Kerry: No to gay marriage, no to illegal immigrant licenses
Kerry: No license for you!
Running across a couple news pages today I saw this little link about Kerry taking a position on illegal immigration and driver's licenses. While attempting to further research Kerry's position on this a bit further searches turned up one thing that I already knew, that Kerry does not support gay marriage, but does support civil unions, and two that Kerry no longer believes the Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional.
So we are stuck with a couple of questions, if Kerry believes driver's licenses for illegal immigrants are wrong, will he use federal intervention to prevent them from being issued based off his concerns. Secondly, if he doesn't believe that states can individually determine who they should allow to drive, why does he believe they should be allowed to determine who should marry? Certainly the right to drive is no less fundamental than the right to marry.
Kerry also seems to have taken a sort of odd, tightrope type position on gay marriage. DOMA is no longer unconstitutional according to him. So even if states were to grant marriage licenses to homosexuals, it would prevent federal recognition for issues like Social Security. He opposes gay marriage, but also opposes a constitutional amendment. What do you think is his true position among all these conflicting positions?
Nick
Running across a couple news pages today I saw this little link about Kerry taking a position on illegal immigration and driver's licenses. While attempting to further research Kerry's position on this a bit further searches turned up one thing that I already knew, that Kerry does not support gay marriage, but does support civil unions, and two that Kerry no longer believes the Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional.
So we are stuck with a couple of questions, if Kerry believes driver's licenses for illegal immigrants are wrong, will he use federal intervention to prevent them from being issued based off his concerns. Secondly, if he doesn't believe that states can individually determine who they should allow to drive, why does he believe they should be allowed to determine who should marry? Certainly the right to drive is no less fundamental than the right to marry.
Kerry also seems to have taken a sort of odd, tightrope type position on gay marriage. DOMA is no longer unconstitutional according to him. So even if states were to grant marriage licenses to homosexuals, it would prevent federal recognition for issues like Social Security. He opposes gay marriage, but also opposes a constitutional amendment. What do you think is his true position among all these conflicting positions?
Nick
Comments
When you say "DOMA" do you mean the law he voted for in the 90s? He now believes that's not unconstitutional? That doesn't make any sense. Or are you talking about the FMA - the proposed constitutional amendment that Bush backed? And if so, how can a constitutional amendment be unconstitutional? Maybe you could provide a link with a source that explains what you're talking about.
Originally posted by BRussell
The article you linked says he opposes the driver's license laws but wouldn't interfere with states who want to do it. That sounds like basic federalism to me.
When you say "DOMA" do you mean the law he voted for in the 90s? He now believes that's not unconstitutional? That doesn't make any sense. Or are you talking about the FMA - the proposed constitutional amendment that Bush backed? And if so, how can a constitutional amendment be unconstitutional? Maybe you could provide a link with a source that explains what you're talking about.
Good call BRussell, I had missed that bit.
Kerry spokesman David Wade said Wednesday that Kerry thinks it is a state responsibility to decide who gets a driver's license. Wade said Kerry would not support any federal efforts to stop states from giving them to illegal immigrants.
As for DOMA, I mean the defense of marriage act. Kerry voted no on it and stated that he thought it was unconstitutional. He later said he no longer things it is unconstitutional.
Kerry on Civil Rights
Voted NO on prohibiting same-sex marriage.
The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA): Vote to prohibit marriage between members of the same sex in federal law, and provide that no state is required to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states. Define 'marriage' as 'between one man and one woman
Bill HR 3396 ; vote number 1996-280 on Sep 10, 1996
Then these is this at the beginning.
Supports federal DOMA, but not Massachusetts DOMA
Q: You say you oppose gay marriage. You also oppose the federal constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. Do you think other states should have to recognize a gay marriage performed in Massachusetts?
KERRY: I said very clearly that I believe that marriage is between a man and a woman. But notwithstanding that belief, there was no issue in front of the country when that was put before the US Senate.
Q: You also said that you believe the Defense of Marriage Act was fundamentally unconstitutional.
KERRY: I was incorrect in that statement. I think, in fact, that no state has to recognize something that is against their public policy. For 200 years, we have left marriage up to the states.
Q: So would you support the Massachusetts Defense of Marriage Act?
KERRY: No, because the Defense of Marriage Act is the law of the land today.
Nick
www.votenader.org
Originally posted by trumptman
As for DOMA, I mean the defense of marriage act. Kerry voted no on it and stated that he thought it was unconstitutional. He later said he no longer things it is unconstitutional.
Oh that's right he did vote against it. It's hard to keep track of this guy.
Originally posted by Existence
www.votenader.org
Has anyone checked the registration for that site to see if it belongs to the RNC?
Originally posted by Existence
These positions add more evidence to the fact that there is no difference between Bush and Kerry. Either will be calamitous to the working people and marginalized groups of this country.
www.votenader.org
As much as I've liked some of your posts Nader can't win against Bush. And on many issues we already know what Bush is capable of.
If there was a less dangerous republican in office I'd say : " Let's give Nader a chance " ( I'm registered independant so that should tell you something ). But right now 4 more years of Bush sounds pretty bad.
Originally posted by trumptman
[BCertainly the right to drive is no less fundamental than the right to marry.[/B]
Driving is a privilege, not a right.
Originally posted by audiopollution
Driving is a privilege, not a right.
Marriage and driving are both licensing issues.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
Marriage and driving are both licensing issues.
Nick
In the official sense both are privileges.
It's the smart thing to do. The gay rights people will still vote for him and he can pick up the masses of republican switchers who actually think this is an issue worthy of a constitutional amendment.
Kerry is just trying to get votes at this point. He will probably flip flop when he is in office.
So Kerry, the notorious flip flopper, who will say anything anybody wants to hear (now where have I heard that before.... oh yeah, whaddaya know, Al Gore!) takes a principled stand on drivers licenses for illegal immigrants that will definitely play badly with the hispanic constituency he must carry by a wide margin to win the election and this is evidence of.....what? His bad character?
Originally posted by trumptman
Marriage and driving are both licensing issues.
Nick
Yes, but you have to pass vision, written and road tests to get a driver's license.
Plus, if your driving is sketchy, you can be asked to pass a breathalyzer or in some cases blood test.
Too many points for bad driving and you lose your license.
Marriage may have analogues.
Originally posted by addabox
Hmmm....
So Kerry, the notorious flip flopper, who will say anything anybody wants to hear (now where have I heard that before.... oh yeah, whaddaya know, Al Gore!) takes a principled stand on drivers licenses for illegal immigrants that will definitely play badly with the hispanic constituency he must carry by a wide margin to win the election and this is evidence of.....what? His bad character?
Yes so in just a few threads Kerry has been called a flip-flopper, a notorious liberal and a hardliner.
Who is flip-flopping now?
Originally posted by Anders
Yes so in just a few threads Kerry has been called a flip-flopper, a notorious liberal and a hardliner.
Who is flip-flopping now?
A simple question. Given this is the only other real choice would you rather have Bush for another 4 years?
Originally posted by jimmac
A simple question. Given this is the only other real choice would you rather have Bush for another 4 years?
Is the question related to the quoted post?
Originally posted by buckeye
George Bush is making gay marriage an election year topic. The polls say overwhelmingly that the majority of people in the US don't want it to be legal. Therefore Kerry is going with the people on this one.
It's the smart thing to do. The gay rights people will still vote for him and he can pick up the masses of republican switchers who actually think this is an issue worthy of a constitutional amendment.
Kerry is just trying to get votes at this point. He will probably flip flop when he is in office.
Bush isn't making it an election year issue. If anything he wants to stay far away from it. It only came up because of decisions in Mass, and actions in California, Oregon, etc.
Bush signed onto the Constitutional amendment but supported the weakest version out of all of them floating out there.
I don't think Bush wants this issue played up, even if polls show he would gain from it. I haven't seen Bush devote any advertising, press releases nor anything else to this issue.
Nick
Originally posted by addabox
Hmmm....
So Kerry, the notorious flip flopper, who will say anything anybody wants to hear (now where have I heard that before.... oh yeah, whaddaya know, Al Gore!) takes a principled stand on drivers licenses for illegal immigrants that will definitely play badly with the hispanic constituency he must carry by a wide margin to win the election and this is evidence of.....what? His bad character?
Actually it is interesting because his and Bush's positions are pretty much the same. Offer up various forms of amnesty for the current illegals here, etc and offer better goodies in the future.
I didn't draw any conclusions about Kerry off this info, I just tossed some questions out. I'm not using it to label him, but to bring about a discussion. If anything, I am interested in why both parties have so much agreement on this issue. As you said both are trying to gain the Hispanic vote. Also Bush's plan drew nothing but massive criticism from all sectors of his own party.
What do Bush and Kerry know that we don't?
Nick
Originally posted by Anders
Is the question related to the quoted post?
I was trying to understand what you were saying.
Just exactly what you were getting at.
He can pretend for now, not piss off too many potential Bush voters, say the right things, get elected, then flip flop and enact the things he really wants to have happened.
Problem?