Oh Boy, Today's News 5/6/05, Gay Marriage again

[TayTay]

Sen. Kerry wishes that Gay Marriage Support plank was not in the Mass Democrats Party Platform: http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2005/05/06/democrats_platform_shouldnt_back_gay_marriage_kerry_says/

Ahm, well, there is that.

Also, the Lowell Sun has an article that has Dems in my own backyard condemning the plank in support of Gay Marriage: http://lowellsun.com/front/ci_2710192

Well, what can I say. I plan to vote FOR it at the convention. Now you know why my fellow townies are afraid that Massachusetts is about to sail off into LiberalLand again.

Oh dear. I am actually a Convention delegate because of the e-mail that Sen. Kerry sent out to MA supporters reminding them to get involved. I did. But I completely and totally support Gay Marriage. It is both a moral and a civil rights issue with me. I also hold the irrational view that Sen. Kerry doesn't really mean it. Guess this means I am a bona fide Massachusetts liberal. The Senator will NOT be attending the Convention, which is probably a good thing. (I think a resolution condeming the Iraq War and caling for a gradual withdrawl will also pass.)

I agree with the State Party chair who was quoted in the Boston Globe as saying, ''I have great affection and respect for John, but I disagree on this issue," Johnston said. ''It is important that the state Democratic Party support civil rights. We need to take a stand."

Still love me?

[rox63]

1. We can disagree with JK on this and still like him

I've made similar rationalizations about Kerry's position on gay-marriage. I fully support equal marriage for same-sex couples. But it may just be that he and disagree on this. I can live with that, since there is so much else that I agree with him on.

I'm sure part of it is that he's trying to preserve his chances at the presidency for 2008. At least he isn't actively trying to roll back the hard-won equal-marriage rights in Massachusetts. He opposes constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage, refusing even Bill Clinton's campaign advice on the issue. And he supports equal legal rights for same-sex couples.

Geez TayTay, ya think that sounds like a bit of rationalization on my part? :shrug:

[TayTay]

2. That would be the pot calling the kettle fried..

I am rationalizing. I can see his point. And I can see the politics of it as well. But civil rights are civil rights and I think Gay Marriage is a civil right. But I still think Kerry is a great Senator. I just disagree with him on this. (And I don't really think he means it. If that isn't a rationalization, then I don't know what is.)

I agree with Kerry on 90 - 95% of things. That's pretty good. I'm a little surprised he isn't going to the MA Con, but he doesn't really need to do that. Let Teddy Kennedy (the other MA Senator) get some exposure. Poor Kennedy, with all the fuss over the last election, people have pretty much forgotten the poor man. (Just a little MA joke.)

Let this stuff blow over, and let Big John concentrate on all the stuff going on in the Senate. He is doing a wonderful job there.

[whometense]

3. You know,

I don't think he means it, either. Never have.

I think he feels he has to finesse it. But I remember reading at some point that he and Vanessa had argued about it, so maybe his inner altar boy won't let him go that far. But my gut-level feeling is that it's a political compromise.

Even if he honestly believes it, that's ok with me. He's no homophobe, that's for sure. But if I were voting I'd vote for it too.

[karynnj]

4. I disagree, I think he does mean it.

He has said exactly the same thing where speaking to gay magazines, liberal magazines, newspapers, and his daughters. He is very clearly not a homophone and has consistently said ALL rights that come form marriage should be given to civil unions. His comments on sexuality were extremely thoughtful and his position on this issue may be that he feels civil unions with rights does protect civil rights while avoiding an unnecessary, emotionally charged fight that at least on the federal level (he is a US Senator) can't be won.

With DOMA in place, how would gay marriage in MA (or another state) work? Per DOMA, other states would not have to recognize the marriage. But how would legal gay marriages (from MA) work on the federal level - example could they file federal taxes as a married couple? Without repealing DOMA, the biggest advantage of "marriage" versus "civil unions with rights" was that a legal marriage (before DOMA)in one state automatically created benefits on the federal level and had to be accepted in other states.

I find his reason (that marriage is a sacrament) interesting because this is legislating on the basis of your religion which is exactly what he eloquently argued against on the abortion issue. But it may be that for gay marriage, the compromise position of not calling it marriage and giving full rights on the FEDERAL LEVEL does address the civil rights issue. It might be that he sincerely believes that this is a compromise that gives a huge part of what each side wants. (Although, it will irritate some people on both sides.)

When they discussed the issue in school, my religious 17 year old suggested approaching the problem from the opposite side. To keep both religion and government untainted by each other, she argued that for gays or straights, the government should issue civil union certificates that when certified give all the benefits, responsibilities etc that marriage now does. The person could then opt ( simultaneously or later, they are independent)for a religious blessing that could be called marriage or whatever the person's tradition wants to call it. "Marriage" would then be a sacrament only and it's rules would then be set by the religion.

Personally, I have a sister and sister-in-"not"law who have one of the most supportive 20+ years relationships I know of. It bothers me that they can not legalize their relationship, but Britney Spears can marry and divorce someone within a week.

[Dr Ron]

13. One drawback

There is logic to your proposal, but it does create problems for people such myself who avoid any form of organized religion, possibly excuding us also from marriage. I'm not sure how my wife would feel if all we had was a civil union since we were married by a mayor rather than having a religious ceremony.

[karynnj]

15. Good point

I guess that may mean that the word marriage IS important, in and of itself. So I guess there would need to be secular marriage as well -

This may just show how realy difficult this is.

[sandnsea]

34. Legally, it would all be civil contracts

Defining what the union meant beyond the civil contract would be up to the individual couple to figure out. Gay couples married in churches would be married. Straight couples who wanted legal contracts would have them, those who wanted civil marriages would have those. The religious could adopt covenant marriage or some such name to identify those. Catholics already differentiate civil marriage from the sacrament of marriage anyway. It would be like that for all partnerships.

[Dr Ron]

35. It depends upon whether religious approval needed for marriage

As long as there is a way for such a union to be considered marriage it could work, but if some sort of religious ceremony/approval is needed to call it a marriage there will be problems. I'm sure there are a huge number of secular marriages.

[sandnsea]

37. New names will be made

They're already doing those covenant marriages, let the fundies have it. And like I said, Catholics have differentiated their own Marriage Sacrament from everybody else's marriage forever. People already do it, really. Some people view their marriage as a holy union; you view yours as, whatever you view it as. We were married by the JP, I don't particularly care that it's called a marriage. Just give me my community property rights!! (kidding)

I wonder if there's any writings from whenever they first started allowing marriages without any religious ceremony. Maybe that was just as controversial. :shrug:

On edit: My husband reminds me, none of y'all are married according to the Catholic Church anyway. Only Catholic marriages are real marriages. Does that matter to you?

[Dr Ron]

39. Non-cahtolic marriages

No, it doesn't mean a thing to me if the Cahtolic Church doesn't recognize my marriage as a marriage.

It would be a different matter if some sorts of union were generally not considered marriage, but must the Catholic Church's opinion doesn't matter.

[sandnsea]

43. Yeah, but people already do that

That's my point. People may differentiate in their own minds, but it doesn't mean anything. Law moves society to change how they recognize various situations. Like kids born out of wedlock are no longer scorned as bastards, and IIRC, laws changed to help that along. The same would happen with partnership contracts, people would view their arrangement individually, society would view all couples as in some sort of lifelong commitment. Probably, eventually, as married.

[Dr Ron]

44. But would this take time?

There would be a problem if initially secular marriages were no longer considered marriages and only religious marriages were considered marriages.

[sandnsea]

46. Legally, it wouldn't matter

Legally, it would all be the same. A partnership license, and that's it. Privately, you do whatever you want. You find somebody to do a civil marriage, and you have a civil marriage. You don't want the trappings that go along with traditional marriage, you don't have one. You find a minister to perform a holy marriage, you get that.

Really, people already make these considerations. You did, I did. My daughter just did. They took several months to decide whether they wanted a minister to officiate or not. So what difference will it really make if we stop calling the license a marriage license? Not much really.

[Dr Ron]

48. Fine with me, but will conservatives go along?

I don't see where conservatives would see any reason to go along. They would complain that this weakens marriage and that it allows for gay marriage (which further weaknes marriage).

If you could find a way to see this to conservatives, then this sounds fine.

[sandnsea]

50. It's the center we need

I think most people would understand equal under the law, and that people already choose the kind of officiating they have anyway. What we really need is for gay couples all over the country to start having gay religious weddings. They can't be stopped. People would realize the marriages hadn't changed a thing, and alot sooner if gay folks would just start getting married.

[karynnj]

45. Wait a minute, I even have a Ketubah

which is the Jewish marriage certificate - but it's written in Hebrew, Aramaic, and English. (all though the English is not the translation.)

[sandnsea]

47. Ack

Not a Catholic Sacrament, not married. Sorry. :)

But that is the point. Regardless of the civil license, you've got a religious certificate on top of it. So what difference does it make what we call the civil license?

[karynnj]

49. Actually that's a good point

I was simply making a joke - playing off Dr Ron's, but it is true that I do have both the prosaic state marriage certificate and the more exotic pretty religious certificate that we have framed. So there really are 2 parts, the rabbi signed as the one who officiated on both, but the marriage permit was from the civil officials in my town.

[ginnyinWI]

10. I think he does mean it,

and I think it might have to do with his Catholicism. He does want gays to have full civil rights, and that is totally consistent with his other principles. And he's right in line with mainstream America on it.

Personally, I go both ways: I can see the gay argument, that anything less than full parity with heterosexuals is discrimination.

I guess what bothers me is the confusion it may cause in how people relate to each other in society. The terms "married", and "husband" or "wife" mean one thing now, but that would all change. They would no longer be effective words for helping us understand other people we meet; it would become a guessing game, instead. Society is going to have to figure that one out!

edit: Karyn, I have read that compromise your daughter talked about, and I really do think it is the best solution: we ALL should have government-sanctioned civil unions, then have a second blessing at a church of our choice if we want one. My daughter and her husband got married at the courthouse, and are every bit as married as someone married in a church.

[JI7]

5. i disagree but i don't think Kerry really opposes same sex marriage

i think it's more of a political move.

[whometense]

6. The Raw Story headline for this story

made me wince: Kerry dumps on gay marriage in South.

When I read the story my first thought was that Kerry is probably right, in the political sense. God knows his political instincts are better than mine. ;-) Of course, this is why they call it a wedge issue.

It seems clear to most of us that we're heading in a direction where eventually gay marriage will be law. But where I think Kerry is right is that he is trying to keep the substance of gay civil rights while defusing the emotional content of the issue. Some people call that straddling or trying to have it both ways. I think you can also call it governing.

[Dr Ron]

7. Why it makes sense to support Kerry

I disagree with Kerry and would make gay marriage legal. However, we saw what a wedge issue this is. It makes sense for the party to nominate candidates who can bridge the divide.

This is another example of how Kerry could be the one to do this, provided people can get exposue to the real Kerry as opposed to the distorted reports from the Republicans and news media.

Kerry's position has been an acceptable compromise as he has supported civil unions. During the 2004 campaign, he took heat for this, but also refused to compromise to the point of seriously infringing on anyone's civil rights. When Bill Clinton advised Kerry that he could increase his chances of winning by supporting the anti-gay marriage ammendments in the states where they were on the ballot, Kerry had the integrity to refuse to go along with this idea.

[TayTay]

8. This just totally ticks me off

Part of that is local, you just can never be liberal enough to please Massachusetts LiberalLand. (Honestly, someone is gonna have to tie weights to these peoples legs at night to keep them from floating off into liberal heaven. I've said that before.)

I just don't understand it. Texas tries to vote that Gays can't be foster parents. FDA tries to bar Gays from being sperm donors. Florida says that gays can't adopt kids. And Liberals dump on Kerry. This is one of only 13 Senators who voted against DOMA in 1996 during an election year in which Massachusetts was leaning to the conservative side. Grrrrrrr!

As I wrote on the DU thread, I am voting FOR Gay Marriage in the damn convention. I strongly support Kerry. The rest of the can't-be-pleased liberals can bite me. This group generates so much venom and spew that it's no wonder reasonable people try to stay away from them. They poison the debate and make the Dems look like the loony party. Geesh, give me a break. Who is stabbing whom in the back.

karynnj you are a voice of pure reason. Your daughter's solution is ideal. I think Kerry would support that. I also think that he is of a different generation and this is one area that he disagrees with MA Liberal dogma. He will actually pay no price for it in MA except among the absolutes. Well, that is until the next absolute comes along. (How many absolutes have we had so far this year? Condilair, Torture Boy, Bankruptcy. Gawd, this just burns me.)

[whometense]

9. It's true.

The whole thing is just ridiculous. As Dr. Ron said above, Kerry in fact said to Clinton, "BITE ME" when he suggested he sell out on this issue. He may not be pure enough for the holy wholly pure, but he's ok with me.

Karynnj's solution sounds good to me, and has the added benefit of emphasizing separation of church from state, which is where the sane portion of the population wants to go anyway. Divorce the whole question from its emotional component. Make it dry and technical. It will make it harder to wail about.

[TayTay]

11. It just kills me to have people beat Kerry up about this

considering the following from the Human Rights Campaign site: http://www.hrc.org/Template.cfm?Section=Home&Template=/ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=23412. Senator Kerry has a 100% rating from this group. 100%. For the love of Gawd, you can't get better federally than 100%

Federal Marriage Amendment
Opposes the FMA. “I oppose this election year effort to amend the Constitution in an area that each state can adequately address, and I will vote against such an amendment if it comes to the Senate floor.”

Relationship Recognition
Supports civil unions with federal benefits, domestic partner benefits for same-sex couples and the Permanent Partners Immigration Act, which would treat binational same-sex couples like opposite-sex couples.

Marriage Equality
Does not support extending full marriage equality to same-sex couples.

Employment Non- Discrimination Act
Co-sponsor of ENDA and voted for it in 1996. One of John Kerry’s first acts as a U.S. senator, in 1985, was to introduce a bill prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

Hate Crimes
Voted for and is a current co-sponsor of the Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Act, which would add sexual orientation, gender and disability to existing federal hate crimes law.

HIV/AIDS
Co-sponsor of the Early Treatment for HIV Act. Supports full funding for science based HIV prevention programs and the Ryan White Comprehensive AIDS Resources Emergency Act.

Adoption
Supports giving appropriate authorities the full authority to make decisions on adoption based on the best interest of the child, without bans based solely on sexual orientation.

Gays and Lesbians in the Military
Opposes the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy. “I think that any American ought to be able to serve their country if they are physically qualified and able. There were gay people who served in Vietnam. There were gay people who served in World War II, Korea and World War I — and great acts of heroism have been performed by people who are gay.”

[whometense]

12. I know, I know.

Even the wonderful Barney Frank opposes gay marriage at this time.

Who do they think would be a better representative for them on this than Kerry?

And to answer your question - well, there's always the time-honored sports lover's 110%!!

[politicasista]

14. I think the Dems need to get back to being the party for Civil Rights

I know Kerry got into some trouble during the election for saying that gay rights was like civil rights, but being here in the south, the gay marriage issue was simply a Rovian trap that the Dems should have been prepared for. This was a wedge issue created by the repukes in attempt to divide us, and it looks like it worked. There are a lot of socially conservative Dems around here.

I am having a hard time understanding Kerry's position on this, but if anyone can help, I appreciate it. He is getting hammered in GDP over this. :scared:

[JI7]

16. he isn't really getting hammered over it

it's the same people being critical mostly. but most agree or understand even if they disagree.

[politicasista]

17. I guess you're right

I just know the media isn't Kerry friendly. If this spills into the MSM, they might put a negative spin on this and make him look bad. I don't know. :shrug:

[JI7]

19. the media has always been anti Kerry that isn't anything new

no matter what Kerry does they will make it look bad.

but that's just a bigger problem that we have to deal with. Kerry was pretty good because he won the primary and came close in the general election despite the media being against him.

but we still need to figure out a way to deal with it and get around to it.

[politicasista]

20. I guess I just fear him losing support over this

But I agree that we need to figure out how to deal with this issue.

[JohnKleeb]

22. Yep

I see your point there, but he certainly wont lose support to Hiliary who is doing a big jump to the center, dunno really, depends who runs and hell I dont even know if he will run or not.

[JI7]

24. yeah because his position is the same as most Democrats

but he will lose support whether he came out for or against same sex marriage. that's just how politics is.

[JohnKleeb]

25. Yeah indeed

I know he doesn't harbor any hatred against gay people at all. My solution is to have national civil unions with the same exact rights as marriage and having churches decide whether to marry people or not. Its good that someone of Kerry's generation, pre-boomer has more tolerace overall than many of my classmates in regards to this. God y'all my head was spinnin earlier.

[JI7]

26. that's my position also

i actually don't think Kerry opposes same sex marriage as he has attended many himself.

i do think it's a political move. his voting record and his opposition to putting in place specific bans on same sex marriage shows this also.

[JohnKleeb]

27. Its political yes

I am sure he will come around publically eventually.

[karynnj]

28. He would lose support doing anything else

He took a very strong consistent public stand on this during his campaign - his position hasn't changes one iota here. It's easy to lose sight here that the far left wing is not representative of all Democrats. (In the way too early national polls, Hillary is way ahead - and almost no one here will back her.)

[politicasista]

29. You, JI7, and Kleeb are right.

Kerry can't please everyone. No politician can. I have to remember that the left wing isn't representative of all Dems. Poor Hillary.

[paulk]

52. I don't think he'll lose support

or at least I wouldn't base that feeling on the LBN thread. This is just giving the usual Kerry hate Krew a chance to really take a bite.

Out in the real world most voters will either agree with this, or if they disagree, understand the political expediency of it.

[JohnKleeb]

21. Yeah we do

Agh the stupid bush supporters and homophobes in english were driving me ntus today, fools cant even support civil unions for gay people, ha I hope I dont have to read my satire in front of the class for that class because they are gonna be on my ass when I condemn the hypocrisy of Fundamnetalist Christianity.

[JI7]

23. do they know you are a liberal ?

do they ever give you crap over it ?

i know most of the homophobes are against civil unions. if we can make the focus on civil unions it would expose the biggest anti same sex marriage people as being anti gay rather than about wanting to "save marriage".

[JohnKleeb]

32. Yep they know I am

No Ive never gotten crap but Ive never directly gone after fundamentalism.

[politicasista]

30. I was relating to that "Kerry pissed me off post"

Thankfully, I stayed out of that thread.

[JohnKleeb]

18. I agree with the state chair on this

At least I know Kerry isn't a homophobe like some people I encountered today.

[sandnsea]

31. Fighting for civil unions in Oregon

Right now, in the legislature. It will be a HUGE VICTORY to get this legislation. HUGE. I've ranted to my local Dem rep to get off the fence and commit to this equal rights legislation. And this is on civil unions for chrissake. I'm tired of being called by the gay community here to advocate for civil unions because it's the best we can get, and also being beaten up about it.

Massachusetts polls I've seen are about the same as in Oregon. 50/50 on marriage, much broader support on civil unions. I'd much rather see a wave of civil union legislation across the country than put up the brick wall of insisting on gay marriage.

And Tay Tay, I like the idea of a condemnation of the Iraq war and gradual withdrawal. How about Empower, Emancipate & Exit?

[TayTay]

51. Massachusetts stands right now at

56% FOR Gay Marriage and 38% against with 6% unsure. The Goodwin ruling will stand. By the way, the court that ruled in Goodwin was with 5 appointed Republican judges and 2 Democrats. This was a Republican ruling in Massachusetts. Somehow that got overlooked last fall.

I want the Iraqi resolution to light a fire under Bush's ass to do something in Iraq, because what he is doing now ain't working. We can't stay there indefinetely. We are losing good people, Iraqi civilians are dying the by hundreds every week and no progress is being made. I wish The Idiot King had listened to Kerry, but he isn't. He is an arrogant and willfully ignorant bastard. I know, in my heart, that this won't do any good. But it still expresses a sense of the State that we would like something to be done that points towards an ending.

[Dr Ron]

33. More Kerry bashing

http://www.hrc.org/Template.cfm?Section=Home&CONTENTID=26767&TEMPLATE=/ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm

[politicasista]

38. Doesn't anyone have anything positive to say about Kerry?

I guess I don't remember Gore or other Dems getting this much abuse on this issue.

[politicasista]

36. karynnj posted a good question over in GDP

about why is it that Kerry takes heat over this issue while Hillary, Clark, Dean, and others get free passes? Interesting.

[Dr Ron]

40. Same question could be asked about Iraq n/t

[karynnj]

41. Thanks,

you, Mass, Tay Tay, whome and others have lots of good responses there. Someone I never saw before (Hidden Stillness) has one near the end that is incredible, insightful and wonderful - describing the rising poverty etc, trying to put this issue and all the bashing in perspective.

The Clark guy who answered that I essentially knew nothing about Clark ended up not knowing his position.

I think that what might be going on with Kerry is that some people, impressed by the intense moral clarity and willingness to stand up to power that 1971 Kerry had hold him to that as a standard that he should live up to on a daily basis. Then they determine that because only their positions are moral, Kerry should fight for them. That Kerry could possibly hold genuine believes that disagree from theirs is not allowed or that no one could or should fight equally hard for every issue and that giving in to fight another day might be prudent is not considered.

I think the majority of us here see that Kerry is driven by his moral principles, but he also places value on finding common ground, bipartisan efforts and diplomacy (which assumes everyone gives a little to allow everyone something). The world isn't all black and white, compromise has some value.

[JohnKleeb]

42. Yep good points there

true all.

[elshiva]

53. hmmm. AGAINST GAY MARRIAGE DOES NOT MEAN

AGAINST CIVIL UNIONS. Thought I'd put that in caps becuase I know you people here get it, but so many don't get it. Yes, I'd LOVE GAY MARRIAGE, but understand all this fine points on language and religious meaning. Dean already said something like "We AREN'T the Gay Marriage party, BUT we believe in the civil rights of all..." or something to that effect. Babysteps, Babysteps. I wish it would go faster but I am still much appreciative of Kerry and Edwards both saying that queers should have the same civil rights as heterosexuals.

[wisteria]

54. IMO,the reaction to Kerry's statements seem overdone.

I can't believe the posts on this issue. It seems way over the top. Kerry has been consistent about his views on same sex marriage. Have they not been paying attention. I don't know, this almost is playing out like a set- up. The Louisiana paper comments coinciding with the Globe statements. The question even being asked in Louisiana when he is there to promote Kids First.I don't know maybe I am making to much of this.

[TayTay]

55. This is what we Massholes meant when we complained

about the Boston Glob. They never take John Kerry at his word. They are constantly trying to dig for deeper motivations and trying to catch him on slip-ups of some sort. The Gob is now playing to Liberal-Land in MA and trying to stir up trouble.

Only in Massachusetts could a pol who has a 100% Human Rights Campaign record on civil rights issues for GLBT people get reamed for not supporting gay issues enough. Sigh! There is a very strange and strained relationship between Kerry and the Glob. I have said this before and I'll say it again: I wonder what the hell John Kerry did to piss off the Globbies. I can only think of three things serious enough to get the Globbies eternally pissed at you. One is to steal someone girlfriend, two is to run over someone's dog and three is to show up drunk at a funeral. My money's on one.

[whometense]

56. For the record,

my money's on one, too.

On edit, I'd like to add that with all the wonderful work Kerry's been doing over the past few months, it's truly pathetic that a statement like this is what makes the news. Those "GOTCHA!" assholes at the Globe should hang their heads in shame.

[PresidentObama]

57. My response to the DU thread about this......

"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. "

[TayTay]

58. Thanks!

That was great!

[saracat]

61. Umm. I really loathe Harry Reid. I wouldn't mention his name in the same

breathe as Kerry. Reid is a pusillanimous slime. He voted for the Bankruptcy Bill and didn't even attempt to gather the Dems. He is letting Lieberman and the two Nelsons to run wild in support of the GOP. Reid is vehemently Pro-Life. He is totally in bed with corporate America. He makes me ill. I am desperately ashamed that he is Minority Leader! So yeah. I WILL bash Reid! But I still support Kerry. However this remark was stupid. He could alienate his real support and it won't get him new votes!

[saracat]

59. I do, but I think this was a stupid move on Kery's part.

He should have kept his mouth shut. He has always supported civil unions for gay couples. He should leave it there.This is just trolling for votes in the South and won't help him elsewhere. When are these Dems going to realise that these people are NOT going to vote for us? We keep appeasing the moderates and they DON'T vote for us. This is going to hurt Kerry where he had support and will NOT gain him any new support. I still support him but if he were right beside me, I would slap his face for this.He is playing both sides of the fence and that doesn't work! Are we incapable of learning ANYTHING from experience? Sheesh.

[politicasista]

60. I have been saying that too

I still need some help in understanding this issue. It's another repuke attempt to divide us. :cry:

[karynnj]

62. He was asked the question, he didn't bring it up

He was there for Kids' first and would probably have preferred to talk about that. He simply stated the position that he has (that his daughters both used as an example (in fact the only one I ever heard) of where they disagreed with their dad.) I bet if those two girls haven't persuaded him to change his position, it's probably not going to change.

I don't see how this plays both sides of the fence. He's saying the same thing in MA as in LA. I'm not sure it will hurt him, because I'm not sure what % of Democrats are behind each position. I don't know if Kerry got anyone in the general election who would have NOT voted for him if he were for gay marriage. (The Republicans in some places implied or said that was his position) So, I'm not sure whether being pro-gay marriage will hinder some other candidate.

I for one hope the argument can be moved more over economic and foreign policy issues, so I hope that these social issues take a VERY low profile in the primaries.

[politicasista]

63. It's a Rovian, repuke trap that is intended to divide us period.

Excellent post karyn. :hi:

[karynnj]

64. Thanks, I liked your anti-bashing post outside the oasis

Didn't respond there because others were doing a great job and I had nothing to add. It seems to be dying down now. I think a few of them kind of sit at their terminals and pounce whenever there's a minute deviation from their view of the world. (Sometimes, it's to the point of dishonesty - when someone has thousands of posts and still says Kerry wanted war just like Bush - they are never going to see reality. )

[politicasista]

65. Thanks. It was getting out of hand so the mods locked it.

I was trying to post something reasonable, not start a flamewar.

[TayTay]

66. It won't have any effect in MA

Because this is a local issue. Nationally, Kerry has had a 100% Voting Rights record in support of GLBT issues. 100%. I can't believe how easily people forget that. His position can also be seen as a Church/Sate seperation thing; Churches retain the rights to the name marriage, but the state should retain the right to determine what benefits ensue from the civil arrangement we call marriage. In that regard, Kerry believes that gays and straights should have exactly the same rights and benefits. What's the big beef on this?

Okay, I read that Globe endorsement statement again: "Kerry has inspired, impressed, and sometimes infuriated us..." Sometimes I concur. (Although, I still believe the Glob has it in for him. They have always tried to portray John Kerry as a snobby fake. They have it in for the guy. Trust me.)

From The Boston Phoenix, Jan 2004, On Kerry Press Coverage at home:
The fact is that Kerry is an ambiguous figure on the Massachusetts political landscape. He's long labored in the shadows of the state's senior senator, Ted Kennedy. He is reserved and formal, which is another way of saying that he's aloof. He doesn't stroke reporters, and reporters love nothing better than to be stroked. He has a reputation for being inattentive to the needs of local officials. He is, for better or worse, a big thinker who's always had his eye on national politics.

Such a person is going to get cuffed around. It would be pretty strange if the Globe ignored that.

Kerry is Kerry. Always has been. Always will be. He isn't that into local stuff. As a US Senator, I question exactly how much I want him to be. I am more interested in what he does about John Bolton than about the MA Dems Platform plank on Gay Marriage.

[whometense]

67. Well said!

I feel the same way.

After all, we're a stuck-up, elitist state. We like big thinkers.

[TayTay]

68. We are not clear on our own concepts

that's for sure. I felt a big swelly pride when Sen. Kennedy tried to stop the Bankruptcy Bill and put amendments into it that made it palatable for the average American worker. (That's Teddy. He's my guy. I love him.) I felt big swelly pride in Kerry's campaign and his speeches. And big, big, big pride when he took on Condi in committee and in the Bolton thing. (Hey, that's my guy, I voted for him. Damn, he's good.)

Hey, I made another thread that you might want to read. It is very old news, but funny, in it's way. It's about Massachusetts and the self-image we have of our place in the Union.