Kerry criticizes Mass. Democrats for gay marriage support

[AlGore-08.com]

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/president/kerry/articles/2005/05/06/kerry_criticizes_mass_democrats_for_gay_marriage_support/

BATON ROUGE, La. -- U.S. Sen. John Kerry, visiting Louisiana for a forum on children's health care, criticized the Massachusetts Democratic Party for its expected approval of a statement in the party platform in support of same-sex marriage.

"I think it's a mistake," Kerry said. "I think it's the wrong thing, and I'm not sure it reflects the broad view of the Democratic Party in our state."

(snip)

U.S. Sen. Edward M. Kennedy said he supports the inclusion of the same-sex marriage language in the party platform. Same-sex marriage has been legal in Massachusetts since last year.

The 3,000 delegates to the Massachusetts Democratic Party are scheduled to meet at Tsongas Arena on May 14. Johnston said he did not expect that there would be an effort to block the same-sex marriage plank.

(More... )

[OneBlueSky]

1. while this is something I would love to endorse . . .

including support for gay marriage in the party platform is, unfortunately, a sure way to lose a whole lot of elections . . . even in Massachusetts . . .

[TwentyFive]

6. I was in MASS a few weeks ago

My traditionalist 92 year old relative is republican and thinks that everybody should be allowed to marry. My family believes discrimination is wrong....and I think more people feel that way than you realize. Other countries have ended marriage discrimination, and I don't see their societies crumbling.

The only way we'll "lose a whole lot of elections" is by having timid politicans fall into the trap of using right wing focus group tested terms like "gay marriage" instead of using our own terms, like "ending marriage discrimination" or "marriage equality" which are more accurate.

[Massachusetts]

54. Yup.

[valis]

59. Well, the older folks are the ones with the older world view.

That's life. That's how things change.

[anitar1]

347. I happen to be one of the Much older people

and I support gay marriage. I cannot see one reson to oppose this. Why shouldn't my friends and some family have the same rights as the rest of us ? It is the extreme right who oppose this.

[Seabiscuit]

399. Right on. I'll say it again: SCREW KERRY! JUST FUCK KERRY BLUE!

[MadisonProgressive]

243. It's actually sexual orientation/preference discrimination

and it is manifested in all sorts of ways. Marriage is just the big topic today. What would Jesus do???????

[antonialee839]

345. I'm tired of worrying about

losing elections, look where it has gotten us so far. Screw it.
I believe you should be able to marry any damn person you want, and I intend to avidly search for politicians who feel the same way and vote for them. I'm tired of playing the game, only to end up with that ridiculous excuse for a leader and the rest of his ilk running this country into the damn ground. Kerry's campaign was one huge mistake, filled with a lot of "me too" isms, and not sufficiently defending himself or for that matter, going on the attack. I think he has a hell of a nerve trying to school other politicians.

[Zhade]

23. Yes, unfortunately there are a lot of anti-gay bigots even in the Dems.

NT!

[Stuckinthebush]

38. Good post

Anti-gay bigotry is intolerable in any circumstances.

I'm glad that in the 60's, people of good conscience in the Democratic Party stood for the very unpopular position of equal rights for African-Americans.

Perhaps we can find a few good women and men who will do the right thing at the beginning of the 21st century with regard to equal rights for homosexual Americans.

[MadisonProgressive]

244. It's simply do you have love or hatred as your controlling emotion?

Love is inclusive, hatred is exclusionary.

[Logician]

100. From a Married Gay Man in Massachusetts

John Kerry is a political coward (which is preferable to...) or a bigot. His weak views are precisely why our Democratic party is in trouble nationally. We should not compete with conservative Repugs and conservative-leaning moderates. We need to build our liberal base that speaks with a voice of compassion and equality for all. As a society, if we gave in to bigots concerning repeal of inter-racial marriage laws, where would we be as a society? Perhaps not as far along as we are in the fight for racial equality.

I am ashamed that I ever voted for John Kerry. Unfortunately, in the final election I had no choice. I held my nose and scored my ballot.
We need dynamic courageous folks to represent us. This is the only way we will regain control and a truly moral pathway in the development of society.

For those of you who are not residents in Massachusetts, the majority of the Democratic party faithful (there are few Repugs here) do now support gay marriage-- all it has taken is one year and five thousand marriages, and a lot of happiness because of new-found equality, and the majority of people of the Commonwealth no longer see gay marriage as an explosive issue at all.

So John Kerry is wrong on this issue. Always afraid of political backlash. So pathetic.

Anyway, I am married to my partner of 27 yrs, and I must tell you, that equality feels wonderful. Not something that is separate but equivalent, but something which is truly the same in our state!
Either all marriage should become civil unions (and let couples pursue religious marriage ceremonies), or extend civil marriage to everyone gay and straight.

We need to rid ourselves of these old-school weak politicians.

[Eloriel]

150. Amen, and welcome to DU

and hearty congratulations on your wonderful marriage. You're an inspiration.

[Zhade]

211. I'm having a hard time disagreeing with anything you've said...

...so let me just congratulate you on your happy marriage, and add my hopes that GLBT folks will not continue to be told to sit at the back of the bus.

Congratulations! :toast:

[TwentyFive]

233. Bravo to you!

Congratulations to you and your partner of 27 years! That bumper sticker, "If the people will lead, the leaders will follow"...we should get one for John Kerry.

THE cornerstone principle of the Democratic party is opposition to discrimination. End all forms of discrimination against gays (military, marriage, etc.) now. Other countries have done it, and roof has not caved in. What are we waiting for?

[Book Lover]

274. Welcome to DU

And thank you for your perspective.

[gulfcoastliberal]

279. Nice, succinct, accurate post!

I am so fed-up with the dems trying to compete for the fundie vote, pimping anti-choice bigots like Reid and others. Ted Kennedy is an old-school guy who still stands up for what he believes in. Kerry is a washed out, corrupted SOB. If he had stuck with his principles and voted against the Iraq war, he would be in office now. Instead, all he could say is "yeah, I'd vote the same way knowing what I know now" after Iraq proved to be a huge disaster. What a loser. No wonder he lost an election that was his to lose.

[sallyseven]

286. Barney Frank thinks the same

way. He said that bringing up the subject at the time they did would cause problems and it did. That is all that people were thinking about not the dead in Iraq or the deficit. It could have waited for an off year.

[TwentyFive]

290. I like like Barney Frank - but he is an Inside the Beltway type guy.

These guys only think up until the next election. It's that myopia that is killing off the democrats.

If you look at the fundies, they lost elections for 20 years - but they never swayed against their principles. For example, conventional wisdom said that abortion was a losing issue. But the fundies never wavered from supporting anti-choice candidates. And now...look who controls the govt?

What happened to all the pro-choice republicans? They lost elections.

[Pied Piper]

393. Congratulations!

I too am a gay man in MA. I play in a local community orchestra, and at our first rehearsal last fall, the conductor asked all of us if anyone had exciting news to share about events that happened over the summer. We had FIVE members who had married their same-sex partners, and there was a resounding applause from everyone else. I love living in Massachusetts!

[reprobate]

414. Agreed. I'm waiting for a test of the 'equal commerce' clause....

...which says that anything legal in one state must be legal in all others, so as not to impede commerce.

[valis]

58. Really? Then why doesn't Kerry says that is why he thinks so.

Instead of the sanctimonious "I think it's the wrong thing"

[Misunderestimator]

91. Great, then find me a party that WILL support my civil rights.

[Eloriel]

138. That is NEVER an acceptable reason to jettison anyone's

rights. Never. NEVER! If you THINK it is, you are setting yourself and a whole lot of other people up for having YOUR rights abridged.

while this is something I would love to endorse . . .
including support for gay marriage in the party platform is, unfortunately, a sure way to lose a whole lot of elections . . . even in Massachusetts . . .

As long as gays and lesbians do not have the RIGHT as the rest of us do to full citizenship which, in this country includes the right to marry, they are 2nd class citizens not fully covered by the Constitution, and that's plain wrong.

Further, it provides subtle "permission" for other forms of discrimination against them -- after all if there's something "wrong enough" with them that they aren't entitled to this right, then there's something "wrong" with them and they're not entitled to other rights.

Senator Kerry is an ass. A pathetic, apparently scared shitless one.

[dissent1977]

365. The same thing was said about civil rights at one time

If we don't take the right stance just because we are afraid we might lose some votes then we are cowards. We have to stand up against injustice even if it may make our jobs more difficult.

[w4rma]

2. Kerry's right, imho. (nt)

[realFedUp]

65. I agree...Dems should have made distinctions...

civil unions and civil rights should
be separated from ceremonies
and blessings from a church.

All adults should have the right to
form consensual and stable loving unions
with all the legal rights
that go with them.

Churches themselves can decide whether
to perform the religious ceremony for
them.

My church does blessedly, but it
shouldn't and won't be in all religious
dominations or faiths.

I think Kerry's a bit late on this issue...
but I think he's right.

[Mass]

67. He would be if he stated that this way

but until now, he has not. He has been speaking of civil unions with full rights for same-sex couples and marriages for heterosexual couples.

This said, his position is still more progressive than anything else that exists elsewhere than in Mass.

[Misunderestimator]

96. All you said was right, until the last sentence...

how can Kerry be right in what he's saying, when the party hasn't been right all along in addressing it? Instead, he should have said what you just said. But no, instead we throw the baby out with the bath water. No, he's not right.

[realFedUp]

114. He and the Dem party should have reframed the language

It's about civil rights stupid, not
about "marrriage"

unless you are gay and lesbian and fighting
for church blessings also.

[Misunderestimator]

115. Again, I agree with you... but not with you saying he was right.

Personally, I don't give a damn whether a church blesses it or not.

[realFedUp]

126. ok....some in the gay and lesbian community do care about blessings

but it's two separate issues...you know what I mean.

[Misunderestimator]

127. Yes, some do, and it is a separate issue, which is why Kerry is wrong

to throw it out as "wrong" for the party. He should be clarifying what the party OUGHT to be supporting, clarify that it's about equal rights... instead our rights are thrown out as so much negative political fodder.

[realFedUp]

141. Clarifying is the key

you don't have to respond...we're on the
same page.

[MadisonProgressive]

247. All weddings are civil unions!

That is what gives you the rights and benefits of marriage. The religious aspect is just a layer on top that some people feel the need to have. You may never be able to change that, but all people should be allowed to live in a loving marriage.

[MADem]

331. I think all state sanctioned unions should be CIVIL

...and if ya wanna get "married" and your church says ok, go ahead. I don't distinguish between same or opposite sex. You go to the license office, sign the book, and you are civilly united. You want the preacher? Go ahead, but even if you skip that part, you are still united. Joint tax returns, and all of the fun of dual responsibility if your significant other goes nuts with the credit card!

I don't think this "marriage" business has anything to do with the state--the word is confused with church weddings and some clown in an outfit giving you some sort of blessing, because they have the private phone line to Jesus or whomever...some invisible guy.

It's a damn contract, and the silly marriage word gets in the way.

[Misunderestimator]

94. Which part, thinking "it's the wrong thing"...

or that it's ok to discriminate against us because it doesn't reflect (he says) what the majority (mainly straight) of the democratic party wants? :eyes:

[IndianaGreen]

407. Kerry is wrong on gay marriage as he was in voting for the war

The Kerry apologists will gloss over his moral failures to support gay rights and oppose the criminal invasion of Iraq as they will certainly excuse Kerry when he endorses restrictions on abortions.

Any politician from any political party that fails to support our G-d given rights to equality and justice deserves our scorn.

This is not a Dem-GOP issue, this is a human rights issue!

[rodeodance]

3. well, John sometimes you need to take some risks

[TwentyFive]

4. Right thing to do - wrong name to call it.

I am hetero and support the right of gays to marry.

But I think we make a mistake calling it gay marriage. Why not just call it marriage equality or ending marriage discrimination?

[More Than A Feeling]

16. I think there should be a reminder that churches can marry who they choose

Still, there will be gay marriage in this country. One year from now, ten years, twenty, but it will happen. Massachusetts, Connecticut, Vermont; they will be able to stand up tall and say "we told you so"

[MaineDem]

32. Bingo!!!

I grew up Catholic where they consider marriage a sacrament. (There were three priests and a Monsignor on the altar when I got married alomst 31 years ago.) The churches can and should set their own guidelines. If they only want to SANCTIFY the union of heterosexual couples, so be it.

But governments, whether municipal, state, or federal, should LEGALIZE the union of two loving people. What if it was your son or daughter who was being denied this right? I tend to look at it that way and I wouldn't want a child of mine denied happiness in a relationship with a loving partner.

Keep religion out of the discussion completely. Perhaps the word "marriage" is indeed the wrong term to use. But, in any case, I find most people can't discuss the idea without referring back to the churches and religion. Leave that out and most people lose their ability to argue.

[d.l.Green]

53. Then they should just change the name of the heterosexual version also...

the government's sanction is only the civil version of "marriage" anyway. You're right, the whole discussion is muddied by that term that crosses the religious line.

[sandnsea]

296. Yes churches can

Why in the world gay people aren't celebrating their church marriages like a gay pride parade is beyond me. Get yourselves out there and proclaim your marriages already.

[Arkansas Granny]

170. The framing of the issue is everything.

The rightwingnuts have used framing to mislead on so many issues to advance their case. Examples: Healthy Forests, Clear Skies, etc. Why shouldn't the Democrats frame issues in the same manner to accurately reflect the debate?

[La Lioness Priyanka]

5. i understand his point

in that politically gay marriage is a losing battle

[AlGore-08.com]

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?

[La Lioness Priyanka]

8. no ones talking admiration

i am saying i understand why hes taken that particular political position

[Tesha]

31. And he's such a (demonstrated) judge of "good positions", ehh? :-) (NT)

[valis]

89. he would be fired on round one of the Apprentice.

[Eloriel]

158. Beatuifully said, thanks.

It's important, I think, for everyone to WORK to get beyond their own personal bigotry (homophobia, sexism, racism, etc.) in order to be on the right side of history, and to help rather than hinder with the great march of human progress.

[Bluebear]

12. So was civil rights for people of color at one time. n/t

[losdiablosgato]

43. I firmly believe the Gay marriage cost us states last year.

Like it or not gay marriage is a huge loser for the Democrats. We need to start thrying to connect with mid America, losing this and supporting gun ownership will be a good way to start. I know quite a few bubba here in TX that would be a lot more likely to vote D if we did.

[mondo joe]

64. Being Play It Safe Wimps cost us too.

[losdiablosgato]

97. I disagree

How do you expect to change the system if you can't get into power. We have to get Democrats elected. Period.

[Misunderestimator]

102. There are plenty of ways to get into power...

And the RW has pretty much perfected that. Until we address gerrymandering and corruption in elections and hypocritical politicians, we can't get into power at all. It has nothing to do with marriage rights... that's a distraction, and a hammer that the RW invented.

[losdiablosgato]

116. We need votes

I have a friend who lives on my street he is 70, he is a retired union refinery worker voted democrat his whole life, except last year. I asked him when I notice the Bush sign in his yard. He told me that Gay marriage was just to much for him and he could no longer support th Democratic party. We need the votes to get our politicians in the state houses to get the congressional districts drawn our way. We need the votes to get rid of the hypocritical politicians. You are right that this is a distraction, but it is working. I think we need to take it off the table and get on point. Start showing the middle how the Democratic party can represent them and their interests better. As I see it this is the bottom line.

[Misunderestimator]

123. Instead of abandoning 10% or more of the party, we should educate

people like that. Why give in to their ignorance? If equal rights for black Americans was just too much for him last century (which I would guess it would have been)... should we have given up the fight then too?

Fuck "taking it off the table" !!!

You need GAY VOTES TOO. :eyes:

[losdiablosgato]

143. In time it will work but what I am worried about in 2006 and 2008.

There is not enough time to do this. I know passions are high and feeling run deep and I am sorry if this hurts But I think we need to do what it takes to get votes now. In 2004 there were 11 or 12 I forget the exact number of states that had referendums on gay marriage. The RW won every vote. Even in liberal Oregon we lost, after various gay right organization put ever resource they had into winning the vote. This is the perfect wedge issue for them. I hate say this but it is not like civil rights for African Americans, the feeling on these people go a lot deeper. This issue is hurting us deeply. And please think about this the only way gay marriage is legal in this country is from the courts. If we lose in 2008 between now and 2012 how many supreme court and lower court justices will the RW pick? Most of the justices are in poor health or old. How much of our agenda has the court got for us. If we lose the courts we are in serious trouble. I am sorry this is upsetting, but I would rather have a moderate democrat who I agree with 70% of the time then a RW repblican who I will be lucky to get 10%.

[Misunderestimator]

147. I'd rather have a party that didn't back down on equal rights issues.

I suppose you would also trade away a woman's right to choose?

[losdiablosgato]

152. We lose the Supreme court we lose Roe V Wade.

That is what I am trying to prevent. According to what I have read the court is now split 5 to 4 in favor of Roe. If the RW get to pack the court in the next 6 or 7 years Roe V Wade may very well be over turned. We need a Democrat in the Whitehouse to stop this. After that we can start moving this country to the left, but it will take time. And the people will not move to the left unless they are first moved to (and thru) the center. Politics is the art of the possible. And some times you do what it takes to get some of something then all of nothing.

[Misunderestimator]

154. I don't play the trade game when it comes to equal rights.

That's the bottom line. We aren't going to agree.

[losdiablosgato]

156. Sorry for that

I just stated my views and trust me I do respect your. I just think this is hte best way.

[Pawel K]

182. I fully agree with you

We have a choice in this country drop the issue of gay marriage (but provide civil unions) or we continue to allow the neo cons to gain more power with each election. The fact that so many people in this country are bigots is sad; but it will take time to educate those people. During that time we can not allow another conservative to get electe; can you imagine what would happen if in 06 Republicans got 60 seats in the senate? Gay/civil rights would completely be destroyed, womens rights would be ruined, the economy would go down the shitter, all welfare support would be taken away and we wouldn't be able to recover. I'm sorry but being firmly for gay marriage is not worth that as this country will be destroyed. I fully understand that this is seen as cowardly but it really isn't; it's about not being arrogant, face it, peoples opinions on gay marriage will not change by 06/08. However, if we get a Democrat in office I firmly believe that opinion would change shortly. Does anyone believe gays in the military would be allowed if the democrats didn't have power at the time? At the time we were debating that about half the country was split, now nobody gives a shit if you are gay and in the military. Do you think we would have had the power to change it if we said during election time we firmly supported it? We can tackle the marriage issue the same way (slowly) without destroying this country.

[ladeuxiemevoiture]

186. I don't care. Don't ask gays for money or time

when election season unfolds.

[Pawel K]

205. We'll see

when a neocon that wants to outlaw gay sex, gay marriage, gay adoptions, gay anything is running against a democrat we shall see who you vote for. However, if your support is lost who should we blame when Republicans gain 60 seats in the house?

Come on, you have to look at this reasonably. Do you think it is better for gays to have a party that supports 95% of their civil rights or should they let a party that despises them gain control?

[ladeuxiemevoiture]

215. That's what dems have always said -

where are they going to go? they have no choice. we don't have to accommodate gays at all.

I'll concede that Dems are a better choice as it stands today, no question.

But the pukes who are being mentioned as possible candidates in 2008 are not neocons. In fact, some of the people being mentioned are moderate on things like gay rights and abortion. things do change.

So the risk being taken by dems (who want dems to reject marriage equality) may not be betting on such a sure thing. What if the GOP candidate turns out to be minimally palatable to gays who have been treated as doormats (again)?

Yeah, we'll have to see how things pan out. Peace.

[mondo joe]

218. I frankly don't care any more. I'll opt out and do my best to get as

rich as I can and move to Canada.

My first job is looking out for my family.

[Misunderestimator]

280. I'm with you... if there's no party in this country that will fight for

equal rights.... there are plenty elsewhere that will. I'm sick and tired of fighting exhaustively for rights of everyone else... even abortion rights... never had one, never will, but for me it's a fundamental issue of human rights. Maybe my voice will be heard somewhere else, and my money and efforts put to better use. The arrogance of a party thinking they can depend on our vote without representing us...

[LTRS]

324. Truthfully? You should blame wimpy dems like Kerry

I've been a diehard dem for since the day I turned 18 nearly 30 yrs ago, but at some point it's time to say enough. If the dem party and its candidates can't take a principled stand in support of me then I can no longer take a stand in support of them.

In case you haven't noticed, the party that despises gays is ALREADY in control and has been for over a decade. Namby, pamby, wimpy dems are a big part of the reason why.

If every minority that dems pander to were to rise up and take a stand it might just help our beloved party grow a spine for more than a few months at a time ('cause that doesn't fool voters). In that case, we'd be doing the party a huge favor.

[losdiablosgato]

187. Exactly

One more thing, if the republican win in 2006 and 2008 not only will gay marriage not happen, but I firmly believe they will outlaw civil unions. The neocons can use this issue to beat us silly.

[SlavesandBulldozers]

261. not if somebody addresses it directly

i disagree with your statement about being beaten silly by this issue. You can turn it around on them.

At some point the neocons will have nobody to blame, the tide will turn - and it won't because of these Rovian divisive issues.

[foreigncorrespondent]

332. From the sounds of it...

...if Kerry was to run again in '06 and '08 and wins, gay marriage won't happen anyway! Same shit different smell, mate.

[LTRS]

321. They aren't going to move to the left with wimpy pandering

... by politicians who can't make up their mind if they are for the issues of the people they say the represent or not.

Witness George W Bush, who takes strong positions opposed by large and even majority segments of voters. Yet they still voted for him. Why? Because they value what they see as principled leadership over namby pamby pandering and waffling.

Nuance my ass... call it what is is - an attempt to play both sides of an issue, something dems are famous for. That ain't gonna win elections. You'd think after 12 yrs of losing, the party would have figured that out by now, but apparently some (most?) of them are slow learners.

[SlavesandBulldozers]

258. me too

this issue has me wondering if there is any loss in context to what he said, if this is an attempt by the media to sow seeds of division.

[ladeuxiemevoiture]

153. Gays are probably disproportionately Dem

and do a lot of GOTV for the Democratic Party. Don't expect them to be energized to do a lot of that if Dems won't support them in return. That's not opinion - that's the political reality. If Dems think they can win by selling gays out, then let them, but they won't get my vote nor my money.

And I don't like paying taxes - why not just vote puke since neither party is going to support gays? At least with pukes, I get my taxes lowered.

Honestly, that kind of describes why I voted for Bush in 2000. Tweedledee, tweedledum, but tweedledee will lower my taxes.

[losdiablosgato]

159. I think we need to get back to basics

We need to reconnect with the middle class in middle America. We need a popularist, strong on labor, neutral or maybe even pro gun, and who can believibly be seen as strong on security. Someone who can atleast play the moderate like President Clinton. Gay marriage is the perfect storm wedge issue for the right wing and we are playing into their hands.

[ladeuxiemevoiture]

162. If dems think sacrificing gays will

help them re-connect with the middle class and bring in votes from these people, just to let you know - I'm middle class, too. So is my family back in middle America.

Dems NEED gays to help GOTV and they need gays' money. And they need the gay vote.

They should do the right thing.

[losdiablosgato]

166. It is my believe that Gay Marriage cost the Democrats sates last year

I agree with Kerry, this issue will cost us big. Hillary and Kerry are both moving to the center on issues. Why? Becasuse they are pragmatic on what it takes to win. If we lose the Whitehouse in 2008 things are going to reach the 9 level of suck in this country. If it takes moving to the center to keep that from happening I am willing to do it. And to clarify I did not say no to gay marriage, I just thing it will not fly now. We need to get the change we can now then work on it later.

[ladeuxiemevoiture]

169. If you (dems) don't care (about me/gays), I don't care about you,

and don't ask me for my money or my time.

Honestly, I'll still probably vote dem (which is the calculus Clinton used in deciding to sign DOMA), but I'll entertain voting puke for the lower taxes if it comes to a choice between tweedledee and tweedledum again.

Nice way to reward your base. NOT.

[losdiablosgato]

171. Sorry. But you fight the fights you can win in politics

Gay marriage is one we can not win. With all the pressing issue facing theis country we need to start winning.

[ladeuxiemevoiture]

172. All I'm asking is, can dems sacrifice gays

and still win, when they're already weak and need all the support they can get?

You're saying they must sacrifice gays, correct?

[losdiablosgato]

174. I am not saying sacrifice, I am saying look at the big picture

This one issue is such a turn off to many in middle America that we may for the time being not be able to win nationally supporting it. I don't like it either but what is is.

[ladeuxiemevoiture]

185. Personally, I AM looking at the big picture,

and I'm saying that, in the scheme of things, if dems don't support gays, I won't support them right back. Capiche? ;-)

Or maybe you think gays should martyr themselves for the sake of a political party? Not gonna happen.

[losdiablosgato]

189. The sad part of it is no matter how much you support the Democratic Party

Gay marriage is costing more. I am sorry to say it, with time and education it will change it but now the best you can realisticly hope for is civil unions. And I think that if we lose in 2008 civil unions may be outlawed by the neo cons on a national level.

[ladeuxiemevoiture]

190. Well, then, I guess gays should look for another party to call home.

Good thing the gay couple plaintiffs in the MA case which led to gay marriage there didn't adopt the defeatist position you are promoting.

[mondo joe]

208. Those plaintiffs had to count on themselves since their legilators

didn't have the balls.

[losdiablosgato]

209. I have a question

I know you are passionate about this, and I empathize with you. But this is how I see it gay marriage is an issue that will cost the democratic party big. In time it will come I just do not see it in the next 5 to 10 years. And if as I believe if we lose in 2008 it will be devastating to this country and the world. Case in point since 1972 democrats have had the white house 12 of 33 years. As sad as it is to say most of the positive change we jave seen in this time has been from the courts (gay marriage in Mass as a point). If the whitehouse is won next time by a neocon what are our chances of progressive change then? And what can we lose? Please think logically about it, this is not the safe play, giving up values and rights to just get elected, it is the smart play to keep the neocons from destroying this country.

[mondo joe]

222. Now pretend your message was spoken in the early 60's but

instead of gays it was about blacks or women.

[losdiablosgato]

228. It isn't, these are two seperate issues to me.

Love it or hate it in the 1960's ther was a lot more support for civil right in this country then there is for gay marrigage now.

[mondo joe]

230. Really? In the south? When interracial marriage was addressed

by the Supreme Court it was VASTLY unpopular.

[losdiablosgato]

238. If a neocon is elected in 2008 what kind of court will we have

Think about it. The justices are either sick or old or both. If a neocon wins in 2008 they will pack the court with RW zealots and then how much of what we already ahve won will we lose. Coose, gone, affirmative action gone, enviromental protectios won thru court cases gone. No sadly it is not about winning new right it is about keeping what we have until we can get enough people in power to move forward again.

[mondo joe]

241. I guess that's your problem - I'll move to Canada where people

care about civil rights.

I don't need a dem candidate whose big issue is civil rights for gays - but I'm not supporting any more wimps.

[queerart]

284. Thank You For Saying It!

The Green Party Is Where The Queers Should Migrate To.....

We might not ever see our guy win...

But they won't ask for our money with one hand, while smacking us in the head with the other......

And I am sick to death of this "YOU BETTER RHETORIC FROM DINO's"

You better keep giving us your money
You better keep working for our guy
You better not want any rights
You better not leave the party, or the sky will fall down
You better not want respect
You better keep swallowing the shit we toss your way
You better do what we say, or the Republicans will win and it will be your fault (AGAIN)
You better smile everytime someone calls you a Fag (It's good for the Party)
You better give us your vote
YOU BETTER SHUT THE FUCK UP!

Funny thing is... I am no longer afraid...

and lets face it... Queers can blend in the general population (those sad Log Cabin Republicans Fuckers do at this very moment) and we have had to do it for years......

But there will be no hiding for women... when the Democrats finish walking away from what little rights Queers have....

They will walk away from Women next........

I can't wait to hear the howling....

[mondo joe]

350. I'd probably go Libertarian before Green.

But Canada is yet more appealing.

[foreigncorrespondent]

335. Exactly!

So why are the Dem's playing into the republican hands and using a republican wedge issue against Democratic voters? Instead the Dem's should address the issue as what it is, which is a bloody civil rights issue, period! Then get to work on the real issues affecting the U.S. like economy, illegal wars, job loss, etc.

[Logician]

217. I wonder if progressives did not raise their voices to end

institutionalized racism through much of the South, when it was a hot issue and with the majority of residents in certain states wanting to maintain the status quo?

Sorry Losdiablosgato, I wonder if you are aware that you are writing your posts from the position of the majority -- white heterosexual. If you are gay, and know the sting of discrimination, I cannot see how you could possibly support discriminatory and separatist positions.

During our country's period of court-forced desegregation, I wonder how many educated liberals or progressives were unwilling to fight for change out of fear that conservative racists would maintain power.

[losdiablosgato]

225. I do not like it anymore then you do

The problem I have with it is I see it as very damaging to the party and to our chances of making any progress against the noecons. No matter how hard we try to educate people I do not see enough people changing in the next 3 years to help us win in 2008. ANd I fear if we lose in 2008 the neocons will so pack the courts with rw judges that losing gay marriage will be the least of our worries. I think that by 2012 7 to 9 of the surpreme court justice will retire or die. If a far RW court takes over, I forsee the end of choose, the end of affirmative action, gay marriage in Mass being declared illegal, and maybe the end of civil unions as well. And this is only the highlights of what the neocons could do. In my humble opinion backing off gay marriage though unpleasant and unliked is the smart play. We need to get elected to make cnage.

[Logician]

395. Flaw in the Argument

The problem with the argument that positions that are unpopular to the conservative 'middle' and the extremists and prevent us from having voice in legislation and judicial appointments is that: so if you are to play stealth and not raise these issues, or worse-- if you take the positions of the spineless politicians and advocate to reverse or hurt people's basic rights, what the heck are you going to do to maintain your power in the short time you have been elected to office?

Congressional terms are short, while terms for Senators are longer, but what would a politician do to insure his or her re-election? Take office and then speak out and take 'unpopular' views with the conservative base that elected him or her?

Attempt to appoint Supremes such as Ginsberg over the desires of the conservative masses?

Of *course* they will not. They will always be hamstrung by the reality of having to pander to the right. Frankly, they will always be like a John Kerry.

Your discussions are so flawed by the reality of what politicians who are beholden to conservative need to do to be re-elected.

We should be expanding our progressive centrist and liberal communities in the Democratic party-- so that we can be elected based on just and fair policies.

Not pretending to be a 'centrist'== which translates as being a social conservative, or of a populist, who votes against corporate interests and perhaps supports Green-friendly legislation. And perhaps much watered-down versions of Roe.

No way. We need to donate funds and volunteer to educate people that voting liberal ultimately will increase their quality of life-- either directly or indirectly.

[Trish1168]

249. It was gay marriage and not voter fraud? Bull sh*t !!!

It wasn't that the computerized black boxes flipped a few votes. Nah, that was just a figment of our collective imagination.

Honestly, if this cost us, then why did Kerry win based on exit polls (which were probably accurate considering the 1 in a million odds they all skewed in the same direction). Don't drink the media Kool aide which is that the country took a hard right turn, when it really hasn't. The media are looking for profits and will tell you what the Bushie's want you to believe because they know * will reward them in the end.

[Laurab]

362. We do, I agree - the repukes have framed this issue

and it has hurt the democratic party. We are playing DIRECTLY into their hands. I don't think Kerry is saying gays shouldn't have equal rights. I think he's saying gay marriage should not be added to the democratic platform. Two different things, there. I have a gay brother. He deserves to have every right I have. I still don't think adding gay marriage to the "democratic platform" is a good thing. There are a LOT of ignorant people in this world, and they vote.

It's fine to hold strongly to your beliefs but the fact remains that if a gay person wants ANY rights at all, the dems have to get into office, and fast. The RW has spread the "fear of the evil gays" far and wide, into the hearts and minds of people who probably never gave it a second thought before it became an issue in the past election. Those hearts and minds are still going to have that fear, and they still VOTE. A LOT of them. There are far more "Joe Sixpack" voters than any other kind, I believe.

We cannot let the RW frame this, and we cannot afford to chase voters away because of the way it's already been framed. It's unfortunate, but the average voter is just not all that enlightened, and we need the average voter.

I do believe the democratic party encourages equal rights for everyone. I believe, as I said before, Kerry is saying "don't make gay marriage part of our platform". Just that. NOT that it's bad, NOT that gays don't deserve equal rights. In fact, I know he believes just the opposite. He wants dems to win, and that's the bottom line.

[dissent1977]

373. Here is how you frame the issue

Do you think the government should be able to choose who can and can not get married?

Ask that question and you get a resounding NO from most people. It makes the hate groups job much more difficult if they have to explain why they think that the government should be able to choose who is able to marry, rather than merely playing off people's hate.

[Pawel K]

183. Ok, so who else will the gays vote for, Republicans?

:rofl:

I don't want this to sound rude, read my explaination in post 182.

[ladeuxiemevoiture]

214. Well, I did in 2000. Not ashamed of it, either.

Would do it again if the right candidate came along.

[foreigncorrespondent]

338. Well...

...to this queer you do sound rude!

Try queers voting for the Greens, then watch your precious Dem party lose even more without the queer vote. Because that is exactly what is going to happen. Dems are gonna lose queer votes, plus queer money so long as they continue using a republican wedge issue against their own damn voters.

[dissent1977]

372. No they will vote for Greens

The Green Party has consistantly supported gay marriage. If the Democrats want votes they have to earn them. You do not earn their votes by competing for the hate-group vote.

[MisterP]

161. like in 04's S.D., S.C., Okla., La....

but those are all EXCEPTIONS!! (whine, sarcasm off)

[dogday]

180. Do we change our platform to include the bubbas?

are there more bubbas than gays? I mean either way you lose a group of people don't you?

[losdiablosgato]

184. There was a time when the south was solid Democrat country

No democrat has won the presidency in living memory with out winning at least a few southern states. These are hard fact. And I am a bubba. I hunt, I fish, I drive jeep, although I work white collar I was raised blue, and I am a democrat. I know a lot of bubba's that know the republicans are hurting them, but when they see gay marraige and gun control that is to much of a turn off for them. Before we can change this country we have to get into power.

[dogday]

193. You still don't understand

We pander to one group of Americans instead of the other. The Bubbas have their ways instead of the Gays having their way. I like Bubbas, I grew up around Bubbas, but I draw the line at Americans who dictate who or what we should be or support in this country. We allow this, we are no better than the Freepers who are forcing their views on us. Do you like it? Cause I don't...

[losdiablosgato]

194. I am not forcing my views on any one as I see it.

I have no problem with Gay marriage. What I have a problem with is trying to get it passed when I am sure it will not and then it costing us the chance to get needed change done. If we lose in 2006 and 2008 the neocons will pack the courts and then how long will a lot of the hard fought right we have won last?

[dogday]

199. To win at any cost

might not be what our party is all about. Do we toss our platform to the side and forfeit our beliefs to win? I want to win too, I just don't know if I want to sell my beliefs to do it. I want the war to end, I don't see our party behind that, I want gays to have rights like any other American, I hear you saying we should drop that. What is left?

[losdiablosgato]

201. There is a lot left

Politics is the art of the possible. Gay marriage is not possible in the current political climate. But protecting Roe is, maybe national health insurance is. Stopping the war is. I am saying we do what we can now and educate people. Bring up gay marriage again when we can.

[dissent1977]

377. That was when the Dixiecrats ruled in the south

The south went Republican after the Democrats took up civil rights. Back when the Democrats ruled the south they were a very racist party. Now do you honestly believe the Democrats should go back to the ways they were before they lost the south?

[cosmicdot]

386. some were New Dealers, & still are...then, there were the segregationists

it's really not fair to declare the south as one-time solid "Democrat" without attaching a book on the subject to explain the history in all its glorious details

[Trish1168]

245. stay true to principles, but reframe the issue

Make it about individual freedom and keeping the government off your back and out of your personal life. Talk about the GOP wanting to get involved in bedroom issues, when dems want to stay out.

Dems should also bring up the infringement on state's rights. After all, the feds are limiting state's legislation on the environment and middle class protections (all to favor industry).

There's no way we should do anything but support gay marriage. At the very least, we need civil unions. Polls suggest that 60% support civil unions.

This is a WINNING issue for dems, if its framed in the right way.

:kick:

[losdiablosgato]

248. Maybe in hte longterm you are right

But what worries me is the short term, the next two election cycles. If a neocon win in 2008 they will pack the courtw ith enough RW judges to totally destroy this country. Keep in mind that since 1972 we have had the white house only 12 of the 33 years. How much of the progressive cahnge in this country has been from the courts? Think about it. I would much rather have a progessive, but if I can't a moderate democrat beats a neocon everytime.

[SlavesandBulldozers]

257. ignorant America cost us states

equal rights never cost us anything.

[dissent1977]

371. You are giving people a good incentive to vote Green

Remember the Democrats are not the only left of center party. I will not vote for any Democrat that opposes civil rights. If a Democrat wants my vote they have to earn my vote. They are not going to earn my vote by competing for the fundamentalist hate group vote. Remember the Green Party has a far more Progressive platform than the Democrats, and they certainly look very appealing when put side by side with any DLC candidate.

[davidinalameda]

188. this will be deleted but screw you and the rest of the bigots on here

who would deny me my civil rights because it's a "losing battle"

how about the Democrats do something that's right for a change rather than what they think is politically popular

[KitSileya]

191. Amen!

I completely agree with your position. It's about doing the right thing, not the politic thing. If the Democrats are willing to sell out civil rights and the Constitution for political expediency, they don't deserve political power.

[losdiablosgato]

192. I am sorry if this offends you, I do not like it either

But it is reality as I see it. You can not make change and get things done that need doing in this country if you can not get elected. In time and with education that will change but in 2006 and 2008 this is hte reality. Sorry.

[davidinalameda]

196. so you want Kerry and his ilk to take these bigoted positions

to get votes?

and then do what once they get into office

the reality of this is that I can't get legally married because of bigots like Kerry and his apologists like you because you all are too worried about taking these wishy washy positions that don't stand for squat

[losdiablosgato]

200. I am with you on Gay marriage, but I do not think it will happen

in the next five years nationally. And what happens if we lose in 2008 and they get that marriage amendment passed. Gay marriage in Mass is gone. Will the neocons stop there, no, kiss civil unions goodbye as well. They pack the courts Roe V wade is history too. The sad facts are that the democratic party and a lot of the right we all fight for are in real and serious danger from neocons. We need to win elections or we are toast. Do you want to see and war with Iran, not right to choose, religion in schools? This could happen if we do not start winning elections. The neo cons are not stopping until we stop them. Them we can push them back.

[ladeuxiemevoiture]

204. Would you suggest that dems in segregated places should promote racism?

Should they do that? Since what you are talking about is prostituting yourself and denying a class of Americans their constitutional rights in order to pick up some votes, EVEN THOUGH YOU KNOW IT IS THE WRONG THING TO DO.

Or are you saying that, okay, we prostitute ourselves going into the race; after we've won, we establish a Democratic dictatorship, and THEN and ONLY then can we give you your rights?

Pretty wacky.

[losdiablosgato]

206. I live in TX, I can tell you right now that the Democrats will not have

a ghost of a chance of winning in the forseeable future anyware in the south with Gay marriage. I do not like it, but the said truth is that during civil right there were a whole lot more people for it then for gam=y marriage. I have read several polls an it seems that 2/3 of the country do not want it. It has become the most effective wedge issue the noecons have. about half of the people in this country are ok with civil unions. That is doable. But my great fear is that if we take this my way or the highway attitude that if you are not for gay marriage to heck with you the neocons win. How do you think you will fair with another Bushco mutant in the white house?

[ladeuxiemevoiture]

213. Wimps lose elections because you can't trust them.

It takes a man like Howard Dean to stick to his guns and support equality despite popular opinion and the heat he takes.

Again, gays should think for themselves, and if the math adds up to "dems are not going to support equality for gays", then they need to assess that fact along with everything else and consider if the Democratic Party is really for them.

We know that minorities DO change parties over time. Look at black Americans. Once solidly Democratic, they are not so anymore. Largely, yes, but Republicans seem to offer at least SOME of them something that dems HAVEN'T been offering them.

Republicans would be a worse choice for gays as things stand today, no question. But if either Republicans backed away from their Big Government agenda and adopted a more libertarian one, and/or if dems sold them out, they'd stay home, vote Green, "throw their votes away."

[losdiablosgato]

221. Friend since you brought up the issue of African Americans going rethug

I work in a office downtown. I did lunch with two Afircan American women last October for work. We talked about the election and much to my surprise they told me they were voting for Bush. One told me this was the first time she ever was going to vote for a rethug. They both told me the issue that tipped them was Gay marriage. Many of the African Americans I know (and I base this only on one I know) are very religious. The second even told me here pastor preached a sermon that mentioned gay marriage in a very negative way that Sunday. I point this out to show one of the reasons I think that as of now and in the forseeable future gay marriage is a issue that will cost this party deeply. It may not be right but it is.

[ladeuxiemevoiture]

234. You're entitled to your views, but I'm not going to let up on this issue.

Dems today are more likely to support marriage equality and gay rights, and homophobes and panderers will not have a home in the Dem Party if I have anything to say about it.

[losdiablosgato]

237. Then the democratic party will have very few seats in the congress

And the only way a democrat will see the inside of the Whitehouse is take a tour. sorry to say it, wish it was not this way. But it is

[ladeuxiemevoiture]

239. correction - you CLAIM that's "just the way it is,"

and provide NO evidence at all, just speculation, conjecture, opinion, etc.

IS that the way it is? I have no idea. I know I respect people who take firm stands on issues despite the heat - "can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen" and despite the fact that I MAY disagree with them on that particular issue.

When dems stand up for equal rights for EVERYONE, THEN people will come around, not the other way around as YOU claim things work.

[losdiablosgato]

242. That is the way I see it.

I am sorry you do not like it, but I do not see it changing in the next 5 years or so. Maybe with education it will in time but not soon enough to keep a neocon fromdestroying this country. You see I think that we are basically 3rd and long now. We have to get a 1st down so to speak or there will not be much left for us.

[ladeuxiemevoiture]

246. Yes, that is the way you see it, I'm sorry you are in the minority on that

but most people (at least here) support marriage equality.

Trying to convince people to compromise on civil rights is like asking them to support the re-institution of anti-miscegenation laws. Good luck.

[losdiablosgato]

250. According to polls I have heard on the MSM networks

About 2/3 of American are opposed to gay marriage. In time I hope that will change but as for now we need to do what ever it takes to keep a hard core neocon out of the whitehouse in 2008.

[ladeuxiemevoiture]

251. Majorities now support SSM in New Jersey, Massachusetts and New York.

And I believe if you look at the 2/3, you find that it's skewed towards older people, and a majority of younger people DO support marriage equality. Would you rather have a base of old people or young people? I think dems should be looking towards the future.

[losdiablosgato]

253. Good then in time we will have it

But now is not the time. I fear for all if a neocon win in 2008. and I do not think we can win if we push this at least for the next 2 election cycles. Maybe this will change but now I see it as a huge loser for us.

I have to go now, I do want to say thanks I have learned. And I hope I have not left any hard feelings. I just am trying to put forth what I think is hte best for us in the now.

[foreigncorrespondent]

341. Then may I suggest...

...you go see an eye doctor, have your eyes tested and get progressive lenses fitted to your glass frames?

3... 2.. 1. Yes I am waiting for this one to be deleted.

[Trish1168]

255. just the way it is - good song

Maybe we should keep it in mind and not believe them.

Lyrics
The Way It Is
(Bruce Hornsby)


Standing in line marking time--
Waiting for the welfare dime
'Cause they can't buy a job
The man in the silk suit hurries by
As he catches the poor old ladies' eyes
Just for fun he says "Get a job"

That's just the way it is
Some things will never change
That's just the way it is
But don't you believe them

They say hey little boy you can't go
Where the others go
'Cause you don't look like they do
Said hey old man how can you stand
To think that way
Did you really think about it
Before you made the rules
He said, Son

That's just the way it is
Some things will never change
That's just the way it is
But don't you believe them

Well they passed a law in '64
To give those who ain't got a little more
But it only goes so far
Because the law don't change another's mind
When all it sees at the hiring time
Is the line on the color bar

That's just the way it is
Some things will never change
That's just the way it is,
That's just the way it is.

[Trish1168]

252. Funny. I read polls that have said 60% support civil unions

The country is not THAT bigoted. It seems 60-40 is about the right split when I look at the polls. Only 30% of the people consider themselves conservative. About 47% are moderate (probably closet liberals since the media have too many convinced that liberals are evil) and 20% are liberal. I honestly don't know any democrats who are against gay marriage and I know a few republicans that are socially liberal (and at least support the concept of civil unions).

It seems to me that a few assholes in Texas who are insecure with their own masculinity are 'in your face' enough to make you think that most are like that.....but how many men in Texas would be vocal about being supportive of gay marriage (for fear of being given a hard time)?

In the end, people will (and do) vote their wallets. They have been doing this, but the elections are rigged.

[losdiablosgato]

256. That is true for civil unions, I grant you

Buit for gay narriage the number is reversed. I support both, but I think gay marriage will in the near term cost us to much and only end up helping the rethugs. Now civil union may be doable in many parts of the US.


One another note I am logging off now and will not be back until Monday. Peace out.

[Trish1168]

259. Poll info. I knew I didn't imagine it. About 54% like civil unions

And the numbers are shifting slowly toward a more progressive stance. Yes, 2/3 are against gay marriage, but most prefer the civil union alternative (suggesting that people want gay people to have legal protections). I'm from Mass and I am really proud to be from one of the few states that is against bigotry. The rest of the country will eventually catch up. Meanwhile, we need to stick to principle and reform the vote machines so they stop cheating us.
...................................................

Reflecting what appears to be a search for middle ground on the issue, both the Washington Post-ABC News poll and the USA Today/CNN/Gallup poll showed a significant shift in public opinion on civil unions in recent months.

The latter survey found 54 percent of respondents favor civil unions for gay and lesbian couples, with 42 percent opposing them. In a poll conducted in July by the same organizations, 57 percent opposed civil unions and 40 percent favored them.

The Washington Post-ABC News poll found that 51 percent of respondents favor allowing same-sex couples to enter into civil unions with the same basic legal rights as married couples, up 6 percentage points in less than a month.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4496265

[davidinalameda]

224. I'm not worried about "them"

I'm worried about "us"

the Democrats voted with the Repukes on the Iraq war; the Democrats are voting with the Repukes on abortion, the environment, etc

the Democrats are no better than the Repukes

if you're willing to sell out the gay community for a few lousy votes, who are you willing to sell out next

[losdiablosgato]

226. To me it is not selling out,

It is a matter of realizing that you can not win this fight and moving resurces to ones we can win. I do not see gay marriage becoming the law of the land if all democratic politicians started vigoriously supporting it, I see a lot of new rethugs in their sets. This country has a lot of problems. We need to put what we have to doing what we can.

[davidinalameda]

235. so you're willing to abandon people who only want their basic civil rights

thank you very much

[losdiablosgato]

236. I am not abandoning them, but there is no way to get gay marriage done

and trying to do so will cost use far more. It is the smart play to fight those fights we can win. Kerry is right.

[Name removed]

291. Deleted message

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

[foreigncorrespondent]

339. YAY!!!!

About damn time one of us had enough courage to call it exactly what it is!!!

Thank YOU for taking that stand!

:applause:

[dddem]

317. I agree

I was having this conversation at work today, and while I believe that Kerry is trying to do the right thing politically, it would be nice if we had a leader who just wanted to do the right thing because it is right.
We (as straight supporters of gay rights) need to start becoming more vocal in our support. We need to start speaking up about what is right, and start challenging our friends and co-workers when they make stupid homophobic comments, and we need to let people know that it is the right of ALL AMERICANS and the right of ALL HUMANS to live equally, and in peace. I'm getting so sick of the attitude of small minded people who need to put others down in order to justify their own hateful, petty existences. (oops - did I say that out loud - sorry).
Peace

[Neshanic]

9. Kerry in La. Work that crowd you miserable suck up.

Again Mr.Kerry shows his amazing ability to turn into Jello when the time and venue requires it.

As for you "agrees"....the new term is "Selectively Moderate Democrat". Please let us know what other groups you want to throw under the train in a contest between what Democrats stand for and a bowl of warm dog sick.

[zanne]

55. I agree with you, Neshanic

I'm a liberal Democrat. Not a "moderate", not a "Libertarian", not a "Repulican". I know what I am and what I stand for. I won't try to pretend to be anything else, even when it's "convenient". I want my political party to represent the things in believe in--I don't think that's too much to ask, and I certainly don't think it's too much to ask of John Kerry.

[Pissed_Progressive]

177. great post

[still_one]

10. but it was okay during the campaign

when you were in the grand canyon, and you were asked knowing what you know know would you have still voted to give * the authoity to go into iraq, and he responded yes, I would have voted the same way

no profiles in courage here

[ninkasi]

11. Approving of gay marriage

might be on the losing side of a fight, but some battles are worth taking the risk. It's not about gay rights, or some vague gay agenda, it's a plain and simple position of endorsing human rights.

I don't want us to lose, but neither do I want us to treat our gay brothers and sisters as outcasts, somehow not quite as human as the rest of us, but still to be treated with a behind the scenes support.

Let us, in the clear light of day, acknowledge that human is human, and love is love. What matters is between the two people involved. Denying gays the right of marriage does absolutely nothing to stop the behavior conservatives find so abhorrent. They seem to obsess about sex a lot, and that is only one aspect of marriage.

When gay marriages were being performed in California some time ago, I was deeply touched by a photo of a lesbian couple who had just said their vows. They were facing each other, happiness just beaming out of them, and it was a beautiful thing. They had, at that time, been together over fifty years.

When someone can convince me that marrying those beautiful, loving women was wrong, or somehow hurt society, is the day I'll know I have lost my humanity. As I said before, some battles just have to be fought.

[Zhade]

24. Thank you. That was beautifully said.

I appreciate your unwillingness to throw us under the bus for political expediency - unlike others in this thread who should be ashamed of pretending they stand up for human rights, you're the real deal.

Again, thank you.

[dusty64]

33. Totally agree

and am completely reminded why my heart sunk when this guy won the nomination. Spineless sorry excuse for a leader! Mr. Kerry I will NOT move to the back of the bus so you and your sorry lot can win more elections! BTW, didn't you promise to fight election fraud last year? I must have missed something cause the illegal cabal is STILL in power!

[ladeuxiemevoiture]

99. thank you!

eom

[Marnieworld]

39. Yes Yes Yes!

human is human and love is love. And anyone opposed to this is really a hateful bigot. More and more people know this in their hearts. The haters will lose. So much for the Kerry courage.

[d.l.Green]

56. Exactly, otherwise this is all an exercise in political rhetoric, nothing

else. Sometimes the political game calls for restraint but right now Kerry isn't up for office. If he can't take risks now in his appearances, he never will- wimp!

[valis]

60. Agreed. If Kerry is worried about elections he should talk to the Dems

in private. Instead of pretending to care about the "morality" of the issue.

[Mass]

61. Where do you see the word "morality"?

[valis]

70. "This is the WRONG thing"

WRONG!!!??? Wrong is the opposite of right. If these are not moral judgments then you tell me what else is.

[Mass]

75. Not as morally wrong, as politically wrong. \nt

[Misunderestimator]

104. Right on! Great post!

:thumbsup:

[Lorien]

125. Well put

I fail to see how gay marriage threatens anyone. It's a human rights issue, IMHO.

[bunny planet]

128. You have a way with words Ninkasi. Beautifully said.

[RevolutionStartsNow]

195. Perfectly said

And exactly my feelings.

This to me is one of the most unfathomable issues in society today.

[Bluebear]

13. Would Kerry have voted for it before voting against it?

I'm really over him, sorry.

[Behind the Aegis]

14. Me too!

I am sick of him. I am glad he is a Democrat, but I am tired of this "gay marriage is a losing battle" shit! We are not asking for SPECIAL rights, we are asking for EQUAL rights! If these fuckers can't figure that out, then to hell with them!

[ladeuxiemevoiture]

101. That's what I was thinking, too.

I voted for gay marriage before I voted against the $87 billion ... oops, befoer I voted against it.

[Bryn]

266. Bluebear, hope you don't mind, but I find your signature

Very interesting. Did D. Eisenhower really say that? That sounds like he was pointing to George Bush and his cronies!!!

"Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes that you can do these things. Among them are a few Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or businessman from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid. - Dwight Eisenhower, 1952

[liveoaktx]

396. Me too. I'm also sick of hearing who the other people are I should

want to be president. I don't want Clinton, I don't want Biden, but if Gore decided to run again, he's be my guy.

[6000eliot]

15. I think he's gearing up for a 2008 run

to which I say, "get lost."

[Bluebear]

17. I'm with you.

What on earth is he thinking even commenting about this? If he didn't reach the "swing" voter in 04 what does he think he has to gain?

[6000eliot]

19. Exactly

The attacks weren't so much the problem as the fact that he was so wishy washy to begin with, not that the attacks were fair. Had he taken a real stand on anything, there wouldn't have been a close enough election for the Right to steal.

[mondo joe]

62. He can run without my money.

Why throw good money after bad?

[Misunderestimator]

106. Ditto. Why should I spend money on someone who would capitulate

my rights? I contributed more money to John Kerry than I ever thought I would spend on a politician. Would he have handed over my rights as easily as this if he had been elected?

[mondo joe]

220. I'm beginning to think I'm better off investing those $ so I have money

to live on when I move to Canada.

[customerserviceguy]

124. That's exactly what he's doing

He blames the issue of marriage equality for his losing, well, he was already going down in the red states that had anti-gay legislation on their November ballots.

What really troubles me is that his comments are an ENDORSEMENT of the idea that it's OK to be squeamish about gay relationships. The Republicans are already out there saying, "There, there, little voter, it's alright to feel that marriage is something sacred for you straights, but 'just not right' for homos. Come vote for us, and we'll make those nasty people go away." Kerry's just signed on to their agenda.

The political courage of the Democratic leaders of the sixties, such as JFK and Hubert Humphrey was to speak out on racial issues, even if they made people a bit uncomfortable. That's leadership!

[EFerrari]

18. When you toss your values to win elections, you lose. eom

[Zorra]

21. Yes. He has basically said, "Women should not have the right to vote."

Same shit, different era.

[karynnj]

I don't think he is tossing his values

last year he said exactly the same thing to the Advocate, liberal magazines and to newspeople. His daughters have said they disagree with him on this. His values on this which he has said are that he supports civil union with the full rights of marriage and does not feel the word marriage should be used.

Find me anything where he ever stated he was for gay marriage. He is not agreeing with YOUR values on this, not throwing away his own. There's a difference.

Dean is no further to the left on this as he signed the civil union bill as quietly (though bravely) as he could and hasn't advocated moving beyond that.

I really don't know any candidate for 2008 for gay marraige.

[EFerrari]

164. I think you misread my post and my point. The party leadership

seems to be moving even more to the center again, as if that ever worked for anyone but Clinton. Witness Pelosi, Roemer, Shumer and now Dean on abortion.

Sometimes I just want to grab lapels and shake really, really hard.

[sandnsea]

20. He supports civil unions, always has

He doesn't support constitutional amendments that take away equal rights under the law, but supports civil unions as the method to get to those equal rights. That's right where most people are at. That's where my Governor Kulongoski is at and is being praised for his position by the BRO.

Really no news here.

[LTRS]

28. Don't invoke BRO here

That's complete BS and YOU KNOW IT. BRO doesn't favor civil unions over marriage, and they had to basically threaten to embarrass that chickenshit Kulongoski because like Kerry, he hemmed and hawed and waffled over it when it came down to brass tacks.

Like most dems, Kerry is a wussy boy, afraid to stick up for what he knows is right.

That's why he will never win a national race.

[sandnsea]

181. Oh come on

I didn't say BRO favored civil unions over marriage. But they sure are fighting like hell to get SB1000 passed and praising Kulongoski's "commitment to equality".

You want I should stop calling my own rep a waffly little weasel because he won't even commit to this bill?

People don't support gay marriage. That's the way it is. I'm tired of good people being beaten up for trying to push gay rights as far as they can be pushed right now. You don't want our help, fine. See how far you get on your own.

[Bluebear]

229. "People don't support gay marriage. That's the way it is."

You are quite wrong in this instance. Polls in Mass. show that people DO support gay marriage. It has been legal for quite some time and the state has not fallen into the ocean. Kerry is coming out (so to speak) against an issue that flies in the face of what his own constituency polls at.

[sandnsea]

254. It's 50/50

While civil unions has much broader support.

http://www.glad.org/marriage/globe+herald_polls_11-23-03.shtml

[Bluebear]

292. Well, 'it's 50/50' does not translate to "people don't support this"

[sandnsea]

295. We were talking about Oregon, actually

And BRO and fighting for civil unions. Which is when I said people don't support gay marriage. In Oregon and across the country, turns out Mass isn't much more progressive on the issue. Massachusetts has gay marriage, so I don't see why they need to put it in their platform. Except to make a national statement. Which doesn't help. So I don't get the point.

100% equity under the law, that would be much easier to fight for. They're still running that stupid "special rights" nonsense here. I swear this would be like slaves fighting for the right to inter-racial marriage in 1860 and being angry at people who said "let's end slavery first, kay?". I'm sorry people are bigoted, but I'm also tired of progress being spit at.

[LTRS]

299. What?

You wrote:

"Massachusetts has gay marriage, so I don't see why they need to put it in their platform. Except to make a national statement. Which doesn't help. So I don't get the point."

You don't see "why" because it doesn't affect YOU and your family. I doesn't help YOU because you aren't gay or lesbian with a long term partner and children.

So, you'd just as soon sell us out. But hey, make sure you take us off the shelf and dust us off when you need 3 million of us to vote for the dem candidate (who has no problem screwing us over for the sake of political expediency).

I wonder if you have ANY idea whatsoever how offensive your comments on this issue are on a consistent basis? Probably not.

[sandnsea]

301. It HURTS, it doesn't help

It is a BIG BRICK WALL in your fight for any sort of equal rights at all. I already said I am sick to damned death of fighting for civil union legislation in my own state, only to be told it's offensive on this board. Sick of it. I don't care if I hurt anybody's feelings anymore. If gay people are just too stupid to understand that they can have civil unions now, or gay marriage maybe never, than that isn't my problem. It's like serving somebody a 5 course meal and being hit over the head because you didn't serve it with linen napkins. I've dumped personal friends over gay rights, alienated family members. Fed up with this phony moral superiority bullshit.

[LTRS]

304. Too bad you weren't around in the 60's

You could have been the "whitey" who counseled blacks that they should sit in the back of the bus for another few decades until whitey decided they deserved equality and that the country was ready for it. Luckily for them, whites marched with blacks and demanded full equality. My, how the country, and progressives have changed - and not for the good.

There is definitely some "phony moral superiority bullshit" going on here, but it isn't coming from me. I'm actually gay and living with this lack of equality. You, on the other hand.... well, I think you get my point.

[sandnsea]

307. Which 60's??

It's a good thing you weren't around in the 1860's. You'd have spit on ending slavery because it didn't offer full equal rights. Get down off your high horse and join the real world. You want to get married, get married. Nobody's stopping you. You want equal rights under the law, then that's going to have to go through the legislature, any way we can make it happen. And if that isn't good enough for you, then, well, I think you get my point.

[LTRS]

314. No, actually it's going to have to go through the courts

... just like anti-discrimination laws did for blacks. And it is happening right now, but pandering compromises don't help advance that. However, as a vested heterosexual who doesn't have to live with the bigotry and inequality, I am sure you know best. And MLK was really a white guy, too. Uh huh.

[LTRS]

298. We've been "on our own" all along

So, good luck with the tactic of threatening to withdraw support the democratic party has never had the guts to provide -- Kerry's statement being a PRIME example.

On the other hand, gays and lesbians have loyally supported the democratic party with millions of votes and tens of millions of campaign dollars, and not gotten much of anything in return but pandering and BS waffling.

And if my read in the community is correct, we are getting close to NOT supporting dems any longer. See how far you get without US? Think you can win without the 3 million votes we cast for the dem candidate in every presidential election? Think again. The ride is about over.

[sandnsea]

300. How arrogant

That just pisses me off. Democrats have helped fight discriminatory gay laws all over the place, for decades. I hate to burst your bubble, but what we would pick up from minority communities would more than make up for your loss.

[Maven]

302. Well, then, what are you waiting for?

Let the hate-based race-to-the-bottom begin. Oh, sorry. Too late.

You suggest using one disadvantaged population against another for your own gain--it all smacks of right-wing political parasitism to me.

I mean really, how dare you.

[Name removed]

305. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

308. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

311. Deleted message

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

[Maven]

316. Our real friends support us because they KNOW us and they KNOW what's

right.

Not because we kiss their ass either.

I didn't call you a homophobe. But don't try to "help" us by convincing us to eat shit with a fork and knife instead of by the handful.

And what the hell did John Kerry ever really do for the gay community anyway?

Or any Democratic president/candidate?

That's right. A whole lot of NOTHING.

There are gays and lesbians I know in pro-labor groups. There are gays and lesbians I know in senior advocacy groups. In women's rights groups.

You know how many heteros I see from those groups show up at a meeting for NGLTF or ESPA or HRC?

Zero.

None.

So don't tell me how "grateful" we should be. I'm a little too well informed to believe you.

[sandnsea]

320. This about sums it up

"And what the hell did John Kerry ever really do for the gay community anyway?"

Didn't kiss your ass, apparently. Since you don't know. Civil unions and anti-discrimination laws isn't shit with a knife and fork. I've been shit on about states not having those laws too.

We could just do like the Republicans. Let the wedge issue stay gay marriage forever, and do absolutely nothing else. I can do that. No problem. Gay marriage or nothing. I'll call my Reps right away and tell them I've had a change of heart. Tell them to vote no on SB1000. Just give me the word and I'll do it.

[LTRS]

326. Good idea

Call them and tell them to grow some cojones and introduce a repeal of the state constitutional anti marriage amendment and introduce marriage bill instead that provides federal protections. Do it today.

Thanks.

[LTRS]

319. Oh for pete's sake

No one called you a homophobe -- not even close. Now you're just being delusional. And sorry, but you don't seem to be fighting for gay rights so much as you are fighting to convince gays and lesbians to compromise on their rights (and accept the pandering of dems) for the sake of political expediency.

Unfortunately, political expediency and empty pandering doesn't seem to be winning elections any longer (did it ever?). That dems don't understand that and republicans do is the heart of the problem.

[sandnsea]

322. Empty pandering

Like I said, you don't want me to keep pushing my state officials to vote for SB1000, just say so. If it's just empty pandering and all.

I've seen numerous posts on DU that sling around the homophobe label any time anybody offers an equal legislation solution that isn't gay marriage. It isn't fair and it isn't right. It also isn't political expediency to fight for civil unions. It's just ludicrous to me for anybody to say so. It isn't an easy fight either.

[Name removed]

327. Deleted message

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

[sandnsea]

333. Didn't say YOU did

I said it happens all the time.

And I will. There's more than one who would be glad to have a phony reason to vote against the civil union bill. It's gay marriage or nothing. Glad to pass that along.

Nice constructive conversation. Thanks.

[LTRS]

406. Let me refresh your memory...

... with your exact quote.

"Somebody doesn't kiss your butt and you can call them a homophobe and send them scampering off with their tail between their legs?"

Yet NO ONE called you a homophobe. You have a problem. Deal with it.

[LTRS]

310. "people have busted their ass for the gay community"

And what people are these, exactly? I have been in the thick of gay activism for years, and I know about 3 people who have gotten off their heterosexual behinds and done a damn thing. Talk is not action -- and talk is about all we get from the progressive heterosexual community.

If every progressive who says they support equality for gays and lesbians would advocate for it to their representatives, co-workers, family members, and those sitting next to them in the pew on Sunday we would have equal rights by now. But they don't... they just pontificate about it on web forums.

[sandnsea]

323. I've been doing it for years

Not in the pew on Sunday, because I don't go to church. But whenever there has been a law come up for a vote in any state I've lived in, I've advocated. I even went to local ministers in Montana when the Methodist church was voting on changing gay marriage bylaws. I know an 85 year old lady who is constantly working on gay rights issues in my own town. She's not gay, she just thinks it's the right thing to do. Just because you don't personally know every person who has picked up the phone or argued with their friend or neighbor, doesn't mean people aren't doing it, and haven't been doing it for years and years.

[LTRS]

328. All I have ever seen you do is advocate for gays

to keep sitting in the back of the bus so your wimpy dems can get elected.

[sandnsea]

337. Got a camera in my house?

You have no idea what I do. And in case you hadn't noticed, you don't even have legislation to guarantee you the right to get on the bus. If you want to keep standing out in the rain, waiting until the day you can get on the bus completely equal, I'll support that decision. I've told you that time and again.

[LTRS]

405. To the contrary.....

I know very well what you do here, because you do it day and day out whenever this topic comes up. You want gays and lesbians to sit in the back of the bus to help your wimpy dems with no principles get elected.

In fact, your posts to this forum along with a few others on this topic has been the straw that broke the camels back for me on supporting dem candidates with money and volunteer work.

So yes, I do know what you do.

[LTRS]

306. Then be pissed - the truth hurts

Dems have not passed a single piece of gay rights legislation on a federal level. What they say (the pandering) and what they do are two different things. Did any dem federal legislator jump on Bush's comments previous to the election regarding favoring civil unions to introduce (or challenge the republican party) a federal civil unions bill?

Hell no!

Good luck with picking up votes from "minority communities" -- they are as sick of being pandered to by dem candidates as gays and lesbians are. That's why less and less of them vote for dems in every election. Or hadn't you noticed?

[sandnsea]

309. Congratulations

I'll never left another finger to fight any discriminatory gay legislation or advocate for anything in the State of Oregon either. I'll tell everybody I know not to bother either. It's gay marriage or bigoted asshole. No other option. No point in me doing anything, since there's no gay marriage legislation on the horizon. I've got lots of other issues I can worry about, believe me.

[LTRS]

312. Thanks - we can certainly do without....

the "sit in the back of the bus for a few more decades" mentality. Now you'll have plenty of time to work out a concession for women to make to right wing anti-choice zealots regarding their reproductive rights. :)

[sandnsea]

313. I'll be sure and inform BRO

Let them know they're supporting "sit in the back of the bus" legislation and that I've been informed I shouldn't fight for it anymore.

[LTRS]

315. You do that. LOL!

Show them your collection of posts to this board about us damn uppity gays and lesbians too while you're at it. I'm sure they will miss you horribly. :)

[sandnsea]

318. I will

Nobody said you were uppity. Rude and arrogant, yes.

[ladeuxiemevoiture]

329. I think gays DO appreciate it when well-meaning people help them

fight discriminatory legislation. Nobody is saying they dislike John Kerry or you or anyone else because they support pro-gay legislation. That's crazy.

Where the disconnect is coming in is that many of us (such as myself) do not live in the closet. I am a totally openly gay man, and I never closet myself, and treat my self with self-respect, and to ask a self-respecting individual (any self-respecting individual) to accept anything less than equal treatment from society for the sake of political expediency can be interpreted as patronizing even though it may not be meant that way. I hope you can understand why there may be some people who are always going to reject anything less than 100% equality and push for that even if it may result in short-term setbacks.

So kudos to you for your support, and please do continue to support gay rights. :hi:

Trying to get you to think outside the box, just ask youself how would you feel if I suggested that you should accept a decommissioning of marriage as a legal term and civil partnership will replace it, and the reason we have to do this is to give gays and lesbians equality? Maybe you'd be fine with it, but understand that the majority of heterosexuals would NOT be fine with it.

Peace.

[sandnsea]

336. I support ending marriage licenses

Implementing civil licenses with people having whoever they want officiate. Straight couples already choose religious or civil officiating anyway. There's a discussion over in the Kerry forum where I said that earlier today. I had that discussion about a week ago, and was attacked for this position too. I don't care what two people do anywhere, married or not, straight or gay. I'm just trying to be honest and pragmatic about equal rights legislation.

Actually, reparations is a better comparison than slavery. Do you think African-Americans should have called civil rights advocates racists if they didn't support reparations in the 60's? Based on timing, not principle?

I just don't see what's so hateful about supporting civil unions legislation when we can't even get them passed in most states. Particularly if we can work towards an equal license for everybody, with ceremonies done separately with the type not recorded at all.

[ladeuxiemevoiture]

356. I agree getting the state out of the marriage business is the way to go...

but, first of all, I also have never explicitly called anyone a homophobe here. Are there some on DU? Yes. But I would never call someone out unless they were really out there.

As to pragmatism w/r/t equal rights legislation, yes, it may not be pragmatic or even legislatively doable, but there are always the courts, not that anybody should rely on that alone.

Reparations is a bad analogy because that situation is about property, not civil rights. Slavery is actually a better comparison because slavery is about denial of human rights, and marriage has been ruled by the US Supreme Court as a "fundamental human right".

It's not hateful to support civil union legislation.

But I would also ask what, if anything, has anyone who supports civil unions/partnerships above what we have today done to sort of "decommission" marriage as we know it today? After all, if the state should get out of the marriage business altogether, don't you think taking away rights (which have been granted improperly to heterosexual married couples by the state) from those who are currently married is equally important to achieving equality?

The dilemma in the previous paragraph - pushing for equality while not falling into the Repuke trap of behaving as though you want to "destroy the institution of marriage" by taking rights away from those who have been granted them improperly - is hard, if not impossible. That is NOT a winning strategy.

Good for you if you have been pushing for civil unions where they don't exist! Better if you push for marriage equality! :hi:

[cosmicdot]

388. "You don't want our help, fine. See how far you get on your own."

Nice attitude. Nice campaign slogan.

I'm trying to picture Bobby Kennedy saying those things c.1960-1968

Just tell us what the plan is ... pushing 55 here, and still waiting for my birthright rights ...


would it help if we were all one color ... perhaps living in poverty ... marching in the streets? would some riots help?
might that expedite matters?

[Mass]

40. The interesting thing is that his position is more advanced than CT and VT

and both are claimed as great success by civil right organizations.

[JerseygirlCT]

144. They're recognized as great successes, but

not the end of the fight. It's quite openly recognized in CT that winning civil unions was the first step. Marriage will come -- especially after the sky doesn't come crashing down on people when the CUs begin.

[salib]

22. Well, here we go...

We wanted a grass-roots inspired platform. This is a sure sign of it. Probably pisses JK off that Dean and ther reform are now influencing his home state, huh?

It is going to be messy. Grass-roots is messy, and exciting, and colorful, and challenging to the established. So be it.

[rockedthevoteinMA]

45. Exactly

Probably pisses JK off that Dean and ther reform are now influencing his home state, huh?

[Mass]

48. If he had changed his mind

you would have said he flip-flopped.

He said he would not campaign against it. He was just asked the question at a rallye and answered.

This said, I hope it passed.

[DanCa]

25. hmmmm

Looks like my tin foil hat theory that Kerry won the election but caved in because they were going to excummunicate him is starting to have legs.

[Kenneth ken]

26. no more

I reluctantly voted for Kerry in November.

I will no longer support Dems who have neither backbone, nor respect for people.

Gays, lesbians, bisexuals, transgendered are PEOPLE first, and deserve the SAME respect and legal rights heterosexual PEOPLE have.

[LTRS]

27. John Kerry can KMA!

You know what's the wrong thing to do? Play politics with people's lives. You know what else is the wrong thing to do? Vote for a war simply because you are a chickenshit politician with presidential aspirations, then come out against it after it turns out your base was dead right about the war being bogus.

And finally, another thing that's a wrong thing to do is to run for president and not have a coherent message -- to hem and haw and waffle and just not respond when a damn AWOL chickenhawk and his buddies attack a decorated war hero.

It's wrong to be a wussy boy, John. Wussy boys don't win elections.

KMA.

[ladeuxiemevoiture]

103. Amen.

eom

[xchrom]

29. inalienable rights?

does that phrase really have meaning?

are we all really created equal?

are some created specifically to have to wait at the back of the line while others have special rights granted to them?

what does it mean to take a group of hard working, tax paying citizens and create a zone around them?

i take this stuff personally -- i am equal to every one else in this society.
my tax money the same as every one else's.
i am not a threat to culture, society, the armed forces, anyone's marriage.
and there is no evidence that i am.

i don't care one whit for the sensibilities of others on this subject -- i. am. equal.

[matcom]

30. Equal Rights Now "A Mistake"? Fuck you.

i don't care if we lose the next 100 elections you fucker. ALL deserve equal rights. period.

this isn't some fucking GAME here. this is about equality you fucker.

your playing games (in LA no less :eyes: ) with people's lives you fucker.

MLK is rolling in his grave you fucker.

get it fucker?

methinks you don't. fucker. :eyes:

[frictionlessO]

57. Matcom you Fucker.

That was beautiful and well put...fucker.;-)

[Misunderestimator]

107. Thank you matcom.

You said what's in my heart right now.

[MountainLaurel]

109. Woot!

:applause:

:yourock:

[2Design]

34. where is the vietnam era john - that is the one we liked

the one who stood up for the right thing - not the political thiing - he has lost his edge - it is too bad - most of us watched his protest in the 70's and thought that was the man we were getting - this one is miliktoast

[AngryAmish]

35. Bigots make me sick

Either you are for gay marriage or you are a bigot.

[Freddie Stubbs]

92. So you're saying that Kerry is a bigot?

:shrug:

[Mass]

95. Did you choose the picture as sarcasm?

Given how little Clinton did on the issue and how less liberal his positions are compared to Kerry on this issue.

[Freddie Stubbs]

417. Before Clinton was President,

ever person entering the military was asked if they were a homosexual. One of Clinton's first act as President was to end this. What exacty did Kerry do for gay rights?

[Solly Mack]

36. Yes, equality is a such a losing position

Only losers support equality. Only losers would dare challenge the ignorance and prejudices of others. Only losers would dare take the debate back from the bigots and call it what it is...Human rights, civil rights, equality for all.

I hate a loser.

Let me just take my happy ass and get to the back of the bus...

and if you miss the dripping with blood sarcasm...then let me tell you about a young man named Matthew Shepherd..and then let's talk the dripping of blood. We'll talk the price of not supporting equality for all.

[Mass]

37. While I disagree totally with him on that

Kerry's position on the issues would still make MA the most advanced state in the Union (equal rights but different names).

I wished he would support same-sex marriage fully, but what he has proposed in the past is a lot more than what VT and CT have.

[JerseygirlCT]

146. The CT CUs

are supposed to include all the same rights as marriage -- w/in the state of course.

Are there some that are missing? B/c all I've read says it's all the same rights.

[Mass]

160. In that case it is the same

Great news.

[Coexist]

41. How incredibly disappointing

[rockedthevoteinMA]

42. Politics, schmolotics. This is people's live that are being screwed

with. :wtf: Can't these people who are so anti-gay just stay the f*ck out of other people's bedrooms? Christ, I am so sick of this baloney.

It kills me that the Repukes have adopted this as one of the "moral" fights. What does it say in the bible? "Judge not, lest you be judged?" Look that passage up John and contemplate.

I am a constituent of his, and I usually support things he says, but on this, Kennedy has the right position. (Like he always seems to - there's one to be proud of) yes, I know Kennedy's got some skeletons in his closet, but he hasn't sold out... like others.

When are the Dems who choose to use this language going to realize that they are playing right into the Neocons games?

We need an equal rights amendment, for women, gays, etc.

[alarimer]

50. I don't understand why we have given so much ground away

why have we let the Republicans frame this issue? Why don't we stand up and call it like it is? Opposition to gay rights (including marriage or civil unions or whatever you wish to call it) is bigotry plain and simple. Why not get up there and say that people oposed to these unions are bigots and full of hatred and we WILL NOT STAND FOR IT!

Doing the right thing is much more importatnt than winning. Those who would nominate, say, Bob Casey (anti-choice), just because we want to win are wrong. Dead wrong. In that case it is sacrificing women's rights in the name of political expediency. We need to hang on to our values above all or winning means nothing.

[CTyankee]

44. I am not gay but I cannot see

any progressive of either sex, or any race or ethnicity who should not stand up for the civil rights of EVERYONE. IMO, everyone who wants to "get married" should have a civil union and then, if they wish a church marriage they can arrange it with their religious institution. PERIOD. Get "marriage" out of the law and let the religious groups deal with it. But make civil rights totally equal for everyone in civil unions.

I am so proud of my son and his fiancee who will have a civil union, instead of a marriage ceremony, in New York next October. They are doing this in solidarity with their gay friends. I feel that I raised him right!

[Mass]

47. I agree with that totally.

The problem that many people have is calling it marriage, because they see a religious connotation. Change the name and the problem will disappear for many people (except the bigots who dont want gay people in general).

[CWebster]

46. Just more of the same

typical.

[HockeyMom]

49. Civil Unions

A state issued license is a contract. I think they all should be called Civil Unions - for both straights and gays. Since far too many people seem to consider this civil contract to be "sacred, holy, and a sacrament", then leave marriage to the houses of worship and the people who feel that way.

How many atheists, or for that matter even NON CHRISTIANS, want to be receiving the "sacrament of holy matrimony" (as our dumb President called it) at the local county clerk's office?

[TayTay]

51. Oh please, get over yourselves

I am a voting member of the MA Convention and I intend to vote FOR the Gay Marriage plank. (Nothing can change my mind on that.) That said, blaming Kerry for this is ridiculous.

John Kerry was one of the few Senators to vote against The Defense of Marriage Act in 1996. http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=104&session=2&vote=00280 He is not against Gay Rights. He has always been a very strong supporter of advancing civil rights.

Kerry is not your enemy. That just defies common sense. Look at the record he has. Christ, didn't he rebuff Clinton last year when Bill wanted him to come out in favor of the Gay Marriage bans that the various states had on the ballot?

Kerry doesn't approve of Gay Marriage. He is at the table for every other issue that affects the legal rights of gays. His response to a question from the Globe about the plank in the MA Dems platform also said that he has NO intentions of campaigning within the state to get rid of the plank.

Again, I am voting FOR this plank in the platform. And I am still a very strong Kerry supporter. This is because of his strong record on civil rights for all Americans. I am going to disagree with the guy on stuff from time to time. That doesn't make him a sell-out or a political coward. It means we have a disagreement. I can live with that.

[LeftCoast]

272. Past good behavior doesn't excuse present misbehavior

This isn't a computer game where you trade good and bad karma points and win the political game. Kerry has shown yet again that he has no spine and a lot of DUers have shown that they will consider becoming a republican if that's what it takes to 'win'.

[sellitman]

352. Great reply!

I agree wholeheartedly!

[bread_and_roses]

52. Our Hero. Not. (n/t)

[mondo joe]

63. He's not really in any position to talk about a winning strategy

Maybe he should step aside and let someone who is willing to fight step up.

[Mass]

66. He is fine

While I disagree with his position on the subject, at least he does not have Clinton's positions on civil unions and gay marriages.

Anyway, the Democrats should support civil unions for ALL, and then those who want to go to church could go (True separation of church and state).

[mondo joe]

69. He managed to oppose same sex marriage and LOSE anyway, against

an idiot with a shitty economy who lied to take us into war.

Sorry - I want a fighter. And if he's going to take a stance against me I'd better get something else out of it if he wants my support.

[Mass]

73. He is a fighter

He got more votes than any other Democrat against a wartime president, who is surprisingly well-liked.

You and i may think Bush is an idiot, but a lot of people dont.

I disagree with Kerry's stance on gay marriage, but he is fighting on a number of issues I care a lot (like energy, healthcare, ...), and as I said, his position on civil unions would be welcomed as a progress everywhere except in Massachusetts (and denounced as gay marriage by the christian right even if he calls it civil union). I still have not understood the difference except for the name (that I understand is important on a symbolic POV).

[mondo joe]

76. I watched the campaign and I saw a wimp who wouldn't even defend

himself, and I know that impacted a number of voters.

[Mass]

82. We have to agree to disagree on that.

[valis]

87. He's electable too.

[Mass]

90. ???

I was talking about what he does as Senator. You may prefer somebody else, but he is who we have (and I am happy about that).

[valis]

I'm not happy with him as my Senator. If he has a viable

competitor when he's up for re-election I won't vote for him.

[Mass]

113. So for who will you vote in 2006

Romney or Reilly (knowing that Reilly is against gay marriage- or was, he may have changed his mind in order to run?).

Of course, you may be a single-issue voter, but I am far from being one.

So right now, I want his support in the Senate for issues I care and he can do something about. For the issue you are talking about, the best thing he can do is not to talk.

[AlGore-08.com]

130. "He got more votes than any other Democrat against a wartime president"

Who wasn't popular, his approval rating was less than 50%. Yes, Truman won in 1948 as a wartime President with an approval rating of less than 50%, but Truman was running in against both Dewey and Strom Thurmond - - Thurmond got 39 electoral votes in the Deep South, most in protest of Truman's desegregation of the Army and Federal government.

And there's no denying that one of the main reasons Kerry got more votes than any other Dem candidate in history is because he spent more money than any other Democrat (and had hundreds of millions in additional funds provided by the 527s, which no other Democrat has ever had).

However, Kerry got smoked on the GOTV. Karl Rove said over and over they were going to win on GOTV by turning out an additional 4 million conservative Christian voters, and in the end Smirk won the popular vote by a little over 3 million votes. In 2004, an additional 8 million people voted for he Dem ticket - - but an additional 11 1/2 million voted for the GOP ticket.

This is how it breaks down:

Smirk 2004 Smirk 2000 Change between 00 and 04
Votes 62,040,610 50,460,110 +11,580,500
% of vote 50.73% 47.87% +2.86
Elect. V* 286 271 +15
$ spent** $345,259,155 $185,921,855 +$159,337,300


Kerry Gore Change between 00 and 04
Votes 59,028,111 51,003,926 +8,024,185
5 of vote 48.27% 48.38% -0.11%
Elect. V* 251 266* -15*
$ spent** $310,033,347 $120,031,205 +$190,002,142


*Official count, which gives Florida to Smirk.
**Does not include spending by 527s and other allied groups.

[ladeuxiemevoiture]

108. Oh, right, that's an even better strategy to lose elections.

Let's the pukes say of dems, "see, you heterosexuals who are married? they want to destroy what you have in order to give those perverts the same rights as YOU have!"

[Mass]

110. That is called separation of Church and State!!!

And I care about that a lot.

People who want to go to church still can go to church afterward. If not the only way to have equality is to force the churches to perform same-sex unions.

[ladeuxiemevoiture]

118. did you have a woodie about separation before gay marriage became the topi

the topic du jour?

Or did you only start singing civil union's praises AFTER?

[Mass]

121. I support gay marriage

I just oppose the terrible mix between State and Church that we have, from the "under God" into the pledge of allegance, to prayer in school, to states in the business of selling marriage licences to churches.

Sorry, this is a very important issue for me. Call civil unions marriage, if you want, but do the same ceremony for all couples and then, let the churches do what they want.

[ladeuxiemevoiture]

131. I don't necessarily disagree with you

I would be fine with separating Church from State. Totally. I don't think there's ENOUGH separation. But I hope you understand that gay marriage is much more likely to happen sooner than "civil unions/partnerships for all."

A snowball has a better chance of surviving hell than we have of seeing the day when the average married heterosexual American supports trading in for something else (civil unions/partnerships/whatever) what they have now - full marriage - in order to "give" gays the same rights as they have.

It's very important for me, also. I want the same rights as heterosexuals, and I'm tired of sitting in the back of the bus, waiting for that day of which dems speak "your day will come".

[Mass]

136. What are you talking about??

Civil unions as they were defined in MA by the Constitutional Convention gave exactly the same right to a couple than marriage (at least at the state level, but it was the only thing they could do).

It was a marriage in all but name.

I can understand that the problem is more than legal rights, and really am fully supportive of the MA Democratic platform on the issue, but I guess I dont understand the difference between what you call FULL marriage and what I see as civil union (or marriage) as the basis of the contract with the State (with full rights and religious marriage being just an add-on for people who want it and not giving any additional civil rights).

[ladeuxiemevoiture]

142. Oh, yeah?

If one partner died would the other get to collect the social security benefits?

Do the civil union partners get to file taxes jointly?

Does one partner have to testify against the other in court proceedings?

Do civil union partners where one is a foreigner and the other is American get the same considerations w/r/t naturalization as married couples?

If the partners go overseas, will other jurisdictions recognize that civil union as a marriage?

EDIT: Yes, I see you said on the state level, that's all they could do, but still being a MA civil union is not recognized by other jurisdictions as "marriage." Ergo, "civil unions only for gays" in MA only helped continue "separate but equal", i.e., not equal in reality.

[Mass]

145. Call it marriage if you want

This is a semantic question and it depends of the rights that you attach to it.

At the moment, gay marriage in MA has exactly all the same problems you describe.

[ladeuxiemevoiture]

149. Fine, if it's just semantics, make gay marriage legal

since it's just semantics.

Gay marriage in MA has all the same problems - for NOW. I'm not sure if there have been any test cases filed challenging the DOMA and other discriminatory practices. That's why gay marriage in MA may not always have the same problems.

[Mass]

155. As I said I have no problem with that

I want all couples to have a civil marriage and that this is the one who brings rights. Same for all.

[ladeuxiemevoiture]

157. Agreed.

eom

[AlGore-08.com]

84. He's definitely trying to spin that he's stronger in the South than others

From later in the article:

In his Louisiana appearance, Kerry also touched on his failed 2004 presidential campaign, saying that he saw promise in how much support he received even in states where he lost. In Louisiana, he lost to President Bush 57 percent to 42 percent, but received 30,000 more votes than the previous Democratic nominee, Al Gore, in 2000.

The problem is that, while Gore got fewer votes, he did better against Smirk than Kerry did.

Kerry did get 27,955 more votes than Gore did, but Smirk got 174,298 more votes in 2004 than he got in 2000. (FWIW Nader got 20,473 votes in 2000, and 7,032 in 2004, a decrease of 13,441 votes.)

In 2000, Gore got 44.88% of the vote in LA, in 2004, Kerry got 42.22%.

I can't find a state break down, but nationally, Kerry raised $120,031,205 more in the 2004 cycle than Gore did (F.Y.I. Gore accepted spending limits); Kerry spent $190,002,142 more than Gore. Kerry's financial advantage was even bigger than this data shows, since the 527s spent hundreds of millions on the 2004 campaign to help register and mobilize Dem voters. (McCain/Feingold, which made 527s were legal, was not passed until after the 2000 election.)

[Mass]

86. And you dont think the gay marriage argument had something to do

with the fact that the Republicans were more mobilized to vote against a Democrat?

More Democrats voted, but also more Republicans, because the right agitated the red flag of gay marriage (and they did not stop on rethorical arguments of whether you call it civil union or marriage).

[AlGore-08.com]

267. I think that the GOP out GOTVed the Kerry campaign, plain and simple

Are you saying our side wasn't just as motivated by our opposition to Smirk? The entire Democratic party and all the progressive organizations worked together, despite having deep disagreements with one or more parts of Kerry's platform or strategy. Even the anti-war crowd dropped it's threatened floor fight over Iraq for the sake of defeating Smirk.

But if their voters were more motivated to vote in 2004 than ours were, it's not because of gay marriage - - it's because their memes haven't changed since (at least) the 1950s! "Democrats/liberals lie; Democrats/liberals hate you because you're Christian; Democrats/liberals hate America; Democrats/Liberals want to take away your bible, your gun, your morality and your money; Democrats/Liberals are rich, overeducated, heathen, perverted snobs who hate you 'cause they hate all regular folks".

It's always the same, regardless of the candidate or the campaign. Gay Marriage was only one of the tools they used to motivate their troops to the polls in 2004. Conventional wisdom prior to the 2004 election was that "gun control" was the issue that "lost" us 2000, and if we Democrats just dropped it and embraced the Republican position, we'd win 2004 in a landslide. Guess what? We dumped gun control and we didn't win in a landslide. Anti-choice factions in and out of the party use abortion the same way - - they tell us repeatedly that if only we as a party stop supporting the right to choose, we'll win every election in a landslide. Ditto for our home grown version of the Taliban: if only we Dems become stridently Christian, we'll win every election in a landslide.

It's a tactic they use to win every election by a whisker. They put these memes out because they know we never learn. While they're spending decades calling us cowards and liars and bigots, we're changing our core principles every hour on the hour, in order to sucker "NASCAR Dads" into voting for us. When push comes to shove, the undecided voter has to chose between a very well defined bunch of right wing yahoos and a nebulous, every changing party that may or may not have different positions than the yahoos. Why should any independent vote for a candidate or a party that doesn't have the courage of it's convictions?

That's why we have to draw a line in the sand: we have to say "I will not compromise on my principles." As many posters have said, this fight should be about equality, not about what individual religions chose to do about marriage. The government can't and shouldn't tell churches who they can marry. But by the same token, churches can't and shouldn't tell the government who the government can give full civil rights to.

Finally, opposition to gay marriage was only one of a number of factors for why the GOP had a better GOTV operation than we did. GOTV doesn't happen magically because you have better TV commercials or give better speeches or have a better platform or even a better candidate. GOTV is grimy, hands on, retail politics. It's spending months figuring out who will vote for you, and who might vote for you, and who wouldn't vote for you if you gave them a billion dollars, and knowing when you're wasting money trying to win an area, so you can move your resources to another area that you actually have a hope of winning. But most importantly, GOTV is making sure the people you have identified as supporters get inside a voting booth, even if you have to drag them there kicking and screaming. My point is and was that the Bush campaign did that better than the Kerry campaign.

[valis]

88. I voted for him once. He should step aside.

[Mass]

93. Of what?

Massachusetts Senator?

[CBGLuthier]

68. He's just another damn politician after all

You almost have to pity these pathetic creatures. They don't want to offend anyone (the so-called mainstream majority anyway) so they can get the money and the power and the vote.

We need a fighter willing to take a stand. If Kerry had just once called out the usurper for what he was maybe things would ahve been different.

These idiots need to understand that it isn't about "gay rights". It isn't about a "woman's right to choose".

It's about the basic right of each human being to be treated equally and fairly and to determine their own paths in life.

[valis]

71. Well said.

[cmd]

72. The problem

I understand the desire to make changes in these laws. I believe that gay and lesbian couples wishing to legalize their unions are doing the right thing. I believe I understand what John Kerry is saying.

Ohio has taken away all rights that gay and unmarried heteosexual couples have been able to gain in the last few years. Ohio has done this in response to the Massachusettes decision.

In trying to take a giant step ahead, Massachusettes has gone futher than mainstream America is ready to go. In doing so, many of the steps made in other less liberal areas of the country have been cut down. Civil unions are the first step in creating an atmosphere of tolorence. To skip that step and jump ahead to legalizing marriage is a step backwards.

edited for clarity - though I still don't think I have it right.

[valis]

74. Go MA!!!!! We'll take all the gays and lesbians.

We love them.

[Mass]

79. And all unmarried couples

or should they get married because not being married is immoral?

It is clear that gay marriage in MA has created a backslash in other states, if anything because the media have polarized the debate, and people who were indifferent on the subject are now rejecting it because they feel harassed by the debate.

I have the case here in MA of my inlaws, who really did not care one way or another, until the debate came on TV. After a while, they just selfishly wondered why the debate should be polarized on this issue and decided it would be better if they were no same-sex marriage (I forgive them as they are in their 80s-90s).

[cmd]

173. Sorry, you can't have them

However, I will ship you all the fundies that you can handle.

[Robworld]

77. He helped Bush win the Gay Marriage Argument.

He should of came out and said that all tax paying citizens of legal age should have the same equal rights to marry be it any gender, or race.
By coming out and saying he was against Gay Marriage during the election, all he did was help validate the Republican argument.

http://www.dumdumgoestothecircus.com/

[Mass]

81. False

He said he was for civil unions with equal rights and the FMA would have forbidden this as well.

[Robworld]

132. Not False

Bush and the Republicans made up an argument that had no validity. They made it seem like Gay Marriage was, and has been legal through out the United States. They brought fear to everyone that there life style would be encroached by the Gay Plague much like the fear of Terror and Communism.

Kerry coming out and saying he was against Gay Marriage, but for Civil Unions helped validate Bush's argument. Kerry said marriage was a religious thing and Bush was the religious candidate. This strengthened Bush with Religious voters. Most people don't even know what a Civil Union is. The argument was about Gay Marriage. Kerry said he was against Gay Marriage as well as Bush.

Like I said in my previous post, all Kerry (and the Democratic party) had to say was that all citizens of legal age have the same equal rights to marry by either gender or race. We supposedly live In a post equal rights country. Kerry could of called Bush out for being a Homophobic hate monger (not in those words but something in that nature)
They could of brought up imagery of segregation and applied it to the Republican stance.
Kerry f'd up by making it a religious thing which turned into a moral thing which then made it ok to ban the rights for tax paying citizens. This also helped making religion a more powerful entity in government, which makes us more of a theocracy.

http://www.dumdumgoestothecircus.com/

[David__77]

133. No, the amendment voted on wouldn't have done that.

They took out the anti-civil unions part. It is a tenuous position to oppose equal marriage rights and then oppose codifying the anti-rights position.

[Robworld]

163. The whole "I'm for Civil Union" was Hogwash.

Again what I was saying is that Kerry help validate Bush's, Republicans', and the religious Rights argument by saying that Marriage was a religious institution. This helps validate Bush as the Religious candidate, which helps loosen the separation of church and state, which helps turn our government into a theocracy.

This also helped the republican stance on Kerry being a "Flip Flopper" because he says he against gay marriage, but is for civil unions? Whats he for? "He's a flip-flopper". Of course I know the definition of Civil Unions, and Marriage, but most people in this country don't.
The media, religious right, and the Republicans played on this, which made Kerry look weak.

This was a non issue that was escalated by the democrats by not fully standing up to themselves. It was another wedge issue, like abortion and prayer in school that politicians use as a distraction to avoid real issues like economy, and war.


http://www.dumdumgoestothecircus.com/

[JerseygirlCT]

78. Did he have to got here? Did he really have to comment?

Very disappointing, indeed.

[Mass]

80. He was asked the question.

[JerseygirlCT]

119. Unfortunately, then there's two possibilities

his position is odious.

He's espousing and odious position for political gain.

I don't much like either.

[Mass]

122. I am not sure you know his position.

but I may be wrong.

[JerseygirlCT]

140. He 's ok with civil unions,

but he doesn't support gay marriage.

I know he's got a great record, generally speaking, on issues of gay rights.

This one, I just cannot stomach. It's intellectually dishonest, which is disappointing coming from such a smart man.

If he wanted to say the government -- across the board -- should not be in the marriage business, and should offer everyone civil unions, and leave marriage for religions, that I'd be fine with. But I heartily disagree with denying gay folks ALL the civil protections and rights of marriage. Separate but equal isn't, you know?

I've been a Kerry fan from the get-go. I really like the guy. Which makes his position on this issue all the more painful to me. And, heck, I'm a straight, married woman -- no personal horse in this race. I can't imagine how hurtful it is to my gay brothers and sisters.

[MessiahRp]

83. It's time to draw the line in the sand...

The anti-gay marriage apologists always try to say that Marriage is a religious term defined as between a Man and a Woman.

To me this makes it pretty clear that marriage belongs to churches and to to pastors/priests who perform the actual marriage sermon.

I'm willing to give the right this, IF they then take all marriages done in courthouses or non-religious establishments (or with non-religious leaders performing the part of justice of the peace) and rename them Civil Unions.

After all courtrooms or Vegas drive thru chapels certainly aren't churches and the justices of the peace certainly aren't religious figures.

If they want to define marriage as a religious term and claim that under that it defines the term as between a man and a woman fine, but they should then realize that every other marriage is not a marriage because it had nothing to do with religion.

As much as they wish it so, our judges are not members of the church clergy and standing before them for marriage is not marriage by their own definitions.

So I say rename them all Civil Unions and then let gays participate. Don't make them second class citizens, make them equal by the very definition of marriage according to the church.

I think a lot of Freepers facing down being demoted from Marriage to Civil Union would open some eyes.

Rp

[Mass]

85. I agree totally

and think that is what the Democratic platform should have advocated.

[CTyankee]

129. OK, Mass

I get that. But how do we get to what MessiahRp and I have articulated on this thread, the Civil Union/marriage separation? Do you believe Kerry is trying to get to that place by advocating civil unions but refusing to advocate gay marriage? Does his stand advance the cause of civil rights for gays or set it back? If the former, let us in on his strategy, if you know what it is. I'd be very interested in finding out!

[Mass]

137. I dont know

What I know is that Kerry has trouble articulating a coherent position on the subject, and obviously, what he said today is still very weird.

I dont have any more clue than you have on the subject. What I was advocating is my position, and I dont know what Kerry's is.

[MessiahRp]

402. I think it's this..

He's for Civil Unions but his religious background makes him believe the term marriage belongs to his church and is between a man and a woman. He has made reference to that quite a number of times that it is his religious belief that leads him to believe that.

That being said I am sure he's looking at the Gay Marriage thing as a way to spurn Christian voters who mostly disagree with the gay marriage idea, and thinks this will hurt the party politically at the polls with even many moderate Democrats.

Do I agree with that? Not at all. I'm glad he didn't listen to Clinton during the election and rail against Gay Marriage but as I said above, it's time to draw that line in the sand. If you truly believe marriage is a church/faith related event, then change the marriages done without a church presence to civil unions.

Plain and simple in my book.

Rp

[Misunderestimator]

98. Good plan.

Won't happen, but good plan.

[MessiahRp]

151. I know that but it certainly would put a huge kink in their

argument wouldn't it?

Rp

[LeftCoast]

105. Hey Kerry: You don't support me - I'm not supporting you

Go fund your own fucking campaign for Presidency, but don't come bothering me for $$$.

[valis]

111. I feel the same.

[ladeuxiemevoiture]

112. While Kerry is not such a bad guy,

this is disappointing. I would be disinclined to GOTV for him as opposed to getting my hair done or going out to dinner. I'd probably vote for him again if I had no other choice, but wimpy doesn't win elections - as we all know from last November.

I think personally he's probably really nice and he's got a lot of good qualities, he's gotten soft, I think.

Don't ask me for money to support any future Kerry campaigns, though.

Look at Howard Dean: IIRC, he supports marriage equality, even though he strikes me (superficially) as someone who supports it SHEERLY on principle. He's got convictions about what's right and wrong. That's what I like about him, though I'm not sure he could be elected as President. I also don't think personally I'd like him as much as John Kerry.

But for Kerry to wimp out on this issue is so lame.

[chlamor]

117. Who are you John Kerry

to say what people should do with their private lives when it affects noone but your stance adversely affects thousands.

I'm against gas guzzling SUV's which damage the ozone and destroys childrens lungs, will you be getting rid of your fleet of machines-hey how about that yacht(s) too. Dock it and let some homeless vets live there.

self-righteous and materialistic

[Strawman]

120. John Kerry wouldn't know an effective message if it...

sucked his dick. Spare us the lecture on strategy.

You don't make a strategic calculus when it comes to people's civil rights. Sorry. You're not going to trick these red state bigots who would vote on the basis of this issue into voting for you, ever. They know you are for gay marriage in principle and besides disagreeing with you on the issue, they distrust you on every other issue because you don't have the balls or the integrity to come out and say so. You're not going to neutralize this.

Opposition "leaders" like Kerry leave journalists in the mainstream media without any clear context to describe the Democrats' positions on the issues because they're constantly hedging. Subsequently, they get defined by the Republicans. We need a leader to lead public opinion not someone chasing polls numbers in a context where the agenda is set by conservatives.

I remember during the campaign I respected Kerry for not pandering to the bigots by coming out in favor of the gay marriage referrenda as Bill Clinton suggested he should. That's really not good enough for me anymore. I want leaders who speak out in favor of civil rights and tolerance.

[David__77]

134. He should shut up.

Having a quiet position like that is one thing. But he is serving to split the progressive coalition with his comments attacking to his left. He should keep his fire to the right only.

I have no interest in this person.

[zara]

135. The time's just not right yet for equal protection...

Maybe in a few generations people'll will get used to the idea. Till then, safer to tolerate intolerance.
Blah blah blah.
One more reason Kerry get's no more donations from me and my ilk.I know, Hillary's no better.
What a retrograde political culture we have here.

[Misunderestimator]

148. Yep. Apparently it's ok to wait until after I die to give me an inch.

Meanwhile, they get no money from me.

[LibInternationalist]

139. When did John Kerry become a coward?

Because that's what this is -- cowardice.

[IndianaGreen]

408. Kerry was a coward when he voted for the war in Iraq

and he has reinforced that cowardness when he endorses the Pope's homophobic views.

We don't need as President a man that will jump at whatever bigoted command he gets from the Vatican.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

165. Once again John Kerry...

underwhelms me completely.

Instead of leading the cause and convincing the naysayers in the Party of the correctness of the position of civil rights for everyone, he goes all spineless.

I am a Democrat. I am a member of the Party that is supposed to be for the bedrock principle of equality and civil rights for all Americans.

I wish John Kerry -- and the other politically cowardly Dems -- would remember what the Democratic Party is about and why they belong to it.

I voted for John Kerry for President once.

If he does not get his shit together and show me he's a Dem not afraid to put it on the line and fight 100% for what is right, he can just kiss my 2008 vote goodbye.

[leesa]

167. Why don't you fight for what is right, you weenie!

[Lilith Velkor]

168. Oh for fuxake.

Dude, the election's over and Ratzi's pope, so you can stop being miniBush now, mmmmk?

[dogday]

175. What Happen To The Party Of Fairness to all Americans?

Are we to change our views to win? We just saw bigotry against Democrats in NC and yet we are willing to accept this because we have to tow the middle ground now. Is it worth it?

[dhinojosa]

176. Uhm, I thought he was "pro-gay marriage"?

Can someone clue me in on this one?

[RetroLounge]

178. What a fucking sell-out spineless half-Dem

There's many reasons Kerry lost.

This wishy-washy jellyfish bullshit is one of them.

RL

[Pissed_Progressive]

179. Flip-floppers last flop

Some of my not so politically savvy friends have said that if the Democratic party couldn't find a better candidate than John Kerry, then they deserved to lose. I thought that was horse shit. If a mouth-breathing, knuckle-dragging, twisted malfeasant like George-I'm A Douche Bag-Bush can make it into the Whitehouse by hook or crook, a pedigreed, groomed candidate since birth should certainly make it.

Today, my conviction in John Kerry drops. As much as I hated the term flip-flopper, I'm afraid it is time to spurn him to the land of wishy-washy pusssyfooters and find a new hero for 2008. John Kerry continues to disappoint.

[NightOwwl]

231. Love your description of Bush!

And I agree with you, except my conviction in Kerry dropped the day after the election. Expect lots of (sometimes nasty) disagreement. I think at this point people either love or hate Kerry. There doesn't seem to be an in between.

BTW, welcome to DU :hi:

[Pissed_Progressive]

262. Thanks, NightOwwl!

Keep weird hours myself. Feel free to IM/e-mail me as I don't have that capability on DU yet. ~R

[JRob]

197. WHAT'S WRONG WITH THIS GUY!!!!

After all this IS the REAL issue... @$#%!!!!!

[Massacure]

198. There is a difference between marriage and civil rights.

Banning same sex marriage is the job of the government. A person should be able to let anyone they choose have control of their wealth if they die or rights if they are unable to speak for themselves for whatever odd reason. Those shouldn't be limited to one person of the opposite sex.

I wish I knew more what context Kerry said those comments in. They certainly worry me...

[Orsino]

202. Back of the bus

Kerry is wrong on the issue of gay marriage--even if he is correct, politically.

[geniph]

203. Political timidity is idiotic

Pandering to opinion polls and reading tea leaves is a recipe for guaranteed failure.

In 1964, when he was working to pass the landmark Civil Rights Act, Lyndon Baines Johnson predicted that support for desegregation would cost the Democrats the South in the long run. Nonetheless, he worked to get the bill passed. Why? Political pragmatism and expediency would seem to dictate that one should sway with every passing cultural trend, bend with the breeze, never stand up for principle.

I say, and pardon my bluntness, FUCK THAT SHIT. Equal rights for all means equal rights for all. No compromise on basic human rights.

Johnson did the right thing in 1964. He was right about it costing the Democrats the South. However, which is more important - winning ephemeral elections, or making permanent changes in the cultural zeitgeist for what you know is right?

EQUAL RIGHTS FOR ALL CITIZENS.

[Pissed_Progressive]

264. Hear, Hear!!!

[second edition]

207. I AGREE WITH KERRY'S POSITION ON THIS ISSUE!

I honestly do not know exactly how I feel about this issue. I have no problem accepting civil unions,but out right marriage may be pushing for too much too soon.The last election should bring to everyones mind how many Americans feel and react to this issue. It actually stirs fear and anger in people. I think Kerry's position is a wise one in that it allows people to approach and accept this issue slowly. Giving people time to get comfortable with the idea of same sex marriage. I don't see where anyone can bash him for personally feeling the way he does. I don't think he is trying to be political correct with his point of view. I think his is an honest opinion.

[Bluebear]

223. "pushing for too much too soon" --- human rights can't be "too soon"

Whether people feel "comfortable" with it is not the issue. I bet 95% of people aren't "comfortable" with interracial marriage either.

[Book Lover]

285. Thank you!

I *know* that some people are still "queasy" about interracial marriage; was it therefore politically imprudent to recognize all citizens' right to wed a person of a different complexion?

[SlavesandBulldozers]

263. "too much too soon"

MLK addressed this very statement.

You should read it sometime. Or do you think MLK wanted equal rights too soon?

[mondo joe]

210. I hate to say it but he is a waffler. And I think THAT cost us more votes

than any one stand on any issue.

It's the dem playing-it-safe think that wins over no one, moderates included. At just the time it was most important to have a candidate who seemed decisive and strong we got Mister Modulation.

[Mass]

212. It has been his position all the time. What is new here?

[mondo joe]

216. I don't mean he changes positions but that he takes the most timid

"safe" stance which I don't think is really all that safe because it comes off as lack of committment.

[ckramer]

219. Kerry tomorrow will support gay marriage,

hey you'd never know!

[NightOwwl]

227. I see Kerry hasn't changed.

Poll-driven, spineless coward. And in response to the "Buh, buh, bu he's emailed all those press releases, he's supported this, he's done that!" crowd I say this: I don't care.

I hope he does try to run again. He's going to be shocked, shocked! I tells ya, when the money and the support he thinks is coming to him fails to materialize.

[cyr330]

232. He may want to rethink that. . . .

He's permanently lost my vote. I've been willing to hold my nose and vote for whatever Democrat is nominated, but I just won't ever be able to vote for that spineless fuck again.

[geek tragedy]

240. Election's over John--grow some cojones

Gawd, I can't believe we nominated this bozo.

[ima_sinnic]

260. I didn't want to vote for you, JK, but I did anyway. BUT NEVER AGAIN!!

This is the best the Democrats could come up with?
I am EMBARASSED that I voted for Kerry, the cowardly IRAQ WAR APPEASER.
Keep talkin' legalized bigotry, John, and let us all see what a phony you are.

[SlavesandBulldozers]

265. has he been taken out of context?

i read the article. you could easily omit important statements and reverse the meaning.

i don't want to rush to judgment on this because it seems too perfectly divisive.

:tinfoilhat:

[1956]

270. Hang on a minute!

What are you doing? I ,too believe that it is taken out of context. I don't believe Kerry has let anyone down!!! Calm down. Calm down. Don't axe our real prez till you know the facts!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[SlavesandBulldozers]

273. uhhh

nt

[confludemocrat]

268. Keep up your losing ways, John

This will not make you electable, you had your chance, give up the pandering and work on developing and showing some political courage, John.

[David Zephyr]

269. Did Kerry, by chance, opine about gigolos marrying rich widows?

I wonder if perhaps that is also, as he puts it "the wrong thing" and I also am "not sure it reflects the broad view of the Democratic Party in our state." Gigolos marrying rich widows, that is.

[1956]

271. shouldn't you save the bashing for the war criminal(s)

[AlGore-08.com]

281. Ummmm... are Senators who voted for the invasion also war criminals?

Because Kerry did vote for it. Smirk asked the Senate for permission to invade and Kerry voted to authorize the invasion.

He and all the other Congressfolks who voted to authorize share the blame. They can try and weasel out of it by claiming they were lied to by Smirk - - but there's a major problem with that. Other Dems, in and out of office, figured out that Saddam couldn't begin to pose the level of danger the Smirk admin were claiming, and opposed the war. So anybody in Congress who couldn't figure out Smirk was lying are admitting that they're less competent than the Dems who opposed it.

Besides incompetence, the only other possible reason for voting for the invasion is they were so cynical that they voted for a war they knew was bogus just because it was the popular thing to do.

[David Zephyr]

282. Ahem..excuse me, Mr. Kerry all on his own raised the subject of marriage

and, from the responses here, one might say that he had bashed a bit himself, wouldn't one?

[Name removed]

277. Deleted message

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

[David Zephyr]

289. Actually, I'd say that John Kerry sounded like a Republican today

Why would he go out of his way to say such an uncalled for thing?

Chalk this one up there with his famous vote for Bush's war and Bush's Patriot Act.

Talk about sounding Republican.

[Mass]

303. Sure

Many Republicans support civil unions with equal rights. Starting by our governor, I imagine.

[wisteria]

355. KERRY'S OPINION ON THIS ISSUE HAVE NOT CHANGED!

He has been consistent. He is for civil unions. He said that during the election. He is only repeating his opinion now. And by the way, your Rich widow comments are over the line. John Kerry is a reasonable man. Contact him about your feelings. You don't have to agree with him, but you should at least give him an opportunity to explain his position on this issue.

[renaissanceguy]

275. His big problem is changing positions after the game.

By 2008, who knows what the big issue will be... I mean, think about it, in 2000 civil unions were considered sooooo controversial, but now they're the moderate position. Who knows how people will feel in 2008--you just don't know.

Instead of trying to make political calculations, he needs to grow some balls and have conviction.

A lot of people fear any kind of change, but once that change happens, they adapt accordingly. Just look at polls in MA, VT, CT, etc.

[second edition]

276. ACTUALLY, HIS OPINION HASN'T CHANGED.

HE ONLY SUPPORTED CIVIL UNIONS EVEN DURING THE ELECTION. I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY EVERYONE IS SO BENT OUT OF SHAPE OVER HIS COMMENTS. IT IS NOT LIKE HE IS SUGGESTING TAR AND FEATHERING SAME SEX PARTNERS. HE IS ENTITLED TO HIS VIEW. I'M SURE IT ISN'T PERSONAL. YOU KNOW IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO AGREE WITH OUR CANDIDATES ON EVERY ISSUE.

[renaissanceguy]

283. When a politician plays politics with MY LIFE,

I have BIG issues. His opinion may have not changed, but during the campaign, he wasn't vocally against equal marriage. Now, he's coming out against it just like the other opportunists, when in the end, it won't gain him any votes. Trust me, people who vote rethug would never vote for anyone with a D next to their name, just because of a change of rhetoric.

[Maven]

293. "You know it is impossible to agree with our candidates on every issue."

You know, it's funny you say that.

Because something tells me that if the headline read, "Kerry Urges Democratic Leadership to Consider Social Security Reform" you'd be howling. And so would every other "it's not personal, it's strategy" poster here.

"But no!" you'd say. "There can be no "compromise" on Social Security. He's gone too far now."

Why? Because economic justice is a Democratic mainstay. And so is social justice. There's absolutely no excuse for dithering on either.

The bottom line is, he should have kept his mouth shut.

Ya know, just like he did on voter fraud.

[cosmicdot]

384. thank you

I am sooooooo tired of hearing that .... I guess it's a .... meme:

"You know it is impossible to agree with our candidates on every issue."


I may have to refill my blood pressure Rx after reading some of the comments on this thread.

[Bluebear]

297. WHY THE NEED TO COMMENT AT ALL?

HIS STATE PARTY MADE A PLATFORM DECISION TO EXTEND RIGHTS, WHY DOES HE FEEL THE NEED TO ADD A DIVISIVE VOICE TO THE MIX AT ALL? MAYBE PEOPLE ARE BENT OUT OF SHAPE BECAUSE IT AFFECTS THEM?

[mondo joe]

349. So he can say he's a moderate in the next campaign he loses.

Of course.

[wisteria]

357. Maybe he was asked this question.

I'm sure it just didn't come up out of nowhere. Perhaps, the media remembered his opinion during the election on this issue and wanted to know if he changed his views now. He was only giving his consistent views on the issue. Why bash him for his opinion. We all can't agree on all things all the time.

[Bluebear]

390. Why bash him for his opinion? Because it affects rights.

[Book Lover]

278. John Kerry, listen to what I have to say (Dr. Dean, you too. Come here)

In any fight between a republican and a republican, republicans will vote for the republican. Our party will not win in '06 & '08 by becoming republicans; we will win by making more democrats than republicans. Know how you do that? A good start would be to take a look at the people in this thread who are openly saying that they aren't gonna give the party time or money anymore; how about a "stop-loss" order here?

This is our country:


and it ain't gonna get any bluer by you people showing your infighting in public. If you are in front of a group of voters (or non- for that matter) you present a fucking united front. The MA Democratic Party is going to approve the gay marriage plank, and you are going to help it, not hinder it, with your public statements. Being consistent and strong (you know, those leadership qualities) is the way to lead voters into our tent. Not this bullshit.

My apologies if this is a bit rambling. I'm writing it in a meeting

[AlGore-08.com]

287. Another reason this was (at best) a stupid way to present his position

The Advocate has picked up the same wire story with the same headline:

http://www3.advocate.com/news_detail.asp?id=16492

So even if Kerry is a strong supporter of civil unions, is that what the average Advocate reader is going to remember? Nope, they're going to remember that headline: "Kerry criticizes Massachusetts Democratic Party for backing same-sex marriage".

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

288. This thread is missing a few people.

:shrug:

[mia]

294. Is it possible to leave sexuality out of it all together?

Can we look at marriage as one type of a civil union (religious)?

Isn't it possible for 2 friends to want to join in a mutually beneficial civil union without the least desire to have sex.

I can easily imagine such a situation. It's a shame that 2 men or 2 women can't live together without the assumption that they're gay.

[AlGore-08.com]

330. I'm not sure I understand your point

If you're saying platonic friends of different genders or siblings need a new non-religious, platonic equivalent of a marriage... I'm not sure why you think there needs to be another type of civil union for this.

If a heterosexual couple wants to get married in a civil ceremony only for the legal benefits of marriage, they can do so now. If two siblings want to live in the same house to pool expenses, and leave everything to that sibling, and give that sibling power of attorney, they can do that already. As long as the siblings are specific in their wills that is - - last year my cousin and my aunt (his mom) were in an auto accident that (eventually) took both their lives, and although his sisters were his only surviving relatives, they had a Hell of a time getting the state court to recognize that they were his heirs, so that they could close his bank accounts, sell his house, etc.

[mia]

344. Referring mainly to same gender friends

because the thread is about the controversial issue of gay marriage.

Maybe the inclusion of the idea of a "platonic equivalent for marriage" would emphasize the rights of all who want to join together in a civil union and help all who would likely benefit, including gay couples. The issue for me is that all kinds of committed "couplings" should have the same legal rights. Marriage is just a ceremony.

The tragedy in your family points out the rights of relatives who live together.

Do non-related couples have the same options and rights? Can they include one another in health plans, for instance?

[AlGore-08.com]

411. You're looking at it the wrong way

There may well be a number of platonic heterosexual couples that are for all purposes a nuclear family, but as I said before, if they're not blood relatives, they can get the benefits of marriage by marrying each other. They're not going to get denied a marriage license because they're not sleeping with each other and they're never going to. Nobody's going to keep a husband from making life or death medical decisions about his wife just because he's never slept with her and never will. If the husband passes away, nobody's going to put their children into foster care because their parents never consummated their marriage - - the widow will continue raising her own children without government interference.

The problem is that millions of gays and lesbians live in the same kind of long term, committed relationships that straight people do. The difference is that those gays do not have the basic legal rights that married people do - - the right to be parents, the right to make medical decisions for their spouse, the right to automatically inherit from their spouse. They have no legal standing, instead these rights are given to a blood relative. This problem is often compounded by the usual problems married people have with their in-laws - - how many folks would agree with 100% of the decisions their spouse's parents would make? Our their spouses' siblings?

My first cousin Tom, who was gay, passed away in a car accident last year. He didn't have a boy friend at that point, and hadn't had one for years. But if he had been lucky enough to have found somebody who he considered a husband, that husband would not have been the person who arranged Tom's funeral - - unless Tom's family let him arrange it. And if Tom's father had been alive at that point, he might not have even let Tom's boyfriend attend the funeral.

Suppose Tom had a child, either naturally or through adoption. And suppose Tom's husband had been helping to raise that child for years. When Tom passed away, Tom's husband would not automatically be given guardianship of that child. Guardianship would have been given to Tom's parents, or (since his parents were not alive) one of his sisters. Again, it would be up to Tom's family whether Tom's husband had any access to the child he had been raising.

Tom did not make a will, like most people. So Tom's spouse would not inherent anything of Tom's or anything that they owned jointly, but were in Tom's name. If Tom had a personal bank account, Tom's husband would not be given access to that money. If their house was in Tom's name, Tom's husband would not inherit it - - even if he actually paid for it. Again, it would be up to Tom's family whether Tom's husband got any material possessions at all - - regardless of the sentimental value attached to those possessions. "These are Tom's pictures, not yours. I can burn them if I like. I'm his Dad."

That kind of conflict happens all the time in heterosexual families - - but the law still recognizes the married couple as the basic unit of the family. The married couple gets to make the life or death decisions and their parents, siblings and children have to go to court and prove to a judge that those decisions are so hurtful that the government needs to step in.

[MADem]

334. Good point--why not relatives, for that matter?

You have a civil partnership with say, your mother, your brother, your kid, in order to protect pension benefits that, absent a spouse, would terminate in the event of your death. This would make perfect sense, for example, for someone who is retired military who is living with a relative who couldn't make it on their own salary and wants to assure their comfort with the Survivor Benefit Plan.

[mondo joe]

343. I think this ignores the unique partnership of a couple

A spouse is a unique partnership, which arguably merits survivor benefits and so on in ways that siblings or friends or room mates do not.

Spouses have shared rights and responsibilities in a partnership.

[mia]

346. Why not?

The "shared rights and responsibilities in a partnership" can be assumed by any type of unique couple. Calling them spouses doesn't make them any more capable of this.

[mondo joe]

348. Because spouses are an exclusive partnership (in theory) for life

Though one may love one's mother that is not likely to exclude one from marrying. One might have a number of siblings, but only one spouse.

Family have rights already - in the event of hospitalization or death. Room mates can choose to marry if they desire to make a lifelong commitment.

[mia]

351. I see your point, but why can't I, for instance,

choose to be committed for the rest of my life to my sister or a friend so that she could have the benefits that she needs and vice versa. I've happily been down the marriage/kids route and am not looking for that.

I could still go out with other friends, as could she, but we would be responsible for one another in the legal areas that are most
important and are granted by a "marriage".

[MADem]

354. Why can't you put your mother on your benefits, though?

You only have one mother, after all--in most cases! In vitro and all that biological/birth/foster situations notwithstanding....

A lot of people are single by choice, or by profession (Catholic priests, e.g.--no snark, now!) and they are being denied the benefits of forming a partnership simply because there is the assumption that genetalia MUST be somehow involved!!!

It really is a bumpuglies license, when you look at it...

[mia]

358. I think you can get health benefits for a mother who lives with you.

Singles need to have a way to form legal unions. There sure are a lot of us out there.

Maybe there's hope in numbers.

http://www.unmarriedamerica.org/usaweek/census-release.htm

[MADem]

364. You have to pony up half of their living expenses

...and even at that, it is a drill. Why should these things be means tested? They aren't for marrieds, and I would guess if someone went to the trouble to put their mother or old aunt on their benefits, odds are they wouldn't take them off on a whim. It would be a carefully considered matter! Probably way more careful than most marriages and divorces nowadays!

[mondo joe]

361. If you are single by choice you've chosen not to form a partnership

And married people aren't required to have sex.

The fact is as a species we are pair bonding and the most intimate relationship is generally with one's spouse, which is where we create a household which is something of a legal entity.

If you choose not to marry you go without the rights of marriage, but you are also free of the responsibilities of marriage.

[MADem]

363. No, the state has decided that I can't share my benefits with a family

member of my own bloodline. The state refuses to permit me to assume that responsibility to benefit an infirm member of my family, or some other relative in need. That's really what it comes down to! I guess they have to give bennies to people who are reproducing, so they keep producing new taxpayers. But married people are afforded rights that single people are denied...that's just unfortunate fact.

[mondo joe]

367. Because those benefits are for your economic unit or household.

The benefits are for the partners who share the rights AND responsibility of the union. You do not have the right to extend those bennefits to your cousin but neither are you forced to be responsible for your cousin.

Married people likewise can't "share" the benefit anywhere they like - they can only share it with their partner. You too can have a partner if you choose.

[MADem]

376. Only because the STATE SAYS SO

Some states say you can't share your benefits with a same sex partner. Others say it is ok. I cannot fathom why you cannot see what I am advocating--that rights and responsibilities would, in fact, be SHARED under the contract I propose. The contractees would form a household. Both parties would vow to support, protect and defend the other, to provide for each other, to assume responsibility for the other. This formal agreement would be between two parties who happen to share the same bloodline--no fucking involved.

But the STATE won't allow you to have a partner if there is no screwing, or no potential for screwing, involved! The state is essentially demanding that you reproduce, if at all possible, and fake it if you cannot.

[mondo joe]

385. But I don't believe having a needy family member is the same as having

a partner. I don't believe partnership is simply pooling resources.

Furthermore, the state does not force any married people to screw.

I could marry a friend of mine and we could never have sex yet we could have the rights and responsibilities of marriage.

[MADem]

392. What if you simply want to ensure the security of a loved one?

Why are you characterizing the relationship as somehow less worthy??? Less dedicated, less devoted?? I find it astounding that you are using the GOP arguments, frankly.

The only thing missing is God's law. And screwing IS inherent in the current debate about marriage, otherwise, it would be a simple contract and anyone could pair off with anyone. It's who gets the BENEFITS that troubles the state--if you do not screw, and maybe reproduce and produce more taxpayers, you are somehow not worthy. That is the backbone of the denial of benefits to gays. And it is why people reject the concept of no sex marriage, as well.

[mondo joe]

398. You can try to ensure the security of a loved one.

But you keep proving my point: you don't want a partnership. You want to ensure the security of a loved one.

Forming a partnership isn't about wanting to extend a benefit to someone.

And once more, no one is required to have sex to marry.

One is assumed to be forming an exclusive partnership with shared rights and responsibilities. Not simply a ruse to extend a benefit.

[MADem]

403. OK, why, then do you want a partnership?

If not to ensure the security of your loved one? Why do you need the formality? The issue in both situations is not reproduction. Are not your reasons closely alligned with the ones I postulate? If you care about someone, and want them to be able to share in your life, with all the rights and responsibilities, as well as the benefits, you form a partnership. Why do you advocate limiting this right?

[mondo joe]

415. Because we are partners - we're committed to each other and to our union

regardless of whether we can share benefits or not. We can't share the benefits NOW and we're partners already - accountable to and for each other to the exclusion of others.

My workplace provides unmarried partner benefits (which I don't use) but to get them the employee has to declare in writing that s/he and the partner are mutually responsible for each others, etc in a small simulation of what the marriage responsibilities are.

To sum up what I believe the distinction is: You seem to feel giving someone benefits or pooling resources makes them your partner. I feel the benefits are what you get as a RESULT of being partnered.

Or to put it another way, in your Aunt Ruth scenario, if you couldn't share the benefits would you partner anyway? My impression is you wouldn't -- you've already said you'd do it to get her the benefits. But I and my partner would. We already have.

[MADem]

353. So do relatives!

Why can't the person make the call? And why can't two adults come to that conclusion, to share rights and responsibilities, without necessarily having to involve one's fiddly bits?

People who are single by choice in this country get screwed, IMHO. They can't even use their earning power to help out a beloved relative, even if they want to. If you have a relative on the poverty line, who has never worked, yet your social security could ensure that person gets a better retirement after you have gone, why can't a person make the decision to offer that benefit to someone they know and love? Seems silly, to me. And unfair, really.

Of course, the way the chump manages this, we won't have social security to worry about anymore...he done stole the lockbox!

[mondo joe]

360. I would again say it's because marriage is a unique partnership

Not one that's just about sharing but about forming one entity, the couple.

Your social security can go to your spouse because you were partners in forming the... corporation, if you will, of your household. Your cousin or sister or friend isn't that person.

[MADem]

366. I have to disagree with you there

I know many households that consist solely of family members...brothers, sisters, aunts, uncles, so on, living together and cooperating with one another, celebrating holidays, and forming what is a fine entity for them, full of love, laughter, and cooperation. Extended families. Why not give them benefits transferrable from one to another? Why make them all separate under the law, if they agree to form a corporation of sorts to strengthen their unit? It really is the last bastion of discrimination, IMHO.

It's all about sex, really...a license to screw! If it weren't directly related to sex, whether they have it or not, it would not matter!

[mondo joe]

370. Again, because as a species we tend to pair bond.

Marriage is a legal contract that is an exclusive relationship with rights AND responsibilities.

You want to share your benefits with your brother? Do you also want to assume responsibility for his debts? If you decide you want to marry someone later do you want him to be entitled to half your estate?

The responsibilities go with the rights.

[MADem]

374. Tend to pair bond? Liza and David?

Governor and (both of the) Mrs. McGreevey(s)? Pair bonding is nice, but some don't go for it. Bill Maher is one.

Now, if I chose to share my benefits with my brother, I would, of course, assume his debts as well--no difference. If I wanted to marry later, I would dissolve the partnership, just like getting a divorce. And pay some sort of alimony, if the court so ruled.

The responsibilities WOULD go with the rights...why would you assume otherwise? I couldn't see people doing this sort of thing willynilly, but it would WORK for some people, after careful consideration, and they are being discriminated against because they are not a sufficient, or vocal enough, minority. Marriage is a fucking license, and that, in a nutshell, is why people are so incensed about gay marriage. And why they can't even see the benefits of civil unions for family members, to help ensure security in an increasingly insecure world.

[mondo joe]

375. As a gay man I have no interest in an additional coupling contract

I know my partnership with my spouse is not like my relationship with my sibling or my friend or my mother.

And the exceptions you cite just prove the rule: as a species we TEND to pair bond. With some interesting exceptions.

[MADem]

378. I am not advocating ADDITIONAL contracts

Just the one!!! You now have a partner, you are set. But say your partner runs off with a fan dancer, formally dissolves your relationship, you are now ALONE, and you are old, tired, and your bits don't work anymore. And your dear Aunt Ruth, who raised you, is getting ill, and by forming a partnership with you, she can get the benefit of your health care plan, and the benefit of your social security should you get hit by a bus.

You have no other partner, you don't want another partner, you only have Aunt Ruth, who needs you now.

Why not???

[mondo joe]

379. But I wouldn't form a partnership with Aunt Ruth.

I'd help her out if I could. But she wouldn't be my partner.

And Aunt Ruth should not get survivor benefits of my SS because she was not my partner in earning it.

Lastly, when Aunt Ruth dies I will not be responsible for her debt, and her bad credit rating will not impact mine.

My partnership is not simply a matter of pooling resources.

[MADem]

382. Well, you hate poor Aunt Ruth then!!

I, on the other hand, would recognize Aunt Ruth's role in raising me up from childhood, paying for my college, supporting me as I got my first business going, and having no intention of marrying, would be delighted to partner with Aunt Ruth to ensure that she gets quality health care and the benefit of my social security contribution. I would be responsible for dear Aunt Ruth, as would she for me, making me a fine breakfast in the morning, and a good meal at night, as well as attending to things about the home, at which she is most skilled. I would assume Aunt Ruth's debt, and she would assume mine (which, being frugal, I would not have, I'd leave Aunt Ruth sittin pretty and livin large!).

Your partnership clearly is not a matter of pooling resources. But many are, and why prohibit these sorts of partnerships if they are OVERT in their structure?

It's clearly the S-E-X thing, and that is why people are in a swivet over gay marriage...they don't go for the fiddlybits bit. The only thing worse than gay marriage, to their mind, is NO FIDDLING at all!

At least that is the way I see it...it's all about spitting out babies, for the greater strength of the Fatherland, I suppose!

[mondo joe]

383. To the contrary: I said I would help Aunt Ruth.

But I also recognize SHE IS NOT MY LIFE PARTNER.

My partnership is something beyond simply pooling resources - and that, IMO, is what those rights exist for - along with the responsibilities.

And it's not "the sex thing". If my partner and I never had sex again our relationship would still be of a very different nature than I have with anyone else, including my parents, children or aunts.

If you have never had such a relationship it might explain why you think it is not substantively different from that of an aunt-nephew.

But what's so funny is that Ruth is in such bad financial shape that you can't find any way to help her other than sharing your health benefits, but you're so quick to assume her debts which will leave you in her very position.

[MADem]

389. Wait a minute, wait a minute!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I am not challenging, questioning, or disabusing your relationship. I am HAPPY for you. Please read carefullly. Above, I postulated a hypothetical and you sort of ignored it, but that is ok.

But do I take it that you would deny me, and feel totally comfortable denying me, the right to form a partnership with Aunt Ruth? And that you assume that I could not possibly love dear Aunt Ruth with all the fervor and genuine depth that you have for your partner, simply because she is unfortunately RELATED to me, and that there is no way Aunt Ruth and I could not have a fulfilling, rich relationship that does not involve romance or sex or necessarily a senior-subordinate dynamic? That unless you bump uglies, you cannot know true love? What if I was involved in a horrible accident that left me with no bits, and no capacity for fiddling? What if I were asexual, or without drive?

And, say Aunt Ruth has cancer. She needs a special chemo, and while I am well off, I can't afford to spend hundreds of thousands for her treatments...but my great health plan WILL carry the load. Why should I not help her, so long as she needs the help, and I don't mind the legal pairing, indeed, I welcome it?

Perhaps I have all my bits, and get all I need in the sexual realm from that rich widow down the street, who doesn't want a partnership, but Aunt Ruth could use the help?

Are you truly comfortable denying me my right to decide who I should choose to assume responsibility for and share my benefits with? Would you stand on the street corner with a sign opposing civil nonsexual unions for related family members? Because it goes against God's law...or something?

This is a slippery slope, this whole "marriage debate." And while I support opposite sex marriage and same sex marriage, I also support no sex marriage (actually, I think marriage is a bad word for all of them, the legal/state function should be civil union, the religious function, in the church of your choice, should be marriage--for everyone!)...if it is right for people entering the contract, and ensures their security.

Maligning the whole concept or denigrating the motives isn't helpful--that's what the GOP does to gays--get over it, go for electroshock, you CAN change, because you have NO RIGHT TO IT...!! No right, because the state says so???

Some people have a strong sense of family, and put family before all. Why can't they form a no-sex partnership based on that if they so choose? Why are they denied the right???

I think it will happen, not in my lifetime, and probably in limited fashion, but I see it coming, down the road. It's the next logical step. I hope you won't be on the corner with a hate sign...

[mondo joe]

397. Again: I didn't ignore it. I said I would help her. What about that do

you not understand?

I don't deny you your affection for Aunt Ruth or your desire to help her. But what I am saying is that wanting to help out a sick aunt is not the same as forming a partnership.

What you seem to be ignoring is that a partnership is something more than simply wanting to share benefits or pool resources.

The best reason to deny partnership benefits here is that you have not even stated any desire to partner with your aunt Ruth other than sharing a particular benefit with someone who needs one.

It's funny that when people present these arguments the first and most central point is that they want to share a benefit. Not that they want to share the responsibilities, and not that this is the ONE person they want to be in a partnership for the rest of their lives.

[MADem]

404. You are being selective in your reading of my thesis

You can't help Aunt Ruth, you haven't enough money on your own. She needs the medical benefits you can provide. You need someone to make your meals and take care of your house, because you are a hopeless slob who cannot cook or clean properly. You love Aunt Ruth dearly, you have no plans to partner with anyone else, and you are willing to make the commitment to her. You help her, she helps you.

I'm a little flummoxed at your parsing, frankly. You seem to be saying that some individuals who desire to share rights and responsibilities are somehow better or more deserving than others--that the human rights issues that have been used to advance the GLBT agenda have no validity for others who want to love, care for and provide for someone who doesn't fit in your category as someone who is worthy of, or eligible to be, receiving these benefits. You also seem to be saying that your standard is the only valid one. Am I mistaken in my understanding of your position?

I think this article has some very good background: http://businessweek.com/magazine/content/03_42/b3854001_mz001.htm
Some snippets, but I urge you to read the whole thing: The tensions between traditional families and the new households are already starting to spill out all over society -- in offices, neighborhoods, and political campaigns. Pollsters Celinda Lake and Ed Goeas say the marriage gap could become an issue in the 2004 Presidential campaign since George W. Bush draws so much of his support from the wedded, who give him approval ratings 15 percentage points higher than the single or divorced. Meanwhile, the numbers of Democratic-favoring singles continues to grow in number and power. There are also rumblings of a political backlash as nontraditional families balk at lopsided tax burdens. Dual-income, kid-free cohabitants, and elderly retirees on fixed incomes, for example, are joining forces to oppose school bond issues, a growing argument now that only 20% of the electorate has children. Charlotte Ness, a 55-year-old childless single, fumes about the way she pays the same school taxes as the married couples in her Vienna (Va.) neighborhood but will only get half the capital-gains break on the sale of her home. "It's nothing other than theft by a government of married people," she says.

Some singles are challenging zoning laws that limit the number of unrelated people who can live together, while others are forming homeowner associations that ban kids. Then there are those who are working to bar travel-industry practices that force them to pay 40% to 100% more for single-occupancy hotel rooms as well as auto and health-club rules that limit discounts to spouses. "You never used to have this," says David Popenoe, co-director of the National Marriage Project at Rutgers University. "Those without children and those who aren't coupled have begun to mobilize much more than they did in the past."

Also fueling the demographic change: More people are coming out of the closet and setting up same-sex households. And most everyone, on average, is living longer, which will make for an expanding population of widows as boomers age. Meanwhile, more seniors are divorcing so they can qualify for Medicaid, while others are living together instead of remarrying to avoid losing pension-survivor or health benefits. "Sometimes you have to break the rules to make a living," says 64-year-old Darlene Davis, who lives with her boyfriend of 19 years, Cary Cohen....

Neither does the workplace, where singles get less and pay more. Married people often make more than unmarrieds, with married men earning an average 11% more than their never-married male colleagues, according to the Federal Reserve. The unmarried, most importantly those with kids, also suffer higher unemployment. And aside from subsidized health coverage for spouses, there are plenty of other inequities. Social Security is one of the biggest redistributions machines there is: Married and unmarried co-workers pay the same amount in employment taxes, but married people can leave their Social Security benefits to surviving spouses, while the unmarried can't leave them to surviving partners.

Pension Penalties
That's one reason why, given the gender pay gap, single working mothers often end up with far less in their old age than lifelong homemakers; one-earner married couples receive average benefit returns that are up to 85% higher than those of single males; and African Americans, who have low marriage and life-expectancy rates, sometimes end up subsidizing the retirement benefits of millionaire whites. In fact, one of every three black male youths will pay for retirement benefits they will never see.

Pensions also certainly come with big penalties for singles. If a married worker dies before starting to receive the benefits, a surviving spouse can inherit them. For singles, they go back into the pot. April Murphy, an unmarried 38-year-old who has worked as a flight attendant for American Airlines Inc. for 11 years, found this out when she tried to name her sister as her designate on her traditional pension. The company told her that was fine. But if Murphy dies even one day before her retirement, her sister won't see a penny. "When I'm pushing a beverage cart, the flight attendant on the other end is getting more just because she has a spouse or child or two," says Murphy. "How can you compensate one employee more than the other?" Murphy was also stunned to learn that she had no legal recourse: Federal anti-discrimination laws protect just about every class -- race, religion, gender, age -- except the unmarried.

[mondo joe]

416. If I have no money of my own why take on her debts? That's part

of partnership - rights AND responsibilities.

In another post I've asked: if you couldn't share benefits with Aunt Ruth would you partner with her ANYWAY? If so, why haven't you?

I and my partner would partner even without benefits - we already have.

Your contention appears to be that giving someone a benefit makes them your partner.

My contention is the benefits (and risks) accrue to you BECAUSE you are a couple.

[distantearlywarning]

325. Dear Democrats:

Unlike some members of this party, I believe in the ideals the Democratic Party is supposed to stand for, not just the name.

I believe in equal rights for all people, including gays. And I support their right to marry.

It doesn't matter to me whether a "Democrat" gets elected to office next year or in 2008. It matters to me that a politician who supports the right of every American citizen to love and marry who they choose, regardless of gender, gets elected. Regardless of what they call themselves.

If the Democratic party (and yes, I am talking to some of you bigots here on DU tonight) cannot support the causes I care about, then I will find another party who does. I am not interested in giving my time, money, or attention to whining cowards who are afraid of what the ignorant red state assholes might think.

If I were interested in electing a "DEMOCRAT" at all costs, then perhaps I should be supporting a presidential bid for Zell Miller in 2008. He's a "DEMOCRAT", after all, and would get RED STATE VOTES, which is all we're after anyway, right? Certainly we are not really interested in doing the right thing - that might lose us RED STATE VOTES.

First it's caving on the gay marriage issue, next it will be Muslims in concentration camps and mandatory creationism in public school science classes, just to win votes for the goddamn "DEMOCRATS". How are we different from them if we do the same ignorant, bigoted crap they do? Oh, wait. We're DEMOCRATS. That means we can participate in ignorant, bigoted crap without feeling guilty. Because we did it in the cause of good - to make sure a DEMOCRAT wins in 2008. Because DEMOCRATS are good, because they stand up for stuff like civil rights...right?...right?

I'm seriously disappointed and discouraged by some of the stuff I have read here tonight. I thought you guys were better than that.

"For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?" Matthew 16:26

[bicentennial_baby]

340. Oh like Kerry's so fucking in-touch with MA

I have trouble believing that Kerry has a clue about how the people here in Massachusetts feel...Other than when he's campaigning, he doesn't stray far from Boston when he's home...my side of the state might as well be non-existent, as far as he is concerned.

[valis]

342. This thread has becom too long! It's breaking FireFox!

[MADem]

368. Well, shitty XP is doing fine with it!

Guess that fox needs a fire under its butt!!!

[wisteria]

359. ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!

John Kerry rendered his consistent opinion on the issue of same sex marriage.Big deal! It is the same opinion he held during the election. Obviously, he was asked this question. The media must have been aware of his views during the election and knowing about the new Mass. platform were curious to know if his opinions had possibly changed. You may not agree with his opinion, but he doesn't deserve the kind of attacks I have been reading on this thread. He is a reasonable man.Write him to express your opinion. Give him an opportunity to explain his.

[MADem]

369. I've not worried about Kerry, he has every right to his opinion

But the side issue of singles being permitted to transfer their benefits is very lively in this thread as well, and worthy of discussion.

[wisteria]

387. I agree! worthy and important concerns.

I'm certain John Kerry supports and backs these types of benefits and next of kin issues.

[PATRICK]

380. Foot in mouth or New Dem "wisdom"?

Election fraud- blank stare and bad mouthing of critics who did not "get over" 2000. A consistent number of other issues where one can individually make allowances.

But time and tide do not guarantee a persistently immature Democratic political savvy a permanent daily allowance. Like or not, Kerry is as defined a non-Candidate and as much in denial as Smoking(flameout) Joe Lieberman.

It is not so much the issues and the goodness of the candidate as the hapless positioning, the always ready to lose attitude, the never listening to the ones with the candidate's(and guess what? the nation's)best interests in mind.

Kerry was a non-starter when he closed off the avenues to fighting Bush in November(though we did not see that completely clearly until election day- or didn't WANT to see it). There have been admired and honest generals like that in history. If possible, one never lets them keep taking charge of doomed battles. Bad luck, consistent bad choices or untimely flaws,- those may be debatable. When the results and the instincts about future performance remain unchanged it is past time for defending them.

Lincoln fired his commanders regularly because he didn't have the time to be charitable or respectful of their support. Neither do we have the time. This kind of grim pragmatic attrition will not work in a stacked deck where cautious parity is an obscene joke. Kerry cannot conceive of doing the proper political calculations OR simply go for the progressive gold standard against a mounting abomination of fascism.
Fault or correctness has little to do with it. We have many good people who stand no chance to win the presidency. Most of them simply will not give themselves the chance- much less us.

[confludemocrat]

381. This discussion would not happen if we were not nervous about JFK

Or not this way. We would find a way to work something out if he had a chance. He doesn't. He wants as he always has to be accepted and supported even without standing strongly for anything since being anti-Vietnam war (which he should be honored for-always). But these people in the South and the redknecks don't buy this guy, too bad, but that's how it is. He campaigning again, in his usual hedging, equivocal way. please give it up John.

[wisteria]

391. I think you are wrong to think he was pandering to the South.

His opinions on this issue have been the same since before and during the election. He has not just changed them now. I think he believe we should approach this issue slowly. Many people, including myself, are a bit uncomfortable with this issue. I support Kerry's view of civil unions. That is something most southern states don't support. I just don't see how you can think he was pandering to them. He actually doesn't share their opinion on gay unions.

[MaineDem]

394. Was he part of the Platform process?

There was a committee in Massachusetts that put together the Platform that is to be presented to the convention. Did he or anyone from his office take part in that? Did he have input?

The platform is developed by the party for the candidates, right? Or is it a top-down mandate from the office holders?

[PresidentObama]

400. Kudos....

On insulting, flaming, and crapping all over John Kerry. I love how you guys bash former losing Presidential candidates. I remember when you guys were bashing Kerry for telling Pro-Choice activists to accept Pro-Life candidates, BUT now your flaming Kerry because he doesn't think gay marriage should be in his state's Democratic party platform?

If you ask me, even though Kerry is against gay marriage, not having gay marriage in the platform is smart. I'm for gay marriage, but I know 60+ percent of America isn't. Asking for gay marriage to be added to a platform for your party is political suicide.

Stop bashing Kerry because of your 2008 agenda's people, and get over it. John Kerry is against gay marriage. But, Harry Reid is Pro-Life. Should we begin bashing him too? Or is he out of the question, since he isn't endangering your favorite 2008 Presidential prospects.

[Bluebear]

409. Sorry, he just lost a lot of support for 2008

It's not an easy thing to face for you, but it is unfortunately true.

Do you even see why gay people feel "insulted, flamed and crapped upon" by your candidate, or doesn't that enter into the picture?

P.S. if you think Kerry is being "bashed", check out a victim of real gay bashing sometime. Then tell them to "get over it".

[politicasista]

410. That's what you think

You are just afraid he is going to overshadow your candidate. Admit it.
BTW: Where does your candidate stand on this issue?

[Bluebear]

412. I don't have a candidate yet

And I am not afraid he is going overshadow anything but expanding rights.

[ladeuxiemevoiture]

413. For the record, Mosley-Braun and Kucinich BOTH supported gay marriage!

and the more moderate GOP candidates being mentioned have positions on gay marriage which approximate Kerry's (not everyone's a single-issue voter, but some people/gays are).

[many a good man]

401. It doesn't matter what WE think; what's the Constitution say?

In a democracy it is perfectly acceptable for a Legislature to outlaw gay marriage, or pass any other law they want. In our constitutional democracy it is up the Judiciary to rule on the law's constitutionality.

Our Constitution proclaims equal rights to all citizens under law. The Massachusetts court was fully correct in stating that denying "marriage" to homosexuals is unconstitutional. Giving the same legal benefits to gay partners but not allowing it to be called "marriage" is discriminatory. It implies gay unions are inferior which violates this precious tenet of our Constitution.

It doesn't matter a whit what we think and say; any responsible jurist would rule the same way if the matter appeared before him/her in court.

[nodehopper]

418. This thread has gotten too long and there are too many personal attacks

I am locking it, please continue the discussion here

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x1453629