Hold on a minute. Both of them are "personally against SSM," and yet they think it is a "basic human right?!?" I cannot see how you resolve THIS contradiction either, unless you want to defend being personally against a basic human right! That's just bizarre.

Great point.

Score one for George Bush.

You may disagree with him, but he has the courage of his convictions.

Talk about a double take! When the browser window opened, I saw, "Both of them are personally against S&M"!! For just that split second I was wondering what kind of debate questions they were asking here in CA!

I'm glad everyone's left the office, or they'd be giving me those looks right about now...

This is all just an after-affect of that "personally opposed" position on abortion...I believe, by the way, that John Kerry holds to that formulation (its a Catholic hypocrit sort of thing; you know, try to keep in good with both the Pope and Naral...fortunately, I don't have that particular problem). Anyways, its no more absurd to be "personally opposed" to abortion but unwilling to work against it than it is to be opposed to SSM but think that its a human right...

Hypocrisy, thy name is Democrat.

I can think of one circumstance where one can be "personally opposed" to something, and yet not support public action against it: If you believe that the only means available to fight it would be at least ambiguously detrimental, in and of themselves. IOW, you can't think of anything to do about it that wouldn't be as bad or worse.

Somehow, I don't think thats the problem Kerry and Edwards have.

Meta,

Precisely - and a case in point to illustrate if Governor Jeb Bush of FL...I was living in FL in 1994 when he ran his first (losing) campaign for governor...they hit him on the abortion issue. His answer was perfection - opposed to it, but the FL constution allows it and there isn't at the time the political ability to ban it, so its a non-issue vis a vis the current campaign. I don't see what is so hard about calling something you don't like bad, even if you can't immediately do anything about it.

It would behoove both gentlemen to say, "Presidents have no formal role in the Constitutional amendment process. It is mostly an argument for the states and for the Congress to handle. That is not a President's job, for Presidents don't have any part in passing or rejecting amendments."

Then, "I'm not sure how I feel about it, to be honest, but I do wonder if an amendment is really necessary."

Which seems like a perfectly adequate and defensible way to get out of the matter, if they don't want to formally oppose or get behind it. Quite defensible, really.

I call this tactic "winking opposition". They pretend to be opposed to something, in order to hang onto moderates, but "wink, wink" don't worry, gays, we won't let you down....

I don't know - I think Kerry, at least, is being quite consistent. Consistent, that is, with his waffling on all kinds of issues. You can count on Kerry to be consistently inconsistent. He's so sophisticated that he's gone from simple consistency on to "meta-consistency." Or is it "meta-inconsistency?" Hmmm. I guess I just don't know.

Dang. Now I've gone and confused myself. See, that's what happens when people try to think as deeply about issues as Kerry does! We just aren't smart enough to keep up with his nuanced understanding of the issues.

Dean,

Your suggestion sounds to me like an extended "no comment" with a justification for not commenting. What they are currently saying sounds like they are trying to have it both ways at once. I agree that no comment is probably better than muddled contradiction, but neither position demonstrates strength.

My paraphrase of "I am personally against this basic human right" is an excellent position to try to argue with a straight face (Botox is cheating, Senator Kerry), but that's a comedy routine, not a political campaign. Much better to simply pick a straightforward position and then work on convincing people, but that seems unlikely with Senators John & John.

I'm extremely pleased with Rev. Al Sharpton. He has the courage of his convictions and, on this issue, he has taken his stand on the side of freedom. With this, he totally differentiates himself from the, now more contemptible than ever, Jesse Jackson. For this, I now forgive Sharpton for everything in his past. He is now, on this issue of the sanctity of homosexual marriage, uncompromisingly on the side of freedom and holy values.

President George W. Bush had it right the first time when he said "You're either with us or you're with the terrorists." He has now openly declared that he is on the side of the terrorists. He has now openly declared that he is not the leader of the Free World but is instead merely the puppet of America's bin Ladens: Gary Bauer, Jerry Fartwell, Pat Robertscum, Robert "inkblot" Bork, Senator Rick "dog-fucker" Santorum, and the rest of that un-American ilk, the Enemy within. I say that, as long as he supports that despicable FMA, President George W. Bush is a traitor to his country.

Steven,

You're easily bought - and out and out scoundrel only has to say something you want, and you're on his side.

Contemptible.

"See, that's what happens when people try to think as deeply about issues as Kerry does! We just aren't smart enough to keep up with his nuanced understanding of the issues."

Apparently it's harder for some than for others. We should have a good tally by the end of the year.

Mark Noonan:
"Steven,

You're easily bought - and out and out scoundrel only has to say something you want, and you're on his side.

Contemptible."

I feel the same way about you and your President George W. Bush, who has now chosen to surrender to the despicable sworn enemies of our Constitution and our sacred freedoms. I dare call it treason. This is War, and the Enemy at home is same as the Enemy abroad.

I hate admitting that Al Sharpton's right about something.