Kerry on gay marriage

60% of kerry’s votes came from people who oppose gay marriage.

don’t know if you missed it, but kerry said his position on gay marriage was the exact same position that bush had. exact same.

it’s funny how democrats were so fixated on bush-hate that they STILL have no idea what positions kerry was running on. :slight_smile:

[quote=“Flipper”]…don’t know if you missed it, but Kerry said his position on gay marriage was the exact same position that Bush had. exact same.

it’s funny how democrats were so fixated on Bush-hate that they STILL have no idea what positions Kerry was running on. :slight_smile:[/quote]

Bush pledged to fight for a constitutional amendment limiting the rights of homosexuals. Kerry swore he’d never do that.

Dramatic difference.

I find it equally funny that Bush supporters are apparently so eager now to deny the very real divisions purposefully created by Bush among Americans that they would, apparently, somehow confuse fighting for an amendment to the US constitution with fighting against it.

hmm, did kerry voters just not pay attention to what he said, or did they just not believe that he meant it?

nytimes article

looks like kerry was the one denying that a division existed.

[i]"… A new report from inside the John Kerry campaign suggests that in the final weeks of the campagin former president Bill Clinton advised Kerry to come out in favor of ballot measures that wrote antigay marriage discimination into the constitutions of 11 states. According to the latest issue of Newsweek, “Looking for a way to pick up swing voters in the red states, former president Bill Clinton, in a phone call with Kerry, urged the senator to back local bans on gay marriage. Kerry respectfully listened, then told his aides, ‘I’m not going to ever do that.’”…"[/i]

so when he went out and told EVERYONE that he was against gay marriage, that was just a pander? he didn’t really mean it? consider me shocked! :stuck_out_tongue:

Kerry was against homosexual marriage. He was riding public opinion, which in general is against it. Bush was riding the religious right and thus offered a constitutional amendment defining marriage. Bush took advantage of the backlash to the California, New Jersey and New Hampshire (?) marriages. It’s just surprising how reactionary people really are in my country on certain issues, and we’re constantly reminded of the negative influences the Puritans brought. You go to places like New Orleans where the French, not religious English dissidents, were the founders and people are very different. I just don’t get why homosexuals don’t have the same rights as everyone else in a supposedly democratic country. My parents remember when similar rhetoric was used during the Civil Rights movement.
“A few crazy blacks are forcing us to integrate” even though education and work rights were supposed to be equal. For some reason when people demand to be treated equally they are somehow ‘forcing’ their issues. Marriage is not solely a religious institution, so the religion argument really holds little meaning.

An entire universe of significance lies between being ‘against homosexual marriage’ and ‘fighting to amend the US constitution so that certain citizens have fewer civil rights than others.’

A universe.

An entire universe of significance lies between being ‘against homosexual marriage’ and ‘fighting to amend the US constitution so that certain citizens have fewer civil rights than others.’

A universe.[/quote]

so what exactly does “against homosexual marriage” mean, then? i would take that to mean you don’t think it should be legal. if you’re against homosexual marriage, then you already think it’s ok for “certain citizens [to] have fewer civil rights than others”.

there’s grounds to argue that many people who are against gay marriage oppose a constitutional amendment because it’s not worth amending the constitution for. but how many people oppose the amendment because they know that their position is fundamentally wrong? :stuck_out_tongue: