The real problem with Kerry's same sex marriage position

[dsc]

Most of us LGBT people are realistic and know full well that federal marriage isn't going to happen by any means other than court order no matter who is President and what he or she does. Most of us also realize that those hateful anti marriage amendments are pretty sure to pass in the states which have them up no matter what Kerry says or does. So in a very real sense we know that no actual harm is coming from Kerry's position that wouldn't already happen. So why all the drama?

One word, symbolism. It is becoming a symbol for Kerry's behavior toward the LGBT community. One of the primary reasons I was so strongly for Dean in this primary was the fact Dean told straight America that he was on my side in the battle for my rights. Other than Tsongas, I can think of no other Presidential contender who did that. Kerry virtually never mentions LGBT rights in a speech or appearence geared toward a mainstream audience. His acceptence speech being a prime example of that behavior.

Most LGBT voters honestly believe that ENDA (or civil rights) and anti hate crimes legislation is doable if a President actually cares enough to press the issue. Clinton didn't and it didn't get done. As much as I would love to envision Kerry using his first State of the Union to press for these things, I simply can't see him doing it. And if he doesn't do that or something similar it just won't happen.

Since Bush is so bad, Kerry will likely end up with a huge majority of the LBGT vote. But, unlike many other constituencies in the Democratic party, LBGT often vote against other interests when they support a Democrat. For some the apparent lack of a tangible difference (the federal amendment appears to be a non starter thank God) could swing them back to Bush. For others it could cause them to stay home or vote third party. I am lucky in that I have other reasons to vote Democratic so I will vote for Kerry. I don't envy those for whom the choice is harder.

I really hope I am wrong here. But a record compiled in a state with at least one, and for most of Kerry's career two, openly gay Congressmen doesn't strike me as a sure thing especially when coupled with backing off from it when his audience broadened. As President he never will be back in Massachusetts fighting for his votes. Instead he will be in places like Ohio, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, and Missouri. The verdict on us in those places is in, and it isn't very good. If he isn't willing to tell them now that they have to welcome us into the fold as real citizens with real rights, then why would he become willing to do that when he takes office? I have no real answer to that. Again, I hope I am wrong. But that convention could have been in 84 or 88, before we started to become a national power. While only symbolism, it is powerful symbolism.

[PretzelWarrior]

1. Camu: The only philisophical question is suicide

well, I think of it similarly. This is all or nothing. This is going "all in" during a Texas Hold em poker match.

You will have one PRAGMATIC CHOICE to face this fall: Antigay Bigot who will do anything to calm the religous beasts he has in a corral, or Kerry who will do what he can as president to fight for the rights of GL and B community.

All else is mere evaporating mist in the issues column.

[noahmijo]

2. I can see your position

I'm a Catholic and I fully support gay marriage. I see no harm in it and in my opinion the God I know and worship would not want any of his children to be denied the same rights as everyone else.

The way I see it though as so long as Kerry doesn't do anything to impede the way for gay marriage, then I say that's alot better than *'s position.

I think it's okay to make it a state issue since that's how traditionally major bills and laws emerge, and from what I understand that is Kerry's position.

So essentially yes gay marriage I think would at worst take longer to be implemented nationwide under someone like Kerry who wouldn't push for its legalization like Dean, however unlike under Bush, it wouldn't be a matter of if it would be a matter of when.

In other words Kerry is going to let the "activist" judges have their way and not try to stop them (I hope because if he did he would be going against his promise to let it be a state issue) and that's how we're going to move closer.

I'm sorry I wish it could be better, this is probably the one sore spot I honestly have with Kerry, but in the grand scheme of things I think things will come around eventually to the way we wish they could be.

[KittyWampus]

3. Your Fourth Paragraph Implies Many LBGT Are Single Issue Voters

so my reply to that specific point is- who really cares about someone who has one pet issue which must be fed?

Fourth paragraph you talk about Kerry not being "willing to tell them now that they have to welcome us into the fold as real citizens with real rights."

Well, Kerry can't just TELL voters they have to welcome ANYONE into the fold bla bla bla.

He can certainly appoint judges though.

Kerry does not nor will ever have a magic wand to make Americans lose their prejudices.

I am sorry your specific issue won't be a VISIBLE priority.

Mine won't either.

[dsc]

5. I think more than a few are single issue voters

and that isn't utterly irrational. If you are a well off, white, male, pro lifer, who is gay; I still think a vote for Kerry is the wise choice but clearly it would be cast on one issue and one issue only. Other than Jews, white gay males are the only white males who routinely vote majority Democratic. Again, other than Jews, wealthy gay males are the only wealthy males who vote majority Democratic. Many of those are indeed single issue voters, try being able to be fired for being yourself and see how single issue you get. Try being beat up for being yourself and see how single issue you get.

Johnson told white America they had to give blacks equal rights in 1964 and so they did. Lincoln told America it had to end slavery in 1863 and so it did. Kerry doesn't have a magic wand. But given the 60+% support for ENDA he hardly needs one. He does have a bully pulpit and he should use it for his third largest voting block.

[mitchtv]

14. My pet "issue"??

discriminaton/second class citzenship? guilty as charged. Attiudes like that repel constituents, It is along with reproductive choice, are the 2 non- negotiable reasons to vote Dem. The environment, I consider my pet issue. Equality, I consider a right. Kerry has the same attitude towards leglizing another pet issue of mine, Cannibus, a kind of spinless laizze faire one. He is however a master politician, and you can't do anything if you don't win I understand that much. I guesswhat I'm trying to say some things are pet, somethings go beyond "single" issue.

[dsc]

15. Imagine for a moment

that Kerry decided that partial birth abortion bans should be a state issue and came out in favor of said bans when he visited those states. Wanna bet that many of our critics who accuse us of having pet issues would all of the sudden become the single issue voters they despise?

[David Dunham]

4. A LGBT person who sees no difference between Kerry/Bush is an idiot.

[dsc]

6. there is clearly a difference

but is there a tangible one? Clearly Bush is anti gay and Kerry isn't. But if Bush can't get his anti gay agenda passed, and Kerry won't get his pro gay one passed, then what tangible difference is there?

[JusticeForAll]

7. unfortunately there are plenty of idiots out there...

and their vote counts the same as ours.

From four months of voter registration in the GLBT community, the success stories are inspiring, but the pervasive ignorance is mind-boggling. From my estimate, about 15% of our community (in Arizona) will be voting Republican.

Those in the undecided column equal probably another 10-20%, who have no real idea of why Bush is bad for them and when you try to explain the difference, their kneejerk response is "Kerry is a waffler".

Too bad Kerry cannot support equality for all. He'd have a much easier time getting these votes he desperately needs in my swing state.

[no name no slogan]

8. You forgot Kucinich, too

He backs full marriage rights for GLBT folk, not just civil unions. But I don't blame you for not knowing that. :D

But other than that, I think you raise some very good questions. The Democrats lately have a history of only giving lip service to their "minority" constituencies around election time, but don't do a good job of following through once we elect them.

Instead, they keep listening to the money men, who have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo, while appearing to make strides on our issues. Look at "don't ask, don't tell", NAFTA, and a slew of other issues that have been harmful to our base.

I think that we need to keep the pressure on Kerry once he's elected. That was the left's biggest mistake with Clinton, IMHO. We thought that, just because we had a Democrat in the White House, that we could relax after twelve years of Reagan/Bush (mis)rule-- that suddently things would just get better. Unfortunately, that didn't happen.

[dsc]

9. I did know his position

but he wasn't a contender in the sense that he had a legitimate shot of winning. In point of fact Mosley Braun, Sharpton, and Kucinich all supported same sex marriage (though Kucinich as a Congressional candidate supported DOMA) but none of them had anything like a realistic shot of winning the nomination.

[JI7]

17. the "left" should have voted for a democratic congress

[mzmolly]

10. Kerry voted against DOMA. This article by John Kerry may surprise you.

I know it surprised me, pleasantly.

:hi:

http://www.advocate.com/html/stories/914/914_kerry.asp

The misnamed and misguided Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is as unconstitutional and unnecessary as it is mean-spirited and malicious. The authors of the bill mistakenly claim that Congress has the authority to allow one state to ignore a legally recognized marriage in another. But the U.S. Constitution is unequivocal on this point: “Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State.”

Imagine the confusion if we didn’t have such a clause: A child-custody decision in California could be ignored by Illinois; a divorce concluded in Nevada could be rejected in New York. DOMA does violence to the spirit and letter of the Constitution by allowing the states to divide.

Unconstitutional. Unnecessary. Premature. Presumptuous. What is this debate really about? It seems no coincidence that every election year a few politicians gang together for some legislative gay bashing. This behavior panders to the basest instincts of the human condition--scapegoating and ostracizing.

But we are a better nation than that. Echoing the ignorance and bigotry that peppered the discussion of interracial marriage a generation ago, the proponents of DOMA call for a caste system for marriage. I will not be party to that. As Martin Luther King Jr. explained 30 years ago, “Races do not fall in love and get married. Individuals fall in love and get married.” This is the essence of the American pursuit of happiness and the core of the struggle for equality.

:toast:

[dsc]

11. His record is great

and I hope against hope, that I am flat out wrong as to the weight I am giving it. Casting that vote in Massachusetts was not a terribly difficult move. Weld also opposed DOMA. I will be first to dance in the streets as well as admit I was wrong if Kerry turns out to be a real fighter in this regard. But I just don't think he will be.

[DaveSZ]

12. You guys are going to have to march

We all have to march if we want people in Washington to take notice of our various issues.

Kerry did it in the 60s and 70's, and he helped change the world.

[dsc]

13. We have

and I presume we will again. The fact is through hard work and heavy lifting, LGBT activists have changed public opinion drasticly in regards to basic civil rights. The problem is that we don't have many laws to show for that change. One problem is widespread ignorance of the fact that LGBT workers can be fired simply for being LGBT. Many straight liberals honestly don't know that.

On edit Imagine if Clinton in the 1993 State of the Union had filled his heros gallary with people who had been fired for being gay or lesbian and stated he wanted a law prohibiting those firings. We would have ENDA now instead of still not having it.

[mzmolly]

16. I understand DSC.

I hope he fights for equality as well. :hug: