John Kerry has been deservedly criticized for his anti-marriage equality stance. This is why primaries are so great – they put pressure on incumbents to improve their positions.
Ed O’Reilly has put Kerry’s marriage bigotry in the spotlight. This is a good thing! But can this cause any lasting effect when O’Reilly himself is a paper tiger? So far, all O’Reilly has to “prove” his dedication to marriage equality is some speechifying as a candidate, and reports that he showed up at a pro-equality rally once. Does anyone even know if he brought a sign to the rally? Or was he just there to measure the heft of prospective political supporters?
I am delighted when any candidate champions LGBT rights. But I am also weary of untested candidates “forgetting” their promises to the LGBT community at the first sign of inconvenience. For all his marriage bigotry, Kerry has been a steadfast supporter of LGBT rights. O’Reilly is playing the “trust me” game. Is it just lip service, or is he for real? And more importantly, can we afford the risk of voting in a paper tiger?
I’m not expecting you can prove it by his record on School Committee or City Council. There’s a good chance GLBT issues never came up and certainly marriage per se didn’t as those bodies don’t decide such matters. Different people show support different ways, some more obvious than others. Showing up at rallies isn’t my style either, but it doesn’t make my words less true or change what I do in the privacy of the voting booth.
if no LGBT-related issues ever came up before the school committee or city council, because LGBT-related state legislation (at the least) affects school districts directly. There are always LGBT-related issues and bills around to be supportive of, if you really do care.
<
p>As for your words, unless you’re running for political office, I have no reason to doubt your sincerity.
The choice is this:
<
p>One guy says he supports equality, but we don’t know that he will. We know that the other guy doesn’t other guys (forgot about Beatty) don’t.
<
p>Not as clear a difference as if, say, it were Barney Frank running for Senate. But I don’t think the guy sold off his business and has spent about $200,000 of his own money to lie to the voters.
it is disingenuous to say that kerry doesn’t support equality. when it comes to marriage, you’re absolutely right. but kerry has been quite the lgbt champion on other lgbt issues.
<
p>your point about o’reilly’s personal $$ investment is an interesting one. the cynic would say he’s nuts to have done that against such an entrenched incumbent. then he positioned himself based on what he sees as kerry’s weaknesses, without evidence to suggest that he himself stands behind his own rhetoric.
Equality is equality. It’s not a partial thing. If Kerry thinks that lgbt folks deserve 95% of the rights that straight citizens have, that isn’t equality.
i agree with you. but you can’t ignore his long record of pro-lgbt action in the senate. and i’ve still he hear anyone show how o’reilly is anything other than a good talker.
As has been said, we’re not going to find a lot in a selectman’s record to back that up. Sure, O’Reilly is consistently on the side of the angels on this, and sure his most active political involvement was for Howard Dean, a very pro-lgbt candidate in 2004. But at some point I think you have to ask yourself if we can’t do better than we have, rather than condemn ourselves to re-electing someone until s/he dies. To ask if it’s time to move beyond the “tranquilizing drug of gradualism” and take the bold stand that Massachusetts had to take — for our brethren in Ohio and Missouri surely won’t.
It is laughable to even try to get points for O’Reilly there, sorry.
<
p>Sure I think it’s great to bring in new, bold people now and then. But they have to be the right people – people we know will perform. Otherwise we dump a reasonably good incumbent with seniority for nothing. Seriously, look at your reasoning, and ask youself if that’ll for for you for Palin, too. After all, national defense issues didn’t cross her gubernatorial desk, but since she say’s she’s a foreign policy ace, I guess we need to just vote her in because we can believe anything a striving politician says. Especially when they have NO track record. Not even a letter to the editor, for heaven’s sake!
But among the realistic choices in 2004, he had the most pro-lgbt record out there.
<
p>What I’m hearing these days, it’s as if the Obama and Deval campaigns never happened.
Laurel, I do want to say that in my opinion you’ve made the most lucid, constructive arguments for Kerry I’ve seen on this site. I’m sorry we’re not on the same side on this fight, but glad we’re on the same side for most others.
I can’t vote in this election. I’m assuming you can. So my opinions will not be put into action at the polls. At least, not by me. đŸ™‚
If you call Kerry anti-equality for not supporting marriage equality, you can’t claim that O’Reilly is earnest in his equality rhetoric because he campaigned for a anti-marriage equality Dean! And btw, Dean maintains his states-rights, anti-marriage equality position. And the DNC, which he heads, has been nototiously inactive when it comes to fending off the anti-equality marriage amendments. Shame on Dean. Shame on the DNC. And shame on O’Reilly for trying to get pro-equality creds from involvement with an anti-equality operative.
What I’m trying to say is that we have little to see beyond what O’Reilly says (as we did with Deval). The only evidence we have is that of the mainstream candidates in both parties in 2004, Dean had done the most for lgbt rights. And who did O’Reilly support? Howard Dean. Thankfully, that landscape has shifted over the past four years. I’m sorry that Dean hasn’t, and sorry that Kerry hasn’t. But if O’Reilly was on the leading edge then, hopefully he’s on the leading edge now.
…at first i agreed with your comment, but then after further thought i realized that in 2004, dean and kerry were exactly the same on marriage equality: against it. they were and are both states rights troglodytes. dean was ordered by the court to sign the civil union legislation, so he gets no bonus points from me. and do you know that when he signed the bill, he did so in private? i guess he was afraid or ashamed or angry, because what was a great triumph in civil rights that should have been publicly celebrated, he chose to seal in a closet. compare that to kerry publicly championing an arms-length of pro-lgbt legislation.
<
p>not too that dean has since led the dnc to ignore the anti-gay constitutional amendments that have swept the country. dean is the worst of the “drop ’em when they’re a liability” “liberal” dems. so really, tying o’reilly to him does o’reilly no favors.
please go to left margin below!
would be Sonia Chang-Diaz.
don’t offer any path to federal benefits of which there are roughly 1,049 of them, so the percentage may be a bit lower than 95%.
<
p>Now of course same-sex marriage couples can’t get federal benefits now anyways, but DOMA should be repealed with a larger Democratic majority coming and hopefully an Obama presidency. There isn’t even that possibility for civil unions.
to acknowledge Kerry’s past pro-LGBT actions?
<
p>Kerry (D) (info source, except marriage equality)
Kerry’s been good. One of the best in the Senate.
<
p>Will you acknowledge that we can do better? That it’s worth taking a step and a risk to get better?
But not with O’Reilly. The risk that O’Reilly is a paper tiger is just too great to throw away a senior statesman like Kerry.
I’ve said it before – O’Reilly’s actions, especially re-using Rove’s tactics from 2004, make me question his suitability for dogcatcher, let alone Senator.
<
p>I don’t care how pro-LBGT he is. That windsurfing float was a deal killer.
I just have to comment. I’m a windsurfer. I don’t get why O’Reilly thinks it’s a wonderful idea to demonize an entire sport just because the Republicans decided to try to portray windsurfing (which is far more affordable for average people like myself than, say, owning a sailboat or even most motorcycles) as “elitist.” All the windsurfers I know, including myself, are middle class — and not by McCain’s definition, either. đŸ™‚
<
p>In any case, I got talking about the windsurfing float with some other windsurfers one day. One guy said, “So he’s attacking us!” Well, yes, actually, he is. Then I told them about Mr O’Reilly’s line at the state Democratic convention — “Do you think a millionaire windsurfer can represent you?!” One of the other guys said, “Wait a minute — isn’t O’Reilly a millionaire too?” I said yeah, as far as I know. “So the bottom line,” this guy said, “is that he just can’t windsurf!” And a good laugh was had by all.
<
p>How so and wherefor? Why do you think that Kerry isn’t the best that you’re going to get?
<
p>From my point of view, and I’m going to be blunt here, LBGT issues are not first and foremost. Some other poster in this diary has stated that ‘marriage equality is the most important issue’. Maybe for him/her/you. But… and sorry to be the one to point it out… you’re in the minority with those priorities. Why would you expect Senator Kerry to be swayed by your priorities? Why would you expect O’Reilly would remain pure once he comes face to face with the majority position in a general election… or in a crucial vote, should he win the seat? No candidate is perfect. The only Senator whose going to align perfectly with you is you, when you run for the Senate… And then you’ll get to annoy people who think you ought to be better, more pure…
<
p>I understand how much this means to many people. You need to understand how much it doesn’t mean to others… Maybe is ought to meam more than it does for some, but there it is. This is not bigotry. This is priorities that don’t align with yours. Turning it into bigotry, with an attendant expectation that ‘we can do better…’ is just not aligning with reality.
<
p>
Absolutely, but I don’t think that means we should settle for less. Our other Senator supports it for goodness sake and so does the vast majority of politicians in Massachusetts. It isn’t some political risk for him anymore.
<
p>I don’t think it’s too much to ask for a constitutional rationale as to a politician’s public policy stance on civil rights. I don’t think it’s too much to say merging your own religious beliefs and your public policy stances is unacceptable. I don’t think it’s too much to say that treating civil marriage rights differently than abortion is also not acceptable.
i just don’t trust o’reilly is all. but one expecting more from kerry, i’m with ya 100%.
so a Senator’s position is going to matter. There are absolutely no more important issues facing the Congress than the issue of equal marriage rights for same-sex couples.
<
p>We need to know if Kerry or O’Reilly support or oppose a ban on asexual procreation that would allow same-sex couples to have children together. Do they support genetic engineering.
<
p>We need to know if Kerry or O’Reilly will protect the right of every person to marry and of every marriage to conceive children using their own genes.
<
p>We need to know what their plans are to extend equal protections and federal recognition to same-sex couples in marriages and civil unions, and how they plan on working with states to enact civil unions.
There is no bill before Congress that deals with gay marriage. There is not even sufficient support to repeal DOMA, which Kerry voted against. In addition, given that he said he supported civil unions with full rights of marriage that would include adoption. (the same with artificial insemination)
<
p>As to asexual procreation – is it even technically feasible? With gay men, whose womb is used?
<
p>As to working with other states, do you think Tom Cochran would get far “working with” MA?
<
p>Kerry, in 2004, while running for President spoke of supporting legislation to get equal federal rights for civil unions. I don’t know if Obama said the same thing. If he did, the only liberal on the Finance committee where all the tax legigslation is done is Kerry. (O’reilly would likely not get this seat on this prestigious committee.)
There is no bill, but there is a big whopper of an issue facing Congress. There is not sufficient support to repeal DOMA because far too many states don’t want same-sex marriage and if they repealed DOMA then an FMA would follow in about two minutes. DOMA allowed same-sex marriage experiments to happen in a few states; it was necessary for a state-by-state strategy.
<
p>Asexual procreation is technically feasible, look at the website samesexprocreation.com (a pro-SSM/SSP site) for lots of links to the state of the research, and look at eggandsperm.org (my pro natural conception rights site) for more links to articles about the research. With two men (or with two women), a surrogate mother would carry the fetus to term (this is very common already, using naturally conceived embryos), or, they could try an artificial womb. I believe artificial wombs should be banned as inhuman, but there are many people who can’t wait for the prospect, there are gay men who consider women’s wombs to be less “clean” and untrustworthy and can’t wait till they’re completely out of the picture.
<
p>Who is Tom Cochran? I’m wondering what these candidate’s plans are for encouraging more states to adopt civil unions. It would tie in with their plans to get a consensus on federal recognition to state same-sex unions.
<
p>I have offered the plan with the fastest track to equal protections (see my website), which trades away the right to attempt asexual procreation in exchange for federal recognition. It achieves consensus by protecting marriage permanently and preserving the essence of marriage as the right to conceive children using the couple’s own genes.
They really are two different people – but equally bad. My point was that it might hurt rather than help if out of state Senators push to change state laws. It might have to be grassroots in each state.
<
p>If there is no imminent bill, it is not a major federal issue. I also think that any major candidate running on a platform saying that same sex procreation should be legal would lead to a Republican wins everywhere as his/her statements would work far better than gay marriage itself in getting conservatives to vote Democrats out.
That is why no politician is going to say that same-sex procreation should be legal. But see, the thing is – it is already legal. The only state that prohibits it is Missouri, with the wording of their 2006 Stem Cell Initiative, which prohibits implanting embryos that are not the product of sperm of a human male and egg of a human female. All the other states allow it. Massachusetts has a glaring hole in our law that prohibits cloning, because it never defines what “sperm” and “egg” are or whether they can be modified.
<
p>That’s why there is an opportunity to make progress on equal protections across the country by prohibiting it. It is the opposite of what would happen if a candidate came out for same-sex procreation. If a candidate (like Obama) were to say that same-sex procreation and other forms of genetic engineering should be prohibited, it would allow him to get back lots of votes that he is losing on gay marriage. All the candidates should call on Congress to enact the Egg and Sperm Civil Union Compromise right now, before the election, so that the election can be about issues like the economy and tax policy and the war.
<
p>There are only three reasons to be opposed to the Compromise. Either one demands genetic engineering and same-sex conception remain legal, or one is opposed to equal protections and federal recognition of CU’s, or one doesn’t believe that marriages should be allowed to use their own genes to conceive children.
I have tried so hard to ignore your tirades that somehow same sex marriage or stem cell research equals eugenics, but this is getting to be too much. Biology requires a sperm and an egg – period. If a homosexual couple wants to use a sperm donor (if the couple are female) or a surrogate mother (if the couple are male) that’s an issue for legitmate discussion. You have been in my estimation deliberately twisting this debate into something it is not. I for one have not heard any politician or scientist propose what you seem to be accusing “us” of favoring. We do need to be careful about what we do with science, but that should never stop us from trying to at least discover its potential.
You’re right that donor gametes and surrogacy are issues for discussion, that discussion is going on all over the net with blogs like T5’s Daughter and many others. You are wrong that creating a person requires an egg and a sperm (have you ever heard of cloning? It’s quite common these days with animals), and understandably ignorant of research going on into same-sex procreation. I suppose it is comfier to remain ignorant, but it’s not smart. Visit eggandsperm.org for lots of links to articles on the research.
<
p>Have you ever heard of Postgenderism, Transgenderism, or Tranhumanism? Those are real movements, with real objectives of producing children in “better” ways than a man and a woman having sexual intercourse with their own genes.
<
p>And what are you getting at that we should try to discover the potential of science, in this context? Aren’t you implying that we should keep researching same-sex procreation, even as you say that no one wants to do that? Which is it?
<
p>I think same-sex conception is unethical and unwise and a waste of energy, and we should stick with sexual reproduction, where every person is one sex and must cooperate with someone of the other sex in order to have children.
<
p>Even if it isn’t close (which it is), prohibiting it would allow us to make progress in giving same-sex couples equal protections. Same-sex couples simply should not have the same rights as a man and a woman, and either you agree with that, or you insist on making same-sex conception a reality. That is stupid, stupid, stupid. Just face facts.
I think it’s absolutely fascinating that in just a few short years it has actually become unacceptable if a political candidate doesn’t support marriage equality.
<
p>Not to mention our next Senator will probably support marriage equality if Kennedy steps down or Kerry gets re-elected and leaves for another position (SoS?). Barney Frank, Martha Coakley, and Ed Markey would be possible likely successors. I know Frank and Coakley support marriage equality. Does anyone know Markey’s stance on the subject?
I only wish it were the case in other states and at the federal executive level. But we have to start somewhere, and MA is a great place to do it.
to being #2. They have already voted for marriage equality bills two times over in the state legislature. Even big Republicans are coming out in favor with the San Diego mayor who signed in support of it because the court decision and Gov. Swarz. supporting the decision as well. With marriage equality there now too, I’m optimistic the same will happen. As people see friends and family marrying, even more support will grow.
<
p>And New Jersey will hopefully be state #3 next year as Gov. Jon Corzine has said he is willing to sign a marriage equality bill after the November election.
is beating the current anti-equality amendment, Proposition 8 (see my signature line and give lots! :D). If that passes in November, all bets are off. If it is defeated, I anticipate a beneficial ripple effect. I’m not sure that CA state gov’t is quite the pro-equality powerhouse MA is, but you’re right that some spectacular things are happening there. On deck are NJ, NY, VT, CT & NH. A simultaneous defeat of the FL anti-equality amendment would signal a real shift in public attitude. I dream…
that I fully expect Prop 8 to fail, and Florida’s amendment too. Prop. 8 started from behind and such issues usually lose support as time gets closer to the actual vote. Not to mention there’s these huge high profile weddings such as Ellen and Portia’s wedding that just happened and George Takei’s wedding will be taking place soon too who put a face on the civil rights movement. There’s also the wording of the question which explicitly states that it’ll be taking away a right rather than merely redefining a definition. If marriage is preserved come November, I think the same thing will happen with their legislature. We already have one pro-marriage equality candidate running for Governor in 2010 banking on that exact situation happening….Gavin Newsom.
<
p>The same thing goes for Florida. Support is polled at 55% and it needs 60% to pass. I’m not as optimistic about this state since marriage isn’t there already for people to see and they’re much more conservative overall, but that poll gives me hope.
People don’t want to look mean & nasty, so don’t always answer honestly on polls, or they claim to be undecided.
<
p>CA I’m more optimistic about, but there is still loads of work to be done. The anti-equality haters are actively using church groups to register GOP voters. The Mormon church in particular worries me – they are very organized, work in relative secret and don’t hesitate to pressure members with personal house visits from the stake president.
<
p>Any thoughts on AZ? I think that one will be a squeaker either way. The amendment was defeated last time, but now it has been re-written to insure that it doesn’t threaten unmarried heterosexual couples.
I forget the name of the theory where people poll one way, but then vote another so they don’t seem racist/homophobic/sexist/etc. That used to happen quite frequently with black candidates. Even if that is the case, it still shows how far we have come when people think it’s not acceptable to be public with their hate in accords to gay rights.
<
p>Even with that possibly affecting some voters and some church’s involvement I still think it’s going to fail. The latest poll has shown an even larger percent of support of 54% for marriage and 40% against. I think it was 52% vs. 42% a month or so ago. The odds are definitely in our favor.
<
p>As to Arizona, I’m not sure about Prop. 102. I’ve read of newspapers coming out against it like here and here. All I could find about it was this,
<
p>
<
p>but I haven’t seen any numbers so who knows. I’m thinking momentum will be there to kill it again since people have already voted against it even if it is less restrictive this time around.
<
p>I truly do believe we’re in a new age when it comes to marriage equality. It’s a non-issue in this presidential race. Gay people should be considered under strict scrutiny in court cases from now on. In the next several years there should be a handful of states that legalize marriage for same-sex couples.
The last I read, they passed and the governor signed a civil unions bill. You may have read something more recent.
But there have been some really favorable polls, and Corzine is said he would sign a marriage equality bill, but not before 2009.
<
p>The NY assembley has passed marriage equality legislation, but it has been held up in the state senate. The repubs have a thin majority there at the moment. Gov. Patterson supports marriage equality, and has done the interim move of directing all state agencies to recognize same-sex marriages.
A lot of Kerry supporters like myself really wish that he would go all the way with full marriage equality as a national civil right. It is not a determinative issue for our support. He supports marriage equality in Massachusetts and he has a great history of standing up for LGBT rights and advocacy. I do note that I dont think any of the last 4 Dem presidential contenders stood for marriage equality as a civil right — not Obama, Clinton, Edwards or Richardson. I can only hope he will evolve on the issue as many have. My sense is that marriage equality is going to have to be a state- by – state issue. Massachusetts and California are ahead of the rest of of the US.
<
p>I think advocates for national marriage equality would better serve their cause by working on opponents in states that are far behind Massachusetts.
Dean really severed ties with the lgbt community by stating on pat robertson’s the 700 club that
<
p>the dnc then chased the comment with the incredible clarification that
<
p>Dean was clearly using lgbt rights as a political football. I have never been so aware of and so ashamed of the leader of my party as at that moment. So please, tell us again sabutai, why you think tying O’Reilly to Dean is a positive thing. If O’Reilly has the same “respect” for lgbt rights as Dean, we all would be so much better off if Kerry were elected.
have the same or different positions on whether or not to prohibit same-sex conception? Would it matter to you if a candidate supported an anti-cloning law that limited reproductive rights to one man and one woman?