• Home
  • About
  • Guest Post

    Kerry takes a stance on something

    I’ve done enough ragging on John Kerry that it’s only fair to point out that I was mostly impressed with what he said in this interview with The Washington Blade. His response to this question strikes me as sounding genuine rather than evasive:

    Blade: OK, last question. I�m curious: If you had been born gay [SRK rolls eyes], how different do you think your life would be?

    Kerry: I can�t tell you the answer to that question because I don�t know what my � you know, I just can�t tell you how I would have responded to it. Would I have been at the forefront of the crusade in the 1960s or would I still be, as some people are, living a double life or something, I don�t know.

    And his last word on the marriage debate is also one of the clearest statements I’ve heard from him yet about anything:

    I think, you know, and I�ve said this before, I think marriage raises a different issue in the minds of a lot of people because of its deep religious foundations and institutional structure as the oldest institution in the world.

    It is the oldest institution in the world � older than country, older than our form of government, older than most forms of government. And people view it differently.

    What�s important to me is not the terminology or the status; what�s important to me are the rights. The rights. That you shouldn�t be discriminated against in your right to visit a partner in the hospital. You shouldn�t be discriminated against in your right to leave property to somebody, if that�s what you want. You shouldn�t be discriminated against if you have a civil union relationship that affords you the same rights.

    Now I think that�s a huge step. There�s never been a candidate for president who has stood up and said I think we should fight for those things. And you�ve got to progress. Even that, I take huge hits for.

    And you know, I stood up on the floor of the Senate and voted against DOMA because I thought it was gay bashing on the floor of the United States Senate. I was one of 14 votes. The only person running for reelection who did that.

    If only he addressed every issue, including how he plans to keep terrorists from incinerating us all, as clearly.

    14 Responses to “Kerry takes a stance on something”

    1. Dean's World says:

      The Clear and Unequivocal Kerry

      Sean Kinsell notes that John Kerry is very clear on at least one issue. Sean thinks Kerry’s pretty on the money here, and so do I.

      Kerry’s also…

    2. Dean's World says:

      The Clear and Unequivocal Kerry

      Sean Kinsell notes that John Kerry is very clear on at least one issue. Sean thinks Kerry’s pretty on the money here, and so do I.

      Kerry’s also…

    3. Dean's World says:

      The Clear and Unequivocal Kerry

      Sean Kinsell notes that John Kerry is very clear on at least one issue. Sean thinks Kerry’s pretty on the money here, and so do I.

      Kerry’s also…

    4. Mark Adams says:

      And instead of saying one thing then saying something that seems contratictory and takes a lengthy explaination to clarify the first thing makes it sound like he said yet a third thing, I take it you would prefer someone like the President who says one thing and DOES another and remains deluded about the obvious results?

    5. Sean Kinsell says:

      Okay, Mark. I’m in a good mood, and I’ll play along: Are we talking about gay marriage or are we talking about the WOT, or the economy, or what?

    6. I just can’t resist the snark – Mark, is it late for you, are you mocking Bush’s pronunciations, or are you a lawyer who just can’t spell?

    7. Mark Adams says:

      I’m a Lawyer who just can’t spell after 2 am, You’ve known that for a while John…
      Here’s a tidbit, just what you ordered:
      The Note: Stepping up his attack on Bush’s national security record, Sen. John Kerry delivers a speech on “Fighting the War on Terrorism” at Temple University in Philadelphia, PA at 10:00 am ET. The speech is Kerry’s latest effort to argue the war in Iraq has been a distraction from the war on terrorism.

    8. Sean Kinsell says:

      Okay, so what would he do? I live abroad and have experience both with how one of our staunchest allies is implementing its security measures and with foreign perspectives on the WOT. I also, and perhaps more pertinently, take a good eight flights a year in and out of JFK, LAX, and SFO. My point is not that I’m a super-cosmopolite, only that whatever my weaknesses may be, I don’t think I’m insufficiently critical of the Bush administration’s approach to national security and the WOT.
      But I’m damned if I can get the slightest sense of what Kerry-Edwards’s “Stronger America” is going to mean in practice. I didn’t see anything at the ABC link that indicated that Kerry’s speech would explain it, either. It won’t be like America under Bush and Cheney–I think I get that part; but at this point, that’s not good enough.

    9. Greg D says:

      You shouldn

    10. Sean Kinsell says:

      Well, what it says in this interview is that he thought the MO amendment was virtually the same as the MA amendment–and that he was only later informed that it was more strict. That makes sense.

    11. Greg D says:

      So, what makes sense to you is that Kerry has such a crappy staff that no one could research the issue before hand and tell him what was happening?
      Or is it that Kerry’s such a panderer that you expect him to shoot his mouth off on local issues w/o firth figuring out what’s going on?
      I mean, it’s not like it was a surprise to the Kerry campaign that he was in MO, or that he was going to be there right after they voted on an anti gay marriage amendment. Right?
      IMHO, this kind of thing proves Kerry’s total lack of fitness to be President. He screws up on his own, and he doesn’t have a quality staff that can keep him on track.
      Everyone makes mistakes. That’s why you look at the kind of people a Presidential Candidate choses to have around him. Kerry, it appears, choses to have incompetent people around him. Either that, or he refuses to listen to them.
      Either is damning.

    12. Sean Kinsell says:

      This may sound weird, but, let me put it this way: I think making that mistake about that particular amendment is less telling as an isolated mistake than, say, not knowing the name of the local football and baseball teams at a given campaign stop. The latter information is simple and unchanging; the former is subtle enough that I think he can be forgiven for believing his staff when they said the amendment was comparable to that of his home state.
      Sure, it means his staff isn’t as eagle-eyed as one would hope. And in real terms, I agree that the Kerry campaign has made so many idiotic mistakes that it’s lost the benefit of the doubt. But of all the screw-ups a candidate could make, this one doesn’t strike me as particularly damning.

    13. Greg D says:

      If it was a no big deal issue, you would have a good point.
      But it’s Gay Marriage, an issue that’s generating a LOT of heat, where Congress is even voting on a Constitutional Amendment on the subject.
      Besides, the issue is pretty damn simple. Here’s the text of the initiative:
      Section A. Article 1, Constitution of Missouri, is amended by adding thereto one new section, to be known as section 33, to read as follows:
      Section 33. That to be valid and recognized in this state, a marriage shall exist only between a man and a woman.
      How hard is it to understand that, and then either support it or oppose it?

    14. Sean Kinsell says:

      You probably haven’t been keeping a vigil waiting for my response, but I’m sorry I missed your comment the other day.
      Maybe I’ve read different versions of the amendments from those that were ultimately considered. My understanding is that the MA proposals were worded to open the door to civil unions explicitly, while the MO proposal just didn’t. It’s possible that I’m just finding it easy to give Kerry and his staff the benefit of the doubt on this because, hell, I’m not planning to vote for him anyway. It still seems to me like a rather understandable oversight, though. Politicians–even those with training as lawyers–are always missing details in bills and having to correct what they said about this or that. It offends my punctilious sensibilities, but I just don’t think it’s an egregious error in the grand scheme of things.