Posted on 08/07/2004 9:34:39 AM PDT by jveritas
John Kerry said in an interview that he would have backed the gay marriage ban amendment that passed last Tuesday Agu/3/04 in Missouri by overwhelming majority. He said he is against a "Federal" constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage and that the Gay marriage issue should be addressed by "Individual States".
Again Kerry is lying to his teeth because he is not only against the Federal constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage but he is against the Individual State Legislature to interfere in banning gay marriage.
July 12 2002 John Kerry, Ted Kennedy and the other member of the Massachusetts Congressional Delegation signed a letter addressed to the Massachusetts Legislature asking them not to change the Massachusetts constitution to ban gay marriage.
Even the USA today has an article on February 12 2004 titled “Kerry signed letter backing gay marriage”. In this article the USA today refer to that even though Kerry is now saying that he opposes gay marriage an hints that he might support a limited ban, just signed a letter two years ago with other congressional colleagues urging the Massachusetts legislature to drop a constitutional amendment outlawing homosexual marriage.
The text of the letter will be found on MassEquality.org. The link is
http://www.massequality.org/html.
The USA today article on February 12th 2004 link is
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-02-11-kerry-gay-marriage_x.htm
The text of the letter:
Congressional Delegation united in opposition to proposed constitutional amendment discriminating on basis of sexual orientation
U.S. Congressmen Edward Markey and Barney Frank, on behalf of themselves, Senators Kennedy and Kerry, and Reps. Neal, McGovern, Olver, Meehan, Tierney, Delahunt, Capuano and Lynch, released a letter to every member of the Massachusetts State Legislature expressing opposition to the proposed State Constitutional amendment restricting legal recognition of same-sex relationships. The text of the letter, which was signed by all twelve members of the Congressional delegation and was delivered to the State House the morning of July 15, 2002, appears below:
July 12, 2002 Members of the Massachusetts Legislature
State House
Boston, Massachusetts 02133
Dear Legislative Colleague,
We rarely comment on issues that are wholly within the jurisdiction of the General Court, but there are occasions when matters pending before you are of such significance to all residents of the Commonwealth that we think it appropriate for us to express our opinion.
One such matter is the proposed Constitutional amendment that would prohibit or seriously inhibit any legal recognition whatsoever of same-sex relationships. 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. We in Massachusetts are justly proud of our Constitution, one of the first documents on this continent to set forward a system of self-government, which has not only served us well, but has been a model for others. The proposal to add to that document -- essentially a charter of liberty and democracy -- a provision as harsh both in its intent and its effect on our gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered constituents is in conflict with the generous spirit that motivated its adoption, and that should continue to govern us today.
In addition, as legislators, we believe it would be a terrible mistake to write into our Constitution so sweeping a proposal with the likelihood that it will prevent not only the state government, but also the cities, towns and counties from acting as they might wish to provide some form of recognition for same-sex relationships. We are therefore united in urging you to reject this Constitutional amendment and avoid stigmatizing so many of our fellow citizens who do not deserve to be treated in such a manner.
Senator Kennedy
Senator Kerry
Representative Markey
Representative Frank
Represenative Neal
Representative McGovern
Representative Olver
Representative Meehan
Representative Tierney
Representative Delahunt
Representative Capuano
Representative Lynch
And the hits just keep on coming...
"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.
That is not going to help him in the Heartland...
Great find.
FLIp-FLOP
That letter will make a terrific October Kerry flip-flop ad for the Bushies.Will John F'n Kerry say he actually didn't sign it before he signed it? Only time will tell.
Let him explain this to the voters in the heartland and let see how simple he thinks it will be.
Absolutely. That is why he is toast.
jveritas, it's crystal clear, I mean it's so obvious what Kerry's position is, we shouldn't even be having this conversation.
Most of Kerry's votes will come from his only asset - he isn't GWB. There isn't a single redeeming facter in this guy. He may be even with Bill Clinton when twisting his own on any given topic.
I am not exactly getting what you are saying my fellow freeper.
Kerry says he signed the letter before he didn't.
http://www.massequality.org/html.
Page removed.
For your *files*
Kerry is making this so easy.
Kerry is never "toast" on any issue regardless of his record. The media is more than happy to help with these little annoyances.
Thank you for your help.
He'll just waffle and say he signed the letter because he didn't want a constitutional amendment that could potentially ban civil unions as well.
There are always TV ads by the Bush campaign that can show Kerry incredible flip flops on this issue.
Now wait a doggone second. Banning gay marriage shouldn't matter to a bisexual, they can still marry someone of the opposite sex. Same thing for a transsexual, unless it's a man trapped in a lesbian's body, who becomes a woman then sleeps with women.
They really need to turn off the rhetoric machine; the one that spits out "gay, lesbian, bi, trans" for every issue that might possibly be related to gays.
Never lie to your teeth. They always know the real tooth, I mean, truth.
Here's the link. The original gave me an error.
http://massequality.org/issue_ma.php
This very weak argument by Kerry that will not fly in the Heartland.
Remember that he said that he is against the "Federal Constitutional Amendment to ban gay marriage and he will leave up to individual state to decide on this issue. However in this 2002 letter he is clearly interfering to prevent the "Massachusetts State Legislature" from changing the Massachusetts constitution to ban Gay marriage!!!
Thank you for your help.
Situational ethics bites Kerry in his ass again! He's seen that the majority of america will vote morally, now he wants to change boats in the middle of the stream, he's desperate. nobody with two brain cells to rub together will vote for someone as unstable as Kerry.
Agreed 100%.
And the media keeps covering...
following is an excerpt from the La times written by Max Boot, the aticle was re-printed on:
http://www.professorbainbridge.com
After winning election to the Senate in 1984, he was a vocal critic of support for the Contras fighting to free Nicaragua from the Sandinista dictatorship; he even journeyed to Managua to shake hands with strongman Daniel Ortega. He consistently voted against defense spending and in favor of a nuclear freeze. He opposed the 1983 invasion of Grenada ("a bully's show of force against a weak Third World nation") and the 1991 Persian Gulf War ("a war for pride, not for vital interests"). It did not matter to Kerry that the U.N. Security Council had voted unanimously to authorize military action to free Kuwait; at that point, isolationism was more important to him than multilateralism. ...
Surely it's no coincidence that his stances track precisely mainstream Democratic opinion, which was isolationist in the 1970s and 1980s, idealistically
Obviously, you don't understand nuance.
I am glad that we have HTML experts among us. They can always make things more appealing to read.
Wanted to further say that Kerry's record in the senate is far more important than Vietnam, Isn't it interesting that Kerry's focus IS on Vietnam and NOT on his senate record, the republicans should focus on that.
Yes, but that was BEFORE he was against it.
"Obviously, you don't understand nuance."
No I do not, and neither does the majority of voters.
The liberal voters are not the majority of voters. They do not constitute more than 20% of voters.
Why won't demoncrats just run on thier records. If your a lib, be proud of it. You will get at least 40% with the "Kool Aid Drinkers" vote.
This will be a great idea.
It sounds like the difference is the length of the bride's dress, or the number of forks at each place setting at the reception.
Can somebody explain this seemingly crucial difference? It sounds like not just angles dancing on the head of a pin, but what color shoes they are wearing.
Freepers are on a roll today....pictures of the restaurant where Kerry ate at..and now this.
Rush@eibnet.com
Hannity@foxnews.com
ROFL.....A good one!
Anybody have the text of the amendment so we can see just how much it would ban?
If it would ban same sex unions instead of marriage only, then there is no flip-flop from Kerry here.
But, if it is clearly just marriage, he has changed his position on yet another issue.
All my fellow FReepers...I pray for you all and for our country if this POS traitor [NO sarcasm] manages to accede to the Presidency.
Please let other fellow freepers send Drudge the same thing so it will catch his attention.
I will try to send it also to Rush and Hannity, Foxnews, and other friendly media outlets and talk shows.
Freepers are encouraged to do this as well. The more people send letter regarding the same issue the more attention it will get.
I get so confused.
Lawyers in Love
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.