Clinton Urged Kerry to Back Gay Marriage Ban

[Augustus]

Reported by Newsweek (I sniped everything but the most explosive).

Link

Looking for a way to pick up swing voters in the Red States, former President Bill Clinton, in a phone call with Kerry, urged the Senator to back local bans on gay marriage. Kerry respectfully listened, then told his aides, "I'm not going to ever do that."

[NecronLord]

I firmly believe in Gay Marriage.

Why should hetrosexuals be the only ones to suffer?

[Darth Wong]

Clinton is, as always, the consummate politician, and he obviously realized that one would have to do this in order to win election in the United States of America. Probably why he signed the DoMA.

It goes without saying that he is being unethical for advocating this position, just as George W. Bush is. But then again, Kerry could have simply pulled a Bush and lied during his election campaign only to develop amnesia afterwards.

[HemlockGrey]

Nice to know Kerry has a claim on the morale high ground, unlike other Presidents I could name.

[Stuart Mackey]

Reported by Newsweek (I sniped everything but the most explosive).

Link

Looking for a way to pick up swing voters in the Red States, former President Bill Clinton, in a phone call with Kerry, urged the Senator to back local bans on gay marriage. Kerry respectfully listened, then told his aides, "I'm not going to ever do that."

To acheive your aims in politics, one has to compromise. If this could have gained Kerry the presidency, he could have changed his mind later, but now he cannot do anything as he is not Preident.
Sometimes one must choose the lesser of two evils.

[Stuart Mackey]

Nice to know Kerry has a claim on the morale high ground, unlike other Presidents I could name.

*Smiles politly* But if it cost him the presidency??....

[Fire Fly]

I think my respect for Senator Kerry has just tripled.

[Darth Wong]

Mine too; he may be a lousy politician but he has more integrity than his detractors give him credit for. Unfortunately, integrity and "political skills" are kind of polar opposites.

[NecronLord]

Quite so. I wonder how many of this year's larger turn out in America went soley to strike down Gay Marriage.

[Stuart Mackey]

Mine too; he may be a lousy politician but he has more integrity than his detractors give him credit for. Unfortunately, integrity and "political skills" are kind of polar opposites.

Depends on the person. But the nature of the game is compromise, and any person who enters politics must always have in the back of their mind that no one ever accomplished anything when out of power.

[2000AD]

Reported by Newsweek (I sniped everything but the most explosive).

Link

Looking for a way to pick up swing voters in the Red States, former President Bill Clinton, in a phone call with Kerry, urged the Senator to back local bans on gay marriage. Kerry respectfully listened, then told his aides, "I'm not going to ever do that."

To acheive your aims in politics, one has to compromise. If this could have gained Kerry the presidency, he could have changed his mind later, but now he cannot do anything as he is not Preident.
Sometimes one must choose the lesser of two evils.

But then he'd have been a flip-flopper

Good for Kerry. I loved the Daily Star's headline yesterday:
"How can 58,000,000 people be so dumb?"

(insert the correct number i just did a rough guess at the right one)

[Stuart Mackey]

Reported by Newsweek (I sniped everything but the most explosive).

Link

To acheive your aims in politics, one has to compromise. If this could have gained Kerry the presidency, he could have changed his mind later, but now he cannot do anything as he is not Preident.
Sometimes one must choose the lesser of two evils.

But then he'd have been a flip-flopper

Good for Kerry. I loved the Daily Star's headline yesterday:
"How can 58,000,000 people be so dumb?"

(insert the correct number i just did a rough guess at the right one)

Actually, Kerry, would have a poor PR campain. Being called a 'Flip Flopper' is just recognition of that fact. As for all those dumb people? So what? that just means that your election campain was ill informed of the publics mood and failed to respond to that.

[Fire Fly]

But to compromise on something so basic, something that everyone really truely deserves, is just absolutely wrong. I always understood why Clinton backed the DoMA, but I never liked it. It saddens me to see so many fellow Americans denying some of the most basic principles and rights, such as happieness, to another fellow American. You would think that after decades, the idea of a fellow countryman/woman drinking from a seperate fountain would be forever abolished, but the idea of a second class citizen is still very much ingrained in the psyche of the people. Honestly, I'm not a Christian but I make a better Christian than most of those people.

[Stuart Mackey]

But to compromise on something so basic, something that everyone really truely deserves, is just absolutely wrong. I always understood why Clinton backed the DoMA, but I never liked it. It saddens me to see so many fellow Americans denying some of the most basic principles and rights, such as happieness, to another fellow American. You would think that after decades, the idea of a fellow countryman/woman drinking from a seperate fountain would be forever abolished, but the idea of a second class citizen is still very much ingrained in the psyche of the people. Honestly, I'm not a Christian but I make a better Christian than most of those people.

You are correct. However, how does it help anyone of those people if you are not in a position to change things?Who knows how things could have been in three years time? Kerry could have"seen the light" or allowed a suitable situation to develop in favor of gay marraige, but Kerry wont know now because he is not President, but a fundamentalist who will make things worse, is!

[Fire Fly]

Ah, I see your point. I supose it is better that way, to my chagrin.

[Durandal]

This is Bill Clinton, folks. It all depends on what he meant by the word "back."

Seriously though, Kerry already backed the idea that marriage was only between a man and a woman. The only difference between him and Bush (up until the day before the election anyway) was that Kerry backed civil unions for gays. I'm not familiar with the provisions of each ballot initiative in those 11 states though. Did they just define marriage as being between a man and a woman, or did they outlaw any form of gay civil union?

If the former, then Kerry could have backed those initiatives without compromising his stance.

[Stravo]

Why does it not surprise me that Clinton would do anything, support anything to get more votes. Part of the reason why I think the Republicans had this virulent hatred towards him. He didn't flip flop...he simply accepted every one of their points then usually did nothing about it.

"Oh Yeah Well Gays shouldn't be allowed to get married!"

*Clinton huckster voice* "I agree. I feel your pain."

"Fucker."


Kerry was right on this one. If the Democrats are simply going to parrot Republican idealogy and abandon the ideas of liberal democracy and secularism then what's left? Why not simply call themselves Republican Lite? Election be damned there have to be some principles that you are willing to stand on.

Sadly however I think gays are essentially fucked right now. The Dems now realize just how important this issue is to the majority of the South and Midwest and they know they need to bend to this view or get hit harder next election cycle.

Sorry guys - but look at this way. Greenwhich Village could use more queer eyes for us straight guys.

[Joe]

My respect for Kerry just shot up a few notches - turns out he had a principled position on at least one issue.

[Perinquus]

But to compromise on something so basic, something that everyone really truely deserves, is just absolutely wrong. I always understood why Clinton backed the DoMA, but I never liked it. It saddens me to see so many fellow Americans denying some of the most basic principles and rights, such as happieness, to another fellow American.

Actually, I feel compelled to make a small correction here. Nowhere in the Constitution or any other government document will you find it written down that you or I or anyone else has a right to happiness. Even the Declaration of Independence does not list a right to happiness as inalienable. What it says is inalienable is the right to the pursuit of happiness. You can pursue happiness as far as you are able, and you can also pursue it regardless of your circumstances, but nothing can ever guarantee that you will catch it.

Personally, I don't feel threatened by gay marriage. And even if people chose to enshrine the union of man and woman into law as the only acceptable form of marriage, I can't see any reason to deny gays the right at least to form civil unions that will give them the same benefits of inheritance and so forth. But just to play devil's advocate for a moment, I am not sure that you can define the ability of even heterosexuals to marry as a right. Many men and women, who have been deeply in love with each other have, for all kinds of reasons been prevented from tying the not, and sometimes they end up just having to live with it.

[Durandal]

Many men and women, who have been deeply in love with each other have, for all kinds of reasons been prevented from tying the not, and sometimes they end up just having to live with it.

Yes, but for all those reasons, not a single one of them is, "Because it's an abomination," except of course, if the couple is interracial in Alabama. Other than that, though, heterosexual couples have to deal with practical problems preventing marriage. Those are personal problems can be worked through by the couple. Gay couple are simply barred by law from getting married. The situations are completely different.

[Stravo]

Yes, but for all those reasons, not a single one of them is, "Because it's an abomination," except of course, if the couple is interracial in Alabama. Other than that, though, heterosexual couples have to deal with practical problems preventing marriage. Those are personal problems can be worked through by the couple. Gay couple are simply barred by law from getting married. The situations are completely different.

It's a little funkier than that. You can be married in one state and not another. So you can be travelling with your gay spouse down to vacation in Bumblefuck USA and get into an accident. You spouse is in the hospital but you would not be recognized as the spouse because gay marriage is not recognized in that state, you would suddenly be stripped of the right to make medical decisions for him/her and the like.

This is a situation that will soon demand SCOTUS action. You can't have that kind of situation cropping up across the land.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Yes, but for all those reasons, not a single one of them is, "Because it's an abomination," except of course, if the couple is interracial in Alabama. Other than that, though, heterosexual couples have to deal with practical problems preventing marriage. Those are personal problems can be worked through by the couple. Gay couple are simply barred by law from getting married. The situations are completely different.

It's a little funkier than that. You can be married in one state and not another. So you can be travelling with your gay spouse down to vacation in Bumblefuck USA and get into an accident. You spouse is in the hospital but you would not be recognized as the spouse because gay marriage is not recognized in that state, you would suddenly be stripped of the right to make medical decisions for him/her and the like.

This is a situation that will soon demand SCOTUS action. You can't have that kind of situation cropping up across the land.

But after Bush appoints judges, we know how they will rule....

[Durandal]

It's a little funkier than that. You can be married in one state and not another. So you can be travelling with your gay spouse down to vacation in Bumblefuck USA and get into an accident. You spouse is in the hospital but you would not be recognized as the spouse because gay marriage is not recognized in that state, you would suddenly be stripped of the right to make medical decisions for him/her and the like.

This is a situation that will soon demand SCOTUS action. You can't have that kind of situation cropping up across the land.

It'd be interesting to see how that played out. Could a gay "widow," for lack of a better term, could sue the government for not being able to see his/her dying partner in the hospital and spend some final moments with him/her? Would that fall under demonstrable injury?

[Typhonis 1]

IMHO Gay marrige should be State Right...let the individual states decide wether to allow it or not.

[Durandal]

IMHO Gay marrige should be State Right...let the individual states decide wether to allow it or not.

It's gender discrimination, which falls under the jurisdiction of the Constitution.