Burnt Orange Report

I saw this earlier today and was going to blog on it. I'm very dissappointed to say the least, but we'll see what happens.

So i'm understanding that you guys want 4 more years of Dubya. The nation wil definitly not support a candidate who supports gay marriage. Y'all may be right but the country is not ready for that. I will comprimise on this issue for the greater good.

Your comment is off kilter. I didn't say I wanted 4 more of W. I never mentioned that. And as I said, I wasn't talking about Kerry no supporting gay marriage. I WAS talking about the possibility that he'd support a Constitutional Marriage Amendment which is sooo not cool with me.

On that point, I will not compromise.

In Kerry's defense here (somewhat) I think that WRT the gay marriage issue is to try and minimize the issue as best as possible right now.

The Republicans have an ability to appeal to the base prejudices of people. If Gay Marriage becomes an issue this time, then Bush will use it to his advantage to scare those people who are afraid of this issue, and don't want to confront the issue of homosexuality in America to vote for him.

All in all 2004 is not the year to take that on, IMHO.

2005? Hell yes, regardless of who wins in Nov., bring it on! I think an constitutional amendment affirming the right of all people to get married to whomever they wish (except for brother/sister/cousin/etc. that's kind of gross ;) ) regardless of the sex of their chosen mate, should be the cause of 2005.

Kerry talks like a legislator- his instinct is going to be to "wait and see" on almost everything. It's not what fans of straight talk will appreciate, but that's what he'll give. And he has, in past debates, said he was against the marriage amendment.

That said, he gave a pretty pussed-out performance. If he can't explain his positions on pretty cut-and-dried issues like this, he'll get killed on more complicated ones.

Tek XX - I've already stated publicly that I will strongly support John Kerry if and when he becomes the presumptive nominee. I'll volunteer for him, I'll work for him, I'll give him money, but that doesn't mean that there's times where I might disagree with him or be dissappointed by him. I still think the jury is out on this issue. I'll support the nominee regardless of their position on this issue, but I'll be decidedly less enthusiastic if Kerry votes for this crap.

Strategically, Kerry supporting the FMA would be quite devestating. Our best shot at stopping FMA is in the Senate. The magic number is 67, united GOP support gets it to 51. Add the typical Dem suspects (Nelson, Nelson, Pryor, Miller, etc.) and FMA needs 12 more votes. It probably gets another half dozen from people worried about re-election in red states (Daschle, Landrieu, Dorgan, Conrad, Lincoln etc.), but at that point, I'd hope that the remaining Dems could bind together and gather the 34 votes to block FMA. But if Kerry, who as presumptive nominee would be the de facto party leader would give everyone else a pass on FMA, it'll be tough to find 34 votes to stop this.

FMA is the most significant piece of legislation relating to the GLBT community in a very long time. With one stroke, it would codify into the US Constitution that gay and lesbian relationships are inferior to heterosexual relationships. We already dealt with this problem once, as our constitution defined Blacks as 3/5ths of a person. We corrected it. We already dealt with a constitutional amendment once which restricted the rights and liberties of the American people with prohibition. It was a failure. FMA would set back gay rights for years. While gay marriage will probably be supported by the majority of Americans within a decade or so, FMA is the final hurrah of the far right in a culture war that they're losing.... And it's critical that we have 34 Senators with the courage to stand up to them....

Every candidate is entitled to one "I didn't inhale" or "I lusted in my heart" type of idiotic statement.
Hopefully we'll get some clarification from Kerry in the near future.

Frankly, the constitution should rarely be amended. That's why it takes a vote of both houses of Congress as well as the legislatures of 75% of the states to pass an amendment.
That means it takes one house of a state legislature in just 13 states to block an amendment.

I'm not a one issue voter, but if anything gets close to it, GLBT issues hit closest to home for me.

National security has to come first. It doesn't matter who you're holding hands with when the suicide bombs goes off, you're still (both) dead. And if they take over "peacefully", you can look forward to being crushed under a wall, right?

Kerry believes that terrorism is a law enforcement issue. We already tried that approach, boys.

Dale Bumpers, former Democratic Senator from Arkansas, said that his greatest accomplishment of several terms in the Senate was that there never was an amendment to the Constitution passed while he was there. The Constitution is, all in all, a very effective documents, a work of political genius. It only needs to be amended when extraordinary issues are at stake and only when all other avenues fail.

Kerry (who let's all admit, is saying what one would expect in an election year) would be better at stressing the "only when all other avenues fail" issue and argue to let the amendment go away because, EVEN IF you are against gay marriage, it is not neessary to amend the Constitution at this time because who knows how the courts will rule on the "interstate recognition" issue?

It is a way to quitely kill the amendment in a means that will not alienate certain constituiencies. (Yes, all politics is the art of compromise - the trick is to get your way and make others think you compromised).

Ben Sargent seems to get it right more often than not these days:

To the Barridades!

Kerry believes that terrorism is a law enforcement issue. We already tried that approach, boys.

This "information" comes from an individual who recently attempted to spread a false story here about Max Cleland having lost three limbs in Vietnam in a "Jeep accident".

Nice credibility!

Nice credibility!

Sen. John Kerry had this to say recently: "The War on Terror is . . . occasionally military, and it will be . . . for a long time. . . . But it's primarily an intelligence and law-enforcement operation that requires cooperation around the world - the very thing this administration is worst at."

The one lacking credibility is John Kerry.

"I'm not a one issue voter, but if anything gets close to it, GLBT issues hit closest to home for me."

"National security has to come first. It doesn't matter who you're holding hands with when the suicide bombs [sic] goes off, you're still (both) dead."

Paranoia strikes deep, but get real: in America today, you're far more likely to be killed by one of your fellow Americans than by a follower of al-Qaida. Especially if you're holding hands with someone of the same sex.

Oh, and 9/11/01 happened on W's watch. Clinton's national security team had a plan to deal with al-Qaida (which included both law enforcement and military action, your dismissive claim notwithstanding), which W totally ignored until after 9/11/01.

Oh, and 9/11/01 happened on W's watch.

Absolutely! No matter how the Bush/Rove team may try to spin 9/11, they cannot retroactively change the calendar.

The one lacking credibility is John Kerry.

No, that would be you and Bush.

I agree that national security is important, which is why we need to replace Bush. He distracted us from eliminating the group that attacked us (bin Laden: Dead or Alive!) and has posed the greatest threat to Americans recently.

But it's rather silly and patronizing for a Freeper to tell Karl-T what he should be thinking and valuing, not to mention hypocritical. And therein lies the problem with the religious right.

"The Religion then of every man must be left to the conviction and conscience of every man . . . . the opinions of men, depending only on the evidence contemplated by their own minds, cannot follow the dictates of other men . . . ."
--James Madison, 1785

Mark is trying to pull a fast one by scaring us away from the issue of gay marriage. Obviously, though, you don't trust Bush to handle the terrorist threat; otherwise, you wouldn't be telling us to focus on the terrorists and not on gay marriage.

I take it that you don't blog on anything other than the terrorist threat. Maybe you should change the color of your blog to level orange or red, to keep readers focused.

"Those who won our independence...knew that order cannot be secured merely through fear... that fear breeds repression; that repression breeds hate; that hate menaces stable government...."
--Justice Louis D. Brandeis

National security DOES have to come first- that's why we need a president whose antiterrorism policies don't INCREASE terrorism for a change.

Yeah, I was a little bummed about this too, until I learned what he meant by "depends on the language." Turns out the favored language among election-minded liberals is something like: "Marriage is a man and a woman. Two men or two women can get a civil union. All rights a privileges given to one must be given to the other." I am very very pro gay marriage, but this kind of language completely satisfies me. In some ways it's even better, because it's putting gay rights into the constitution. Best of all, it hits all the majority points: Marriage is "saved," civil unions are endorsed, and gay and lesbian folk are treated equally. There's a majority of Americans behind each of those. Consequently, for the same reason that politicians are loathe to come out against Bush's amendment, they are equally loathe to come out against this one. And any argument for the former over the latter just sounds mean. So if you want to get reelected, either we put gay rights in the constitution, or we leave it be.

It's the antidote. Kinda brilliant, actually.

BTW, I love Dean, but this is why I feel good about Kerry: slippery, sneaky, slick... and on our side. :-)

why I feel good about Kerry: slippery, sneaky, slick... and on our side

oh my, will someone please save our party before we really put the epitomy of what is gross about politics in charge of it. Again.