motherFUCKER!

[solarbird]

http://www.npr.org/rundowns/rundown.php?prgId=2&prgDate=current

Looks like Kerry will support an anti-gay constitutional amendment if the language is right.

Mother. FUCKER.

Here's the relevant bit.

NPR: I'd like to turn to the subject of gay marriage. The highest court in your home state of Massachusetts has said that same-sex couples do have the right to marry; I know that you've said you oppose gay marriage; but would you support a Constitutional amendment that would define marriage as a heterosexual union?

Kerry: Well, it depends entirely upon the language, as to whether it permits civil unions and partnerships or not.

Here, I stole this from a mailing list I'm on; it's text forwarded from a Dean blog:

The man today said clear as day that he'd be ok with a constitutional
amendment if the "language" was right.

He didn't say no.

He didn't say that we shouldn't be making constitutional amendments that strip rights away from one group of US citizens.

He said that his decision depended upon the language.

That is terrible. My Jaw dropped when I heard it.

What if was talking about black people or hispanic people? Would he be OK with a similar amendment if the "language" was right?

The reason it is a huge deal is the same reason it would be unconstitutional and immoral to call white people "citizens" and black people "residents" even if they had the same basic rights.

If we crafted an amendment saying that from hence forth, all states shall never refer to black people as "citizens" but they shall enjoy the same rights as white people; it would rightly be denounced.

"Separate but equal" has a very ugly history in our country. To allow for a constitutional amendment that enshrines that failed and divisive concept is reprehensible and dangerous.

Kerry knows better but he is covering his political butt. You know that, I know that. It is a shame and people who care about basic human rights should speak up.

Comments

[wrog]

Full transcript of Kerry's comments (via kos):

Question: I'd like to turn to the subject of gay marriage. The highest court in your home state of Massachusetts has said that same-sex couples do have the right to marry. I know you have said you oppose gay marriage, but would you support a constitutional amendment that would define marriage as a heterosexual union?

Kerry: Well, it depends entirely on the language of whether it permits civil union and partnership or not. I'm for civil union, I'm for partnership rights. I think what ought to condition this debate is not the term "marriage" as much as the rights that people are afforded. Obviously, under the Constitution of the United States you need equal protection under the law. And I think equal protection means the rights that go with it. I think the word "marriage" kind of gets in the way of the whole debate, to be honest with you. Because marriage to many people is obviously what is sanctified by a church - it's sacramental - or by a synagogue or by a mosque or by whatever religious connotation it has. And clearly there is a separation of church and state here.

Question: And why would you support, say, civil unions or what you call partnership rights and not gay marriage then?

Kerry: Because I think marriage is a separate institution. I think marriage is, under the church, between a man and a woman, and I think there is a separate meaning to it. That's why.

Question: Even for marriages that aren't conducted in a house of worship ...?

Kerry: Correct. Even for those that aren't, there's still two meanings. I mean the state picked up the concept afterwards. It's a latecomer to the state. You know, for those who have separate beliefs, there ought to be a way here to be able to deal with it. But what you call something is not that critical.

Question: You were one of 14 Senators who voted against the Defense of Marriage Act back in 1996 that was signed by President Clinton. Why did you oppose that bill?

Kerry: I opposed it 'cause I thought it was gay bashing on the floor of the United States Senate. It was one of those examples of ideological Republicans trying to drive wedges into the electorate of America, and I objected to the Senate being used for that even as I still said at the time I don't personally support [gay] marriage as we understand it within the context of religion.

I guess the short answer here is, it's not quite as bad as it seems. Mainly he's trying real hard to dodge the bullet, and to be fair, none of the Democratic candidates have really come out and outright supported gay marriage. Even Dean has wiggled around it, though it should also be noted that Dean has come out against any kind of Constitutional Amendment as being unnecessary and divisive.

There is a point that needs to be made (and which Kerry is apparently trying to make, even if he fucks up specifically on the notion of an amendment), namely that marriage the legal concept and marriage the religious-sacrament are separate, and any real government-off-our-backs/out-of-our-churches/etc conservative ought to agree that government has no business messing with the second --- instead, of course, we get neoconservatives going out of their way to conflate the two for maximum political benefit.

Bleah.

Re:

[solarbird]

I'm not trying to get him to support same-gender marriage. (Tho' I think you're wrong about all of them - I think Kucinich might be pro.) I demand that he oppose a constitutional amendment to steal that right from states, and to write fundy motherfucker anti-gay hatred into the Constitution. He could have said that an amendment wasn't okay. He didn't.

Re:

[wrog]

oops. I stand corrected.
Kucinich and Al Sharpton are both pro (as was Carol Mosley-Braun FWIW).

[wrog]

I guess the other thing to realize here is that the language will almost certainly never be "right".

The social conservatives drafting these pieces of shit are explicitly trying to knock out civil unions ("the legal incidents thereof" and all that). I.e., it's not the word "marriage" they care about --- even as they play on this to try to win over the more moderate/tolerant-albeit-religious types who are bothered by the notion of government messing with churches and redefining religious notions of marriage --- but the legal facts on the ground, and the notion of state recognition/approval of a same-sex relationship in any way is what's anathema to them.

Given what Kerry has said, I can't even picture an amendment that both he and Delay-et-al would agree to that wouldn't also be completely vacuous or already subsumed by the 1st Amendment's free-exercise clause.

Re:

[solarbird]

I know, and some of them are lying about that, too - saying they aren't while supporting the wording that does. (Again, check out Andrew Sullivan's blog talking about this.)

[agrimony.livejournal.com]

First, a disclaimor: I don't agree with Kerry's take. I think that either everyone has access to civil marriage license or no one does (within specific reasonable laws, of course, such as age of consent). On the other hand, I don't think that Kerry is the antichrist for being willing to be honest with the American people as to his opinion (read: opinion) about marriage and what it means to him.

He is not stating 'I will get into office and immediately set about working to remove anything resembling marriage from those dirty queers'. He is honestly stating that, within his own beliefs, if the wording of an ammendment was exactly what he believes in, he'd probably support it.

Such laws have been proven unconstitutional in the past. Ammendments taking away rights have failed miserably and been repealed. I think it is inevitable that, eventually, homosexual couples will have the same rights as heterosexual couples all over the US. It will be a long battle, but it will come.

But Kerry isn't the antichrist for being honest enough to tell the truth when being asked the tough questions.

Re:

[solarbird]

I have the leading presidential candidates on both sides saying they'd support a queer-bashing amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America in some form. It's not going to make me a fucking happy camper.

Re:

[king-chiron.livejournal.com]

My problem with so many of the Democrats on this issue is that I don't believe they're being honest about their views, I think they're simply bowing to public pressure. I have no doubt that Bush dislikes gay people and doesn't think they should be able to marry.

On the other hand, I don't believe that Clinton (and many other Democrats), who signed the "Defense of Marriage Act", is really opposed to gay marriage. I think he simply lacks the courage to be honest about his true views on the issue. And I suspect Kerry isn't much different.

Re:

[solarbird]

Clinton signed every anti-gay thing Congress passed. I don't give a rat's ass if he - or anybody else - has better feelings "in his heart." What matters is what they decide to support and what they sign. "I don't like selling you down the river, honest!" Fuck that.

Re:

[king-chiron.livejournal.com]

I wasn't defending him, I was pointing out that in fact what he did was far more dishonest and cynical than the Republicans. The Republicans support anti-gay legislation because they hate gay people, Clinton did it because it would score him points with gay-bashers.

[poodlgrl.livejournal.com]

I don't think it necessarily makes him a weasel. An asshole - yes, but they're all assholes. The mere idea of a constitutional amendment barring gay marriage is just plain horrific - like I woke up and I'm living in 1867 or something. But you know what? This is NOT going away so long as there are bigots trying to cram their bigoted fascist ideals down our gullets. They'll push it as hard as they need to. Rest assured, they would push an amendment barring interracial marriage, or interracial adoption, or even blacks voting if they could. They can't get away with that. They enjoy the last, late, great, sanctioned area of open season discrimination: gays.

I wish Kerry would have said he absolutely, flatly, would NOT support such an amendment under any circumstances and that he was outraged and offended by the mere question. But you know what? He'd lose the election with that 1 single breath of air. Just like Kerry would lose if he stood up there and said he was an atheist, or he celebrates interracial marriage, or if he or his son were married to an Asian woman.

Middle America doesn't want to HEAR about gay marriage. He's being honest - I'm sure he would support it if it had a palatable-to-him language.

I think the issue of gay marriage is literally the fundamental civil rights issue of our current time. But you know what? Conservatives have spent a good part of the last 10 years dismantling civil rights for people of color. I really don't see any huge leaps happening for anyone right now.

Re:

[king-chiron.livejournal.com]

That's the problem though, we focus all our attention on the conservatives. When in fact the primary problem isn't the conservatives, it's the non-conservatives who go along because it's dangerous to take an unpopular stand.

Alone the conservatives don't have the votes to pass laws like this. But with the support of Democrats who go along to get along, these laws will and do pass.

Re:

[poodlgrl.livejournal.com]

Personally, I don't focus all my attention on the conservatives. I agree completely with what you say. Gentleman's Agreement is, after all, my favorite movie.

Re:

[llachglin.livejournal.com]

Someone on dailykos.com pointed out that when the right-wingers want to push their amendment through, now they'll be able to use the argument "even that flaming liberal John Kerry supports an amendment against gay marriage."

That will sway some people who otherwise might rightfully denounce this as open bigotry. And that makes me very sad, and angry.

I think Kerry could have gotten away with what Dean has said, without hurting his chances--basically, he doesn't favor gay marriage "personally" but amending the Consitution to make a group of people second class citizens is unacceptable.

I just hope that as events in MA go forward, Kerry doesn't jump in and follow up with support for an amendment as some kind of proving ground of how "moderate" he is--as Clinton did with DOMA. Being neutral is acceptable from a political point of view, as much as it bothers me. But I would have to think long and hard about voting for him if he actively supported an amendment, even knowing that the alternative is Bush.

[gazerwolf.livejournal.com]

http://www.issues2002.org/default.htm

Seems like a decent place, they don't SEEM to be promoting any particular agenda. They have nice little sections on all the candidates pointing out the candidates views (with references to back them up it looks like)
http://www.livejournal.com/users/solarbird/175537.html?mode=reply
They even have a little quiz thingy which gives you a percentage match on each candidate to YOUR views in certain areas.

Sadly it looks like my best match won't make it to the election and Kerry was WAY down my list. (so was Bush)

Why can't these guys get it through their heads that there is no logical, legal, financial, or plausible reason to not allow same gender marriage? Every time it boils down to a religious reason.

Re:

[gazerwolf.livejournal.com]

I have no idea how that link to solarbird's journal got in there...I didn't type it and it didn't show up in the preview....