Reuters : Gay Marriage Ruling Could Be Problem for Kerry

Feb 5, 1:03 PM (ET)

By Alan Elsner
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A legal ruling compelling Massachusetts to allow same-sex marriages may prove troublesome for Sen. John Kerry, if he becomes the Democratic candidate to oppose President Bush in the November U.S. election.

Political analysts said Wednesday's decision by Massachusetts' Supreme Judicial Court would be ammunition for Republican strategists planning to portray Kerry, the Democratic front-runner, as "another Massachusetts liberal."

The fact that the Democratic convention this summer is scheduled to take place in Boston may help their case, playing on the stereotype of Kerry's home state as a liberal paradise outside the more conservative American mainstream.

"This election is shaping up to be a photo finish. Every issue like this could make a difference on the margins," said Republican political consultant Scott Reed.

"There are huge chunks of the country in the south and west that think this kind of decision is crazy and that Massachusetts must be crazy to produce it," he said.

Kerry himself has said he supports equal civil rights for homosexuals and their right to contract civil unions but opposes full-fledged same-sex marriage.

"I oppose gay marriage and disagree with the Massachusetts court's decision," he said.


http://news.myway.com/politics/article/id/47681|politics|02-05-2004::13:09|reuters.html

I was a little worried that the MA decision (as much as I applaud it) would give the RW ammunition against Kerry.

The problem is that it introduces the word "marriage" into the debate and makes it a federal issue. A candidate won't be able to say "well, I support option "c" if the choices are narrowed down to uniquely "a" or "b". It will soon cease to be an issue that provides any "wiggle room".

It also raises the possibility that "judges" will become an issue that breaks against us instead of for us. Everyone knows what kind of judges would disagree with this ruling and they aren't apppointed very often by Democrats (the fact that the MA court was largely Republican-appointed helps, but not too much).

our likely nominee is from Mass, the ruling is in Mass,
and our convention will be in Mass.

we should unify under the banner of equality and civil rights for all Americans, regardless of gender.

anything less simply isn't going to work, in my opinion.

people will come around to this as prominent politicians and other national figures take a stand on it and force people to realize the truth,

which is that we CANNOT EVER write bigotry into our Constitution again.

Equality for all. peace.

Kerry is just as skillful as any of the nominees are and I'm confident he can handle this issue just fine, however that may be.

That pretty much sums it up.

I can't think of any way this becomes a winning issue for us. It's nice to know that others who also can't see any way out at least have faith that our candidate will.

Most Americans are against calling it "marriage" per se, but the important thing is a civil rights issue. Civil unions does address the equality issues, so it seems to me that does address the problem.

I wish I had some numbers on this, but it would be interesting to know how many voters who are against civil unions are Republicans who would be voting for Bush no matter what anyway. There's no need even trying to reach those voters.

That the court decision requires "marriage". That takes "I'm for civil unions off the table".

It's the political equivelent of a state supreme court requiring news media to use "Pro-Life" and "Pro-Abortion" when describing the issue. It takes out the possibility of using the socially more paletable "pro-choice" label.

Or image if a court said you had to be "pro-gun" instead of "pro-second ammendment".

Labels mater a whole bunch in these kinds of arguments and the court just took away our more palatable label. "civil union" was just starting to take some hold on the population and it was becoming a "break even" issue. "Gay marriage" is NOT.

I frankly don't see how, if one were intellectually honest, one can deny that marriage is not is not a constitutional right for gays.

But as you say, the public is not ready for the issue to be packaged as "marriage", and so we have the more palatable label "civil union".

The politicians in turn must play the games with terms so the don't lose votes. I know this. I wish it were not the case, but that is the reality.

Kerry on DOMA (from the Boston Phoenix):

But the senator himself was more emphatic on September 5, 1996, when he told the Boston Herald, "This bill is election-year pandering of the worst order, and I will not be a party to legislative gay-bashing." Go get 'em, John! Now, repeat after Media Log: The state constitutional amendment favored by Governor Mitt Romney and House Speaker Tom Finneran is election year pandering of the worst order, and I will not be a party to legislative gay-bashing.

DOMA finally passed the Senate on September 10. And Kerry was notably blunt in expressing his opposition. According to the next day's Globe, Kerry called DOMA "fundamentally ugly, fundamentally political, and fundamentally flawed," adding: "The results of this bill will not be to preserve anything, but will serve to attack a group of people out of various motives and rationales and certainly out of a lack of tolerance."

The Herald published this Kerry sound bite: "This is an unconstitutional, unprecedented, unnecessary, and mean-spirited bill."

John Kerry does indeed have the courage to stand up for what it right--just like he said when he announced for the presidency.

John Kerry is the one who has what it takes to stand up to the Bushco maladministration and send Dubya back to his ranch in Texas where he can clear brush 'til the cows come home.

What, in this case, is "right" to you? (No offense intended). He just had the courage to say he was against "gay marriage" and disagreed with the ruling. Do you believe that is "right" or that he will change his mind?

Kerry is going to demagogue the gay marriage issue by pulling a Clintonian "Sister Souljah moment" in order to innoculate himself against the GOP.

Kerry's history as a Senator is not noted for political courage.

It is now a campaign issue without a middle ground. He won't be able to say (as both Democrats and SOME republicans say) that he supports some kind of "civil" union. That option is now off the table. The MA court did us no favors here, it's "gay 'marriage'" or "no gay "marriage'".

And it's lose/lose. He certainly isn't going to be picking up votes from Bush by coming out against it (though he would disillusion a few on the left who don't go in for "political expediency", but he could easily lose a vote or two by swinging the other way.

I'm gay and my spouse and I should have the same right to be civilly married as an opposite-gender couple. It's the right thing. My number one priority on this issue is stopping a constitutional amendment to enshrine inequality. Desegregation hurt Democrats... Roe vs. Wade hurt Democrats too. But they were the right thing to do and I'm proud that the party of the people stood up for the right thing.

Sorry. Lesbian and gay citizens are fighting for their rights and it's too bad if that's "inconvenient" for certain people--there's never a "convenient" time for an advance like this--never. There's always a backlash, whether this happens now or 20 years from now.

They have brought a lightening rod issue to the front of the nations television sets.

Democrats were AGAINST segregation. But you are fooling yourself if you believe most Democrats are FOR gay marriage.

The court ruling does not imply a matter of simple law. It implies a matter of CONSTITUTIONAL law. It has nationwide implications. It will make creating compromise civil unions problematic.

And guess what, you're NOT getting gay marriage. Civil Unions was the only road that could have delivered you near what you wanted.

Tomorrow, the Republicans are going to CHANGE there "Defense of Marriage" act. They are going to change it so that gay marriage will be illegal THROUGHOUT the land. Before, it would have simply insulated other states if liberal states decided to recognize the institution.

I got even MORE news for you. Given the court ruling in Massachusetts and the possibility that states may HAVE to recognize gay marriage as a civil right, that constitutional amendment WILL PASS. I dare say it will pass in record time.

Furthermore, the general mood will turn against you with the extra publicity. There will be no slipping civil unions in under the radar.

This has set your cause back 20 years. It will make it MORE difficult for certain democrats in the general election. It WILL FORCE DEMOCRATS TO DISTANCE THEMSELVES FROM GAY RIGHTS ORGANIZATIONS. The truth of the matter is that you can't do shit if you can't get elected.

No, you should be VERY angry at the Massachusetts supreme court.

This sure is a litmus-test issue, though...it's bringing the bigots right out from under those rocks!

The Democrats were laden with racists and bigots throughout the south especially. You think that people like Lester Maddox, Strom Thurmond and George Wallace were against segregation? They were important Democratic figures.

Desegregation very arguably propelled Nixon into office by alienating the racist southern Democrats, breaking up the "solid south."

I repeat: sometimes there's a price to be paid for standing up for what's right. In the 1960's, polls showed most people wanted interracial marriage to be illegal too.

now you're criticizing him for imaginary future failures, and ignoring that he's one of the few senators that voted against DOMA.

Go ahead, IG, I'm waiting to hear how you spin DOMA.

It identifies the state as being somewhat (to a greater or lesser extent) outside the "mainstream" for much of the country.

I don't think it's "Willie HortonII" because it isn't Kerry's decision, and nobody has been killed. But it isn't good.

On edit - "Isn't good" politically. Obviously it IS good for some number of couples who would very much like to see "marriage" "legitimately" attached to their relationship. Sorry.

Although no one who thinks so wants to admit it.

America land of the free, uhmmm, if your a hetero white male that is. :eyes:

but for all the candidates of corporate America. Less a problem for Dean, not a problem at all for Kucinich and Sharpton, who are for gay marrige.

Thirty-eight states have enacted laws to deny recognition of gay marriage laws of other states.

The wise judges of Massachusetts read the book the way it was written, and now it will probably have to be re-written, because it didn't sound right to sensitive ears.

Rewritten to exclude millions of us who refuse any longer to be excluded. Land of the free. Home of the brave. This land is our land too, and frankly I don't care who my partner and I pose a problem for.

EVERY homosexual in America has the right to marry. They simply don't have the right to marry someone of the same gender.

This is a real plucker of a legal issue. If states cannot regulate the nature of a marriage contract, it implies that states cannot impose any similar "discriminations" on other contracts.

This is a hum-dinger of a legal mess. I personally feel that the court got it wrong. The equal protection clause does NOT apply here. No one has been denied the right to marry.

At the same time, one could apply equal protection in terms of Jim Crowe laws forbidding inter-racial marriage. We would all agree that this is wrong. We all agree that equal protection applies here. But equal protection was SUPPOSED to apply primarily to people of color. It was passed in reaction to the plight of newly freed slaves.

Then there is the fact that marriage is codified in English Common Law which is still applicable in many situations.

This is a real hum-dinger of a constitutional question. I have no doubt that it's appropriate to discuss it. But damn, this is a shitty time to discuss it. This ruling implies that people in the South DO NOT have the right to ban homosexual marriages. Yes, it was in state courts. But this will IMMEDIATELY become a federal case on appeal.

It's a really shitty time to be having this discussion. When this stuff starts rippling across the heartland, Kerry's goose could be cooked.

This is ridiculous and makes us the laughingstock of the world.

We are voting on what? Gay marriage? Shame on the Democrats for pushing this forward and falling into Rove's trap.

Gay marriage has nothing to do with the massacre of Operation Iraqi Freedom or outsourcing. Let's stick to the issues please.

next!

and this won't be an issue.

you are free to marry someone of the opposite sex. everyone has the choice to do so.

frankly, now's not the time for this.

Back then, southern white supremacists said that bans against interracial marriage were fair because one is "free to marry someone of their own race. Everyone has the choice to do so."

Sounds an AWFUL lot like what you said:

"you are free to marry someone of the opposite sex. everyone has the choice to do so."

Same logic. Same level of commitment to civil rights.

And you are exploiting past injustices to serve your goal. We are discussing gay marriage, not interracial marriage.

You can't compare the two. As a product of interracial mixing, I find your post offensive.

The parallel is rather exact. The only difference is whether or not one's membership in the pariah class can be hidden: that's possible for many LGB people, but not so for most non-White people.

The time for equality is always now, and your post offends me.

Last time I checked, gays aren't disproportionately in poverty.

And that comes solely from the disparity in ability to hide. Try to get a job if your nature is to be anything other than a 'feminine-seeming' female or 'masculine-seeming' male. I.e., if you can't 'pass for straight'.

Playing 'my oppression is worse than your oppression' divides us and gratifies them. Just another little node in the class war, and self-inflicted too. The bottom line should be that nothing less is acceptable than equality for all. Because as Martin put it so eloquently, 'injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere'.

I'm also an Orthodox Jew, and I do not oppose gay marriage. I'm of the camp that believes that every human being should have the right to do what they want to do in their bedroom. The government should just stay out of it, and recognize the marriage of man to man, woman to woman, and man to woman. It should be called union of all people, not just civil unions or gay marriage.

I have too much at stake for that. I don't want to get drafted. I want to be able to have secure employment. I'm not going to risk my life just so two homosexuals can get some benefits.

we pick this issue ==> we lose.

I'm not against gay marriage. I don't really care about it. Why are we pushing this crap through when Iraqi kids are being blown to smithereens by the day?

anyone of the opposite sex just not the person you are in love with. Really makes a mockery of the "sanctity" of marriage doesn't it. You're equal as long as you do exactly as we tell you. What ever happened to ALL men are created equal and life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I guess it only applies if you behave the way the "establishment" wants you to.

If the Democratic "leadership" intends to throw one of their most dependable voting blocs under the bus to attract the mushy middle I guess they can count out my future support and votes. The choice is theirs. In light of the MANY crimes of our regime and how badly they've screwed up everything in this Country, I sincerely doubt many would vote against the opposition for standing up for the principles we supposedly stand for, those who would were NEVER going to vote our way anyhow. This is an opportunity for actual leadership, something I've seen little of in our current frontrunner. Now is his chance and the choice is his.

First, it's too bad that you don't support marriage equality for same-sex couples.

Second, "The Democrats" did not make this an issue. People like me in the lesbian and gay community did, together with those who support our civil rights of whatever party. In Massachusetts, the Democrats did not fight for this. In fact, the state high court there is almost all Republican.

Yea, I am sure Canada, Europe, and parts of south america/asia are really laughing right now. Well, maybe that we still haven't caught up to them in this regard.

As for the religious fundamentalists (i.e. bin laden, robertson, etc.) in the rest of the world - I could give a damn what they think.

I couldn't give a fuck what Canada thinks. They've done enough harm to American producers.

yeah I KNEW that one was coming. :argh: :mad:

People hate Shrub sooooooooo much, this issue won't matter. Besides, the fundies weren't going to vote Dem, anyway...

Is he a liberal in name only or will he support this court decision. Me thinks he will take the politically safe way out as he has shown with votes for IWR and Patriot Act.

and comes from a state where it has been ruled that discrimination is unconstitutional, separate is not equal and all that jazz.

I'm very confused...wouldn't conservatives agree with Kerry and liberals would not?

I liked Kerry until he uttered the very last sentence in the original post. I do not want another President who feels it is not only appropriate but necessary to discriminate against a segment of the population.