kerry and gay marriage

[CARLHAYDEN]

Kerry's current public position is that he is opposed to gay marriage.  Legislators in his home state ( mostly Democrats) refuse to allow the voters of their state to vote on a Constitutional amendment to prohibit gay marriage.  Has Kerry sought to influence the legislators to allow the voters to vote on this matter?  If he has, what does this say about his leadership ability?  If he hasn't, does this tend to contradict his current public position on the matter?

[CARLHAYDEN]

Gustaf, Kerry is the junior Senator from the state of Massachusetts.  He used to be the Lieutenant Govenor of that state.  He is the titular leader of the Democrat party.  Democrats overwhelmingly dominate the Massachusetts state legislature.  

[CARLHAYDEN]

Opebo, the point I was seeking clarification of with respect to my original posting is first, whether Kerry REALLY meant what he has recently said about gay marriage (he reportedly took a different position a couple of years ago) inasmuch as he has taken no action I am aware of to implement his supposed policy, or whether he really favors gay marriage and has taken his recent public position on the matter solely to placate the majority of the electorate, and is therefor refraining from making efforts to have the state legislature allow the voters of Massachussets vote on this matter (in short, does his apparent inaction contradict his statement?).

If on the other hand Kerry has made efforts to get his fellow Massachusetts Democrat elected officials to allow the voters to vote on the Consitutional amendment and they have rebuffed him, what does this say about his ability to work with others (i.e. if her were elected President would he be able to persuade Congress to do support his policies?).

[CARLHAYDEN]

RightWingNut,

     Sorry, but the positions of Kerry and Bush do differ in the following respect;  Bush has supported a means of voiding the Massachusetts Supreme Court decision, i.e. an amendent to the Constitution of the United States.  Kerry in contrast has done nothing whatsoever that I can find to reverse the Massachusetts Supreme Court decision.

     Given the report that Kerry had previously supported gay marriage (a letter to a constituent approximately two years ago if memory serves me correctly) and many top Kerry staffers are reported to support gay marriage, it seems to me that like 'the dog that did not bark in the night,' Kerry's inaction on this matter speaks louder (and more clearly) than his recent publicly stated position.  

[CARLHAYDEN]

AgCat,

I suspect your analysis of Kerry's real position and his reason for hiding it is correct.

The interesting thing is that the Democrat convention will be held in Boston about the time the gay marriages are scheduled to start.

What would be the impact of mass gay marriages in Boston during the convention?

Will Kerry be placed on the spot on this issue?

[CARLHAYDEN]

Angus,

The point of I was making was that I suspect Kerry is being less than honest about his real position on gay marriage, as I suspect is true in other matters as well.  People vote for character as well as their preference of candidates stands on issues.  This is particularly true where they doubt whether the candidate's professed stand on an issue is contradicted by his history and his actions (or inactions).

Second, voters cast their ballots on whether a candidate has the ability to get things done.  If Kerry REALLY is opposed to gay marriage, why has he been unable to get his fellow Democrats in his home state to allow the voters to vote on this issue (and antii small d democrat position in my humble opinion).

[CARLHAYDEN]

Angus,

While the publicly stated current positions of Bush and Kerry are substantially similiar on the matter of Gay marriage, Bush has proposed a means of overuling the Massacusetts Supreme Court ruling, which Kerry has opposed (i.e. and amendment to the Constitution of the United States).

An alternative approach which would also achieve implementation of the policy currently publicly advocated by Kerry would be to amend the Massachusetts state constitution is available.  Kerry has to the best of my knowledge done nothing to support this alternative.

So, Kerry is in the position of saying he supports a particular position, but opposing one means of impllementing his position, and not supporting the other available means of implementing his position.

So, does he REALLY mean what he says, or is it just a case of his saying what he thinks the electorate wants to hear, even though he never intends to implement his publicyly stated policy.

If Kerry had declined to comment on the matter, that could be labled, but in fact he is on record (on both sides of the issue at different times).

I think that it is true that Kerry, like Bush (and most politicians), has no "enthusiasm" for the issue (and rightfully I believe).

I am perplexed by your use of the term "courage" in your reply.  Are you suggesting that it would be  "courageous" for Kerry to encourage Democrat state legislators in his own state to allow the voters to vote to amend the state constitution to overturn the ruling of the state Supreme Court?
 
Further, to suggest that United States Senators do not extensively interact with their home state legislators is simply incorrect.  

Next, Kerry has repeatedly voted to require states to implement policies he supports!

Finally, Kerry has been a member of the United States Senate for nineteen years!  

[CARLHAYDEN]

Angus,

First, I have attempted to maintain the focus of this thread foc on the light it casts on Kerry (and to a lesser extent Bush) rather than on the merits or demerits of gay marriage per se.

Second, it seems to me to be generally conceded that Kerry does NOT really support the position he has recently enunciated on this matter.  So, how many other positions he is currently publicly taking are similiarly contrary to his real position?

Third. unlike other matters, I suspect this is one case of (due to the intensisty of feelings on both sides and the visual component) where Kerry will be unable to muddy the waters.

Fourth, there is the matter of whether govermental policy should be made by the judiciary, or by the people (where there appears to be a major difference between the two).

Fifth, there is the thorny issue as to whether the Massachusetts Supreme Court is the tail that is waging the dog via the "full faith and credit" clause.

Sixth, this should also raise the issue as to what kind of judges Kerry as President would appoint.  

Seventh, sorry, but all the reliable studies I have seen indicate that the gay population is approximately two (plus or  minus one) per cent of the population.

Finally, thanks for the friendly welcome.

[CARLHAYDEN]

htmldon,

First, the only sourced statistic cited (the CNN 4 per cent) is closer to the 1-3 per cent I cited than the ten per cent earler noted.  If you check with other survey researchers and demographers you will find they generally estimate the same range.

Second, I have absolutely no idea of the "bisexual" percentage of the population in the United States or any other country.

Third, to bring this back to the original thread, do you believe that Senator Kerry is being honest about his recent public position on gay marriage being his REAL position?

[CARLHAYDEN]

Gustaf,

Thanks for the welcome.

I think this issue is significant because it is one of the issues which touchs on so many others (honesty, the role of the judiciary, the ability to implement an agenda) and because it is one where Kerry will have difficulty muddying the waters (neither side will let him).

It is unfortunate that some of the posters on this thread have been a little lacking in decorum.

I'm not sure whether MacFarlan is acknowledging that Kerry really doesn't oppose gay marriage.  He stated that "there is no reason at all" to oppose gay marriage after stating that "there is no good reason to oppose gay marriage." (I have trouble squaring the two statements) Could it be that Kerry currently publicly opposes gay marriage "for no reason at all," or perhaps for "no good reason?" Also, if you accept that opposition to gay marriage is an "indication" that one is "nuts," (per MacFarland), is Kerry also "nuts?"

[CARLHAYDEN]

HockeyDude,

As I have tried rather repeatedly to make it clear throughout this thread, irrespective of your personal views on gay marriage per se, other issues are involved in this matter.

First, does Kerry really oppose gay marriage (as he has recently publicly stated), or is he lying to the public?  If he is lying on this matter, is he lying about other matters?

Second, should the judiciary make up social policy?

Third, should the people be allowed to vote on this matter?

Further, if wanting candidates to tell the truth, oppositing judicial legislation and believing the the electorate rather than the judiciary should decide such matters constitutes a "conservative...point of view," then I think I can see why liberals tend to lose elections.

Also, civil marriage is a public matter, not a private matter (don't you remember all those publicized 'marriages' in San Francisco).

Finally, is it really necessary to punctuate your posting with pseudo-profanity?

[CARLHAYDEN]

Lunar,

First, can you please supply evidence to support your contention that Bush has changed his public position on this matter?  Do you think Bush's publicly stated position on this matter does not reflect his real position?  When did he switch his view?  

Second, should candidates for public office merely be wethervanes for transitory public opinion? Suggest you check out "Speech to the Electors of Bristol."

Third, does how things get accomplished make no difference?  Should the judiciary usurp the power of the electorate?

[CARLHAYDEN]

Lunar,

First, in your quotation of Bush, you properly noted that he then opposed gay marriage, as is his current position.  It has been reported that Kerry previous wrote to a constituent that he supported gay marriage.  

Second, absent the 'full faith and credit clause' this certainly would be a state issue.

Third, the Massachusetts adoption of gay marriage came as the result of a court ruling, not a vote of the people.

Fourth, this certainly is an interesting forum.  Imagine being call "pro-nader."

Fifth, in electing state legislators, there are a number of basis for casting a vote.  One can agree with a legislators position on issues A and B, and disagree on issue C.  So, if a legislator is reelected, is it because of or despite his stance on one issue?  In addition, many other factors impact the election of a candidate including the caliber of the opposition and the funding of campaigns (but to note some factors).

[CARLHAYDEN]

Lunar,

First, I noted you edited your previous posting on Bush's willingness to leave the issue to the state.  He noted if the electorate in a state voted for it (qualifiers are important).

Second, if candidates want to change their policies, let them admit to it.  If it were not for the "full faith and credit clause," I doubt if Bush would have suggested a federal response.  

Third, this is just one of many issues on which Kerry has had a varing positions.  On most of them he has roiled the water to escape his own inconsistencies.  On this one due to the intensity of the feelings on both sides, he is unlikely to get away with it.

Fourth, actually a majority of the members of the Massachusetts Supreme Court enacted the change in policy, not just on judge.

Fifth, the judges on the Massachusetts Supreme Court were not were not appointed by either federal elected officials, nor the legislators of other states, but their decision appears to apply to those other states.  So, if the people of another state do not agree with the decision of the Massachusetts Supreme court applying to them, what is their recourse?

Sixth, as to the thorny issue as to whether something is unconstituional, it seems to me that giving the courts a blank check to make public policy if the say the magic words "unconstituional." is a grave mistake.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Lunar,

Sorry for the delay but I've been a little busy with other matters.

First, to repeat, QUALIFIERS ARE IMPORTANT, NOT IRRELEVANT!

Second, Article IV, Section 1. provides that:

Full faith and credit shall be given in each State to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedingsa of every other State.  And the Congress may be general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.

The second provision of the clause is the basis of the Defense of Marriage act passed by Congress (which Kerry voted against).

Unfortunately, the study of constitutional law has degenerated from study of the meaning of a provision of the constitution to tea reading of what a majority of members of a particular court will be willing to say that provision means.

There is considerable dispute whether the Defense of Marriage Act would meet the qualifications of the second provision, hence the proposed amendment.

George Bush is no attorney, and probably had little more understanding of the "full faith and credit clause" of the constitution that you exhibited.

Interestingly enough, the state of Nevada used this provision fifty plus years ago to support its economy with its relatively liberal divorce laws (which required brief residency in Nevada) and which had to be recognized by other states with more restrictive divorce laws.

Third, please drop the 'everybody does it' nonsense.  One can certainly disagree with Bush's positions, but to suggest he changes his positions with anything near the frequency you suggested, or Kerry has done is simply erroneous.

Fourth, you had previously posted a response in which you suggested that a (single) judge had made the change.  I corrected this by noting that the change was made by the majority of the members of the Massachusetts Supreme Court.   As such, your resonse in a non sequitur.

Fifth, you are very much in error with respect to the history of constitutional jurisprudence in this country.  The courts have generally acted with restraint  Further, if the constituion has NO intrinsic meaning, why bother to have it?

[CARLHAYDEN]

Lunar,

First, if you take Bush's full statement you will note that he qualified it by noting that he would not oppose the decision of the electorate of the state on the issue.  

Second, it is the general opinion of most constitutional scholars that I have seen that the Defense of Marriage Act will NOT prevent the action of the Massachusetts Supreme Court from applying to other states.  In short, if you get 'married' in Massachusetts, that 'marriage' has to be recognized as legally valid in Alabama.  

Third with respect to the changes in positions by Bush as supported by the web site you posted, I note that nearly half of the 'changes' cited were with respect to procedural matters (1, 6, 7, 8, 12 and 13), while some were NOT contradictory if you look at the specific language (2 9, and 11), a couple reflect Bush making statements which were poorly worded (4 and 5), while no. 10 does reflect a partial change (nation building where necessary to deprive anti-american terrorists of bases).  You are in my opinion quite correct that Bush did change his substantiative political position on 3 and 14 for political reasons.  This is neither a constant changing of position, nor as frequent a changing of position as Kerry.

Fourth, your previous postings implied that THE way to deal with a judiciary run amok is "checks and balances."  While it appears likely that after a lenghty and drawn out process the people of Massachusetts will overide the decision of the Massachusetts Supreme Court, it would have been better if the court had not run amok in the first place.  

Fifth, you previously stated that "surely you don't want to eliminate the judicial ability to rule on whether something is constutional or not?" as the only alternative to judicial restraint.  I'm glad to read that you don't think that the constitution is simply a blank check for judges (now if we can just get them to foillow Oliver Wendell Holmes dictum).

 

[CARLHAYDEN]

Unfortunately the poster you cited has completely messed up this thread.

Don't know whether his comment was deliberately imflamatory or simply despicable.

[CARLHAYDEN]

So far I haven't seen to many nut cases at Atlas Forum.

Must admit that generally from what I have seem so far that posters from the left have been more inclined to use of intemperate language, combined with lack of information to support their opinion, or logical analysis.

[CARLHAYDEN]

I don't want to paint with a broad brush.

Opinions are, in my study, based on a triad: (1) information base, (2) form of analysis, and (3) value system.

Obviously,  none of us has complete (perfect) information, and I am delighted when other posters have cited relevant information of which I was previously unaware.

I am very disappointed where posters post pathetic (from pathos) arguments, and would prefer where reputable experts are cited (or even better), logical analysis presented.

Finally, I suspect many posters do not recognize others may share their values in general, they may understandably have a different priority in the importance of values where those values conflict in real life (forty years ago there was a major conflict in press coverage of criminal trials such as the Sheppard case,  the conflict was then know as 'free press v. fair trial").  Patrick Henry clearly illustrated this when he noted that he preferred liberty to peace (not that he disliked peace) when the two values were in conflict.

[CARLHAYDEN]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Is your definition of "reliable" those studies that agree with your prejudice?  Does the percentage of individuals who are being discriminated against change their needs for civil rights and liberty?

\

While I was researching another topic, came across this gem. The plaintiffs in Lawrence v. Texas (2003) in their brief admitted that only 2.8% of the male population was "gay, or bisexual" and that 1.4% of the femal population was "lesbian or bisexual."

They based their data on the National Health and Social Life Survey.

Seems to fall in the one to three per cent range I cited.

Sorry for the delay, but this info is NOT a priority for me, but it is nice to cite sources and correct errors when possible.