Gay Marriage

i belieave that everyone should have the same rights weather it be their religion skin color or sexual prefrence..i just want to know where kerry stands on it because i need to know for debate class

 

Kerry is for civil unions and letting the states define marriage.
more info here

 

yea.... but he still won't push fer legalization of gay marriage... "ooo i dunno.... let's the states decide..." what a pussy.

 

Well, I'm all for gay marriage personally.
But I do see his point, the states have always decided what constitutes marriage. Kerry actually believes marriage is between a man and a woman. I'm glad he won't amend the constitution to refect his opinion.

 

He can't say he favors gay marriage if he wants to win the election. Of course he supports gay marriage though. People close to him have anonymously told reporters this, and Kerry has a great voting record when it comes to gay rights.

 

I think the trick is that states would be able to choose not to allow gay marriage but they couldn't refuse to recognise marriages from other states. So by pursuing a state solution Kerry may actually be able to deliver gay marriage for the whole country. Or am I getting it wrong?

 

No, you got it right.

The Full Faith and Credit clause in the US Constitution says that all states must recognize the acts of all other states. In other words, if two people are married in Massachusetts, they're married everywhere in the country.

 

As I've said before, if the Supreme Court overturns DOMA, there will undoubtedly be a groundswell of support for a constitutional amendment that would codify its provisions. People aren't going to sit still for another Roe v. Wade sort of judicial fiat ruling that invalidates marriage laws across the country.

 

Why are you so outraged over the prospect of DOMA being overturned? It clearly violates the 14th amendment, to say nothing of the Full Faith and Credit clause. It also has legal precedent - Brown v. Board of Education.

If you hate gay people, which you obviously do, why don't you just say so? Stop feigning outrage over what would be a perfectly legitimate Supreme Court decision.

 

absolutely FALSE. Full Faith and credit CAN NOT force another state to accept something that they deem illegal.

 

The reason Bush is in favor of the constitutional amendment is because he knows it will fail. That way he can pretend to fight against something knowing it is ultimately futile, thereby getting him off the hook. Any conservatives who believe otherwise, prepare to get used.

And all this is really just a front for homophobia. It's like Trent Lott and his "state's rights" premise for supporting segregation. Who do you think you are fooling here?

YOUR rights are not being infringed or altered in any way. This campaign has the exclusive objective of restricting the rights of a persecuted minority. Again, who do you think you are fooling?

 

**

The thing is I’m unsure who is fooling who and who is using whom?

The politicians get a religious pulpit to get votes and the priests get a political platform to get converts.


**

 

Right. Unknown to those who crafted and ratified the 14th Amendment or the subsequent 100 years of jurisprudence, "equal protection" obliterates any legal recognition of gender differences. Ignore the fact that Section 2 of this amendment specifically refers to males at least 21 years of age . . .

 

Yawn. Fortunately you aren't on the Supreme Court. I for one am glad that the writers of (most of) the amendments left them purposely vague so that the court's could interpret them as times changed.

As someone said earlier, just who do you think you're fooling? You can go on spouting rhetoric about "activist judges" and "states' rights," but it won't change the fact that at the end of the day you support discrimination. Just admit it.

 

Tell me, does Section 1 of the 14th Amendment negate Section 2?

As long as you happen to favor the latest novel "intepretation" . . .

I've made no secret of my opposition to gay "marriage" as a matter of public policy:

http://hipforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=27329

However, I also strongly oppose the manner in which its proponents seek to implement their agenda by judicial decree.

 

That's not what we were asking, and you know it. We are well aware of your desire to implement your agenda by judicial decree.

Why have you made a personal crusade of restricting restrict other people's rights? After this victory, whose rights are you going after next? Tell us, Mr. Lott.

 

How am I advocating "judicial decree" by seeking to uphold existing marriage laws democratically enacted by state legislatures?

The historic definition of marriage is not a "civil rights" issue:

http://www.cpjustice.org/stories/storyReader$1178

 

Who cares what the "historic definition" is? This is 2004, not 1620. It's more important for everyone to have equal rights than to preserve some meaningless "historic definition."

 

No shit, otherwise we may still be burning people at the stake, or selling africans into slavery.

Let's get with the times, people. There is nothing wrong with progression.

 

Brilliant! Like Eric Idle in The Life of Brian, I demand the right to have babies!