Gavin Newsom recently spoke to reporters at the DNC and had some strong words for all politicians who have the audacity to support civil unions for same-sex couples, and sadly that includes our Senator John Kerry.
Mr. Kerry still does not support marriage equality and he has no constitutional or rationale argument as to why.
Newsom had this to say:
And so I demand as she does equal justice and equal rights. Full equality. You can’t separate an institution by making it a lesser institution. No one argued for that in 1967 with inter-racial marriage when 70% of Americans opposed inter-racial marriage. No one said well why don’t blacks and whites get married, but call it a “civil union”. No one had the audacity to say that and how dare they have the audacity today and I say this with respect to those that disagree with me to say that about the gay community.
(emphasis mine)
I couldn’t embed the video, but you can check it out here. These words are around the 1:55-2:20 mark.
was a great move, because the first 4 years were so great. Heckuva job Gavin.
I’m not sure I buy the argument that it was because of marriage equality that Bush was re-elected.
<
p>
<
p>Second of all, so what even if it was? (which I don’t believe is the case as stated above) Gavin did the right thing by allowing gay couples to marry. He probably moved this civil rights movement forward by countless years. These are peoples’ lives, dignities, and civil rights at stake that shouldn’t be used for political expediency.
movement forward by several years”
<
p>As I noted on the other thread, domestic partnership rights were on the march and spreading in states and companies. Then instead of being about rights to things like hospital visitation, it became about “marriage” – which is actually LESS inclusive than domestic partnership, btw – there are people who need the legal rights but don’t have an intimate relationship and shouldn’t have to have the connotation thereof. Of course I’m guessing those folks don’t matter.
<
p>Honestly, I am not gay and do NOT see why the state should sanction any marriage in the first place – all the legal stuff should be under “domestic partnership” and if a church wants to do a marriage ceremony, go for it. But likewise no church should be forced to consider something a “marriage” for purpose of their sacraments, that isn’t a valid marriage by their beliefs.
<
p>As for the effect on the election, I have a relative who is a fundamentalist, and I know that gay marriage was used as a bogeyman in 2004. There are two things that will bring America down (according to the fundies): abortion and gay marriage. War? Environmental problems? Pshaw. God has that stuff covered. But if you disrespect Him by allowing these terrible affronts in your laws, well you are going down. (Please note I am paraphrasing. Really, it’s that warped and that scary.)
He made the issue front page news across America and sparked millions of conversations on the topic. Not to mention all the other cities and towns he inspired to allow gay couples to marry.
<
p>And marriage equality may not have been legal today if it weren’t for Gavin Newsom. The case, In re Marriage was a result of his actions. I’m not sure if you understand fully the implications of having the most populous state in the Nation legalize gay marriage. There’s a saying, ‘As California goes, so goes the nation’ for a reason. And on top of all that the California Supreme Court was the first to actually look at the question of whether gay people should be considered under strict scrutiny and found it to be so. Hopefully most Courts will take that view from now on and it should make a huge difference.
<
p>And listen, it never became about marriage. It was always about equality, and it just so happens that our Country has learned that separate is rarely if ever equal.
Many many analyses of 2004 credit the 13 anti- gay marriage referendums on the bvallot with bringing out extremely high numbers of evangelicals to pass them and defeat Kerry. Kerry exceded goals in nearly every county, getting 8 million for votes than Gore. Far more than they thought they would need to win.
<
p>Whether Newsom’s bad timing in deciding to push gay marriage then made these numbers higher is hard to quantify. But, you credit him with getting it on the front pages and sparking many conversations. In socially conservative areas of the swing states, I assume the sight was frightening.
<
p>There are few national politicians who have made strong statements in favor of gay marriage. Only 14 Senators voted against Doma in 1995. Newsom himself gives Obama, whose position is similar to Kerry’s in 2004.
<
p>Kerry is NOT a leader on this, but he has led on other gay issues and he is far better than most Senators. No one is or can be the leader on every issue.
<
p>That’s nice that he’s led on other gay issues, but there’s not a SINGLE reason for him to be opposed to marriage equality. Not one. That is unacceptable of a politician that represents Massachusetts.
If you’re still in the habit of regarding presidential swing voters in Florida and Ohio as your true constituency, you’d be gun-shy about marriage equality too.
which it briefly would be if a Democrat as close to Obama and as prominent as Senator Kerry made a statement in favor of gay marriage.
<
p>I don’t see any other top Democrats doing so – where are the NY or NJ Senators – none of them are publicly in favor of it. I guess Senator Lautenberg has presidential aspirations.
Cause that’s really sad if so. If others were jumping off a bridge…..oh never mind.
<
p>The issue is whether or not John Kerry should support marriage equality? Yes or no. Stop making these excuses. Most people here in Mass are sick of them. It’s time for Kerry to upgrade to marriages.
It truly is different for Kerry because he’s supposed to represent Massachusetts in Congress (or does he represent Congress in Massachusetts?), he’s not trying to be president this time. So he shouldn’t be talking about his personal views anymore, he should just be looking out for his state now.
since both sides this year are vying for the moderates’ votes. Not to mention that Al Gore already came out in favor of marriage equality and the state of California has legalized marriage equality as well. If McCain and the republicans were going to make it an issue this time around they would’ve done so already while the issue was hot.
and that may be true, but I don’t regard it as a reason since Kerry said at the debate when asked:
<
p>
<
p>So the only two options are that Kerry is lying and is vying for a national position or Kerry has a disgusting bias against gay people. Either way, it’s not looking good.
only shows your own bias and/or cluelessness.
<
p>I see no evidence that Kerry is biased against gay people, and I’ll bet you can’t provide any actual evidence, either. At worst, I see a desire on Kerry’s part (and that of the vast majority of Democratic politicians), to subordinate the demand of a vocal segment of the GLBT community to take the word “marriage” to describe their committed relationships, to other political issues that he sees as having a higher priority. Like stopping (or at least slowing) the destruction of the planetary ecosystem; like bringing the troops (including 2 of my nephews) home from Iraq in a responsible way that doesn’t further damage national security; like improving access to adequate health care and other services for economically disadvantaged people irrespective of sexual orientation or any other superficial or pre-determined characteristic.
<
p>I have to say that I agree with John Kerry on this one. Btw there are many issues where I disagree with John Kerry, some rather serious. But he’s still one of the best we’ve got. If Kerry is “bad” then using the same scale, most of the rest are “absolutely incredibly horrible”, and there aren’t any that are “good”. So I’ll calibrate the scale at “Kerry = good” until there’s a significant number better than him. Spurious attacks like what I see in this diary, really tick me off because they take time and resources away from solving the problems that are crippling our society – including the need to provide equal substantive rights to partners in committed relationships of any orientation.
is bias. Well then please enlighten. What’s another possibility?
<
p>As to the evidence of bias, I’ve called his campaign in the past and was told that he does not support marriage equality because of his own “personal views”. I take that to mean his Catholic views of which has no place in public policy. So yes, that is bias. If there’s some other possibility that I’m missing let me know what it is, but I can’t think of anything.
Second paragraph, beginning with “At worst…”.
As I suggested elsewhere I don’t think it would have an effect on the national scene. If gay marriage were to become a wedge issue again it would’ve already happened when California legalized it. Or it would’ve already happened when Al Gore made a video in support of marriage equality. None of that has manifested.
<
p>Not to mention that there’s no political reason to be opposed to it on the state level either here in Mass. It’s rather safe and expected of politicians to support now. Even our other Senator Ted Kennedy supports it.
<
p>So I don’t view that as a valid reason and hence I only see those other 2 possibilities already listed above.
to Gay marriage. There is nothing – or he wouldn’t have a decade of 100% ratings from HRC – a record matched by few other politicians.
You state specifically the Senate because you know that John Kerry worked against marriage equality in 2004 here in Mass.
<
p>It wasn’t until recently, after 75% of the legislature voted against the ban, that Kerry backed off supporting the constitutional amendment and says it’s settled law, but he still does not support marriage equality.
<
p>Also, if you call his campaign they’ll tell you that Kerry doesn’t support marriage equality because of his own “personal views”, aka he’s inserting his religious Catholic views into his public policy stances.
to “support” the constitutional amendment?
<
p>My understanding is that he didn’t do anything, that all this stems from his response to a question he was asked by a reporter in another state. It seems to me that as a state question, Kerry wouldn’t have much say, so him stating his personal opinion isn’t terribly relevant. His national opinion – where he has a say – was to vote against DOMA, and to support repealing DOMA.
<
p>And, as I asked elsewhere, what have you done to work for this issue? (If you responded to my earlier query, I didn’t see it yet)
I’m sorry, I’m not gay, this is somewhere below #1000 in my list of issues priorities (environment is #1, btw), and I just thought MA settled this. Excuse me if I’m missing the point. But anyway:
<
p>Kerry has spoken in favor of, and voted against attacks on (e.g.: DOMA), equality between straight and gay couples on the actual, substantive rights that accrue to married couples, such as social security benefits, health care benefits and hospital visitation, and so on. At one point I remember him making a statement about “1200 specific rights” except I don’t recall the exact number, let alone all 1200 or so specific items. Kerry made it clear that he supports equivalence in ALL those rights. My guess is that if Kerry’s number was 1200, you would insist that it be 1201 – by adding the right to call it “marriage”.
<
p>As someone who has been deeply gratified to see the progress of actual substantive rights over the years, only to see that stymied and in some cases reversed by the “shoot ourselves in the foot” attitude of throwing the word “marriage” in the face of social conservatives, for whom the only greater scourge (and only maybe greater) than gay marriage is abortion, I am saddened, frustrated, and I must say a bit annoyed at folks who want to hold this issue up to trash someone like Kerry – who was one of only 14 Senators to support full rights for gay couples by voting against DOMA. Only 14? If DOMA came up today to be rescinded, how many votes can you get in the US Senate to rescind it? Not the 60 you need, I guarantee you. But you and your fellow EOR supporters are wasting the movements resources by attacking one of the votes you already have to overturn DOMA! Like I said, shooting yourselves in the foot. Unless of course this is only an issue for you because you want to attack John Kerry.
<
p>Btw I have a friend who is a GLBT activist in Philadelphia, and based on prior discussions with him, my last statement is also the conclusion he would come to. He said Kerry is disappointing on “marriage” but right on the substantive RIGHTS, which means in the current climate, Kerry is one of the good guys. But this guy doesn’t spend much time blogging, and I suspect that many of his friends who actually work with GLBT’s to deal with the problems created by the current legal climate, also don’t spend much time on the blogs.
<
p>To take this one step further – since this is such a critically important issue for you, what have you actually done yourself to help real people who are facing real problems now with GLBT issues, and who can’t afford to wait until the current near-theocracy of federal government is overturned? Keeping in mind, of course, that you have admitted expending your personal resources, not to increase support for overturning DOMA, but to merely replace a senior Senator who is on our side (for overturning DOMA), with a freshman Senator who would have near-zero power?
about Kerry’s DOMA vote. Yes, it was great of him to vote against DOMA, but he only did so because it didn’t provide for civil unions. And simply because he voted against DOMA, it does not mean that he “supports full rights for gay couples” as you suggest since he does not support marriage equality.
<
p>Via the Boston Globe article:
<
p>
<
p>So it seems that Kerry would actually support a federal constitutional amendment if there was a provision to afford civil unions instead. That is an article from 2004 so perhaps his stance has changed on that, but I haven’t heard anything.
<
p>As to:
<
p>
<
p>This isn’t about supporting O’Reilly. It’s about John Kerry who is making his public policy decisions based on his own personal and or religious opinions. If you can’t see why that’s an issue that should be discussed then I don’t know what else to say.
<
p>What does what I have done personally to advance GLBT rights have to do with anything? This diary is about John Kerry, an elected official who represents Massachusetts, who is not relying on constitutional and rationale principles to determine his public policy positions.
<
p>
<
p>Stop lying. Where have I admitted not to increase support for overturning DOMA? And as I’ve already stated, this isn’t about O’Reilly vs. Kerry. It’s about Kerry who has a completely wrong stance on marriage equality.
<
p>
You admitted expending your time to support O’Reilly, who is attacking one of the supporters of repealing DOMA.
<
p>You show me where you have put your resources where your mouth is, and maybe I will have some reason to believe you are sincere. Otherwise you appear to just be using this to attack John Kerry, who would gladly support repealing DOMA if there was enough support in Congress to do so. But there is an opportunity cost to your attacks on Kerry and your support of O’Reilly – you could instead be supporting another Democratic campaign to replace a Republican with someone who would support repealing DOMA. But instead you have chosen to attack someone who is on our side on that issue.
<
p>Speaking of opportunity cost, I have spent way too much time on this diary – I have some work to do for my own causes. Attack away. I’ll check back later to see how you have chosen to use your time.
<
p>But one last thing – glad I checked your link – you conveniently left out this portion of the Globe article:
<
p>
<
p>What part of “all legal rights” don’t you get?? Oh yeah, one word: “marriage”. Okie dokie.
Let’s say that back in the 50s and 60s some politicians were suggesting civil unions instead of civil marriages for inter-racial couples because it would’ve been safer politically for them to do so and it would have satisfied some in the religious community who don’t care to make the distinction between civil marriage and religious marriage.
<
p>Would you have supported civil unions for inter-racial couples then as you support civil unions for same-sex couples now? Yes or no and why?
These are groups who have been both discriminated against historically, black people and gay people. Many of the same arguments are used against them as to why they should not get married…..ex. morality, religious arguments, etc.
<
p>Please explain why you see it as an irrelevant comparison and why you think it’s justified to place same-sex couples in a separate, but unequal institution, but it’s not okay for that to have been suggested back in the 50s for inter-racial couples?
Shot at with water cannons and forced to sit in the back of the bus and not allowed to eat in restaurants.
<
p>Show me this happening to hundreds of thousands of gay people.
<
p>Show me gay people as slaves on the tobacco plantations of the south.
completely homophobic in the past and these two posts fall right in line with those views of yours.
<
p>First off, I was speaking specifically about inter-racial couples marrying and same-sex couples marrying which there are many similarities. In fact, the California Supreme Court looked at primarily Perez v. Sharp which was an inter-racial marriage case in deciding their same-sex marriage case. Not to mention states banning the practice and many of the same arguments were used against both.
<
p>Secondly I did not say the struggles were exactly the same, but how you diminish the struggles of gay people is astonishing. There are many similarities between the two movements such as civil marriage which was denied to inter-racial couples and is being denied in most states to same-sex couples. Black people also used to be banned from military service. Gay people still are banned from military service, unless they keep quiet about their sexual orientation.
<
p>Oh, and since you’re so interested in discrimination did you know that gay people are still hanged in this very day simply for being gay? Feel free to take a look at all the countries with death penalties for gay people here.
Same old tired defeated argument
<
p>They are not the same.
As he is apparently also concerned that being for gay marriage is going to lose the election and give us four more years of Republicans. But he isn’t very convincing about it, since he says he had no problem with CA’s Supreme Court decision, and that he thinks same-sex couples should have all the rights of marriage. (The fact that his position on CU’s is precisely the position that the court said was unconstitutional apparently doesn’t bother him.)
<
p>Really, it is a serious enough threat that you ought to be looking for ways to help Obama make his case for CU’s more convincingly. There is a way that you could not only help Obama get elected, but also at the same time achieve real meaningful gains for same-sex couples across the nation, by helping him come up with a distinction between marriage and civil union. Or, you could continue to torpedo his chances and continue to keep same-sex couples from getting equal protections, by insisting instead on equal conception rights.
equal conception rights? It’s the right to marry. Nowhere is there written a rule stating that a married couple must have children or even want children. Many do, both straight and gay couples, but that’s irregardless of the point.
http://www.google.com/search?q=“equal conception rights”
civil marriage rights? I just don’t see what you’re trying to get at here.
<
p>
<
p>Please don’t lecture gay people to settle for something lesser. I think gay people, of all people, know full well what is at stake and excuse us if we want equality.
<
p>
<
p>Now that’s rich. Yes, there are grave distinction between civil marriages and civil unions. You can read all about them here. Or how about a study that was done in NJ showing that civil unions are inherently unequal to civil marriages?
<
p>
<
p>First off: Get it straight, we’re demanding equal marriage rights.
<
p>Second off: I haven’t read reports of many in the glbt community calling on Obama to change his stance from civil unions to civil marriage. By and large, he is given a pass by most in the Democratic party because he is the most gay-friendly presidential candidate we’ve ever had.
<
p>Thirdly: This diary was directed at John Kerry who represents Massachusetts where marriage equality is legal.
what does that have to do with civil marriage rights?
<
p>Civil marriage rights should continue to include conception rights. All marriages should be allowed to attempt to combine their genes to create offspring. We shouldn’t, for the first time in history, have marriages that are prohibited from conceiving children together, using their own genes. Same-sex couples, though, should be prohibited from conceiving children together, using their own genes.
<
p>Please don’t lecture gay people to settle for something lesser. I think gay people, of all people, know full well what is at stake and excuse us if we want equality.
<
p>I think most gay people would rather have equal protections than equal conception rights. After all, same-sex conception is not even practically possible right now, and it might never prove safe enough for anyone to ever want to try it to create children. Love makes a family, and continuing to insist on same-sex conception rights directly undermines that principle.
<
p>Now that’s rich. Yes, there are grave distinction between civil marriages and civil unions. You can read all about them here. Or how about a study that was done in NJ showing that civil unions are inherently unequal to civil marriages?
<
p>If we made conception rights the only distinction between marriage and civil union, by defining civil union as being exactly like marriage except lacking the right to conceive children together, then those differences would go away. Except for not being allowed to create offspring, civil unions would be identical to marriage: you’d check the married box on your taxes, you could even use the word married everywhere, you would have to divorce just like marriage, etc. By having only one specific difference, it makes civil unions much stronger.
<
p>First off: Get it straight, we’re demanding equal marriage rights.
<
p>I’m sure President Palin will thank you some day. But the thousands of same-sex couples that will never get equal protections will be pissed off.
<
p>Second off: I haven’t read reports of many in the glbt community calling on Obama to change his stance from civil unions to civil marriage. By and large, he is given a pass by most in the Democratic party because he is the most gay-friendly presidential candidate we’ve ever had.
<
p>True, but it surely proves that you are aware of how it would torpedo his chances if he were to change his stance. Which means you must be aware of how fragile the situation is, if he is perceived as being unlikely to protect marriage. He has already said he’s got no problem with CA, so he needs to do something to make clear he’s not gonna roll over.
<
p>Thirdly: This diary was directed at John Kerry who represents Massachusetts where marriage equality is legal.
<
p>That’s a good point. But I wonder if Senators also represent the Federal government in the states? Perhaps Kerry needs to explain to Massachusetts why we will need to revert to Civil Unions that do not grant conception rights, so that the country can ban cloning and genetic engineering and protect everyone’s natural conception rights.
I really can’t even take you serious with this discussion. You’re making an argument for something that is completely theoretical and isn’t even viable, no pun intended.
<
p>Same-sex couples have children through in-vitro fertilization or through adoption, means that straight couples use as well. These are the “conception rights” that same-sex couples utilize. And again, there isn’t even a clause that states a couple must have or want children in order to get married.
It’s not theoretical, they’ve created a mouse (Kaguya), and they could attempt that with humans if they wanted to, and it might work. It’s viable. It is unethical, but viable. There are clinics that are telling same-sex couples that it might be possible in a year or two.
<
p>Of course marriages don’t have to have children, the point is that they must be allowed to, using the couple’s own genes. Every marriage in history has had that right, don’t cause marriage to lose that right by equating a man’s right to have children with a woman with his right to have children with a man. Stop insisting on equal conception rights for same-sex couples. Give Obama a chance to win, prevent eugenics and genetic engineering, preserve natural conception, give same-sex couples equal protections.
“conception rights”, not me. I’ve been calling for equality which comes in the form of civil marriage. And I assure you “conception rights” is not the reason why many people oppose civil marriage. I’m well read on this subject and it’s the first time I’ve ever heard of it so you can stop with the “give Obama a change” mantra because it’s not even on peoples’ radar when discussing the issue.
<
p>If that issue ever comes up, we’ll deal with it then and go through all of the arguments both for and against. No use fretting on something that may never be however.
that same-sex couples shouldn’t have a right to conceive children together. Refusing to do that is insisting on conception rights for same-sex couples, and that is a silly thing to insist on, rather than federal recognition and equal protections. Concede that people should only have conception rights with someone of the other sex.
If and possibily when the procedure becomes available I would have to read all the available information on the topic before I would make my decision. It would be a step by step logical decision rather than one based on feelings of whether a same-sex couple should be having children, whether for or against. Is the procedure scientifically safe? Are there any side effects, if any? What are the ethical issues at stake some may have? etc.
even though it is unsafe right now, even though there might be side-effects, even though there are major ethical issues, even though it is totally unnecessary, even though it will cost Billions of dollars to develop and regulate and fund, and even though millions of same-sex couples don’t have equal protections or federal recognition.
<
p>It should not be your priority, but you are insisting that it is. It should be prohibited now, since it is unsafe now, and if we ever decide it is safe, doesn’t have side-effects, etc, then it should be made legal, and same-sex CU’s should be converted into marriages. But we shouldn’t have marriages where the couple’s right to conceive together is subject to other people deciding if it is safe enough. Marriages should be allowed to conceive children together using their own genes without question.
I don’t support civil marriage because of some theoretical procedure that may never even come to fruition. Rather, I support civil marriage because it’s called equality. We’ve already learned that separate is rarely if ever equal. Get it?
You’ve been hit with some new information, so you might need to take some time to think about what it means.
<
p>Concede that people should not have an equal right to conceive with someone of either sex. Make federal recognition your priority, not equal conception rights. Make equal protections your priority, not equal conception rights. My highest priority is preserving equal reproduction rights for all people, preserving every person’s right to use their unmodified genes to have children with a person of their choice, using their unmodified gametes. I also believe same-sex couples deserve equal protections right now. My plan is a way to move the game forward so that we can achieve equal protections right now, simply by accepting that same-sex conception is not safe and should not be allowed right now.
YHBT. YHL. HAND.
(that’s “Open your mind”) People really need to stop hiding behind YHBTs and actually sometimes take what people say seriously. I’m not a troll, I’m not trying to annoy people. I have a unique and important idea. Sorry that it rules out gay marriage, but don’t blame me. It does get equal protections to CU’s faster than anyone else’s idea does.
I will blame you. You’re the only person I’ve ever heard of pushing this ludicrous idea. In particular, I have never, ever, ever heard any politician or mover or shaker say that this was their reason, or even a reason to oppose equal marriages for all.
<
p>You’re either a troll or a crackpot. Take your pick.
Evolution is what created male and female. Evolution is what requires both to create people. Also, blame Civil Rights. Civil Rights are what guarantee each of us the right to procreate, with out own genes. You want to Change those? You want to be able to deny people the right to use their own genes to procreate? You want to be able to make people some other way than from a father and a mother’s own genes?
<
p>I’ll take crackpot, it’s half right. I genuinely want to establish the end point right now: equal protections, natural conception.
Huh? Seems to me you’re the one wanting “to deny people the right to use their own genes to procreate.” Isn’t that what your egg-and-sperm law does?
It prohibits using modified genes, it prohibits making a person any way other than joining the sperm of a man and the egg of a woman, because that is the only way to use unmodified genes – in complement. Same-sex conception requires modifying the genes of one person to be complementary. We could, if we chose, call those modified gametes someone’s “own” genes, and same-sex marriage would imply that was true and allow that, but allowing that much modification would open the door for all modifications, which should all be prohibited. Allowing modifications erodes the right to use unmodified genes, because people will be coerced into improving their genes. It should be right and proper to use unmodified genes, which means it shouldn’t be right to modify them.
<
p>The egg and sperm law doesn’t prohibit any one from procreating with their own genes, but it does prohibit same-sex procreation.
Those two questions to you (which you haven’t answered) are the only outcomes of allowing gay marriage. The first outcome, denying people the right to use their own genes, is what happens when a proponent of same-sex marriage denies that ssm would allow same-sex conception, in other words, when they imply that the issues are separate: same-sex conception could be banned and same-sex couples could be prohibited from attempting to join their own genes, even if they were married. That means, since their marriage is legally the same as a man-woman marriage, that a married man and woman could also be prohibited from attempting to join their own genes.
<
p>The other outcome, allowing same-sex conception and other ways to make kids, is the only way to preserve the right of people to use their own genes, if we allow SSM.
<
p>Both outcomes are possible too – we can allow ssp, and also deny people the right to use their own genes. That’s where we are headed if we never do anything.
<
p>Saying that people have the same equal right to conceive with either sex either makes SSP a right as basic as male-female procreation, or it makes mle-female procreation as dubious and tenuous a right as same-sex procreation. The only way to protect individual conception rights is to accept that they exist only with someone of the other sex.
as a disclosure: I just volunteered, unpaid, for O’Reilly the other day by canvassing some of Cambridge. This diary isn’t about their contrasting viewpoints on the subject, hence why I didn’t bring O’Reilly or the primary up, but rather just Kerry’s wrong stance on marriage equality. I just remembered and thought I should mention it.
No one said well why don’t blacks and whites get married, but call it a “civil union”.
<
p>Because the issue was whether or not to allow blacks and whites to mix their genes together, to “miscegenate”, or to keep the races separate, to not allow black people and white people to conceive children together. Allowing marriage allowed the couple to conceive together using their own genes, and it still does, according to Kennedy’s Lawrence v Texas opinion.
<
p>The relevant point is that no one suggested that they be allowed to marry, but still not be allowed to mix their genes and have offspring together. Same-sex conception is not comparable to “inter-racial” conception. The only reason to prevent inter-racial conception is to preserve a system of white supremacy (though states did try to argue that inter-racial babies were unhealthy, but not only are they wrong about that, but it would be overridden by the basic civil right to have children with the person of one’s choice, with exceptions where there are supportable basis to prohibit relationships (not individuals) from conceiving together. The costs and social changes of allowing same-sex conception are a supportable basis to prohibit it. And there is no basic civil right to attempt same-sex conception that overrides the health risks and social costs of allowing it.
Ed’s history of support for marriage equality and other issues of concern to the GLBT community prior to his decision to run for the Senate?
<
p>And since you’ve posted numerous diaries ripping candidates/elected officials for not being responsive to their constituents, I hope you realize that I will now hold you and Ed O’Reilly to the same standard.
<
p>If you don’t provide me with an answer in the very immediate future, expect to see many diaries about how you and the O’Reilly campaign don’t care about the voters.
<
p>Toodles.
this diary wasn’t about their contrasting views even though one does support marriage equality and the other doesn’t. Rather, this diary was about how Senator Kerry’s position on marriage equality is absolutely wrong since he does not support it.
I posted lengthly below what they are. They are not perfect, but they are far from being as drastically wrong as you post.
<
p>Secondly, Masshole is correct. Kerry could be wrong on the issue and still O’Reilly could take this position only for pure political expediency. So, what are his credentials on this issue (or any other for the matter), before he decided to run for the Senate. I can also copy the PdA platform and run. Would you vote for me?
own decision on O’Reilly vs. Kerry. I see what you’re saying, but people will be making up their own minds on that. Are Kerry’s views and actions or inactions enough to make them vote for a guy who’s relatively inexperienced, but who has some better views? That’s exactly what people will be deciding for themselves come Sept. 16th. However, this diary is not about that as I’ve stated several times.
<
p>Rather, this diary is specifically about Kerry’s view on marriage equality. And although he is rather good on gay rights in general, on the specific issue of marriage equality he is 100% wrong not to support it. And I’ll reply to your post below shortly as I have some comments for that as well.
So, Paul, despite a history of legislative support- action- on behalf of numerous causes near and dear to the GLBT community, you’ve decided that because John Kerry doesn’t let his personal opinions stand in the way of his political decisions that he doesn’t deserve your vote. That’s a pretty intriguing stance for anyone who has even the slightest knowledge of what actually went down under the Golden Dome to secure marriage equality in MA.
<
p>If you truly hold one’s beliefs as more important than one’s political record than you really need to reexamine your support for dozens of members of the MA Legislature. Because if for one second you think all the MA elected officials who voted in favor of marriage equality actually believe in it, you’re, well, you’re living in a progressive fantasy land.
<
p>The fact is there are dozens of MA elected officials who voted for marriage equality because politically they had to do it to remain in office. And I’m guessing you have no problem with their decision. In fact, I’m guessing you would salute them for responding to the wishes of their constituents and putting the people above their own personal political beliefs.
<
p>And if that’s the case- why the double standard with Kerry?
<
p>And again– can you provide any proof that Ed O’Reilly actually supported marriage equality prior to his decision to run for the Senate? Because he has no problem donating money to elected officials who oppose marriage equality and consider homosexuality akin to bestiality.
<
p>So when Ed O’Reilly was donating thousands of dollars to marriage equality opponents, what was that exactly? I’m sure a person of Ed’s unquestionable integrity wouldn’t turn his back on the GLBT community and the cause of marriage equality just to score some political points with gay bashing elected officials.
1/ The article has NOTHING to do with Kerry. We should certainly discuss gay marriage. Gay marriage should be legal and right transferable countrywide, but the fact is that it is not the case, and that gay marriages in MA are not valid outside of the state, thanks to DOMA, a law that Kerry opposed.
<
p>2/ Kerry had said, during the 04 campaign that he supported civil unions with ALL rights attached to them, civil and federal. We can definitively regret he did not support using the WORD marriage, but, for all purposes, what he was proposing WAS marriage. He should have used the word, I agree, but you still have to be clear about what he was proposing.
<
p>3/ Kerry has clearly stated that he opposed changing the law as it exists nowin MA, has been credited for working alongside Deval Patrick, Therese Murray, and DiMasi for this not to happen, and has also stated he supported the change of the law so that couples from other states could be married.
<
p>Now, did Kerry have a role of leadership on the issues of marriage and civil unions, the answer is NO, and it is important to people who are touched by these issues one way or the other, but my last question is the following: how did O’Reilly have any role, as an activist or otherwise, in these issues.
Or is the choice between somebody who says he supports gay marriage, but did nothing, and somebody who does not say it as clearly, but voted against DADT and DOMA, and to whom HRC has given a 100 % record?
<
p>The problem at this point is that EOR has stated a lot of positions which on paper look terrific, but I am still waiting to hear how he acted at whatever level to help with these issues (you do not need to be a senator to start being active).
The relationship I have with whomever–is none of the states business.
<
p>Gavin Newsom is a scintillating hypocrite amongst many things.
I’d never have expected you to find the mayor of San Francisco “marked by high spirits” or “brilliantly clever”. Looks like we have a closet Newsom fan here!
On behalf of the people that would be born. That means preventing certain relationships from having children, and it means preserving the right of every marriage to have children using all its own genes.
<
p>We can’t just let any old scientist go and create people willy nilly. We can’t let siblings conceive children together (even if they are not blood related), we can’t let scientists offer to modify people’s gametes to make their children smarter or faster or whatever, and we can’t let scientists offer to create offspring for same-sex couples.
before it allows people to create children together. And then it should protect that couple’s relationship and help them with benefits and expectations now that they have officially consented to conceiving children together.