Kerry on Gay Marriage

Yo, Lurch...

Just what role does the president have in ammending the constitution?

Just in case you don't know, it is NOTHING, nada, zero, zip. So how can he meddle in it?

Of course you're right that this is about more than I mentioned. I'm glad you brought up the immigration aspect, as I believe any immigration reform should make it clear (or reaffirm) that as far as family reunification is concerned, that only a male husband of a female citizen or permanent legal resident, or the female wife of a male citizen or PLR, can be sponsored as a spouse.

But I still maintain that this push is at least in part due to a desire by the farleft/gay lobby to shove their lifestyle down the throats of Americans by having society celebrate it the same way we do marriages. Its a big F You to the majority opposed to gay marriage, and a big extended middle finger to the Judeo-Christian principles upon which much of Western Civilization has been built. For many on the left this defeat of traditional values would be as valuable as all the economic and legal issues involved.

HOKEY SMOKES

KERRY JUST FLIPPED ON THE FMA!!!!

CNN radio news just had a kerry soundbyte with him supporting the amendment! He said an amendment that "provides" for civil unions is a good amendment.

flip/flop
flip/flop

Kerry must have (stick finger in wind) polling numbers that show this is a dealbreaker voting issue.

junaid: Well it sounds as if the President is backing the provisions set forth by the Musgrave Amendment. That Amendment bans gay marriage in the US (thus giving the majority a symbolic victory), while it would allow for state legislatures to adopt civil unions (thus giving the left/gay lobby a victory). Also, and I'm not as sure about this, but I think the Amendment, while allowing for civil unions, would ban state or federal courts from imposing them. As such, I think that it would allow for states to choose whether or not to accept civil unions performed in other states. If I am right about these provisions, then this is actually a very moderate position that should easily pass the constitutional standards for becoming law.

However, look at the polls. Overwhelming majorities oppose gay marriage, but support for an Amendment is much lower. The most recent released by CNN/Gallup shows majority support of 53% for a ban. Now I think that if the Presidnet and the GOP were to engage in an aggressive education of the public about the moderate nature of the Musgrave Amendment, and point out how it does reflect the views of most Americans in banning gay marriage but throws the left a bone in allowing for civil unions (as long as they are not judicially imposed) then I think support would rise, and make implementation a good bet. But I don't think they will. I doubt their ability to do this for several reasons. One is that for all the debates I've seen about this by the talking heads of both sides in the last few months, I have yet to hear one GOP/conservative spokesman point out the hypocrisy and disingenous nature of the Kerry/Dem position by pointing out how while they say that it should be left up to the states, they know full well that the type of judges they would put on the federal bench would force gay marriage or civil unions on the nation, thus removing the decision from the states. Maybe this obvious point has been made, but I promise you I haven't heard one Republican point this out.

So I agree with you that a Constitiutional Amendment is the best way to deal with this. It is the only way to stop activist judges.

But if conseratives are unable to rally enought support for a ban-Amendment, then perhpas the goal should be to make it about leaving it to the states (as the Dems claim to support). Then I think there is more than one way to word the Amendment. To be clear, I'd prefer the Musgrave Amendment for a varity of reasons, one of which would be that it would deny the left a symbolic victory by denying them the word marriage. And as I said I think it could gain enough support to become law, especially since its provisions fit with what the Dems claim to believe in specifically with regards to saying no to gay marriage but yes to civil unions and generally with regards to leaving it to the states. But I doubt the GOP's ability or desire to do this. I just can't see President Bush being articulate enough to point this out to Kerry in a debate, nor can I see the GOP holding steady against the talking point charges of 'enshrining bigotry in the Constitution'

So if an Amendment banning gay marriage is unable to pass, then an alternatively worded Amendment could be tried; one that says the Federal Government only recognizes traditional marriages, otherwise the issue of gay marriage and civil unions shall be left up to the states and that the judiciary can have no say in the matter. Now this wouldn't be as good as an outright ban, but it would be harder for the left to paint as 'right-wing' pandering. Sadly, yes some states may very well choose to perform and accept gay marriages, but that is not definite. Think about it; in the very liberal state of Vermont, after being given a judical-mandated choice between gay marriage or civil unions, the legislature chose civil unions. In the very liberal Mass, the people reject gay marriage, but would support civil unions. My point is that even in the most liberal of states, their citizens still reject giving up the word marriage to a radical redefining.

So the effect of this alternative Amendment would likely be the same as an Amendment banning gay marriage but allowing for legilatively or popularly enacted civil unions, like the one President Bush has endorsed. This is so because given a choice, even the most liberal states still reject gay marriage, while supporting civil unions. The very same thing could result from a national ban on gay marriage. Either way, with the courts out of the picture the word 'marriage' will probably be safe.

Now as to your Full Faith and Credit Clause point about leaving it to the states resulting in one state having to recognize anothers' gay marriage or civil unions as we do with real marriages and drivers' licenses: That wouldn't be so if a Constitutional Amendment specifically said that with regards to gay marriage and civil unions the Full Faith and Credit Clause does not apply. Now of course the left would still charge that this is enshrining inequality into the Constitution, or that by this logic that a liberal state may decide not to recognize real marriages from a conservative state in order to make a point. But that would only serve to point out how far out of touch they are by showing for everyone to see their extremism. I think people would be much more accepting of a federalist solution. This may result in homosexuals flocking to certain states, but maybe that would be for the best. People would settle in areas that best represent their values. In a nation so divided, that may be the best solution.

"He said an amendment that "provides" for civil unions is a good amendment. "

This is the key. Some states like Mass and Vermont may be fine with this semantic game. Maybe their citizens only care about preserving the word 'marriage' not the institution and concept of marriage, thus their acceptance of gay marriages-w/o-the-word-marriages substitutes like civil unions and domestic partnerships.

Other states, most I would guess, would reject the legal recognition of both gay marriage and civil unions. Most people would see that its a difference without a distinction, and choose to be consistent and not recognize either. I can't see recognition of civil unions winning a popular or legislative battle in any Southern state, or Rocky Mtn West State, or non-Calif SW state, or most Mid Western states. I'd be surprised if more than 15 states chose to recognize civil unions.

So the question is whether or not Kerry and the Dems would force civil unions on all the unwilling states? If you notice they are always very obtuse when they speak of civil unions. The say they support them, but are never really clear about whether or not they think all states should have them, or more importantly if all states should be forced to recognize them.

That is why for any Amendment to be of value it must ban the judiciary from getting involved (otherwise Dem judges will do the dirty work for the left saving the Dems from any political fall out as they say 'the courts have spoken, its out of our hands now'), and make it clear that one state does not have to recognize the civil unions of other states.

I'm still waiting for someone ask Kerry about this. That the press hasn't does not surprise me, but that the GOP has not picked up this astonishes me.