Why is gay marriage such a lightning-rod topic?

. . . KERRY REBUFFS ADVICE -- In an effort to help the Democrats win over values voters, former President Clinton apparently urged Democratic nominee John Kerry to back the various marriage amendment ballot initiatives during the presidential campaign, Newsweek is reporting in its Nov. 15 edition. Eleven states voted on amendments banning same-sex "marriage," and all 11 passed.

Kerry listened, but told his staff, "I'm not going to ever do that," Newsweek reports. . . .

Lash wrote:

You know, what surprises me is that Clinton--Bill--the guy who doesn't have to worry about re-election campaigns--is for the marriage amendment.

Does anyone know why? I don't take him to be a homophobe.

IMO, he was pandering to the so-called "values" voters because doing so was politically expedient at the time. I suspect, if supporting rather than opposing gay marriage was politically expedient, he would have done so. He probably falls into the "say whatever it takes to get elected" category. What his genuinely-held personal beliefs on the issue may be, I don't know.

Kerry supported a Massachusetts State Amendment to ban gay marriage and supported the ban in other states, as well.

Kerry supported a Massachusetts State Amendment to ban gay marriage and supported the ban in other states, as well.

President Clinton, who signed the Defense of Marriage Act when he was in the White House, advised Kerry in a phone call early in the campaign to find a way to support the state bans. Kerry never considered abandoning his principles to that extent, but he also didn’t take seriously enough the threat.

When it comes to the gay marriage issue, Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., finds himself in a delicate balancing act – trying to avoid appearing bigoted while catering to heterosexual and religious voters.

With his own home state of Massachusetts coming up on a court-imposed two and one-half year window (starting May 17) in which gay couples can legally marry, Kerry says that he would support a proposed amendment to the state constitution that would prohibit gay marriage – so long as, while outlawing gay marriage, it also ensured that same-sex couples have access to all legal rights that married couples receive.

A good moderate position that passes the balancing act test, but that is what Kerry says now; what about then – Kerry on the record?

In 1996, a less compromising Kerry gave an impassioned 10-minute speech on the Senate floor against an effort in Congress to define marriage only as a union between a man and a woman:

“This is a power grab into states’ rights of monumental proportions. It is ironic that many of the arguments for this power grab are echoes of the discussion of interracial marriage a generation ago. It is hard to believe that this bill is anything other than a thinly veiled attempt to score political debating points by scapegoating gay and lesbian Americans.”

In the end, Kerry was one of only 14 senators to vote against the Defense of Marriage Act, which denied federal recognition of same-sex marriages and gave states the right to refuse to recognize those married in other states. President Clinton signed it into law.

In 2002, Kerry teamed up with his congressional colleagues, signing a letter opposing Massachusetts’ last effort to outlaw gay marriage. Kerry and company professed that they feared it could be used to prevent communities “from acting as they might wish to provide some form of recognition for same sex relationships.”

The letter, organized by Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., was sent on congressional stationery in July 2002 as the Massachusetts lawmakers first considered a constitutional amendment that limited marriage to “only the union of one man and one woman.”

“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,” Kerry and 11 other members of the state’s congressional delegation wrote.

The Legislature’s 2002 effort failed.

When the Republicans started to make hay with the 2002 letter, Kerry spokesman David Wade countered: “He [Kerry] opposed a proposed constitutional amendment in Massachusetts in the summer of 2002 because a sweeping proposal would have threatened civil unions, health benefits, or inheritance rights for gay couples that represent equal protection under the law.”

In the hierarchy of issues looming in 2004, gay marriage will undoubtedly matter less than the economy and the war in Iraq. However, same-sex marriage is a polarizing issue disturbing to Democrats.

A recent USA Today/CNN/Gallup Poll disclosed that 53 percent of Americans oppose a law allowing gay couples to marry, while 24 percent favor it. Moderate voters, who could swing the election one way or the other, generally oppose gay marriage. While Kerry also opposes it, his support for civil unions and his links with liberal Massachusetts will be cooking in the mix.

John Kerry has accused President George Bush of seeking “the lowest common denominator in American politics” by calling for a constitutional amendment to outlaw same-sex marriage.

But Kerry’s flip-flopping and tap-dancing around the issue has earned him his own share of criticism. Gov. Mitt Romney recently reproved Kerry for what he said were Kerry's confusing positions on gay marriage:

“In the case of the Massachusetts Constitution, he agrees with me that we should have an amendment. On the federal Constitution he doesn't agree with me,” Romney said. “And I think the American people are going to be just as confused as I am as to where he stands.”

Meanwhile, New England’s largest gay-targeted newspaper, In Newsweekly, cited Kerry’s “flip-flops” on the issue of gay marriage in an editorial endorsing his rival, Sen. John Edwards.

Quote:

. . . KERRY REBUFFS ADVICE -- In an effort to help the Democrats win over values voters, former President Clinton apparently urged Democratic nominee John Kerry to back the various marriage amendment ballot initiatives during the presidential campaign, Newsweek is reporting in its Nov. 15 edition. Eleven states voted on amendments banning same-sex "marriage," and all 11 passed.

Kerry listened, but told his staff, "I'm not going to ever do that," Newsweek reports. . . .

Source

Bill Clinton was always a republican posing as a liberal democrat.

dyslexia wrote:

Bill Clinton was always a republican posing as a liberal democrat.

And John Kerry was always Irish, at least where Irish votes really counted.

Miller wrote:

dyslexia wrote:

Bill Clinton was always a republican posing as a liberal democrat.

And John Kerry was always Irish, at least where Irish votes really counted.

and catholic. I voted Kuninich.

WASHINGTON - The Senate on Wednesday rejected a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, dealing a defeat to President Bush and Republicans who hope to use the measure to energize conservative voters on Election Day.

Miller wrote:

dyslexia wrote:

Bill Clinton was always a republican posing as a liberal democrat.

And John Kerry was always Irish, at least where Irish votes really counted.

and catholic. I voted Kuninich.

That's heartening.

Debra_Law wrote:

Lash wrote:

You know, what surprises me is that Clinton--Bill--the guy who doesn't have to worry about re-election campaigns--is for the marriage amendment.

Does anyone know why? I don't take him to be a homophobe.

IMO, he was pandering to the so-called "values" voters because doing so was politically expedient at the time. I suspect, if supporting rather than opposing gay marriage was politically expedient, he would have done so. He probably falls into the "say whatever it takes to get elected" category. What his genuinely-held personal beliefs on the issue may be, I don't know.

But, it was post-Presidency that he affirmed his anti-gay marriage stance.
I thought that would free him to say what he wanted to say.

Not intending a diversion. I just never could figure this.

Lash wrote:

Debra_Law wrote:

Lash wrote:

You know, what surprises me is that Clinton--Bill--the guy who doesn't have to worry about re-election campaigns--is for the marriage amendment.

Does anyone know why? I don't take him to be a homophobe.

IMO, he was pandering to the so-called "values" voters because doing so was politically expedient at the time. I suspect, if supporting rather than opposing gay marriage was politically expedient, he would have done so. He probably falls into the "say whatever it takes to get elected" category. What his genuinely-held personal beliefs on the issue may be, I don't know.

But, it was post-Presidency that he affirmed his anti-gay marriage stance.
I thought that would free him to say what he wanted to say.

Not intending a diversion. I just never could figure this.

I would say it is political expedience. But it is not just something he came up with after he left the oval office--read about the Defense of Marriage Act.

I had known about him facing the issue in office, and understood his motivation. I guess I really thought he was gay friendly, and would "have a change of heart" after leaving office, when it no longer mattered. But, thank you anyway.