PINNING KERRY ON MARRIAGE: Chris Crain

...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. ...

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. ...

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?

more

posted by Eve at 8:38 PM | link

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home