Senator John Kerry Covers For President Obama’s Ever "Evolving" Same Sex Marriage Position

Senator John Kerry today wrote an Op-Ed piece for the Boston Globe for one reason and one reason alone.  To cover for President Barack Obama’s ever “evolving” position on same sex marriage.

Writes Kerry:

“Marriage is deeply personal – our positions are based on unique combinations of reason, belief, and experience, not polling and politics. Everyone is entitled to his own view, in his own time, including the president.”

After reading this article I am actually glad that Kerry LOST his presidential bid because no where in his article does he state that elected officials are there to do whats “just and right for the American people” and follow and fight for constitutional rights that the law demands even though they might not believe in them personally.

We are now not only battling the religious right and the Republicans but we are allowing the President of the United States and the DNC to make same sex marriage a “phony debate about a real issue” who are reinforcing an opinion  that polls & personal beliefs are somehow MORE relevant than 14th Amendment (equality under law) & separation of church & state just to pander to a part of America that will never vote for Obama anyway while spitting in the face at the gay and lesbian community at same time.

No one better that the  President, the child of a mixed-race marriage & student of Constitutional Law, should understand better than anyone the legal question of second-class status. And just for the fact that he doesn’t and/or refuses to.

President Obama, same sex marriage is not about your personal opinion.  It’s about whats right according to the constitution.

Barack Obama is entitled to his own views and personal beliefs.  But not PRESIDENT Barack Obama of the United States of America.

Check that at the White House door.

1 thought on “Senator John Kerry Covers For President Obama’s Ever "Evolving" Same Sex Marriage Position

  1. And as the traditional definition of marriage is challenged, then so comes the corollary inquiry into the right to form polygamous unions.

    After all, in America, we already practice serial monogamy — typically one or both spouses engaging in clandestine extramarital affairs. Most marriages in this country suffer or simply don't last because of spousal infidelity. That doesn't seem to suggest we're upholding some virtuous pillar of society by maintaining these morally corrupt, albeit monogamous, wedlock vows. Why should only TWO people marry when as news headlines clearly prove, we as a society do not even favor two person marriages?

    I would argue that the unjust social structures and potential economic failure that certain experts posit of polygamy are moreso the result of third-world countries that legally inhibit women's equal rights (in workplace, housing, politics, etc.) rather than any substantive shortcoming of plural romantic unions.

    In the past century, where in the world has polygamy even been practiced that it has proven socially or economically non-viable and/or destructive? I am unaware of any real-world "test" of government-endorsed plural romantic unions in a modernized, fast-paced, non-third world country analogous to America where communication and information technology in the service sector is a chief source of family income. It would seem that a household with multiple spouses of any gender, particularly in a nation that already supports non-descrimination on the basis of birth-assigned sex, could prove to be a significant benefit NOT a burden to our nation.

    We must abolish all discrimination inherent in America's irrational marriage model if we are to progress toward full social equality.


What do you think?

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.