POLITICS: Kerry Backed Gay Marriage

John Kerry who said many times recently in his campaign that he is opposed to gay marriages has once again been caught in a shift from a former position.Two years ago Kerry signed a letter presented by homosexual Rep. Barney Frank that was sent to Massachusetts legislators supporting the ban on same sex marriages.

The content of the letter is as follows -

July 12, 2002

Members of the Massachusetts Legislature
State House
Boston, Massachusetts 02133

Dear Legislative Colleague,

We rarely comment on issues that are wholly within the jurisdiction of the General Court, but there are occasions when matters pending before you are of such significance to all residents of the Commonwealth that we think it appropriate for us to express our opinion.

One such matter is the proposed Constitutional amendment that would prohibit or seriously inhibit any legal recognition whatsoever of same-sex relationships. We believe it would be a grave error for Massachusetts to enshrine in our Constitution a provision, which would have such a negative effect on so many of our fellow residents. We in Massachusetts are justly proud of our Constitution, one of the first documents on this continent to set forward a system of self-government, which has not only served us well, but has been a model for others. The proposal to add to that document -- essentially a charter of liberty and democracy -- a provision as harsh both in its intent and its effect on our gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered constituents is in conflict with the generous spirit that motivated its adoption, and that should continue to govern us today.

In addition, as legislators, we believe it would be a terrible mistake to write into our Constitution so sweeping a proposal with the likelihood that it will prevent not only the state government, but also the cities, towns and counties from acting as they might wish to provide some form of recognition for same-sex relationships. We are therefore united in urging you to reject this Constitutional amendment and avoid stigmatizing so many of our fellow citizens who do not deserve to be treated in such a manner.

Senator Kennedy
Senator Kerry
Representative Markey
Representative Frank
Represenative Neal
Representative McGovern
Representative Olver
Representative Meehan
Representative Tierney
Representative Delahunt
Representative Capuano
Representative Lynch

While John Kerry has showed significant advantages in the primaries he is bound to be grilled by issues such as this by the Bush administration when he inevitably becomes the democratic nominee. Moderate democrats and many swing voters could be seriously swayed by such information as this.

www.massequality.org...

[Edited on 11-2-2004 by Dreamz]

[Edited on 11-2-2004 by Dreamz]

[Edited on 11-2-2004 by Dreamz]

[Edited on 11-2-2004 by Dreamz]

I think gays should have the right to marry. Its them, not me. Damn that Kerry.

Im not saying my position on the topic because thats not what the post is about. But when someone in a position like John Kerry switches his positions and signs Bills that are only good to advance his career, then I believe that is when these politicians become represenatives of themselves and not of the people.

Kerry switches his positions and signs Bills that are only good to advance his career, then I believe that is when these politicians become represenatives of themselves and not of the people.
[quoted by Dreamz]

well perhaps he is accepting this as what "the people want" and he is not thinking of his own personal position. If that is the case then I think it is a good thing.

well perhaps he is accepting this as what "the people want" and he is not thinking of his own personal position. If that is the case then I think it is a good thing.

But what if he does "what the people want" until he gets into major power, then changes it and does what he wants?

Just once I would like kerry to stick to something.

He reminds me of those folks in highschool that changed with the wind.

Um seriously folks does it really matter to the State of the Union if DID back gay marriages?

Since I've never head Kerry say he's against any state's right to acknowledge gay marriages, I'll assume you mean by personally being FOR civil unions he's against gay marriage in general. Fine.

But what is not a contradiction is being against a CONSTITUTIONAL BAN on gay marriage that would supercede any state's rights to say otherwise.

This issue is overly muddy. There's Kerry's personal opinion, which I'm taking for PRO CIVIL UNION, and his JOB which it is to be against sweeping, unconstitutional REPUBLICAN backed BS ammendments like a BAN ON CIVIL LIBERTIES.

He's not in contradiction, and probably right on both counts.

Looking back, your title should be Kerry oppposed unconstitutional BAN by Republicans.... he backed civil liberties, not gay marriage.

[Edited on 12-2-2004 by RANT]

How is it a ban on civil liberties.

38 States define marriage as a man and a woman. It seems to me that an amendment would just keep all the states on the same page. But hell, let's just have the states fighting each other over this.

That's the way to keep the country unified.

Originally posted by KrazyJethro
How is it a ban on civil liberties.

38 States define marriage as a man and a woman. It seems to me that an amendment would just keep all the states on the same page. But hell, let's just have the states fighting each other over this.

That's the way to keep the country unified.

Okay, Lincoln. Whereas I submit the way to keep the country united is NOT to impose a ban on state's rights...YET. The only national ammendment I would see as being worthy of keeping the union would be either allowing gay unions or marriages in ALL STATES, making arbitrary bans unconstitutional. But we're not there yet.

Just like in the civil right's desegregation issue, we first allowed states that were ready to lead the way, then made a national imperative forcing backwards mouthbreating states into this century. Your idea is to force those few progressive states to the will of those backwards mouthbreathing states and a handful of Republicans. No thank you.

I'm not suggesting states shouldn't be allowed the right to be backwards mouthbreathers FOR NOW... but there's no sense in mandating regression on a national level.

News Flash: Massachusett's doesn't give a rat's ass what Georgia or the other 38 states you mentioned want Massachusett's to do. And one day, like it or not all 50 states will be on board with gay rights. I'm not saying you have to do it now, and neither is any democrat. Just giving you a head's up.

If you don't believe me, look at civil right's issues of the past. The South had their ideas of how to keep the union too. Bigotry, like racism, will never be institutionalized on a national level again, or at least not for long.

Guess who this is:

Originally posted by 29MV29
Guess who this is:

LOL! That hilarious!

I was only refering to marriage. Civil rights do not extend to marriage, they extend to the recognition of gay couples as a legal entity, that is all that the government should get involved with as far as I am concerned.

I agree with you in a sense. Progression is not always a good thing.

Civil rights is a national issue, therefore the marital ban on gay marriage and establishment of civil unions is legit.

It is the easiest way to go about this. Otherwise we would have huge religious opposition anytime any a change in the "marriage" laws happened. This would of course further the already large divide running through the country now-a-days.

Okay, I'll buy that KJ.