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?

[Gustaf]

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

[classical liberal]

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.

[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...?

[classical liberal]

Go to cspan.org and search for video of American Perspectives.

[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.  

[opebo]

It doesn't matter if Kerry, or Bush for that matter, has any influence over Gay Marriage.  What matters is the exsistence of gay marriage makes a lot of people lean Republican.  A lot of voters in Ohio for example, just feel more akin to those who are repulsed by gay marriage more than those who are comfortable with it.

[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?).

[classical liberal]

If you read the platform sections of both candidates' websites, their official position on gay marriage is identicle.

[zachman]

I really wish Kerry was brave on this; I think America is ready to flip to accepting gay marriage or civil unions. Instead he has to call marriage an 'institution', what a weak Democrat. An interesting stat was in the NY Times Magazine Article on the Log Cabin Republicans. Approximately 1 million gays voted for Bush in 2000 out of a gay turnout of 4 million. I'd estimate that Bush loses about 500,000 of these this year.

[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.  

[agcatter]

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.

[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?

[angus]

How many homophillic log cabin republicans will vote for kerry?
How many homophobic unemployed welfare recipients will vote for bush?

these questions have the same answer.  

Polls show economic/taxes/jobs and foreignpolicy/terrorism/national security are the two types of issues affecting voters.  Not who's marrying whom.  I cannot imagine that any candidate's stand on this particular issue will affect my vote one way or another.   If we're down to this, then we must have all our problems solved.

[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)

[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).

[angus]

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).

okay, then I'd agree completely with the first paragraph.  interesting analysis in the second, I suppose his reticence can be interpreted as lack of either enthusiasm or courage.  Either way, Kerry is pretty good at getting on either side and the middle of most issues.  It remains a valid point that for the last eight years, he's a federal, not state, employee.

[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!  

[angus]

great forum.  too tempting to get hooked though.  very briefly, I oppose the amendment on principle, having less to do with homosexuals, or marriage generally, than with bad precedent.  Secondly, I really feel that this ~ten percent of the population having some legally documented arrangement for purposes of burial, hospital visitation, award and entitlement cases, and general equal treatment under the law, might not be such a bad idea.  It can all be very tidy and binding.  Let 'em take it like the rest of us.  On the other hand, without some federal action, interstate differences could lead to a real mess.  As for Kerry, sorry, I only started looking at his career in 1996, but of course he's been in there much longer.  I'll concede that he has some influence in the Boston state house from Washington, but don't overestimate this.  You write:

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 publicly stated policy.

I couldn't have put it better.  He's a politician, as is Bush.  It takes courage to get behind an idea and stick with it, tweaking as directed perhaps by reaction, but not caving or, worse, putting yourself squarely in both opposing camps.  No, in his case it may or may not be courageous to do what you suggest, neither one of us can know this without going inside his head, but what pat buchanan calls "positioning" is farily rigorous, that's what I suggest.  What Mayor Newsom does is courageous.  It is also illegal and unfortunate, not because it does or doesn't help or hurt anyone, but because it ignores separation of powers, the rule of law, and the people's apparent choice, but courageous nevertheless.  The situation in MA, as I'm sure you know, is very different.  They supreme judicial court has put the legislature in a position wherein they may choose either to so something, or to do nothing.  Many state democrats, including the speaker, want to do something.  It will be interesting to see how that plays out, but Kerry really isn't a part of that, except as a friend of the legislature, as are many of our well-connected president's people.

This next bit is an intriguing statement.  And well put.  I'll have to think about it.

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

cheers.  and welcome to the atlas forum.

[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.

[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.

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

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?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

The Homosexual/Bisexual population of most western countries about 10%

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

I'm not so sure that's true either -- but I don't think it really matters whether gays are 0.1% of the population or 100% of the population - the need for liberty is the same.

Of course, the CNN exit poll is always my guide  About 4% of respondents described themselves as gay or lesbian.  There are a number of factors though that would make that number less than the actual number of gay/lesbian Americans.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

10% is the usual estimate... but includes people still "in the closet".
It's impossible to tell for sure either way.