Jump to content

Kerry: ;Bush and I are the same on gay marriage


Doug69
This topic is 6629 days old and is no longer open for new replies.  Replies are automatically disabled after two years of inactivity.  Please create a new topic instead of posting here.  

Recommended Posts

Here's what John Kerry said yesterday as reported by the New York Times, comparing his position to Geroge Bush's on gay marriage:

 

"The president and I have the same position, fundamentally, on gay marriage. We do. Same position. But they're out there misleading people and exploiting it."

 

So George Bush is a Nazi bigot for his views on gay marriage, whereas all gay people are required to vote for John Kerry because of his views on gay marriage . . . . even though . . .

 

they're views are exactly the same on gay marriage . . . .

 

according to John Kerry.

 

Fascinating.

 

(Credit to taylorky for use of the illiterate ellipses)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RE: Kerry: "Bush & I are the same on gay marraige"

 

Here's my opinion on the subject.

 

Yes, their views are similar in many respects. But John Kerry isn't trying to pass a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. And that's the major difference to me. Discrimination in the Constitution is HUGE.

 

Also, Kerry has much better positions on things like HIV/AIDS funding and some important issues like that, and I also believe he at least supports or is at the least more open to civil unions, whereas it's my perception at least that Bush would prefer nothing at all since he believes homosexuality is downright wrong.

 

It's not perfect, but it's better. And it's also not the ONLY reason I support Kerry. Issues like Iraq, the economy, and everything else come into play too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RE: Kerry: "Bush & I are the same on gay marraige"

 

>Here's my opinion on the subject.

>

>Yes, their views are similar in many respects. But John Kerry

>isn't trying to pass a constitutional amendment banning gay

>marriage. And that's the major difference to me.

>Discrimination in the Constitution is HUGE.

 

Actually, Kerry is in favor of having a STATE constitutional amendment in Massachusettes which bans gay marriage. Did you know that?

 

And so, you disagree with Kerry's statement that his views on gay marriage are the same as Bush's?

 

>Also, Kerry has much better positions on things like HIV/AIDS

>funding and some important issues like that, . . .

 

So if you're gay, you're required to believe that it's better to have the Government take money from corporations and use that money to fund AIDS research rather than have corporations keep their money and do the research themselves? Being gay requires one to have a view on that one way or the other?

 

>It's not perfect, but it's better. And it's also not the ONLY

>reason I support Kerry.

 

Well I'm always reading here about how George Bush is a bigot BECAUSE of his views on gay marriage. But Kerry says his views are the same as Bush's. Doesn't that make Kerry a bigot, too?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest zipperzone

RE: Kerry: "Bush & I are the same on gay marraige"

 

Doug: Why don't you just go and vote for Bush so as you can relax?

 

I'm sure feel much better for it. It must produce a lot of angst to be so conflicted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RE: Kerry: "Bush & I are the same on gay marraige"

 

>Doug: Why don't you just go and vote for Bush so as you can

>relax?

>

>I'm sure feel much better for it. It must produce a lot of

>angst to be so conflicted.

 

While I confess to moments of envy concerning the tranquility of people whose single-digit brain cell count precludes them from seeing or experiencing anything other than in the simplest and most elementary terms, on balance, I am quite grateful to whatever or whomever is responsible for my not having the severe cognitive diseases which plagues you and several others like you here, even if that produces "conflicted" views on certain matters.

 

Ignorance may be bliss, as you suggest, but it's also the hallmark of the worthless. Think about that the next time you confuse your simplicity and triteness with a virtue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>Here's what John Kerry said yesterday as reported by the New

The president and I have the same position, fundamentally,

>on gay marriage. We do. Same position.[/b] But they're out

>there misleading people and exploiting it."

>

>So George Bush is a Nazi bigot for his views on gay marriage

 

No....George Bush is a Nazi bigot for his efforts to mislead people.

 

And, Kerry and Bush have different positions, fundamentally, on amending the Constitution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>No....George Bush is a Nazi bigot for his efforts to mislead

>people.

 

Bush and Kerry both saw the same intelligence about Saddam Hussein's weapon systems; both said that he was developing WMD's; both favored regime change; and both favored a war to implement it.

 

So if "George Bush is a Nazi bigot for his efforts to mislead

people," doesn't that mean John Kerry is, too?

 

>And, Kerry and Bush have different positions, fundamentally,

>on amending the Constitution.

 

The only difference is that Kerry favors amending the Mass. State Constitution to ban gay marriage, while Bush favors amending th U.S. Constitution to do so.

 

That's a "fundamental" difference? Sounds like a logistical one to me.

 

You gay liberals are just like battered wives. These liberal politicians abuse and beat you at night, but then, in the morning, they tell you (secretly, when nobody can hear) that they love you, and you melt and say how they didn't REALLY mean the bad things they did to you. And you stay with them, grateful for the cooing they give you as they rub your bruises.

 

Just pitiful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>That's a "fundamental" difference? Sounds like a logistical

>one to me.

>

>You gay liberals are just like battered wives. These liberal

>politicians abuse and beat you at night, but then, in the

>morning, they tell you (secretly, when nobody can hear) that

>they love you, and you melt and say how they didn't REALLY

>mean the bad things they did to you. And you stay with them,

>grateful for the cooing they give you as they rub your

>bruises.

 

You gay repiglicans are like Stepford wives. No matter what your man does, you just apologize for it and smile while he continues fucking you in the ass without the benefit of lube.

 

Shrubyahoo took us into an unneccesary war that has cost over a thousand American lives. John Kerry didn't.

 

Shrubyahoo has been an active proponent of the Gay Marriage Amendment and is not interested in civil unions. While Kerry may support Massachusetts' amendment, he also supports civil unions, something Repiglicans do not.

 

Shrubyahoo has been a miserable failure in business, as the governor of Texass and as the pretendident of the United States. How many times has Kerry been reelected by the people of Massachusetts?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>You gay repiglicans are like Stepford wives. No matter what

>your man does, you just apologize for it and smile while he

>continues fucking you in the ass without the benefit of lube.

 

But gay democrats don't? Boy are you deceiving yourself...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unfortunately for gays, neither of the two leading candidates for President stand for gay marriage. Neither does the majority of the American public. When public opinion swings in favor of it (if it does) then a politician from either the Democratic or Republican parties will endorse it. Not before. Pretty much the same thing happened here in Canada. We're just ahead of the curve here on this issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

while neither party is doing everything they should for gay people, Repiglicans ACTIVELY CAMPAIGN against gays. Democrats don't (except for Zell Miller, but he's senile). As long as the Religious Right continues to hold sway over the repiglican party, gays will never ever be a welcome part of that party.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Doug-

 

When are you going to get it??? Gay marriage is not the only reason we don't want Bush, it's just one of many.

 

1) It's because of his irrisponsible rush to war on unverified information.

 

2) It's his stance on a woman's right to choose.

 

3)It's his lack of strategy on the War in Iraq.

 

4) It's the fact that he went after Saddam before getting Bin Laddan.

 

5) It's the fact that he gives huge tax breaks to the rich while we are in a very expensive war.

 

6) It's that he went it alone without a real coalition of nations sharing the buren, not just endorsing his position.

 

7) It's because he has been anything but fiscally conservative, raising our deficit to record highs.

 

8) It's his total lack of a domestic agenda to make America Stronger.

 

9) It's his huge failing at truly providing homeland security.

 

10)It's because he lied to us about his true motives for going to war.

 

11) It's because his actions have been the cause of our nation's loss of respect from our former allies abroad.

 

And those are just the first eleven reasons that come to mind. I could go on for another half hour.

 

We don't like Bush because he has been a failure, he lacks credibillity and we do not like the direction he is taking our nation.

 

Got it???

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can we be a little more clear and honest here?

 

There are similarities AND differences between Kerry and Bush's positions on gay marriage.

 

Both Bush and Kerry have stated that they believe that "marriage" is between a man and a woman.

 

Kerry supports an amendment to the Massachusetts constitution that provides for "civil unions" as an alternative to "marriage." He opposes the proposed amendment to the U.S. Constitution (which Bush has actively promoted) that would not only ban same-sex marriage but would explicitly preclude "civil unions" or any other recognition of same-sex relationships, or the conferring of any benefits to such relationships.

 

Ironically, Kerry's position is more "conservative" than Bush's. Kerry supports an amendment to the state constitution, which is appropriate from a strict constructionist federalist analysis: regulation of marriage is one of the rights reserved to the states by the U.S. Constitution. Therefore, the correct legal way to deal with a state legal issue in which the state Supreme Court has declared that something the state is doing (e.g., denying same-sex couples the right to marry) violates the state constitution is to attempt to amend the constitution. (Personally, I disagree with Kerry on his position, but it's rational and the proposed amendment wouldn't prevent the state from developing other arrangements to regulate same-sex relationships.)

 

Bush's position, equally ironically, is extremely radical. Not only would the amendment he supports enshrine discrimination into the U.S. Constitution for the first time in history (in fact, it does more than enshrine discrimination, it MANDATES it because it would repeal rights people in some states already have won) the amendment amounts to a complete rape of state's rights (a sacred conservative mantra). The amendment would invade the right states have had to regulate marriage ever since the founding of the Republic more than 200 years ago. That's hardly a conservative proposal. It's a shockingly radical one. Conservative support for such an amendment is extremely short-sighted, because if such an amendment were actually ratified it would open the door to additional amendments enshrining other forms of discrimination (against men, the left-handed, Evangelical Christians, WASPs, Republicans -- you name it). It would also establish a precedent for taking away other rights reserved to the states by the Framers. The result would be a distortion never envisioned by the Framers: a discriminatory, centralized state. Just the thought of it must have them whirling in their graves.

 

But in these bizarre times, when "black" is actually "white" and "yes" is really "no" it's not surprising to find Kerry and Bush's roles in this particular debate reversed. However, the reality is that Kerry's position fits the definition of "conservative" and Bush's fits the definition of "radical." (Fascists, by the way, were also radicals.)

 

The final analysis: I don't like Kerry's postion, but I can live with it. Bush's position isn't one any of us should be able to live with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RE: Kerry: "Bush & I are the same on gay marraige"

 

> I am quite

>grateful to whatever or whomever is responsible for my not

>having the severe cognitive diseases which plagues you

 

Not to mention, your lack of concern about plural subjects with singular verbs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RE: Kerry: "Bush & I are the same on gay marraige"

 

>Actually, Kerry is in favor of having a STATE constitutional

>amendment in Massachusettes which bans gay marriage. Did you

>know that?

 

Yes, I did. But state level is much better than federal level IMO. He at least respects that state should have the right to decide for themselves. Now, I'm all for national gay marriage, but we're not there yet. WITHOUT a federal gay marriage ban, though, I think it's only a matter of time before a few states begin to legally support them, and it's a good start.

 

>And so, you disagree with Kerry's statement that his views on

>gay marriage are the same as Bush's?

 

No. It's just, from the context, I would assume you're reading more into it than he meant (and perhaps I'm incorrect, but based on other things I've heard him say, this is my feeling). I think he simply meant he feels marriage should be between a man and a woman, and the key word there is "marriage". He still supports Civil Unions and equal legal rights.

 

>So if you're gay, you're required to believe that it's better

>to have the Government take money from corporations and use

>that money to fund AIDS research rather than have corporations

>keep their money and do the research themselves? Being gay

>requires one to have a view on that one way or the other?

 

Whoah. Never said that at all. I just personally favor his AIDS policy's (what I know at least) over what I know about Bush's. I believe their whole approach is different. For example, I oppose abstinence-only educational programs because I don't believe they work, etc., and support safe sex being taught along with abstinence, etc. And yes, I personally believe in government-funded AIDS research, but that's just my opinion.

 

>Well I'm always reading here about how George Bush is a bigot

>BECAUSE of his views on gay marriage. But Kerry says his

>views are the same as Bush's. Doesn't that make Kerry a

>bigot, too?

 

Kerry is not a supporter of gay marriage. I wish there was a candidate that was. HOWEVER, again, I think the keyword is marriage. My impression is that Bush is more opposed to the gay lifestyle in general than Kerry, and Kerry seems more open to it...especially where equal rights are concerned. Is it a home run? No, but it's a step in the right direction in my opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

In order to post in the Political Issues forum, all members are required to acknowledge that their post is in compliance with our Community Guidelines.  In addition, you acknowledge that it meets the following requirements: 

  • No personal attacks: Attack the issue not the person
  • No hijacking: Stay on the subject of the thread 

  • No bullying, hate speech or offensive terms/expressions

In addition, if the moderators feel someone is reporting content simply because if it’s political stance (such as but not limited to reporting it as off topic but not other off topic replies by those that agree with your stance), the reporting person may receive a warning as well.

Content that does not comply with the above requirements will be removed.  Multiple violations may result in a loss of access to this forum.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...