[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]

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.

[concerned about politics]

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.

You're right. There's no flip flop this time. What bothers me about this letter is he's taking away the right of the people of Massachusetts to vote on anything. What if they don't want homosexual unions, either?

[The Ghost of FReepers Past]

but politically, there is a difference

There isn't really a political difference either. At least not in the version Kerry advocates, one that is completely equal both locally and federally. The only value of a different name is a functional value. It will prevent chaos when different states legislate differently. The difference is in the minds of the deceivers and those they manage to fool.

"Domestic Partners" is different in that it has even been used to allow any persons living together -- even non-sexually -- to attain insurance benefits from an employed domestic partner. Non married heterosexuals can do it. Non-sexual family members can do it (at least in some cases). It that situation, the public isn't forced to "recognize" a couple solely for their immoral relationship. there is no requirement to make it equal to marriage. Of course, the term could be redefined by the left, just like marriage, and come to mean the exact same thing as marriage and civil union.