Does any Democrat politician with presidential ambition support gay

[elshiva]

marriage (not just civil unions)? Does Kucinich even? Clark? I know Dean doesn't support it. Hillary?

[Dr Ron]

1. I doubt Hillary

considering her moves to the right, and considering Bill Clinton's advice to Kerry to support the anti-gay marriage ballot proposals.

The amusing thing is that the Kos types claim to be progressives and oppose moves to the center, while supporting one of the more centrists Democrats(Dean). Even more amusing is that it is very likely that in 2008 John Kerry may be the most liberal viable candidate running.

Look at who people are talking about. Clinton is racing towards the middle. Edwards and Bayh have significantly less liberal voting records than Kerry. Warner is trying to position himself in the middle and as significantly more centrist than Kerry. It is doubtful any of the other governors who are sometimes mentioned will position themselves any more liberal than Kerry.

[LittleClarkie]

2. According to about.com

Kucinich supported them.

Braun too.

Clark does not, in almost exactly the same way and with the same language as Dean and Kerry. He supports civil unions. He also supports gays in the military and gay adoption

Leiberman outright opposed, with no provision that I can see for civil unions. However, he is in favor of gays in the military. Great quote: "The late Senator Barry Goldwater once said, 'It's not important if you are straight, just that you can shoot straight.' I agree, and believe our current policy should be changed."

According to a San Fransisco newspaper, Hillary does not support same sex marriage. Here's an article from queerday.com

http://www.queerday.com/2004/mar/15/senator_hillary_clinton_favors_civil_unions.html

So, I'd say no, not too many. Certainly not any of the frontrunners.

So why single out John Kerry? What are your feelings Elshiva?

[incapsulated]

3. Not exactly...

I don't barge in on other groups, but since I defended Kerry on this, I want Clark's position clear, as well.

Clark supports civil unions, but he is not opposed to "gay marriage". He considers the term "marriage" a "term of art" not something he has any problem with being used, something that is really for religious institutions or state legislatures to decide. He praised the Mass. court ruling and supported the idea of using the term "marriage".

These are his own words on the issue. (I will say that he seemed stunned that Rove was as effective as he was using this against Kerry, and how people across the spectrum responded to the issue.)

"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."

From the Advocate interview:

Speaking of marriage, I know your son was married recently. Let me ask you the same question you asked that officer: If your son had been born gay, would you want him to have the same rights that he enjoys today?

I would want him to have the right to have a stable relationship. But whether you call it marriage or not is up to the church or the synagogue or the mosque. And it’s up to the state legislatures. I think marriage is a term of art. It’s a term of usage. But the legal side of it is not: It’s not negotiable.

But about 40% of U.S. marriages every year happen without any religious participation.

I support whatever the state says. If the state of Massachusetts says we’re going to form a civil union but we’re going to call it marriage, then as far as I’m concerned, that’s marriage.

And what about the federal rights that come along with marriage?

They come.

Immigration?

Absolutely.

Social Security?

Absolutely. Whether or not it’s called marriage, those rights come.

So you support Massachusetts’s calling it marriage?

Yeah, absolutely.

[LittleClarkie]

4. not barging, clarifying, and I thank you

I was such a nominal Clarkie, I didn't know his position. I had to rely on about.com. So if what I wrote needed clarifying, I appreciate you letting me know.

Thanks for sticking up for Kerry. I really appreciated that too, even though he's not exactly your guy. I will do the same for Clark if he's misrepresented.

[incapsulated]

5. Thanks

This pile-on is absurd, considering the fact that democrats that voted for Kerry came out on election day and voted for banning civil unions in their own states.

It's not like he's changed his positions, although some would like to believe that.

I don't think most of us understood what kind of buttons this pushed, and Kerry was actually in a better position in the GE, as one of the more conservative in his personal views on the matter.

[WildEyedLiberal]

6. Yeah I've heard "f**p-f**pper" way too many times tonight

Funny thing is, Kerry's position has been consistent from the get-go. The usual suspects, of course, taking their usual dumps all over candidates who don't meet their strict purity requirements. What continually puzzles me is that the people they DO like don't meet the purity litmus test any better than Kerry or whoever the target of the week is.

Cognitive dissonance anyone?

[incapsulated]

7. It's especially irritating..

To hear Rove's talking points coming out of so-called democrat's mouths, isn't it?

*sigh*

I will amend what I said, though. Clinton, the master politician, could see this was going to be a big issue. What is ironic is that Kerry doesn't get any credit for standing his ground and refusing to do what was politically expedient as he suggested, and gets attacked for "flip-flopping".

:crazy:

[WildEyedLiberal]

8. Yeah good point.

If Kerry was the evil homophobe that he's been made out to be by the select few crazies at DU and dkos, he would've endorsed state amendments to ban gay marriage. He didn't.

Guess that's just too much reason for people to swallow! :crazy:

[LittleClarkie]

10. It was just the ridiculous surprise that got me

"How dare he position himself for 2008 over our rights!"

"Um, he's had this position for a while. Didn't you know that?"

"Well, I... I... I..., IT'S STILL WRONG!"

"I have no problem with you thinking it's wrong. But if it's such a hot issue with you, why did you vote for him in the first place? He hasn't changed his position."

Let's face it. The folks who are having a hairy cat fit all of a sudden weren't actual supporters in the first place. They were ABB. And then, when I make that point, here comes the Rush Limbaugh talking point "Everyone was ABB." No dear, just because YOU were ABB doesn't mean EVERYONE was ABB. I love that logic. Maybe a majority of your FRIENDS were ABB, but that's hardly a scientific poll.

I had the same feeling last week for Dean. Well, duh people. Dean hasn't changed his Iraq stance either.

Now over at Kos, I see someone's trying to say that Dean actually supports same sex marriage. That's not what I read in the SF Blade. Wouldn't you think they'd know?

I was right over at Kos, I think. Dean's Teflon and Kerry's Velcro. They can have almost the exact same position, but Kerry will get nailed while Dean gets a pass.

But, for all our Dems, all I ask is that if somebody is going to criticize them, that they have their facts straight. That's all. Be informed.

Watching folks on my Kos diary yesterday gives me the feeling that this is a "one-issue voter" situation. Problem is, almost none of our leaders have the position these one-issue voters want.

And one-issue voters make my teeth itch anyway. I don't think I will ever vote for someone based on a one-issue litmus test. The all or nothing mentality will often get you just that. Nothing. Almost all our Dem leaders are in favor of civil unions. Almost none are in favor of same sex marriage. So unless Dennis is getting elected any time soon, I kind of doubt we're going to have an ideologically pure person in the White House soon enough for some people.

What do we do? How do we come together when everyone feels so passionate, on every side. Pro-choice, pro-life, pro-sanctity of marriage, pro-same sex marriage, bankruptcy litmus tests, war litmus tests, etc., etc., etc.

Sorry about the pre-caffeine rant. I just find all of this so frustrating. Do we lose some of our factions to another party? Or do we try to work together as a larger coalition? Gromph.

[JohnKleeb]

14. I wonder what Kos would have thought of what I heard today

They want homophobia, thats homophobia, saying what I heard today.

[LittleClarkie]

11. I just about went apeshit yesterday

When the flip flopper meme came out. Can't people just say he changed positions? Do they have to say FLIP FLOPPER? Don't they remember how hard it was to fight that meme during the election? Or perhaps they were perpetuating it instead.

Hoo boy, that gets me steamed. Bad enough coming from the Republicans, let alone from MY OWN DAMN SIDE.

ESPECIALLY WHEN IT'S NOT DAMN TRUE!!

[karynnj]

9. Thanks for posting this

It's more detailed than anything I saw earlier on the DU threads this weekend - I've been ignoring them for several days having decided that all the Kerry info is there for those who are open to knowing. I can see that Clark's position will play better than Kerry's on DU.

Would I be correct to say the difference is that Clark, on the state level would allow the use of the word, "marriage", while Kerry is behind the same (legal entity- process and rights), but balks at the use of the word "marriage". (This is almost Shakespearean - "A rose by any other name would smell as sweet") This really shows the emotional importance of that word - on both sides. What is strange is how polarized it is with each side. Even when accurately framed, as being the same (concept) with different names, people on both sides seem unwilling to budge on what the (concept) must be called. I think my problem is that I am too analytical to personally be on either side - Too many years of starting with, "Let X = ...." where X is arbitrary (though conventional) and could be "let y =".

From the questions on federal rights, it's clear that Clark (as Kerry) would like gay unions (whatever they're called) to have federal rights, such as spousal social security benefits. Would I be right to assume that to get the federal rights and the right to assume other states' automatic acceptance, Congress would need to repeal DOMA? Have either Kerry (who originally voted against it) or Clark talked about this or do both simply realize that for now this is impossible and bringing it up is toxic?

In advance, I apologize if these questions offend or seem stupid. I am having trouble figuring out how the federal, home state, and other state definitions of "status" interact.

[incapsulated]

12. Federal and State

With the DOMA, the States are allowed to approve of same-sex civil unions or marriage, but the Federal government does not recognize them. It also denies the right for such unions to be recognized in other states.

For a good rundown on the DOMA, civil union, gay marriage issue:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_of_Marriage_Act

No one has talked much about the whole thing until this Kerry comment. When the Democrats saw other Dems voting against civil unions in their home states, they knew that this was more trouble than they had previously assumed. It will be slung around the neck of any Dem who supports civil unions next election, which is pretty much all of them, that's for sure.

I was proud of Clark's endorsement of the Mass court decision and his lack of any real issue with the word "marriage". But, there is no question, if he runs and gets the nomination next time, they will hammer him with it.

[karynnj]

13. Thanks

I'll look at the link - I agree with you that this is a no-win issue for Democrats. I don't think anyone who is against both Civil Unions and gay marriage can win the primaries. I think the less said the better on the issue. It obviously was used as a hedge against Kerry in spite of his slightly less liberal position. Because the Republicans called Kerry pro-gay marriage, I'm not sure someone who is ok with gay marriage would be hit more.

[elshiva]

15. Thank you incapsulated reminds me somewhat of what Kerry said:

He said this in The Washington Blade (DC Gay Paper) Interview on Friday, September 24, 2004:
http://www.washingtonblade.com/2004/9-24/news/national/kerry.cfm


"This is what?s important: I want an America in which people are loved and respected and not an America which has outcasts and discrimination and different layers of being an American or a human being. People are who they are, and America?s greatness is that we honor that and can respect it.

I think, you know, and I?ve said this before, I think marriage raises a different issue in the minds of a lot of people because of its deep religious foundations and institutional structure as the oldest institution in the world.

It is the oldest institution in the world ? older than country, older than our form of government, older than most forms of government. And people view it differently.

///What?s important to me is not the terminology or the status;/// what?s important to me are the rights. The rights. That you shouldn?t be discriminated against in your right to visit a partner in the hospital. You shouldn?t be discriminated against in your right to leave property to somebody, if that?s what you want. You shouldn?t be discriminated against if you have a civil union relationship that affords you the same rights."