Kerry Is Toast on the Gay Marriage Issue (Signed a Letter in 2002 Backing Gay Marriage!!!!)

Aug/7/04 | jveritas

[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

[Bernard]

Background check - what exactly is the difference between homosexual marriage and civil union, and why should I care, since I live in fly-over country?

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.

[rwfromkansas]

Freepers are on a roll today....pictures of the restaurant where Kerry ate at..and now this.

Rush@eibnet.com
Hannity@foxnews.com

[rwfromkansas]

RNCommunications@gop.com

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

ROFL.....A good one!

[rwfromkansas]

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.

[Indie]

Unfortunately, the willingly ignorant sheeple would vote for him anyway, even if Dan Blather would make a big deal of this..which he won't.

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.

[rwfromkansas]

Folks....I did some googling.

I am retracting my call to send this to Hannity and Rush.

This does not look like a flip-flop. The group that pushed for the amendment in 2002 wanted to ban same sex unions, not just marriage. They thought this amendment would do it.

"[T]he amendment-which states that any relationship other than a marriage between one man and one woman "shall not be recognized as a marriage or its legal equivalent, nor shall it receive the benefits or incidents exclusive to marriage from the Commonwealth...'"

It certainly looks that way to me.

Since Kerry is opposed to a literal marriage, but for civil unions, it does not look like a flip-flop, but being consistent on this issue.

Of course, there is no real difference between the two, just different names, but politically, there is a difference, so it would be disingenuous to say there is a flip-flop on this when his position is what it is now.

[jveritas]

I just send a letter to "Drudge Report" telling him about the letter, the link to the text of the letter, and the USAToday article about "Kerry backing Gay Marriage".

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.

[douglas1]

I get so confused.

[Dog Gone]

Lawyers in Love

[shadowman99]

"Hey, it's all good!!!"

[KC_Conspirator]

All of this is moot because Bush is not running on it and apparently refuses to bring this the forefront.

[KQQL]

This was reported last year.....

[Mo1]

.

[jveritas]

Again this is all "Nuances". The letter expose Kerry very strong supports for the homosexual agenda, period. John Kerry has a very weak argument on this issue that will not fly in the Heartland.

We need to make it an issue to greatly damage John Kerry.

[rwfromkansas]

You are right, but his nuanced stance is the same.

His stance is still bullcrap though.

[Grampa Dave]

Thanks!

We need Cray super computers to keep track of his flip flops.

[Grampa Dave]

Great find and post!

The Komrade Kerri Kerrorists will not be able to remove that letter from all the websites.

[Neville72]

Thanks for the link. I sent 'em a note suggesting the ad.

[backhoe]