Democrats' Platform Shouldn't Back Gay Marriage, Kerry Says
--posted by Tony Garcia on 5/09/2005
Democrats' Platform Shouldn't Back Gay Marriage, Kerry Says. That's right, Kerry is against gay marriage.
US Senator John F. Kerry said yesterday that he believes it's a mistake for the Massachusetts Democratic Party to include a plank in its official platform in support of same-sex marriage, saying that such a statement does not conform with the broad views of party members.
The Dissident Voice (a very unhappy-with-the-left's-performance Lefty) noticed that John Kerry is against gay marriage.
The senator, who flip-flopped his way through a self-defeating campaign in 2004, can't get his act together -- yet he is still setting himself up for another run in 2008. Supporting gay rights amounts to electoral death, or so claims Kerry. He must think inflating his political status is more important than standing up for equality.
Better than that, he (accidentally) points out the hypocrisy of the "hate speech" mantra.
Indeed Kerry's statement is the kind of hate speech we were hearing from racist Democrats down South during the civil rights struggles. Fortunately, Dems in Massachusetts aren't buying Kerry's line, as they are planning to vote in favor of putting a same-sex marriage plank in their platform later this month.
Everything definitionally can be called hate speech. That is the problem with the whole concept. The other problem right now is that the media and the left brand people that do not agree with them as "hate mongers" and spewing "hate speech". If simple disagreement is "hate speech" then we better defund debate teams around the country.
But back to the gay marriage issue.
I am not certain why so many Americans are against gay marriage. I have very little confidence in the average American to drill down deeply into the topic to understand why they should be against gay marriage.
There a millions of religious arguments against it...but remember that being a dieist does not grant me the platform of making biblical references in my logic. But there is a very secular line of logic.
I have written at length one of the reasons. This time I will offer a brief line of logic why the US Constitution should be amended to allow states to decide and to not have that decision cross state lines.
First, There are a number of judges who will impose their will on a state regardless of the states' laws. The very fact of this is already proven by pro-gay marriage judges, but I have no doubt that the same will eventually be proven true of pro-hetero marriage protection judges. This activism, on both sides, is wrong.
Second, I believe that almost all issues, and especially social issues, should be decided on a state by state basis. Each state's decisions should be respected. This is the same manner in which gun permits are not transferrable from state to state unless the states agree. You cannot drive through Illinois with your concealed weapon and have it be legal simply because you have a permit from Minnesota.
In the same way a state that codifies gay marriage should respect the wishes of the other states who codify straight marriages as the only ones. If it is legal to possess fireworks in Wisconsin but not in Minnesota then citizens of Minnesota can go to Wisconsin to buy fireworks but that legal possession does not carry back into Minnesota.
Finally, the only way to force the courts to butt out of the affairs of the states in this matter is to have it explicitly laid out in the US Constitution. Then repsecting state borders and state laws on this topic will be Constitutional. A ban in Utah stays banned and a gay marriage in Massachusettes will be married in Massachusettes.
That is how it should be.
6 Comments:
Many states have different laws pertaining to marrage, and common law property, how divorces are handled, and custody of the kids. Insurance companys, banks, and other legal business practices also vary from state to state. A Federal law shouldn't mandate what a family is...only require all states to recognize a union from any particular state....knotta jedi.
Actually I do NOT want states to be forced to recognize unions. I think that is contrary to Federalism which is contrary to the very nature and purpose of state government.
The individual states must be controlled by the Federal government for various reasons including women's voting rights, not having separate drinking fountains or bus seats for people of color, free men or slavery, sodomy laws, gun laws, poligamy, or witch hunts. Most people at local and state levels are unable to govern themselves reaonably. Empioral rule and fear of the firepower of the feds will keep the governors in line....knotta jedi
Kerry's position now is no different than what it was during the 2004 campaign. I still don't get why so many fools in the gay community gave that campaign so much $ and volunteer time.
Because the gay community IS a bunch of fools.
"Most people at local and state levels are unable to govern themselves reaonably."
I could not tell if that was in jest or not. However, I know a few liberals that honestly believe that way so I want to point out the logical conclusion of that philosophy.
Federal government knows best as state and local gov'ts are unable to govern themselves.
Therefore an entity (and consequently a person) further away from the region that it is governing over knows better what a locality needs than the locality itself.
Consequently this leads to a justification against democracy, as the people who vote know little about what is good for them. Perhaps a monarchy is better suited for your philosophy.
(Where is the Sith pulling your strings?) ;)
"Because the gay community IS a bunch of fools."
Uh, no. Just the militant activists...as is the case in ALL advocacies.
Post a Comment
<< Home