John Kerry Rips Apart the Defense of Marriage Act
Published July 10, 2009 @ 01:24PM PT
Here's a fast fact about John Kerry: In 1996, during what was his most competitive U.S. Senate campaign ever, Kerry was the only Senator up for re-election to vote against the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). Kerry even outdid Senator Paul Wellstone on the vote, who is long considered one of the most progressive faces to ever land on Capitol Hill.
Fast forward thirteen years later, and Sen. Kerry is back again with blasts against DOMA. Today it comes in the form of a statement supporting Martha Coakley, Massachusetts's Attorney General, who filed a lawsuit on behalf of the state against the U.S. goverment, challenging the Defense of Marriage Act. We wrote about the lawsuit earlier this week, but essentially Coakley's lawsuit says the U.S. government, by following DOMA, is discriminating against the more than 16,000 same-sex couples married in Massachusetts by unfairly denying them federal benefits.
Kerry's statement today takes the cake. Here it is:
In 1996, I voted against the so-called Defense of Marriage Act not just because I believed it was nothing more than a fundamentally political ploy to divide Americans, but because it is unconstitutional. Thirteen years later, I still defy you to find a single Senator who can credibly argue that it is within the Senate’s power to strip away the word or spirit of a constitutional clause by simple statute. DOMA should never have passed and should never have become the law of the land. Unconstitutional and fundamentally unfair, today the human cost is especially clear and compelling. Denying same sex couples the same rights and protections under the law as enjoyed by opposite sex couples has absolutely nothing to do with defending marriage. This lawsuit is a necessary step in ensuring everyone in Massachusetts can live their lives and raise their families secure in the knowledge that their commitment to each other doesn’t make them any less an American than their heterosexual families, friends and neighbors.
Of course, Kerry's statement has broader implications beyond the borders of Massachusetts. The truth is that DOMA denies federal benefits to gay and lesbian couples married in all six states that recognize marriage equality (Mass., Connecticut, Iowa, Vermont, New Hampshire, and Maine).
Now here's wondering if Senator Kerry would be willing to add his name to the growing list of Senators who favor marriage equality.
Facebook
Twitter
Digg
StumbleUpon
EmailRelated Posts
-
The Defense of Marriage Act Will be Seen as the Dred Scott Decision of Our Time
-
Same-Sex Marriage is Still Inevitable
-
Gay Marriage Seems to be Helping Straight Marriage
Comments (14)
Comments on Change.org are meant for further exploration and evaluation of the ideas covered in the posts. To that end, we welcome constructive comments. However, we reserve the right to delete comments that are offensive, abusive, or off-topic; that contain ad hominem attacks; or that are designed to subvert or hijack comment threads rather than contribute to them. Repeat offenders may be permanently removed from the site at our discretion.
Author
-
Michael Jones is a Change.org Editor.
He is the former Communications Director for the Human Rights Program at Harvard Law School, as well as the former Director of Communications for Pax Christi USA, a national Catholic peace and justice organization. Mike is a graduate of Syracuse University's S.I. Newhouse School of Public Communications and he is also a proud sketch comedy writer.
Top Gay Rights Actions
-
-
-
Don't Let Ex-Gay Propaganda in Public Schools
1161 People
-
Don't Let Ex-Gay Propaganda in Public Schools
It's great that John Kerry has released a very good statement against the intolerant DOMA and that he voted against it, which was over a decade ago. DOMA has no choice but to be repealed, thus it's great that John Kerry has stated that DOMA is an obstruction to LGBT equality and that same-sex couples must receive federal benefits because any less is unjustified. Hopefully, President Obama should have been on John Kerry's side, thus I hope Martha Coakley wins.
Posted by Edwin Bonilla on 07/10/2009 @ 02:46PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Seems to me like theres a high probability of him being all for equality judging from his words in the above article.
By and by...How come the "like" icon disappeared ?
Posted by Reverend Boony on 07/10/2009 @ 02:52PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
I've never thought of Sen. Kerry as anything other than 'all for equality'.
Posted by Donn Coon on 07/10/2009 @ 04:25PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
For those of you (me included) social conservatives who have a care for reason and true freedom (insofar as that can be found in a civil sense), take not of this quote:
"I voted against the so-called Defense of Marriage Act not just because I believed it was nothing more than a fundamentally political ploy to divide Americans..."
Understand, that politicians posed as the defender of our beliefs in order to gain power from us. Our beliefs do not require a defense from secular leaders and any such attempt to do so is at best misguided and more likely just politicians and others using our beliefs to their own ends.
When we seek to express our beliefs through the power of the state, we pervert the state and our beliefs. The power of the state in this matter should be limited to guaranteeing my right to my beliefs and others to theirs.
Let us stop allowing some to gain power by denying civil rights to others. Understand that the "conservative movement" became (maybe it always was) a wolf in sheeps clothing led by hypocrites who were not moral or conservatives.
I also caution those who disagree with my personal values to not allow others to do the same to them. As Americans we must defend each others' civil rights in order to preserve our own.
Posted by William Brown on 07/10/2009 @ 04:46PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
You NEVER cease to amaze me. Do you live in California by chance? I would LOVE for you to oust Dianne Feinstein in 2012! Sorry 2010 is too close, that and I don't want to lose Barbara Boxer. It is either William Brown or Arnold Schwarzenegger (and I really don't want Arnold - but I definitely want Feinstein GONE!) :)
Posted by Dave Hershey on 07/10/2009 @ 05:21PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
I live in New Mexico. As to a run for office I have no desire...I believe I do more by trying to get people to give a deeper consideration to their positions and ideas. This should be a constant and ongoing process.
Posted by William Brown on 07/10/2009 @ 11:12PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
We have a great chance of having a Democrat for Governor to replace Arnold next year at least even of Feinstein isn't voted out.
Posted by Martin Martinez on 07/11/2009 @ 05:35AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
How much more of a Democrat could Arnold be? He is taking jobs from the middle/lower-middle class, and making sure no one collecting AFDC has to suffer.
As far as John Kerry goes.......He's a career politician, (aka,) career liar.
Posted by L.S. hope on 07/11/2009 @ 09:55PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
" today the human cost is especially clear and compelling. Denying same sex couples the same rights and protections under the law as enjoyed by opposite sex couples has absolutely nothing to do with defending marriage".
Absolutely correct. Thank you Mr. Kerry.
Posted by Lee Dorsey on 07/11/2009 @ 12:40PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
To add to that lee the APA states that denying LGBT their full equal rights causes emotional and psychological harm to them, and there is no scientific evidence, reasonable, or logical conclusion that preventing homosexuality to be see as it is, "normal," will harm anyone, even though vehemently opposed to inclusion for LGBT. When the world gets off their high horse of politics and religion what remains is reality. Science, not religious science fiction, is reality, let us not hope but remind people what is real and what is mere opinion.
Posted by Chris Marshall on 07/11/2009 @ 09:04PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
My argument on the word marriage........
If they can add a word like, ginormous to the dictionary, when there are plenty of synonyms to describe something that is: giant, enormous, huge, gargantuan, colossal, vast....
Why in the heck can't they just define marriage, as a union between two people?....Jeez!
Posted by L.S. hope on 07/11/2009 @ 10:13PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
My argument on the word marriage........
If they can add a word like, ginormous to the dictionary, when there are plenty of synonyms to describe something that is: giant, enormous, huge, gargantuan, colossal, vast....
Why in the heck can't they just define marriage, as a union between two people?....Jeez!
Posted by L.S. hope on 07/11/2009 @ 10:13PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Although I don't personally define marriage that way, I strongly believe that the civil authority should. It is not for the government to enforce my beliefs.
Everyone of us can privately define marriage as we see fit, so long as we have the right to do so guaranteed and protected.
Civil authorities have no place in validating people's belief systems, only protecting them. Insofar as a government regulates my marriage, it is a civil issue only, the rest of it needs to be decided by private and free citizens.
Laws like DOMA are little more than wedge issues.
Posted by William Brown on 07/12/2009 @ 10:28AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Would he go rally with us on October 11 in DC?
I want to know which politicians will?
Posted by Peter Tantakarn on 07/13/2009 @ 11:43PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.