« Four Sought in Gang Rape of Lesbian in San Francisco's East Bay |
Main
| IL Governor Rod Blagojevich Captured with His Pants Down »
12/22/2008
Caroline Kennedy Supports Full Marriage Rights for Gays and Lesbians
Politico submitted eight questions to Caroline Kennedy, among them her position on marriage equality. Kennedy's answer:
"Caroline supports full equality and marriage rights for gay and lesbian couples."
She gave a similar answer to the NYT, which reports that her bid to replace Senator Hillary Clinton is in full swing.
CBS News on Kennedy's chances, AFTER THE JUMP...
Posted 8:45 AM EST by Andy Towle in Caroline Kennedy, David Paterson, Gay Marriage, Hillary Clinton, New York, News | Permalink
Like it?
Subscribe to FREE Towleroad daily headlines with our RSS feed!
RECENT STORIES:
Comments
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
Sure she can support gay marriage and gay rights but what has she done to earn the post other than wait for Hilary to vacate and make a passionate play based on an absence. But has she made a statement condemning the actions of her counterparts to squash gay marriage
In a backroom deal that Democrats are somehow hailing as a breakthrough, anti-gay Sen. Pedro Espada Jr. will become Majority Leader of the New York Senate. One of the "Gang Of Three" dissident Democrats that had threatened to hand the leadership over to the GOP, Espada opposes same-sex marriage and wants to the issue put to voters in a referendum.
Under the GOP, marriage equality was not allowed to come to a vote in the Senate. With Espada at the helm, even with the Democrats running the show, it is now definite that we will not see a vote on marriage equality in the next session. (via Joe My God)
Yes her name carries clout and recognition but is that enough. There seems to be a favor here and a favor there going on within New York and other cities with the vacancies being created due to Obama's win.
But she has not voted in years that right Ms. Kennedy has not voted
Caroline Kennedy, who is seeking to succeed Senator Hillary Clinton, has not voted in a number of elections, including at least one race for the job she's seeking. The Democrat registered at her current address on Manhattan's Upper East Side in 1988. According to city Board of Elections records, she missed Democratic mayoral primaries in 1989, 1993, 1997, and 2005. She also missed the 2002 gubernatorial primary and general election, when Democrat H. Carl McCall lost to Republican incumbent George Pataki. She skipped the 1994 general election, when Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan was running for reelection for the same seat she hopes to take over if Clinton is confirmed as secretary of state. (via Joe My God)
I just do not believe that this is how it should work. Ms. Kennedy is banking on her name, her gender and other similarities to Ms. Clinton to warrant a seat.
If she wants it so badly the election is coming up in a few years therefore at that time she should spend time and money to make it happen rather than sliding in due to an absence.
Ultimately, however, Ms. Kennedy must satisfy only a single voter: Mr. Paterson, who has sole discretion over who to appoint to Mrs. Clinton’s seat.
Posted by: Charles | Dec 22, 2008 9:24:05 AM
I hear she's also opposed to drowning kittens.
But what on earth does that have to do with whether the woman has done a single thing to earn her a Senate seat?
Good grief.
Posted by: KipEsquire | Dec 22, 2008 9:41:02 AM
Not even to earn her senate seat, but what has she actually done to promote marriage equality? Actions, not words.
Posted by: Chuck | Dec 22, 2008 9:53:00 AM
I think the past year's presidential race has put way too much emphasis on a person's "qualifications" for a job. I think it is FAR more important to ask for someone's qualifications to be president than for a job such as this. There are TONS of very successful US Senators who came to the senate lacking political experience. Are the same people above rooting for Al Franken in the still-to-be-decided senate race? is that hypocrisy? IMHO, Arnold Schwarzeneggar is one of the best, if not the best governor in the union. What "qualifications" did he have? In the US Senate I think we should be more concerned with if we trust the person running to use their vote in a way that we can support.
I don't live in New York, but I know I would rather have Caroline Kennedy as my state's senator than Saxby Chambliss, despite his being "qualified" for the job.
Posted by: Dan B | Dec 22, 2008 10:00:51 AM
Constitutional law degree
2 books on the bill of rights and privacy
has helped raise millions!!!! upon millions for NY public schools
has sat on the board of many a charity learning management skills
An actual NY citizen
A fundraising aparatus at her disposal (yeah her name and family connections) that can ensure a 2010 win against any repub challenger
A staffing apparatus that would see her with the 2nd best if nor tied for best staff up on the hill (yes her name and family connections)
Please pray tell what qualifications she is lacking for the spot.
-----------------------
On her support for gay marriage = no surprise there. Uncle Teddy has been a vocal supporter of us gays since the freaking 70's, and 1 of ONLY 5 senators to announce public support for gay marriage.
Posted by: Jimmyboyo | Dec 22, 2008 10:26:42 AM
PS
charles
on voting on a regular basis....bush and cheney are known to have voted on a regular basis and that makes them qualified politicos? 8 yrs proves otherwise
Posted by: Jimmyboyo | Dec 22, 2008 11:16:59 AM
I'm not a NY voter. Then again, I'm a DC voter, and since I can't vote for *any* Senators or Congressmen, I feel somehow qualified to offer an opinion on this one ...
I, for one, hope that Gov. Paterson gives Caroline Kennedy the job. That she's never held elected office in the past does not mean that she lacks the qualities necessary to be an outstanding Senator.
It's for this reason that the "Sarah Palin has more executive experience than Obama, Biden, and McCain put together." Her experience didn't make her QUALIFIED for the job she was running for. Obama lacked "experience," but had the QUALITIES that America was looking for. And so does Caroline Kennedy.
Are there others out there with the same qualities? Undoubtedly ... but as JimmyBoyo states, her name guarantees a competitive run in 2010, even while it makes some voters naturally mistrust her (see above). And her support for full marriage equality (and her willingness to state that support so succinctly) certainly doesn't hurt her case.
Posted by: Red Seven | Dec 22, 2008 11:58:04 AM
The Kennedy Clan basically supports same-sex marriage. That was the change articulated by Ted Kennedy in 2003. And since then, most of the family have closed ranks around that position.
Maria Shriver was much more vocal in her opposition to Prop. 8 than husband Arnold. Rep. Patrick Kennedy called the Pope's stance on same-sex marriage "bigotry," which is about as far as I've seen any Catholic go.
These are people who, despite their wealth and privilege, have been consistently ahead of the curve on progressive issues. To the extent that we disapprove of "royalty" in this country, the Kennedys are as close as it gets. And I must say I'd rather have those royals than the Windsors.
Posted by: John in CA | Dec 22, 2008 12:18:18 PM
Enough with the Kennedy dynasty and personality politics. What is this, Pakistan? In these terrible times, we need COMPETENCE.
Posted by: Tim | Dec 22, 2008 12:23:49 PM
Sign me up.
Seriously, people have so many purist thoughts about politics... as well as double standards. If it doesn't go to CK, it's going to go to Cuomo... who, like CK, is only there for his family name and connections... and is a lot less progressive on issues the progressive community would care about (that said, I don't know his position on gay marriage, but I DO know the Kennedy's support us big time, both in actions and in words).
Being Senator isn't like being President or Governor or even the Mayor of NY. There's little need for executive experience. You want someone who can run an office - and I'm sure Uncle Teddy will make sure her office is top notch, as his office has always been the best. That's it.
The rest comes down to being an intelligent advocate, being able to raise money and having the right position on the issues. CK has those in abundance. She'll be a liberal senator who's exceptionally intelligent and, better yet, will be able to inspire potentially millions to help get the best part of the Democratic agenda through, from health care to civil rights to fixing the economy. At every level, this appointment makes absolute sense - and the voters will have two years to appraise her efforts on the job before the vote on her reelection, should she be appointed.
Posted by: Ryan | Dec 22, 2008 12:32:14 PM
I'd like to see Kennedy get this seat
Posted by: KFLO | Dec 22, 2008 12:42:38 PM
Add on
She has shown savy political prowse or at least a ready ear to take advice from Uncle ted.
Her open and early support of Obama shores up the NY AA dem voting bloc and now her public endorsement of gay marriage shores up the NY gay dem voting bloc. A winning coalition against any dem primary challengers.
---------------------
An article over at Huffpo points out
The Whole Kenedy clan being white and privilege never the less were at the forefront of civil rights for African Americans, forefront on immigration reform and worker rights in support of Latin Americans, and though straight are at the fore front on gay rights.
So true. Caroline would be a great progressive voice in the Senate a winner for NY and everybody else
Posted by: Jimmyboyo | Dec 22, 2008 1:35:24 PM
PS TIM
funny you bring up pakistan.
Dynasty politics Uncle TED basicaly single handidly saved the people of Bangladesh from genocide at the hands of Pakistan. The US was selling arms to Pakistan which was using them to wipe out Bangladesh and trying to expand their territory. Ted Kenedy was the lone voice pointing out the problem and fighting against it. He is praised as a hero by all people of Bangladesh and still forbiden entry to pakistan.
:-)
Posted by: Jimmyboyo | Dec 22, 2008 1:38:46 PM
It's always amazing to me how quickly and easily the average voter will swallow political double speak hook, line and sinker. Politicians, and their handlers, are EXTREMELY careful with what they say and how they say it so that they will be able to deny they said a certain thing (based on a technicality) later.
I think this is a perfect example of people hearing what they WANT to hear rather than LISTENING to what is actually being SAID.
Caroline's spokesperson said, "Caroline supports full equality and marriage rights for gay and lesbian couples."
That sentence structure was not a mistake.
She didn't say she supported "marriage equality" and she didn't say that she supported "gay marriage". She said that she supported "full equality" AND "marriage RIGHTS" for gay and lesbian couples. Does anyone other than me hear and recognize the difference? This sounds a lot like a person parsing words to make "I support civil unions with the full rights of marriage for gays" sound like "I support marriage equality" or "I support gay marriage".
She may very well support marriage equality but she's going to have to make a clear, STRAIGHT FORWARD, no double-speak statement for me to feel sure of it.
Posted by: Zeke | Dec 22, 2008 11:03:49 PM
Skilled politicians usually say "I support granting gays and lesbians all of the rights of marriage through civil unions" (see Hillary and Barack).
They rarely ever use "marriage rights" by itself precisely because it can easily get them embroiled in accusations of flip-flopping. It sounds too much like the right to marry. Either this is an amateur mistake on the part of a political rookie. Or she actually meant it.
Regardless, it has been reported as "Caroline Kennedy Supports Gay Marriage" on mainstream sites like Politico, Huffington Post, and Congressional Quarterly. To issue a retraction at this point would be very unwise indeed. Gov. Paterson would not look kindly upon having to explain that one. And it would expose her inexperience for all to see.
Whether she was sincere or not, the cat's out of the bag on this one. She's stuck with it now.
Posted by: John in CA | Dec 23, 2008 3:08:17 AM