Disingenuous "gay marriage" phone spam

For those of you who don’t know, Michigan is one of the states that has an anti-gay marriage proposal on the ballot this Tuesday. The proposal is, I’m ashamed to say, supported by about a two-to-one margin in the latest poll I’ve seen.

That particular fact, combined with the relatively close presidential race, evidently inspired someone. Just which someone I don’t know, but I’m dying to find out. Why? Because that someone was responsible for the following message, transcribed verbatim, that was on my answering machine when I got home this evening:

Do I really need to explain why I think this is wrong? Wrong on multiple levels? I suppose I could rant and rave about it, but… I just don’t have the energy, not now at the end of October. But you, whoever you are, shame on you. Shame.

[sub]*No, I don’t know why gay marriage in cities is more important than rural gay marriage.[/sub]

I so wish I could say that I’m surprised.

Didn’t Kerry say that he was not in support of gay marriage?

“Remember to vote for puppy molestation by voting for Bush…”

Is there any campaign law against this? It’s even more disingenuous than push polls.

Sounds like something left by a Republican group.

Yes, and on more than one occasion.

“Of course he’s a Russkie!”

THAT is a “classic” dirty trick.

Although I should point something out here: several posters here, over the last few months, have suggested that Kerry HAS to say he’s against same-sex marriage, or he’d be unelectable. But really, in his heart, these posts have invited us to infer, he’s not opposed to it.

Is there any validity whatsoever in that assumption?

Only inasmuch as he’s explicitly stated (with reference to abortion, I believe) that he does not believe that his personal religious convictions should be the basis of setting policy or prescribing the behaviour of others who might not share them.

Ah, here’s the quote:

Not much to hang your hat on, but still a fairly indication that Kerry prefers not to legislate his faith. I would tend to think that Kerry is indeed opposed to gay marriage, but it seems plain from the above that he is prepared to be more tolerant than Bush is on such matters. Like I say; not a vast distinction, but it’s something, I guess.

I also think that those posters you are referring to certainly have a valid point; Kerry’s position is pretty much the most liberal that a presidential candidate could get away with at present. I wouldn’t assume that he really supports SSM, but I do think that if he did, he wouldn’t say so.

I think you’re mischaracterizing the statements. John Kerry does not support the right of gay folk to marry. He does, in contrast to Bush, support creating civil unions which afford the same privledges and responsibilities for homosexuals. His support for an outright ban on marriage is contingent on the availability of those civil unions. No one has implied any differently.

The nuance, which being a Bush supporter I’m not suprized you missed, is that Kerry would not be making a campaign issue of this and would likely have never addressed it without the Bush campaign and the Religious Right making it a litmus test…

Did you save it? You should be reporting it to the Kerry campaign in MI. It’s clearly a smear campaign.

I’m not a Bush supporter either, and I’d say you were making a good point, except Bush supports Civil Unions as well. You can argue the whys and wherefors about the reason he is taking that position until the cows come home, I know that a signifigant portion of these bords would take the position that the only reason Bush would save a child from a burning building would be to get his parent’s vote, and if the child was an orphan Bush would let him burn, but the fact of the matter is that supporting Civil Unions is George Bush’s official stance.

After, of course, floating the He-Man Hetero Gayhaters’ Anti-Gay Save Our Marriages Amendment to see if anyone saluted first…

His campaign has a word for that.

That sort of conflicts with his support for the FMA and the offical Republican Platform, though doesn’t it?

He’s speaking out of both sides of his mouth. In addition, that’s not the same position as Kerry because he doesn’t say his support for the ban is contingent on the creation of civil unions. He would support the ban without an alternative. Kerry’s consistent stand and Bush’s “Johnny-Come-Lately” backpedaling are not equivalent positions.

Oh he does not either. Just because 365gay.com wants to headline the article that way doesn’t make it so. Bush does not support civil unions. Assuming he actually believes what he said in this interview, and since he’s a damn liar who will say anything that pops into his pointy head if he “thinks” it will get him a few votes, then what he’s saying is that should a state implement civil unions he is disinclined to try to block them. He is also claiming to believe that extending “some” of the federal rights and responsibilities of marriage to same-sex couples might be A-OK with him, but did not offer an example of one such right.

He has not backed off at all from his support of the FMA (which most people believe would if passed as written ban civil unions). “Not opposing” civil unions is not the same as “supporting” them.

Yeah, I saved it. I also shot off an email to the Michigan Dems, but, realistically, I imagine they have bigger fish to fry on the day before the elections. I am honestly curious, though, who’s behind this and just how wide-spread it was/is.

Of the two candidates, which one should get the vote of a voter who wants to stand up for gay marriage and move it towards legality?

Kerry, obviously. He is not an advocate of gay marriage, but he is also not an ardent opponent. More important, Kerry will be appointing at least 2, and possibly 3, new Supreme Court justices, and that more than anything will matter when state laws allowing civil unions are challenged by the GOP trogs.

Please repeat this over and over again, will you? It’s the only reason I’m voting for Kerry. I’ve just been looking over his health care proposals and they are a dog’s breakfast. They’re designed to enhance access, not afordability, and are along the lines of what happened 10 years ago when the result was HIPPA, a government policy that has drastically increased heath insurance costs and let to 10 million people losing their HI in the last 10 years. This is one particular area where Bush is 100% on target with his proposals. I just hope Kerry gets elected, appoints his SC judges, and in 4 years we can move on to voting in a decent candidate.