Kerry is "crystal clear" on gay marriage, maybe
Yahoo! News:
"Democratic presidential hopeful John Kerry (news - web sites), who opposes gay marriage and hints he might support a limited ban, just two years ago signed a letter with other congressional colleagues urging the Massachusetts legislature to drop a constitutional amendment outlawing homosexual nuptials.
...
"John Kerry's position has been crystal clear. He 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," spokesman David Wade said.
"John favors civil unions, not gay marriage. It's that simple," he said.
I think I get it, he opposes gay marriage and any action that would prohibit it. This would be a pretty unimportant issue except for the fun of watching someone with no core beliefs trying to act like he has one.
This is one of those issues where both sides are fighting over symbolism instead of substance. Virtually everything that can be accomplish under civil unions can be done with a few legal documents in jurisdictions that do not permit civil unions. It reminds me of the fight over the display of the Confederate battle flag. Why either side would elevate the display of the flag of a failed rebellion into something of importance makes no sense. The objections give the other side more importance than they deserve. Now you know why I am not a politician. On two emotianal issues, I have managed to take a position that will anger all sides.
Yahoo! News:
"Democratic presidential hopeful John Kerry (news - web sites), who opposes gay marriage and hints he might support a limited ban, just two years ago signed a letter with other congressional colleagues urging the Massachusetts legislature to drop a constitutional amendment outlawing homosexual nuptials.
...
"John Kerry's position has been crystal clear. He 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," spokesman David Wade said.
"John favors civil unions, not gay marriage. It's that simple," he said.
I think I get it, he opposes gay marriage and any action that would prohibit it. This would be a pretty unimportant issue except for the fun of watching someone with no core beliefs trying to act like he has one.
This is one of those issues where both sides are fighting over symbolism instead of substance. Virtually everything that can be accomplish under civil unions can be done with a few legal documents in jurisdictions that do not permit civil unions. It reminds me of the fight over the display of the Confederate battle flag. Why either side would elevate the display of the flag of a failed rebellion into something of importance makes no sense. The objections give the other side more importance than they deserve. Now you know why I am not a politician. On two emotianal issues, I have managed to take a position that will anger all sides.
Comments
Post a Comment