A high profile United States Senator recently gave an interview with the Washington Post. He spoke on the subject of equal marriage rights for gays and lesbians, and he stated this opinion: Who is this senator making such a baldly hypocritical statement. Surely a religious conservative, right? Rick Santorum? Bill Frist? Nope.

Try Massachusetts Senator and Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry.

In the interview, referenced in this article titled \"Evolution on Gay Marriage?\", Kerry did say that he was in favor of civil unions - but not equal marriage rights because the purpose of marriage is "procreation." That's it. Nothing about companionship or economics or property ownership or even love. Procreation. Guess that means that not only should gays be banned from marriage, but so should post-menopausal women and the infertile. Guess "civil unions" will just have to do for them, too.

For the record: 59 year old Kerry is in a childless marriage. He married a widow worth $700 million and they don't seem to have any intent to have children. I guess he's saying his marriage to the wealthy post-menopausal Teresa Heinz is a sham and should be made illegal (and thus not allow him to spend any ketchup money on his doomed presidential campaign).

[ July 15, 2003, 09:48 PM: Message edited by: Charlie in the Trees ]

No more BJ's for you, Senator!

I know some straight right wingers that used to live in my neighborhood, they were 85 and 82 respectively.They got married a few years ago after their first spouses died. They are vehmently anti gay.Same old line they spouted marriage is for procreation etc. etc.
When they got married at the age of 85 and 82, i asked them if they were going to have kids. They looked at me and said they were too old. I reminded them what they said that marriage is for procreation. That was the last conversation I had with them.
As for Kerry, cant anyone see that he is a gold digger with his second marriage?If a woman did that, she would never heear the end of it.

[ July 16, 2003, 05:51 AM: Message edited by: billybob ]

One more case of selective morality if you call it morals. It shocks me that kerry would be the one taking these views. Could he be a wolf in sheeps clothing?

Bravo on both points!

It was kind of sad to read HRC's summary of their candidates forum - they did the usual candidate issue questionnaire, and only Mosley-Braun, Sharpton and Kucinich outright supported gay marriage. I was dissappointed in the rest, even my man Dean, for not standing up more strongly. Most of the Candidates did a "I'm for equal rights, but don't call it marriage" tap dance (although Lieberman completely lost my vote when he said he would have to look at the 1,000 or so rights married str8s get under federal law to determine which should apply to gay couples).

Despite being a different country the counter-argument remains sound... didn't the Ontario Supreme Court rip the stupid notion that procreation=marriage to shreds?

Those of us in Massachusetts are getting antsy over the upcoming ruling by the Massachusetts Supreme Court on gay marriage. The ruling was expected on Monday, but did not come. Apparently, the court guidelines ask for rulings 130 days from oral arguments (which would have been Monday), but the court let the soft deadline pass without a ruling. I mention this because the procreation thing was part of the state's argument against gay marriage.

Of course the canucks saw the truth and clearly pointed out in their ruling that some gay couples have children and some married straight couples don't.

Kerry's being craven, that's the way I read it, but I do believe that even the Democrats who really DO support gay marriage or legally equalizing civil unions are too afraid to come out fully in favor of it for fear that they'll lose the moderates in the heartland states (Michigan, Minnesota, Illinois, Wisconsin) and Pennsylvania that they *need* in order to win the election. Not to excuse them, but I think it's one explanation for the hesitancy on this issue.

As the Pennsylvania response to Santorum showed, many voters in a state that would vote for a Democrat remain somewhat mixed on gay issues. And Democrats cannot win a national election if they do not win those upper midwest states as well as Maryland, Pennsylvania, etc.

i believe there was a ruling recently which disallowed kerry from using theresa's money. her money is in a trust, and was at the time of the marriage, and therefore, is not joint marital property. bottom line, she can make donations to his campaign subject to the same constraints as any other donor. d'oh!

As long as her "donation" is not in the form of a sex act that cannot result in conception... :mad:

Exquisite, GJ!

(One day, over a minty mint (was that redundant?) julep, I'll have to relay the story about the time I met with a certain House Representative to discuss the "arrangements of our affair" wherein he delineates my "benefits" (e.g., free access to a certain cafeteria, a good number of perks, and [probably] an "in" to other Senators/Repreentatives looking for "friendship and general relaxation).

- - - - -

In 2003? Sex for procreation only?!?!?!

I thought, as an atonement for the "scarlet" atrocities against Hester Prynne*, 17th-century American society had relinquished the idea of "sex, with the idea of infusing 'daddies' into American society"!! eek!


*My FAVORITE American classic, The Scarlet Letter

[ July 16, 2003, 12:10 PM: Message edited by: bluebird48234 ]

I actually could support this if people have to be tested for fertility before they are granted the right, and if they do not spawn within 5 years it is revoked! wink

If Mrs. Heinz-Kerry were to give birth, that would not be news for the nightly news. That would be the cover of the "weekly World News" along with "BatBoy eats a whole cow!"

seriously now...
I don't fault the guys who wanna hedge on the word "marriage". I say if the right wants to keep that word. Let 'em! If I have all the rights, priviliges and responsibilities as a het married couple, I don't care if you call it "Turnip". If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck etc etc...

We in the gay community need to remind ourselves that we're fighting for our RIGHTS here. Not for mere labels.

I agree with the turnip argument in principle, but in application a turnip will not be portable from state to state. Once a state permits gay marriage, DOMA will be targeted for being unconstitutional. Turnips and civil unions cannot challenge DOMA.

Unfortunately, a rose by another name is not as sweet.