Babbler # 3655
posted 24 June 2003 11:50 AM
OK, so nothing new here..he's been running for a while. Good speech though; read it here.
However I loved this bit of the news report:
Conservatives tend to see Vermont as some weird social laboratory, if not some place that we should have let Canada have long ago," said Gregory Sanford, the state archivist and historian. "But Dean could as easily argue that Vermont is what the United States was long ago: A place that values public participation and dialogue".
What about it, folks? Do we take Vermont now, or do we wait for them to come to us? Would we have to return the name to Mont Vert?
On a related note, he was quizzed on gay marriages on NBC (Meet the Press, host Tim Russert) on Sunday morning..here is the transcript.
Russert: Let me turn to an issue that you’ve been very identified with and that’s gay rights. Here you are on the cover of Advocate magazine, put out by the National Gay and Lesbian Newsmagazine. Canada—and this was the way the papers reported it this week: “The Canadian cabinet approved a new national policy today to open marriage to gay couples, paving the way for Canada to become the third country to allow same-sex unions. ...The policy opens the way for same-sex couples from the United States and around the world to travel here to marry, since Canada has no marriage residency requirements. Canadian marriage licenses have always been accepted in the United States.” And hundreds of American gay couples are now going to Canada to be married. When they return to the United States, married in Canada legally, should that marriage be recognized?
Dean: You know what we do in this country? We focus so much on gay marriage that I think we’ve missed the real point of what this debate is about, which is equal rights. As you know, in our state we have a civil unions statute which says that gay couples, while they can’t get married, have the same rights as everybody else, exactly the same rights—inheritance rights, insurance rights, hospital rights—that’s what this is all about. So the answer is, “Will I recognize the equal rights of people who get united in Canada, whether it’s married or anything else?” Yes. I think that it...
R:Yeah, but will you recognize them as a married couple, as President Dean? A couple is married in Canada, comes in the United States, legally married in Canada, are they legally married in the United States?
D: I can’t answer that question because it’s a legal question, but I can tell you what I will definitely do. I will definitely make sure they have exactly the same rights as married people, which is what we’ve done in Vermont. I can’t tell you about the marriage question. I think the answer probably is they are legally entitled to be recognized, but I don’t without—I’m not a lawyer and I don’t know the answer to that.
R: Would you—do you think they should be?
D: Well, that’s a very difficult issue. The position I’ve always taken is that it’s the church’s business to decide who they can marry and who they can’t marry.
R: Well, there’s civil marriage. A judge marries people in the United States.
D: We have civil unions in Vermont. I will recognize the legal—it’s the federal government’s and the states’ business to recognize the fact that everybody has the same legal rights as everybody else. That’s why we did civil unions. Marriage is also a way of getting those exact same legal rights, so the question is, “Is a marriage in another country recognized in this country here?” My guess is the answer is yes. I don’t know the answer, but I can tell you what I stand for. I stand for equal rights for every single American.
R: Would you seek...
D: And so the legal parts I would definitely support, then I’ve got to get some opinions about, you know, what we’re doing to the Catholic Church and other churches that oppose this kind of stuff. But I definitely believe that you have to recognize equal rights. So if a couple goes to Canada and gets married, when they come back, they should have exactly the same legal rights as every other American.
R: Would you, as president, seek the same kind of legislation that now has passed in Canada, allowing formally gays to marry?
D: No, because I don’t think that is the right of the federal government. I was very much opposed, unlike some of the folks I’m running against, to the Defense of Marriage Act. I did not support the Defense of Marriage Act, because I do not think it’s the federal government’s business to get involved in what has traditionally been the matter for the states to deal with. But by the same token, I would not tell other states that they had to have a civil union statute or that they had to have a marriage statute. That is the not the province of the federal government. What I will go as president of the United States is insist that every state find a way to recognize the same legal rights for gay couples as they do for everybody else. Equal rights under the law is a fundamental tenet of America, and that’s where we need to be.
(edited to tidy up transcript)
[ 24 June 2003: Message edited by: 4t2 ]
From: Beyond the familiar... | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged