Politics > Politics-USA > Kerry’s Contradictions: The senator’s position on gay marriage is untenable
| Topic: |
Politics > Politics-USA |
| User: |
"Captain Compassion" |
| Date: |
14 Jul 2004 11:22:47 PM |
| Object: |
Kerry’s Contradictions: The senator’s position on gay marriage is untenable |
Kerry’s Contradictions: The senator’s position on gay marriage is
untenable
National Review Online ^ | 7/13/04 | Hadley Arkes
The Senate is bracing now for a vote on a constitutional amendment on
marriage. Behind closed doors, the Republican leadership, including
several chairmen and supposed conservative stalwarts, have reportedly
expressed their resentment that they should be made to vote on an
issue so vexing, so quick to release poisons into the political air.
In the reaction of the Senate leadership we get a measure of the true
state of the conservative political class in America — their want of
confidence in making their own arguments and standing ground in the
face of assaults from the media. (They bring to mind the line of the
first Mayor Daley: "I have been vilified, I have been crucified, I
have been...criticized!") And yet, there is one person in the Senate
who is never tagged with the least bit of responsibility for this
straining business, or held to answer for the introduction of marriage
as a dramatic, unsettling issue this political season.
The issue, after all, was the gift of Massachusetts — or rather of
four judges, backed with all of the passion of liberal Democrats in
that state, who wished to lead the nation to the next rights frontier.
John Kerry is now the preeminent Democrat in Massachusetts. Clearly he
did not welcome this issue as an intrusion into the presidential
campaign, but the decision was brought forth by his friends, and it is
his party that houses those most passionate in their commitment to the
rightness of same-sex marriage. Whether he likes it or not, John Kerry
owns this issue. He will soon be the head of the Democratic party, and
it is entirely apt that he be pressed to explain the position he has
embroidered in his typical style — with nuances, inventive and
implausible, covering brute facts.
JOHN N' MITT
As everyone understands by now, a Kerry "explanation" is not always
easy to follow. And here especially, with a matter so contentious,
Kerry has sought to placate both sides with a stylish straddle. The
undoing of that straddle, or the unraveling of his argument, would be
fine political theater in itself. But as it is undone, it also reveals
the strongest case for the constitutional amendment on marriage.
On one hand Kerry aligns himself with a majority of the public, in
Massachusetts and the public, by affirming that marriage should
involve only a man and a woman. But on the other hand he finds a dark
political purpose in President Bush's support for a constitutional
amendment on marriage. Kerry has insisted that the question of
marriage be reserved for the states. The people of Massachusetts may
amend their constitution to preserve traditional marriage, but in good
"federalist" form the country should not act to foreclose the freedom
of people in any given state to be more accepting of gay marriage.
But if these are the ingredients in Kerry's policy, why is Governor
Mitt Romney standing alone now — taking all the political hits — when
he is merely defending what is in effect Kerry's position? The
comparison with Romney becomes here a key to the puzzle. Romney
supported a constitutional amendment in Massachusetts to override the
judgment of the Supreme Judicial Court, and that seems to be in accord
with Kerry's position. But Kerry did not join Romney in seeking to
have the court hold back its decision until voters could decide on the
amendment. On May 17, the order of the court went into effect, and so
did same-sex marriage.
Then Romney took his stand with the strict enforcement of the law. The
partisans of the court claimed the judges were not acting politically.
In that case, Romney insisted, the authorities in Massachusetts should
enforce the law and only the law. He held that only couples resident
in Massachusetts should be eligible for gay marriage.
The governor invoked a statute from 1913 barring the performance of
marriages for visitors from states in which those marriages would be
illegal. Some argue this law was passed to keep Massachusetts from
becoming a center for interracial marriages and then projecting them
onto the rest of the country. Others argue that the statute sprung
from a genuine concern that Massachusetts would become an engine for
changing the laws of marriage in other states. But even if there had
been a motive in 1913 to avert interracial marriage, that motivation
could not determine the meaning of the law. For the argument has been
made, even more tellingly, that the Fourteenth Amendment was designed
for the sake of protecting black people, newly delivered from slavery.
If the Fourteenth Amendment could be confined to the motives behind
its passage, it could not be used today as a lever for reaching
discrimination against gays and lesbians, and overturning the
traditional laws on marriage.
Governor Romney has been on firm ground, then, in demanding that
registrars in the counties send him all applications for marriage
filed by visitors from other states. That official insistence — backed
by the prospect of legal sanctions — has been enough to make
registrars hold back in caution, and give couples pause before they
proclaim a marriage that may not hold up even in Massachusetts. But
for this minimal gesture, holding strictly to the law, Romney has been
reviled. If John Kerry is serious in his avowal that gay marriage
should be left up to the states — that Massachusetts should not
legislate for the rest of the country on this matter — then why is he
is not large-natured enough to acknowledge that Romney's policy is his
own? And why is he not being subjected to the same scathing attacks
now visited on the governor?
DISSING DOMA
For Kerry, the straddle leads to even deeper contradictions. After
all, the main device right now in preventing couples from carrying a
same-sex marriage into other states is the Defense of Marriage Act,
passed in 1996. That act came about when the courts in Hawaii were
about to impose same-sex marriage there, giving rise to the prospect
that couples would invoke the full-faith-and-credit clause of the
Constitution to have their marriages recognized elsewhere as well.
Under that clause, there is the presumption that a driver's license
granted in Maine will be honored in Illinois, or that a marriage
contracted in Kentucky will be honored in Connecticut. A state could
refuse, say, to honor an incestuous marriage if the public policy of
the state showed a clear rejection of such marriage. But when it came
to homosexual marriage, the courts were gradually denying the
authority of the states to regard homosexual sex as standing on any
lesser plane of legitimacy than the "sexuality imprinted in our
natures," the sexuality of relations between a man and a woman.
That trend was taken to its next phase last year when the Supreme
Court struck down a Texas law on sodomy in Lawrence v. Texas. On the
strength of that case, there is likely to be a challenge now to the
Defense of Marriage Act. But even before it came to a challenge in the
courts, John Kerry had voted against that act, denouncing it as a
species of "gay bashing." It becomes reasonable then to ask: Has he
changed his mind on the Defense of Marriage Act? If so, isn't this the
time for the Republicans to compel him to acknowledge as much? If not,
how will he hold to the position he has professed in favor of letting
each state decide the matter of gay marriage for itself?
We must suspect that Kerry declared himself strongly in favor of this
"federalist" position as a means of avoiding any concurrence with
President Bush in favoring a constitutional amendment on marriage. But
it should be clear that his position would be rendered hollow if the
judges in the separate states could simply install same-sex marriage
by judicial fiat. And that could be done quite easily if those judges
merely employed the same reasoning used by the Supreme Judicial Court
of Massachusetts: The court had invoked Lawrence v. Texas in arguing
that the law could draw no adverse inference based on "sexual
orientation." Any federal court could invoke that case and reason in
the same way. The court had also invoked the theme of equality before
the law, in arguing that it was a matter of invidious discrimination
to refuse equal access to marriage on the part of gay and lesbian
couples. The notion of equality before the law could be found as
implicit in the constitution of any state, or in any constitutional
order.
Kerry has proclaimed himself in opposition to same-sex marriage, but
no reporter has thought to ask him whether he rejected the reasoning
of the court in Massachusetts in any of its holdings on this matter.
For if he does not reject the reasoning of the court, it is hard to
see what objection he would have to courts in any state using the same
reasoning to produce the same result.
WHAT FEDERALIST SOLUTION?
Kerry has also fallen into the familiar groove of offering civil
unions to gays and lesbians while reserving the title of marriage for
the union of a man and woman. But the Supreme Judicial Court in
Massachusetts revealed perhaps too much, too soon, when it explained
why a compromise of that kind is not tenable. The argument of the
court might be condensed in this way: If the law granted all of the
privileges and benefits of marriage, but insisted that in the case of
say dwarves the arrangements would be called only "civil unions," it
would be hard to resist the implication that there was something
demeaning about that class of people — something about dwarves that
made them less worthy of the title of marriage. The truth that dare
not speak its name is this: The arrangement of civil unions is geared
to keep generating invidious discriminations in the way that the
traditional laws of marriage do not. Kerry should know that any
provision for civil unions is simply an invitation to the judges to
strike down the traditional laws of marriage.
The inescapable problem here for Kerry is that, if he will not reject
the reasoning of the courts, he cannot prevent the judges from taking
matters into their own hands; and in that case, his position in favor
of a "federalist" solution would be exposed as a cynical deception.
The only arrangement that could preserve the decision in the hands of
the people, and take it out of the control of the judges, is the
arrangement for a national amendment on marriage — the amendment that
Kerry has firmly rejected.
Of course, that constitutional amendment would "impose" a uniform
definition of marriage on the entire country, but it would take the
vote of 37 states in order to do so. If Kerry truly thinks that
marriage must mean only the union of a man and woman, what is the
problem now of securing that understanding of marriage, the
understanding that has been in place for a couple of thousand years?
Surely there is nothing novel here.
But at the same time, that understanding of marriage, fixed in the
fundamental law, would still leave the states the wide latitude they
have had in regulating marriage, and even in making provisions for
civil unions.
Again, we ought to be clear: When people go into federal court and try
to bring their marriage from Massachusetts into their own home state,
they are nationalizing the issue; they are bringing in the federal
Constitution. Senator Kerry reflects the curious contradiction of many
public figures: He opposes the appeal to the federal Constitution for
the sake of preserving marriage as we know it, but he would allow
activists to appeal to the Constitution for the sake of extending gay
and lesbian marriage to the states.
Until Senator Kerry gets clear then on his own position, he will
remain a covert accomplice in this latest project of Massachusetts. As
for Governor Romney, it would entirely apt for him now to speak the
words of Groucho Marx, said of Margaret Dumont's character: "I was
fighting for her honor — which is more than she ever did." Romney has
been enforcing Kerry's policy, which is more than Kerry has done. It
is time for Kerry to say something.
— Hadley Arkes is the Ney professor of American institutions at
Amherst College.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"Only one ambition is worthy of Islam, to save the world from the
curse of democracy: to teach men that they cannot rule themselves
on the basis of man-made laws. Mankind has strayed from the path of
God, we must return to that path or face certain annihilation."
-- Sheikh Muhammad bin Ibrahim al-Jubair
"Long term commitment in relationships is only necessary because it takes
so damn long to raise children. Marriage may well be some kind of trick
to keep the males around beyond sexual satiation." -- Captain Compassion
"Progress is the increasing control of the environment by life.
--Will Durant
Joseph R. Darancette
res0mp8t@NOSPAMverizon.net
.
|
|
| User: "abracadabra" |
|
| Title: Re: Kerry's Contradictions: The senator's position on gay marriage is untenable |
15 Jul 2004 10:19:24 AM |
|
|
"Captain Compassion" <res0mp8t@NOSPAMverizon.net> wrote in message
news:ul0cf0lfaeaqqf7g8lij6tt63dv4po6hco@4ax.com...
Kerry's Contradictions: The senator's position on gay marriage is
untenable
National Review Online ^
Wow - that's an unbiased place to go fishing for opinions!
Do you think we need a constitutional amendment on marriage?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: Kerry's Contradictions: The senator's position on gay marriage is untenable |
15 Aug 2004 11:58:45 AM |
|
|
"abracadabra" <abra@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:0gxJc.11077$kK.1850@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
"Captain Compassion" <res0mp8t@NOSPAMverizon.net> wrote in message
news:ul0cf0lfaeaqqf7g8lij6tt63dv4po6hco@4ax.com...
Kerry's Contradictions: The senator's position on gay marriage is
untenable
National Review Online ^
Wow - that's an unbiased place to go fishing for opinions!
Do you think we need a constitutional amendment on marriage?
I do not think this is the time for that
type of amendment. If DOMA is overturned
by some court, then it may be appropriate.
By the way, DOMA is what Edwards didn't
understand during the democratic debates.
Hopefully, he's a better prepared now.
.
|
|
|
| User: "abracadabra" |
|
| Title: Re: Kerry's Contradictions: The senator's position on gay marriage is untenable |
15 Jul 2004 02:21:22 PM |
|
|
"Bob" <no@email.address> wrote in message
news:kJyJc.9350$vD6.1550@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
"abracadabra" <abra@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:0gxJc.11077$kK.1850@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
"Captain Compassion" <res0mp8t@NOSPAMverizon.net> wrote in message
news:ul0cf0lfaeaqqf7g8lij6tt63dv4po6hco@4ax.com...
Kerry's Contradictions: The senator's position on gay marriage is
untenable
National Review Online ^
Wow - that's an unbiased place to go fishing for opinions!
Do you think we need a constitutional amendment on marriage?
I do not think this is the time for that
type of amendment. If DOMA is overturned
by some court, then it may be appropriate.
By the way, DOMA is what Edwards didn't
understand during the democratic debates.
Hopefully, he's a better prepared now.
I think he'll prep pretty good. From what I read of him as a lawyer, he can
really speak to people. Heck, he won one case partially by portraying the
voice of an unborn baby begging for help from the Doctor he was suing.
Too bad for the Republicans that he isn't "pro-life"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: Kerry's Contradictions: The senator's position on gay marriage is untenable |
15 Aug 2004 02:31:22 PM |
|
|
"abracadabra" <abra@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:SOAJc.8957$sV2.2507@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
"Bob" <no@email.address> wrote in message
news:kJyJc.9350$vD6.1550@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
"abracadabra" <abra@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:0gxJc.11077$kK.1850@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
"Captain Compassion" <res0mp8t@NOSPAMverizon.net> wrote in message
news:ul0cf0lfaeaqqf7g8lij6tt63dv4po6hco@4ax.com...
Kerry's Contradictions: The senator's position on gay marriage is
untenable
National Review Online ^
Wow - that's an unbiased place to go fishing for opinions!
Do you think we need a constitutional amendment on marriage?
I do not think this is the time for that
type of amendment. If DOMA is overturned
by some court, then it may be appropriate.
By the way, DOMA is what Edwards didn't
understand during the democratic debates.
Hopefully, he's a better prepared now.
I think he'll prep pretty good. From what I read of him as a lawyer, he can
really speak to people. Heck, he won one case partially by portraying the
voice of an unborn baby begging for help from the Doctor he was suing.
Too bad for the Republicans that he isn't "pro-life"
Yes, Edwards is a good emotional speaker.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robin" |
|
| Title: Re: Kerry's Contradictions: The senator's position on gay marriage is untenable |
26 Jul 2004 09:17:13 PM |
|
|
"Bob" <no@email.address> wrote in message
news:nYAJc.10124$vD6.3594@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
"abracadabra" <abra@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:SOAJc.8957$sV2.2507@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
"Bob" <no@email.address> wrote in message
news:kJyJc.9350$vD6.1550@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
"abracadabra" <abra@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:0gxJc.11077$kK.1850@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
"Captain Compassion" <res0mp8t@NOSPAMverizon.net>
wrote in message
news:ul0cf0lfaeaqqf7g8lij6tt63dv4po6hco@4ax.com...
Kerry's Contradictions: The senator's position on
gay marriage is
untenable
National Review Online ^
Wow - that's an unbiased place to go fishing for
opinions!
Do you think we need a constitutional amendment on
marriage?
I do not think this is the time for that
type of amendment. If DOMA is overturned
by some court, then it may be appropriate.
By the way, DOMA is what Edwards didn't
understand during the democratic debates.
Hopefully, he's a better prepared now.
I think he'll prep pretty good. From what I read of him
as a lawyer, he can
really speak to people. Heck, he won one case partially
by portraying the
voice of an unborn baby begging for help from the Doctor
he was suing.
Too bad for the Republicans that he isn't "pro-life"
Yes, Edwards is a good emotional speaker.
How about fixing your clock Bob? It's July 26th, not August
15th. Let us know if you need help figuring out how to.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "ehollo" |
|
| Title: Re: Kerry's Contradictions: The senator's position on gay marriage is untenable |
15 Jul 2004 10:22:36 PM |
|
|
"Bob" <no@email.address> wrote in message
news:nYAJc.10124$vD6.3594@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
"abracadabra" <abra@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:SOAJc.8957$sV2.2507@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
"Bob" <no@email.address> wrote in message
news:kJyJc.9350$vD6.1550@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
"abracadabra" <abra@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:0gxJc.11077$kK.1850@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
"Captain Compassion" <res0mp8t@NOSPAMverizon.net> wrote in message
news:ul0cf0lfaeaqqf7g8lij6tt63dv4po6hco@4ax.com...
Kerry's Contradictions: The senator's position on gay marriage is
untenable
National Review Online ^
Wow - that's an unbiased place to go fishing for opinions!
Do you think we need a constitutional amendment on marriage?
I do not think this is the time for that
type of amendment. If DOMA is overturned
by some court, then it may be appropriate.
By the way, DOMA is what Edwards didn't
understand during the democratic debates.
Hopefully, he's a better prepared now.
I think he'll prep pretty good. From what I read of him as a lawyer, he
can
really speak to people. Heck, he won one case partially by portraying
the
voice of an unborn baby begging for help from the Doctor he was suing.
Too bad for the Republicans that he isn't "pro-life"
Yes, Edwards is a good emotional speaker.
I think Bob likes Edwards!
BTW, just because Bush is Republican doesn't mean I automatically hate him.
I just think he does not inspire confidence. If McCain and Powell ran
together, or Warner and McCain, I would have a much harder choice to make.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Rhinestone Kowboy Kerry" |
|
| Title: Re: Kerry's Contradictions: The senator's position on gay marriage is untenable |
15 Jul 2004 06:19:21 AM |
|
|
"Captain Compassion" <res0mp8t@NOSPAMverizon.net> wrote in message
news:ul0cf0lfaeaqqf7g8lij6tt63dv4po6hco@4ax.com...
Kerry's Contradictions: The senator's position on gay marriage is
untenable
National Review Online ^ | 7/13/04 | Hadley Arkes
The Senate is bracing now for a vote on a constitutional amendment on
marriage. Behind closed doors, the Republican leadership, including
several chairmen and supposed conservative stalwarts, have reportedly
expressed their resentment that they should be made to vote on an
issue so vexing, so quick to release poisons into the political air.
In the reaction of the Senate leadership we get a measure of the true
state of the conservative political class in America - their want of
confidence in making their own arguments and standing ground in the
face of assaults from the media. (They bring to mind the line of the
first Mayor Daley: "I have been vilified, I have been crucified, I
have been...criticized!") And yet, there is one person in the Senate
who is never tagged with the least bit of responsibility for this
straining business, or held to answer for the introduction of marriage
as a dramatic, unsettling issue this political season.
UPDATE - In fact, Kerry is so totally irresponsible on the issue of marriage
that he WENT AWOL for this important Senate vote, taken yesterday!
Typical John Kerry fraud. The guy is TOTALLY lacking in any leadership
characteristics!
The issue, after all, was the gift of Massachusetts - or rather of
four judges, backed with all of the passion of liberal Democrats in
that state, who wished to lead the nation to the next rights frontier.
John Kerry is now the preeminent Democrat in Massachusetts. Clearly he
did not welcome this issue as an intrusion into the presidential
campaign, but the decision was brought forth by his friends, and it is
his party that houses those most passionate in their commitment to the
rightness of same-sex marriage. Whether he likes it or not, John Kerry
owns this issue. He will soon be the head of the Democratic party, and
it is entirely apt that he be pressed to explain the position he has
embroidered in his typical style - with nuances, inventive and
implausible, covering brute facts.
Kerry is a VERY bad "leader" indeed, as his going AWOL yesterday proves!
JOHN N' MITT
As everyone understands by now, a Kerry "explanation" is not always
easy to follow. And here especially, with a matter so contentious,
Kerry has sought to placate both sides with a stylish straddle. The
undoing of that straddle, or the unraveling of his argument, would be
fine political theater in itself. But as it is undone, it also reveals
the strongest case for the constitutional amendment on marriage.
On one hand Kerry aligns himself with a majority of the public, in
Massachusetts and the public, by affirming that marriage should
involve only a man and a woman. But on the other hand he finds a dark
political purpose in President Bush's support for a constitutional
amendment on marriage. Kerry has insisted that the question of
marriage be reserved for the states. The people of Massachusetts may
amend their constitution to preserve traditional marriage, but in good
"federalist" form the country should not act to foreclose the freedom
of people in any given state to be more accepting of gay marriage.
But if these are the ingredients in Kerry's policy, why is Governor
Mitt Romney standing alone now - taking all the political hits - when
he is merely defending what is in effect Kerry's position?
Basically, because the liberal biased media CHALLENGES every action taken by
a Republican, and challenges NOTHING done by a Democrat.
It's really not much more complicated than that, Capn'.
The
comparison with Romney becomes here a key to the puzzle. Romney
supported a constitutional amendment in Massachusetts to override the
judgment of the Supreme Judicial Court, and that seems to be in accord
with Kerry's position. But Kerry did not join Romney in seeking to
have the court hold back its decision until voters could decide on the
amendment..
That's because John Kerry is a total fraud, as I pointed out earlier, Capn.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Schmedley" |
|
| Title: Re: Kerry's Contradictions: The senator's position on gay marriage is untenable |
15 Jul 2004 08:33:21 AM |
|
|
Chill. The guy is running for President and the Republicans didnt have the
votes. So what is the problem?
"Rhinestone Kowboy Kerry" <BigLoser@DNC.com> wrote in message
news:ZKtJc.10920$kK.1173@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
"Captain Compassion" <res0mp8t@NOSPAMverizon.net> wrote in message
news:ul0cf0lfaeaqqf7g8lij6tt63dv4po6hco@4ax.com...
Kerry's Contradictions: The senator's position on gay marriage is
untenable
National Review Online ^ | 7/13/04 | Hadley Arkes
The Senate is bracing now for a vote on a constitutional amendment on
marriage. Behind closed doors, the Republican leadership, including
several chairmen and supposed conservative stalwarts, have reportedly
expressed their resentment that they should be made to vote on an
issue so vexing, so quick to release poisons into the political air.
In the reaction of the Senate leadership we get a measure of the true
state of the conservative political class in America - their want of
confidence in making their own arguments and standing ground in the
face of assaults from the media. (They bring to mind the line of the
first Mayor Daley: "I have been vilified, I have been crucified, I
have been...criticized!") And yet, there is one person in the Senate
who is never tagged with the least bit of responsibility for this
straining business, or held to answer for the introduction of marriage
as a dramatic, unsettling issue this political season.
UPDATE - In fact, Kerry is so totally irresponsible on the issue of
marriage
that he WENT AWOL for this important Senate vote, taken yesterday!
Typical John Kerry fraud. The guy is TOTALLY lacking in any leadership
characteristics!
The issue, after all, was the gift of Massachusetts - or rather of
four judges, backed with all of the passion of liberal Democrats in
that state, who wished to lead the nation to the next rights frontier.
John Kerry is now the preeminent Democrat in Massachusetts. Clearly he
did not welcome this issue as an intrusion into the presidential
campaign, but the decision was brought forth by his friends, and it is
his party that houses those most passionate in their commitment to the
rightness of same-sex marriage. Whether he likes it or not, John Kerry
owns this issue. He will soon be the head of the Democratic party, and
it is entirely apt that he be pressed to explain the position he has
embroidered in his typical style - with nuances, inventive and
implausible, covering brute facts.
Kerry is a VERY bad "leader" indeed, as his going AWOL yesterday proves!
JOHN N' MITT
As everyone understands by now, a Kerry "explanation" is not always
easy to follow. And here especially, with a matter so contentious,
Kerry has sought to placate both sides with a stylish straddle. The
undoing of that straddle, or the unraveling of his argument, would be
fine political theater in itself. But as it is undone, it also reveals
the strongest case for the constitutional amendment on marriage.
On one hand Kerry aligns himself with a majority of the public, in
Massachusetts and the public, by affirming that marriage should
involve only a man and a woman. But on the other hand he finds a dark
political purpose in President Bush's support for a constitutional
amendment on marriage. Kerry has insisted that the question of
marriage be reserved for the states. The people of Massachusetts may
amend their constitution to preserve traditional marriage, but in good
"federalist" form the country should not act to foreclose the freedom
of people in any given state to be more accepting of gay marriage.
But if these are the ingredients in Kerry's policy, why is Governor
Mitt Romney standing alone now - taking all the political hits - when
he is merely defending what is in effect Kerry's position?
Basically, because the liberal biased media CHALLENGES every action taken
by
a Republican, and challenges NOTHING done by a Democrat.
It's really not much more complicated than that, Capn'.
The
comparison with Romney becomes here a key to the puzzle. Romney
supported a constitutional amendment in Massachusetts to override the
judgment of the Supreme Judicial Court, and that seems to be in accord
with Kerry's position. But Kerry did not join Romney in seeking to
have the court hold back its decision until voters could decide on the
amendment..
That's because John Kerry is a total fraud, as I pointed out earlier,
Capn.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr." |
|
| Title: Re: Kerry's Contradictions: The senator's position on gay marriage is untenable |
15 Jul 2004 08:39:43 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 11:19:21 GMT, "Rhinestone Kowboy Kerry"
<BigLoser@DNC.com> wrote:
"Captain Compassion" <res0mp8t@NOSPAMverizon.net> wrote in message
news:ul0cf0lfaeaqqf7g8lij6tt63dv4po6hco@4ax.com...
Kerry's Contradictions: The senator's position on gay marriage is
untenable
National Review Online ^ | 7/13/04 | Hadley Arkes
The Senate is bracing now for a vote on a constitutional amendment on
marriage. Behind closed doors, the Republican leadership, including
several chairmen and supposed conservative stalwarts, have reportedly
expressed their resentment that they should be made to vote on an
issue so vexing, so quick to release poisons into the political air.
In the reaction of the Senate leadership we get a measure of the true
state of the conservative political class in America - their want of
confidence in making their own arguments and standing ground in the
face of assaults from the media. (They bring to mind the line of the
first Mayor Daley: "I have been vilified, I have been crucified, I
have been...criticized!") And yet, there is one person in the Senate
who is never tagged with the least bit of responsibility for this
straining business, or held to answer for the introduction of marriage
as a dramatic, unsettling issue this political season.
UPDATE - In fact, Kerry is so totally irresponsible on the issue of marriage
that he WENT AWOL for this important Senate vote, taken yesterday!
It was just a procedural vote, and everyone knew it would go against
the pro-bigot side.
On the amendment itself, everyone knows it can't possibly win.
Even ***** Cheney's wife is opposed to it.
Hell, even ***** Cheney himself is opposed to it, though he has to
pretend otherwise.
I bet even President Bush and Laura Bush are opposed to it, if you
strapped them up to a lie detector.
It takes 67 votes to pass the Senate, and the pro-bigot side could
only get 48 to even allow a vote.
Were there a vote on the amendment itself, the number for it would be
fewer than 48.
So the result would be the same with Kerry's vote or without it.
Better for him to be out trying to win the election, so we can get
back to honest government, intelligently run.
That's a lot more imporatant than a vote having no bearing on the
result.
Typical John Kerry fraud. The guy is TOTALLY lacking in any leadership
characteristics!
Bush - they are going nuclear, follow me - right over the cliff.
Great leader.
The issue, after all, was the gift of Massachusetts - or rather of
four judges, backed with all of the passion of liberal Democrats in
that state, who wished to lead the nation to the next rights frontier.
John Kerry is now the preeminent Democrat in Massachusetts. Clearly he
did not welcome this issue as an intrusion into the presidential
campaign, but the decision was brought forth by his friends, and it is
his party that houses those most passionate in their commitment to the
rightness of same-sex marriage. Whether he likes it or not, John Kerry
owns this issue. He will soon be the head of the Democratic party, and
it is entirely apt that he be pressed to explain the position he has
embroidered in his typical style - with nuances, inventive and
implausible, covering brute facts.
Kerry is a VERY bad "leader" indeed, as his going AWOL yesterday proves!
JOHN N' MITT
As everyone understands by now, a Kerry "explanation" is not always
easy to follow. And here especially, with a matter so contentious,
Kerry has sought to placate both sides with a stylish straddle. The
undoing of that straddle, or the unraveling of his argument, would be
fine political theater in itself. But as it is undone, it also reveals
the strongest case for the constitutional amendment on marriage.
On one hand Kerry aligns himself with a majority of the public, in
Massachusetts and the public, by affirming that marriage should
involve only a man and a woman. But on the other hand he finds a dark
political purpose in President Bush's support for a constitutional
amendment on marriage. Kerry has insisted that the question of
marriage be reserved for the states. The people of Massachusetts may
amend their constitution to preserve traditional marriage, but in good
"federalist" form the country should not act to foreclose the freedom
of people in any given state to be more accepting of gay marriage.
But if these are the ingredients in Kerry's policy, why is Governor
Mitt Romney standing alone now - taking all the political hits - when
he is merely defending what is in effect Kerry's position?
Basically, because the liberal biased media CHALLENGES every action taken by
a Republican, and challenges NOTHING done by a Democrat.
It's really not much more complicated than that, Capn'.
The
comparison with Romney becomes here a key to the puzzle. Romney
supported a constitutional amendment in Massachusetts to override the
judgment of the Supreme Judicial Court, and that seems to be in accord
with Kerry's position. But Kerry did not join Romney in seeking to
have the court hold back its decision until voters could decide on the
amendment..
That's because John Kerry is a total fraud, as I pointed out earlier, Capn.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "ZenIsWhen" |
|
| Title: Re: Kerry's Contradictions: The senator's position on gay marriage is untenable |
15 Jul 2004 06:32:30 AM |
|
|
"Captain Compassion" <res0mp8t@NOSPAMverizon.net> wrote in message
news:ul0cf0lfaeaqqf7g8lij6tt63dv4po6hco@4ax.com...
Kerry's Contradictions: The senator's position on gay marriage is
untenable
Hard core crap like this is unflushable!
National Review Online ^ | 7/13/04 | Hadley Arkes
The Senate is bracing now for a vote on a constitutional amendment on
marriage.
Bracing?
Most sane Senators are just laughing at a blatant, blatantly corrupt,
blatantly political, blatantly irrational republican ploy to divert
attention from important topics!
Behind closed doors, the Republican leadership, including
several chairmen and supposed conservative stalwarts, have reportedly
expressed their resentment that they should be made to vote on an
issue so vexing, so quick to release poisons into the political air.
and so stupid .........
In the reaction of the Senate leadership we get a measure of the true
state of the conservative political class in America - their want of
confidence in making their own arguments and standing ground in the
face of assaults from the media.
If there is any assault - it is this action as an insult to the intelligence
of the American public!!!
(They bring to mind the line of the
first Mayor Daley: "I have been vilified, I have been crucified, I
have been...criticized!") And yet, there is one person in the Senate
who is never tagged with the least bit of responsibility for this
straining business, or held to answer for the introduction of marriage
as a dramatic, unsettling issue this political season.
The issue, after all, was the gift of Massachusetts - or rather of
four judges, backed with all of the passion of liberal Democrats in
that state, who wished to lead the nation to the next rights frontier.
John Kerry is now the preeminent Democrat in Massachusetts.
Say WHAT?
That's like saying the U.S. is responsible for EVERYTHING UN-DEMOCRATIC that
happens in the world - only because the U.S. is a democracy!!!!!
The issue is, and has ALWAYS BEEN one of rights - as defined
(allowed/supported) in the Constitution!
Mass. just HAPPENS to be the place where a case was filed - and went to a
certain judicial level.
That JUDGES determined that law unconstitutinoal has NOTHING TO DO with John
Kerry or Democrats.
It ONLY has to do with liberals, because - unlike conservatives who would
have found "wife ownership" constitutional - the liberals actually FOLLOW
the concepts in the Constitution!
This is nothing more than outrageously deranged - but typical, republican,
insanity and distortion of reality.
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
