Kerry Scolds Vatican Over Gay Marriage

BOSTON - Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry scolded the Vatican Friday for saying Catholic politicians like himself have a "moral duty" to oppose laws granting legal rights to gay couples.

"I believe in the church and I care about it enormously," said the Massachusetts senator. "But I think that it's important to not have the church instructing politicians. That is an inappropriate crossing of the line in America."

The Vatican had urged Catholics and non-Catholics Thursday to unite in campaigning against gay marriages and gay adoptions. The 12-page document, issued by the church, presents a battle plan for politicians confronted with legislation legalizing same-sex unions and rails against gay adoption.

Kerry opposes gay marriage, saying it is a right reserved in America for men and women, but he has said gay couples should have the same legal rights as husbands and wives.

In 1996, President Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act, which denied federal recognition of same-sex marriages and allowed states to ignore same-sex unions licensed elsewhere.

(Note: Kerry voted No.)

President Bush said at a White House news conference Wednesday that he believes "a marriage is between a man and a woman, and I think we ought to codify that one way or the other."

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=694&e=7&u=/ap/kerry_gay_marriage

He's a Catholic who won't be told by the distant and clueless Vatican what to do.

BTW, in the article, it says that Kerry says that marriage is a right reserved for men and women, although he strongly favours civil unions. I take a similar stance, that gays undoubtedly should have the secular benefits of marriage, yet the government should not be able to tell the churches what to do. I feel that each church has to make up their own mind, free from government intervention. Is Kerry opposed to ANY gay marriage, or just the government telling churches to do it?

The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA): Vote to prohibit marriage between members of the same sex in federal law, and provide that no state is required to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states. Define 'marriage' as 'between one man and one woman.'

Kerry's votes on major civil rights measures:

http://www.issues2000.org/Domestic/John_Kerry_Civil_Rights.htm

If there is any issue you want to know how Kerry voted on, Project Vote Smart put together his record:

http://www.vote-smart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=S0421103&PHPSESSID=6ffe9242b4363ab589fb36f5bae97f66

I totally encourage everyone to look up Kerry's record to make an informed decision about him. I don't think he has anything to hide, and should be rightly proud.

vote-smart.org is awesome. They've got the goods on everybody. And they even have their headquarters in Montana...

I wish they could provide a little more background. It is hard to make heads or tails from the people who think he is God and those that think he is Satan. One of the problems with going to his own site (besides the obvious bias) is that Dean has a way of leaving out uncomfortable facts. So you can read one of his speeches and suddenly realize he didn't address some important issues on the matter.

Do you - or anyone - know a good nuetral site to get Dean facts?

I used that site to research candidates. It places each candidate on a political graph, so you get an overall view.

Just the facts, and the issues grid is interesting.

Kerry to the left of Dean, Lieberman to the right of everyone (but still moderate).

Reading the posts on here sometimes, you'd expect to find Dean to the right of Cheney, and Kerry in lockstep with Bush. Which is just nonsense of course.

I saved it in my Favorites.

It is a satire site...

But it contains a great many linkes to hundreds if not thousands of articles that are about Dean, from MANY political standpoints from Conservatives. Libertarians, Progressive Party, Greens and so has the widest number of views on Dean, this is at:


http://www.sover.net/~auc/

ANother site is called liberal oasis...and it has information from a variety of sources, but is is about all of the candidates.

You can find separate sections with info about all candidates. This is an excellent site.


http://www.liberaloasis.com/

...and rated B-)

I am Catholic. But I agree with Kerry on this one. Perhaps if the Catholic Church stopped covering up the molestation of 1000's of boys placed in their care they would have more merit in talking about what is more or less moral.


J4Clark

I don't know whether to trust the ap paraphrase.

At the hrc forum, Sam Donaldson questioned Kerry on the distinction between marriage and civil unions. Kerry had this to say:

SEN. KERRY: The distinction is in a body of America that culturally, historically and religiously views marriage very differently. Marriage is viewed as a union between men and women, and that is a cultural historical view that I believe -- that's my position.

MR. DONALDSON: I understand, senator.

SEN. KERRY: And I believe in it, and I think people -- it may well be --

MR. DONALDSON: But I'm trying to draw you out.

SEN. KERRY: Sam, well, draw me out. I'll draw myself out. (Laughter.)

MR. DONALDSON: But, senator, you know what I'm going to say -- once upon a time --

SEN. KERRY: Let me finish my -- let me finish my --

MR. DONALDSON: -- segregation was viewed as the proper way.

SEN. KERRY: Yes, it was. Let me finish my question. What I said was we need to achieve what we can, and then we will see where we are. It may well be that if we achieve civil union, if we have leadership that advances the causes that I have described to you, that we may all of us progress as we have progressed in the last 15 years to a place where there is a different understanding of it. But at this particular moment in time, I don't believe that exists, and I want to pass the Employment Non-Discrimination Act. I want to pass hate crimes. I want to pass federal benefit partnership rights. I want to advance us as fast and as appropriately as I think we can, but I think that one has to respect the current cultural, historical, religious perception, and I respect it.

That doesn't sound exactly like he's saying he "opposes gay marriage, saying it is a right reserved in America for men and women." I heard his statement at hrc as similar to Gep's, nameley that America wasn't ready for gay marriage, and it wasn't an issue he was willing to force.

So what's up with the ap statement? There is a difference between not supporting gay marriage and opposing gay marriage. Does Kerry now oppose gay marriage? (Doubt it.) Does Kerry view marriage as "right" reserved for breeders? (Doubt it) The very fact that he's challenging the Vatican suggests that he opposes codifying his personal religious views of marriage and forcing it upon others.

Has there been a substantial change in Kerry's position? What am I missing? Help please.

that the Kerry people attack Dean with relentlessly...

"Yes, it was. Let me finish my question. What I said was we need to achieve what we can, and then we will see where we are. It may well be that if we achieve civil union, if we have leadership that advances the causes that I have described to you, that we may all of us progress as we have progressed in the last 15 years to a place where there is a different understanding of it."

So, maybe it is not just Dean who says, we'll see what to do with that situation when we get there. Of course when Dean says that he is "uninformed" or "copping out" or "afraid to give a solid opinion." But when Kerry says it, oh my how honest of him.

I don't really want to add to the history of (mis)characterizations in this campaign, so I'll try to be circumspect in my reply.

It had been my understanding that Dean, Gep and Kerry occupied about the same ground on this issue, and if you pressed Edwards or even Moseley Braun, you might see similar kinds of non-committal responses, although if you asked them for their legal opinion on the constitutional rights involved, they'd be perfectly clear.

One of the concerns I see facing both Dean and Kerry is that as they gain increasing national exposure, they adjust their message to audiences who are less familiar with government and the law than we may be, and certainly less well-versed than activist groups like Human Rights Campaign.

Every good politician does that, adjusts their message. It's no good talking to people using unfamiliar technical language or referring to arguments that they're not deeply concerned with. The challenge is to be able to reduce one's position to a few statements that both accurately represent one's views, and appeal to people on a gut level.

Sometimes I see a politician launching into a civics lesson, and I just :eyes:, just have to roll my eyes. That's painful-- for all concerned. Episodes like that reveal the difficulties entailed by the need to communicate complex issues to a large, diverse audience.

So when I hear that this or that candidate is waffling, I take it with a grain of salt. It does matter to me where a candidate really stands, whether they've changed their position, and for what reasons. But to learn that I know to dig beneath the sound bite.

For Kerry to scold the Pope publicly on matters related to the teachings of the Catholic Church which he happens not to like, to me, isn't so much out of line as for him to demand the Church change her views to cater to a vocal minority. I don't think Kerry has any business chewing out the Pope because His Holiness made a decision pertaining to the church that Sen. Kerry disagrees with.

I am Catholic, and I agree with Kerry. The church is out of line to be speaking about what the laws should or should not be in the United States. Especially adoption. For him to say we should let kids go homeless or in shelters where they get abused rather than being adopted by a gay couple, is harsh to the children.

Perhaps some of his aids want the children left in the orphanages for them to take a bit out of.

The Pope doesn't even know what he is saying anymore.

He should be cleaning up the child molesting image of the Church and moving it out the 18th century, not making bigoted statments that move people away from the church that will not do anything to help the church.

The Pope should only speak on matters of the Church, not on matters of US Law. This is what hurts the church and people proclaiming the Catholic faith in the United States. Catholics are getting mad at stupid things done by the Church and do not pretain to matters of Faith.

J4Clark

The Vatican, while a great spectacle of beauty and aura, is out of touch with today's reality. For example, why do they insist on keeping their priests celibate? It never says in the Bible to do that. It was implemented in the middle ages when the church gave its priests land to live on, and if the priest had a son, there would be a potential dispute should the son not become a priest. Hence, the celibacy law to keep things simple. Now, priests don't have to live on church-loaned land, so that rule's just outdated, and is causing some serious problems. The number of potential priests is falling b/c a lot of religious men still want families, and are not ready to give up everything up for the church.

C'mon; thats not what the article was about at all. The Pope condemned Catholic Politicians, especially targetted Kerry since the HRF Forum, for supporting civil unions.

Where the hell does the Pope get off?

Im a born and raised Italian Catholic and honestly, the pope can go straight to hell. They treat us Americans like the red-headed step child of the church and treat Africa and Latin America even worse, politically speaking, and then expect us to roll over?

F-That!

When that old fart dies and a REAL pope is chosen, with some new ideas like Priests marrying or allowing Women to serve as priests...then we can talk; but the Pope is out of date and it is that out of date-ness that caused all these molestations of innocent children.

what the riff?? I really don't understand what the hell they're talking about. Is Kerry saying that he's 'for' gay couples having the exact legal rights as a man/woman couple and we just won't let it be 'legally' referred to as 'marriage' or what??

What if we called gay committments 'gayarriage', gave gays the same rights as 'marriage' and prohibited 'gayarriage' between a man and a woman.

Not that's democracy. 'Gayarriage' can only be between two of the same sex. Marriage can only be between man/woman.

O.K. This issue has been totally solved. Now what???

He's for the secular (non-religious) aspects of marriage for gays. However, it'd be a huge precedent broken for religious bodies to recognize gay marriages. He's respecting their traditions and does not wish to rush this monumental reform. So he's for a secular marriage for gays, while he's reserved on religious marriage for gays.

Which I think is the right position. Keep the separation of church and state.

Kerry voted against the Defense of Marriage Act, and stands by that vote. It would explicitly prohibit gay marriage, as would the proposed Constitutional amendment.

Question: Is the Vatican still against condoms and birth control?

And the church can't tell the govt. how to handle it. If the govt. allows civil unions for instance, that is no business of the church, and the govt. cannot insist that churches sanction same sex marriage in a religious sense. That's the bottom line.

nt