Kerry Has a Right to his Opinion on Gay Marriage in MA
Editorial by IFK Editor
Recently Kerry has come under fire from the usual suspects (Boston Papers, ultra-liberals) and now gay rights groups for not siding with the Massachusetts Dem Party with respect to adding Gay Marriage to the Party plank.
First, lets get one thing straight. Kerry has ALWAYS said he supports civil unions and CIVIL RIGHTS for EVERYONE. He's done more on the issue of Gay Rights than most Senators combined.
I'm not from MA, so I don't know what the mood is there, but from the Midwest and other parts of the country, I'm not sure adding Gay Marriage to the Party plank is all that helpful, even to the Gay Rights groups who are now angry with Kerry.
For one thing, it plays into the critique of the Democratic Party as a whole. Oh look they just added another thing to their never ending to-do list of issues, rather than the clear mission statement Democrats need. Second, and Kerry would know a little something about this, it plays right into the hands of the Republican Party so they can demonize the Dem Party across the country in more conservative areas where we're trying to build in-roads at a national level.
I think one thing Kerry is definitely right on is his expression of the idea Civil Rights are for everyone, not just select groups. I think if the Dem Party made that more apparent all groups would eventually benefit and we could move past the divisive nature associated with particular segments of America.
Recently Kerry has come under fire from the usual suspects (Boston Papers, ultra-liberals) and now gay rights groups for not siding with the Massachusetts Dem Party with respect to adding Gay Marriage to the Party plank.
First, lets get one thing straight. Kerry has ALWAYS said he supports civil unions and CIVIL RIGHTS for EVERYONE. He's done more on the issue of Gay Rights than most Senators combined.
I'm not from MA, so I don't know what the mood is there, but from the Midwest and other parts of the country, I'm not sure adding Gay Marriage to the Party plank is all that helpful, even to the Gay Rights groups who are now angry with Kerry.
For one thing, it plays into the critique of the Democratic Party as a whole. Oh look they just added another thing to their never ending to-do list of issues, rather than the clear mission statement Democrats need. Second, and Kerry would know a little something about this, it plays right into the hands of the Republican Party so they can demonize the Dem Party across the country in more conservative areas where we're trying to build in-roads at a national level.
I think one thing Kerry is definitely right on is his expression of the idea Civil Rights are for everyone, not just select groups. I think if the Dem Party made that more apparent all groups would eventually benefit and we could move past the divisive nature associated with particular segments of America.
posted by i11ustrator at 7:40 AM
2 Comments:
John Kerry is correct to disagree with adding gay marriage to the Massachusetts Democratic Party Platform. This is an issue that many good Democrats are divided on because of religious beliefs. To make this part of a platform is to exclude many good Democrats on the basis of their religion. By not respecting Democrats of faith, the Party is pushing Democrats who have religious beliefs out of the party. And if you push away religious Democrats, where do you think they will go? From a practical standpoint, this is not a very smart thing to do.
From a civil rights perspective, including a gay marriage agenda in the platform amounts to taking sides with one group over another. It would be nice to be able to give gay couples the same civil rights as a married couple without altering the traditional intent of marriage. Marriage as an institution was constructed as a means of perpetuating the species. There are religious and secular reasons for marriage but they all revolve around procreation. Society protected the unions of people who wanted to bring children into the world with legal marriage. Not all couples have children, granted, but the institution was created for bringing children into this world. And all the world’s major religions have lots to say on this subject.
This issue is about respect and equality. I don't think that any "equality" that infringes on the rights of any other group can really be considered true equality. I'm female and I want equal rights and equal pay, but I don't feel that I should have to be able to lift 100 lbs over my head and run as fast as a male to be able to achieve this. Men are generally stronger and faster than women. So what? I don't feel any less of a human because I can't physically throw sacks of grain on a truck all day. (Some women do, but in general, men genetically have more physical strength. But women live longer.) I’ll be happy when jobs where women are competitive with men pay the same as MANual labor. Pay your cashiers (who stand on their feet all day) what you pay your ditch diggers and I’ll be content, thanks.
All I'm trying to say is: equality doesn't mean that you have to have exactly what someone else has as long as you have something just as good.
Ann
I've had a couple of posts on this at Light Up The Darkness and the Unofficial Kerry Blog.
The most recent comments on the latest round of Kerry bashing is at:
http://www.lightupthedarkness.org/blog/?view=plink&id=871
Post a Comment
<< Home