Connect with us
"If we achieve civil unions. . . ."

archive

Reason #6:Kerry Won’t Defend Traditional Marriage

“If we achieve civil unions. . . .”

The presidential election of 2004 may be just as close as the presidential election of 2000. Once again, the outcome could be determined by a handful of votes in a single state.

Yet, the stakes in this election are enormous. While the vote margin between President Bush and Democratic candidate John Kerry may turn out to be small, the differences in where they intend to take the country are vast.

Kerry is the most liberal member of the U.S. Senate. But he has labored in this campaign–and especially at the Democratic National Convention in Boston–to hide his true beliefs and obscure his record.

In “The Case Against Kerry,” HUMAN EVENTS sets the record straight, unmasking the plain truth of what John Kerry has done in two decades in the U.S. Senate.

Click here to get the complete special report for FREE.

Kerry Won’t Defend Traditional Marriage

In what may be one of the most contentious social issues in the coming years–the defense of traditional marriage–John Kerry has decisively sided with the cultural left.

Although he says he opposes same-sex “marriage,” Kerry voted against the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) on Sept. 10, 1996, one of only 14 out of 100 senators to do so.

DOMA not only legally defined marriage for the federal government–saying it is only the union of one man and one woman–but also authorized states to refuse to recognize same-sex “marriages” performed in other states. It did not, however, prevent state legislatures from choosing on their own to legalize same-sex “marriages.” All 53 Republican senators voted for DOMA along with 32 Democrats, a solid majority of the Democratic caucus. The bill passed 85 to 14 and Democratic President Bill Clinton signed it.

After the state Supreme Judicial Court undemocratically imposed same-sex “marriage” on his home state of Massachusetts (the decision took effect on May 17 of this year), Kerry waffled on whether he supported a state constitutional amendment to overturn the decision. He finally settled on supporting one as long as it granted same-sex couples all the rights and benefits of marriage–that is, marriage in all but name. This is Kerry’s current position, but he has implied he may endorse same-sex “marriage” in the future.

Most recently, Kerry opposed the failed attempt to bring the Federal Marriage Amendment (FMA) to the Senate floor on July 14. Although he was too busy campaigning to appear in the Senate and vote against cloture on the amendment, he publicly announced his opposition against allowing a straight up-or-down vote on the amendment. The FMA would define marriage as between one man and one woman for the entire country.

‘If We Achieve Civil Unions. . . .’

“I do not want my feelings about, or opinions about, marriage or traditional marriage to be somehow tailored by political definitions. I am not for same-sex marriage. I have said that publicly. I would not vote for same-sex marriage. I do not believe that this vote is specifically about defending marriage in America. I am going to vote against this bill. I will vote against this bill, though I am not for same-sex marriage, because I believe that this debate is fundamentally ugly, and it is fundamentally political, and it is fundamentally flawed….This bill is not necessary. No state has adopted same-sex marriage….DOMA (The Defense of Marriage Act) is unconstitutional. There is no single member of the U.S. Senate who believes that it is within the Senate’s power to strip away the word or spirit of a constitutional clause by simple statute. DOMA would, de facto, add a section to our Constitution’s full faith and credit clause, Article IV, Section 1, to allow the states not to recognize the legal marriage in another state.”

–JOHN KERRY,
in a Senate floor speech opposing DOMA,
Sept. 10, 1996

“We believe it would be a grave error for Massachusetts to enshrine in our constitution a provision which would have such a negative effect on so many of our fellow residents.”

–JOHN KERRY with other Massachusetts
members on Congress, in a group letter to
the state legislature opposing a Massachusetts
state constitutional amendment to preserve marriage,
July 12, 2002 (as reported by AP on Feb. 11, 2004)

“The distinction is in a body of America that culturally, historically and religiously views marriage very differently. Marriage is viewed as a union between men and women, and that is a cultural historical view that I believe–that’s my position, and I believe in it….What I said was we need to achieve what we can, and then we will see where we are. It may well be that if we achieve civil unions, if we have leadership that advances the causes that I have described to you, that we may all of us progress as we have progressed in the last 15 years to a place where there is a different understanding of it.”

–JOHN KERRY, preparing for a future flip-flop,
at the Human Rights Campaign’s candidate forum,
when asked why he supported civil unions but not marriage,
July 15, 2003

“I think what ought to condition this debate is not the term ‘marriage’ as much as the rights that people are afforded. Obviously, under the Constitution of the United States, you need equal protection under the law, and I think equal protection means the rights that go with it. I think the word ‘marriage’ kind of gets in the way of the whole debate, to be honest with you, because marriage, to many people, is obviously what is sanctified by a church.”

–JOHN KERRY
National Public Radio,
Feb. 9, 2004

“The country is polarized because we have a President who is polarizing it. Look at what he did the other day with the constitutional amendment. He’s trying to divide America. He’s trying to divide America. This is a President who always tries to create a cultural war and seek the lowest common denominator in American politics, because he can’t come to America and talk about jobs. He can’t talk to America about health care, he doesn’t have the plan.”

–JOHN KERRY
Feb. 26, 2004

“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 marriage 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.”

–JOHN KERRY, in favor of a Massachusetts state
constitutional amendment to preserve the word
“marriage” while providing all its ‘rights’
to same-sex couples,
The Boston Globe,
Feb. 26, 2004

“I don’t support marriage among gays. I’ve said that many times. That was not my position. But I also don’t support the United States Senate being used for gay bashing, for, sort of, discriminatory efforts to try to drive wedges between the American people….And I think it was the politics of discrimination.”

–JOHN KERRY, speaking about DOMA after the
Massachusetts court announced a
“right” to same-sex marriage,
“Fox News Sunday,”
Jan. 25, 2004

Question: “If the Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional, isn’t President Bush right that the only way to guarantee that no state has to recognize a gay marriage performed in any other state is a federal constitutional amendment?”

Kerry: “No. In fact, I think the interpretation–I think under the full faith and credit clause that I was incorrect in that statement. I think in fact that no state has to recognize something that is against their public policy. And for 200 years we have left marriage up to the states. There is no showing whatsoever today that any state in the country, including my own which is now dealing with its own constitutional amendment, is incapable of dealing with what they would like to do.”

–JOHN KERRY, flip-flopping
on DOMA’s constitutionality
when asked about the FMA,
Feb. 26, 2004

“The floor of the United States Senate should only be used for the common good, not issues designed to divide us for political purposes. Throughout history, amending our Constitution–the foundation of the nation’s values and ideals–has been serious business. However, even Republicans concede that this amendment is being offered only for political gains. The unfortunate result is that the important work of the American people–funding our homeland security needs, creating new and better jobs, and raising the minimum wage–is not getting done. Had this amendment reached a final vote, I would have voted against it, because I believe that the American people deserve better than this from their leaders.”

–JOHN KERRY, indicating
opposition to the FMA
July 14, 2004
Ten Reasons John Kerry Should Not Be President

  • Reason #1: Kerry Will Raise Taxes
  • Reason #2: Kerry Will Massively Increase Spending
  • Reason #3: Kerry Opposed a Strong National Defense
  • Reason #4: Kerry Tried to Slash U.S. Intelligence
  • Reason #5: Kerry is a Pro-Abortion Extremist
  • Reason #6: Kerry Won’t Defend Traditional Marriage
  • Reason #7: Kerry, a Radical Environmentalist, Blocks Domestic Energy Production
  • Reason #8: Kerry Would Restrict 2nd Amendment Rights
  • Reason #9: Kerry Will Pack the Court With Activist Justices
  • Reason #10: Kerry is Senator Flip Flop
    ———-

    Get your FREE copy of the complete special report, “The Case Against Kerry.”

  • Written By

    Click to comment

    Leave a Reply

    Your email address will not be published.

    Advertisement
    Advertisement

    TRENDING NOW:

    Connect