John Kerry is For Gay Marriage

[steve]

My prediction is that "1049" will, within a week, become the new buzzword. Anyway, Everything I have read on Kerry suggests he is for gay "marriage" - marriage being the legal rights of the union of two individuals. The only problem is, he's had to be really careful with how he words his opinions because folks are bigoted in this country but a slight majority right now.

Thoughts?

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...iagerightsview

Kerry signals pro-gay marriage rights view
Thu Mar 4, 9:26 PM ET Add Community - Planet Out to My Yahoo!


Patrick Letellier, Gay.com / PlanetOut.com Network

SUMMARY: Sen. John Kerry (news - web sites) said that if elected president he would support granting same-sex couples all the federal rights of marriage, according to a California Democratic politician.



Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry said that if elected president he would support granting same-sex couples all the federal rights offered to married heterosexuals, according to a California Democratic politician who last week questioned Kerry at a San Francisco fund-raiser.


"He told me that he would grant all 1,049 federal rights to same-sex couples in whatever legal union their states recognize," Assemblyman Mark Leno, D-San Francisco, told the Washington Post.


"It's the first time in history that a presidential candidate has ever supported full and equal protection for same-sex couples," Leno said.


Kerry made his comments in a conversation with Leno and Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., at a fund-raiser at the plush Mark Hopkins hotel last Friday, Leno said.


Kerry spokeswoman Stephanie Cutter confirmed that the conversation had taken place, and pointed out that Kerry's statements reflected his ongoing support for providing federal benefits to same-sex couples.


"He has not reviewed the over thousand benefits but stands by his commitment to equality," Cutter said.


Though Kerry has come out against a proposed amendment to the U.S. Constitution banning same-sex marriages, he has stated explicitly that he opposes gay marriage. Like other leading Democrats, Kerry is walking a fine line between supporting the rights of gay couples while showing his support for "traditional" marriage.


But his support for gay couples was called into question last week when he endorsed an amendment to the Massachusetts state Constitution banning same-sex marriages -- as long as it included a provision to honor civil unions for same-sex couples. That stance upset gay activists nationwide.


"Senator Kerry is wrong," said David Noble, president of the National Stonewall Democrats (NSD). "We're disappointed and upset that he would endorse this measure."


Kerry's pledge to grant same-sex couples all the federal rights of marriage without actually allowing them to marry is a step in the right direction, said NSD Communications Director John Marble.


"His position isn't perfect," Marble told the Gay.com/PlanetOut.com Network. "It's not where we want him to be. However, there are few politicians that have a more progressive position."


Mable said that while the GLBT community should not settle for anything less than full marriage equality, it is important to work with politicians where they are, particularly if they are moving toward equality for GLBT people.


"It doesn't mean that we're happy with where they are or that we don't keep pushing them," Marble said. "It means we are patient with the process."


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you'd like to know more, you can find stories related to Kerry signals pro-gay marriage rights view.

[BigBadBrian]

Originally posted by steve
My prediction is that "1049" will, within a week, become the new buzzword. Anyway, Everything I have read on Kerry suggests he is for gay "marriage" - marriage being the legal rights of the union of two individuals. The only problem is, he's had to be really careful with how he words his opinions because folks are bigoted in this country but a slight majority right now.

Thoughts?

Thoughts? Yeah.......you're a moron.

He said in face of TV cameras and the nation just last week that he opposed gay marriages. It would be a Republican dream come true if he now said he supports it.

[John Ashcroft]

Also, you're showing your colors here. And those "elitist" colors are exactly what's sending the politicians in your party packing election after election after election. Do you really think you're amongst the "smart" ones in the minority, and the rest of us are ignorant hicks? Just because someone opposes gay marriage doesn't make them a bigot or even "non-intellectual", and the people in this country certainly don't need you and your type of snob to rescue us from ourselves. This country did pretty damn good for itself without this modern day "enlightened thinking" eminating from the left. It's not the subject, or even discussion of "taboo" subjects that turns me off with you liberals, it's your fucking arrogance.

[BigBadBrian]

Originally posted by John Ashcroft
It's not the subject, or even discussion of "taboo" subjects that turns me off with you liberals, it's your fucking arrogance.

I think you have something there, JA. They know everything and the rest of the damned country doesn't. You hit it on the head.

[steve]

Keep up with the cussing - it makes you look like a class act.

Keep up with the name calling of me and yourself - I'll stay out of it.

I didn't call anyone a "hick", you did. I called no-one a "non-intellectual"; whatever that means - you did.

I'm sorry you are offended that I used the word bigot in referring to those that think gay people are second class citizens - but that's how I feel. Using the word "bigot" isn't name calling - you know that. Bigot has specific meaning in relevance to what we're talking about.

So...I propose ya'll stop with the name calling and actually explain why you think gay people shouldn't get married. If you have reasons, spray 'em. Otherwise, kiss my ugly, skinny, liberal ass.

[steve]

With regards to Kerry, the reason I posted this is not because I think so highly about what he's doing (wiggling his way out of admitting the fact that he thinks gays ought to have the right to marry - because that's what he actually thinks if you read between the lines). In fact, if it were jsut some dude on the street I'd tell him (Kerry) to grow some hair on his balz and admit how he actually feels.

However - is it right for a Kerry supporter to cut the guy some slack as to this issue? Is it justifiable in politics to dodge a wedge issue that is being used to set up an honorable man for failure? Politics being a game, is it right for him to play this way?

I think it's worth it if we can get GW to the unemployment line.


Lastly, I actually think you're right that Republicans are going to use this against him.

[steve]

P.S. - "taboo"?????

What are you talking about?

Name one person that has said gay marriage is a taboo subject. Not me or anyone I've read. Folks are just arguing if it's moral or not.

[Ally_Kat]

marriage is a religious sacrament. They should stop calling it marriage. Civil union would be better. Want to put your butt buddie on your health insurance? Fine, but don't call it marriage.

I still say that this will lead to attacks against any of the denominations after they turn away some couple from having a church wedding.

[EAST COAST]

dreams and prayers, liberals... YOU GOT 4 MORE YEARS OF REALITY COMIN AT YOU... AND I KNOW IT PAINS YOU DEEPLY

[knuckleboner]

not likely, ally. are there attacks on the catholic church for not letting women be priests?

are there attacks for not allowing divorced (non-annulled) people to marry?

are there attacks for not letting two jewish people get married in a church?


the whole problem is that we refer to current "civil unions" between men and women as "marriages." there is no religious aspect to the legal requirements of a "marriage."

civilly, marriage means one thing. and religiously it means another.

if someone can explain to me how the nic cage/lisa marie presley "marriage" was at all religious in nature i'll be impressed. otherwise, it was a civil union by any other name...

[ELVIS]

Originally posted by Ally_Kat
marriage is a religious sacrament. They should stop calling it marriage. Civil union would be better. Want to put your butt buddie on your health insurance? Fine, but don't call it marriage.

What a woman!

Thank you Ally!

[steve]

About arrogance....

EVERYONE THAT HAS OPINIONS IS ARROGANT. Bill O'Reily (whom I agree very little with) is arrogant, just as much as people I agree with (like Diamond Dave). Otherwise, you're a nice little flower pettal with nice little friends and everyone thinks you're just peachy - but they also think you're a tool

I'd LIKE to think I have an ego and am arrogant, but I know I ain't that great. You're arrogant for calling me arrogant.

Did I use "arrogant" enough?

Come on, dude - that's a weak criticism. And so is the whole "send you packing your bags" critique - that's like saying "your ideas are right, but you act like a smartass". Well, if folks are voting against good ideas and for "the nice guy you would have over to your b-b-q but is a numbskull"...well, the country is worse off than I thought.

[ELVIS]

What are you talking about ?? Spit out your spew you arrogant biggot...

[steve]

Originally posted by ELVIS
What a woman!

Thank you Ally!

There you go.
I can agree with that.

Take the word "marriage" out of government domain, as it shares a definition with the religious sacrement. Fine by me.

Just give everyone the same legal protections that are currently granted under legal "marriage". White, blacks, Jews, Asians, Atheists, Christians, gays, and heteros.

And that's what Kerry wants to do. That is what Bush is now "troubled by" and vehomently against. That is why there is a HUGE differenc on this issue between the two.

[Catfish]

Of course he's for it.

The libs would come out against the sun rising every morning if the Bush people spoke in favor of it.

[steve]

Originally posted by knuckleboner
not likely, ally. are there attacks on the catholic church for not letting women be priests?

are there attacks for not allowing divorced (non-annulled) people to marry?

are there attacks for not letting two jewish people get married in a church?


the whole problem is that we refer to current "civil unions" between men and women as "marriages." there is no religious aspect to the legal requirements of a "marriage."

civilly, marriage means one thing. and religiously it means another.

if someone can explain to me how the nic cage/lisa marie presley "marriage" was at all religious in nature i'll be impressed. otherwise, it was a civil union by any other name...

Some good points. However, in most states that have designated "civil unions", there are differences in the legal rights of said partners. For instance, in Vermont - and someone can correct me if I am wrong, Civil Union couples have all the same rights except for a few things like testifying against a spouse in a courrt of law and a few other things.

As long as everyone gets teh same legal protections under the law, you can call the government legal union Latrine for all I care - just gives folks the same rights.

[Ally_Kat]

Originally posted by steve
About arrogance....

EVERYONE THAT HAS OPINIONS IS ARROGANT.

opinions are like assholes - everyone's got one.

so according to that logic, everyone is arrogant.

[ELVIS]

Originally posted by steve
There you go.
I can agree with that.

Take the word "marriage" out of government domain, as it shares a definition with the religious sacrement. Fine by me.

We have been saying that all along... wherer have you been ??

[Ally_Kat]

Originally posted by knuckleboner
not likely, ally. are there attacks on the catholic church for not letting women be priests?

are there attacks for not allowing divorced (non-annulled) people to marry?

are there attacks for not letting two jewish people get married in a church?


the whole problem is that we refer to current "civil unions" between men and women as "marriages." there is no religious aspect to the legal requirements of a "marriage."

civilly, marriage means one thing. and religiously it means another.

if someone can explain to me how the nic cage/lisa marie presley "marriage" was at all religious in nature i'll be impressed. otherwise, it was a civil union by any other name...

There was a lot of talk around here when I was in junior high school that we only had altar boys. A lot of people fought so that girls could be 'altar servers'. I've also heard people, mostly chicks, bitch that women can't be priests in the Catholic Church. So there's talk. All it's going to take is one really outspoken person and a lawyer who thinks he's got a case.

And don't get me wrong, I'm all for treating people with equality and all that stuff, but there are a lot of fem nazies, gay & lesbians, and a whole slew of other minorities (for lack of a better word) that like to make it my business that they are who they are. I know this one gay guy where everything anybody does is holding him and 'his peoples' down. There's another butch chick out there who yells at me daily for some odd reason on how i'm letting penises control me. We already had a fat dude try to sue MickeyD's for making him fat. I'm not going to be surprised if and when I see a case.

And like I've said before knuckie, there's a lot of people who don't take the committment seriously. And personally, it irks me.

[John Ashcroft]

Originally posted by steve
Keep up with the cussing - it makes you look like a class act.

Keep up with the name calling of me and yourself - I'll stay out of it.

I didn't call anyone a "hick", you did. I called no-one a "non-intellectual"; whatever that means - you did.

I'm sorry you are offended that I used the word bigot in referring to those that think gay people are second class citizens - but that's how I feel. Using the word "bigot" isn't name calling - you know that. Bigot has specific meaning in relevance to what we're talking about.

So...I propose ya'll stop with the name calling and actually explain why you think gay people shouldn't get married. If you have reasons, spray 'em. Otherwise, kiss my ugly, skinny, liberal ass.

Fuckity fuck fuck fuck. and add a cunt on top... There, that's better.

If you're turned off by cussing, you're in the wrong place friend. Now, you inferred that a "slim majority" of people in America are bigots. It's name calling, which I'm fine with mind you, but it's also inaccurate. And it's about the only technique your party resorts to when a majority of people don't agree with your position(s). It's very typical, we've been talking about shit like this for the better part of 4 years here now. You're just a little late to the game, so I figured I'd bring you up to speed.

Your party has no ideas to run on other than "George Bush is the AntiChrist" (and how'd that go for Dean?). The liberal ideology has been forced down America's thoat by the Dems lock on both houses of Congress for the 40+ years prior to Clinton's midterm (when Congress changed hands), and planted activists in the judicial system. And it's failed. Americans have realized it's a failed ideology, so they are firing your leaders en masse. So, that leaves character assasination as the only hope for those democrats left in government to keep their jobs. It's never "I can do a better job here by this, this, and that". It's "Republicans are evil, and want to starve old people and children". It's rule #2 in the Democrat playbook. Bill Clinton mastered the technique. Your politicians can't vocalize their true intentions (you know, raise taxes and dessimate the military) in a campaign because they'd surely lose. So, on with plan 2, character assasination. Let me ask you, has Kerry ever said he wanted to enhance America's intelligence gathering capability? Has he voted for military spending increases? When republicans bring up his voting record, all you clowns can do is cry about political attacks. (And you look damn foolish doing so to boot. After all, Senators are public servants and therefore their votes on any legislation at any period of such "service" should occupy the overwhelming MAJORITY of what's debated during a campaign).

I know, I know... That causes electablility problems for the good Senator, so it's on to plan 2, whining about political "attacks". (Phew, that was a close one!)

[steve]

Originally posted by steve
There you go.
I can agree with that.

Take the word "marriage" out of government domain, as it shares a definition with the religious sacrement. Fine by me.

Elvis:
We have been saying that all along... wherer have you been ??


So you're saying you agree with Kerry?

[Ally_Kat]

Originally posted by steve
There you go.
I can agree with that.

Take the word "marriage" out of government domain, as it shares a definition with the religious sacrement. Fine by me.

Just give everyone the same legal protections that are currently granted under legal "marriage". White, blacks, Jews, Asians, Atheists, Christians, gays, and heteros.

And that's what Kerry wants to do. That is what Bush is now "troubled by" and vehomently against. That is why there is a HUGE differenc on this issue between the two.

i never said i agreed with it, but i was just saying how i would approach it. You could get more people to support it if you changed the presentation. It's all about advertizing,

[FORD]

Kerry's been serving up a different plate of waffles every other day on this issue. He should just take a fucking firm stand one way or the other.

And since Junior has a lock on the homophobe vote anyway, there's no incentive for Kerry to NOT support the civil rights of gay & lesbian Americans. Hell, he might even get the Log Cabin Republicans on his side.

And I still think Mary Cheney, Candace Gingrich, and Ron Reagan Jr should be doing some heavy campaigning on this issue.

As for the "arrogance" thing, I'll have to agree that Judas is arrogant in assuming he was "entitled" to the nomination all along. And some of his supporters are even more arrogant than he is (not you Steve - more the Judasnazis over at DU)

But NOTHING, I repeat NOTHING trumps the arrogance of a cabal of criminals, not elected and appointed by a 5-4 margin of the Supreme Court, assuming they have the goddamn "right" to invade any country on earth, any time they want, for any reason, whether true or not, or for no fucking reason at all.

That is textbook arrogance

[knuckleboner]

Originally posted by Ally_Kat
There was a lot of talk around here when I was in junior high school that we only had altar boys. A lot of people fought so that girls could be 'altar servers'. I've also heard people, mostly chicks, bitch that women can't be priests in the Catholic Church. So there's talk. All it's going to take is one really outspoken person and a lawyer who thinks he's got a case.

not too likely. my diocese (arlington, va) is either 1 of 2, or the only diocese in the country that still doesn't allow girl altar servers.

i'm not saying no one will ever sue the catholic church to let women be priests (or in my diocese to let girls be altar servers) but they won't win. there's no legal case. at ABSOULTE MOST is the possiblity that a particular religion could lose its tax-exempt status. and even that's extrodinarially unlikely.

And don't get me wrong, I'm all for treating people with equality and all that stuff

don't worry, i never thought otherwise.

And like I've said before knuckie, there's a lot of people who don't take the committment seriously. And personally, it irks me.

especially when there's kids involved, it sucks. i've got a couple of friends in family law. custody battles are awful.

though, the best story was my buddy who had a client come in asking to help him get a divorce and annullment (legal). he said the marriage was 1 week ago. my friend asked how long they'd known each other. the response was less then 13 days...ugghhhh...

[Ally_Kat]

see, that's why i feel there should be a waiting period for marriage licenses. There's only a 24-hour waiting period here in ny. I know in my church you have to give them a 6 months heads-up and sit down to talk with the priest.

[John Ashcroft]

Originally posted by FORD
Kerry's been serving up a different plate of waffles every other day on this issue. He should just take a fucking firm stand one way or the other.

I agree.

Also originally posted by FORD
But NOTHING, I repeat NOTHING trumps the arrogance of a cabal of criminals, not elected and appointed by a 5-4 margin of the Supreme Court, assuming they have the goddamn "right" to invade any country on earth, any time they want, for any reason, whether true or not, or for no fucking reason at all.

That is textbook arrogance

Still waiting for that recount for Algore... Oh, and it's good to be king.

[BigBadBrian]

Originally posted by FORD


But NOTHING, I repeat NOTHING trumps the arrogance of a cabal of criminals, not elected and appointed by a 5-4 margin of the Supreme Court, assuming they have the goddamn "right" to invade any country on earth, any time they want, for any reason, whether true or not, or for no fucking reason at all.

Kewl, isn't it?

The US doesn't need a permission slip from anyone.