kerry and gay marriage

[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?

[angus]

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.  

[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.

[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?"

[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.

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

OMG, not this again.

What i say is, why do you conservatives care about gay people getting married?  What's it to you?  Let people do what they want.  I'm so sick of conservative points of views where my or others' personal lives are dictated.  

This is #$@%@'ing America!  

[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?

[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.

[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?

[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).

[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).

[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?

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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.

[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).

 

[classical liberal]

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.

[lidaker]

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?

[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.

[lidaker]

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.

[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.

[CARLHAYDEN]

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

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

[angus]

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.

[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.