Hugh Hewitt distorts Kerry's stance on gay marriage

Hugh Hewitt misleads his readers into thinking John Kerry has changed his views on gay marriage(Find August 7th @ 10:20pm as his links do not seem to be working). Too bad none of his readers will end up over here to read the truth. But, in case they decide to search out reality, here it is. I've left his links in the post just as they appear, as they best refute his own argument.

I've often wondered how many people clink on links in a blog, and it would seem that Hugh hopes that no one actually does. This also makes me wonder if Hugh reads what he links to as well.

Here goes.

On July 12, 2002, John Kerry, along with other members of the Massachusetts Congressional delegation, signed a letter to the Massachusetts state legislature that unequivocally denounced the attempt to amend the Massachusetts constitution to limit marriage to one man and one woman.

Click through and you find what the letter actually covers:

One such matter is the proposed Constitutional amendment that would prohibit or seriously inhibit any legal recognition whatsoever of same-sex relationships.

(snip)

In addition, as legislators, we believe it would be a terrible mistake to write into our Constitution so sweeping a proposal with the likelihood that it will prevent not only the state government, but also the cities, towns and counties from acting as they might wish to provide some form of recognition for same-sex relationships. We are therefore united in urging you to reject this Constitutional amendment and avoid stigmatizing so many of our fellow citizens who do not deserve to be treated in such a manner.

So while technically Hugh is correct, the amendment actually denied all legal recognition to gay partners, and not just rejected gay marriage itself. A little dishonest spin by Mr. Hewitt.

More Hugh:

The letter is detailed in a USA Today story from February 11 of this year that noted that Kerry did not sign a similar letter this year when Congressman Barney Frank organized a second effort to rally Bay State Congressional support against a Massachusetts constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage.

Click through and read:

Frank and most of the other congressmen who signed the 2002 letter sent a new letter last month again opposing the constitutional amendment, but this time neither Kerry nor Sen. Edward Kennedy signed.

Frank said Wednesday he didn't ask Kerry or Kennedy to sign this time "because I was in such a hurry," the openly gay congressman said.(my emphasis)

Frank said Kerry has always been clear to him that he opposes gay marriage but wants homosexuals to have equal protection under the law through civil unions, and other legislation.

Hugh again:

Kerry went further than refusing to sign a second letter. In February of this year, Kerry announced support for an amendment banning same sex marriage in Massachusetts, and this week Kerry told the Kansas City Star that he would have voted for the Missouri amendment that limited marriage to one man and one woman which passed overwhelmingly on Tuesday, 71% to 29%: "Kerry did say that he would have voted for Amendment 2, the constitutional amendment banning gay marriage that passed overwhelmingly Tuesday. He said that Massachusetts passed the same type of amendment a few years ago and that he supported it."

The first link goes here:

Kerry, the likely Democratic presidential nominee, opposes a federal constitutional marriage amendment but backs an amendment to the Massachusetts constitution that would ban same-sex "marriage" while legalizing civil unions. He has made it clear that it is the only type of amendment he would favor.

Okay, I did some extra research. Here's the text of Amendment 2:

"That to be valid and recognized in this state, a marriage shall exist only between a man and a woman."

Here's Hugh's conclusion:

I am unaware of what Kerry is talking about here, but it seems as though he was intent on lying to the Star reporters, who ought to have been informed by the candidate of his February 2002 letter opposing a Massachusetts amendment on the subject.

So how many mistruths can I pick out?

1) The letter Kerry signed was not only against gay marriage, but also any sort of recognition of civil unions. The letter never specifically mentioned gay marriage by name, but expressed its concern at the lack of all legal recognition for same-sex relationships.

2) Hugh says Kerry "refused to sign" the second letter when the article he links to shows clearly that Frank never offered it to him to sign. More importantly

3) Kerry did not "lie to Star reporters" because, as the article Hugh linked to pointed out, Kerry in fact publicly supported an amendment to the Massachusetts constitution banning same-sex marriage with no mention of civil unions, an amendment similar to the one just passed in Missouri.

*UPDATE* I've sent Hugh an email. Here's what I said:

I read your online blog frequently and read your
latest post on John Kerry's stance on gay marriage.

In it you state that Kerry "refused to sign a second
letter" penned by Barney Frank opposing gay marriage.
When I clicked the article you linked to, there was a
statement that contradicts your claim. From the USA
Today article: "Frank said Wednesday he didn't ask
Kerry or Kennedy to sign this time "because I was in
such a hurry," the openly gay congressman said. "

So you can see Kerry did not refuse to sign, but was
never offered a chance to.

You also say "he was intent on lying to the [Kansas
City] Star reporters" when he claimed he backed an
Amendment in Massachusetts similiar to Amendment 2 in
Missouri. But you link to an article that has another
quote that contradicts you. The BP News reporter
writes "Kerry... backs an amendment to the
Massachusetts constitution that would ban same-sex
'marriage' while legalizing civil unions. He has made
it clear that it is the only type of amendment he
would favor."

It would seem this is an instance where the facts you
provide do not back up the point you are trying to
make.

Please do whatever you need to do to correct this
error.

I'll let you know if he replies back.