Kerry will have to squirm a bit on the issue, as one of his campaign managers did on Hardball earlier this week. The next episode of this soap opera will come when gays start marrying in MA in May. A lot of this has to do with how much the press pushes this the issue. And given this country’s fascination with sex of all types, I’m guessing the media will try to make a big deal out this-- it’ll sell newpaper, and make people tune in their TVs.
But Kerry also has his vote against the DOMA on his side. Only 14 Senators voted against it. This should inoculate him pretty well among Democrats and Greens.
I think Bush is hoping to shore up his base with this issue rather than get any anti-gay marriage Dems to defect. And that’s where Kerry’s DOMA vote will help Bush.
You’d have to ask the black voters involved. Maybe if he made a sufficiently-sincere pledge not to let his own racial feelings affect his work, they’ll believe him. Who knows?
To bring it back to the topic, is there any evidence to support the notion that Kerry is sufficiently homophobic that, if elected President, he would use his authority to restrict the rights of homosexuals?
I still don’t understand why there is even an argument about whether or not gay marriage should or should not be a Federal vs. state issue. When an individual state makes the marriage legal, it is automatically a Federal issue because marriages have, up to now, been recognized in any state and at the Federal level. It’s done. Come May, this is now a Federal issue, whether or not any candidate thinks it should be or not. Taking the “I think it should be a state issue, full stop” stance is simply evasive. The next president WILL have to deal with this on some level. In CA there is still considerable question about legality, but in MA there is NONE. Until MA amends its constitution, GAY MARRIAGE IS LEGAL. Get it? Anyone, from any state, can go to MA, and get married. When they go home, they will still be married. If the home state tries to declare the license null and void, the married parties can take it all the way to the Supreme Judicial Court of the USA because the US constitution supports the legality of the marriage. Kerry saying “I think it’s a state issue” means nothing. It tells us nothing about what he will do with this once he’s in office; and he has to do something, at least symbolically. Will he contintue to dodge, and say “I’m personally against it, but it’s a matter for the courts?” Appropriate or not, does the electorate want this?
So, you’ve got…
Bush: I don’t support it, we need to amend the constitution.
Nader: I support it.
Kerry: I don’t support it, and that’s all I’m going to say.
Obviously, in order of rank of gay-friendliness, Bush is way at the bottom, and Nader is way at the top. Where is Kerry? What will he really do?
Like I said earlier, he voted against the DOMA. He’s a big States’ Rights supporter on this issue. I think it’s safe to say he would try to keep the feds out of the issue altogether.
Which, IMO, is the wrong thing to do. Leaving it up to the individual states to decide puts gay and lesbian couples into the position of second-class citizens - their civil unions may not be recognized from state to state, and the civil benefits they’re permitted won’t be anything close to the benefits heterosexual married couples enjoy.
This, elucidator, is only one reason among many I don’t plan on voting for Kerry. Gay marriage is the immediate topic of discussion, but I don’t think anyone here is basing their choice of candidate solely on this one issue.
States can already ignore other marriages, Olentzero. This has been true the entire time. No state is under any strict obligation to act contrary to their own policy. If Nebraska doesn’t like third cousins marrying, and pass a law against it that is constitutional, and I marry my third cousing and move to Nebraska, I don’t see any way I can force them to acknowledge the marriage.
Well, I agree here, if the federal government is going to recognize marriage implicitly such as on federal tax forms, it seems they’ve already managed to make it their issue, not a states’ issue. Thing is, I don’t think the federal government will be able to act in the way you want.
I don’t know if there are examples or not, but that is not what I claimed. My understanding of marriage laws WRT their recognition among the states was gained from Bricker and Dewey Cheatum Undhow in a thread I started about gay marriage, where I asked such questions so that I could better understand the issue.
Now I may have heard tell of an Act of Congress that permits a state not to recognize same-sex marriages performed in another state, but I know of nothing that permits a state a blank check to deny marriage rights to anyone they choose.
So who (getting back to the OP) do you plan to vote for? Nader? The Green? One of the candidates of the socialist parties? Or will you just stay home on election day?
At this point I’m thinking of voting for Nader, because his stance on the issues most closely matches mine. But that’s not absolutely fixed yet. He may do something to disappoint me - like making good on his statement to try to reach out to Republicans disgusted with Bush.
??? Ralph is even more optimistic than I thought. Certainly there are a lot of Republicans and conservatives who have good reason to be disgusted with Bush: Nativist-isolationists like Pat Buchanan hate Bush because of the Iraq War and the amnesty for illegal aliens; populist conservatives hate him for being a servant of the superrich and the corporations; Libertarians and libertarian-leaning conservatives hate him because of the Patriot Act; fiscal conservatives hate him for his deficits. But why would any of these groups see Ralph Nader as an acceptable alternative?
I have absolutely no idea, and I think it’s stupid of him to even think it. But he said it in no uncertain terms during his “Meet the Press” interview and he deserves - justifiably so - to be called on it.
I think it’s safe to say he would try to keep the feds out of the issue altogether.