Now, what are his constitutional arguments against marriage equality? I would love to hear them. What parts of the Goodrige case does he not agree with? Quite frankly, his own personal religious views are not an acceptable argument. Senator Kerry does not represent solely Catholics. He supports the people of Massachusetts who come in many diverse religions and views. His political views that affect and represent us all need to be based on rational, constitutional arguments when it comes to civil rights.
[UPDATE: Per Senator Kerry’s policy staff, I was informed that Kerry has no constitutional or logical rationale at all. Rather, he uses his own personal view as a reason for not supporting marriage equality.]
Also, a great breakdown by GLAD of the differences between civil unions and civil marriages can be seen here. Those are the real differences between the two. Also, lets not forget that there was a study done in New Jersey where they implemented civil unions (and will upgrade them to marriages next year) which showed that civil unions create second class status.
Again, the people of Massachusetts have made our voices mightily clear on where we stand for marriage equality. Will Senator John Kerry join us?
Or at the least answer our call to issue and have a discussion on the merits of marriage equality.
If anyone would like to call our Senator John Kerry, you can do so at the numbers listed below:
Senator John Kerry:
Boston (617)-565-8519
Washington D.C. (202)-224-2742
Springfield (413)-785-4610
Fall River (508)-677-0522
Kerry has been a great friend of the glbt community over the years. I was willing to give him a pass on marriage equality during his presidential run because of his record, but that pass has now expired.
Exactly, he had an excuse during his presidential run and whether we liked it or not, it was a political reality then. Now though, with the governor of our state, our other Senator, our Attorney General, and over 75% of our legislators all supporting marriage equality he has no political excuse at all.
<
p>So the only other reason I can come up with is his Catholicism. That’s a real issue if that is the case and the people of Massachusetts deserve an in depth discussion on it if that’s the reason.
<
p>I’ll try to contact his office this week (and I hope everyone here does too) and find out where his opposition stems from.
but the reason why Kerry is still against marriage equality is b/c he still sees himself as a national figure with possible offices to be held within an administration (POTUS, VP, SoS, etc.).
<
p>Gay marriage is still unpopular on the national level, hence, he sees such a position as a political liability.
but I don’t think that holds much weight either (although it could be his rationale). Just look at Deval Patrick. He’s a staunch supporter of marriage equality and is playing a very large and visible role in Obama’s campaign. If Kerry were chosen for a position it wouldn’t be until after the general and I don’t see that hindering his chances one bit especially considering his early support for Obama.
saying something because of political expedience? I mean we poke candidates on both sides of the aisle for their apparent “flip-flopping” and I assume the reason is we want them to have a view of something and stick to it. Yet when there is a sensitive issue such as Social Security, raising taxes or their position on Gay issues (like Marriage), we give them a pass by essentially saying “it would not be politically smart to tell the truth” on this issue so lie or avoid answering until after you elected.
<
p>So let’s ask politicians how they feel about issues and then let then stand up like men and defend their positions. If it means political suicide then so be it since I’d rather elect an honest person than elect a “liar” to public office.
I read what I thought was practical in my head such as SoS which I don’t see his stance on marriage equality as any sort of obstacle. VP and POTUS I don’t think are realistic right now (Obama will probably go with a more moderate Democrat for veep) and by the time they are, marriage equality will hopefully be legal nationwide.
<
p>What I do see as realistic is a Secretary of State position which there has been plenty of rumors about (http://www.newsweek.com/id/141512), but again that would be in an Obama administration where support for marriage equality would be a non-issue.
Yes, I’d love to hear him use that as an excuse. We cannot forget that he was “given” a pass by our leadership/lobbyists on his run for the Presidency because that is what our “leadership” and lobbyists do–they make deals in hope of something better in the futute. But you have to realize that our leadership/lobbyists are NOT the LGBT community.
<
p>What Kerry felt he had to do by coming out against the Goodridge Decision is equivocation on fundamental equality, fundamental freedoms, and fundamental decency with regards to how one treats fellow American Citizens.
<
p>What John Kerry did shows spinelessness. The fact that John Kerry would continue shows lack of character and leadership. The fact that we in the LGBT community once again are exhibiting Stockholm Syndrome with regards to politicians, giving them “one more chance” lobbying them to do the right thingsaying things like “they were such a friend to us” is really very very sad.
<
p>John Kerry has to go! And we need to tell him that whenever he pops up in any of our towns or asks any of us for money.
<
p>His “catholicism” indeed…
for Kerry to fully embrace marriage equality.
<
p>Keep posting, Paul.
Why bother calling John Kerry to “have a discussion”? The evidence is in on that tactic: he’ll say whatever he needs to pretend he has a position in agreement with his listeners, then he’ll go on to say something different to another group, meanwhile doing nothing substantive on the issue.
<
p>Anyone who sees this issue as clearly as this post does ought to vote for Ed O’Reilly and get a senator who is proud to support marriage equality and proud that MA took the lead on this. Don’t waste time on the phone to Kerry.
Exactly derrico!
Are you aware that the Kerry/Smith bill to lift the HIV travel ban passed the Senate on Thursday? I think that is a pretty big deal, so although I agree with your general sentiment that Kerry should support gay marriage, you do not represent the whole truth when you do not mention Kerry’s stellar record on gay rights issues apart from gay marriage. There is no doubt in my mind, that without Kerry, this major legislative victory would not have happened. So when you call his office, a little honey may get you further, and a positive message as to what it would mean if he backed gay marriage. Just my two cents.
<
p>http://afp.google.com/article/…
<
p>
but as Lyn put it so well up above, “Kerry has been a great friend of the glbt community over the years. I was willing to give him a pass on marriage equality during his presidential run because of his record, but that pass has now expired.”
<
p>That’s great that he’s working on behalf of the glbt community for some issues and is getting things done. However, that doesn’t make him immune from criticism when there are valid points especially when it’s civil rights at stake.
<
p>What it comes down to is that there is no reason, whether political or constitutional, to be opposed to marriage equality and many reasons to be for marriage equality [I can think of 1,138 of them:-) ]. If there isn’t any rationale argument to be opposed then shouldn’t we be calling him out on it? I think we should.
when he ran for president, even if some of it was cringe worthy. The rest of the country is far, far behind Mass. on this issue. But now that he is the Senator from Mass., not presidential candidate from Mass. (and I don’t see why his support for gay marriage would affect him in cabinet positions, if that were to come to pass in 2009, so I don’t believe that comes into play at all here), I also see no reason why he can’t just move slightly (it’s not that much farther since he called gay marriage “settled law” in Mass. already) and come out for gay marriage.
he was opposed to the constitutional amendment here in Mass because it didn’t provide for civil unions and so that was his reasoning rather than actually being for gay marriage.
<
p>But I completely agree, those that are going to be opposed to that stance won’t see the difference and will group the two together. He worked for marriage equality either way. He should step up now and support the people here. We’ve made our views abundantly clear.
<
p>Hopefully we’ll have some forums in August with Kerry and O’Reilly and we can bring this up then.
These “marriage equality” people have no patience for people not on board with their agenda.
<
p>Why they even disrupted their own convention because of it.
and reasoning you would see that I/we have plenty of patience. That’s why we have given Senator Kerry a pass for the past several years, but the time has come to move on. And it’s also why we realize the political reality for someone running for President and give Obama a pass currently.
<
p>Why don’t you try to formulate an actual argument, you know…with reasons and all!
(drum roll please!!)
<
p>of his personal view.
<
p>Wow, what a constitutional argument. Phew, I’m glad we have that squared away.
him not imposing his own personal view on others when it came to abortion? When he ran for President in 2004 it was a rather big issue and he stuck to that argument.
<
p>Why isn’t that same rationale applied to marriage equality?
when I demanded to know John Kerry’s view on marriage equality…
<
p>his first words were, “John Kerry will not take your marriages away from you.”
<
p>What a piece of horse shi…
<
p>Seriously, equality never takes a back seat to “ambition” or at least it really isn’t supposed to. I have a question for you all. Who among us took a stand against Hillary Clinton for her stance on marriage equality? Who is taking a stand against Barack Obama?
<
p>I can remember almost getting my head bitten off in certain leadership circles for criticizing either. i am not saying, don’t vote for them. I am saying let them or actually now Obama know that LGBT are not pleased.
is a good thing. I see nothing wrong with that. I give Obama slack however because I know he’s running for President and civil rights are incremental. Obama is the most pro-gay candidate we’ve ever had so far, but I’ve definitely called his campaign and let them know my views on many issues, marriage equality included. I am a pragmatist however and I won’t let perfect be the enemy of good.
<
p>But our senator John Kerry is not running for President. For the reasons listed above I feel it’s time now for him to finally come the rest of the way and support marriage equality.
How long are we supposed to give him? I am sure his staffers are monitoring BMG and other sources and John Kerry will jump over from the dark side as soon as it becomes a political liability.
<
p>So how long do we give him? My town dems gave up on him big time already and refuse to come back. And my town is where is parents lived as well as his sister.
we each have to answer individually.
<
p>For myself, it’s definitely one issue, a major issue, among others that I’ll consider come September when I’ll vote for someone for the Massachusetts Senate seat. I don’t know who I’ll vote for yet, but this is one big negative in John Kerry’s column.
<
p>But my point with this was to create some discussion and awareness. Hopefully we can use that come next month when we’ll have some forums and we can discuss it with Kerry then.
so often people just follow along, speak, vote, etc without thinking. Good job with this post! Many think that to question, to hold accountable, to ask or demand that a lege hears them is actually taking a side against that legislator. Many leges themselves think that and immediately circle the wagons and start to play sides or the blame game.
<
p>Thank you for opening the discussion and for questioning!
Thanks!
“I give Obama slack however because I know he’s running for President and civil rights are incremental.”
<
p>THE MESSIAH!!!! AMEN!!!! HE GETS A PASS!!!
<
p>LOL ROFLMAO
Every single civil rights movement has been incremental. As they say, Rome wasn’t built in a day.
<
p>And I never said he was perfect and I haven’t read anyone on this blog making that statement. To the contrary, many have criticized him for his imperfections such as his vote on FISA.
Funny that you should mention Rome …
<
p>
For those less familiar with the collapse of the Roman Empire, the inspiring likeness above is one of ancient Rome’s greatest assets ..
<
p>http://www.transhelp.net.nz/tr…
To request a plank for recognition of same-sex relationships.
Something doesn’t add up.
<
p>You’re claiming that rhetoric supporting marriage equality on a national level is more important than John Kerry’s actions that benefit issues close to home on gay issues, such as co-sponsoring ENDA in 1996, the Employee Non-Discrimination Act of 2003, just worked on HIV immigration issues, supporting the repeal of DADT, etc.
<
p>What results in an improved life for gays and lesbians — taking the “bold” stance of supporting gay marriage in the US Senate even though you’re about 40 votes short of changing the status quo, or working to nibble off discriminatory laws one at a time, regarding equal access to health care, employment, military service, etc?
<
p>
<
p>The reality is that you’ve already set him up to be sunk. He can either keep doing all of those things which don’t add up to much in your opinion, or he can support full marriage equality… in which case you’d almost certainly accuse him of
since he’s running against EO’R.
I never claimed that support for marriage equality was more important than some of the actions that he has taken in the Senate on other gay related issues.
<
p>
<
p>But just because he supports other gay issues doesn’t mean I shouldn’t raise this issue. No, not when logic, fairness, constitutional arguments, and Massachusetts citizens (the people he represents) are on the side of marriage equality and on top of that there is no reasonable political reason to be opposed to it either which is icing on the cake.
<
p>And that is sidestepping the issue at hand. We should be talking about his reasons for being opposed rather than his stance/actions on other related issues. Has Sen. Kerry done a lot of good on glbt related issues? Absolutely. Does he have a rationale reason for being opposed to marriage equality? Nope.
<
p>What is so difficult about giving a logical reason for not supporting marriage equality? Is that so much to ask?
<
p>Well, I haven’t seen one.
I over-reached, perhaps more as a response to comments that others made than to your comments. Apologies.
<
p>Still, I do think you’ve got him in a bit of a wedge. If tomorrow he comes out and supports marriage equality, you’ve set it up to claim that he’s moving left because of EO’R and that, perhaps, it’s pandering instead of taking a solid stance.
<
p>I dunno. I shouldn’t put words in your keyboard. Pushing Kerry to be right on the issues is totally kosher.
<
p>Personally, I think JFK (i) gets a bad rap here on issues, (ii) gets a bad rap here on constituent services, and (iii) that EO’R is a terrible candidate who couldn’t hold JFK’s proverbial jockstrap in the Senate. But, that’s not what this thread is about, so I’ll save that for another day.
and listening to my reply there. And I completely understand where you’re coming. That’s what happens when politicians change their positions during an election season. However, that can be avoided somewhat by being upfront and stating why you changed your position and why your old position no longer holds weight.
<
p>People want to see a development, not just position changes at opportune times if the distinction can be made which I think it can be.
<
p>Yes!, we’ll definitely have to have a discussion on JK vs. EO’R another time as September moves closer…..hopefully when we’ve got some forums to have a discussion with the candidates themselves.
But I didn’t declare myself until the last minute and gave his staffers and supporters who called me an earful on Kerry’s lack of support for marriage rights and dithering on Cape Wind. I’d be a much happier constituent if he’d move in response to feedback on these issues.
Will you be going again this year?
<
p>Well if he is going to move at all on any issues it’s going to be this year since it’s an election year. I think the forums will the people’s chance to make their voices heard and to shine some light on some of his views that we as Massachusetts citizens don’t agree with.
challengers in primaries – to get them to get in line with the rest of the party. Kerry supporting marriage equality because of EOR’s challenge would effectively end EOR’s challenge… and serve the purpose of a primary challenge. No complaints if Kerry does that from here… that means he’s doing his job as a Senator listening to his constituents, representing their interests.
I agree about primaries, and that’s why I love ’em, especially in a state like MA. But, Kerry coming out for marriage equality wouldn’t end EO’R’s run… many people still believe that (i) JFK is weak on constit services, (ii) JFK is weak on the environment, (iii) JFK has no influence in DC, (iv) JFK doesn’t pass any bills, etc.
<
p>I don’t buy into any of those four items, but I’ve seen those claims written around here any number of times. So, while it would take folks who cared only about maximizing equality off of EO’R’s bandwagon, I suspect that there are plenty who care about other issues as well, and they’ve still got to make up their minds too.
however those other 3 issues can be sidestepped (all but constituent services I would say) somewhat by simply highlighting the pro’s of each issue and what John Kerry has accomplished. Some people may think it’s not enough, but it’s not a concrete example against him.
<
p>Marriage equality is an issue with no way to side step. Sure, he can talk about what he’s done for the glbt community, but he has no reason for not supporting marriage equality and he’s just wrong on it.
<
p>I think he can’t do much on the issue of constituent services since people will hold their views based upon past experience. Perhaps he could promise to donate a specific amount of money, get new people, or have re-training classes and that could help calm peoples’ issue over that.
His Iraq vote and constituent services may be able to keep EOR in the race, but it’s safe to say that his support would be much diminished if Kerry took a more pro-gay position, fully embracing marriage equality.
How have the people of Massachusetts made their voices mightily heard? A few have been heard, mostly in Cambridge, but the overwhelming majority in this state have been silenced on this issue.
If you doubt this than wonder why every time the possibility of a vote comes up how quickly the idea gets squashed by the radicalized few and their enablers in the state house.
Personaly I dont give a crap but if given the chance to express an opinion I certainly would take the opportunity …. But that would be making my voice heard and like most every other time such a possibility arises in our great commonwealth, only the speacial interests are ever heard.
<
p>Well, we have booted out most of those that do not support marriage equality and have re-elected every single legislator that has voted for it. I think that speaks volumes. That’s for the whole of Massachusetts and then for specifically Massachusetts Democrats, we have actually put it into our platform that we proactively support marriage equality.
There is another one of those election thingees coming up in a few months and last time I checked most incumbants were running UNOPPOSED … again.
Call it a representative democracy if you must but I have heard it called a number of other things and most arent all that flattering.
Regardless, back to the subject matter of “people have loudly spoken”.
If people are banned from voting on the matter they havent spoken at all. They are effectivly gagged.
The court has ruled and the legislature has defered.
Those are more appropriate leads to your rant.
Besides the over 75% of legislators don’t forget our governor Deval Patrick, Lieut. Gov. Tim Murray, and attorney general, Martha Coakley, who support marriage equality and you guessed it: were also elected by the people.
Using your logic, we the people also loudly demanded the invasion of Iraq and our now clamouring to beat the war drum with Iran. Cant you hear the chorus getting louder as the we the people of our represenative democracy burst out in song ….
bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb iran …
Or is it only selectivly representative … or not represenative at all?
… if you ever want to put war in Iraq (hopefully never Iran, but a preemptive will of the people message to send to the neocons and the chickenhawks would be good) on the ballot for people to vote on, I will gladly join forces with you, nomad943. Definitely a case of strange bedfellows, but I don’t think you really care about the people’s voice on matters that really affect just about everyone, like war and piece. Ironic that you use terms like “selectively” in your posts, albeit misspelled.
And I’m one who would love to see more Republicans running and winning statehouse races, because this would be, as a general matter, good for the commonwealth even if bad for the Democrats.
<
p>But. Really. Are you really arguing that the electoral success of the legislators must be discounted because the defenders of traditional marriage couldn’t find anyone to run in those races?
<
p>You sound like the Greens: We can tell the elections were unfair because we didn’t win!
<
p>There were plenty of arguments that the SSM decision was an example of judicial overreaching at the time. I agreed with you, then. But this argument against the policy has been rendered moot by the specific approval of the elected legislature, especially since that legislative decision was made in a politically charged atmosphere, after the issue had been a big one in the election that legislature.
… because of the dig against the Greens, I can’t rec it, but I appreciate your stance on this issue, CentralMassDad.
but I was afraid the commenter would not know what a Naderite is.
Massachusetts is considered a joke around the country
<
p>This legislature is a bunch of crooked hacks that were bought off by the gay mafia headed by Deval
<
p>Don’t ever forget what happened to Democracy here
Their entire Congressional delegation is under investigation. They’re a solid red state too. Ha! Ha! Ha!
<
p>I find South Carolina with its extraordinary number of constitutional offices so no one gets too much power, their state house statue of a segregationist, and their having re-elected an unpopular governor to be much, much more of a joke than Massachusetts.
<
p>Your fantasies about mafias and the demise of democracy are not widely shared.
including Ohio and Texas, I can tell you that your comment is horsesh–t.
Only after checking the weather report in advance, of course! Only after he and his government had approved an artificial snow attraction in the middle of an exceptional drought, among other boneheaded moves. If not, then you are being a bit provincial, “my friend”. Nobody sits around talking about Mass. in other states (only the right wing does that, and Mass.’s former governor); your ears aren’t ringing on account of the chatter in other states about Mass., I can assure you. And support for gay marriage is clearly generational with young people, even in red states, overwhelmingly in support of gay marriage. Mass. is just ahead of the curve.
You probably think that Oprah is the most important person in the world and that Obama is the Messiah. That there’s really only farmland and cow pastures past NYC all the way to LA. It must be a nice “summer fantasy” read at the beach that includes you traveling to a 3rd world country to rendezvous with some islander in order to help you get your “groove” back.
<
p>Sorry – but you live in a fantasy world.
<
p>”And support for gay marriage is clearly generational with young people, even in red states, overwhelmingly in support of gay marriage.
<
p>We will never know in Massachusetts, though, will we? Because of bribery and lies, deception, hatred and ultimately, bigotry.
<
p>Yes – people do laugh about Massachusetts in Blue states as well as red.
consists in saying
followed by
as long as you agree
<
p>and I know you do
<
p>It doesn’t matter if you think its ironic
<
p>what matters is that it riled you up enough to post something smarmy and pseudo intellectual which we knew you would
<
p>It’s kind of fun, like a game using liberals, to see how they respond!
This comment is the very definition of a troll on the web, i.e., someone who posts just to rile others up.
Wasnt that the point of this thread … letting the people of the commonwealth speaking clearly on the matter …
No time to be saying shush when it is discourse you hold so dear.
A gadfly cares about trying to convince people. S/he offers arguments, reasons about stuff, etc. If you’re trying to get people to change their minds, you don’t make fun, for example, of their handles as Pater Familias has. You certainly don’t advertise the fact that you are riling people up for sport. You offer evidence. You supply new perspectives.
<
p>I’m calling Pater Familias a troll based on what he himself has written. Trolls are not conducive to high quality discussions.
I thought a troll was an old man looking for sex in public restrooms.
You must be new to online forums.
…and who knows how many other self-loathing homophobic gay men in the Republican party!
The fact that we have the best k-12 educational systems in the country?
<
p>Or that we’ve elected more presidents than any other state, save Texas (a tie)?
<
p>Or that we have a nation-leading health care plan which covers nearly everyone? And politicians from across the country are trying to copy it?
<
p>That we have the best colleges and universities in the country?
<
p>That our economy is stronger than the vast majorities of states in the country?
<
p>That California just followed us into marriage equality, now meaning over 10% of the country allows same-sex couples to be legally wed? And that measure is supported by all three branches of their government?
<
p>Or that Massachusetts is widely viewed as having some of the most powerful and effective Congressional Delegations in the country, from Barney Frank to Ted Kennedy?
<
p>Oh, yes, Massachusetts… a real hoot! The laughing stock of America!
I’m proud to live in such a great state.
Who — hoo. Together we can!
what a laugh! Because gays just have so much money and power that the world cringes at our feet.
… then again, that would be an unconstitutional violation of the First Amendment, just as Massachusetts voting away the right of gay and lesbian couples to marry would be an unconstitutional violation of The Fourteenth Amendment, not to mention unconstitutional in the face of the Commonwealth’s own constution, as well, so I don’t think you should have your right to speak out put on the ballot. If only you could return the favor for us. (And I’m being a tad facetious, anyway, but I love to make the point.) If I can respect your right to bitch and complain, no matter how counterproductive and selectively bigoted I find it, why can’t you let it go and respect gay and lesbian couples’ right to marry, even if you don’t personally agree with it?
<
p>
<
p>Does that mean the people have been gagged? Or does that mean the tyranny of the majority has not been allowed to take away nomad943’s fundamental rights as an American? Just remember nomad943, first they came for the gays and lesbians…
Like I said, I realy dont care … I realy dont care if our unethical government takes a break from bribe processing to proclaim the merits of its sanctioned marriages to between men, women or some mix of the two along with goats and sheep and whatever.
Do whatever turns you on. Doesnt mean I wont laugh at you just the same but if it gives you some satisfaction proclaiming the “will of the people” than ENJOY … and so will I.
All I ask is that the government make some effort to maintain the same sanctity at highway rest stops. There are some venues that should still be maintained as family friendly and that being in the traditional sense.
Sorry if I’m speaking for you, but you seem to “care” quite a bit to me.
<
p>As for the rest of your comment, I don’t think it’s worth justifying with a response.
In his original post he also said he didn’t care about the issue. Perhaps if you say it enough times it’ll make it true? It seems to be quite the opposite actually.
<
p>I’ve also noticed the rhetoric “enabler” used in that same first post. Anyone else completely reminded of anti-gay Westboro Baptist Church lingo?
http://www.capecodonline.com/a…
<
p>This increase is a direct result of gay marriage in Massachusetts.
<
p>The Cape and Massachusetts are now advertised on gay porn websites as the place to go for outdoor orgies.
<
p>The article says the citations have increasd 200% in the past 5 years.
Its not that I forget to mention the National Seashore; I completely forgot that the seashore even existed.
Back in the 80s I learned the same valuable lesson that the couple from NJ in your link learned.
Race Point might appear to be a beautiful place from the parking lot but it is strictly a no go zone.
Too bad too, it realy would have been a gem if the state didnt let it get overrun by all the trash …
always having a gay sex obsession? There’s a saying that comes to mind….”Me thinks though doth protest too much.”
<
p>Dear lord, you don’t see others constantly bringing up public straight sex at Mardi Gra, straight prostitutes at Las Vegas, and other such things.
<
p>And as to your argument…..you try to imply a causal relationship from a mere correlation. That’s a false assumption and a terrible argument.
I am not the one posting;
<
p>”Time for Sen. Kerry to catch up with Massachusetts on marriage equality.”
<
p>Now who has the gay sex obsession?
<
p>You have a single issue and you slam anyone for not kowtowing.
<
p>Please show me where there are 30 straight people having public sex at Mardi Gras – and if you can, you should know you might see that walking down Burbon – but it just doesn’t happen.
<
p>Now let’s see – a family who is enjoying the Cape do not necessarily know that they would happen upon an orgy.
<
p>Please stop with you inadequate analogies
<
p>Defending these cretins, straight or gay, is deplorable and kills your credibility.
sex when the topic is about the constitutional right to marry. You can’t seem to make the distinction.
<
p>
<
p>Really? First off, is that your only argument? You seem to spout that same line to everyone in this discussion. Second of all I’ve posted about several other issues as well since I’ve signed up on BMG.
an obsession with sex, of any kind? Sex is only a very small part of marriage – almost nonexistent, in many “I dos.”
<
p>
<
p>Paul’s posted on many different issues, but keep living in your ‘fantasy world.’ Regardless, marriage equality is obvious important to Paul. Gee, I wonder why? Maybe it’s because his life is deeply effected by it? On the other hand, why do you care so much? How would your life be effected so greatly that you need to be spending your time trolling around liberal Bay State blogs?
<
p>
<
p>Are you trying to suggest that families visiting the Cape are stumbling on gay people having orgies? You asked Paul for 30 examples – I’d be happy for you to show me 2 from this summer, if it’s such an epidemic. Then, please explain, what those things have to do with marriage equality… as opposed to public exposure, which is a completely different thing.
Well Ryan
<
p>Since MA has been designated the gay state and the courts have allowed gay marriage – thousands if not hundreds of thousands flock here and especially to P Town for SEX – yes you heard me right, people actually come here for orgies in Public Parks. IN PUBLIC – what do you think of that?
<
p>”Are you trying to suggest that families visiting the Cape are stumbling on gay people having orgies?”
<
p>Uh, no suggestion – it is a fact and the whole point of the article.
<
p>”How would your life be effected so greatly that you need to be spending your time trolling around liberal Bay State blogs?”
<
p>Here we go again with the “sky isn’t falling” “how is your life affected” BS
<
p>I am not like you Ryan – a self centered egotistical liberal. I think of other people like the vacationing families – not you who only want free public sex.
<
p>I think of the country and the culture of these United States
<
p>Its not about me Ryan – this is a battle for our country.
and therefore the voice of every US citizen of the Commonwealth who was 18+ years old in early November 2006 who happened to not be in prison or convicted of an elections-related crime was heard, even those who didn’t bother voting.
<
p>It’s called democracy. Participants welcome.
I had to divorce my wife from our heterosexual marriage to stay alive. I’m all for equal rights, when do I get some? The Democratic party platform has so many planks on it to satisfy every special interest possible. If the tree huggers looked at the volume of pages and how many trees were sacrificed… they’d have second thoughts about the platform. Our Democratic state legislature is of course more wise than us common voters. They know better than we do what do with our money. As for the marriage issue, why not test us commoners on it by letting us vote on it. It is said that 10% of us are gay. I got news for you folks… this isn’t South Africa. We 90% of the non gay population would like to be heard. One last thing, how do you allow James Marzilli to remain in office. Geraldo Alicea is going down in Southbridge, the governors payoff for his vote never came through. The voters are remembering this.
<
p>Just fyi, the term we use nowadays is environmentalist. I’m pretty sure the term “tree hugger” was left back in the 80s. Anyways, the platform really isn’t all that long and it’s online saving paper if you’re really that concerned about it. I kind of get the feeling you were just trying to name call however.
<
p>Now that I’ve gotten that out of the way; some of us believe civil rights shouldn’t be voted on. What if we allowed a vote on inter-racial marriage? A woman’s right to vote? etc And anyways, there have been plenty of votes on it through our elected representatives and those same legislators have been re-elected time and time again (with those voting against marriage equality being boot out, mind you).
<
p>
It would never make it on the ballot. So please stop with this tired worn out analogy. You simply cannot equate the two.
<
p>That is the difference – this ammendment had 2x the amount of signatures required and like California, would have been passed if we were allowed to vote.
So what if we allowed it then? Exactly my point. And just fyi, polls from that time period actually show way larger sentiment against inter-racial marriage than there is in the relatively close polls on same-sex marriage.
<
p>It’s not a tired worn out analogy and the Courts have recognized the many similarities as well as the distinctive differences of the two civil rights struggles.
is to complain about “tired worn out analogies” while re-arguing last year’s debate without adding a scintilla of new ideas.
The People of California will vote
<
p>The people of MA were not allowed to
<
p>I offer no analogies – that only comes from your side
why your pet issue deserves to skip all the rules that have been in place for decades, to get it on the ballot. Every Constitutional Amendment plays with the same rule book. Your issue wasn’t able to overcome the very, very easy requirements to get on the ballot (only 25% of the legislature’s support, for heaven’s sake!).
<
p>Grow up and get one of those edumacations, preferably on civics.
No answer huh? I guess because I’m unenroled, I have no rights. I find it interesting that Blacks were accorded citizenship about 60 years before women. An “environmentalist” interested in animal rights, probably isn’t that much into trees. My apology for “tree-hugger”. I believe in action, not political correctness.
Can I marry a dog?
time and time again. you lost. GET OVER IT!
<
p>How many freaking ConCons do you want? Go organize your next petition so we can beat it again. Each time you guys just end up making marriage equality more and more popular, and help increase our legislative power. So, really… go organize those petitions and “speak” again.
Just as many as the amount of lawsuits you file to get your way.
<
p>At least we don’t sue to get our way – we want a fair vote – you communist!
Just saying.
Your side sued and threatened more. Selective memory, I suppose.
<
p>But I don’t hold that against them. They used the legal means available to them to try to get their issue on the ballot. That’s fine.
<
p>The fact of the matter is your side got a full and fair vote in Beacon Hill. We had absolutely, positively no lawsuits that prevented as much. There was a vote and you lost, a vote in which you only needed 25% support, which is less than half of a majority! Crazy rantings on BMG won’t change that.
I think I’ll send a check his way, assuming his campaign is up and running and there’s an actual website or address I can use to donate to him through.
<
p>Meanwhile, if others are interested, a less cynical anicdote about Alicea and his vote.
He won election due to a campaign promise of supporting a statewide referendum on the issue. He was given false promises by Caddilac to change his vote. His district is not happy. Save your money, he’s going to lose.
I don’t agree with former UMASS and Senate President Bill Bulger on a lot of issues-busing and protecting mobster relatives are just a few. But he once made a poignant observation about what John F. Kerry’s initials really spell out-Just for Kerry.
<
p>Kerry has never been our Senator he has always been running for President his entire life. Yale friends of his I know said he once had a sign that said Kerry for President in 92 on his door in college, his anti-war stuff in the 70s was just an attempt to raise a national profile, and has a Senator he has done little fighting for the State of Massachusetts. His office is one of the worst constituent services offices in our delegation possibly in the entire Senate (well Obama’s is terrible but he WILL be President so thats excusable). He rarely makes appearances in the state, he is not particularly liked by his state, and he shares little in common with the average person of this state. He spends far more time in Washington than he ever will in Massachusetts.
<
p>Kerry will always be thinking he has a shot-basically until the moment he dies or is finally voted out of office. Notice he still holds onto some of his 2004 money even though this Senate race will be a cakewalk, he still has an active PAC, he still makes speeches across the nation and notably in important primary and swing states. He knows he’ll be a contender in 2012 if Obama falters and due to his early and vocal support of Obama he might be the liberals standard bearer in 2012. Or maybe he is auditioning to be Secretary of State-he does speak French and fears social positions that might make him unacceptable to his peers and of course to the voters if he runs in 2016. Remember he will still be younger than McCain in 16 so he basically has another two cycles he could jump into. And that is why he will never be as courageous or as devoted to Massachusetts as he needs to be. Or maybe he was always a coward.
is that politicians have to pay attention and court our votes. If ever we were going to bring up issues, whether it be marriage equality or constituent services, now is the time to do it.
<
p>Let’s make sure we can make our voices heard next month when forums are held around the state.
<
p>Nothing is going to happen until we can bring light to this issue and make him face it in a public discourse.
First off, I’m not going to believe your friend of a friend stories. It is pretty obvious that this person wasn’t friends with Kerry and is just repeating rumors. Secondly, you could argue that Kerry’s protest of the war in ’71 in fact COST HIM the presidency, and he has stated full out he has no regrets for speaking out back then. Thirdly, if Kerry’s only real interest was winning the presidency then why did he insist on continuing his investigations of Iran/Contra, CIA drugrunning, and BCCI, the last one which ended up implicating some Democrats making him not particularly popular in DC? Jackie O ended up calling him asking him to lay off Clark Clifford; he didn’t do that and continued his investigation. That was in ’91, and there is no doubt that set him back for presidential politics for a time, even if his name did pop up on VP lists for Clinton and Gore.
<
p>The time for John Kerry to be President is over. He seems to be doing quite well as Senator from Mass. (12th most powerful Senator, so I read), and that is why he’s running for re-election. And, of course, he is going to be re-elected — 94% likelihood says Rasmussen — so you’re just going to have to put up with having a foreign policy and environmental expert, not to mention champion of veterans’ care and yes, taking care of folks back home in Mass. for another 6 years.
a book on the environment, that makes me an environmental expert too?
<
p>and no, he will ‘take care of us’ this year and again in 2014.
on a ghostwriter. As far as I know, This Moment on Earth was written by JK and THK. In fact, you can tell the difference in writing style between the two. I checked the Acknowledgements page, and they hired a researcher, Aimee Molloy, but indeed you are out and out calling them liars by your “ghostwriter” accusation:
<
p>http://www.powells.com/authors…
<
p>
<
p>I mean are you just making s*** up for the heck of it, or do you have some kind of revelation to share? I mean, lots of famous people have ghostwriters, but it looks to me like the Senator and his wife wrote this book themselves, with lots of research and editing help, as is usually the case.
<
p>Finally, seeing that Kerry helped organize the first Earth Day in Mass. in 1970, I would say he has a very long history of being part of the environmental movement and enacting legislation for the environment throughout his Senate career.
Kerry has had a ghostwriter in the past and it is not a leap of faith to believe he continues to do so.
<
p>he is not unique among politicians whom write promotional books- after all, they should be busy writing, you know, laws.
… but there are actually a lot of stories about Kerry’s acerbic and even arrogant personality. FYI, I’m a very, very progressive person (so I’m not engaging in right-wing slander) and have talked to all sorts of people who have said this about him. Some are progressives, others moderates, and a few conservatives as well. Yes, it’s easy to write these off as anecdotal and just “urban legends” and isn’t surprising when someone who does happens to be a supporter/defender of Kerry.
<
p>And I TOTALLY do not buy the argument that Kerry’s protest of the war in ’71 in fact COST HIM the presidency – if anything, it’s his no longer being the man he was in ’71 that made him seem much, much weaker and less emblematic of the progressive, anti-war voices we were desperately lacking 4 years ago and needed so badly. In fact, yes, I’m going to say it. He “flip-flopped” — not just a few times during the course of his campaign, but also between being the person he was in ’71 and being the one he was ’04. That’s not always just a right-wing talking point. And since Kerry will NEVER be the president, I don’t need to censor myself on the way I feel the way I went out of my way to do so four years ago (as did many, many people, no matter how much some might deny it).
<
p>The only reason Kerry isn’t criticized more strongly on BMG and other sites like it is because
<
p>a) he’s a Democrat
<
p>and
<
p>b) people realize this year is an opportunity for Democrats and all possible energy should be put into taking out as many Republicans as possible rather than primarying Kerry
<
p>and finally
<
p>c) Kerry is old news; he already lost a presidency he should have won (and some, including me, say he actually did win), but was cheated out of it. Most feel that he’s suffered enough already. I don’t have much appetite for working against him (nor do I have the money), in big part due to reason “B” above.
You are not fooling anyone
Foolish short comments. Foolish extended comments. Foolish. Foolish. Foolish.
It should be “guy or girl” actually.
<
p>lol, cause I know you’re all about political correctness.
But if it makes you feel better to assume that, go right ahead. Sounds like you’re about the same single issue, and are on the other side of it, which is why you felt the need to invoke it.
I just love single issue clever intellectual liberals who can’t admit when they are wrong
You must have very, very low standards of what it means to be clever or intellectual. MarriageEqualityMass was simply stating the obvious. I guess the obvious can be intellectual for some, but not many.
… it would have been nice to see it when the vote to authorize war came up for a vote in 2002. Unless he was already considering and had decided he was going to somehow win the nomination.
I only assert that Kerry was better after his presidential campaign!
<
p>As for the AUMF vote, I’m torn between:
what’s your take on AUMF’s in general? Is this an abdication of Congress’ power to declare war or an affirmation of it? I know that Congress has been avoiding the responsibility of an actual declaration of war since Vietnam or sooner- is this behavior not unconstitutional? Does the President now have the unilateral ability to declare war so long as there’s no need for a draft? What do you think the authors of the constitution intended? I always thought they wanted only Congress to have the ability to intiate state-sanctioned mass killings, because of a fear of dictatorial powers in the executive/”commander-in-chief” and because war is too dire a matter to be left to one man’s (lack of) discretion.
I only ask because you seem good with the legal stuff.
One of the most disgraceful documents to come out of Congress in years.
I didn’t know it included the bogus al Qaida charge. I’ve commented elsewhere on how ridiculous it is to think that Iran would ally with al Qaida (the Sunni/Shia thing). However, it is even more ridiculous to have thought that Saddam’s Iraq would. Al Qaida was explicitly against secular regimes. It’s an opposition fundamental to their strategy. That put the Baathists clearly in their sites.
which is related to our Senator Kerry since he voted to authorize the War in Iraq (which I think will be THE number 1 issue that people will vote against him in September)….a couple of great articles: on the Iraq war authorization and on Congressional inaction for declaring war.
That question is way out of my league.
<
p>As I recall the Reagan Administration’s invasion of Grenada came as a surprise and I don’t believe the Congress authorized force or declared war or said that the U.S. had a policy of regime change.
For John Kerry to have an acerbic even arrogant personality, doesn’t he need to HAVE a personality?
… he just rarely shows it in public, is all. He’s afraid it will hurt his political aspirations.