has done, is doing, or will ever do.