John Kerry on Massachusetts Gay Marriage Ruling

[flpoljunkie]

http://blog.johnkerry.com/blog/archives/000735.html

Earlier this morning, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court rule 4-3 that denying same-sex couples the right to marry violates the state constitution. But the court did not order marriage licenses to be granted immediately to same-sex couples. The ruling gives the Legislature 180 days to "take such action as it may deem appropriate" on issuing marriage licenses.

In a statement, John Kerry said:

“I have long believed that gay men and lesbians should be assured equal protection and the same benefits – from health to survivor benefits to hospital visitation - that all families deserve. While I continue to oppose gay marriage, I believe that today’s decision calls on the Massachusetts state legislature to take action to ensure equal protection for gay couples. These protections are long over due.”

The Massachusetts marriage law does not define what constitutes a married couple. An initiative to define marriage as a union between one man and one woman was defeated in the Legislature last year. The Legislature is considering a similar amendment to the Constitution. The earliest an amendment could be voted on is fall 2006.

In its ruling, the court wrote:

"The Massachusetts Constitution affirms the dignity and equality of all individuals. It forbids the creation of second-class citizens. In reaching our conclusion we have given full deference to the arguments made by the Commonwealth. But it has failed to identify any constitutionally adequate reason for denying civil marriage to same-sex couples....."

"We declare that barring an individual from the protections, benefits, and obligations of civil marriage solely because that person would marry a person of the same sex violates the Massachusetts Constitution.

(I agree with John Kerry that the gay and lesbian community are deserving of the same protections and benefits as every other family. And I would note that only John Kerry voted against the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act which Clinton cravenly signed into law. That takes courage and conviction.)

[soleft]

1. Then all civil marriages should be referred to as civil unions

even for heterosexuals.

[ACK]

5. Yes they should

I made this point in another post. State sanctioning of marriages is problematic from the get-go because of the religious significance the idea of marriage has in societies not just here but as a whole.

[cindyw]

6. I'd actually agree with you on this. I would say I do not support a law

forcing the legalization if gay marriage, but neither do I support a law legalizing straight marriage. Marriage is a ceremony performed by a minister of some sort. No law can tell a minister who to marry. In the catholic church some priests won't marry some straight couples. Civil unions are the sanctioning of a legal union of two people. Calling the contract a marriage license has been a sign of respect for the ceremony performed(hopefully someday the laws can afford this sign of respect to all). IMHO, legalizing civil unions for gay couples is tantamount to legalizing gay marriage because if they can get a minister to perform the ceremony they are just as married as I am to my husband. That is just fine with me. Anyway, in my mind it's all marriage, gay or straight and should be fine. From a religious standpoint, I was taught that everything that God made was good. If people can be created gay then gay is good. Obviously I'm not being eloquent here, but I think you get my point.

[rucky]

7. Why Even Recognize Unions/Marriages At All?

We should simply assure each individual's right to assign the beneficiary(s) of their choice for all the privlidges currently entitled to "spouses".

[ACK]

11. Good point... but I like the idea of monogamy

Stable relationships of all kinds promote the idea of family in a healthy not repub hateful way. I am not just talking about raising kids but families and the bridging of familial groups through the bonds of longterm relationships is healthy for a society as a whole.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

2. As a Catholic, Kerry has to take this position

he really hasn't much choice. Still, I am glad he made a statement.

[mikehiggins]

4. Whoops!

Kerry is obligated to do what he thinks is in the best interests of his constituency.

His religion does not enter into it, anymore than it did with JFK.

[Clovis Sangrail]

3. double-speak

While I continue to oppose gay marriage, I believe that today’s decision calls on the Massachusetts state legislature to take action to ensure equal protection for gay couples

It seems he is trying to play to both sides without losing either.
IMHO, it means he can't be trusted on the issue... no matter where you stand on it.

[blm]

10. no...marriage in the religious sense as religious "sacrament"

should be kept separate from this ruling.

[Clovis Sangrail]

12. then he should just say it

"I think a distinction should be drawn between marriage and civil unions. Marriages are a religious issue, civil unions are not. I fully support civil unions among homosexuals."

See?
Easy.

He's got professional speech writers and media handlers. His statement that he 'opposes gay marriage' was not because he was backed into a logical corner; it was because he wants both sides of a hot button issue.

[cindyw]

8. can somebody define "gay marriage" to me?

My guess is that that phrase means different things to different people. Or for that matter define "straight marriage". I would also be curious to know how Kerry would define it.

[Scott Lee]

9. John Kerry - Brave Fence Sitter!

Way to not take a position, John!

“I have long believed that gay men and lesbians should be assured equal protection and the same benefits – from health to survivor benefits to hospital visitation - that all families deserve. While I continue to oppose gay marriage, I believe that today’s decision calls on the Massachusetts state legislature to take action to ensure equal protection for gay couples. These protections are long over due.”

While you "continue to oppose gay marraige", John?? What in the fuck does that mean? That you never personally intend to marry a man? How come you had to throw in that bit, John? Was it by chance to appease the antigay bigots who might vote for you, John?

What a masterful display as to why Kerry is just another politico-speak Insider who will asskiss the neocons if cornered.

Way to go Johnny! No wonder you're running behind.