Forums

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
I'll take your sarcasm, raise you by the truth, and end with the only possible logical conclusion. Dispute this:

1.)>>The president’s call for a constitutional amendment came under sharp criticism Tuesday night from Democratic presidential candidates Sens. John Kerry and John Edwards.

Both candidates reiterated their opposition to gay marriage during a California debate, but they also said the issue should be left up to the states to decide.
“He’s doing this because he’s in (political) trouble. ... He’s playing politics with the Constitution of the United States,” said Kerry, the front-runner for the nomination.<<

2.)>> ‘A problem that does not exist’
“This president is talking ... about amending the constitution for a problem that does not exist,” Edwards said.

Directly contradicting a claim made by Bush, Kerry also said the Constitution does not require states to recognize gay marriage licenses granted elsewhere in the country.
“I think, in fact, that no state has to recognize something that is against their public policy,” he said. And for two centuries, “we have left marriage up to the states.”<<


Conclusion: Uhm, full faith and credit?

Hello

ETA And before any asshole starts saying mean things, lplease note that I am opposed to mean things. Basically, opposed on a personal level? Because certainly not on a state level for any particular state, and he's certainly opposed to opposing it on a national level. Admit it man, John Kerry is for all things gay.

Kerry's position, I believe, is that he is against the Mass. Supreme Court decision opening marriage to gays and lesbians, and against the GOP-backed constitutional amendment. Others on this board have pointed out why the Full Faith and Credit Clause does not do what you seem to think it does.

Maybe things look differently from San Francisco, but John Kerry is no Gavin Newsome on these issues.