Kerry says NO to releasing his divorce records

[Sparkly]

Good for him! Seems the RNC would love to try to dig dirt a la Jack Ryan. If they try to make it an issue, seems to me it'll backfire.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=615&ncid=703&e=7&u=/nm/20040630/pl_nm/campaign_kerry_divorce_dc

[noahmijo]

1. Why the fuck should he release his divorce records?

Is it a matter of national security?

fuckin scumbag hypocrites and their so called high moral values.

::spits:::

Heh you can take the kid outta The Bronx....

[Freddie Stubbs]

42. For the same reason that Jack Ryan had his opened

[gmoney]

2. Ugh... this is grist for the mill... why Kerry, why?

Rush and Hannity are going to blow this up into the biggest "non-disclosure" since Whitewater... John, unless you killed a hooker in Reno and ate her corpse, just release the freakin' records.

[Old and In the Way]

5. I'll bet he's holding back....let the RW speculate and moan about

the non-disclosure. Then JK will release a finding that will deflate the gasbags, once again.

[emulatorloo]

8. You are on the money - ala the Military Records. . . .n/t

[Sparkly]

7. I don't think he should release them

He should hold to "none of your business."

If the rightwing fusses, it only makes them look desperate.

[Cha]

3. NO, I say

they can go fuck themselves.

[shraby]

4. They are just hoping there

is something in there to offset Ryan's idiocy.

[Leilani]

6. Someone should warn the Repugs

if they want a fight...

release Laura Bush s driving records.

[Scoopie]

9. How are they closed to begin with?

All court cases - whether they be criminal, civil or domestic - are generally open to the public unless they ARE a matter of national security.
In defense of the First Amendment, I say open them.
In defense of this country, I say "who cares what's in them?"
;)

So the man got a divorce. Big whoop. So has 50 percent of the country.

Edited to include: there are other court cases that are sealed: juvenile courts cases and special-circumstances cases - still, I wouldn't think Kerry would fall into either one of these.

[Sparkly]

11. I thought only the fact that they happened are public

but that the "papers" regarding the cases are not.

[Scoopie]

15. All the "papers" are public

unless a judge rules otherwise.
But, that may vary from state-to-state.
In Tennessee, our sunshine never sets - we have one of the country's best open records laws, so it could be that in Massachusetts, the papers are sealed.

I still contend it's a silly issue. ;)

[I Lean Left]

10. They should back off.

If I recall correctly, he's more or less protecting his ex-wife. She was a little unstable. I don't think they'll find anything bad about Kerry in there.

Compare this to Bush hiding his DUI to 'protect his daughters'. Kerry really is trying to protect his daughters, and not his own ass.

Oh, and Massachusetts is a 'no-fault' state. No need to itemize misdeeds. Just divy up the property and arrange the visitation.

[Sparkly]

12. Right. It's an invitation to revisit the "youthful indiscretions"

not to mention the military records.

[Scoopie]

13. You sort of answered my question, then

I was wondering why they weren't open for public inspection, anyway, as most divorce cases are.
But, if his wife was unstable, to use your word, then I might be able to see why a judge would seal them - to protect her.
On the other hand, do we know who filed and if they filed grounds? Because, even in "no-fault" states, one can still file on grounds. In any case, I think the whole thing is silly.
I couldn't care less about the man's divorce unless he beat his wife - and if that were the case, I'm betting there would be criminal charges and there weren't, so it's a moot point.

[Sparkly]

14. I also think if there were a big brouhaha to be found

it would have been found in his last Senate election.

[Scoopie]

16. Exactly.

EOM

[I Lean Left]

19. I'm not sure you can claim grounds in a no fault state.

Usually 'irretrievable breakdown' or 'irreconcilable differences'. Unless one party is contesting the action, both parties have to agree to all language in the divorce.

Actually, I think of far greater impact would be the application for anullment to the Catholic Church. They want details. Lots and lots of details. With mea culpas. Oh and some money. I'll be real curious to see if that ever leaks out.

[Scoopie]

21. I know you can claim grounds in a no-fault state

Because I did and I live in a no-fault state.

I won, btw.

[I Lean Left]

49. In Massachusetts??

I got divorced in Massachusetts, and my understanding is that will only happen if one side contests the action and you have to convince the judge to grant the divorce.

Kerry was already a politician when he got divorced. There's no way on God's green earth he allows something harmful in those papers. It will have been mutual and amicable.

[MallRat]

37. Even so, wouldn't annulment proceedings be covered by clergy privilege?

n/t

[Darkamber]

17. Heard abit of details about this on talk radio..

It seems it is the media company who got Ryan's divorce unsealed that is thinking of going after Kerry. They have some station where they can do the same thing they did to Ryan to Kerry.

Personally, I think this is old news and it might hurt Kerry's ex-wife more then Kerry and bring up old wounds that have nothing to do with what is happening now.

[Scoopie]

22. Gosh, DarmAmber

And issue we can agree upon!

:)

[Not Me]

18. None of your Cheney-ing business...

and further, that's what Clinton should have said on 1/27/97...instead of "I did not have relations with that woman."

[Dr Fate]

20. I think the public will stand behind him on this one...

..'taint nobody's beez-wax and everyone knows it.

It's too obvious of a dirt digging ploy...

[notbush]

23. It was wrong when the judge opened Ryan's records......

It will be wrong, if a judge opens Kerry's records.
That's where I stand.
Unfortunately many here heaped praise on a judge 10 days ago who opened Ryans record, while repugs showed their animus.
If a judge now opens Kerry's divorce records, and something embarrassing comes out....Those tables will be turned.
Many repugs will heap praise on the judge for his openness, and many here will show their animus.
Don't we have to be a little consistent??????

[AP]

24. Most of the records were redacted, except for the part where he wanted to

have sex in PUBLIC with his FAMOUS wife.

You can sort of understand why the judge didn't think that he was entitled to keep that private.

As for Kerry, I'm sure there's nothing to hide, and he should put his foot down.

[Toucano]

25. "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.

A great person does not have to think consistently from one day to the next."

-- Emerson

In fairness, I'm not sure this would qualify as foolish or not. :)

I would love someone to explain two things:

1. How do records such as these become sealed?
2. What was the judges rationale for unsealing some of Ryans records?

I've tried to find these answers, but haven't been successful. I admit that I didn't really follow the Ryan issue at the time, so that may put me at a disadvantage.

[notbush]

26. Emerson had his own personal problems....

Great quote......not so great reasoning.

[Toucano]

27. Okay, I found one answer.

In the Ryan case, the judge said that the Ryan's candidacy increased the public's right to know the contents of the document. Further, he said that the Ryans knew they were in a public court when the proceedings took place. That's interesting because the press clearly wasn't sitting in on the proceedings (why would they?) when they took place. I wonder if witnesses in the court or even court personnel tipped off the media that there was something special in the documents?

As AP points out, he redacted some of the documents, released some totally, and left others sealed. The judge was trying to reach a balance between protecting the interests of their child and the public.

That is a little troubling in that the argument the Ryans put forth was that releasing the documents would harm their son's development. Couldn't that argument apply to everyone though?

I realize most divorces wouldn't matter to anyone but those involved, but there are degrees of fame. Should my mayor's child have the same consideration? How about a school principal's child?

Why limit it to divorce. Wouldn't the child of an accused murderer be harmed by the trial contents being available to the public? Other children might make it pretty hard to go to school everyday.

I'm just not comfortable with this sealing thing. If legal records are private, then that should apply to everyone equally. Everyone's adoption records are private, for example. Whether you're Nicole Kidman and Tom Cruise or Joe and Mary Snodgrass, those records are sealed for an equal time period.

[notbush]

29. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

I'm bettin' the gander doesn't have anything to hide.
If I'm wrong????????
Oh SHIT!!!!!

[quinnox]

28. I think this is just a red herring

They (GOP smear machine) throw this out there to try and get in the public's mind Kerry got a divorce, but not much good it will do them in my opinion.

I agree with Dr. Fate that this is too obvious a digging for dirt tactic to succeed. Kerry obviously isn't going to comply, and not much the Bush campaign or its surrogates can do about that besides grumble.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

30. Sounds like Kerry is not going to do it. Adamantly so.

"I have no intention of doing that at all,".... "It's none of anybody's business, period."

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/president/kerry/articles/2004/06/30/kerry_rules_out_opening_records_of_1988_divorce/

[notbush]

31. Yes, but he may not have a choice

Ryan and his wife both wanted their records to continue to be sealed.
A judge decided unsealing them was "the peoples right to know".

[PROGRESSIVE1]

32. .....................................

[in_cog_ni_to]

33. Yesterday on GD I read that his first marriage was annulled.

If that is true, then the Catholic church doesn't recognize Kerry's first marriage. The idiot-in-chief wants the Catholic church to abide by their beliefs in the anti-gay/anti-choice issues so, they can't have it both ways. EITHER they want the church to stand by their beliefs or they DON'T. The church doesn't recognize the first marriage so......IT DIDN'T exist. Right? ;) Damn hypocrites. (The repukes)

[AngryAmish]

34. This is crazy

John Kerry was never married in the first place. He got an annulment from the Catholic Church. That means he agrees that that the initial marriage was never a true marriage and should not have ever happened.

What right do people have to seek records from a marriage that never took place?

Ryan should have has his records released because he is such a pig. Sub-human, really.

[jerryster]

36. N/S

Are you kidding me? Didn't that marriage produce children? I'm not Catholic but that does not preclude me from stating that I have a LOT of problems with the Catholic Church. As for taking the position you take?!?! Come on! We can't have it both ways. If we say (and I DO say) that the Church's threatening to withhold communion from parishioners who EVEN VOTE for pro choice candidates is despicable, then how do do we tell voters that Kerry gets to say his first marriage never happened because the Church says he can. It's just ridiculous. The marriage happened. I don't give a damn what the Church says. And Kerry should NEVER say that it didn't. He opens himself up to a whole host of accusations about not taking responsibility. You got married. It didn't work out. You got divorced. Deal with it!

As for the unsealing of the records, be warned DUers. I live in Illinois. I had no interest in Ryan's records. Give credit to our guy Obama for staying above it. But Ryan was running for Senator and the records were opened. Kerry is now running for PRESIDENT!! Nothing stays hidden. And The Repubs can, ironically, point to Illinois and say what's good for the goose, etc etc. My thinking is that Kerry should green light the release. Otherwise, as gmoney posted, Rush and Hannity et al will blow this up. Why give them ammo? Release the records.

[AngryAmish]

38. Don't complain to me

That is the position of the RC Church. If Kerry is calling himself Catholic (and he is) then he gets to make every argument based upon Canon law.

If he does not want to be Catholic, so be it. But since he HAD the annulment, then obviously this is what he believes.

[BootinUp]

40. Not so obvious

Just because he went through the annullment process, doesn't necessarily tell you what his personal beliefs are on that issue. It does mean he wanted the option to be married in the Catholic Church again.

[AngryAmish]

41. Are you accusing Kerry of gaming the Church for personal benefit?

Are you accusing him of using his faith as something he can pick and choose from as long as it benefits him? Those annulment proceedings are serious affairs, you have to swear on various grounds that the initial marriage did not happen because of intoxication, immaturity, etc. Do you really think he would take a false oath just because he wanted to get another marriage in the Church?

Plenty of Catholics get a civil divorce and do not get an annulment. If they want to remarry they leave the Church. No one is holding a gun to their heads to stay.

However, if one believes (as Kerry clearly does) that the marriage never happened then one can remain in the Church and get another marriage. Its the rules.

[BootinUp]

44. You're cracking me up

gaming?

I am stating my belief that a lot of Catholics don't live and die by every dogma that the comes from the vatican. You can believe otherwise of course. Some people have personal beliefs that may conflict with the organized religion they were born into. Its often a struggle to reconcile these conflicts. People do it in different ways.

As for annulments in the Catholic Church I admit to being somewhat ignorant of the requirements. But the length of this marriage that never happened is enough to throw credibility of that determination right out the window IMHO.

[Cheswick2.0]

39. I never heard Kerry got an annulment

If so I am very disapointed in him. How many years were they married? Didn't they have kids? This is one area where I think the Catholic church is qrotesquely corrupt. You pay them money and they say you were never married......after years of happiness, sex, children and a life together.

[AngryAmish]

43. Are you accusing Kerry of "bribing" the Church?

That is terrible.

[in_cog_ni_to]

45. The Catholic Church

will not marry you if you don't annul your previous marriage. I am assuming he wanted to be married by the church? :shrug: My ex husband did the same thing. After 15 years of marriage and years after our divorce, he called me up one day and asked if I would sign annulment papers because the person he wanted to marry was Catholic and she wanted to be married in her church. Him annulling his previous marriage was the only way she could marry in her church. AFTER he had our marriage annulled, they ended up not getting married. LOL....I didn't care if our marriage was annulled because I knew I had been married to him and was happy I wasn't anymore. :)

[TexasSissy]

46. Yeah, I heard he did. A Catholic thing. Or at least he tried.

[TexasSissy]

47. Anyone know WHEN he was divorced? In last 10 years?

[BootinUp]

48. 1988 n/t

[Andromeda]

50. "Happiness?"

Sex maybe but the marriage couldn't have been that happy if they split up. A lot of people live together in misery for their own reasons and having children together doesn't always bring couples closer to each other.

The Catholic church grants annulments in certain cases and in Kerry's case there were issues concerning his wife's mental state. We don't know the whole story and some things should stay private. Period.

[juajen]

52. In Louisiana this is an everyday occurence

I had to testify on paper to the church when a friend of mine applied for an annulment. She and her first husband had been married over 20 years and had four children. Her claim to the church was that she was pregnant and too young to know what she was doing, and that her husband was abusive to her and to her children.

They asked me many, many questions, some of which I could not answer. They're very thorough.

This is difficult to understand if you are not a catholic. Their religion is an everyday part of their life, usually for generations back, and, not practicing their religion is abhorrent, even if they only go to mass a few times a year. It's also a stigma. So, if you want to get remarried, you usually apply for an annulment.

I am not originally from Louisiana and am not a catholic, so all of this was new to me. I admire greatly how the catholic church influences, for the good, family life here in bayou country; although there are, of course, some drawbacks, they are outweighed by the enviable closeness of catholic families

[TexasSissy]

35. The RWs will get them, anyway.

[PVnRT]

51. This could be dangerous

I agree with him in principle, these shouldn't be anything remotely resembling a campaign issue.

Unfortunately, in reality, a bunch of media outlets are going to sue to have those divorce records made public, and it will become yet another smear for the GOP to use instead of addressing the issues (which Rove knows is a losing strategy).