Posted on 08/06/2003 7:29:43 AM PDT by Liz
Other members of the Rhode Island delegation support civil unions but not same-sex marriage.
U.S. Rep. Patrick J. Kennedy has charged into the debate over same-sex marriage, criticizing the Vatican for its opposition to laws recognizing gay and lesbian couples.
A member of the country's most legendary Roman Catholic political family, representing the most Catholic state in the nation, Kennedy said he refuses to follow the Vatican's edict, issued last week, imploring Catholic lawmakers to oppose same-sex unions.
"I see the policy of opposing same-sex marriages or unions, whatever you call it, as bigotry or discrimination," Kennedy said yesterday in an interview.
"We are talking about the law here and whether the law is going to treat people equally here. I don't see where the church or anyone else dictates what the policy is going to be with respect to treating people equally," he said.
Kennedy is the most vocal member of the Rhode Island delegation in both his support for same-sex unions and his willingness to defy the Catholic Church on the issue.
Kennedy dismisses the distinction between civil unions and gay marriage as merely semantics. But other members of the delegation say it's a significant difference in the eyes of many Americans, saying marriage should remain exclusively between a man and a woman.
Vermont, the only state to recognize same-sex unions, established a separate legal code for same-sex or "civil" unions. Vermont does not call them marriages, but affords the same rights to homosexual couples as heterosexual couples.
U.S. Sen. Jack Reed, who also is a Catholic, said he supports extending legal protections and benefits to same-sex couples, but does not sanction gay marriage. U.S. Rep. James R. Langevin, a Catholic, supports same-sex unions, but not gay marriage.
Likewise, U.S. Sen. Lincoln Chafee, an Episcopalian, said he supports civil unions, but not marriage for gays and lesbians, saying the country is not ready to call it by that name.
Kennedy sent out a news release last week, announcing his position. Other delegation members, while supporting same-sex unions, said the debate in Washington should focus more on high unemployment and the war in Iraq than a divisive issue such as gay marriage.
President Bush raised the issue last week during a rare Rose Garden news conference, saying White House lawyers were looking to ensure that the term "marriage" apply only to men and women.
The Vatican followed the next day with a statement that urged all Catholic lawmakers to oppose same-sex unions.
The 1996 Defense of Marriage Act prohibits federal recognition of gay marriages.
But Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, a Tennessee Republican, has said he wants to go one step further and propose a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage.
Frist has said a constitutional amendment could be necessary to ban gay marriages if more states approve same-sex unions.
It's not the first time Kennedy has clashed with the Catholic Church. In the past, he has bucked the church with his support for abortion rights and calling for the ordination of female priests.
On the issue of gay rights, Kennedy said the church has strayed from its teachings. "The church has its doctrines. I don't agree with this doctrine. I don't agree with many others," he said.
Kennedy continued a short time later: "The very foundation of the church is about love," he said. "This notion of discrimination is so far afield of what Jesus' life was all about."
Kennedy said his Catholic identity is important to him.
"The life of Jesus Christ influences my whole notion of public service," Kennedy said. "It's all about following the example of Jesus, of service, humility and love."
Kennedy continued: "I am speaking to you as someone who when I hear the Scripture, I get a very different message of what Jesus was teaching me than what the church seems to be representing."
Chafee said he support same-sex unions, but he opposses gay marriage because the country is not ready for this step.
"I am already in favor of civil unions. It doesn't hurt anyone. . . . People feel this is the commitment they want to make. I respect that."
Chafee said he believed that the Supreme Court, in its recent decision striking down a Texas law that prohibited gay sexual activity, opened the way for gay marriage.
The majority opinion in the 6-to-3 ruling in the Texas case does not specifically address the issue of gay marriage, said Yale Law School Prof. William Eskridge Jr., an expert on the law of gay marriage.
But Eskridge said the case could remove a significant legal obstacle to gay marriage, by legalizing sodomy. "The argument was made that if you could put them in jail for sodomy, why would you allow marriage," he said.
Chafee said he hoped this would not become a hot-button political issue in the 2004 election. He believes Washington leaders should instead focus on the economy and national security.
"I recognize this is an issue that can stir up emotionally charged divisions," he said.
Chafee added that he would not support a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage.
Likewise, Reed said he would oppose any constitutional amendment to ban these unions, which he believes would preempt states from being able to pass their own laws on the issue.
Reed said yesterday that he supports extending the same legal protections to committed gay and lesbian couples as those enjoyed by heterosexual couples. But he said marriage should only apply to men and women.
As a congressman, Reed voted in favor of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act. Kennedy voted against it. Neither Langevin nor Chafee had been elected to Capitol Hill at the time.
As for the Vatican's edict, Reed said the Catholic Church was an important influence, but not the only influence. "In a pluralistic society, you have to listen to a range of voices," he said.
Langevin said yesterday that he supports recognizing civil unions for gay and lesbian couples, but not calling it marriage.
Speaking from Israel, where he's traveling this week with a group of congressional Democratics, Langevin said that calling these arrangements marriage would cloud the issue, which he views as one of equality under the law.
"At this point, more individuals feel like I do, that same-sex couples should receive the same benefits [as heterosexual couples]," Langevin said.
"When we start talking about marriage, it brings in factors outside the realm of equal rights. It has religious connotations. . . . It brings in an element that divides people instead of bringing people together."
Langevin said in a written statement that the Catholic Church guides his personal life.
"However, I believe in a strong separation in church and state. The greatest influence on an congressperson's decision must be the Constitution and the interests of his or her constituents. "
CINO
Precisely ... and doncha just love it when one of these "Catholic scholars" preaches the "right way" to you?
You know how these self-loathing libs just can't feel good about themselves unless they are in the throes of "victimization" and either 1) causing victims, 2) concocting victims, 3) playing victim, 4) commiserating over victims, or 5) creating another class of victims to bleed over.
Excommunication would propel the Kennedys as "victims" to new political heights.
Gays and straights have an exactly equal right to marry someone of the opposite sex.
Nothing like the threat of eternal damnation to focus ones mind.
YOU BIG *^$#&* LIAR!
YOU CHARLATAN
YOU APOSTATE HEATHEN!
YOU ARE A DISGRACE!
Why don't you clowns quit representing yourselves as Roman Catholics?
Starting with Joe, and all the way down through the generations of Kennedys, darn near all of them have given the Catholic Church a black eye because of their behavior.
Hey Pat, I'm thinking the Episcopal Church may be more to your liking...
Homosexual "life? partner" medical and other benefits is set to bankrupt many large corporations.For the sake of argument let's say Teddy asked God for forgiveness for voting pro-abortion, pro-homo, etc, before receiving Communion (after all, none of us knows what's in another person's heart or soul).
God would forgive Teddy but the condition for forgiveness is a promise that you will not commit that sin again.
Teddy has to live with his conscience but the rest of us do not have to put up with the consequences of his anti-moral votes.
Liberals really need to get their story straight here. They used to whine about "the privacy of the bedroom" when killing unborn children was the focus of their agenda. They would lecture everyone that "you can't legislate morality!" Now with sodomy they want it all public and open rather than "private" and kept "in the bedroom."
Even that prince of sanctimony, John Kerry, has jumped into the public fight with the Vatican over sodomy... Considering that Kerry is now apostate from two major world religions, one wonders if he isn't a good candidate for the Antichrist [IRONY]... Well, they can't have it both ways. If they want "privacy of the bedroom" for infanticide but a PUBLIC campaign to legitimate sodomy as normal and on the same level as marriage which everyone must accept, they are going to have to get used to being exposed as moral morons of illogical reasoning.
New slogan - "Let's keep anal sex safe, legal, and PRIVATE!" We'll all feel better not having to hear about it every day.
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.