Kerry takes bold stand

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

Democrats' platform shouldn't back gay marriage, Kerry says

By Rick Klein, Globe Staff  |  May 6, 2005

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Kerry said he does not plan to attend this year's state Democratic convention or to lobby against the same-sex marriage plank. He said he has not been closely monitoring debate over the state party platform.

 

The state party chairman, Philip W. Johnston, said Kerry's opposition will not affect the party's decision to support of same-sex marriage. When the party meets next Saturday in Lowell, he said, the platform is on track to be approved as it stands.

 

''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."

 

Kennedy said through a spokeswoman that he backs inclusion of a statement in support of same-sex marriage in the platform. Kennedy is up for reelection next year and has strongly supported same-sex marriage, which has been legal in Massachusetts since May 2004, after a Supreme Judicial Court ruling.

 

Kerry's US Senate seat is up in 2008, and he has also left the door open to a second run for the White House. He wrestled with the same-sex marriage issue through much of his presidential campaign last year, with Republicans making much of the fact that his home state is the only one in the country where same-sex couples can wed.

 

Kerry came out against the Bush-supported federal constitutional amendment that would ban same-sex marriage, saying that individual states should be allowed to settle the issue on their own. But Kerry has also said that he personally opposes it.

 

''I'm opposed to gay marriage," Kerry said yesterday, reiterating past statements. ''I support [domestic] partnerships and civil unions."

 

Party platforms do not bind any candidates to particular policy positions, but they are often cited as guideposts intended to reflect the consensus of party members. The state Democratic Party's platform tends to tilt to the left, a result of the liberal leanings of party activists and convention attendees.

 

After holding more than two-dozen meetings across the state, the state Democratic Party's platform committee recommended having the Massachusetts party endorse same-sex marriage.

 

''We affirm our commitment to the Massachusetts constitutional guarantee to same-sex marriage and all of its rights, privileges, and obligations and reject any attempt to weaken or revoke those rights," the plank reads.

 

The language can be amended by a majority vote of the approximately 3,000 delegates who are slated to convene next weekend at the Paul E. Tsongas Arena in Lowell. Johnston said he does not expect an effort to strip the platform of the same-sex marriage statement.

 

Johnston said he disagrees with Kerry's assessment of the extent of support same-sex marriage enjoys among Massachusetts Democrats. He cited a March Globe poll that found that 71 percent of Democrats believe that same-sex marriage should be allowed.

 

The same poll found 35 percent support for same-sex marriage among Republicans, 53 percent support among independents, and a 56 percent approval rating overall. Johnston said that while he realizes the national view of same-sex marriage is substantially different, Massachusetts Democrats can do well at the polls by contrasting their support for gay marriage with Governor Mitt Romney's opposition.

 

''Most residents of the state view this as a fundamental civil right for gay and lesbian citizens," Johnston said.

 

Marty Rouse, campaign director for MassEquality, which supports same-sex marriage, expressed disappointment in Kerry's position and said the senator is out of step with the majority in his own state.

 

''We wish his views better reflected the values of fairness and equality that the people of Massachusetts and the Massachusetts Democratic Party stand for," Rouse said. ''Both in our personal experience and in our recent polling, we know that Massachusetts voters are very comfortable with marriage equality."

 

Under a deal brokered in part by Democratic leadership in the Senate, the Legislature voted last year to replace same-sex marriage with civil unions. That measure, however, must be approved again by the Legislature and then in a statewide vote next year before it can take effect.

 

Fuck Kerry.

 

In the book Spanking the Donkey, the author Matt Taibbi talks about how whenever he went to a Kerry campaign event during the primaries he always followed him around in a gorilla suit. A Kerry staffer asked him what it was all about.

 

"When your candidate stops being full of shit," he replied, "I'll stop wearing the gorilla suit."

[Special K 0]

It's cynical and calculating, but when the country at large violently opposes gay marriage, it's political death to tie your party to the issue. All things in their time.

[The Czech Republic 0]

I have no problem with civil unions and domestic partnerships and all that, I worry about people forcing churches to allow gay marriage ceremonies against their will. Let it be up to the churches as to who can get married. If some want to allow gay marriage (Unitarians, Congregationalists) then let them; if some don't (Baptists, Catholics) then they don't have to.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

I have no problem with civil unions and domestic partnerships and all that, I worry about people forcing churches to allow gay marriage ceremonies against their will. Let it be up to the churches as to who can get married. If some want to allow gay marriage (Unitarians, Congregationalists) then let them; if some don't (Baptists, Catholics) then they don't have to.

Works for me.

[The Czech Republic 0]

I have no problem with civil unions and domestic partnerships and all that, I worry about people forcing churches to allow gay marriage ceremonies against their will. Let it be up to the churches as to who can get married. If some want to allow gay marriage (Unitarians, Congregationalists) then let them; if some don't (Baptists, Catholics) then they don't have to.

Works for me.

It always seemed to be the most logical compromise to me. I mean, it's not as if churches ban couples from marriage ceremonies at their church only for the reason that the two people are of the same sex. My mother made her Catholic church very upset for marrying a Presbyterian.

[SuperJerk 0]

I have no problem with civil unions and domestic partnerships and all that, I worry about people forcing churches to allow gay marriage ceremonies against their will. Let it be up to the churches as to who can get married. If some want to allow gay marriage (Unitarians, Congregationalists) then let them; if some don't (Baptists, Catholics) then they don't have to.

Even if gay marriage was legal, no one could ever force churches to perform a ceremony that goes against its teachings. They are protected by the First Amendment.

 

However, I'll agree with you that the civil uion compromise is the most viable solution to this. Gay couples in civil unions would have the same legal rights as heterosexual couples, which is all they really wanted all along anyways.

[Guest CronoT]

Gay Marriage is the Civil Rights Movement Part II.

 

The progressive people in politics are pushing for it, and the conservatives are trying with all their might to kill it and bury it in the backyard.

[The Czech Republic 0]

Even if gay marriage was legal, no one could ever force churches to perform a ceremony that goes against its teachings. They are protected by the First Amendment.

Right, but I just worry about the potential shitstorm the ACLU would make anyway. I have no problem with gay couples having the same rights as striaght couples, I have a problem with a church being forced to do something they don't want to do.

[The Czech Republic 0]

Gay Marriage is the Civil Rights Movement Part II.

 

The progressive people in politics are pushing for it, and the conservatives are trying with all their might to kill it and bury it in the backyard.

No it isn't. Not even close.

 

I don't see gays being forced to use their own water fountain, or striking fear into the hearts of neighbors worried about their property value plummeting, or being denied service at restaurants.

 

This is just a little quirk compared to what black people had to go through.

[SuperJerk 0]

Gay Marriage is the Civil Rights Movement Part II.

 

The progressive people in politics are pushing for it, and the conservatives are trying with all their might to kill it and bury it in the backyard.

Gay rights = Civil Rights II.

 

Gay marriage is sideshow that, unfortunately, distracts from more important issues.

 

I think most people would support civil unions (which would be legally equal to marriage), but we're caught up in a semantic game over the word "marriage".

 

If it were up to me, gay marriage would be legal tomorrow, but it isn't up to me. So long as gay rights activits insist that they must have gay marriage instead of gay civil unions, society is going to be much slower to accept it. If not using ONE WORD gets gays their equal rights faster, then so be it. Civil unions are 100% as good legally as gay marriage, but you don't have nearly as many townspeople chasing you with pitch forks.

[Guest CronoT]

Gay Marriage is the Civil Rights Movement Part II.

 

The progressive people in politics are pushing for it, and the conservatives are trying with all their might to kill it and bury it in the backyard.

No it isn't. Not even close.

 

I don't see gays being forced to use their own water fountain, or striking fear into the hearts of neighbors worried about their property value plummeting, or being denied service at restaurants.

 

This is just a little quirk compared to what black people had to go through.

Actually, aside from your first example, gays and lesbians often face those situations when being open about their sexuality in public.

 

Do you think a neighborhood of straight-laced conseratively minded people are going to just sit back when a gay or lesbian couple moves into their neighborhood? I seriously doubt it.

 

I was also going to say something about being in a Denny's, but unless you're white and/or smoking pot, then they generally treat everyone like shit.

[The Czech Republic 0]

Do you think a neighborhood of straight-laced conseratively minded people are going to just sit back when a gay or lesbian couple moves into their neighborhood? I seriously doubt it.

Gentrification?

[Guest CronoT]

Do you think a neighborhood of straight-laced conseratively minded people are going to just sit back when a gay or lesbian couple moves into their neighborhood? I seriously doubt it.

Gentrification?

Call it whatever you want. The end result is the same.

[The Czech Republic 0]

Do you think a neighborhood of straight-laced conseratively minded people are going to just sit back when a gay or lesbian couple moves into their neighborhood? I seriously doubt it.

Gentrification?

Call it whatever you want. The end result is the same.

I'm calling it "gays moving into neighborhoods and significantly raising property values due to more disposable income which they invest into their property rather than a family"

[MrRant 0]

Where is Loss to come in here and compare it to beating black people in slavery?

[SuperJerk 0]

I have reason to suspect that reports of the higher average affluence of the homosexual has been somewhat exaggerated.

 

I don't think its that gays earn more money, but gays who are open about it are more likely to earn more money.

[The Czech Republic 0]

I have reason to suspect that reports of the higher average affluence of the homosexual has been somewhat exaggerated.

 

I don't think its that gays earn more money, but gays who are open about it are more likely to earn more money.

I have no reason to flee my neighborhood if a gay couple moves in down the street. On the contrary, my family is actually trying to move because there's too much white trash in the community.

[SuperJerk 0]

I have reason to suspect that reports of the higher average affluence of the homosexual has been somewhat exaggerated.

 

I don't think its that gays earn more money, but gays who are open about it are more likely to earn more money.

I have no reason to flee my neighborhood if a gay couple moves in down the street. On the contrary, my family is actually trying to move because there's too much white trash in the community.

Homophobia, like racism, isn't rational You may be able to realize that having them there is a good thing, but I don't think most people are capable of coming to a similar conclusion on their own.

 

 

Your story reminds me of how my dad used to bitch that Mexicans were moving into his neighborhood, until I reminded him that they were doing a better job fixing up their houses than the previous white homeowners.

[The Czech Republic 0]

Your story reminds me of how my dad used to bitch that Mexicans were moving into his neighborhood, until I reminded him that they were doing a better job fixing up their houses than the previous white homeowners.

Ha

 

In my family's case, it's just wanting my sister in a better high school than the one I had to go through. Too many rednecks and stuff around.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

I didn't realize the DNC was in danger of supporting gay marriage. Seemed to me they've avoided it mostly, thus far.

 

I think this is just another one of those "Vote For Us!" shoutouts to the mainstream that Kerry keeps trying to make lately, as though anyone remembers him at this point beyond "The guy who couldn't beat a candidate who was beating himself."

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Right, but I just worry about the potential shitstorm the ACLU would make anyway. I have no problem with gay couples having the same rights as striaght couples, I have a problem with a church being forced to do something they don't want to do.

That would never happen. First of all, seperation of church and state.

 

Second of all there are too many donors, backers, and interests who would organize a campaign to have the seperation arguement tossed into the ACLU's face. That's because every few months the ACLU makes seperation an issue in some case that becomes easy red meat.

[The Czech Republic 0]

Then in that case, let's go through with it.

[Guest Vitamin X]

I think this is just another one of those "Vote For Us!" shoutouts to the mainstream that Kerry keeps trying to make lately, as though anyone remembers him at this point beyond "The guy who couldn't beat a candidate who was beating himself."

[MikeSC]Kerry was a joke of an opponent who contradicted himself and made himself look like a complete dolt at every opportunity. Bush had an easy victory over him, and I told you guys it would happen all along, and look at the state the Democratic Party is in, DEAD. File this under tough shit.

 

-=Mike

..ironic Kerry would take a stand on anything, let alone on those who are indecisive.. [/MikeSC]

 

Come on. Someone needed to respond to that last sentence. That's the lone bit of good he did around here, anyways..

[The Czech Republic 0]

That's the lone bit of good he did around here, anyways..

sigh

[SuperJerk 0]

I think this is just another one of those "Vote For Us!" shoutouts to the mainstream that Kerry keeps trying to make lately, as though anyone remembers him at this point beyond "The guy who couldn't beat a candidate who was beating himself."

[MikeSC]Kerry was a joke of an opponent who contradicted himself and made himself look like a complete dolt at every opportunity. Bush had an easy victory over him, and I told you guys it would happen all along, and look at the state the Democratic Party is in, DEAD. File this under tough shit.

 

-=Mike

..ironic Kerry would take a stand on anything, let alone on those who are indecisive.. [/MikeSC]

 

Come on. Someone needed to respond to that last sentence. That's the lone bit of good he did around here, anyways..

I wouldn't consider making generalizations that broad to be a public service.

 

I'm not happy with Kerry either, but writing him off has proven to be a mistake for more than person over the years. To do so in such a sweeping manor simply over-simplifies the complexities of the campaign.

 

Now, if you really want to go all Mike-mode on us, you can reply that I'm an idiot for thinking that a Party that has endured for over 200 years can't bounce back from 2 narrow losses.

[Kahran Ramsus 0]

If it were up to me, gay marriage would be legal tomorrow, but it isn't up to me. So long as gay rights activits insist that they must have gay marriage instead of gay civil unions, society is going to be much slower to accept it. If not using ONE WORD gets gays their equal rights faster, then so be it. Civil unions are 100% as good legally as gay marriage, but you don't have nearly as many townspeople chasing you with pitch forks.

 

I understand the desire for gay marriage, I just don't think that many supporters of it are thinking things through or just aren't patient enough. It would be far easier to get Civil Unions legalized, and then make the jump to complete marriage in a few years when people have gotten used to it than it would be to force the issue right now. Instead of negotiating, they are just demanding marriage, and when you come out and demand everything right away like that there will be a big backlash against it, like you are getting in the US right now. If they compromise now, they are more likely to get what they really want in the long run. Nobody has the patience for anything anymore.

[Stephen Joseph 0]

Gay couples do make more money than straight couples, as backed up by 2000 data

[The Czech Republic 0]

If it were up to me, gay marriage would be legal tomorrow, but it isn't up to me. So long as gay rights activits insist that they must have gay marriage instead of gay civil unions, society is going to be much slower to accept it. If not using ONE WORD gets gays their equal rights faster, then so be it. Civil unions are 100% as good legally as gay marriage, but you don't have nearly as many townspeople chasing you with pitch forks.

 

I understand the desire for gay marriage, I just don't think that many supporters of it are thinking things through or just aren't patient enough. It would be far easier to get Civil Unions legalized, and then make the jump to complete marriage in a few years when people have gotten used to it than it would be to force the issue right now. Instead of negotiating, they are just demanding marriage, and when you come out and demand everything right away like that there will be a big backlash against it, like you are getting in the US right now. If they compromise now, they are more likely to get what they really want in the long run. Nobody has the patience for anything anymore.

What's the difference between civil union and gay marriage anyway? Like I said, everyone should get their civil marriage license, and then do or not do the church thing.

[Guest Thrashist]

I've often advocated a compromise between both sides by saying we should legalize civil unions and not gay marriage, but I've realized over time that isn't even the point. The bottom line is more of a symbolic one--all of this legislation amounts to gays being seen as less than normal and less than legitimate by society, and they want gay relationships to have the very same abilities as straight relationships to significantly lessen that perception. Of course, there are actual differences. I forget all of them, but I know there's something about how civil unions aren't recognized from state-to-state, and more importantly, they don't get the same tax breaks and benefits that hetero couples get.

 

So I've realized that if you're going to take a stance, just go through it for gay marriage. Now I really detest when people say the struggle of gays today is even close to being on the same level of the civil rights struggle of blacks, but for argument's sake, gays settling for civil unions is like blacks settling for desegregation in movie theaters, stores, and restaurants. There's a greater point to be had.

 

But anyway, I hate this issue because not only did it take center stage in that sham of an election in November, but there are so many more complex issues we have to face. Gay marriage is pretty clear cut once you think about it, there shouldn't be much of a debate/focus on it.

[MrRant 0]

Gay couples do make more money than straight couples, as backed up by 2000 data

That's because there are two men involved.