Another regular commentor here with whom I have a....more adversarial....relationship with is Ian S., who today brought up another point that definitely warrants further discussion out on the main board.
You keep blithering about Kerry but conveniently ignore the fact that Kerry has clearly stated that he supports civil unions with the rights and responsibilities of marriage. Nothing he has said regarding state initiatives has conflicted with that.
The first place to which I will point to refute that statement is to the opinion of the Massachusetts Supreme Court on Massachusetts Senate Bill 2175.
The question:
The undersigned Justices of the Supreme Judicial Court respectfully submit their answers to the question set forth in an order adopted by the Senate on December 11, 2003, and transmitted to the Justices on December 12, 2003. The order indicates that there is pending before the General Court a bill, Senate No. 2175, entitled "An Act relative to civil unions." A copy of the bill was transmitted with the order. As we describe more fully below, the bill adds G. L. c.207A to the General Laws, which provides for the establishment of "civil unions" for same-sex "spouses," provided the individuals meet certain qualifications described in the bill.
The order indicates that grave doubt exists as to the constitutionality of the bill if enacted into law and requests the opinions of the Justices on the following "important question of law":
"Does Senate, No. 2175, which prohibits same-sex couples from entering into marriage but allows them to form civil unions with all 'benefits, protections, rights and responsibilities' of marriage, comply with the equal protection and due process requirements of the Constitution of the Commonwealth and articles 1, 6, 7, 10, 12 and 16 of the Declaration of Rights?"
The answer of the Court:
We recognize that the pending bill palliates some of the financial and other concrete manifestations of the discrimination at issue in Goodridge (ed. the Massachusetts Supreme Court decision allowing gay marriage). But the question the court considered in Goodridge was not only whether it was proper to withhold tangible benefits from same-sex couples, but also whether it was constitutional to create a separate class of citizens by status discrimination, and withhold from that class the right to participate in the institution of civil marriage, along with its concomitant tangible and intangible protections, benefits, rights, and responsibilities. Maintaining a second-class citizen status for same-sex couples by excluding them from the institution of civil marriage is the constitutional infirmity at issue.
4. Conclusion. We are of the opinion that Senate No. 2175 violates the equal protection and due process requirements of the Constitution of the Commonwealth and the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights. Further, the particular provisions that render the pending bill unconstitutional, § 2 and 3 of proposed G.L. c.207A, are not severable from the remainder. The bill maintains an unconstitutional, inferior, and discriminatory status for same-sex couples, and the bill's remaining provisions are too entwined with this purpose to stand independently. See Murphy v. Commissioner of the Dep't of Indus. Accs., 418 Mass. 165, 169 (1994).
The answer to the question is "No."
In short, the Massachusetts Supreme Court made it quite clear that, under the Massachusetts Constitution, "civil unions" cannot by definition carry the rights and responsibilities of marriage, and anything other than full marriage rights for same-sex couples is a violation of said document.
A little over three weeks later, John Kerry announced his public support to amend the Massachusetts Constitution to ban gay marriage and to specifically block its interpretation of civil unions being unconstitutional. Kerry had previously stated that his opposition to gay marriage was based on his Catholicism.
To me, this is really the crux of the problem with John Kerry. He had the opportunity to allow gays to keep true equality, and instead chose to support something that took it away from them because of his religious beliefs and amending the state constitution to consign gays to what he knew was a separate, inferior, and discriminatory status. As the Massachusetts Supreme Court wisely pointed out, "The history of our nation has demonstrated that separate is seldom, if ever, equal."
When it came to Missouri, Kerry's initial response was as follows:
Sen. John Kerry said in an interview published yesterday that he would have voted for the gay-marriage ban passed overwhelmingly this week by Missouri voters.
The Democratic presidential nominee, who spent parts of two days stumping across the state, told The Kansas City Star the ballot measure was the same as one his home state of Massachusetts passed a few years ago. Kerry supported that measure.
When questioned by the Advocate a month later, Kerry at first reversed position, claiming that he "didn't know" that the amendment potentially banned civil unions and that he "would not have voted for that"; after the interview, his campaign released a statement in his name declining to say whether the actual effect of the amendment would have changed his position.
Personally, regarding this excuse, I fail to see how anyone could confuse the Missouri and Massachusetts amendments -- especially odd, given the fact that Kerry is a lawyer. What it sounds quite similar to is Kerry's alleged promise to Assemblyman Mark Leno that Kerry would support full Federal benefits for gay couples, which was later remanded to "studying the issue" and "commitment in principle" -- promise one thing when talking to the gay folk, take it back when talking to everyone else.
In short, if Kerry truly wanted full equality for gays, he could have kept his mouth shut. The fact that he didn't speaks volumes concerning both his attitude that gays are not equal to straights and his willingness to sacrifice gay issues for political expediency.
The question then becomes why groups gave him so much money instead of, like LCR, declining to endorse on principle and focusing resources towards truly gay-supportive candidates and the defeat of antigay initiatives.
No comments:
Post a Comment