kerry and gay marriage

[Lunar]

An issue that Kerry might be able to get some ground on is Bush's stance that hate crime rules don't apply to gays.  Legally blocked some stuff as Gov.  Big maybe though.

Kerry's votes on the subject are:
-Voted YES on adding sexual orientation to definition of hate crimes. (Jun 2002)
-Voted YES on expanding hate crimes to include sexual orientation. (Jun 2000)
-Voted NO on prohibiting same-sex marriage. (Sep 1996)
-Voted YES on prohibiting job discrimination by sexual orientation. (Sep 1996)

[Lunar]

Hockey's point was that it doesn't affect those who oppose it and it only affects the homosexuals trying to get married.

CARLHAYDEN, is it really that big of a deal if Kerry is being political about it?  I mean, both candidates have flopped over this paticular issue and both switch their viewpoint to whatever is politically advantageous on every one that they can.

Is the issue really whether the judiciary should be making up our social policy?  Neither candidate seems to support that, and gay-rights people want legislatures deciding as well.   Legislatures ARE deciding the issue currently, refer to MA if you want.

Kind of weird that Bush has used the term "judicial activists" since it isn't a politically good term.  The same one was used against judges who rules in favor of civil rights in the 60's regarding African-Americans.  Seems Bush would want to seperate the issues, but no one has really noticed and it's moot.

My own view on the matter is that the government should withdraw from marriages and recognize a union between two people if they wish to be treated as a unit.  You should be able to do this with your mother if you want.

[Lunar]

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?  

Sorry, I took it as a given that both sides change their views constantly.  But here you go, him saying it was a states issue:

Code:

Source: GOP Debate on the Larry King Show Feb 15, 2000 

Q: So therefore if a state were voting on gay marriage, you would suggest to that state not to approve it.
A: The state can do what they want to do. Don’t try to trap me in this state’s issue.

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

Absolutely not.  But I feel both sides do it equally so it's a silly think to debate about unless you're pro-Nader or something.

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

The electorate still decides.  Look at the legislatures in Mass.   Besides, the electorate indirectly chooses the upper tier judges as part of the balance of powers (they elect Congress and the President).

[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.  

Kerry went from pro-gay marriage ("reported") to anti-gay marriage.  Bush went from pro-States on this issue to pro-Federal Gov. on this issue.  I'm not saying that Bush SUPPORTED gay marriage, that would be a laugher.  All I'm saying is that both change their positions because of the weather and while bad, is a silly thing to discredit a candidate with unless, you are using this to compare them to a consistant third party.

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

A judge made a decision that the people may not agree with and now it could get changed.  The checks and balances system at work!  If one side oversteps then the other one checks them, no need to change anything.

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).

Of course.  But if this is your main issue then don't elect federal officials that appoint these judges and don't elect legislatures that approve them and that don't impeach the bad ones.  If it is a secondary issue then wait it accordingly and it could influence the election.

Surely you don't want to eliminate the judicial ability to rule on whether something is Constitutional or not?

[Lunar]

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).

I edited the irrelevant stuff before the quote out.  All that said was that he was against it but would preach tolerance etc.  The ammendment would of course stop the Mass. legislature from deciding themselves.

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.  

Explain the clause.  I think he suggested the federal response because it was politically convenient and an attempt to create a social wedge for his reelection.

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.

Oh come on you silly rabbit.  Both sides constantly change their positions on everything.  Don't make me show you how Bush has changed his opinion on almost every subject as well.

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

Sure, but the checks and balances system is still apparently working on this issue.

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?

Doesn't that Defense of Marriage Act passed a few years ago allow for states not to recognize other state's marriages?

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.

Ah, ah.  So you disagree with the Constitution in this regard.  It's worked so far, as any judge who acted extreme and started declaring everything unconstitutional would be impeached.  I agree with you to some extent, but this unconstitutional "blank check" has worked well for us many times in the past.  I'm thinking of ruling in Brown v. Board of Education that said that "seperate but equal" was fundamentally unconstitutional.

[Lunar]

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

I don't understand what you mean by this.

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.

Ok, since your knowledge of the law is obviously better than mine, can you explain where the Defense of Marriage act fits in this?  I understood it to limit state's decisions regarding gay marriage to be only within the state.

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.

I don't agree.  If Bush feels it's more politically advantageous to go one route, he does it in a snap.  The only differenes between the two are that for Bush it's often more politically advantageous for him to prop up the "steady leadership" theme and that Kerry has had many thousands of votes in the Senate.  I think it's unfair to treat every senate vote like a black and white issue.  Both are politicians to the core.  

Did a quick google search, here is a partisan but sourced catalog of some Bush flip-flopping:
http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=42263

Nothing excuses either, but to accuse either one on flip-flopping as a means to prop-up the other candidate is simple ignorant of reality in my oh-so humble opinion.


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.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I certainly didn't mean to suggest or imply that.  I believe my original point about the checks and balances still stands though.

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?

Where am I an error of this?  If you're referring to the part of my last post where I was agreeing with you somewhat about the blank-check part, I don't quite see the connection.  Maybe I'm just tired though.