George W. Bush has just undercut John Kerry on gay rights

[Brian_Expat]

Bush's new position on gay marriage and civil unions is now more or less identical to Kerry's -- the only difference being that Bush supports an anti-gay FEDERAL constitutional amendment, while Kerry supports anti-gay STATE constitutional amendments.

The Democrats are going to need to move fast on this to differentiate on gay equality.

More here:

http://www.365gay.com/newscon04/08/081304bushPos.htm

In a bid to recapture the middle ground from Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry President Bush now says states can provide legal recognition to gay and lesbian couples with civil unions. But, he continues to call for an amendment to the US Constitution to bar gay marriage.

"That's up to states," Bush told CNN's Larry King Thursday night. "If they want to provide legal protections for gays, that's great. That's fine. But I do not want to change the definition of marriage. I don't think our country should."

When asked about federal benefits for same-sex couples Bush pointed to inheritance taxes which are lower for people who are married Bush said gays should support Republican moves to get of inheritance taxes altogether.
. . . snip. . .

It is the first time that Bush has said he could support states enacting civil union legislation and the first time he has hinted he might support providing limited rights.

[jpgray]

1. Sorry, but this sounds like a limp attempt to copy Kerry's stance

And he can't back it up or he will alienate his fundie base. How is this undercutting Kerry?

[justin899]

17. Not really

"WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush endorsed a constitutional amendment Tuesday that would restrict marriage to two people of the opposite sex but leave open the possibility that states could allow civil unions."

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/02/24/elec04.prez.bush.marriage/

This is from back In Feb. when Bush first announced he supported the Federal Marriage Amendment.

Up until now I've not heard him mention his support for worthless civil unions again, but it isn't a new stance.

Kerry and Bush are the same in this one area, unfortunately.

[jpgray]

20. With the FMA, no state could legalize marriage--it would be illegal

Kerry allows an opening for states to legalize marriage itself. I think you are interpreting this rather strangely.

[Brian_Expat]

25. That's not really a difference. . .

. . . having marriage in, perhaps, three states (at most) versus zero states ain't a big enough differentiator to cut it, I'm afraid.

Bush has forced Kerry to do better, and I'm still sorta reeling over it.

Kerry needs to move forward with a federal civil partnership bill as part of his platform to stay differentiated within the news cycle. Otherwise, the media spin will be "the president and John Kerry are identical on gay marriage -- both oppose it and support civil unions."

[jpgray]

27. Let's see.

Bush:

Wants marriage illegal for all states, doesn't say he'll support civil unions.

Kerry:

Wants the states to decide on civil unions or marriage, doesn't plan to make either illegal at the federal level. Supports civil unions.

So explain to me how Bush is superior on the issue? Your claim after all is that he has undercut Kerry on gay rights.

[Brian_Expat]

30. Kerry opposes gay marriage in all states as well

He came out against the Massachusetts decision, supports the anti-gay Massachusetts constitutional amendment, and endorsed the Missouri amendment as well.

So you're inaccurate on the substance of his position. Bush has moved far to the left, rhetorically, on this issue. If he maintains that line, it will put Kerry and Edwards in a relatively weak spot unless they take substantive steps to implement real reforms in the federal recognition of same-sex relationships.

[jpgray]

34. Not true. If he did, he would support the FMA, which makes that possible

Kerry says he's personally opposed to gay marriage, but will agree with the decisions of the states one way or the other. You keep trying to say there is no difference, when one blatantly exists. Plus he fully supports civil unions, which Bush does not.

[Brian_Expat]

38. It is true

John Kerry supports ELIMINATING gay marriage in the only state that presently has it.

He endorsed Mitt Romney's anti-gay amendment up for a vote in two years that would ban gay marriages in Massachusetts. So far, Massachusetts is the only state where gay marriage is legal.

It doesn't matter whether my marriage is annuled by a state or federal amendment at the end of the day. If Kerry supports an anti-gay amendment in the few states that allow gay marriage, it's disingenuous to say that he supports gay marriages. He simply favours banning them through state constitutional amendments rather than federal ones.

[jpgray]

41. The MA amendment provides for civil unions, th FMA does not

Your arguments are so full of holes i don't know why you bother posting them. The MA amendment makes MA the second state in history to provide for civil unions. Does the FMA provide for federally legal civil unions? No. Your claims are increasingly disingenuous and illogical.

[Brian_Expat]

46. The Massachusetts amendment takes away rights

It's a stink-bomb.

For Kerry to support an anti-gay "separate but sort of equal" solution that takes rights AWAY from gay citizens of Massachusetts who today can get married does not make him a champion.

It's like getting rid of the "whites only" sign on a single public water fountain, and then later tearing out the water fountain and replacing it with two -- one that says "whites" and another that says "colored," and then talking about how progressive you are because most other water fountains are "whites only."

Please, stop this tortured logic. It turns off swing voters and it also turns off lots of gay conservative voters (who are votes that Kerry should easily have if he amended his position a little ).

[jpgray]

51. But you said gays don't care if it's civil unions or marriage?

Pick a side of the argument, or stop purposely disrupting the forum.

[Liberal Veteran]

57. If you think that drawing a line in sand is a politically wise move...

...let me disabuse you of that notion right here and now.

Demanding the entire thing right now is FOOLHARDY! We don't have the popular support to even attempt it.

I can't think of ANYTHING that could more easily cost Kerry this election than coming out strongly in favor of marriage rights for gays or even a federal civil unions legislation.

Think with your head and not your heart and you will know I am right.

[justin899]

49. The ignorance of this issue is astounding

There is no such thing as a "federally recognized civil union."

Civil Unions are NOT recognized by the federal government in any way, shape or form.

The only way to make them recognized is have congress amend thousands of federal laws which pertain to marriage and then have the president to sign it.

If you think for one minute that congress will amend all of the marriage laws to include civil unions, you're seriously deluded.

That wouldn't happen in a million years.

Furthermore, as long as it is called something other than marriage it will always be something other than marriage.

Even if you could get congress to amend laws to include civil unions, as long as they're called something other than marriage, they would always be able later to come back and remove the protections and rights they just granted to gays without impacting straight marriage.

You should go back and read the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruling on the matter. It points out, correctly, that separate but equal never is really equal.

[jpgray]

53. The FMA does not provide for federally legal civil unions

Where is the problem there?

[justin899]

59. THERE ARE NOT

"Federally legal Civil Unions" and won't be any unless the REPUBLICAN CONGRESS AMENDS OVER 1100 LAWS..why is this point so hard to comprehend?

CIVIL UNIONS ARE NOT RECOGNIZED BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IN ANY WAY, SHAPE OR FORM. PERIOD.

[jpgray]

61. Of course there are not, where did I say there were?

The MA amendment provides for civil unions, the FMA does not. This is a major difference between the two. Bush would support forever outlawing marriage on a federal level while not endorsing civil unions, while Kerry supports giving each state its own choice of the two.

[Brian_Expat]

64. This is a great example of what I'm talking about

"Federally legal Civil Unions" and won't be any unless the REPUBLICAN CONGRESS AMENDS OVER 1100 LAWS..why is this point so hard to comprehend?


I just presented a simple CP program that could easily be passed with liberal Republican and all Democrats supporting it, and it hasn't even been commented on.

A federal CP bill would NOT require "amending over 1100 laws." That's utter nonsense.

The UK, German and French government's bills were simple and allocated rights "associated with marriage" from the selected areas to people who are CPed. My proposal doesn't even go that far, but just addresses a few areas, and it's being pooh-poohed.

Meanwhile, gay people are being told to be content with CIVIL UNIONS when they aren't recognized at all AND Kerry opposes gay marriage. Presumably, those arguing for CPs rather than marriage would prefer that gay people receive no rights from the federal government?

[Brian_Expat]

55. lol

There is no such thing as a "federally recognized civil union."

That's only because legislation to create such a status hasn't been passed yet.

The only way to make them recognized is have congress amend thousands of federal laws which pertain to marriage and then have the president to sign it.

You could start with just a few key categories, as I mentioned before.

If Kerry came up with an omnibus bill that:

1) Passed ENDA;

2) Equalized immigration rights for same sex couples;

3) Equalized social security, welfare and tax benefits for same sex couples (such as allowing joint filing and dependency claims);

4) Recognized foreign civil partnerships or marriages for customs purposes.

5) Created a federal registry that allowed this and accepted entries from states with CP/DP or marriage laws;

That would be a nice, good, alternative FEDERAL CP bill that wouldn't be hard to pass AND would put pressure on Bush to be more specific.

It's not that hard, if you stop apologizing for inaction and start to think differently about this issue (as some of my friends did when they filed a lawsuit resulting in the Goodridge decision in Massachusetts).

If Canada, the UK, Germany, France, and other countries with labyrinthine tax and regulatory systems can do more, surely such a bill is the least that Kerry/Edwards can pledge to.

[justin899]

68. Speaking of ENDA

That's another thing that is annoying about Kerry in the past few months.

It isn't just marriage. He's avoiding other gay rights issues (such as employment anti-discirmination laws)like the plague.

I see what you're saying..he could attempt to change the immigration laws, amend Social Security statutes, etc., but still that wouldn't beging to cover the thousands of lines of amendments that would be necessary just in the income tax code alone.

If it wasn't called a civil union and was called "marriage" then no laws would have to be changed. We'd just have to invalidate DOMA and everything would fall into place.

As long as it's separate it will always be an unequal second-class status.

Plus, insurance companies and private employers won't have to grant civil unions the same discounts and benefits as marriage.

Civil Unions are completely and utterly worthless.

[Liberal Veteran]

45. The simple fact is you are being politically unrealistic.

The stakes are FAR TOO HIGH to lose this election because we want to play the role of Veruca Salt and make demands of our candidate that WILL COST HIM THE ELECTION.

I don't think altering his position as it is now is a smart idea. You want to energize Bush's base and turn off the swing vote? Coming out strongly in favor of gay rights is probably the fastest way I can think of to do it.

You don't have to LIKE THAT FACT, but you need to accept it.

[Brian_Expat]

50. I'm not being unrealistic

If anything, I am recognizing the reality.

If you want to say "John Kerry has to be anti-gay to win the election," then say that.

But please stop force-feeding me crap which says that Kerry's the best thing to happen to gay people. Al Gore was considerably better on gay rights than Kerry.

I don't think altering his position as it is now is a smart idea. You want to energize Bush's base and turn off the swing vote? Coming out strongly in favor of gay rights is probably the fastest way I can think of to do it.

Bush clearly made this decision to appeal to swing voters (most of whom agree with the whole "no marriage but some rights" position). He clearly saw it as a way to get more conservative swing voters who were unsure based on his strong "regulatory social issues" rhetoric back into his camp.

Unless the Kerry people change their strategy, he will have succeeded on that front.

It's just a battle, not the war, but a key battle nonetheless.

[Liberal Veteran]

63. Oh please. Spare me your digital thinking. It's not all black and white.

And I see you are back to saying that Kerry must alter his stance in order to show he is different from Bush. Which is basically allowing Bush to set the bar.

[Brian_Expat]

66. You're the one with digital thinking, dude

I see you are back to saying that Kerry must alter his stance in order to show he is different from Bush. Which is basically allowing Bush to set the bar.

Kerry set the bar too low. Either he moves to raise it, or he essentially abandons this as an issue of differentiation with swing voters. Those are his two choices within the present political paradigm.

[Liberal Veteran]

72. Kerry set the bar at a place the American people are willing to accept.

You need to get that through your head.

The US is one of the more puritanical countries in the world when it comes to the issue of sex and sexual orientation and yet you are advocating that Kerry take a position that would be political suicide.

Europe is more liberal on these matter than the US and most of them that recognize gay unions ONLY recognize civil unions.

Indeed, over 2/3's of those countries in Europe that recognize gay unions do so in the form of civil unions.

Don't sacrifice the war by putting all your hopes on a big prize we cannot hope to achieve. You and I both know that if push comes to shove we WILL be promptly shut down.

[justin899]

54. That's the same argument

they used against the Civil Rights Act.

[Liberal Veteran]

69. Yeah, and how long did it take blacks to get civil rights?

Nearly 100 years.

It's been about 35 years since the gay rights movement started and we still have problems getting anti-discrimination legislation passed that includes gays and think that the country is ready for gay marriage?

Hell, even in the more liberal European countries, MOST of them have CIVIL UNIONS for gays instead of marriage.

Denmark
France
Iceland
Germany
Norway
Sweden

All recognize civil unions rather than gay marriage.

Only Belgium, the Netherlands, and some providences of Canada recognize same-sex marriage.

We are fighting an uphill battle, but slow and steady wins the race.

[justin899]

78. The reason we don't have anti-discrimination laws is because people

like you are always making up excuses for Democrats and have proved time and again you will support anything with a D after its name making the 3rd largest constistent voting block for the Democratic party taken wholly for granted.

How else does one explain the fact that a candidate can look you right in the face and tell you that you don't deserve the same rights he currently has while knowing full well you'll vote for him anyway.

We will NEVER EVER get ANY rights at the federal level as long as we make excuses for politicians and allow them to take our collective votes for granted.

If he came out and said he opposed a federal amendment banning abortion, but had no problem with states passing amendments that do the same he would LOSE a significant portion of the female vote.

If he came out against Affirmative Action at the federal level but thinks states should decide for themselves whether they want to continue programs at the state level, he would lose the black vote.

But for some damn reason people like you make excuses for his pandering to bigots when it concerns us. Well fuck that.

I will vote against Bush (for one reason only-the judiciary) this time. But next time if Kerry is still backing state amendments I will work my butt off to make damn sure he is defeated.

[Liberal Veteran]

84. Beg pardon, but don't presume to lecture me on civil responsibilities.

I've been fighting for equality for gays and lesbians almost 20 years years. I had to do so at a time when friends were dropping like flies from AIDS in the 80's and our government was silent and trying to get treatment for them.

I served in a military before "don't ask, don't tell".

I have been in this fight a damn long time and I have a pretty good idea of what is realistic and was is not. I have lived through more disappointments than you can imagine.

Have you forgotten that it was not 20 years ago that Supreme Court upheld a state right to make gay sex ILLEGAL?

Have you forgotten it was just last year that was overturned?

You can stick your head in the sand and pretend no progress is being made, but you are fooling yourself.

You want everything right now. In truth, we all do. But it will take time and if you can't accept that, then you have my pity you haven't grown up enough to understand that social change is SLOW and fraught with both the ecstasy of winning a battle here and the deep dissappointment of losing a battle there.

But don't think for a second you have the moral authority to lecture me in this fight.

[justin899]

85. No one is lecturing you..do what you like

If you want to continue voting against your own interests go right ahead.

I will not do that. You may have been an activist for 20 years, but at the federal level there is nothing to show for it.

I'm not about to waste 20 years of my life by supporting a bunch of people who take me for granted. I'm not attempting to tell you what to do. I'm just saying I'm not willing to do that.

And please don't presume to lecture me! I'm not a child, I'm a 22yo adult so you're wrong about that too.

As for idiotic sodomy laws, yes I'm aware of the 1986 ruling. I'm also aware that the democratic party did NOT ONE DAMN THING about it, either.

Democrats at the federal level are no different than Republicans at the federal level.

We need more political parties! It is insane to think that two parties can adequately serve a diverse population of over 290 million people.

If it wasn't for the fact that Bush has said he wants to promote Thomas (who in many respects is even worse than Scalia) to Chief Justice and Pryor, Pickering, et al nominations Bush has made are so bad, I'd be supporting Nader this year instead.

I will vote for Kerry, but I'm sick that I actually sent him money (prior to his inflammatory remarks in MO). He does NOT represent my best interests in the least. He's not only come out in favor of state amendments, but he has refused to discuss other gay rights issues in the first place. That's a pretty awful way to treat people who you want to vote for you, but I guess he's aware that a certain segment would vote for him no matter what he does or says (even if he was'nt running against Bush) because they're partisan and always vote against their own best interests.

[Liberal Veteran]

89. Yawn...I see you are one of those.

You truly don't have a clue about how long it takes to make social change.

If you really believe that taking a pricipled stand because a candidate doesn't go as far as you like in your pet causes, then you have much to learn. And no, you are not a child, but believe you me, life teaches you patience. Check back with me in 18 years and tell me if you still think you were as mature and wise at 22 as you (hopefully) will be at 30 or 40.

There is a time and a place to make a stand. It's not now. Kerry is not your enemy. I am not your enemy.

They say that luck favors the bold, but I don't think that's going to hold true this time.

[justin899]

42. Kerry is running for President, Not Senator

The president serves no function in the passage of a Constitutional Amendment to the United States constitution.

This amendment will be back..you can count on it.

There is not one damn thing Kerry can do about it as President.

His overt support for the amendment in Massachusetts, however, can in fact have an impact.

If he's president in 2006, when MA will be voting on a constitutional amendmendment, Kerry would be in an awkward position to say the least.

If he reverses himself on his support for the state amendment he will be accused of flip-flopping. If he continues to support it he could cause the only state which allows gay marriages to ban them.

[jpgray]

44. So it doesn't matter if the president supports the FMA or not?

What is wrong with you people?

[jpgray]

90. Also, have you heard of something called a veto?

So long as Congress remains divided as it is, it's very important to have a president that doesn't support such bigoted federal legislation.

[justin899]

92. No, I thought you said you were talking about the FMA...

at least that's what you said.

The Federal Marriage Amendment isn't a statute. It is an amendment to the U.S. constitution. The president does not have any veto power over an amendment.

Again, the amendment will be back, Bush can't make it pass and Kerry can't veto it. A president serves no function in amending the constitution.

[justin899]

36. No, that is not Kerry's position

Kerry's position is that he is opposed to same-sex marriages but (like Bush) favors "civil unions."

Same-sex marriage is already illegal at the federal level, thanks to DOMA (which Kerry didn't support at the time but it passed anyway so that is a moot point now).

The point is it isn't an either/or situation. Either a state amendment or a federal amendment (or both!)are wholly unacceptable moves against equality.

Both same-sex civil unions and same-sex marriages came out of state supreme courts interpreting their state constitutions. Never once has the United States Supreme Court ruled in favor of same-sex unions. If the Missouri amendment had been on the books in either Vermont or Massachusetts, gays in this country would still be with ZERO rights in this area.

It is therefore just as damaging (in fact more so since MA is the only state where marriage equality is now a reality) for John Kerry to run around the country endorsing bigoted state amendments in order to attempt to pick up a few cracker votes while hanging his 3rd largest voter block out to dry.

No one, at least I'm not, is saying Bush is better than Kerry on this issue. It's just that they are *identical* on this issue, and that is the problem.

[jpgray]

56. Where does Bush support civil unions?

Supporting the choice of the states on marriage and federally abolishing marriage are two different things. Under Bush's view, MA, CA and other states would have no chance to decide for itself what to do on marriage. Under Kerry's, they would.

How is there no difference there?

[Brian_Expat]

67. Bush's statement is similar to Kerry's supporting civil unions

Whether he believes it or not doesn't matter. Unless Kerry gets more specific, from here on out from the media's point of view, Bush is the same as Kerry on this issue.

[jpgray]

71. No, Bush has never said that he supports civil unions

Tell me again, if you prefer marriage to civil unions, why there is no difference between a candidate who would ban marriage in all states as opposed to one who would allow each state to choose for itself? Why is there no difference between a candidate who has appointed bigoted judges to our courts and one who has voted against federal legislation such as DOMA and has an excellent civil rights record? How is there no difference between a candidate who publicly supports civil unions and one who avoids the subject for all he's worth?

Answer these questions please--you keep avoiding them.

[justin899]

28. Yes, I understand that, however

There are as many as a dozen states with this question on the ballot this fall.

It would be one thing for Kerry to say he supports states rights (which is a euphemism for segregation), but if he continues to do what he did in Missouri where he said he and John Kerry have "no problem" with writing discrimination into the state constitution and that he would have "voted for it himself" (this despite the fact that the amendment didn't provide for civil unions which his previous position mandated before he would support an amendment) and that the people in Missouri "did what was right," then we have a problem.

His outright endorsement for that amendment could sway more people to vote for the other dozen similar amendments (except for Ohio where the amendment there would outlaw not only marriage but civil unions and domestic partnerships as well-yet Kerry hasn't said one thing against it).

If his tacit approval for state amendments under the disgusting banner of "states rights" moves a larger number of people to vote in favor of the state amendments then that could lead House and Senate members to vote in favor of the federal amendment.

The federal amendment will be back again and there is nothing Kerry or Bush can do about it one way or the other since a federal amendment does not require a presidential signature to pass.

[Chelsea Patriot]

93. "Worthless Civil Unions" ???!!!!

Having been in a civil union for over ten years, I find your characterization of my relationship to be really offensive!

My "worthless" Civil Union provides me with health insurance, the continuation of my partner's pension after his death, hospital visitation and Medical Emergency rights, power of
attorney, and inheritance rights to our apartment.

These may not be all the rights my partner and I would like. But we believe an expansion of the rights already guaranteed by Civil unions is a much more effective way of achieving our rights then this whole "Marriage" issue

"Gay Marriage" has provided us with NOTHING, except jeopardizing our already won rights.

Your snippy attitude demonstrates why "Gay Marriage" will fail. If you're alienating gay men in a relationship with your immature tone and outlook, I doubt if you're going to be very successful in bringing too many straight people into the "Gay Marriage" fold.

[fujiyama]

2. You're being very

disingenuous.

To even compare Bush on Kerry on this issue is nuts. Kerry may not be perfect on it and I disagree with him on gay marriage, but Kerry has made it clear that he favors giving all rights associated with marriage for gay couples.

[lapfog_1]

5. Not to mention that there is a big difference between

calling for amendments to ban gay marriage, and not opposing the
rights of states that pass legislation on the subject.

[Brian_Expat]

11. The difference is semantics

Anyone who endorses any constitutional amendment against gay equality, state or federal, is not a credible advocate of civil equality. Bush just happens to be worse than Kerry on that front, but Kerry is not really leading either.

The Kerry/Edwards endorsement of the Missouri amendment still has me steaming.

[justin899]

12. It doesn't make one damn bit of difference

whether you support 50 state amendments (including the ONLY state where gay marriage is now illegal) as Kerry does or support the FMA as Bush does, the end result IS THE SAME.

[Brian_Expat]

16. Exactly

The DLC-inspired policies of Kerry and Edwards on gay marriage are going to have to change if they want to be substantively different "officially" on gay marriage.

Kerry and Edwards will have a hard time bashing Bush as an intolerant bigot on gay rights from now on. . . O'Liely and the other Republicans will simply note Bush's position is largely identical to Kerry's. That's bad mojo for the Kerry campaign.

Now's the time to seize the momentum and, at the very least, pledge to pass a comprehensive civil partnership bill at a federal level for federal tax benefits, immigration rights, legal ownership rights, etc. Otherwise, the Kerry campaign loses on this issue as a substantive differentiator with Bush and Co.

[lapfog_1]

80. I hadn't heard that Kerry is calling for 50 states to

pass amendments to their respective constitutions to ban gay
marriage. Can you point me to a link where this is stated?

Also, as a point of information... what is Hawaii's position
on gay marriage. I mean, they are one of the most liberal
strongholds (as a state) in the nation, plus think if the extra
tourism this would generate. Or do they allow gay marriage?

[justin899]

83. Hawaii was the first state to pass a constitutional ban

proving once again that there are just as many homophobes on the left as there are on the right.

One smiles in your face and the other tells you they hate to to your face, but when push comes to shove, both sides have some really troubled people.

[lapfog_1]

86. Then now is not the time

to press this subject. The rethuglicans have correctly identified
it as a wedge issue. If Kerry comes out with strong support of
gay marriage now, then he loses the election. After he is elected
President, and after some more gay positive images, it could be
time to address this again. Clearly, if Hawaii won't allow gay
marriage, and California has passed legislation to restrict it,
this needs to be more of a long term goal.

These social struggles often last generations... look how long
African Americans had to struggle to get where they are today...
and even that struggle isn't over yet.

[Brian_Expat]

6. I'm not being disingenuous

I am telling you the average "reaction on the street" from gay people, many of whom don't care whether it's civil unions or marriage.

If Kerry wants to ensure leadership on gay rights, he needs to lead. Like it or not, Dubya's now made "ban marriage, make civil unions" the conservative Republican position. Kerry needs to do better on the big picture, not the minutiae.

And I am going to take some time to savour this big capitulation by the Republicans -- it's a result of the work of everyday gay people who come out everywhere and keep the conservatives honest. They had to fall back big time on this front as well, even if only rhetorically.

[jpgray]

21. Gay people don't care if it's civil unions or marriage? Stop there

You are clearly not very well-informed on this issue.

[Brian_Expat]

29. I am gay, so I am pretty well informed

And while I prefer marriage to civil unions, I don't exactly have a marriage candidate in this race, do I?

So the new choice is, officially, civil unions versus civil unions. So Kerry and Edwards are going to have to be more specific about how they're bringing civil unions into the picture over the next several months to maintain a lead on this issue within the media.

If all they do is repeat the "no marriage, but civil unions" line, the media talking heads will equate their position with Bush's.

[Liberal Veteran]

31. Being gay doesn't give you the authority to speak for any gay person...

...except yourself.

This gay man disagrees with your statement wholeheartedly.

[Brian_Expat]

33. I was told that I "didn't understand the situation"

As a gay marriage activist, I challenged that contention.

I want gay marriage equality, and one reason I opposed Kerry in the primaries was because of his willingness to waffle on this issue. Now it's gone and bit him in the butt because Bush has pursued a strategy that you and I both know is disingenuous, but which will win him a lot of "undecided moderate" votes.

Kerry needs to hit back, and insisting that I'm stupid or blind for saying so is burying one's head in the sand.

[jpgray]

37. No you were told you aren't well-informed

And again and again that is proven by your posts. Kerry's position has always been the same: Voted against DOMA, no FMA, supports civil unions, doesn't support gay marriage, let the states choose one way or the other.

Bush, on the other hand, supports federally abolishing gay marriage by including bigotry in the Constitution, and doesn't say he support civil unions.

[Brian_Expat]

40. I understand all that

But the average moderate voter won't. And Kerry/Edwards' present rhetorical position (endorsing anti-gay amendments in Massachusetts, Missouri, etc.) isn't going to help them make that point either.

For swing voters who don't focus closely on the issues, Bush and Kerry are now, for all practical purposes, identical. And that ability for Bush to close that gap with a simple rhetorical change is largely the Kerry/Edwards campaign's fault.

[jpgray]

32. One candidate amends the Constitution to permanently make marriage illegal

In other words you will never have a chance for equal rights, and it will be written down in the most sacred legal document of the United States that you are a second class citizen.

The other candidate leaves it up to the states, which will allow BOTH marriage and civil unions to be legal.

Most gays I've spoken with are interested in equal rights, not having an amendment conceived in bigotry permanently stamped on our Constitution.

[Brian_Expat]

35. Both candidates support Constitutional Amendments banning gay marriage

Bush supports a federal one. Kerry supports one banning gay marriage in Massachusetts (the only state where gay marriage is legal today).

It doesn't matter, substantively, if you amend the federal constitution or the state constitutions of states that allow gay marriages.

This is the danger of the DLC "cautious centrism" that's characterized this campaign so far. Bush was certain to move, rhetorically, to capture some undecided moderate votes if his "rally the base" plan failed. That's what he's done today and unless the Kerry team hit back with some SUBSTANTIVE differentiation IN POLICY on this issue, they've just lost this issue as a differentiator for the most part.

[jpgray]

39. State amendments and federal amendments are two different things

You would rather no state have the chance to legalize marriage?

[Brian_Expat]

43. State amendments in 50 US states are the same as a federal amendment

If the Kerry-endorsed anti-gay amendment in Massachusetts passes, gay marriage ends in the USA.

I don't want a "chance" to "legalize" gay marriage. I want a candidate who takes a principled and active stand for the civil rights of all Americans.

I don't get one with Kerry, I just get a candidate who is marginally better than Bush the Idiot Chimpanzee. But that doesn't mean I am going to pretend there's a HUUUUUUGE gulf between the two in terms of rhetoric heard by the average Joe in this election. You shouldn't either. It's too tortured.

[Liberal Veteran]

47. Not true. Federal law trumps state constitutions in civil rights.

Period.

[Brian_Expat]

58. So you're arguing that the SCOTUS would find a right to gay marriage?

I find that highly unlikely.

[Liberal Veteran]

60. Well, they sure as hell won't if Bush is allowed to pick 3 justices.

Think and chew on that.

[justin899]

75. There aren't any pro-gay federal laws

after 30 years of blind support for Democrats we have gotten exactly ZIP at the federal level.

We're the ONLY minority which isn't included in federal anti-discrimination laws.

You may be content with crumbs and smiles every election cycle, but I'm getting sick and tired of them compromising OUR positions right off the bat every single damn election.

[Liberal Veteran]

77. Would you prefer to move backwards instead?

You want a court packed with right-wing idealogues?

Look at what happened when Clinton tried to end discrimination against gays in the military.

That should be a wake up call that the odds are stacked against us.

Sure we haven't made a lot of headway at a federal level, but on the state and local levels we are slowly but surely making headway.

I know that no one likes to accept the fact how much outright hatred there is for gays in this country, but it exists and we can't win this battle by ignoring the hatred and pretending it doesn't exist.

[jpgray]

48. MA will be the second state that allows civil unions

This further proves your ignorance because you were apparently unaware of this, because the amendment provides for civil unions. Earlier you said it didn't matter if there were civil unions or marriage, but now you seem to be advocating hard for marriage--you can't have it both ways. The amendment Kerry supported provided for civil unions in MA, and still left open all the other states for their own decisions--serving as president he cannot control the states without a federal law, and because he says he will not legislate on the federal level to outlaw marriage, that will not happen.

Bush on the other hand WILL legislate on the federal level to outlaw marriage, does not support civil unions, and his proposed amendment does not provide civil unions.

Again, how is there no difference?

[Brian_Expat]

62. Puh-lease

I am from Massachusetts and am friends with two of the couples who filed the suit that got us hard-won marriage equality that John Kerry wants to take away.

Taking away marriage rights and replacing them with a second-class "civil unions" category is not a step forward. Stop pretending it is.

Bush on the other hand WILL legislate on the federal level to outlaw marriage, does not support civil unions, and his proposed amendment does not provide civil unions.

Bush just changed his stance to support civil unions. All the talking heads will say is that now Bush and Kerry are the same on this issue. Unless Kerry does something to differentiate himself, for real (rather than tortured rationalizations that Massachusetts gays should be PLEASED that they'll go from married to "civilly partnered" if Kerry's anti-gay amendment is passed), he loses this as a point of differentiation with swing voters.

[jpgray]

65. This highlights how ridiculous your argument is

"Taking away marriage rights and replacing them with a second-class "civil unions" category is not a step forward. Stop pretending it is."

Then why would you be fine with having it federally outlawed as compared to letting each state decide? Why would you be fine with a president who appoints bigoted judges as opposed to one who will appoint judges who support civil rights?

[jpgray]

73. I'm not claiming there's any gulf--but you're claiming Bush undercut Kerry

So far your tying yourself in knots and fleeing from points that don't work out well for you fail to support this. Would you rather have no chance for a state to legalize gay marriage, or would you rather have each state decide for itself? This is a fundamental difference between the two positions.

[grasswire]

3. his base is going to love it.

(NOT)

[justin899]

23. His fundy base won't

But he more than likely just cemented his gay Republican base which has so far refused to endorse him this time around. According to exit polls in 2000, Bush received around 1 million gay votes and losing even half of those in states where the election will be down to a few thousand votes could make all the difference in the world.

[movonne]

4. This is only to get elected....but like everything else his said in his

last campaign was a lie. ( he did just the opposite.)

[Brian_Expat]

10. I know he's a liar

And I don't believe him.

But the fact that this is now his OFFICIAL position on the issues means that, officially, he and Kerry are pretty much the same on one of the major civil rights issues of our time.

The Kerry/Edwards campaign will, as a result, have to do better.

And regardless of the long-term outcome, this tremendous rhetorical capitulation by the Republicans is a major victory for civil rights everywhere. It means they're following the lead of the public, who aren't buying the Republicans' old hate propoganda.

[mermaid]

7. As A Transgender Person, I Say...

too late, asshole!! You already showed your TRUE colors on this issue long ago, and WE GLBT people are NOT going to forget that you have all but named us Public Enemy Number One!

Spin it however you like, Mr. Bush...we know where you REALLY stand!

FUCK YOU DUBYA!!
WANT A PRETZEL??

[shraby]

9. Flip Flop Flip Flop

[Brian_Expat]

13. I agree!

Dubya out of the White House this November.

But this is tremendous news no matter how you look at it. It's the beginning of the end of the right-wing rhetorical jihad against gay people, from their party leader's own right-wing mouth!

That they had to make this adjustment, despite all the angst from the base that others have noted, means that they're seeing their stance HURTING them in the polls. And that's good news no matter how you look at it for gay civil rights.

[napi21]

8. GEE! Wonder how many in his base are going to stay home over this one?

Shrub needs to tread very lightly on this stuff. His base isn't a very understanding lot, and they won't budge on their beliefs. Right or wrong, they're very determined!

[Liberal Veteran]

14. The only way that Bush is going to undercut Kerry on this issue...

...is by publically endorsing civil unions for gay couples. (and I expect that'll happen when the sun rises in the west.)

Period.

Anything short of that is far removed from Kerry's position on gay couples.

[Brian_Expat]

18. Not really

Officially, Kerry and Bush now have an identical position on the issue, other than on the FMA.

Kerry's got to take things further. He needs to promise to pass a federal CP bill as part of his term.

[jpgray]

22. Kerry is for civil unions. Bush is not

You really need to research this a bit more--you have made several misleading and inaccurate claims.

[Liberal Veteran]

24. Oh, spare me your bullshit.

What you are saying is that Kerry ought to allow Bush to define his positions.

Kerry didn't support DOMA. Kerry didn't support FMA. Kerry supports civil unions for gays.

But Bush and Kerry are identical.

Spare me your handwringing over this.

[Brian_Expat]

26. Not at all

What you are saying is that Kerry ought to allow Bush to define his positions.

What I am saying is that, officially, as the media reports it, there's now no major difference between Kerry and Bush on gay rights. Both oppose marriage and support civil unions.

So if Kerry wants to stay substantively differentiated, he's going to have to do more.

Spare me your handwringing over this.

I'm not handwringing. I am rejoicing. This is a big victory for gay people and is going to force the Democratic party to SUBSTANTIVELY address gay equality in order to remain the "more progressive party."

That means no more "I oppose efforts to abrogate civil rights" and a lot more "I will do this, this and this to bring equality into focus."

[Rowdyboy]

70. Hopefully, Kerry will keep his current policy on the issue....

If he changed, at this point in the race on that highly controversial position, he would be crucified. There is no way the gay vote is going for Bush or Nader this time...We won't get fooled again.

Responding to Bush would be allowing him to focus on the issue. Ignoring him allows the media to (maybe) focus on more serious issues-like war, unemployment and education.

[Liberal Veteran]

74. Agreed. I am just as anxious as anyone to marry my partner of 15 years.

But I am not going to squander any hope for that in my lifetime by pushing for something that isn't going to happen in this race.

We have to choose our battles wisely.

[mermaid]

87. I Disagree...

He needs to leave the issue alone, and re-focus on things more people care about, like jobs, and the war, etc. He'll get CRUCIFIED if he takes what will be percieved as a pro-gay stance.
What he needs to do NOW is get elected. Once he IS elected...THEN we can hold his feet to the fire on this issue...just NOT YET, folks....

[gatorboy]

15. If people buy into Bush's bullshit again this election...

..I'm packing my bags. This is the exact same stuff he pulled in 2000, running as the 'compassionate' conservative again.

Didn't he say the same thing to King during his interview in 2000? That it was up to the states? This is right up there with his "I'm against nation building" bit he tossed out during the 2000 election as well.

THere's a term for this isn't there? Now what is it...flippity...no....floopity...

[Jim Sagle]

19. Chickenshit bullshit.

[radfringe]

52. it's the FLIP-FLOP Tapdance

he's supporting by not supporting

just like he supported patient bill of rights in Texas by NOT signing the bill and thereby the Bill "passed" without his signature

[Swamp Rat]

76. You have been suckered into Bush&Co spin. No need to move "fast" to defend

Bush&Co double talk.

There is a FUNDAMENTAL difference. It's simple:

Kerry is for civil unions

Bush against civil unions

[Waverley_Hills_Hiker]

79. interesting to see Bush move to the left on this..

...didnt expect that.

[jpgray]

81. It's expected he would move towards the center come election time

I think civil unions poll much better than gay marriage (54% I think support), for example, and doubtless he wants to give some of his moderate voters something to hold on to. And if it's popular and doesn't excessively risk his fundie base, he'll claim to support it.

[dsc]

82. While I tend to agree with your diagnosis, I disagree on the treatment

For better or worse, Kerry has staked his position on marriage and civil unions and can't change it now. What he can, and should do, is be out front in his speeches about his support of ENDA and anti hate crime legislation. They are winners politically and Bush would have to flip flop to match.

[Barret]

88. Kerry is bull shiting

THAT is the difference. Kerry won't come out in favor of same sex marriage, but once in office I do not believe he would do anything to obstruct it nor support such attempts. (though I don't believe he would do anything to help the cause either) Bush on the other hand will make efforts to obstruct same sex marriage.

Unfortunately this may help bush with people who are naive.

[justin899]

91. Except that people who work around him say he's genuinely opposed

to gay marriage.

Jim Jones, a long time aide who has worked with Kerry since the mid 90s says there is no doubt in his mind that Kerry is genuniely opposed to same-sex marriage.

"Kerry's position has been cast as political expedience, a way of taking the thunder out of President Bush's anti-marriage appeals to moderate and conservative voters. But Jones, who lives in Washington with his partner of two years, thinks Kerry is genuinely opposed.

"I've had conversations with him about it, and I get the sense that it's more than just political," Jones says. "He tends to think the country has a way to go on the issue, and he hasn't been convinced yet either. That's a case we've still got to make."
http://www.gay.com/news/roundups/package.html?sernum=920

[nolabels]

94. My, oh, my, how things stay the same as much as they change

Pink Triangle
The Nazi persecution of gays

Journalist Danny Lee gives a concise rundown of the events that led to the deaths of at least 15,000 gay men at the hands of the Nazis

Before World War II, radical artistic movements – such as the Dadaists (who were deliberately anti-art and anti-sense) – and political groups such as the Communists flourished in Berlin. The city, famous throughout the world for its relaxed attitude towards sex, was also the centre of Germany's gay community.

In addition, the German capital was the site of the Institute for Sexual Science. This had been founded in 1919 by pioneering sexologist and homosexual reformer Magnus Hirschfeld (1868-1935). His term to describe homosexuals – 'the third sex' – was in common use in the city at the time.

From freedom to tyranny
Despite Berlin's vitality, the city was like an isolated ship in a storm-tossed sea, thrown from crisis to crisis. In November 1918, from two Berlin balconies less than a mile apart, the leaders of both the Social Democratic Party and the Spartacists (who later formed the nucleus of the German Communist Party) proclaimed rival German republics.

However, the following January, after a Spartacist uprising, the movement's leaders Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Liebknecht were tortured and murdered by right-wing army officers with whom the Social Democratic government felt it had to make a deal to ensure its survival. After the election of a National Assembly a few days later, Weimar, a small town outside Berlin, was made the new capital.
(snip)
http://www.channel4.com/history/microsites/H/history/heads/footnotes/footpink.html

http://www.takebackthemedia.com/bushnonazi.html