kerry and gay marriage

[Gustaf]

Kerry is a US senator, technically he doesn't really have much to do with what the state of Massachussetts do, right?

[Gustaf]

This week's American Perspectives on C-SPAN had probably the most articulate debate over gay marriage.  It was held at Boston University.  The opposition had this conservative old Jewish man who gave the most eloquent and logical anti-Gay marriage argument I've ever heard.

And that was...?

[Gustaf]

Kerry has supported gay marriage in the past.  His task now is to hide his support for it until after the election.  His position has actually been that he's against it but opposed to any law (Defense of Marriage Act) or amendment (proposed by Bush) that would prevent it from spreading.

In other words, hide the fact that he's a far left lib until he can get elected.  Imagine this left wing loon packing the Supreme Court.  Hell, we might as well disband the Congress since the Supreme Court will be in effect be mandating all kinds of lib policies that would never get anywhere with the American people otherwise.

I think amoderate position is good on an issue like this. I can't see that hurting Kerry much, although I don't see it helping him much either. Agree with Angus, it's not a bog issue. *MIGHT* raise turnout among gays for Kerry, that's a meybe I guess.

[Gustaf]

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.

Yes, I understand the point.  If Kerry shows no conviction on this issue, then maybe he won't on any other.  But you're preaching to the choir, since I have no intention of voting for John Kerry for President.  Your fourth point is excellent, and often overlooked.  I too feel much more comfortable with a constructionist (as opposed to activist) judiciary, no matter whether they agree or disagree with me on hot-button issues.  And I alluded to the fifth point in my post.  anyway, it will ultimately become a federal matter, like all matters, due to the full credit clause.  

totallyfabgayboi.  Yes, and Laura is much hotter than tipper or hillary.  

Welcome from me as well. And Kerry will change his views to what he think is most opportunistic in most cases. This makes him reasonable predictable, which is good.

[Gustaf]

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?"

Well, it depends...there has been some confusion over topics here, but I think this is to discuss things that we think will affect the election. Kerry is a flip-flopper and should be able to get out of this one. And I think he has positioned himself in a way that makes it hard for Bush to attack him. Also, I don't think it'll convince a lot of people who weren't voting for Bush anyway to vote for him.

I am in favour of gay marraige myself, so I have a little more understanding for MacFarlan, but generally one should try and put a little more reason behind one's statements of course.

[Gustaf]

I say we let the gays get married.  If they ever tried to leave Massachusetts they'd get lynched anyway.  Either way they wouldn't exist long anywhere outside of MA.

Is this guy kidding or is he really that evil?

Well, he has Hitler as his idol, so what do you know?

It might be kind of true, even if it's harsh.

[Gustaf]

I say we let the gays get married.  If they ever tried to leave Massachusetts they'd get lynched anyway.  Either way they wouldn't exist long anywhere outside of MA.

Is this guy kidding or is he really that evil?

Well, he has Hitler as his idol, so what do you know?

It might be kind of true, even if it's harsh.

I don't think gays would be lynched outside of MA. Even the most reactionary of Americans aren't that evil.

No, you're probably right...I guess he might have meant it figuratively.

[Gustaf]

Carl, rightwingnut has appropriately chosen his name, that's for sure, but his comments have been consistent.  I, too, took much of what he said as a joke at first, but now I think he's being serious.  He opposes gay marriage, but concedes that his opposition does not extend to making it illegal.  And there's certainly a Darwin award in it for anyone who stops the line of propagation with himself, wouldn't you think?

Gustaf and lidaker, you're watching waaaay too many George Bush speeches.  every other word these days is evil.  even the most zoroastrian of republicans knows to tone it down a little in polite conversation.

I didn't say anything about evil in my posts...

On Reps and Dems, there are reasons for angry young people usually being leftist. Also, the American mainstream is more Republican than Democratic, which makes for the Dems being more frustrated and also making them look more extremist.

[Gustaf]

oops.  no you didn't.  

yes, the very young and the very old like big brother.

here in the middle, we take care of ourselves  

Yeah, that's part of it I guess. One could also say that those without a career can be more true to their principles...

[Gustaf]

oops.  no you didn't.  

yes, the very young and the very old like big brother.

here in the middle, we take care of ourselves  

Yeah, that's part of it I guess. One could also say that those without a career can be more true to their principles...

yes, and a third description may be that the younger are more idealistic, those in the middle are more realistic, and the very oldest are the very wisest.

Yeah, I guess that's another one...