advertisement
advertisement
|
CHRIS CRAIN
Friday, September 24, 2004
IF YOU WANT to know why John Kerry has struggled in the polls, then look no further
than the issue of gay marriage.
The push for marriage equality and the resulting conservative backlash may
not have risen yet to the top tier of issues in the presidential race, though
both parties have used it to galvanize core supporters.
But John Kerry’s inability to take a clear, principled position on marriage
is depressingly symptomatic of his more famous flip-flops on the war in Iraq.
Kerry has complained loudly that Bush is misrepresenting his view, but the
Democrat has supplied more than enough ammunition. This disturbing tendency
to blow with the political winds is nowhere as pronounced in Kerry’s meandering,
contradictory and even hypocritical positions on gay marriage.
SUMMARIZING KERRY’S POSITION on marriage isn’t easy because as
with Iraq and any number of other issues, the twists and turns are enough to
make a policy wonk reach for the aspirin.
Kerry spoke out against the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996, and was one of
only 14 senators who voted against the measure, and was the only one up for
re-election. He says he did so because the measure represented “gay bashing”
on the floor of the U.S. Senate.
But in his interview last week with the gay press, Kerry clarified that his
opposition to DOMA rested on more nuanced ground. He apparently agrees with
one of the law’s two primary provisions, which guarantees one state the
ability to reject marriage licenses issued to gay couples by other states.
Kerry says DOMA was unnecessarily punitive — “gay bashing”
— because states already have such a guarantee under the U.S. Constitution,
an interpretation of the “Full Faith & Credit Clause” with which
many gay activists and legal experts would take strong exception.
Kerry admirably supports full federal benefits for gay couples, which would
suggest he took issue with the other major provision of DOMA, which withholds
any federal recognition or benefits for gay married couples. Although because
Kerry opposes gay marriage, it’s actually unclear whether he would restrict
benefits to same-sex couples in “civil unions,” the second-class
legal arrangement he prefers for us.
KERRY OPPOSES THE Federal Marriage Amendment backed by President Bush because
he says it is a wedge issue cynically devised for political gain. He may be
right about that, but he backs those in Massachusetts and elsewhere who are
amending their state constitutions to accomplish the same end.
Kerry explains his opposition to a federal amendment and support for a state
amendment because the issue is one that should be left to the states to decide.
This position is in direct conflict with a “dear colleague” letter
in July 2002 that opposed as “a grave error” an effort then to amend
the Massachusetts Constitution to ban gay marriage.
Kerry’s public support arguably gave political cover to enough swing
votes to affect the exceedingly narrow vote by the Massachusetts Legislature
in favor of the constitutional ban.
After Missouri voters passed a constitutional ban on gay marriage this summer,
Kerry told reporters he would have voted with the majority. Later, when he was
under the impression that the Missouri measure banned civil unions as well,
he switched positions and said he would have opposed it.
Still later, when his campaign learned that the Missouri amendment actually
took no position at all on civil unions, Kerry demurred entirely, saying he
would only tell Missouri voters that he opposes marriage and supports civil
unions.
Feel a headache coming on?
WE HAVEN’T EVEN gotten to Kerry’s varying explanations for why
he opposes marriage equality for gays in the first place.
He’s said at times that there’s no real difference between marriage
and civil unions, a claim belied by Kerry’s own opposition to one and
support for the other. At other times he’s pointed to the historical,
cultural and religious history of marriage as an institution, a circular argument
that was attempted by white supremacists who opposed interracial marriage more
than three decades ago.
At one point last year, Kerry justified marriage as intended for procreation,
the same position taken by the Vatican. But Kerry, who is Catholic, attempted
to have his own first marriage of 18 years annulled by the church even after
it produced offspring. And his second marriage, to Teresa Heinz Kerry, is childless
and will certainly stay that way.
More recently, including in February on National Public Radio and in last week’s
gay press interview, Kerry cited the institution of marriage as religious and
“sacramental.”
But when faced with pressure from Catholic leaders to change his stance on
another hot-button issue, abortion, Kerry has made clear that private religious
beliefs should not influence public policy. On abortion, Kerry has said he personally
believes abortion is a sin, but is devoted to protect a woman’s right
to choose.
How can he draw the line so clearly on abortion but not on marriage? Would
political polling have anything to do with that? Or maybe the acquiescence of
left-leaning gay rights groups?
BUSH HAS OFTEN accused Kerry of lacking core principles, and Kerry insisted
again this week his guiding standard on gay rights is “equal protection
under the law.”
So why has he taken the extraordinary step of encouraging state legislatures
to veto — in most cases proactively — the considered opinion of
their highest courts that denying marriage to gay couples violates that very
“equal protection.”
Every state supreme court to address this issue in recent times — from
Hawaii to Alaska to Vermont to Massachusetts — has reached the same conclusion,
and yet despite Kerry’s “guiding principle,” he would overrule
those judgments.
Kerry emphasized again last week that gays should remember this election is
about the U.S. Supreme Court. But if Kerry favors overturning judges in Massachusetts
on marriage, why should we expect otherwise of his judicial nominees?
DOES ANY OF this justify voting for Bush? Of course not. On every gay rights
issue including marriage, the choice between Kerry and Bush couldn’t be
clearer. Where Kerry sees nuance, President Bush sees good vs. evil, and it
should be clear to every voter, including gay Republicans, on which side of
that divide we reside.
But John Kerry suffers from the reverse malady, and his congenital inability
to state a clear, principled view and then stick to it is costing him dearly
and may decide the election.
|
