Kerry and Edwards, Are They Being Disingenuous Regarding Gay Marriage?

[adios]

I stated yesterday that Bush was being disingenuous about gay marriage. But aren't Kerry and Edwards being disingenuous as well? Both state that they oppose Gay Marriage but it should be up to the states to decide i.e an amendment is not required (maybe it is in order to let the states decide, I don't know). I realize Elwood has elaborated on this before but basically this is the case for the constitutional amendment:

Richard Land: Well there’s a clause in the Constitution that says that every state shall extend full faith and credit to the laws and the licenses that were passed in other states. Now in effect, if Massachusetts has same sex marriage, then Texas and Georgia have to recognize that, no matter what their State Constitution may say and this will be challenged, it will go to the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court, if you read the Lawrence Decision, there’s no question they’ll rule in favor of the Full Faith and Credit Clause, they’ll say the Full Faith and Credit Clause trumps mere legislation which is the Defensive Marriage Act. Now if you have a Federal Marriage Amendment, however, which says that marriage in the United States shall only be construed as being between a man and a woman, then you have no wiggle room for the Supreme Court. You know, it’s very interesting a lot of the opponents of the Federal Marriage Amendment have said oh, can you imagine putting marriage into the constitution? Well, you know what the last Amendment to the Constitution was about? Congressional pay raises. If we can put congressional pay raises into the Constitution, we can put the defense of marriage in the Constitution.

So Kerry and Edwards are certainly aware of this reasoning and it's validity. Therefore they know that opposing gay marriage and leaving it to the states is a tacit approval of gay marriage. I don't have any problem with those guys coming out and declaring what apparently believe but they seem to be involved in some sort of subterfuge. Remember I already stated that I believe Bush is being disingenuous so attacking Bush does not really answer my question. I don't see any reason why all three can't be engaging in slimeball tactics at the same time on the same issue /images/graemlins/smile.gif.

[cardcounter0]

There is a war in Iraq, US Soldiers die every day.
South Korea has Nukes.
Iran continues with a nuke program.
10 year old Civil War in Sudan is really getting extremely brutal lately.
There is a long term trend of US Jobs being outsourced to India and China.
The deficiet continues to grow to record heights.
Castro is close to death. What happens in Cuba when he dies?

Please feel free to add your own trends, events, and major happenings.

Now where do I put 'Gay marriage' on this list? Why would it even be in the top 100?
Who cares about gay marriage. How much time did you spend 5 years ago worrying about gay marriage?
Why is it so important now, other than Republicans saying it is?

Ever see a magician make a coin disappear? He waves one hand around wildly, distracting your attention from his other hand, where he makes the 'magic' happen. Don't be distracted by Republican hand-waving gay marriage distractions.

News Flash: Gays are living together as couples right now.
What earth shattering event will occur if they are allowed to marry? Medical Coverage and Insurance for Gay Partners? Oh, my! The Horror!

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
Who cares about gay marriage.

[/ QUOTE ]
Gay couples
Me
Social/religious conservatives
Social liberals
Many others

[ QUOTE ]
Why is it so important now, other than Republicans saying it is?


[/ QUOTE ]

Because of a recent Massachusetts supreme court decision. Regardless of whether you agree with it or not, there have been significant changes this past year that have brought the issue to the forefront. It hasn't just been the cagey republicans.

[ QUOTE ]
How much time did you spend 5 years ago worrying about gay marriage?

[/ QUOTE ]

I thought about it 5 years ago quite a bit -- just as I think about it quite a bit now.

[cardcounter0]

Gay couples -- Sure. How about Aids, homophobic violence towards Gays, and some of the important issues I listed above. Where does a Gay that has lost his job and might be getting shipped to Iraq place Gay Marriage in his priority list?

Me -- Well, as this issue points out, the opinion or thoughts of the individual doesn't mean much. The majority rules.

Social/religious conservatives -- Okay. How about Abortion? Is Gay Marriage more or less important than this issue? Stem Cell research, prayer in schools, taking the word GOD out of all aspects of government. Where does Gay Marriage stack up?

Social liberals -- How many liberal causes can you name? Gay Marriage is the most pressing one?

Many others -- Really? Are you sure?

"Because of a recent Massachusetts supreme court decision. Regardless of whether you agree with it or not, there have been significant changes this past year that have brought the issue to the forefront. It hasn't just been the cagey republicans." HUH?

Wasn't the Mass Court in response to a Republican "Defense Of Marriage Act" What significant changes have happened this year (that weren't Republican led or a direct response to Republican nonsense).

Gays have lived together in relationships for many many years. They are in relationships now. They will be in relationships in the future, bill or no bill, law or no law.

Gay Marriage is about #552 on my priority list of important stuff. Where is it on yours? If it is Top Ten material then you have been distracted. I mean, isn't people not being able to burn the American Flag much more important?

[adios]

What does your post have to do with whether or not Kerry and Edwards are being disingenuous about gay marriage? It's a yes or no question. Feel free to elaborate on why you feel they're not being disingenuous if you feel that way. Basically I showed how they are being disingenuous

[cardcounter0]

It has to do with why gay marriage is even a subject.

Maybe Kerry and Edwards would be disingenuous about allowing groups of red-butt monkeys to run wild in towns with populations under 10,000

Let's make a big issue about red-butt monkeys and all the damage they can do, attempt to amend the constituition to make sure monkeys never roam free in the streets, and ask Kerry and Edward's opinion on that!

[adios]

Ok your post has nothing to do with my question I see. Just thought you'd get on your soap box for awhile. Funny I didn't see any complaints from you in the previous thread on gay marriage about gay marriage being the subject of that post. Anyway since it isn't important to you why do you respond in this thread? Certainly there's other threads that aren't important to you where you don't bother posting that you feel it's unimportant.

[jdl22]

Your attitude is why intelligent republicans such as McCain say it won't pass and for now is a pointless thing to bring up. As he put it, right now only a minority of people care about the issue either way. When that's the case it's hard to get a law passed and impossible to amend the constitution.

Having said that I think it is an important issue (I'm against the amendment and in favor of allowing gay marriage) but not nearly as important as those you mention.

[Philuva]

They are playing politics. Face it, there is a large % of the Americans that hate gays, fags, queers and everything they stand for.

Similar to the early 1900's when there was a large % of the population that loathed blacks.

Similar that you could't openly run on a equal rights platform back then and expect to get elected, you really can't do the same now and get elected, specially at the Presidential level.

I think if you cornered them, they would admit that gays should probably be allowed to marry, and to them, their approach is the best way to make that happen.

[andyfox]

I imagine Kerry and Edwards would say that opposing the amendment does not require Texas to marry gays, but if the Supreme Court subsequently rules that they must recognize another state's marriage certificate, then so be it.

As far as pay raises and marriage, I fail to see what one has to do with the other. Pay for federal officials is unrelated to marriage. I imagine both Kerry and Edwards would say this.

But of course they're being disingenuous. It would be more of a surprise if they weren't. Bush sees it, apparently, as +EV for him; Kerry as -EV, so he's taking a stand that appears to split the difference.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
I think if you cornered them, they would admit that gays should probably be allowed to marry, and to them, their approach is the best way to make that happen.

[/ QUOTE ]

I totally agree with you. But I think it's disingenuous nonetheless. The reason I feel that way is that the reasoning I presented regarding the Defense of Marriage Act and the ruling in Massachusettes is widely accepted (that's why folks want an amendment) which makes it a moot point as far as it being up to the states. Or at least that's my take that it's a moot point as far as being up to the states.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
I imagine Kerry and Edwards would say that opposing the amendment does not require Texas to marry gays, but if the Supreme Court subsequently rules that they must recognize another state's marriage certificate, then so be it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think there's that much doubt that the Defense of Marriage Act will not stand up in court as being constitutional from what I read. Kerry and Edwards know this. They also know that basically all states will have to recognize gay marriage whether or not they outlaw performing one. So if Gay Couples wed in California but live in Texas they'll have to be acknowledge and treated as any other married couple is treated in Texas. And I don't think this is what Texas wants and a constitutional ammendment is the only way to affect that. Therefore Gay Marriage is basically alive and well in Texas under the scenario of leaving it up to the states. Also I believe the Massachusettes case states that civil unions aren't valid either since it more or less amounts to separate but equal treatment of gays. Did I get that one right Elwood? Anyway Kerry and Edwards know all this and their position is a smokescreen IMO. So is Bush and Cheney's IMO. They're all a bunch of disingenuous schmucks.

[natedogg]

I think they can certainly hold the personal opinion that gays should not get married while also being opposed to legislating against it.

Sort of like I think it's bad for parents to shoot heroin but I don't think we need legislation to address the issue.

natedogg

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
Wasn't the Mass Court in response to a Republican "Defense Of Marriage Act"

[/ QUOTE ]
No. My recommendation would be to read the decision. DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act) was a federal statute. The Mass. decision had nothing to do with federal law.

I never claimed that Gay Marriage is the most important issue out there (it clearly isn't). That doesn't mean that it is an unimportant issue.

[ QUOTE ]
Gays have lived together in relationships for many many years. They are in relationships now. They will be in relationships in the future, bill or no bill, law or no law

[/ QUOTE ]

Right, but without a law, they'll never get married. Being in a relationship is different than being married.