First thing’s first: John Kerry does not support marriage equality. I have spoken on this issue many times, but usually in deference to constitutional and rationale arguments.
In this diary however, I would like to point out John Kerry’s hypocritical treatment of the marriage equality issue in comparison to another hot button issue, abortion.
In 2004, when Kerry was running for President he had this to say in a debate about abortion:
“First of all, I cannot tell you how deeply I respect the belief about life and when it begins. I’m a Catholic, raised a Catholic. I was an altar boy. Religion has been a huge part of my life. It helped lead me through a war, leads me today. But I can’t take what is an article of faith for me and legislate it for someone who doesn’t share that article of faith, whether they be agnostic, atheist, Jew, Protestant, whatever. I can’t do that.”
(emphasis mine)
Now Kerry’s reason for not supporting marriage equality is his “personal views”.
Obviously Kerry realizes there is a separation of Church and State and he was able to distinguish between the two on the topic of abortion. Why is the issue of civil marriage rights held to a different standard than abortion?
Please Mr. Kerry, heed your own advice.
he is apparently a heterosupremecist and/or afraid of not being seen as one. this is a major failing in kerry, but it doesn’t make o’reilly the better candidate. i’ve yet to see evidence that o’reilly acted to created or preserve marriage equality in massachusetts or elsewhere.
<
p>when is the primary? i can’t wait for these posts to stop that attack kerry without providing positive substantive info on o’reilly. i will never forget bill clinton talking up gay rights before shitting on them, cambridge_paul. you should never be fooled by the “trust me” approach from politicians when it comes to gay rights. deval patrick is the only one so far who has come through on that. and i’m middle-aged – i’ve heard half a lifetime of empty promises. chances are o’reilly is as full of crap as was bill clinton.
This post wasn’t about Kerry vs. O’Reilly. It’s about Kerry’s wrong and hypocritical stance on civil marriage which I will post about even after the primary.
<
p>Now I also do support O’Reilly. The most I’ve heard of him doing on marriage was being at a marriage equality rally at the statehouse in 2007 via his website. Him saying he’s for certain issues without proof may or may not be good enough for people. I have met the guy at Democratic events and I believe him.
<
p>And quite frankly I’m willing to take that chance on O’Reilly. I feel completely left out as a gay man by John Kerry. Just look at his two websites, here and here. There isn’t one mention of GLBT rights in there in the issues sections. This vote will also be a referendum on Kerry’s vote to authorize the war in Iraq and hopefully having a high percentage of people vote against him will give him pause if there’s a next time he votes on a preemptive war.
<
p>I’m relatively young though and haven’t been burned yet with the “trust me” approach as you put it. Well, perhaps a little bit burned by Obama with his FISA vote there and a couple other stances, but on a whole I’m still happy with him. The only other person I’ve voted for with that approach has been Deval Patrick and I’m happy with that outcome, on issues in general and gay rights in particular.
here is a summary i put together this spring on how kerry has (and hasn’t) served lgbt interests over the years. it’s pretty impressive. i don’t know what is on his web page, but i do know what is in his record. he’s a dog when it comes to marriage equality, but he’s a champion otherwise.
<
p>forgive me, but it is difficult to believe that you would have posted this right now if you weren’t supporting a kerry opponent in the primaries. there is no compelling lgbt legislation pending that would warrant it. the timing is just too suspect.
<
p>i hope for all our sakes that o’reilly lives up to your expectations. if he loses the primary, i expect to see him prove himself by doing more than showing up for a demonstration.
Although I do support O’Reilly, this post is about Kerry’s wrongful position on an important issue. If anything is going to change it’s probably going to come during a time of possible re-election which is why I bring it up now….in hopes Kerry would take this to heart which chances are it’s slim to none, but I still feel an obligation to try. However, Kerry did soften his opposition slightly this year because of O’Reilly in regards to marriage equality by saying it’s a “settled issue” and that he won’t oppose it anymore in Mass, but still doesn’t support it.
<
p>You’re right, there is no critical legislation at this time, but this is the critical time for Kerry to change his stance on marriage equality if he’s ever going to do it.
<
p>And although I support O’Reilly, I don’t expect him to win. He’s the underdog by great odds. Kerry has many millions more than him, name recognition, has ads on tv, is the incumbent, and perhaps isn’t a great senator, but he’s okay and people don’t like to rock the boat with someone unknown. So please take this diary for what it is and that’s an admonishment of Kerry’s disgraceful position and not a post for O’Reilly. Of course only time can prove my case here. As I said in an earlier reply, I will indeed criticize Kerry on his gay marriage stance even after the primary if he’s re-elected.
There is no good explanation for Kerry’s stance on gay marriage. The most likely is political calculation/cowardice. Also, I’d wager that Kerry never anticipated a challenge from the left in his periodic reelection bids, so best to assuage the conservatives in the general by adopting a lukewarm stance on equality. I’m a Kucinich supporter who’ll be voting for O’Reilly on Tuesday.
Until he dropped out, and then Edwards until he dropped out too, and then Obama who I eventually voted for in the primary.
The election is about many issues and gay marriage has one of the lowest probabilities of being affected by the outcome. For this reason, I would give it little weight.
<
p>There are two facts that summarize this:
1) Kerry has one of the best GLTB records in the US Sante, having had 100% by HRC going back as far as I can see to the early 1990s. He has been there, as a leader, for many battles. Although we’ve asked for months, there has been no information that O’Reilly ever advocated for any of these issues.
<
p>2) Kerry’s position that says both that in MA it is settled law and that nationwide he wants equal rights for civil unions versus O’Reilly saying that he is for gay marriage, but again there is no sign he has ever fought for it.
<
p>Given the reality of where the Senate is on this, who could do more to help. Counter intuitively, I think it is Kerry. If he pursues his position of full federal equality for civil unions, it will make civil unions more like heterosexual unions – and the language may well follow. The fact is nothing stops a gay couple in say VT from inviting people to their wedding and referring to it as marriage. Once that is commonplace, the step to formalizing what already exists will likely be far easier than the step of gaining the rights was.
<
p>I know this is an important issue to you, but it seems like the weight that should be given to an issue is some function of:
<
p>- a variable that accounts for the issues relative importance
– a variable that accounts for the likelihood that the Senate will do anything to impact the issue
– a relative measure of how good the 2 candidates are on the issue.
<
p>By this, almost every other issue facing the Senate is more important.
diary was about and made it into something else. It’s not about Kerry vs. O’Reilly. This is about Kerry’s wrong stance on a public policy issue. He is merging his own personal religious opinions with public policy. That’s not acceptable no matter how low the chances may be of this topic coming up at the federal level.
<
p>So do you accept that Kerry is wrong on this issue? Is he being hypocritical in its treatment as opposed to the issue of abortion? That’s the issue at play here.
Your focus is not narrow enough. Relevant is what the author of the diary defines it as.
<
p>What? You didn’t know that rule?
I’m all for bringing in a tangent and related topic, but it would be nice if Karen could at least talk about the issue present in the diary.
<
p>Are Kerry’s actions hypocritical in regards to civil marriage and abortion? And what do you think KBusch? Is it okay to merge church and state/personal opinion and public policy as he is obviously doing here?
I doubt yours are, though I have no idea what your positions are on a vast range of issues. I know that mine have inconsistencies – it is human. We are not computers with a series of decision rules that determine whether we are for or against things- nor are the issues as black and white as yes and no.
<
p>I do not know all the things that went into Senator Kerry’s position. From his comments, they likely include basic civil rights (something that he has one of the best records on in the Senate) and his view of what can be done – but it likely also is influenced by the world he grew up in, which includes his religious beliefs.
<
p>The difference may be that the consequence of not supporting legalized abortion is that women will die as they did in the 1970s and before because they will obtain illegal abortions.
<
p>With gay marriage, you are not content with him accepting it is settled law in MA. You are in fact acting for him to be your advocate on this, which at this point he clearly is not. However, he went further in 2004, by speaking of backing the changes needed in federal law to give civil unions the privileges of marriage, than anyone before him as the nominee of the party. I don’t think Obama this year has been as explicit. To me, the acceptance of civil unions with full federal rights is almost as far from the Catholic Church’s position on this issue as his position on abortion.
<
p>The fact is that this is the case of a good, serious, thoughtful person being at least 90% to the point that you would want him to be. The question you might ask yourself is whether having someone who has had an 100% record with HRC and who has a history of fighting for rights even when there has been consensus behind them might in fact be a better ally than someone who simply adopted a progressive program in totality but never previously worked for anything.
utter the words that Kerry is wrong on marriage equality. You give excuse after excuse after excuse for this politician.
<
p>Is Kerry good on other LGBT issues? Sure. Is he wrong on marriage equality for not supporting it? You better believe it.
<
p>Kerry’s stance is wrong because…..
<
p>It is based on the notion of “separate, but equal” which our history has clearly shown that separate is rarely if ever equal.
<
p>Civil unions cannot and do not compare in prestige, name, civil law tradition, portability, federal rights, etc. Have you seen the NJ study?
<
p>It is based on his personal feelings, and purportedly his religious Catholic beliefs, which is merging church and state. That is unconstitutional.
<
p>Lastly, it’s called equality! It’s a rather simple idea.
Don’t let these Kerry supporters try to make you feel like an idiot for speaking your mind. Good for you for writing this, and good for you for attacking John Kerry. I’m sure Kerry would like to just sail through this election with ease and comfort. But you are his constituent, you have the right to demand better representation. That is what elections are all about. Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. We can
continue to give John Kerry 6 more years, and nothing will ever change, the Senate will continue to sleep and Massachusetts will continue to sit and wait for change.
treated him like one You are clearly watching someone other than John Kerry if you think he is one of the Senators who are holding back change in the Senate On many issues, from Iraq to climate change he has been at the forefront.
<
p>Kerry fought as hard and well to increase the Democrats in the Senate in 2006 and is working to do so in 2008 If Obama wins and the Democratic numbers increase again, Kerry is poised and ready to be a leader in passing progressive legislation. Kerry was elected first when Reagan was President and 2009 could be the fist time when liberal progressive ideas are dominant
<
p>What does O’Reilly offer – a platform copied from the MA Democratic party, no experience and no seniority.
this is the cutest exchange I’ve ever seen between two O’Reilly campaign workers.
Unlike Ed O’Reilly, I actually did something to support marriage equality in MA and I actually was out on the State House steps to celebrate.
<
p>And while I, in no way, disregard the seriousness of this issue for Cambridge Paul and many others, I have to ask- does anyone in MA even worry about marriage equality anymore?
<
p>It’s the law. It works. It makes sense. It’s good for the state.
<
p>I’m confused as to Cambridge Paul’s goal here. I’m sure there are state reps who don’t believe in marriage equality but have no interest in doing anything about the law. Are we going to start running campaigns against them?
<
p>I’m guessing the issue of mandatory seat belt laws draws more public interest than anything involving marriage equality. It’s the law (thank God) and other than the Hawk and his band of nutjobs, no one is working against it.
<
p>Am I missing something here? I realize nationally there’s work to be done but here in MA, why is marriage equality still being discussed? The accusation/perception that John Kerry has any impact or interest on marriage equality in MA is ridiculous.
<
p>Shouldn’t we be sending volunteers/money to Cali or Florida and working to elect pro-marriage equality folks there? I mean, we won in MA. It’s over.
<
p>In MA, we have real equality. John Kerry isn’t going to change that. So I’m guessing the GLBT community is more interested in health care, national security, social security, energy, etc.
<
p>Am I nuts?
He’s been in the senate as Bush and company have gotten away with outrageous actions against the Constitution and against human decency. The incumbents- nationwide- have become a class unto themselves, an elected aristocracy of sorts who have failed the American people in every way imaginable- yet Kerry’s support seemingly knows no bounds in Massachusetts. I just don’t know if electing him to another six years will make life any better for most people. Expertise? Experience? Fine, but how helpful has this cabal of experts been as the United States has suffered through crisis after crisis, scandal after scandal, in this decade?
I’ve begun to think that Democrats and republicans are on the same team more often than some of us would care to admit, and the Barney Frank- supported taxpayer bailout of quasi-public fiascorps Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac strikes me as one consequence of the rampant incestuous relationships in Washington- lobbyists, campaign contributors, revolving-door government/corporate careerism, and a none-too-critical press. And I like Barney Frank, but that whole situation left me with more questions than answers.
Personally, Kerry is not responsible for everything that’s gone wrong in the past eight years. The vast majority of that blame lays with Bush and Cheney. But what’s wrong with injecting a little new blood into the government from time to time? If O’Reilly tanks, we could send Kerry or somebody else back in six years.
This is supposed to be something like a democracy, after all. Lately it’s been looking too much like an oligarchy, and one of the antidotes to that might just be more turnover.
He was one of 3 Senators to co-sponsor Feingold’s censure resolution with Boxer and Harkin. You need to be realistic in what dissenting Senators can do The fact is that Kerry has spoken out and has been one of the people who have led the country to change from supporting Bush.
<
p>He and Feingold pushed Kerry/Feingold at a point when the media and the powers that be in the party ridiculed and vilified them (Republican Senator Warner was so obviously taken back with the viciousness of some Democratic leaders that he engaged Kerry in a serious, respectful debate on the Senate floor praising the seriousness and quality of the resolution, but saying it was not the right time. He also a few months later backed Kerry’s Sense of the Senate resolution calling for regional diplomacy which passed as an amendment to the defense bill by voice vote.) Kerry was the one who got the brunt of the attacks on this, but within 6 months, it was clear that the majority of the country had shifted to agree with him.
<
p>Would the 2006 elections have gone as well if the K/F hadn’t made the Republican claim that the Democrats had no plan an obvious lie? That all the candidates, including Obama and Clinton, moved their positions to where Kerry was 6 months earlier, shows that he led on this issue.
<
p>Senate rules allow a minority party to thwart action if they are unified. Kerry has been a leader in calling the Republicans – Roadblock Republicans blaming them for filibustering everything, then refusing to appoint Senators to conferences with the House on bills that pass. No one has tried harder to get this truth out so people could understand it. (Before you say it the Democrats failed to do this when the Republicans were in control – they should have backed Kerry on Alito.)
<
p>Replacing the strong, leading voice of a Senator with considerable seniority would make sense ONLY if the replacement were impossibly more capable, visionary and had a very solid track record of showing that. A lawyer, who concentrated on DUIs is not even close. This would be like thinking that taking a puzzle with 80% of the pieces in place and throwing it up in the air would result in them falling in a way that more of the puzzle is in place. A random replacement (and given all that is known – O’reilly could be worse than a random selection of someone meeting all the legal requirements to run for Senate) is unlikely to be better.
when a Senator is using his own personal religious beliefs to create his public policy stances. It is an issue when he’s treating one issue differently from another (civil marriage vs. abortion).
<
p>There’s always been one thing that gay people have always wanted and that’s equality. So, yeah, not supporting 1,049 federal rights for same-sex couples is a pretty damn big deal. Civil unions don’t even offer a pathway to those rights and that’s not even talking about them being separate and unequal.
<
p>So what’s actually ludicrous Masshole is that you wouldn’t think it’s a big deal that a Senator is merging church and state/personal opinion and public policy.
<
p>As to politicians who don’t support marriage equality….they’re already being voted out. Look at what’s been happening over the past couple years. It is becoming, if it isn’t already so, a necessity to support civil marriage rights if you’re going to run for office in this great state. And yeah, it should be that way. Just like we wouldn’t vote in someone who doesn’t support other basic civil rights such as marriage rights for inter-racial couples, women’s right to vote, etc. It sounds ludicrous now, but there was a time not too long ago when politicians did not support those positions either.
“So, yeah, not supporting 1,049 federal rights for same-sex couples is a pretty damn big deal. Civil unions don’t even offer a pathway to those rights and that’s not even talking about them being separate and unequal.”
<
p>Kerry does SPECIFICALLY support giving those 1049 federal rights to people in civil unions When asked how in 2004, he spoke of the fact that he would back efforts to make the changes in federal law to do this. This would be a difficult thing to do, but easier and constitutional, than Congress voting for gay marriage.
<
p>I also think you are crazy if you think Kerry is expressing the Catholic church’s position on either homosexuality or on civil unions.
it’s not likely and as it stands there is no bill to set up a completely parallel institution just to keep the gays separated. So the fact is that civil unions do not provide a pathway to federal benefits and the only obstacle to civil marriages is DOMA which if Obama gets elected he has already stated his support for repealing it.
<
p>As to Kerry’s reasoning….I don’t know. Nobody does really since he doesn’t give constituents that information. tsk tsk I’ve been told it’s his personal feelings which infers his religious Catholic beliefs to me. Either that or he still has hopes of higher office when he says he isn’t. Any other possibilities?