Kerry is an anti-gay bigot and a flip-flopper.

The BBQ Pit
21

Wow…you’re confused? stpauler got it in one…

"So for all of those out there calling Bricker a bigot, don’t forget to throw John Kerry on to that pyre as well. "

Easy as pie, no?

Huh? lissener said that Bricker was akin to nazis and supporters of slave ownership (you DID read his quote…right? You asked for a cite in that thread and I gave it to you). Certainly, from his point of view…Kerry and the others would fall into the same boat. I was wondering why someone like lissener…who didn’t just DISAGREE with the civil union approach…but likened the rationale behind it with favoring slave ownership and supporting Nazis, would not have at least thrown some of that ire at politicians holding the SAME DAMN POSITION?

Of course you weren’t the ONLY person in that thread playing the BIGOT card (it’s not always about you :wink: )

Perhaps you missed this gem from Otto?
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=5285978&postcount=26

In the same thread, Miller refers to the population of Louisiana who approved the ban as bigots, based on this one vote.
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=5285558&postcount=6

as did jayjay
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=5285527&postcount=3

as did Polycarp
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=5285665&postcount=14

as did iampunha
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=5286224&postcount=38

as does evilghandi
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=5290479&postcount=144

According to your definition of “bigot” a fair number of folks were wrong in that thread…I was looking for your correction of them…but can’t seem to find any?

BTW if I call black people “niggers” but don’t use similar slurs for other races, I’m not a bigot…correct?

Interesting.

22

You know, beagledave, the fact that I called someone a bigot isn’t really any sort of a rebuttal to SolGrundy’s opinions. I think you might make more progress here if you took specific claims from specific posters, and asked them to support or further explain them, instead of acting like everyone who supports gay rights is advocating exactly the same positions for exactly the same reasons.

23

SolGrundy said that a single “bigotted” position does not make one a bigot, therefore Bricker and Kerry are not bigots.

That’s certainly not the understanding of the term as used by you and sveral others in that thread…and yet SolGrundy feels the need to educate ME about the “proper” definition of the term.

I’m certainly NOT treating all pro gay rights folks the same. From the beginning, my ONLY quibble has been with folks dragging out the bigot/racist/nazi card in that thread…but curiously NOT expressing those sentiments to politicians (like Kerry, in the OP here) who hold the exact same position. Hell, it seems that stpauler gets it…I don’t really see the confusion.

There were ALSO folks in that thread (and other threads) who may disagree with Bricker (and I suppose Kerry, Clinton etc) but who don’t use the level of vitriol mentioned. My quibble is NOT with them.

24

Although I’m flattered by the implication, I am not, in fact, the Oxford English Dictionary.

FTR, I agree with SolGrundy: there is a difference between holding a bigotted opinion, and actually being a bigot.

Then I suppose you could have been clearer about that, because that’s not the impression I got from your posts. For example, you say your quibble is with the “folks” calling Bricker a Nazi in the other thread. Except, from what I can remember (I’m not going back through all five pages to check) the only person who referred to Bricker even tangenitally as a Nazi was lissener. So why not ask lissener specifically, instead of all these nebulous collective “yous” you keep using?

25

I find it bizarre that you are having such a nuanced view of what makes a bigot, and yet you cannot see the difference between Bush and Kerry on this issue.

While it is true that both men seem to find same sex relationships oogy, and while it is also true that both men seem to have arrived at that position because of religion, I can’t believe that you are not seeing that they are light-years apart on how willing they are to impose those views on others.

Give me a break.

26

My recollection is that what was said was that because he supports The Law as he does, that he would not have objected to several examples of what we now view as atrocities because they were legal at the time. This is quite a bit different than calling someone a nazi, although a good example of why Godwin is to be avoided in debates.

27

Holy smokes…do you even READ the cite of mine you included in your own post?

I’ll play it AGAIN for ya…

Notice I mention the Nazi card AND the racist card AND the…wait for it …bigot card?

“Folks”.
Plural.
Referring to the people who either accused Bricker of being a bigot OR accused Bricker of being supportive of Nazi’s, or racists.

I’m lumping all of those 'folks" together.

OK…so you’re withdrawing the label of the Louisiana voters, then? (fwiw, I’m not defending the Louisiana voters…just looking for clarification on what the term “bigot” means. I think it’s an important enough term to have a common understanding upon)

28

Wow. I challene you to point out ONE post where I have mentioned Bush’s position on this issue…or compare it with Kerry’s or suggested that they are the same.

I didn’t.

Really.

I never said Kerry’s position was the same as Bush’s. I never said it was worse, I actually never said it was better (although, FWIW, I’ll state here that I think it is).

My ONLY point (which, again, for the bazillionith time, stpauler, a Kerry supporter, seems to get JUST fine) is what the OP said here…I’ll copy and paste for your convienence

<snip>

here is the IMPORTANT part…pay close attention now :wink:

That’s my point. Nothing more, nothing less (except for adding in the nazi/racist framework as well for lissener) . I’m not ranking Kerry vs Bush. I’m not saying it’s dumb to vote for Kerry. I’m not saying that Kerry is a godless left handed communist Packers hater.

I don’t think it’s a difficult concept. And again…stpauler got it in one.

It’s amazing that you’ve read the OP of this thread (that essentially re-iterates MY point in the other thread, and acts upon it)…and yet still don’t get it.

29

So sorry then, if I am misunderstanding you. Which politicians were you talking about in this quote?

30

Hillary & Bill Clinton.
John Kerry & John Edwards.
Al Gore.

Those are prominent politicians that I am familiar with who have publically stated a preference for the “civil union” approach to same sex unions.

Someone in the other thread took me to task for only mentioning Democrats. The reason (and I stated it there) was because I wasn’t as aware of Republicans who took that position, but that I “guessed” maybe some socially liberal/moderate types like the governator or Guliani(sp?) might fall into that category as well (although I’m not sure…which is why I didn’t mention them).

As I (and stpauler above in the OP) have pointed out…at the VERY least, John Kerry has taken a position that, when taken by Bricker, was linked by lissener with tolerance of slavery and Nazi rule…and linked by OTHER posters with being a bigot.

31

OK, I will try to take that at face value. I will, however, also mention that there is more than is poster in this thread that are having trouble getting what you are talking about and having the impression that you have some bizarre agenda. Food for thought.

32

He isn’t a bigot, but he may be a flip-flopper.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-02-11-kerry-gay-marriage_x.htm

"And when Kerry opposed federal legislation in 1996 that defined marriage as a union between a man and a woman, he compared the law to 1960s efforts in the South to criminalize interracial marriages and accused his supporters of engaging in the “politics of division.”

“This is an unconstitutional, unprecedented, unnecessary and mean-spirited bill,” Kerry declared then even as 85 senators and President Clinton supported the measure. "

If Kerry opposes gay marriage… why did he oppose a law defining marriage as between a man and a woman? Why did he compare it to criminalizing interracial marriages?

And remember… Clinton was FOR the legislation, and Kerry still called it “unconstitutional” and “mean-spirited.”
In fact, if you look at his record, Kerry has been consistently a champion of gay rights. Much more so than other democrats.
I’m not saying it for sure, but it may be that he has taken his current position because he knows supporting gay marriage now would kill his chances of winning.

In any case, I still don’t believe his views are equivalent with Bricker. My guess is that at the least Kerry would support giving civil unions the exact same rights as marriage. He has said as much, actually.

Bricker does not support giving the exact same rights as marriage, he supports letting the states decide.

Again, I am not sure, but judging by his record, and not just what he has said during this campaign, I suspect Kerry would go much farther than that.

One last thing… if civil unions with the exact federal rights of marriage were the law, could heterosexuals get them too?

If so, I would get a civil union instead of marrying (if I ever do either). If enough heterosexuals got civil unions instead of marriages, in essence boycotting marriage, maybe they really could become equal. Or marriages could be phased out of the government altogether.

33

My “agenda” is the same as stpauler’s.

Is stpauler’s “agenda” bizarre?

34

Well, I think that some of the reasons in contained in that article you linked to:

So, what particularly bothers him about it is that it is basically scapegoating people and is a heavy-handed attempt by the federal government to do this for the sole reason of scapegoating a group of people. You can still believe that the best solution is to have something akin to marriage that you designate as a “civil union” but not believe that one should be passing laws (especially federal laws) to outlaw gay marriage in order to do this. Better to pass positive laws making civil unions available than laws particularly designed to limit one groups’ rights. [Also, I don’t know what sort of implications the DOMA had for civil unions…i.e., it is very touchy how these things are worded and I already know in another thread that Bricker stated that the Louisiana referendum did not outlaw civil unions whereas someone produced a news cite that said it had.]

[url=]Here, by the way, is more about what Kerry said in the debate on DOMA:

Sounds like a very principled stand to me.

35

Make that [url=http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0227-07.htm]here](]Here[/url).

36

From jshore’s link:

“Kerry voted against the Defense of Marriage Act, which would deny federal benefits to same-sex couples and permit states to not recognize same-sex marriages conducted in other states. He was one of only fourteen senators to oppose the measure… The legislation, he charged, was “meant to divide Americans,” and he argued fiercely that it was unconstitutional.”
To me, it stands out that he argued that it was unconstitutional.

Unconstitutional for states not to recognize same-sex marriages conducted in other states.

Unconstitutional to deny the same federal benefits to same-sex couples.

Now, correct me if I am wrong, but I think there is a world of difference between Kerry and Bricker on this issue.
Indeed, there is an easy test. Bricker, do you believe DOMA is unconstitutional?

37

Are people really so stupid that they can’t see the difference between passing a law defining marriage as between a man and woman with no concessions at all to protect homosexual couples, and NOT wanting to pass a law defining marriage as including homosexuals? Kerry’s position makes perfect sense if he wants to leave the definition or marriage the way it is (vague) UNLESS defining it wins us the consession of full civil rights. It makes sense because that’s been his position throughout. If the DOMA had included language given homosexuals couples full civil rights, he would have voted for it. It didn’t, it really WAS just a plainly meanspirited attempt to strip gay couples of any chance at federal rights and basically slap them in the face, and he voted against it. And said exactly why. He didn’t declare “I’m doing this because I really really want gay people to be able to marry under the same laws as straight couples, ASAP!” And yet here you all are acting as if that was his position back then, making it different now. Of such things, flip-flop accusations are born.

At the very worst, Kerry’s position is a straddle from the perspective of those of us that want full marriages available to all, but it’s not a flip-flop. You can’t simply announce that there is a single definition of a platform called “gay rights” that includes a list of itemized positions, and then say that someone is “for” gay rights because they supported one item and then “flip-flopped” to go “against” gay rights because they did not support another slightly different one. That’s asinine. If any of you actually bothered to pay attention to reality for more than a single sentance at a time, you’d note like jshore that Kerry was personally uncomfortable with gay marriage back then as well, but was still an impassioned, principled defender of the concept of civil union rights for families gay and straight. And the fact that he took this position when it was extremely unpopular, even in his own party, makes the charge of flip-flopping with the political wind even more absurd.

I mean, good grief, the whole POINT of laws like the DOMA, the FMA, and the Lousiana law are to make it hard if not impossible for gays to get full civil unions and benefits. It’s entirely possible to oppose that exclusionary agenda while still thinking that the title “marriage” should be reserved for the traditional definition. While I think marriage is best if it’s a single concept applied to all, I don’t think it’s bigotted to quibble about definitions as long as you recognize that gay couples need all the traditional benefits and protections that currently only marriage confers. Even more importantly, it’s by far the best way forward on this issue. If we can win civil unions today, we’ve won pretty much the entire battle, and the marriage word will take care of itself within a generation. If the word “marriage” is holding people up, then fuck it seven ways from Sunday.

In fact, what makes this singularly stupid is the fact that many gay couples don’t want the heteronormist title marriage (or even for unions to imply the monogamy that marriage is supposed to), but do want civil union benefits. Are they supposedly now gay anti-gay bigots? What the fuck are you thinking?

38

Let’s see…since aliteracy is running fucking rampant through this thread. Let me help out with big font:

Kerry backs state ban on gay marriage

Kerry believes it’s ok for states to ban gay marriage, IN FACT, he supports his home state do it.

Though he opposes amending the US Constitution to ban marriage for same-sex couples, Kerry said he supports amending the Massachusetts Constitution for the same purpose, as long as it provides for civil unions for same-sex couples.

That’s all fucking nice of him to support removing rights that are already being afforded to the citizens of Massachusetts. Sure, you can argue that these statements were made prior to May 17th, 2004, but has he retracting them since the first gay marriage has happened? FUCK NO.

You have a site for that? All of the opinions by gays on this board seem to be wanting the term marriage used. (The only dissention would be when civil union is applicable to gays AND straights across the board).

39

stpauler, I am afraid that it is we who were misunderstanding this issue.
I came to the wrong conclusion myself at first, as you can see in my first post in this thread. I thought, like you, that Kerry had switched from his earlier position. I don’t think we deserve accusations of stupidity or illiteracy, as the issue is not uncomplicated.
However, I now see that we were wrong. Kerry has always supported giving gays all the rights and benefits of marriage, in the form of civil unions. But he has also always said it is up to the states to decide if the term “marriage” will be used for those unions.
In this light, it becomes clear that when Kerry argued that DOMA was unconstitutional, he did so because he felt it was hurting the chances of gays receiving their constitutionally protected equal civil rights, and because it was stealing the authority of the states to decide whether gays could call their unions “marriage.”

Kerry says he is considering supporting a ban on gay marriage in Massachusetts, IF the same legislation provides all the same rights and benefits in the form of civil unions.
This is consistent with his record - he still supports the right of a state (not the federal government) to choose to use a word other than “marriage” for same-sex unions, but ONLY if they at the same time provide all the same rights and benefits.
There is an enormous difference between this and Bricker’s view.
Bricker is against gay marriage, even WITHOUT legislation to provide all the same rights and benefits.
What it also means is that Kerry will not oppose gay marriage where there is no alternative, which is the very essence of what Bricker is doing.
So Kerry’s position is not equivalent, or even close, to Bricker’s.
And remember that Kerry was one of a very senators who argued that DOMA was unconstitutional. Kerry will not try to stop gay marriages in states which decide to allow the term “marriage” for same sex unions. It is just that he will not try to make states use the term “marriage” either. He will continue to argue that the term is a state’s choice, but that whatever the term it must provide all the rights and benefits of marriage.

40

Clinton lost my vote in 1996 because he signed DOMA. While I did vote for Gore and I will vote for Kerry (because consider the alternative), I hope my 1996 vote is enough to establish my cred on the issue.

John Kerry is a bigot and an asshole on this issue.

Satisfied?