He was only willing to make the public stand after the cloture motion failed in the Senate. Prior to that he stated that the President sets the administration’s policies and he would support those policies.
And I’ll head off any assertions that of course the President sets policy with reminding you about Cheney’s Energy Policy that Bush rubber-stamped. If Cheney has that much influence on energy policy, then if he were truly supportive he could have that influence on this policy as well.
Of course there is a right way to vote. It’s the way your conscience tells you to. For me, it’s for the candidate who has a more reasoned approach to the Middle East and counter-terrorism, who respects the Constitution, who respects the world community, and who has a domestic policy that won’t breed more fear, racism, xenophobia, and paranoia. For jayjay and Bambi Hassenpfeffer, it’d the candidate who is most supportive of gay rights. For a conservative Republican, it’d be Bush, for some reason.
That’s always important to keep in mind, especially when talking about same-sex marriage and other civil rights. It’s not trying to say that “the right way” for one person is the right way for everyone else; it’s acknowledging that people should have the opportunity to do things “the right way” for them.
That still assumes that everyone is acting out of self-interest. And if that’s the case, we should just shut up now, because homosexuals are obviously in the minority and it’s in no heterosexual’s self-interest to vote in favor of equal rights for gay people. I would hope that everyone, regardless of his or her sexual orientation, is working for what’s best, what he thinks is right, not just for his own sexual rights or for his own political power and status.
Why the hell not? A society that discriminates against one group can discriminate against any group. And almost all of us are minorities in one way or another.
Stupid people aren’t.
What the huh? Am I getting whooshed? Because I can’t explain the concept of altruism to someone – you either have to believe in it and do it, or not.
Fortunately, there are people who understand that you don’t have to be gay yourself to support equal treatment for gay people. It’s kind of like how I support equal treatment for black people even though I’m about as white as a person can be.
I think what he’s saying is that protecting the rights of a minority you don’t belong to does not, by definition, have to be done out of altruism. It can be done out of self-preservation. By establishing in law that a minority you don’t belong to cannot be discriminated against, you make it more difficult to later discriminate legally against a minority you do belong to.
Which line of reasoining, incidentally, is why I don’t really believe in the exsistence of altruism. But that’s a whole 'nother thread.
'Nuff said?
I support gay marriage not because I’m afraid anyone will take my rights away (I’m hetero - only mentioned because I think it is relevant for once) but because gay marriage makes sense. It’s logical, and it fits in with what I’ve been taught this country stands for: you don’t discriminate against someone because of their age, the color of their skin, whether or not all their limbs work, what their sexual plumbing is or what sexual plumbing they prefer in a partner. They’re called “human rights” not “hetero rights”. Ick. That sounds like a bad bumper sticker.
But it’s true. Why can’t SolGrundy be a husband?* Any answer I’ve heard is based on the fact that the person SolGrundy would like to marry has a penis instead of a vagina. That’s discrimination.
*hypothetical, of course. I have no idea if you’re even in that type of relationship - but I like your username, and I know you’re gay - I think it might have been mentioned once on the board! 
You know why they are indignant? Because a large chunk of their “base” are bigots who think lesbians are destined to roast in hell, and Kerry reminding them on national TV that the Cheneys raised a carpet munching lesbo for a daughter might lessen their ambition to vote for Bush/Cheney.
That might be true. But so what if it is? If they require bigots to ensure their electoral success, then fuck 'em.
Next week, on Girls Gone Wild: Behind The Scenes, we show you how to make your own videos…
Nope… that’s an intimate video series that’s a training tool for new couples.
I know that, Sol. I remember your coming out thread. Hell, I posted in it.
But Mary Cheney decided not to keep her sexuality as her own damn business. In fact, she made a pretty penny selling the fact that she is a lesbian to Coors as their liaison – she helped turn a very homophobic corporation into one which is quite gay-friendly. However, now she’s the campaign manager for an administration that is trying to change the Constitution for forever codify us a second-class citizens. And I see that you agree with me that’s she’s fair game in this campaign.
I was not asserting that every gay person has to be a crusader for gay rights; I was only attempting to explain why she is so widely disdained, and why those of us who are vocal supporters of our rights dislike her so vehemently.
You don’t have to be working with the Nazis to be a collaborator. I really can’t think of another single word which describes how I and most of my friends view her – while I admit that “collaborator” is a loaded word, I really think it is apt.
I feel exactly the same way. I’m flexible and open to differing attitudes on many things – abortion, gun control, etc. – but I cannot be flexible on my rights and my ability to live my life as I determine, and I cannot forgive Ms Cheney for how she’s actively supporting BC04.
Sorry, I was responding to the part of your post where you said that it is not in the self-interest of heterosexuals to support gay rights. It most certainly is - unless someone thinks that he is always going to be in the majority about everything. There are lots of other reasons.
I hope you agree. I think we agree about everything else.
Thank you. Exactly what I meant. The nerve of Sol for calling me an altruist. 
Being an atheist, I don’t trust these guys in Washington a bit.
Another thing I’ve never understood is how people think their existing marriage will be damaged or made meaningless because the guys (or girls) next door get married. Britney Spears, on the other hand, diminishes us all.
My WAG about John Kerry is that, if you could get him to speak with utter honesty about his own convictions, he doesn’t really have a problem with gay marriage. But he’s trying to get elected, so he’s walking a narrow line.
Have there been any polls showing how much support Kerry has among gay Americans? As I recall, Bill Clinton in 1992 connected with gay groups like no Presidential candidate before, and got a lot of support. Of course, he let them down later when it came to the military, with the really bad compromise of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”. Has Kerry said anything about changing that policy? Of course, even though he’s Commander in Chief, the President can’t solve the problem by himself. Truman was able to racially integrate the service by issuing an order, but getting rid of the anti-gay rules would require changing the UCMJ. But that’s another whole thread or two.
Note: Kerry was one of the very few Senators who was outspoken AGAINST the DOMA, and he voted against it.
Actually, believe it or not, this isn’t true. He does actually believe what he says. He’s been consistent on this throughout his career: he doesn’t think the institution of marriage should be changed to include gay couples, but he does believe that it’s unacceptably unfair that straight couples get special treatment while gay couples do not. The closest he’s come to saying that he doesn’t really have a problem with it is when he was asked about the future, and he suggested that twenty years down the road, who knows, society and traditions could change and he doesn’t think he can pretned to be the arbiter of what the body politic will decide is the right way forward after he’s left office. That’s hardly a “I really support it, but I pretend not to!” stance.
My apologies. I was a bit unclear on this. Yes, he was one of only 14 senators that voted against DOMA stating that it was unconstitutional on the grounds that the Full Faith and Credit clause requires states to recognize marriages of other states. BUT, since then, he’s backed off that position and now says that states ought to be able to choose not to recognize gay marriages of another state if it is contrary to the state’s public policy. He has even gone on record as supporting a Massachusetts amendment qualifying marriage as between a man and a woman with the caveat that Mass. grants rights to gay couples equal to that of heterosexual married couples.
You can see why this is a bit confusing: the primary difference between DOMA and the Mass. amendment being a state’s right to make its own public policy without intervention of or usurping by federal policy governing all states. As I stated before, I believe this is potentially much more devisive on so many levels than federal intervention would be. It’s up to the federal government to bring all 50 states into alignment on this issue one way or the other, although my profound hope is that the federal government sees the tremendous folly of excluding an entire class of people growing larger and more assertive each year.
I disagree. Kerry admits he cannot legislate an article of his faith, so what is the purpose of unequivocally stating that he believes marriage is between a man and a woman? It’s rhetoric. What he believes should have no bearing on the issue at hand. It’s purely semantics. If he’s so intent on preserving (or establishing) the rights of gay couples, the article of his faith that defines marriage is totally irrelevant.
Because allowing gays to get married now will lead to lynchings on a grand scale.
This is the problem with gay rights activists - they think they should get everything they want now, forgetting that social change and acceptance is always gradual.
Consider the blacks. The slaves were freed in 1865, but it was over 100 years before miscegenation laws were ruled unconstitutional and blacks got full civil rights. Now, the sodomy laws only began to be repealed in 1962. What makes gays so special that society should change faster for them than it did for blacks, who have even less choice than gays do not to be different, and who differ far less from white people than gays do from straights?