2/27/2004

More shameful posturing from John Kerry on gay marriage: In his most explicit remarks on the subject yet, Kerry told the Globe that he would support a proposed amendment to the state Constitution that would prohibit gay marrriage so long as, while outlawing gay marriage, it also ensured that same-sex couples have access to all legal rights that married couples receive. "If the Massachusetts Legislature crafts an appropriate amendment that provides for partnership and civil unions, then I would support it, and it would advance the goal of equal protection," the senator said yesterday, stressing that he was referring only to the state, and not the federal, Constitution. He has said he would oppose any amendment that did not include a provision for civil unions. "I think that you need to have civil union. That's my position," he said Tuesday. ...Earlier this year, Kerry was the only member of the state's all-Democrat congressional delegation who chose not to sign a letter urging the state Legislature to reject a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. When the Legislature convened last month to consider amendment language, Kerry stayed silent, a position that drew criticism from several gay media outlets. New England's largest gay-targeted newspaper, In Newsweekly, cited Kerry's "flip-flops" on the issue of gay marriage in an editorial to be published today that endorses his rival, Senator John Edwards, for the Democratic presidential nomination. Human Rights Campaign President Cheryl Jacques: Senator Kerry’s endorsement of a discriminatory amendment in Massachusetts is deeply disappointing. Make no mistake, civil unions single out a group of people for second-class treatment. That is discrimination, and it does not belong in any Constitution. While we acknowledge the Senator’s strong opposition to a federal constitutional amendment, supporting a divisive measure in his own state is exceptionally disheartening and frankly muddies the water on his actual position. Candidates who say they are against marriage for same-sex couples – but for civil unions – must clarify and affirm their support for the more than 1,000 federal benefits, rights and responsibilities that marriage provides but that civil unions do not. Marriage – not civil unions – unlocks the door to important federal protections...

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home