Kerry Backs Ban on Homosexual marriage in MA

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
I don't know what you guys are all smug about. Read this carefully:

In his most explicit remarks on the subject yet, Kerry told the Globe that he would support a proposed amendment to the state Constitution that would prohibit gay marrriage so long as, while outlawing gay marriage, it also ensured that same-sex couples have access to all legal rights that married couples receive.

And so while there would be no "gay marriage" per se, Kerry is suggesting that civil unions should be given the same status as marriage and afforded all of the same legal rights. Cliff notes: civil unions = marriage. This is actually the preferred solution, only one-step short, as the state should really just recognize all marriage as civil union, elevate civil union to mean the same as marriage, and then let people do whatever they want.

And Bush's amendment support is different how?

CkG

You're right Cad, they're both bigots. 🙂 Seriously, it doesn't matter what Bush supports or not, because he has nothing to do with the amendment process. This whole gay marriage controversy is designed as a wedge issue to divert attention from Bush's performance while pandering to the fundies. If anything, Kerry's just defusing it by assuming more or less the same position. Sucks too, since both are playing political hot potato with people's private lives.

By the way, which amendment proposal does Bush support? Has he definitively chosen one?

 

[bozack]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
I don't know what you guys are all smug about. Read this carefully:

In his most explicit remarks on the subject yet, Kerry told the Globe that he would support a proposed amendment to the state Constitution that would prohibit gay marrriage so long as, while outlawing gay marriage, it also ensured that same-sex couples have access to all legal rights that married couples receive.

And so while there would be no "gay marriage" per se, Kerry is suggesting that civil unions should be given the same status as marriage and afforded all of the same legal rights. Cliff notes: civil unions = marriage. This is actually the preferred solution, only one-step short, as the state should really just recognize all marriage as civil union, elevate civil union to mean the same as marriage, and then let people do whatever they want.

EDIT: This does not necessarily mean that Kerry is not a bigot. He probably is. If he wasn't, he wouldn't be afraid of the word "marriage" when it comes to same-sex couples.

but this isn't good enough for the homosexual movement and people like conjur 🙂

 

[bozack]

Originally posted by: conjur
I think Kerry is trying to curry more conservative votes. It's a mistake.

I just don't understand this hangup people have on the word marriage. Mind-boggling.

I just don't understand this hangup people have on the word union. Mind-boggling

 

[heartsurgeon]

rack up one more example of Kerry trying to have it both ways...

threw someone else's medals away to protest the vietnam war..now he's proud of his service.
voted against Gulf War I - but says now, that he would have
voted for Gulf War II - but know says he wouldn't have
voted for NAFTA - but "wants to keep jobs in america"
voted (heck wrote part of it) for Patriot Act - now wants it repealed
voted No Child Left Behind Act..but now he criticises it
wants to "ban" gay marriage, but for "gay" civil Unions..

the list isn't done yet...

 

[bozack]

Originally posted by: nutxo

Originally posted by: bozack

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Bigot?

CkG

notice, not one liberal response yet....almost like they are ignoring it 🙂

This is like when Bush openend his military records a few weeks ago, and they still havent responded.

funny how there are a few responses but still nothing of substance. Had this been about Bush or any other repub and their stance we would have seen fifty responses in under ten minutes...ahh the hypocracy.

 

[UltraQuiet]

Why would you attack Harvey with such vitriol just because of a few remarks regarding Bush's family? You don't know Harvey from Bristol Cream. Anyway, from my perspective Harvey is one of the smartest and best informed folks who post here. You could do worse than to emulate his style and substance. My only regret is that he makes such rare appearances.

For the same reason I ripped into BBD the other day for attacking Laura Bush. I think it's quite probably the most cowardly act possible. You got problems with GW, fine, rip away. You bring his family into it and you're nothing more than a cowardly POS. As far as your perspective and Harvey's posts, who gives a sh!t. I find his, and yours, posts to be the very epitome of the red faced, Bush hating, ranter I mentioned earlier. I'm sure you think he's brilliant because he posts some of the same crap as you do but I am less than impressed. Sorry, you both strike me as somewhat bitter old men.

Because Kerry isn't advocation messing with the Countries Constitution. In those 37 states Gay Marriage is outlawed but in the future if the people of those states have a change of heart they can reverse it. If the Dub and his Cohorts push a Constitutional Ammendment then those States will lose the right to change their laws and their minds!

The intent is the same in both instances. Anyone who says one is a bigot and the other is not is a hypocrite.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet

Why would you attack Harvey with such vitriol just because of a few remarks regarding Bush's family? You don't know Harvey from Bristol Cream. Anyway, from my perspective Harvey is one of the smartest and best informed folks who post here. You could do worse than to emulate his style and substance. My only regret is that he makes such rare appearances.

For the same reason I ripped into BBD the other day for attacking Laura Bush. I think it's quite probably the most cowardly act possible. You got problems with GW, fine, rip away. You bring his family into it and you're nothing more than a cowardly POS. As far as your perspective and Harvey's posts, who gives a sh!t. I find his, and yours, posts to be the very epitome of the red faced, Bush hating, ranter I mentioned earlier. I'm sure you think he's brilliant because he posts some of the same crap as you do but I am less than impressed. Sorry, you both strike me as somewhat bitter old men.

Bush, his father, his Brothers and his Mother are all fair game (his mother has criticized Democrats publicly) His wife who is also a public figure is also fair game thogh I really can't recall anything she's said that would bring about any criticism.

Because Kerry isn't advocation messing with the Countries Constitution. In those 37 states Gay Marriage is outlawed but in the future if the people of those states have a change of heart they can reverse it. If the Dub and his Cohorts push a Constitutional Ammendment then those States will lose the right to change their laws and their minds!

The intent is the same in both instances. Anyone who says one is a bigot and the other is not is a hypocrite.[/quote]Ah but the intent isn't the same. If the US Constitution is ammended to outlaw gay marriages then it takes away the states rights to decide whether to allow it or not on their own. Good Old Boy Congressman from the Bible Belt should not be voting on whether to allow Gay Marriages in places like MASS or CA , that should be left up to the voters of those states!

 

[DashRiprock]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet

Why would you attack Harvey with such vitriol just because of a few remarks regarding Bush's family? You don't know Harvey from Bristol Cream. Anyway, from my perspective Harvey is one of the smartest and best informed folks who post here. You could do worse than to emulate his style and substance. My only regret is that he makes such rare appearances.

For the same reason I ripped into BBD the other day for attacking Laura Bush. I think it's quite probably the most cowardly act possible. You got problems with GW, fine, rip away. You bring his family into it and you're nothing more than a cowardly POS. As far as your perspective and Harvey's posts, who gives a sh!t. I find his, and yours, posts to be the very epitome of the red faced, Bush hating, ranter I mentioned earlier. I'm sure you think he's brilliant because he posts some of the same crap as you do but I am less than impressed. Sorry, you both strike me as somewhat bitter old men.

Bush, his father, his Brothers and his Mother are all fair game (his mother has criticized Democrats publicly) His wife who is also a public figure is also fair game thogh I really can't recall anything she's said that would bring about any criticism.

Because Kerry isn't advocation messing with the Countries Constitution. In those 37 states Gay Marriage is outlawed but in the future if the people of those states have a change of heart they can reverse it. If the Dub and his Cohorts push a Constitutional Ammendment then those States will lose the right to change their laws and their minds!

The intent is the same in both instances. Anyone who says one is a bigot and the other is not is a hypocrite.

Ah but the intent isn't the same. If the US Constitution is ammended to outlaw gay marriages then it takes away the states rights to decide whether to allow it or not on their own. Good Old Boy Congressman from the Bible Belt should not be voting on whether to allow Gay Marriages in places like MASS or CA , that should be left up to the voters of those states![/quote]


"States Rights, States Rights!" Uhh, didn't Californians vote on defining marriage as one man one woman? Look how well that's being followed in SF.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: DashRiprock

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet

Why would you attack Harvey with such vitriol just because of a few remarks regarding Bush's family? You don't know Harvey from Bristol Cream. Anyway, from my perspective Harvey is one of the smartest and best informed folks who post here. You could do worse than to emulate his style and substance. My only regret is that he makes such rare appearances.

For the same reason I ripped into BBD the other day for attacking Laura Bush. I think it's quite probably the most cowardly act possible. You got problems with GW, fine, rip away. You bring his family into it and you're nothing more than a cowardly POS. As far as your perspective and Harvey's posts, who gives a sh!t. I find his, and yours, posts to be the very epitome of the red faced, Bush hating, ranter I mentioned earlier. I'm sure you think he's brilliant because he posts some of the same crap as you do but I am less than impressed. Sorry, you both strike me as somewhat bitter old men.

Bush, his father, his Brothers and his Mother are all fair game (his mother has criticized Democrats publicly) His wife who is also a public figure is also fair game thogh I really can't recall anything she's said that would bring about any criticism.

Because Kerry isn't advocation messing with the Countries Constitution. In those 37 states Gay Marriage is outlawed but in the future if the people of those states have a change of heart they can reverse it. If the Dub and his Cohorts push a Constitutional Ammendment then those States will lose the right to change their laws and their minds!

The intent is the same in both instances. Anyone who says one is a bigot and the other is not is a hypocrite.

Ah but the intent isn't the same. If the US Constitution is ammended to outlaw gay marriages then it takes away the states rights to decide whether to allow it or not on their own. Good Old Boy Congressman from the Bible Belt should not be voting on whether to allow Gay Marriages in places like MASS or CA , that should be left up to the voters of those states!

"States Rights, States Rights!" Uhh, didn't Californians vote on defining marriage as one man one woman? Look how well that's being followed in SF.[/quote]Those Marriages are invalid. Does purely Ceremonial Weddings between same Sex Couples need to be outlawed by an Ammendment to the US Constitution?

 

[Chadder007]

So like ummm....whats the Difference between Kerry and Bush now?

 

[burnedout]

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
rack up one more example of Kerry trying to have it both ways...

threw someone else's medals away to protest the vietnam war..now he's proud of his service.
voted against Gulf War I - but says now, that he would have
voted for Gulf War II - but know says he wouldn't have
voted for NAFTA - but "wants to keep jobs in america"
voted (heck wrote part of it) for Patriot Act - now wants it repealed
voted No Child Left Behind Act..but now he criticises it
wants to "ban" gay marriage, but for "gay" civil Unions..

the list isn't done yet...

Pssst.... drilling for oil in the ANWR.....

 

[bozack]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
The intent is the same in both instances. Anyone who says one is a bigot and the other is not is a hypocrite.

Ah but the intent isn't the same. If the US Constitution is ammended to outlaw gay marriages then it takes away the states rights to decide whether to allow it or not on their own. Good Old Boy Congressman from the Bible Belt should not be voting on whether to allow Gay Marriages in places like MASS or CA , that should be left up to the voters of those states![/quote]

Just as appointed Mass Justices should not be given the right to decide the matter for everyone in the state, but they are....

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: bozack

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
The intent is the same in both instances. Anyone who says one is a bigot and the other is not is a hypocrite.

Ah but the intent isn't the same. If the US Constitution is ammended to outlaw gay marriages then it takes away the states rights to decide whether to allow it or not on their own. Good Old Boy Congressman from the Bible Belt should not be voting on whether to allow Gay Marriages in places like MASS or CA , that should be left up to the voters of those states!

Just as appointed Mass Justices should not be given the right to decide the matter for everyone in the state, but they are....[/quote]
Why not? They were appointed by a Representitve elected by the people of that state!

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: bozack

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Ah but the intent isn't the same. If the US Constitution is ammended to outlaw gay marriages then it takes away the states rights to decide whether to allow it or not on their own. Good Old Boy Congressman from the Bible Belt should not be voting on whether to allow Gay Marriages in places like MASS or CA , that should be left up to the voters of those states!

Just as appointed Mass Justices should not be given the right to decide the matter for everyone in the state, but they are....

Why not? They were appointed by a Representitve elected by the people of that state!

They have no legislative power.(or atleast aren't supposed to have that power)

CkG

 

[bozack]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Why not? They were appointed by a Representitve elected by the people of that state!

Just because they were appointed by an elected representative does not mean that they share said representatives view on the issue nor that the people's of the commonwealth....maybe if they could be removed from their chairs and new judges appointed by the current administration then ok...but they cannot.

This is a decision that should be voted on by the people of each state, not decided by appointed or even elected officials.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: bozack

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Why not? They were appointed by a Representitve elected by the people of that state!

Just because they were appointed by an elected representative does not mean that they share said representatives view on the issue nor that the people's of the commonwealth....maybe if they could be removed from their chairs and new judges appointed by the current administration then ok...but they cannot.

This is a decision that should be voted on by the people of each state, not decided by appointed or even elected officials.

Good point. So I guess you agree that an Ammendment to the Constitution outlawing Gay Marriages is a bad idea then!

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: bozack

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Why not? They were appointed by a Representitve elected by the people of that state!

Just because they were appointed by an elected representative does not mean that they share said representatives view on the issue nor that the people's of the commonwealth....maybe if they could be removed from their chairs and new judges appointed by the current administration then ok...but they cannot.

This is a decision that should be voted on by the people of each state, not decided by appointed or even elected officials.

Good point. So I guess you agree that an Ammendment to the Constitution outlawing Gay Marriages is a bad idea then!

The states would have a say(if it got that far).

CkG

 

[bozack]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Good point. So I guess you agree that an Ammendment to the Constitution outlawing Gay Marriages is a bad idea then!

Yup, 100% against ammending the constitution, however I strongly believe all legal references should be changed from "marriage" to "union" for both homosexual and heterosexual couples...that would not require any ammendments to the consitiution and would also get the religious right out of the govt since their beef would be moot as terminology would change.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: bozack

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Good point. So I guess you agree that an Ammendment to the Constitution outlawing Gay Marriages is a bad idea then!

Yup, 100% against ammending the constitution, however I strongly believe all legal references should be changed from "marriage" to "union" for both homosexual and heterosexual couples...that would not require any ammendments to the consitiution and would also get the religious right out of the govt since their beef would be moot as terminology would change.

Talkabout taking the Bull by the Horns.

 

[fitzhue]

I'm probably as liberal as they come which is why this really pisses me off that Kerry is taking this position. I really think it's his way of not looking too extreme and thus try to appeal to more voters. This hardly makes Kerry a bigot though.

 

[GoPackGo]

Lets eliminate the words marriage and union all together.

If two people want to come together they have to form a corporation.

They are harder to create than a marriage

and

They are harder to end.

That way you can have anyone and any number of people involved.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: fitzhue
I'm probably as liberal as they come which is why this really pisses me off that Kerry is taking this position. I really think it's his way of not looking too extreme and thus try to appeal to more voters. This hardly makes Kerry a bigot though.

No that's right, it makes him worse than one, but I bet he'll just do a flip flop when he's elected. 😀

 

[UpGrD]

 

[Moonbeam]

We should leave it up to the states to determine of blacks are 3/5th human I guess.

What Kerry whould do is call for a Constitutional ammendment that says everybody is entitled to a job since it's basic human rights anyway.

 

[GoPackGo]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
We should leave it up to the states to determine of blacks are 3/5th human I guess.

What Kerry whould do is call for a Constitutional ammendment that says everybody is entitled to a job since it's basic human rights anyway.

Hey blacks are 5/5th human!!! = 100% (then again so are all people)