[NYCFarmboy]

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/ar..._gay_marriage/

TOLEDO, Ohio -- Presidential candidate John F. Kerry said yesterday that he supports amending the Massachusetts Constitution to ban gay marriage and provide for civil unions for gay couples.


****
Interesting that both Bush and Kerry support gay civil unions but are opposed to gay marriage.

And that is is ok for Kerry to be opposed to gay marriage and support amending the Massachusetts Constitution to ban gay marriage...but still allow for civil unions. That position is not much different from President Bush in my opinion. The hypocracy is breathtaking.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by NYCFarmboy:
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/ar..._gay_marriage/

TOLEDO, Ohio -- Presidential candidate John F. Kerry said yesterday that he supports amending the Massachusetts Constitution to ban gay marriage and provide for civil unions for gay couples.


****
Interesting that both Bush and Kerry support gay civil unions but are opposed to gay marriage.

And that is is ok for Kerry to be opposed to gay marriage and support amending the Massachusetts Constitution to ban gay marriage...but still allow for civil unions. That position is not much different from President Bush in my opinion. The hypocracy is breathtaking.

It's not OK for Kerry to take that position. He should be ashamed of himself. He's trying to be all things to all people and it is pathetic.

However, Bush is pushing to take away from a minority a birthright of all Americans. It's not the right to be married itself, no state has extended that. What he is trying to take away is the right of a minority to at least argue their case. That appalls me, and I'm furious about it. I'd like to vote for a candidate with the balls to stand up clearly against it and who has a chance of making the message heard. But I'll vote for Kerry strategically, if not enthuisiastically, if that is what it takes.

[Nonsuch]

I dunno, isn't this bad news for Bush? How is he going to tar his opponent as a gay-lovin' Northeast liberal when Kerry's views on the subject aren't that different from his own?

The more I look at this contretemps, the more I think it's a loser for Bush. He's solidifying the support of people who pretty much were going to vote for him anyway, making people who might otherwise be sympathetic to his viewpoint very uneasy about his motives, and completely alienating others (Andrew Sullivan and our own Simey are just a few that come to mind). All for what? To distract people from how many jobs his administration has lost? It's not gonna work.

(BTW, I don't suppose we're going to hear the phrase "compassionate conservative" much from Bush this campaign season.)

[NYCFarmboy]

Originally posted by Nonsuch:
I dunno, isn't this bad news for Bush? How is he going to tar his opponent as a gay-lovin' Northeast liberal when Kerry's views on the subject aren't that different from his own?

The more I look at this contretemps, the more I think it's a loser for Bush. He's solidifying the support of people who pretty much were going to vote for him anyway, making people who might otherwise be sympathetic to his viewpoint very uneasy about his motives, and completely alienating others (Andrew Sullivan and our own Simey are just a few that come to mind). All for what? To distract people from how many jobs his administration has lost? It's not gonna work.

(BTW, I don't suppose we're going to hear the phrase "compassionate conservative" much from Bush this campaign season.)

This helps Bush....Kerry just lost his chance in my opinion.

This makes Bush appear moderate....how can he not? His position on gay marriage is the exact same as Kerrys!

Kerry had a real profile in courage moment here.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by NYCFarmboy:
This helps Bush....Kerry just lost his chance in my opinion.

This makes Bush appear moderate....how can he not? His position on gay marriage is the exact same as Kerrys!

Kerry had a real profile in courage moment here.

I don't think either candidate is doing the right thing by the issue, but at least Kerry's weaseling would allow for the possibility later of individual states changing their minds, or of the SCOTUS overuling individual state decisions and allowing civil unions or whatever.

I, for one, will be the happiest when politicians get away from so-called "family values" and start balancing budgets or spending less.

[chris v]

We do have a few other things we need to be talking about as a nation, anyway. I still posit that this is a giant diversionary tactic, and we're all falling for it. I don't suppose that Bush has any real, genuine hope that he can get an amendment ratified-- he just held up a bright, shiny object, and we were all transfixed.


OOOh, shiny.....

CV

[nonhuman]

Why the hell did Dean have to drop out of the race before I even got a chance to vote for him in the primaries?

[dreilly1]

Kerry's position is much different than Bush's. Bush wants to deny the legal benefits of marriage to same-sex couples. (edit: no, he doesn't, kinda sorta. See my next post.) Kerry, if I understand correctly, wants to extend those legal benefits, he just doesn't want to call it marriage.

Remember that the Massachusetts Supreme Court came out against the concept of a civil union only because it was a poor substitute for marriage, and thus was not treating prople equally as the state constitution required. This amendment would codify the concept of a civil union into the state constitution, and make it equal to conventional marriage in all but name. (Note that this amendment would need to be carefully worded so that nobody can find a loophole to make a civil union less than a marriage.

While this isn't exactly what the gay marriage advocates are looking for, it would still answer most of their concerns, the only ones remaining would be purely over semantics. Not being gay myself, I don't really know how important those semantic distinctions are.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by NYCFarmboy:
This helps Bush....Kerry just lost his chance in my opinion.

This makes Bush appear moderate....how can he not? His position on gay marriage is the exact same as Kerrys!

Kerry had a real profile in courage moment here.

No, they aren't exactly the same. Bush wants to amend the federal Constitution. That's far more radical even than amending a state constitution. State constitutions are far easier to change back. You also have the option of moving states and still remain in the United States. That's one of the rationales for federalism. But if the federal Constitution is amended, what are you supposed to do, emigrate?

Secondly, state constitutions are also still subordinate to the Federal Constitution, so there is a limit to how far you can go there. A few years ago, Colorado passed Amendment 2, which tried to deny gays and lesbians any government recognition and any right to campaign for equal treatment in Colorado. The Supreme Court of the United States struck that constitutional amendment down as inconsistent with the Federal Constitution. They said you can't single classes of people out for special hardship just because of malice. That holding is still binding.

Thirdly, emotionally, the federal Constitution is our common birthright. Most people don't have the same visceral attachment to their state constitutions. An amendment in a state constitution isn't a statement for the ages about who we are in quite the same way as one in the federal Constitution.

I agree that Kerry's position is cowardly. But it is distinctly less threatening and less radical than Bush's.

Edit: I didn't see that Lerk said the same thing with a lot fewer words!

[zigzag]

The Dems are being weasels. I think it would serve them better - even with fence-sitters - to take the offensive and paint Bush as intolerant and unAmerican. Show some spine and conviction. Put Bush on the defensive.

As others have said, it's a great attention-diverter for Bush, from the economy and Iraq. Politics.

[vmarks]

Originally posted by nonhuman:


Why the hell did Dean have to drop out of the race before I even got a chance to vote for him in the primaries?

Yeah, but would you really have wanted the guy who wanted to implement a national ID card out of the Driver's License, and tag and track every American?

Why, why, it sounds almost like something Pointdexter would love!

Dean said the resistance was from the private sector and cost to implement. I reject that-
The resistance is, we are free and do not need to be tracked. Tracking us will not increase security, but instead lend a false sense of security as fake chip-bearing cards appear on the market. The only way to ensure information is private is to not collect it in the first place -- certainly not centralize it and claim that it's private because we exercise more control over it.

If any older computer can be adapted to read it, then any older computer can be adapted to create the card, thus rendering the utility of all cards null and suspect.

Howard Dean said on March 27, 2002 in Pittsburgh PA

It is time to take a serious look at hardware and smart-card based
solutions.

I believe that the states -- and therefore you -- will lead the way in
the discovery and implementation of greater digital security. Some of
you have already begun this process.

States can move faster than the federal government to ensure that
employees accessing the state�s network are indeed who they say they
are and that they are doing legitimate business.

But it would be shortsighted to imagine that your work is limited to
solving these problems only for state employees.

State Chief Information Officers, and each of you here today, have
tremendous power to forge a solution that will set the standards for
securing devices for all of us, not just those accessing state
resources.

We must develop flexible solutions that will likely require the use of Smart
Cards and some form of hardened security in a reader or desktop device.

For example, one state�s Smart Card driver�s license must be
identifiable by another state�s card reader. It must also be easily
commercialized by the private sector and included in all PCs over time
-- making the Internet safer and more secure.

In an age where identity and trust are paramount, the fact remains
that the only viable form of universal identity in the U.S. today is
the state-issued driver�s license. Think about it: When you entered
the airport or the train station to travel to this conference, how
many times did you use your driver�s license to prove your identity?
Remember -- this is the same driver�s license that teenagers alter in
order to get into a club or buy cigarettes. Terrorists do it all the
time. They did it on September Eleventh.

As you know, states have made great strides in developing drivers
licenses that are difficult to counterfeit --- even by ingenious
teenagers. But the question remains --- how does an airline agent at
the Pittsburgh airport know what an Alaska or Florida license is
supposed to look like, let alone identify a counterfeit?

It is clear that the state issued driver�s license is the current
identification standard. It is also clear that this is certainly an
inadequate way to go through this uncertain world.

Many in private and public life have called for a national
identification card. In spite of Larry Ellison�s offer to provide the
necessary software for free --- this has raised a public outcry
concerning privacy and sharing too much private information with the
government.

We can�t let this become our briar patch. I�m from Vermont and believe
me, government is kept at a respectful but very conscious distance.
Reality demands that we understand ---First --- that the rise of
empowered individuals whose single mission is to destroy Americans
means that we have to fight them at an INDIVIDUAL level and second ---
that we have already ceded our private information to faceless credit
card companies and direct marketers who then sell it for a profit.
Now --- I believe that our nation has the technological capacity to
protect both our privacy and our way of life.

And I am convinced that these complex solutions rest in a successful
partnership between private enterprise and government --- led by state
governments. As we stand here today, please accept the vital
challenge I offer each of you.

The solutions you create to protect your state�s networks must be
implemented in a complimentary manner, allowing interaction between
every state of the Union.

We must tighten driver�s license standards among the
states. Fortunately, this work has already begun, led by the American
Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators� Task Force on ID
Security.

Beyond that, we must move to smarter license cards that carry secure
digital information that can be universally read at vital checkpoints.
And we must include new security features to provide ever-greater
protection against counterfeiting.

Issuing such a card would have little effect on the privacy of
Americans. I understand that you will be discussing privacy issues at
a later workshop in this important conference --- but let�s take a
moment to look at privacy in America today.

In many ways, privacy is the new urban myth.

Your credit card company knows every flight you�ve taken; they know
your rental car, your hotel, the movies you watched, and where you had
breakfast. Credit card companies have a stake in knowing everything
about you because it�s a marketer�s dream.

The information for sale regarding your private life is detailed --
and lucrative. When it comes to the Internet, every web page you have
ever visited, every e-mail you have ever sent, every word you have
ever typed, is stored somewhere and can be accessed by someone with
the right skills. And as you well know, it�s not just the Good Guys
who possess these skills.

What�s the fastest growing crime in the U.S.? Identity theft ---
stealing individuals� identities --- not just their credit card
numbers but their very existence. So, is the answer to create an
Orwellian Ministry of Information? No. It�s about creating safe
passage through a free but threatened life.

We will not, and should not, tolerate a call to erode privacy even
further --- far from it. Americans can only be assured that their
personal identity and information are safe and protected when they are
able to gain more control over this information and its use.

Again, this points to Smart Card adoption and development of card
readers that limit information access but also confirm it --- when
appropriate.

The same Smart Card that confirms that a person is a registered voter
can also be used to validate age in a liquor store.

The Smart Card owner may decide to put her medical information into
the card database, which can be accessed by an Emergency Medical
Technician with a universal authorization code. That EMT can learn the
blood type and complete medical history of an unconscious accident
victim.

The beauty of the Smart Card is that the liquor store doesn�t know
anything but age, and the hotel doesn�t know about non-hotel
purchases, and the state knows nothing about any of it.

On the Internet, this card will confirm all the information required
to gain access to a state network -- while also barring anyone who
isn�t legal age from entering an adult chat room, making the internet
safer for our children, or prevent adults from entering a children�s
chat room and preying on our kids.

A Smart Card reader at the airport, adapted to a universal standard
perhaps designed by those in this very room, could match the ticket
and the baggage with the card presenter.

Recently, Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois and Rep. Jim Moran of Virginia
introduced legislation to provide funding to states to increase the
security features of driver�s licenses. The Moran Bill provides
additional and specific funding to states to develop Smart Card
capabilities.

I strongly support these efforts and urge you to do the same.

The European Union is ahead of us because they adopted Smart Card
technology long ago. The EU has ambitious plans to deploy Smart Cards
and Smart Card readers throughout the continent -- and to securely
deliver electronic government services, electronic banking, and
electronic commerce. Hong Kong is using Smart Card technology with
biometrics at security check points.

My view is that the technology is here but that Americans are reluctant to
adopt it. It�s time to overcome our fears

The American resistance to the Smart Card also came from the private
sector, which was initially the only card issuer. It costs $15 to
produce a chip-bearing card versus 80 cents to issue a card without
the security chip. Costs have now gone down dramatically.

Many new computer systems are being created with card reader
technology. Older computers can add this feature for very little money.

[dreilly1]

I actually want back to Bush's remarks , and I stand corrected:

Today I call upon the Congress to promptly pass, and to send to the states for ratification, an amendment to our Constitution defining and protecting marriage as a union of man and woman as husband and wife. The amendment should fully protect marriage, while leaving the state legislatures free to make their own choices in defining legal arrangements other than marriage.

So he is leaving the door open for civil unions, but he is also leaving the door open for making them have less rights than marriage. Which I still think makes his position different than Kerry's.

[chris v]

Originally posted by vmarks:
Yeah, but would you really have wanted the guy who wanted to implement a national ID card out of the Driver's License, and tag and track every American?

Why, why, it sounds almost like something Pointdexter would love!

Dean said the resistance was from the private sector and cost to implement. I reject that-
The resistance is, we are free and do not need to be tracked. Tracking us will not increase security, but instead lend a false sense of security as fake chip-bearing cards appear on the market. The only way to ensure information is private is to not collect it in the first place -- certainly not centralize it and claim that it's private because we exercise more control over it.

If any older computer can be adapted to read it, then any older computer can be adapted to create the card, thus rendering the utility of all cards null and suspect.

That gave me serious pause, and I only learned about it after I had come out in support for Dean. Kucinich will get my vote in the primaries now that Dean's out, and he probably would have anyway, after having read that.

CV

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Edit: I didn't see that Lerk said the same thing with a lot fewer words!

Comes from having to fit text into tiny graphics.

[Nonsuch]

Originally posted by NYCFarmboy:
This helps Bush....Kerry just lost his chance in my opinion.

This makes Bush appear moderate....how can he not? His position on gay marriage is the exact same as Kerrys!

Amending the Constitution is never a "moderate" act.

[nonhuman]

Originally posted by vmarks:
Yeah, but would you really have wanted the guy who wanted to implement a national ID card out of the Driver's License, and tag and track every American?

Why, why, it sounds almost like something Pointdexter would love!

Dean said the resistance was from the private sector and cost to implement. I reject that-
The resistance is, we are free and do not need to be tracked. Tracking us will not increase security, but instead lend a false sense of security as fake chip-bearing cards appear on the market. The only way to ensure information is private is to not collect it in the first place -- certainly not centralize it and claim that it's private because we exercise more control over it.

If any older computer can be adapted to read it, then any older computer can be adapted to create the card, thus rendering the utility of all cards null and suspect.

True, but I'm fairly sure that he would have backed down on that when it became obvious that it was a very unpopular idea.

But even if he didn't, he was the only Democratic candidate that I liked. Even more, he was the only Democratic candidate that I didn't dislike. He was pretty much the only way the Democratic party was going to get my vote in the 2004 election and probably ever. At the moment the only candidate I'd feel good about supporting is Nolan, whom I'd love to support and probably will, but it would be nice to see Bush out of office. The democrats will just have to do it without me (not that I have any illusions about mine being the decided vote in California, by any means...).

[IceBreaker]

First time poster here...(on a Compac Presario 2100 at home but use a Mac at work..I know..I know....but thats not my topic today.....have read the forums and never commented before...

Why is no one commenting on Rosie's marriage and how Kerry is opposed to it?


Why is it ok for Kerry to be anti-gay marriage and not Bush?
To support Kerry and be for human rights is a condradiction in terms....outrageous that anyone gay could defend Kerry.

[Nonsuch]

Originally posted by IceBreaker:
Why is it ok for Kerry to be anti-gay marriage and not Bush?
To support Kerry and be for human rights is a condradiction in terms....outrageous that anyone gay could defend Kerry.

Read closely; no one is saying Kerry walks with the angels on this issue. But there is a vast tract of difference between saying you disapprove of the idea of same-sex marriage, as Kerry does, and endorsing a constitutional amendment to make your own prejudices the permanent law of the land.

[Captain Obvious]

Originally posted by IceBreaker:

Why is no one commenting on Rosie's marriage and how Kerry is opposed to it?

Because she is close enough to being a man that it doesn't count as a gay marriage.

[IceBreaker]

so it is ok to endorse a state constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage?

[nonhuman]

Originally posted by IceBreaker:
so it is ok to endorse a state constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage?

Well no, but it's better. State constitutions cannot violate the US Constitution. So if a state amends it's constitution to ban gay marriages, the SCOTUS will still have ultimate authority to tell them no. The problem with an amendment to the US Constitution is that the SC can't do anything about it, in fact their prerogatives will be changed by it.

[IceBreaker]

Originally posted by nonhuman:
Well no, but it's better. State constitutions cannot violate the US Constitution. So if a state amends it's constitution to ban gay marriages, the SCOTUS will still have ultimate authority to tell them no. The problem with an amendment to the US Constitution is that the SC can't do anything about it, in fact their prerogatives will be changed by it.

Its BETTER????

To have Kerry ban marriage on a state by state level to elect him president so he can have the supreme court overrule his wishs on the state constitutional amendment?

Are you kidding me? Don't you see how Kerry really doesn't care about this issue or anything and will only say what is popular at any given moment?

Howard Dean is still on the ballot in the upcoming primaries.. I think a protest vote against Kerry's anti-gay marriage stance would send a message.

Unless you don't mind your "separate but equal" accomdation in the back of the bus.

[NYCFarmboy]

Originally posted by nonhuman:
Well no, but it's better. State constitutions cannot violate the US Constitution. So if a state amends it's constitution to ban gay marriages, the SCOTUS will still have ultimate authority to tell them no. The problem with an amendment to the US Constitution is that the SC can't do anything about it, in fact their prerogatives will be changed by it.

Is is ok to propose a state constitutional amendment to segregate schools according to skin color...

Just to hope for the best on the Supreme Court?

[NYCFarmboy]

Originally posted by IceBreaker:
Its BETTER????

To have Kerry ban marriage on a state by state level to elect him president so he can have the supreme court overrule his wishs on the state constitutional amendment?

Are you kidding me? Don't you see how Kerry really doesn't care about this issue or anything and will only say what is popular at any given moment?

Howard Dean is still on the ballot in the upcoming primaries.. I think a protest vote against Kerry's anti-gay marriage stance would send a message.

Unless you don't mind your "separate but equal" accomdation in the back of the bus.

Or vote for Ralph Nader.

[IceBreaker]

Originally posted by NYCFarmboy:
Or vote for Ralph Nader.

I'll pass.

Would only consider voting for Nader if his standing in the polls went above 20%. Not going to waste my vote on him. If it comes to that I'll just stay home. The Democratic Party deserves 4 more years of Bush if we are going to allow a nominee opposed to gay marriage be the Democratic nominee.

[nonhuman]

Originally posted by IceBreaker:
Its BETTER????

To have Kerry ban marriage on a state by state level to elect him president so he can have the supreme court overrule his wishs on the state constitutional amendment?

Are you kidding me? Don't you see how Kerry really doesn't care about this issue or anything and will only say what is popular at any given moment?

Howard Dean is still on the ballot in the upcoming primaries.. I think a protest vote against Kerry's anti-gay marriage stance would send a message.

Unless you don't mind your "separate but equal" accomdation in the back of the bus.

Yes, its better. That doesn't mean it's good. A state-level amendment is still damaging, but not as damaging as a federal-level one. So in that sense, it's better.

[nonhuman]

Originally posted by NYCFarmboy:
Is is ok to propose a state constitutional amendment to segregate schools according to skin color...

Just to hope for the best on the Supreme Court?

No, it's not ok. Read my post right before this one.

[Millennium]

I have to wonder: is Kerry's position really cowardly? Or is he being honest about what he believes? It seems to me as though people are trying to put words in his mouth, and thoughts in his head. Do we really know his motives?

[IceBreaker]

Originally posted by Millennium:
I have to wonder: is Kerry's position really cowardly? Or is he being honest about what he believes? It seems to me as though people are trying to put words in his mouth, and thoughts in his head. Do we really know his motives?

I'd like to know as well.. why is he opposed to gay marriage? and why does he support a amendment to the Mass. Constitution to ban gay marriage?

[scottiB]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
It's not OK for Kerry to take that position. He should be ashamed of himself. He's trying to be all things to all people and it is pathetic.

It truly is. The position both Bush and Kerry are positing really angers me.

:off to fume:

[Lerkfish]

I think nearly everyone who is upset about Bush is also upset about Kerry, but what Bush is proposing is exponentiallyl more deadly to the cause of gay marriage, permanently (or at least exponentially more difficult to undo)
scroll back up the thread...there's some good posts to that effect.

[scottiB]

Lerk, I'm not sure if that's in reply to my post, but both Bush and Kerry's position is the same: neither wants homosexuals to be able to marry. Kerry's civil-union bone is amoeba-like in rigidity.

When my girlfriend of seven years and I decide to become legal life companions, I'm choosing to be civil-unionized. So at ceremony's end, the judge, pastor, or whomever can say, "I now pronounce you civil-unioner, male, and civil-unioner, female." And, "May I announce the civil union partnership of scottiB and francheskaG."

In fact, she's not my girlfriend, anymore, she's my "civil-union partner to be."

Either the term marriage (and all it represents in love and in law) is applied uniformly--to all who wish it--or it becomes a term that denotes inequality and connotes heterosexual superiority.

I agree that Bush's solution is far worse on the scale of bad, but I fear that with Kerry's solution, the debate becomes a choice between those two with the third--granting marriage to those that legally can't--being lost.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by scottiB:
Lerk, I'm not sure if that's in reply to my post, but both Bush and Kerry's position is the same: neither wants homosexuals to be able to marry. Kerry's civil-union bone is amoeba-like in rigidity.

When my girlfriend of seven years and I decide to become legal life companions, I'm choosing to be civil-unionized. So at ceremony's end, the judge, pastor, or whomever can say, "I now pronounce you civil-unioner, male, and civil-unioner, female." And, "May I announce the civil union partnership of scottiB and francheskaG."

In fact, she's not my girlfriend, anymore, she's my "civil-union partner to be."

Either the term marriage (and all it represents in love and in law) is applied uniformly--to all who wish it--or it becomes a term that denotes inequality and connotes heterosexual superiority.

I agree that Bush's solution is far worse on the scale of bad, but I fear that with Kerry's solution, the debate becomes a choice between those two with the third--granting marriage to those that legally can't--being lost.

It was to the thread in general, it just came after your post.

[Big Booger]

They are all Skull and Bones members and they sucked each other's d!cks in college. It's a multi-lateral conspiracy to destroy democracy and liberty. They'll ban divorce next. They'll force you to choose a religion next. You're with us or without us. They'll ban free thought one day. The freedom to think fvck you and throw eggs.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Big Booger:
They are all Skull and Bones members and they sucked each other's d!cks in college. It's a multi-lateral conspiracy to destroy democracy and liberty. They'll ban divorce next. They'll force you to choose a religion next. You're with us or without us. They'll ban free thought one day. The freedom to think fvck you and throw eggs.

Grow up.

[chris v]

Originally posted by NYCFarmboy:
Is is ok to propose a state constitutional amendment to segregate schools according to skin color...

Just to hope for the best on the Supreme Court?

Worked for the better part of 100 years...

CV

[Big Booger]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Grow up.

What if it's true?

[scottiB]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
It was to the thread in general, it just came after your post.

Rock on. Well it gave me the opportunity to vent a bit. Thanks.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by Millennium:
I have to wonder: is Kerry's position really cowardly? Or is he being honest about what he believes? It seems to me as though people are trying to put words in his mouth, and thoughts in his head. Do we really know his motives?

I suspect that a great deal of the motivation behind Kerry's decision is based upon information like this:

"A Gallup Poll released in November 2003 found that six out of ten Americans said that religion was "very important" in their lives."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programme...od/3518221.stm

All I can say is that I'm glad to live in a country where all people are free and equal. Perhaps we'll come and liberate you this Fall ...

[BRussell]

Originally posted by Millennium:
I have to wonder: is Kerry's position really cowardly? Or is he being honest about what he believes? It seems to me as though people are trying to put words in his mouth, and thoughts in his head. Do we really know his motives?

I agree too. I think there are good principled and practical arguments that marriage could be reserved to men and women, but civil unions ought to be available to gays. Or perhaps marriage, with its quasi-religious and legal connotation, should be completely left alone by gov't, and civil unions ought to be the only relationship recognized by the gov't. I personally can relate to the argument to some extent - maybe it's just some of that "creep factor" that is admittedly based on bigotry, or maybe it's not really knowing any gay couples personally. But I don't think it's necessarily waffling or pure politics. In fact, it's kind of hard for me to believe that secretly Kerry really wishes gays could marry, but he just can't come out and tell the truth about his beliefs for fear of political reprisal.

[Xeo]

First, lemme state I haven't read the whole thread. That said, I do not think it is OK for Kerry to have that position. There is a lot more to Bush that I hate and I just want him out of office. I'm willing to risk taking the lesser of two evils which is Kerry, IMO. I wish Dean was still in the race...

[IceBreaker]

Originally posted by BRussell:
I agree too. I think there are good principled and practical arguments that marriage could be reserved to men and women, but civil unions ought to be available to gays. Or perhaps marriage, with its quasi-religious and legal connotation, should be completely left alone by gov't, and civil unions ought to be the only relationship recognized by the gov't. I personally can relate to the argument to some extent - maybe it's just some of that "creep factor" that is admittedly based on bigotry, or maybe it's not really knowing any gay couples personally. But I don't think it's necessarily waffling or pure politics. In fact, it's kind of hard for me to believe that secretly Kerry really wishes gays could marry, but he just can't come out and tell the truth about his beliefs for fear of political reprisal.

Maybe in the 1950's we could have just renamed schools "multi use educational facilities" and kept them racially divided...but "separate but equal"...while not offending the gentle flowers who are upset about the races mixing...and reserve the term Schools only for religious institutions.

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
It's not OK for Kerry to take that position. He should be ashamed of himself. He's trying to be all things to all people and it is pathetic.

That's what I dislike about Kerry - the man wouldn't know what a spine was if you beat him bloody with the spine of a dinosaur.

I've got clothespins, goggles, hip waiders, and shovel - I'm ready to vote against Bush.

Then we get to hear Captain Obvious btch about Captain Waffles for four years.

BlackGriffen

[BRussell]

Originally posted by Xeo:
First, lemme state I haven't read the whole thread. That said, I do not think it is OK for Kerry to have that position. There is a lot more to Bush that I hate and I just want him out of office. I'm willing to risk taking the lesser of two evils which is Kerry, IMO. I wish Dean was still in the race...

Dean has the same position as Kerry on this one.

[Xeo]

Originally posted by BRussell:
Dean has the same position as Kerry on this one.

I didn't think he was opposed. I guess I was wrong. Just goes to show you one shouldn't interpret the websites they make at face value.

[le_profesional]

Gay marriage. Doesn't anyone else see the humor in that?

[roger_ramjet]

Originally posted by Nonsuch:
Amending the Constitution is never a "moderate" act.

No it isn't but it is a democratic act.

[roger_ramjet]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
... However, Bush is pushing to take away from a minority a birthright of all Americans. It's not the right to be married itself, no state has extended that. What he is trying to take away is the right of a minority to at least argue their case...

Seems to me the minority is less interested in arguing their case than in getting sympathetic judges to pull another Roe.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by roger_ramjet:
No it isn't but it is a democratic act.

not really. an amendment is proposed by congress, sent to governors and ratified by state legislators. If you think about it, that's a very small group of people, and they are representatives or proxies instead of the actual voter.

Nice try.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by roger_ramjet:
Seems to me the minority is less interested in arguing their case than in getting sympathetic judges to pull another Roe.

Is there a valid reason minorities of any kind should be automatically less endowed of rights and obligations as other citizens?