Democrats' platform shouldn't back gay marriage, Kerry says - Boston Globe

[rndmprsn]

http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2005/05/06/democrats_platform_shouldnt_back_gay_marriage_kerry_says/


discuss...

for the record i am a JK supporter, but i'm still tring to come to grips with this..pragmatism vs principle.

--

BATON ROUGE, La. -- US Senator John F. Kerry said yesterday that he believes it's a mistake for the Massachusetts Democratic Party to include a plank in its official platform in support of same-sex marriage, saying that such a statement does not conform with the broad views of party members.

Kerry, who opposes same-sex marriage but supports civil unions, said in an interview with the Globe that he would prefer that the party not mention gay marriage in its platform, because Democrats continue to disagree on how to handle the issue.

''I'm opposed to it being in a platform. I think it's a mistake," Kerry said shortly after hosting a forum on his universal children's healthcare bill in Baton Rouge. ''I think it's the wrong thing, and I'm not sure it reflects the broad view of the Democratic Party in our state."

Some analysts believe that the same-sex marriage issue contributed to Kerry's loss to President Bush in last year's presidential campaign. Kerry's position puts him at odds with the state Democratic Party chairman and his fellow Bay State senator, Edward M. Kennedy, who is scheduled to address the party convention next weekend.

[ClassWarrior]

1. No, it should support Marriage Rights for all people.

NGU.

[harpo]

113. he's wrong...which is why he's not president

[Zenlitened]

2. Seems to me that JK is flat-out wrong on this one.

And why he chooses to take a public stand on this one element of the state party platform... well, I don't see any sense in that at all.

[jaxx]

94. Have you noticed

the democrats seem to be moving to the center quickly? It's becoming all about getting the religious zealots back to thinking the dems are ok too.....not just the pubs. I think we'll see alot more of this........but I can't stand it when they compromise freedoms to kiss ass.

[paulk]

97. it's not about "religious zealots"

it's about the center, where most Americans reside.

Gay marriage is not a popular thing with the majority of Americans, Democrat or Republican.

[NightOwwl]

114. It's the dangling carrot.

Dems think by moving to this mystical "center", they will attract centrists (whatever the hell that means), but it's always out of reach because the center keeps moving to the right.

Bottom line, Dems need to stand up for their principles.

BTW, welcome to DU jaxx :hi:

[Zenlitened]

116. That's exactly my fear. This kow-towing to the bible fetishists...

... just turns my stomach.

Civil rights shouldn't be a popularity contest. And rather than debating whether America is "ready" for marriage fairness, we ought to be firmly and proudly making the case why it's the right thing to do.

[hiley]

117. Zenlitened I agree

with you, turns my stomach as well.
Civil rights are for all, not just the "chosen few". Kerry and all the rest should stand up for fairness for all !
the bible thumpers want to go backwords instead of forword.



http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1768573

[lonestarnot]

3. ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL... isn't that what it says?

[Mass]

4. What about women?

[Mass]

5. The platform should support civil unions for all

with the same rights as marriage has currently and let marriages to religion.

[Caution]

7. Agreed. I am getting "married" in September

and we're seriously considering having our ceremony reference a "civil union" rather than a marriage. If churches are so worried about the erosion of "traditional marriage" then fine. They can have it. BUt as far as the government is concerned, there should only be the concept of Civil Unions, open to all.

[MsTryska]

57. I absolutely agree.

I always get jumped on - and I favor Domestic Partnership to Civil Union but I totally get what you are saying.

[KittyWampus]

68. Civil Unions For All. Marriages For Those Who Chose To Go The Extra Step!

YES YES YES!

:yourock:

[Rockholm]

6. John Kerry REALLY PISSES ME OFF ON THIS!

He left us out to dry on this issue. The rest of the article states that Ted Kennedy supports equal marriage. Kennedy is up for reelection next year, the same time that a proposed ballot question MAY end up on the ballot. Senator Kennedy is a champion of ALL people in Massachusetts. John Kerry, I voted for you and while I am sorry for our country that you lost, I will certainly support your Democratic OPPONENT if and when you run for reelection in 208.

[Deep13]

8. He says while wiping tire marks off his face.

Just thought I would deliver a little reality check for you all.

The 2004 election set the issue of gay rights back twenty years. Frankly, that issue, even though it was not an issue, killed us at the polls. Most Americans simply do not want it. Here in Ohio, a pretty average, generic state, Dubya won with 52%. Yet the overly harsh ban on gay marriage passed 3 to one. That means about half of the Kerry voters also voted to ban gay marriage.

There will not be gay marriage in this country for fifty years. We lost on this issue and it is time to move on to something else. This is reality. Don't blame the messanger for pointing it out.

Frankly, to get out from under this cloud, the D party must actively oppose gay marriage, at least on the national level. Think Kerry is a sell-out? Let me ask you this. What states will we win that Kerry and Gore did not win if we endorse gay marriage? I submit that we will loose Wisconsin, NH, PA and the North West.

[rndmprsn]

9. i'm afraid you are correct...

and thats what i am wrestling with...

i hope ppl here can at least hold their noses and vote for someone that they agree with upwards of 90% on the positions and agree to disagree on some in order to help make us a national party again...is this wrong, i dont think so.

there has been alot of talk about voting self-interest, if your interest in gay marriage then you should vote that way...my self-interest right now is making sure we become a national party again and win elections so that in the near future gay issues won't be the wedge/divisive issue it is nationally and now even among loyal dems.

[Deep13]

12. What's at stake.

I am not willing to let a few hot-button largely symbolic issues derail national health care reform, a sane foreign policy, a real policy on global warming, tax equity and fiscal responsibility, education finance, consumer protection, a minimum wage hike, and a real energy policy.

[whometense]

35. I think you're right.

I personally would vote for gay marriage, but is seems to me that maybe the price is too high for the country to pay right now, and I think that is what Kerry is wrestling with here.

If we can get full rights for gays by enacting civil unions, and oust the repugs at the same time, isn't that better for everyone? Plus, isn't it better to separate religion (marriage) from the state (civil unions), if that's possible?

I know a lot of people call Kerry a sellout for his stand on this, but he has a big picture perspective a lot of others lack. Is it better to hold firm to pure principle, or try to forge a compromise by defusing the issue of its emotional content and keeping the substance of what we really need to provide?

Barney Frank is my congressman, and he's been very clear on this point. He feels the cost of gay marriage is too high in this country at this point in time.

[FreedomAngel82]

47. I do see where you're coming from

I do agree. Right now it's a small step. Some states are allowing it which is nice for people who can move there etc. I think what's important is, like others have said, is getting back to being a national party and taking care of other important issues such as health care, jobs etc. I think it is really high as well. While I would like for us to have it you do have to be realistic. Maybe once we're the majority again we can push for it but until then I don't think it's wise to run with that issue a lone.

[ladeuxiemevoiture]

121. My problem is that I don't hate myself enough to do that

sorry.

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[rndmprsn]

11. you would have me leave the dem party?

[Zenlitened]

18. No, I'd strip you of your civil rights then demand...

... that you vote my way anyhow.

Big fucking "Duh."

[Name removed]

71. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Deep13]

14. Well, which states?

A good idea means nothing without results in November. How will advocating gay marriage allow us to reclaim Congress and the presidency?

[CWebster]

13. Sort of like saying that since the public now doesn't support

abolishing slavery--we should just go along with it until everybody is ready?

In that case, what will ever make them ready?

And that is the crux of the Democrats' problem--they don't pitch their own spin on the issues, they adopt the Right's successfully marketed, less extreme version. For some that is enough--the bar is set that low, but in that case, don't complain about your lot.

What handicaps the Democrats is they have disavowed the Left as a credible source of progressive policy--from race relations to internatinational issues to environmental concerns. The Left's position on these issues is often closer to the broader public--and the world, for that matter, but the Democratic party has boxed itself in with a Leadership that can't lead.

[Zenlitened]

17. Well said.

:thumbsup:

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[CWebster]

27. "radical issue"....

you mean like abolition of slavery, civil Rights, the environmental movement, women's liberation--even Social Security?

But you are right---the Right would call them "radical".

The first step, is the first step up to the plate when it is a radical idea, which gradually causes it to become a mainstream convention. Can you see a conflcit in these two statements:

"This is at least theoretically a democracy and we must respect the views of the regular folks ever if we do not agree.

Yes, we are getting creamed by the R propoganda machine."

The relationship between slavery and gay marriage was in the context of accepting an unjustice for the political expediancy of the moment.
Then what have you won if the other side is defining the rules that you continue to win by? Over time that only lowers the bar again and again.

[Deep13]

43. a little hard to respond...

...since you are taking my remark out of context and that context has been deleted, even though I did not say anything that is not true. Also. I did not threaten anyone, use bigotted language, four-letter words or advocate crime. I guess I am a little confused.

Anyway, gay marriage has never happened before and that makes it a radical idea. That is not a value judgment, but a fact. We are not selling out our values for expediency. Politics is about doing what is possible. We can either have no gay marriage and national health care, a clean environment and peace or no gay marriage, oppression for the poor, pollution and continuing war. Either way, gay marriage will not happen.

Your comparison with slavery, women's rights, civil rights and the environment is not spt because it paints a partial picture. First of all, the environment as an issue has not succeeded like the others your cite. Many people believe the big-money interests and refuse to accept its important. Frankly, it is only because of its imperative need from a survival point of view that I keep banging my head for this issue. At this point gay marriage is more like legalizing cannibis or abolishing the death penalty. They are examples of issues the public is just not ready to accept. Slavery itself is an example that supports my point of view. Remember, it existed in this country for 400 years prior to the Civil War resisting all efforts to abolish it.

Americans generally like the idea of a well-defined marriage. These folks here are married, those folks there are not. The rules for each are distinct and there are no quasi-marriages in the eyes of the law or society generally. Most people instictively assume that marriage is a religious matter and that it is for the purpose of procreation. Now, I got married at a tree farm by a notary and have no intention of making more of me. Still, that is the exception tot the rule. People are uncomfortable with have their world-views of fundamental social norms challanged. That is why they do not support gay marriage, even though they do usually support other gay rights. It is hard to explain, but it is based on a gut reaction level and not on any public policy reason. Frankly, the gay rights movement has not helped. While often sensible, that movement can be rather garrish and that turns of white-bread, middle America.

My advice to gay activists, if they ever ask, is to continue chopping at the edges. Get the right to name heirs, appoint health care representatives, have domestic agreements, put your partners on job health care etc. and prosecute gay-bashers. Society will eventually feel a lot better about this when they can see that their gay neighbors really are normal. The remote possibility of gay marriage caused Ohio to add a state constitutional amendment that not only bans gay marriage, but any legal recognition of any relationship that approximates marriage, gay or straight. In other words, one election erased all the progress that had been made in the last fifty years. Now, live-in girlfriends cannot get civil protection orders for abusive boyfriends under the domestic violence law because this amendment prohibits granting spousal protections to nonspouses. I am sure that city domestic partner registries and domestic p'ship agreements are now also illegal.

[Capn Sunshine]

31. A more apt comparison would be integration

When something is right, morally right, you have to stand up for it.
Depriving some citizens of equal rights and treatment under the law because of the way God made them is fundamentally wrong.

Sure, those secret bigots are uncomfortable with this issue, but if we had let polling dictate our policy in the 60's this society would never have advanced. Note the Dems who were against integration left the party over this issue.

Kerry was trying to be all things to all people in '04, and he ended up being an amorphous amalgamation of middling tepidness.

You'd think he would have learned.

Sometimes what's right isn't popular.
That doesn't make it wrong.

[Name removed]

51. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Eloriel]

23. Ah, but I sure as hell can blame the person who

joins the bigotry brigade instead of fighting it.

Here's an appropriate response for Mr. Kerry (other than fuck you, of course):

AlGore-08.com Fri May-06-05 02:37 AM
Response to Reply #5
7. In the 1860s, politically, the end of slavery was a losing battle

Up until 1918, womens' sufferage was a losing battle politically.

Up until the 1970s, social equality for Jews and African-Americans was a losing battle politically.

Who do we admire today: the folks accepted that they were losing batttles, or the folks who made them winning battles?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=1449246&mesg_id=1449266

[blm]

30. Gov. (Vt) was given choice to sign bill for gay civil unions or marriage.

He chose to sign the bill for civil unions. He personally did not believe in gay marriage.

I will bet that Gov. Dean and Kerry agree that marriage needs to be separated FIRST from religion. All marriages should be civil unions, and then people can choose the OPTION to have their unions sanctified by their church of choice.

Until the civic legality and the religious aspect are separated for ALL marriages, and done so by deliberative measures, the gay marriage issue cannot be resolved.

[RevCheesehead]

40. It already is separate.

Marriage, legally, is an act of the state. That's why people need a marriage license. A wedding can take place in a church, but it ain't legal/official until all parties sign the marriage license, and it is filed in the County Court.

The problem is the language, and the fact that some religions consider marriage to be a Sacrament (like the Catholics do), and others do not place as high a spiritual significance to it.

Perhaps his objection to the term "marriage" may have something to do with the Catholic doctrine on marriage itself. Trying to change the language to "civil union" would be far more successful than trying to pass legislation that many churches would refuse to perform for homosexual persons.

I think "civil union" is the more precise term, and one which would be enforceable at the state level.

BTW - all this would be called bullshit, if people realized that the original purpose of marriage was a contractual arrangement to signify the "ownership" of one person over another. In that regard, the analogy to slavery IS more accurate.

[blm]

44. That's my point. Civil unions should be the law with marriage an option

chosen by those who want it sanctified for religious reasons.

[dsc]

63. That is flat out false

No marriage bill was given to Dean at any time. And, according to David Moats, who won a Pulitzer for his writing on this, legislators made it crystal clear that no marriage bill would ever come. I have no on line citation but it is in his book Civil Wars. You are correct that Dean opposed marriage though he has since changed his position on that. But it is totally false to say he could have signed a marriage bill.

[blm]

73. The Vt. Supreme Court allowed for marriage. The politicians, inc. Dean

opted for the civil union legislation.

They COULD have opted for gay marriage and did not.

[dsc]

91. That isn't what you said

You said, that Dean could have signed a law that provided for gay marriage. That isn't what happened which makes what you said false. Now, what you said is true, though now it isn't all Dean's fault like you said before.

[cestpaspossible]

103. Dean is against gay marriage

you can pretend otherwise, but you can't change reality through denying the facts.

Kerry and Dean have the exact same position on the issue, but you choose to attack Kerry for it and give Dean a pass.

Those are the facts, I can't speak as to your motivation.

Imho, they are both equally wrong.

[dsc]

110. I didn't say any such thing

and incidently Dean has changed his position since the primaries so you need to check tense. But the poster said that Dean refused to sign a same sex marriage bill that had been presented to him and that is totally false. Also, Kerry supported an amendment banning same sex marriage which Dean didn't. That is a difference. Kerry said and says civil unions and nothing else. Dean said then civil unions now and you get a chance at marriage later. That is a big difference, even if it isn't my preferred position.

[cestpaspossible]

111. Your post is untrue. Dean is against gay marriage.

What you are saying is false.

[blm]

118. Dean was governor. He could have sided with those legislators pushing

for gay marriage but he wanted no part of it. That's the bottom line.

[Name removed]

98. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Clark2008]

28. It should have always been addressed as civil unions

instead of calling it "gay marriage."

The Dems let the Republicans frame the debate again and lost.

Had the Democrats been strong enough to push for civil unions - leaving religious marriage out of it - this issue would never have become so volitile.

I agree that most people are against "gay marriage," but still would be for allowing gay couples to make legal decisions that protect their significant other after their death, to allow whomever they want visiting ICU, to pay for family insurance coverage and so on. The average American thinks "civil unions" in that sense is OK - it's the "gay marriage" frame with which they are uncomfortable.

[ThorsHammer]

33. Exactly, well said (nt)

[RevCheesehead]

42. Yep - we let "them" frame the debate, and lost.

Excellent point, Clark! :thumbsup:

[MoonRiver]

48. Moving to the right has NOT worked, as evidenced by the last 3 elections.

Now, Kerry is alienating gay and bi Dems, who might just stay home in 2008, if we have the misfortune of JK being on our presidential ticket. Great. Just great. NOT.

[Deep13]

50. Not moving to the right

Stepping away from an issue that the country does not accept is not moving to the right. The right creates issues out of nothing to distract the electorate from focusing on issues important to them. I think most people would support single-payer national health care if they thought about it. Instead, they are preoccupied with these symbolic, hot-button cultural issues. By removing this from consideration, we can give the progressive issues that have broad support a chance to happen.

JK did not loose because he was too far to the right, although his ambiguous stand on the war did not help. People who came out against him were afraid of taxes, loosing their guns, abortion and gay marriage. Mostly, they did not want to change "leadership" during the war. Too far to the right was not the problem. 2004 had a record turnout. People went out either to stop Bush or because they were afraid of JK. In truth, the Ds do best when turnout is low, like in '92 and '96. That's went the base of either party is not particularly excited.

[karynnj]

52. And what likely 2008 candidate is to the left of Kerry?

Clark - NO (anyone who voted for Nixon, Reagan, Bush I cannot possibly be to the left of Kerry on th ebulk of issues.)

Dean - no, he is not for gay marriage

Hillary - haven't heard her position but I doubt it

Why are many polititian that have historically been to Kerry's right been acceptable - but Kerry isn't Why is he held to a higher standard or assumed to be playing politics when he takes less than the most extremely liberal position. He was open and honest on his stand on this - he is in the same position he was in 2004. He is more open to gay rights than the majority of the country.

[politicasista]

53. Good question karynnj

Why is that? :shrug:

[MoonRiver]

54. LOL! Your knowledge of Wes Clark is a foot wide and an inch deep.

Why don't you check out Wes Clark's positions, before issuing global assessments based on vague perceptions?

Here ya go:

http://www.securingamerica.com/vision

Wes Clark voted for Clinton and Gore, btw. I think we can safely assume he voted for Kerry too. He's a strong Democrat, irregarless of what a few prejudiced naysayers want to assert.

Regarding Kerry, who is the subject of this thread, I object to a US Democratic Senator issuing statement which will alienate a large portion of the party's base. This is just stupid, unless you're trying to run right of center in the 2008 presidential race. And I think it's stupid even then. Didn't work in 2004 and is even less likely to work in 2008.

[karynnj]

56. I looked at Clark's positions in early 2004

because like many people I thought he was an interesting possibility. I would vote for Clark if he were the candidate in 2008. I'm just mystified why he gets a pass on his history and Kerry doesn't. Is he for Gay marriage.

Also, I don't think that a large percentage of his base is for gay marriage. I think his position of civil union with full rights is probably the best Democratic position. Even this is to the left of where the country as a whole is. Kerry was not to the right of the center in 2004.

[MoonRiver]

58. Kerry does get a pass on his history.

A lot of people like Kerry's past much better than his present. I voted enthusiastically for Kerry in 2004. I will obviously vote for whomever is the Democratic candidate in 2008, but I'd like to give somebody else a chance. My favorite is obviously General Clark, for many reasons. Don't know what Clark's position on gay marriage is. But he's not issuing widely publicized statements against gay marriage that, imo, will backfire and alienate even more of our base constituency.

[karynnj]

61. That's not getting a pass on his history that's not getting credit for it

Kerry has a strong record of support om gay/lesbian issues.

[incapsulated]

62. Clark on Gay Marriage

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.


Why you assume "his base" is against Gay marriage, I do not know. Clark has said "I am a liberal" and most of his base have liberal views. Most that I know support Gay Marriage.

As for Clark getting a "pass" on his "history", all I can say is: you either don't frequent this forum much or don't read what is said about Clark on it. You brought up his voting record yourself, for no reason I can think of, there is my point right there.

[Adelante]

67. Gay City News, Volume 2, Issue 49 | December 4-10, 2003

"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."

[cestpaspossible]

59. I feel your pain

[Crunchy Frog]

81. I feel a big pain too. n/t

[Name removed]

65. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Crunchy Frog]

80. And anybody who was a card carrying FDR, New Deal Democrat

couldn't possibly be as far right as Reagan was, could he? The guy who led our local Kucinich meetups had voted for Reagan by the way. People's perspectives change as they mature. At any rate, there is no evidence that Clark was ever on the same page as Reagan on social issues. He was military and he was voting what he percieved at the time as being better on militar related issues.

I don't understand why some people always have to drag Wes Clark into it whenever someone says something critical of their guy.

A Deanie crashed the Kerry forum? Better go and crash a positive Clark thread. Kucinich and the PDA are saying critical things about Dean? Better go and attack Clark. Kucinich getting kicked around? Better go get in a gratuitous kick at Clark. It's getting pretty tiresome.

[Name removed]

86. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Jesus Saves]

87. Your analysis is flawed

Full rights for all Americans is closer than ever. We're talking about it, states are experimenting with granting gay couples rights. Even Dick Cheney is open to civil unions.

Civil Unions are coming everywhere, then gay marriage is right around the corner....

[nancyharris]

15. This is just another sad example

of Democratic leaders unable to take an unpopular (yet morally just) stand.
Profiles in courage - my ass!
It's enough to turn a girl GREEN.

[karynnj]

55. So he is not a "profile in courage" because he doesn't take YOUR

position. Kerry talked extensively to gay magazines, MtV liberal magazines, newspapers etc about this issue. Though he talked more in those occasions when more was wanted he was very consistent in his basic views. He is for civil unions with full rights, but not gay marriage. He did stand up for gays when it was not popular - submitting legislation as early as 1985, he allowed a senate committee to swear him in to provide testimony on gays in the military in 1993 and he voted against DOMA when it could have cost him his Senate seat (yes, even in MA). These are stands he took because he believes in civil rights.


It is unusual for a person to meet the criterion of being a profile in courage even once in their life. In Kerry's case he has shown political courage at least 3 times in his life.
- Protesting Vietnam (after Kent State, knowing the vindictiveness of the Nixon administration) Kerry was harassed by his own government for years afterwards
- Fighting to investigate the Contras where the same RW people labeled him subversive and a nutcase. (Not labels a brilliant, hard working US Senator strives for)
- Investigating BCCI - even when it means going after people high up in your own party. He did it because he saw the danger posed to wards the US.

If you see gay marriage as the most important issue in 2008 vote for a candidate who supports it in the primary. Do not assume that it is lack of courage that keeps all the candidates from backing it - some may simply disagree, others may feel that the political cost is too high. Kerry seems to simply disagree - but for a Catholic boy born in 1943, he has a very liberal pro-gay agenda over-all.

[welshTerrier2]

16. Kerry said: "I'm NOT SURE it reflects the broad view"

the truth is Kerry doesn't have a clue what Democrats in Massachusetts think on any issue because he never gets his ass back here to talk to them ...

here he is predicating his entire argument on something, in his own words, he is "not sure" about ... how pathetic is that !!!

[Name removed]

20. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[kentuck]

21. And we should run Hillary also...

Anything else we can do to get our asses kicked again?

[CWebster]

29. You know what, if the majority is sold on the Right's view

why don't the Democrats go Right?

Is that what you are advocating?

But this argument is a bunch of crap anyway. You know why? Even with our corrupted media and biased polls, even with the PR attempts to round up the public behind Bush on Iraq and Social Security, the public isn't buying--that is the majority. And where the hell are the Democrats?

[Name removed]

66. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SGBL]

74. If MLK was alive today

and we were sitting around during the civil rights movement I have a feeling you'd be on your knees begging MLK to drop civil rights for the good of the party.

[paulk]

99. if MLK had run for Senator

he would have lost

[returnable]

22. At least he hasn't flip-flopped on the issue

:hi:

[blm]

24. Kerry has a more detailed viewpoint on this as a church/state issue.

And he's exactly right. The historic religious aspect of marriage is what complicates the legalities of gay marriage in our civic lives. We must address this by separating them and that means it should be done deliberatively and will take time.

I think we will never resolve this as an issue until ALL marriages are civil unions and then people can choose to have that union sanctioned in their church of choice.

My mother didn't accept my marriage because it wasn't in HER church. She didn't accept the second marriages of any of her children, and she didn't even accept marriages performed in any Catholic Church that wasn't a far-right Catholicism (TFP) like her crazy church.

[dsc]

64. That would be easier to accept from him

if he lived up to his religion at other times. His pro choice stance is in direct opposition to his church as was his annulment. He doesn't get to be a cafeteria Catholic in his life but then demand that the rest of us be the same type of Catholic as he is.

[blm]

77. Oh brother. It's not just about catholicism, but ALL religions.

I think this hatred you have for Kerry has become absurd.

It's called SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE, dsc. Ever HEARD of it?

And Kerry did NOT get an annulment. That was a rumor.

Try making the issue NOT about Kerry and make it what's best from a LEGAL standpoint, eh?

[dsc]

90. Yes he did

If he hadn't then Ratzinger wouldn't have had to issue his memo as Kerry couldn't take Communion in any case. No annulment, no second marriage.

[Crunchy Frog]

25. Our party is going to get tagged with it, whether we endorse it or not.

If we're going to get tagged with it anyway, we aught to just endorse it and at least look like we stand for something.

[maxsolomon]

26. he'd probably agree with THIS:

considering the overlap between a marriage license & a marriage ceremony, how about the state does not MARRY any 2 people? it grants civil unions, in the legally binding sense.

"marriage" becomes a personal/religious contract between those 2 people, done in a church, in a park, on fire island, in a BDSM club, whatever, its not the business of the state.

everybody's happy.

[DemocracyInaction]

32. Hell, Johnny's just trying to position himself for '08 just like Hil and

her abortion remarks. It's called "fudging" the issues....you know, a blend of sort of being for something but not really being 100% for it??? Quite frankly, I can see over my 60 years where the Dems once smashed people in the face over civil issues and the nation supported them. Now the nation thinks that all those "civil" things they enjoy will never go away and thus are not fighting for them or any others any more. They don't like Dems fighting causes anymore except for money causes that line their own pockets or keep them financially secure. Maybe when they lose a lot of those "civil rights" things some of their offspring someday will again get all fiesty over "fighting the establishment". Just keep one thing in mind: the more republicans are elected, the more all civil liberties and the economic good of the average American will get flushed. Life sucks----sometimes you have to decide which lifesaver to suck on even if it's not the flavor you like.

[Stinky The Clown]

34. Gay Marriage ... a very emotional issue

This is a sensitive topic and emotion runs high on all sides of it. I've had this notion of a way forward for quite a while. I admit I am not gay and not affected by this one directly. But believe me when I say ... I am on your side. Unequivocally so. But when we say the very words "gay marriage' we evoke all sorts of emotion on all sides of the issue. What we need is a way forward on this. I see a solution that is, in part, semantical and in part legal.

Again, I am not gay and not affected by this. I offer this in a constructive spirit and would like to hear comments.

It seems to me the way to go after this is to change the civil aspects of it. Essentially, take away the specific word 'marriage' from the civil side. There's virtually no chance we'll ever get churches to agree to give the word up. And to be honest, it isn't worth the effort to even try. No matter where the word came from, no matter its current meaning, no matter the perceptions it has, let them have the word. We can't, as a practical matter, change that.

We *can* however, change the civil side of it. We the people *are* the civil side.

My suggestion is to make it such that every human pairing is called, by the state, a civil union, or some other word, if that term has a bad taste to it (the specific word is unimportant). It can be anything at all ... except 'marriage'. For this discussion, I'll continue to use 'civil union'.

Now, we give everyone a civil union. Gay and het, it matters not. Bob and Dorothy have a civil union. Steve and Adam have a civil union. Carol and Mary have a civil union.

If you're still with me, what we've done is take the word 'marriage' *away* from hets. We've added a new phrase to the legal lexicon - 'civil union'. And we've given that phrase to everyone. Along with all the civil rights, civil privileges and civil responsibilities that were formerly given to marriages. Total, unambiguous equality. For everyone. Period. Unequivocal.

In practice, this could be accomplished with the simple signing of documents by the parties involved and then having a civil agency attest to that signing. No ceremony is needed. (A ceremony *could* happen if the couple so chooses, but it isn't necessary. More on that later.)

Now .... marriage. This becomes the province of churches. Without a doubt, some denominations will forbid gay marriages. But we all know there are many who will welcome it. If a couple (gay or het) chooses to be 'married' they need only find an institution to perform the ceremony. Marriage would confer absolutely no civil right, privilege, or obligation. It is legally neutral.

Now let's go back to the practices. Right now, every marriage performed outside the auspices of clergy is done by a person 'vested' by the state to perform the ceremony and affirm the legal bond. This could be a Justice of the Peace, a judge, a court officer, a court clerk, a ship's captain ... whatever. The point is, they were vested by the state to perform a ceremony and affirm a legal bond *by the state*. So, too are clergy. The state chooses to vest them with the same authority they vest into civil agents. In return, the vested clergy agrees to do the job in line with the legal requirements set out by the state.

None of this needs to change. Clergy could (and probably should) continue to be vested by the state to join couples together. But now, no one gives up anything. Gays, I have no doubt, will have fairly easy access to a religious marriage if that's their desire. A strict, bigoted, narrow minded religiously extreme couple would also be able to do what they do now ... marry in a way that affirms their view of the 'sanctity of marriage' by excluding specifically gays; the difference is, the state does not make the exclusion.

From a legal perspective, the only part of the ceremony that has weight is the signing of the legal document making the civil union. This is probably best done immediately before or after the religious ceremony, in private, but in reality, it doesn't matter. It is the ten seconds it takes to sign the paper that makes the 'marriage' legal. All else is religious trapping that matters to whoever chooses to allow it to matter.

Please .... I am fully in favor of complete and unequivocal equality for gays to marry (and do any other thing their heart desires!). But we have to move this forward in a way that's palatable to everyone. To try to change the definition and common use of the word 'marriage' has so much intractability on all sides that it is simply a non starter.

I'd much rather see us make a way forward where no one gives anything up and everyone gets what they want. So rather than screw around debating endlessly the word 'marriage' ... just take it out of the legal and civil side. No one gets it unless they choose to use it. Take all legal aspects of it away.

To me, this seems reasonable.

Doesn't it? :shrug:

I'm not affected by this and admit that I may well be missing something. But to me, this seems a good way forward. I'd love to hear others' views.

[suigeneris]

41. There are a couple of problems to overcome

One is that after this last election cycle we added something like eight states that prohibit same sex civil unions. I should look up the totals. All the anti-same-sex marriage amendments but one also stopped civil unions.

Second, I'm pretty sure civil unions do not have to be honored by another state, obviously a huge defect. It might take federal law to fix that.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0922609.html

[karynnj]

84. DOMA means that other states do not have to

accept another state's gay marriages. So unless DOMA is repealed it's a problem for both. What I don't know is how it affects federal things - like income taxes.

[NMDemDist2]

83. Wow H2S you're just too darn thoughtful

you summed up my feelings exactly.

now the big question is how to get it rolling? some states have already taken it up. some come down on the side of civil rights, some not

with the USSC's makeup as it is, I don't think it will fly but all the more reason to work like crazy to get a Dem in the WH before the Court is stacked against us for the next 30 or so years.

Unfortunately it may be too late already.....

[cestpaspossible]

104. Yes, it seems reasonable to me.

But what you fail to realize is this isn't really about gay marriage. It's about Kerry. That's why most of the same people who are so angry at Kerry about this have no problems with Dean holding the exact same position. So your, reasonable, thoughtful post won't mean anything to them.

[Capn Sunshine]

36. SOMETIMES, it's about RIGHT VS.WRONG

It's not always about getting elected. You'd think John Kerry would be first to realize this.

[cestpaspossible]

46. Yeah but Kerry is saying what he thinks is RIGHT

I happen to think he is WRONG, but that doesn't mean your accusation has any validity whatsoever.

And I think Kerry has proven over and over that his stand on this issue is based on his beliefs, not on which way the political wind is blowing.

[dsc]

70. Oh really

then why did he take two positions on the Missouri admendment? He was widely quoted as having agreed with its passage and then one day later said he didn't agree with it.

[cestpaspossible]

75. Yes, really.

Is your characterization accurate? I don't think so. Let's see some links so we can judge what the true facts are.

You can attack Dean and Kerry all you want for their stand against gay marriage, I agree with you, they are both wrong. But just because they are wrong doesn't mean they aren't saying what they think is right.

[cestpaspossible]

95. I'll take your lack of response

as an indication that your assertion about Missouri turned out to be false once you looked it up.

[dsc]

96. It was discussed a great deal here

He gave an interview in which he praised Missoui having passed the amendment then the very next day he changed his mind.

[cestpaspossible]

102. Your post is untrue.

Would you care to try to support your false assertion with a link or a citation?

[cestpaspossible]

37. Kerry, just like Howard Dean, believes in equal rights but

does not believe that means gay marriage. I disagree, but what is so shocking about him arguing for his view? Would you expect him to say: " I think X, but the platform should say Y" ? duh

[ladeuxiemevoiture]

122. What's "shocking" is he's dissing his gay constituents and Dem base

If he rejects equal rights, then at a minimum he should keep that to himself.

What's changed is that a majority in MA now support gay marriage, as does an even larger majority of MA dems.

[Mass]

38. National Stonewall Democrats's position on the issue

I wanted to post that because this is an excellent statement, which, while expressing their understandable disappointment, does not spit on Kerry or ignore his history on gay civil rights.

http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=46950

Gay Democrats Disagree with Sen. Kerry on Platform Position

5/6/2005 12:27:00 PM

To: National Desk, Political Reporter

Contact: John Marble of the National Stonewall Democrats, 202-625-1382, [e-mail]

WASHINGTON, May 6 /U.S. Newswire/ -- Today, the National Stonewall Democrats (NSD) strongly disagreed with the position of Senator John Kerry (D-Mass.) regarding a proposed marriage equality plank in the platform of the Massachusetts Democratic Party. Yesterday, speaking to reporters after a healthcare event in Baton Rouge, Kerry told reporters that he opposed a plank supporting marriage equality for same-sex couples in his home state.

"The majority of people in Massachusetts have embraced reality with acceptance," said Eric Stern, NSD executive director. "We respectfully and strongly disagree with Senator Kerry and urge him to follow the example of the state's senior Senator by supporting the enforcement of state law. Senator Kerry has been a champion for gay and lesbian families in the United States Senate for decades. That is why we are so deeply disappointed by his remarks."

[TayTay]

39. Kerry's record, according to Human Rights Campaign

http://www.answers.com/topic/john-kerry-presidential-campaign-2004

Kerry is in favor of the acknowledgement and protection of civil rights for gay and lesbian Americans. John Kerry is an original cosponsor of the Hate Crimes Prevention bill and supports passage of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act. He introduced a very early bill (1985) into the Senate to statutorily forbid sexual-orientation-based discrimination. Kerry cosponsored the Ryan White Comprehensive AIDS Resources Emergency Act (CARE) and also sponsored the Vaccines for the New Millennium Act.

Kerry supports same-sex civil unions, though not same-sex marriage. Kerry supported legislation to provide domestic partners of federal employees the benefits available to spouses of federal employees. Kerry voted against the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in the Senate in 1996 and opposes the proposed Federal Marriage Amendment (FMA). He and Senator Edwards were absent for the unsuccessful vote to invoke cloture on the FMA, a procedural move that the FMA's proponents had conceded beforehand would be defeated. In an interview with National Public Radio in February of 2004, Kerry endorsed equal rights for same-sex couples, but commented that "the word marriage kind of gets in the way of the whole debate," because of the religious origin of marriage as being limited to male-female unions.

Kerry opposes the "don't ask, don't tell" policy and is in favor of lifting the ban on gays in the military.

Since 1995, Human Rights Campaign, the nation's largest gay-rights advocacy group, has given Kerry a 100 percent rating for his voting record in Congress.

Here is the Human Rights Campaign ratings: http://www.hrc.org/Template.cfm?Section=Home&Template=/ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=23412

I would like to know what possible good it does to go after someone who has a 100% rating in supporting your issue?

[Name removed]

45. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[karynnj]

60. This makes so much sense

I agree with everything you say here. When you throw in an immoral, disastrous foreign policy, it's clear that this is not what we should be fighting over.

[SGBL]

76. "loss, of good manufacturing jobs"

This is like complaining about the loss of farming jobs.

The country is moving away from manufacturing jobs just as it moved away from farming jobs. The reality is manufacturing jobs are never coming back simply because industry has changed.

Now - does this mean we should replace them with fast food jobs? No, of course not. But calling for manufacturing jobs is archaic. There are a great many new jobs in fields such as IT that have replaced them. We are beyond the industrial age. The problem is corporations run amuck have MOVED new age jobs overseas.

We need to be calling for those jobs to be moved back, not calling for antiquated jobs.

[Stinky The Clown]

108. With all due respect to you, and with thanks for your thoughtful post

I must take issue ... not to disagree (or agree, for that matter) with what you said, but it seems to me we can address the issues you raised *and* address the issue of full rights for gay people. Neither should be the sole focus of a political party - or those individualists of a particular political bent. While you raise some points worth discussing, I think this particular thread is about gay marriage.

I suspect that this issue is *very* important to most (but not all, to be sure) gay people. It is *their* ox being gored. Just as the issues you raise gore the ox of other equally deserving citizens. But to say this doesn't matter at all ... that it is a 'waste of time' .... is insensitive, if not outright disrespectful and dismissive.

I'll continue to multitask, thanks.

[second edition]

49. I agree with Kerry on this issue.

It is an uncomfortable issue for me. I think we need to move slowly with it. I think for these times, civil unions are the way to go. Same sex marriage is a volatile issue. Many Americans are against these types of unions. Perhaps, given some time, these marriages will become more acceptable to everyone.

[renaissanceguy]

69. Maybe you should get to know a gay couple, then,

and you'll see that they are not a threat to your marriage, or society, at all.

[Disturbed]

72. Most Americans simply do not want it.

Most Amerikans don't really believe in Equal Rights. Let the Dem Party pander to them. Two party system. The "lesser of two evils".

[Dr Ron]

78. I disagree with Kerry on this issue

but I understand his view and the logic behind it. I also respect his consistent opposition to discriminatory laws.

While I disagree with Kerry, I find it a minor disagreement and it doesn't prevent me from supporting him.

[Dr Ron]

79. Pragmatism vs. principle--compare to Clinton

For Kerry it is principle. I assume that by now someone has explained the religious backgorund behind his support for civil unions as opposed to gay marriage.

If you want to see the difference between Kerry's princples and pragmatism, compare this to Clinton.

During the campagin, Clinton advised Kerry to support the anti-gay marriage proposals on the ballot in order to gain support in the states where they were on the ballot.

Kerry refused to go along with this.

While comparing Kerry to Clinton, I'd also point out that Kerry opposed Clinton on "don't ask, don't tell" and defended gay soldiers.

[Dr Fate]

82. But not a PEEP about the UK Iraq Memo.

He can go along with Bush/media on gays, but he cant speak up about a memo that proves Bush lied about the war?

And he still asks me for money? Sheesh.

[MoonRiver]

88. After he folded I unsubscribed to Kerry's PAC.

Fortunately, I never have to get those messages again.

[Adelante]

85. I agree with Kerry, but

"Kerry, who opposes same-sex marriage but supports civil unions, said in an interview with the Globe that he would prefer that the party not mention gay marriage in its platform, because Democrats continue to disagree on how to handle the issue."

Democrats do disagree on how to handle the issue. This is true, right?

Without a consensus of some kind, do we even have a Democratic platform?

Most Democrats either agree with or can accept civil unions with full civil rights for everybody. It makes better political sense to have civil unions in the platform than it does to have gay marriage, since there is no consensus for gay marriage. It's easier to get away with politically in national politics.

That's true, isn't it?

Now, I think marriage as an institution should be abolished: That's my position.

Yet nobody wants to do this, gay or straight. Everybody wants to be "married" as if it actually means something.

Since everybody wants to be "married" - why not turn this problem over to the churches who are the ones who "sanctify" relationships?

Why not have civil unions for everyone; anybody who wants to call it "marriage" is welcome to it?

If couples of any persuasion want their union "sanctified" they can go find a church to do it for them.

There is no earthly reason to suppose that the word "marriage" has anything whatsoever to do with civil rights -- what has to do with civil rights is equal benefits and opportunity under the law.

What muddies this clear picture is that people romanticize the concept of marriage. Marriage has nothing to do with love. People join together in a union, because they love each other and commit their lives to each other on an extremely private level. Marriage is a social or religious convention that recognizes or legitimizes the promises made at the union. Fine, call yourselves married.

But as far as the state should be concerned, it's a contract, a legal partnership to protect property rights and inheritance rights. In fact, "civil union" better describes the status conferred by the state to couples than marriage ever did.

We should get the state out of the church's business and the church out of the state's business.

I can't have the abolition of marriage in the Democratic platform, because there is no consensus for the abolition of marriage.

So, as Senator Kerry would point out, it is not a good idea to have the abolition of marriage on the party platform.

Do you agree?

[YvonneCa]

89. Come on, Democrats...we're letting them...

...do it again! Why are we talking about this as if this is a new position by John Kerry? Why is it that John Kerry has spent the last several months fighting for health care (criss-crossing the country all week for Kids First) and Social Security and fighting against nominations of people like Condi Rice, Alberto Gonzalez, and John Bolton...and when he finally gets media attention, it's about Gay Rights? We are letting the conservative Republicans frame these issues. John Kerry's position on gay marriage has been the same FOREVER. We can agree or disagree on this issue, but we need to focus media attention on issues that Democrats can win on in 2006 and 2008.

[MoonRiver]

92. Kerry has gotten HUGE amounts of attention for the good things he's done

at least here on DU. When he flubs he better expect a similarly HUGE negative reaction. Sorry, this is life in the fast lane. Kerry wants to keep his persona alive and well until 2008. But that sword cuts both ways. If Dems don't like his very public stances, we'll scream and yell about it. Especially those of us who do not want him on the 2008 ticket. Kerry is a loser, whether he lost by conceding before the votes were all counted, or simply got less votes than *.

[YvonneCa]

100. I'm sorry, but I disagree...

...with several of your points. I, too, was disappointed when John Kerry conceded, and I haven't decided who I will vote for in 2008 (a lot can happen between now and 2008). I don't argue with the fact that DU has given Kerry both positive and negative attention for his actions. Within DU, it's a Democratic family discussion, and that's wonderful! But my point is that the attention he gets on DU is not the same as getting noticed in other media that most of the American public watch. We Democrats need that kind of coverage right now on all the issues our opposition party is fighting for, lead by Harry Reid, Barbara Boxer, AND John Kerry and others. Even though Kerry and other Democrats are out there making noise, we are mostly ignored. The one time we break through that wall of silence, it is because of gay marriage. That is the wedge issue Republicans used against Bill Clinton (Don't Ask, Don't Tell) at the beginning of his presidency to weaken him, and they used it again in this election against Kerry to gain votes of Evangelical Christians. We should not continue to allow this to happen. Whatever one thinks about the important issue of gay marriage and/or civil union, we need to recognize that Republicans use it as a divisive weapon against us.:patriot:

[bvar22]

93. There IS NO Gay Marriage issue.

You either stand for Civil Rights for All AMERICANS, or you don't.
This includes civil unions for ALL Americans.

Marriage is a religious issue that needs to be decided by the individual churches.

There is absolutely NO need for any Democrat to EVER say the words "Gay Marriage".

As soon as a Democrat says those words, he loses.

[YvonneCa]

101. I agree. n/t

[hiley]

119. You either stand for Civil Rights for All AMERICANS, or you don't.

Exactly ! Marriage is Marriage.
GLBT's are just as good as anyone else.
Every American should have the same rights as others.
Equal rights, If I can get a piece of paper that gives me the right to have health insurance on my Husband's job so should everyone else.
The democratic party needs to say civil rights can not be picked apart some for this , not this for the other and stand up to un"evolved" Americans for rights for all.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1768573

[zulchzulu]

105. Kerry is for civil unions...what's wrong with that?

I totally agree with Kerry on this. He's been for civil unions for years. And besides, "gay marriage" is something people who want to participate in can do from their own personal standpoint while they also get legitimate civil union status.

Perhaps we should spin our wheels ad nauseum begging the Stone Agers in the Catholic Church to recognize "gay marriage"... perhaps we should make "gay marriage" an open issue for the Religious Reich to use to exploit their voters, who are voting against their own best interests on 95% of the other issues that matter.

We have bigger battles to fight than to get sucked into this quicksand. Civil unions! Gay marriage....go for it...just don't expect it to be universally recognized any time soon...move on.

[paparush]

106. He's Absof*ckinglutely Right

The Platform should NOT have a Gay Marriage Plank. That issue KILLED the Dems (along w/ voting machine fraud) in '04. America has come a long way but she is not ready to put Gay and marriage in the same breath.

Gay Marriage - No way
Same Sex Marriage - No way
Civil unions - Maybe
Rights to Benefits - Probably

[PresidentObama]

107. PEOPLE....

Get off of Kerry's back.

This same response came from the Pro-Choice groups after he said that we should put up more Pro-Life candidates. C'mon. It's common sense whether you support gay marriage or not, to not put it in your platform. That's asking for trouble. 60+ percent of America doesn't support gay marriage. Do you think they will support a party that endorses gay marriage?

It's common sense. And Kerry's right.

[wisteria]

109. Your explanations make sense to me. I agree with Kerry's position..

[NightOwwl]

115. If Kerry doesn't understand the importance of framing an issue by now...

he should butt out of the conversation.

[NightOwwl]

112. He's a loser.

Literally and figuratively.

Instead of using this issue as a positive for Democrats (My party "supports" equal rights for all citizens, and that includes the right to state sanctioned marriage), he plays into the Republican scare tactics by using the divisive term "gay marriage", which brings religion into the discussion when it shouldn't be.

So after all this time, this he's still playing offense. He should do us all a favor and stop sending out feelers for 2008 because he just ends up giving Democrats a bad reputation.

[Clarkie1]

120. The state should not be in the business of marrying people.

That should be left to the churches. In an ideal world, the state would issue only "civil union licences" for everyone, heterosexual, homosexual, or whatever.

That's the most logical solution, but also the most difficult to implement because the term "marriage" is so interwoven into our legal framework, unfortunately.

The problem is that for a lot of people the term "marriage" is perceived in religious instead of legal terms.