From the NY Times:
Mr. Kerry was careful to note that he opposed gay marriage, like Mr. Bush, but said he chose not "to tamper with the Constitution of the United States for political purposes."
The Bush campaign quickly fired back, accusing Mr. Kerry of hypocrisy. "President Bush is protecting the institution of marriage from activist judges in Massachusetts and local officials in San Francisco," the president's campaign declared in a statement. The statement added that while Mr. Kerry "claims to believe marriage is the union of a man and a woman," he had failed to stand up for it in Senate votes.
...Republicans said Mr. Kerry was simply trying to have it both ways. Ed Gillespie, the Republican national chairman, told reporters that "Senator Kerry has had a number of different positions on this." Mr. Gillespie noted that despite his stated opposition to same-sex marriage, Mr. Kerry was one of only 14 senators who voted against the Defense of Marriage Act of 1996, which prohibits federal recognition of such marriages. Spokesmen for Mr. Kerry's campaign said he had voted against the legislation because he believed it had become a Congressional exercise in gay-bashing.
"Gay-bashing"? On the Senate floor? Or is he including the rough and untamed House as well? That seems a bit incendiary - mightn't someone query the Senator for specific examples? And yes, I shudder to think what supporting evidence might emerge, but still...
On safer ground, is he suggesting that his fellow Senators who supported the bill are gay-bashers? Ahh, talk to me about Paul Wellstone! Or Tom Daschle. Or the engaging chap whose signature also appeared on the bill, namely Bill Clinton - also a gay basher?
C'mon - Kerry is opposed to gay marriage, but also opposed to doing anything to prevent gay marriage. Shall we wait for him to pick a side? Incredibly, he might eventually switch sides, if we can believe this report:
Immediately following his Advocate interview, Kerry was whisked across town to the Ronald Reagan Federal Center, where he participated with six other Democratic presidential aspirants in a forum sponsored by the Human Rights Campaign, a gay advocacy group. There Sam Donaldson of ABC News grilled the candidates about same-sex marriage. At one point, Howard Dean, who as governor of Vermont signed the state’s historic civil unions legislation, became so frustrated by the difficulty of defending his opposition to same-sex marriage in front of a gay audience that he simply changed the subject. Kerry seemed equally flummoxed by the topic, eventually conceding that he was open to evolving on the issue with the times.
Kerry - the courage to lead.
MORE: Fine, Tom DeLay is backpedaling like a Patriots cornerback. Don't vex me, I'm trying to focus here.
If I can find it, I will link to the Taranto post at the WSJ which endorses the Ponnuru Amendment, which is my choice too, but who am I? The gist - don't define marriage as hetero, but do require that the issue be resolved by legislative action, rather than the courts. This does not go nearly far enough for the religious right, but since all Reps and much of the public can get behind it, it's a winner. Maybe not a legally do-able winner, but that is why our solons should discuss it.
Excerpt from Best of the Web:
That said, there is a serious argument that the proposed amendment would go too far in dictating state policy. Rep. Marilyn Musgrave's proposed amendment states: "Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution [n]or the constitution of any State, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups."
There's some ambiguity in this wording, most notably what precisely is meant by "legal incidents," and the language may well be modified before Congress votes on it. Our preference would be for a more modest amendment, one that would prevent the federal courts from imposing same-sex marriage on the country, but would not foreclose the possibility of its establishment if proponents could succeed in the democratic process. As we wrote in September, our amendment would read as follows: "Nothing in this Constitution shall be construed to require any state or the federal government to recognize any marriage except between a man and a woman."
This would not solve the current problems in Massachusetts and California, but it would prevent them from becoming problems for other states--and in that case, there's no reason to make a federal case out of it. If John Kerry and the Times really believe in states' rights, they'll hasten to endorse the OpinionJournal.com Marriage Amendment. Don't hold your breath.
MORE: The Corner links to responses to Ponnuru.
Comments