Hey beagledave: fuck you too. Fuck you for simply agreeing with stpauler that I’m not willing to call a good man a bigot just because he doesn’t agree with me. I’m not willing to call him that because I don’t have the brain-damage required to act like that. So thanks a lot for the backhanded swipe, asshole.
I should point out that since I don’t even agree with the “absolute highest standards” as defined by stpauler, it’s not even that. Again, I think Kerry is wrong on the marriage issue, but his position is within the realm of legitimate debate and simply is not bigotted. The definition of marriage is not a simple concept or institution or issue: civil rights are, and he’s all for them.
Making statements like this is just ridiculous! What are you trying to tell me that the fact that HRC is in a public forum means that they must choose their words more closely and so they have to say “John Kerry is a true leader for our community” as a polite way of saying “John Kerry is an anti-gay bigot”? Give me a freakin’ break!
To even compare Kerry to Bush and Falwell on this is ridiculous. You mention Barney Frank…Well, Frank has strongly endorsed Kerry and I bet if he read what you have been saying here, he’d jump on you at least as much as I have (although admittedly with more wit…I always enjoy hearing Frank on just about any subject).
Well, you may have issues with them and that is your perogative, but I am sure they have done a hell of a lot more to advance the cause of gays and lesbians than you ever have.
I’m not holding “the Democrats” to that standard. Perhaps try actually READING my posts in this thread and the thread pitting Bricker.
My point is ONLY directed towards those folks who have labeled Bricker a BIGOT or an equivalent to a NAZI SYMPATHIZER or an equivalent to a SLAVE OWNING sympathizer. That is a very small subset of the Democratic party, IMHO. (And of course I did mention some Republicans who might favor the civil union approach as well).
There were several folks in that thread who (as stpauler put it) threw Bricker on the bigot fire…but don’t seem to feel it necessary to even mention or realize that Kerry (and Clinton et al) have the same position. Several of them (at least 3 by my count so far) use the “don’t say anything bad about my gal/guy lest it be used to help his/her opponent” logic. THAT kind of logic is the same kind of logic used by SOME (not all) Republican folks who know that the Swifties are playing dirty…but “don’t say anything about my gal/guy lest it be used to help his/her opponent” logic as well.
It’s funny how when some folks are talking about Kerry (or Clinton or Gore) and civil unions the thinking is “well it’s not what we’d prefer, but at least its better than Bush”…but if Bricker holds THE SAME DAMN POSITION…the bigot/racist/nazi labels come out.
Frankly I disagree with stpauler…I DON’T think it’s a bigoted position, but I recognize that he’s being consistent and honest with his views…ergo it’s much easier to take his point at face value than someone who applies different standards to different folks.
I’d call you a troll, but you aren’t smart enough. I’ve proved my case. You’ve proved nothing. You just keep shouting “NO NO NO, don’t criticize my candidate or he’ll lose the election WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAANHHHHHHHH” Of course I’m paraphrasing. I’ve asked you over and over for proof to the contrary of my arguments and you have produced nothing. So let’s see some cites or let’s see some STFU. OK?
Why does my criticism of a candidate have to do with my past actions? I don’t have to show how many countries I’ve invaded to prove that what Bush is doing is wrong,do I? The answer, since you can’t figure it out yourself, is no. And you know better, which is the sad thing (unless I’m giving you too big of a benefit of a doubt).
Okay, but since you commented (adding a third name) in response to stpauler’s statement putting me and Apos into a certain category, I assumed that you I agreed with that categorization. And, I don’t know about Apos, but I haven’t even participated in the thread about Bricker, whose views on gay marriage I could hardly care less about being that he is not running for anything that I know of. And, I haven’t mentioned him here.
Other people seem to have pointed out that there are some distinctions between Bricker’s and Kerry’s points-of-view. But, I will grant that there is nothing that I have seen that would make me believe that “anti-gay bigot” is a reasonable label for Bricker either.
You’ve done more than “criticize”. You have labeled him an “anti-gay bigot”, a label that is laughably at odds with what gay-activist groups like HRC are saying about Kerry (and at odds with various facts like his being one of 14 Senators to oppose DoMA and one who made a strong floor speech against it). So, when someone is making claims that are strongly at odds with other claims (and facts), I think it is perfectly reasonable to compare those making the claims and ask, “Who is more trustworthy and in a better position to judge Kerry on this…an organization that has dedicated its existence to advancing the cause of gay and lesbian rights?..Or, someone on a messageboard who has been making all sort of hyperbolic statements and only seems to look at one single aspect of the issue and to ignore how Kerry is viewed relative to other politicians and how he has acted relative to other politicians and how he has been rated by HRC relative to other politicians?”
I mean, you are certainly entitled to your opinion, but you are not entitled to have your opinion accepted as a very presuasive one particularly in light of lots of opinions to the contrary by people like HRC and Barney Frank who have earned a certain amount of respect and credibility on these issues.
How can I provide contrary arguments… to what? You’ve done nothing but present quotes in which Kerry talks about his positions on abortion and gay marriage and his belief that religion should not be imposed on public life. In regards to gay marriage, he doesn’t even mention his Catholicism. So that you think this jumble proves anything at all just doesn’t make a lick of sense is damning all on its own.
Yet you STILL are unwilling to concede the point you originally made, that Kerry “flip-flopped” in his position on gay marriage.
How you could turn “Kerry leaves open the possibility he could support a Massachusetts ban on gay marriage if it recognized civil unions and other protections as an alternative.” into an expression of bigotry is beyond me. I would jump at such a possibility, even in Mass, to put gay unions into place by law, even if it stripped the legal word marriage from the institution. Does that make ME a bigot? Or are you still so full of hot air that you can’t confront simple questions like these? Beagledave praises your consistency, and yet I see none of it. Just like the Catholics that want to deny communion ONLY to pro-choice Kerry, but clam up when someone mentions pro-choice Republicans, you refuse to confront your own bullshit standard, claiming it is “another subject” whenever anyone points out how ridiculous it would be, as applied to anyone else.
YOU ROTTEN FILTHY LIAR. I HAVE POSTED IN THE FUCKING OP THAT HE MENTIONS HIS RELIGION WHEN IT COMES TO GAY MARRIAGE AND HE HAS USED THAT AS A SHIELD AGAINST ALLOWING GAY MARRIAGE IN MASSACHUSETTS BUT DOESN’T SEE A PROBLEM WITH IT WHEN IT COMES TO ABORTION.
I HAVE POSTED IT AGAIN LATER IN THE THREAD. but the thing is YOU’RE TOO FUCKING STUPID AND A COMPLETE WASTE OF BANDWIDTH. I’m going to regard any future post from you in this thread as the same bullshit as it was throughout and as such, completely unworthy of any response. Your aliteracy is fucking astounding.
In attempting to make my point I lumped folks from different threads together.
There are two notions running sort of parallel here…one is what happened to Bricker in the other thread…the other is the standards applied to Kerry here (and some of THOSE people did not participate in the Bricker pitting thread).
My apologies to those folks where I mingled the two together.
Bullshit. You found a sentance with the word “religiously” in it. Claiming that proves he’s flip-flopping is sheer nonsense. THAT is what a lie is, dumbass.
Finding a sentance with the word “religiously” in it doesn’t mean that he’s trying to impose his religion in the same way banning abortion would be. In fact he doesn’t even say that this position is religious motivated, just that it applies to religion as well as statute. To reduce the debate to such an infantile level is downright embarrasing. Trying to refute a complete lack of argument is pretty hard, because it’s basically all up to the dunderhead making it to realize that there are huge chunks missing: that finding the same word in two different contexts doesn’t magically make those contexts exactly the same. More likely because of reasons of pride than sheer stupidity, you’ve been unwilling to accept that.
And of course, you have to very carefully avoid any of the pointed questions and counter-examples I’ve provided that show exactly what a goofy standard you are applying: try applying it anywhere else, and you get pure nonsense. You are the very definition of a weasel.
Prove? I don’t have the desire to prove anything to you. If you’re so interested there’s the search button at the top. Knock yourself out. I was simply pointing out that it’s nonsense for you to assume one long-time poster’s opinion of another long-time poster is based on two threads from the last two weeks. While it is possible that an opinion could be formed recently – for instance, I’ve never noticed you before and now I’m convinced you’re nutters – it’s not a safe assumption generally.
I’m going to take a couple deep breaths and explain my position more thoroughly.* Follow along and let me know what you think. I’m going to flip-flop here and be civilized.
*(I am going to leave out some of the original points about religion and abortion for the sake of clarity and simplicity since this is pretty long as it is. I will, however, bring these back up incase someone thinks I’m “weaseling” out of these points).
1)“Back in 1986, Kerry gave an impassioned 10-minute speech on the Senate floor against an earlier effort in Congress to define marriage only as a union between a man and a woman.” http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-02-11-kerry-gay-marriage_x.htm
a)This is important. Since Kerry is arguing against the definition of marriage being just between a man and a woman.
2) In 1996, Kerry was one of the few that fought against DOMA. Kerry "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 unconstitiutuonal, unnecessary, and mean-spirited bill”. http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-02-11-kerry-gay-marriage_x.htm
a)The anti-miscegenation laws (that were finally ruled unconstitutional by Loving v Virginia,1967) and the debates surrounding them were to keep people of two different races from marrying and thusly procreating together.
b)By comparing DOMA to these efforts, IMO (but it ain’t a leap), Kerry is stating that preventing gays to marry is like preventing people of two seperate races from marrying.
c)Hurray for Kerry for comparing DOMA to the anti-miscegenation laws. It’s great that he spoke up against DOMA and I’m glad he did. It took a lot of courage to do that especially since he was going against the LARGE majority that were for DOMA. For that, he deserves to be commended and is being a true leader.
3) In 2002, an amendment to the US Constitution is proposed to make it clear that marriage is to be between a man and a woman only. "Kerry’s campaign said Wednesday he has consistently opposed gay marriage while also rejecting legislation, like the 2002 amendment, that he believed jeopardized the civil rights of gays.http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-02-11-kerry-gay-marriage_x.htm
a)From the statement above, Kerry has consistently opposed gay marriage.
b)The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) does two things. First, it provides that no State shall be required to give effect to a law of any other State with respect to a same-sex “marriage.” Second, it defines the words “marriage” and “spouse” for purposes of Federal law. http://www.lectlaw.com/files/leg23.htm
c)If one consistently opposes gay marriage, why wouldn’t they vote FOR and not AGAINST DOMA? To me, this is a flip-flop.
d)For complete clarification, here’s the full text of DOMA:
e)applicable definition of flip-flop “a sudden reversal (as of direction or point of view)” (www.m-w.com)
f) To John Kerry’s credit however, he does not support the 2002 amendment as its reaches were too far, however…
In 2004, Kerry SUPPORTS an amendment in Massachusetts to ban same-sex marriages.
a) His ban has the contingency of ensuring provisions are made for “civil unions”.
5)The word “bigot”. Alright, I will concede this point after some reflection and convincing arguments from jshore. Bigot being defined as a “person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices” (www.m-w.com). After all of this, I’ll concede that John Kerry is no more a bigot than Bricker is, which is that neither of them is one.
I’ll end with this interesting exchange. HRC Dinner
First of all, I’ll point out that I believe this is a typo in your U.S. Today cite. From what they say about “back in 1986…” it seems that they are talking about DoMA which would put the date at 1996 and would mean that this is really not a separate event from your second point. At any rate, that is neither here nor there.
What is important is that if you read what Kerry said, he explains why he is opposing the bill. It is not that he is in favor of a law on gay marriage but he is opposed:
(1) He is opposed to the federal government making a power grab on something that should be left up to the states.
(2) He is even more offended that this power grab is for the specific purpose of scape-goating a group of people.
(3) Although I am not sure it says it specifically here, Kerry has made it clear in subsequent contexts recently that he opposes legislation that outlaws gay marriage without providing for civil unions. In other words, while Kerry is opposed to gay marriage, he is strongly in favor of civil unions and thus does not support only “negative” bills that legislate against marriage without providing for civil unions.
In support of these points, [is a more extensive quote from your cite (bolding mine):
Which is consistent with his past positions of being opposed to gay marriage but only if (1) provisions are made to authorize civil unions, and (2) it is not done as a power-grab by the federal government for the cynical political purposes oand by scape-goating gays and lesbians.
Well, I am glad that you agree. I haven’t followed Bricker’s position that closely but others have noted some ways in which he is in fact a stronger supporter of gays on this issue than Bricker. At the very least, he is doing it in a more difficult venue. I.e., Kerry is in a venue where his position on these issues is much more favorable to gays and lesbians than his colleagues and than the people he is talking to [the general public]. On the other hand, Bricker is in the venue of the SDMB, where the spectrum of liberals to libertarians with only a smattering of the more authoritarian Right, puts Bricker in the position of being less favorable on this issue than the rest of us.
So, basically, I think Kerry has been quite consistent on this issue. The only way you are making him seem inconsistent is by doing what the Bush folks do and adopting a two-value orientation: “He is either for gay marriage or opposed to gay marriage.” In fact, Kerry’s position is more nuisanced. He is opposed to it but only if civil unions are offered as an alternative and he is certainly opposed to having the federal government step in and make gay marriage illegal.
This two-valued orientation is similar to the other ways in which Kerry has been portrayed as a flip-flopper, e.g., vis-a-vis Iraq. After all, Kerry voted for the resolution authorizing force if necessary, therefore he was “for the war”. However, that is not true. What he was “for” was giving Bush the power he needed to pressure Saddam to allow the inspectors in and to be reasonably cooperative with them. And, the irony is that Bush, himself, when the resolution was introduced, said not once but 3 times that it was about “keeping the peace” not going to war (see here). So, it is in fact Bush who has flip-flopped…Or, more accurately, I believe, who has revealed that he was lying originally and it was never about keeping the peace because he had already essentially decided to go to war.
I think I’m going to go over to the corner with my tail between my legs. THAT WAS AN EXCELLENT POST Jshore! I’m glad that there are people out there that can give me the e-spanking I deserved for my erroneous positions.
Now, if we can get a mod to lock this trainwreck so it sinks like a hammer in a lake, I’d be oh so obliged.
Such things make all the time that I spend here (Gad is SDMB at time-sink!) worthwhile!