John Kerry On Gay Marriage: Slow Change Coming

John Kerry assures us that he is opposed to gay marriage, although he also opposed the Defense of Marriage Act and now opposes the proposed Federal Marriage Amendment. A contradiction? The Senator appeared before a gay rights group last year, where he shared his vision of progress on this issue. Asked to explain why he supported civil unions but "opposed" gay mariage, he said this:

...What I said was we need to achieve what we can, and then we will see where we are. It may well be that if we achieve civil union, if we have leadership that advances the causes that I have described to you, that we may all of us progress as we have progressed in the last 15 years to a place where there is a different understanding of it. But at this particular moment in time, I don't believe that exists, and I want to pass the Employment Non-Discrimination Act. I want to pass hate crimes. I want to pass federal benefit partnership rights. I want to advance us as fast and as appropriately as I think we can, but I think that one has to respect the current cultural, historical, religious perception, and I respect it.

Well, fine. Sen. Kerry wants to work through the legislative process, move public opinion along incrementally, and see how far he can lead society. If, over the next fifteen years, society can be led to accept gay marriage, he will be pleased. We certainly prefer that approach to the current extra-legal tactics in San Francisco.

The Senator has delivered an admirable statement of responsible progressive principles. But there is a world of difference between "I am opposed to gay marriage based on five thousand years of cultural and religious tradition" and "I am opposed to gay marriage... right now". I wonder whether the Senator has emphasized the fluidity of his position in his recent appearances. Has he made it clear that he differs with gay marriage advocates only on matters of timing and tactics? Perhaps we will learn more at tonight's debate.

MORE: Debate excerpt below. Still not clear whether Kerry was waffling, or pandering.

John Kerry - the courage to lead.

UPDATE: Let's put this in the mix, and ask whether civil unions can achieve the same objective.

Ron Brownstein of the LA Times has read the Senator's 1996 Senate speech in which he explained his vote opposing the Defense of Marriage Act; I have not. Yet. Mr. Brownstein does his best, and breaks a bit of news - Kerry said then that the DOMA was unconstitutional, but now has decided that it is. Conveniently decided, we will note. Unfortunately, Mr. Brownstein does not get to the question of whether Kerry opposes gay marriage on some fundamental principle, or because he thinks the time is not yet right. Roll the tape:

KING: You mentioned the constitutional amendment. Rosie O'Donnell today got married in San Francisco. I think Ron Brownstein has a question in that regard.

BROWNSTEIN: Let me ask you, Senator. I want to sort of burrow in a little bit and understand your views of exactly what the role of Washington is, Senator Kerry.

You say you oppose gay marriage. You also oppose the constitutional amendment to ban -- federal constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage.

Do you think Georgia and Ohio, or any other state, should have to recognize a gay marriage performed in California or Massachusetts? And if not, why did you vote against the Defense of Marriage Act, designed to prevent that, in 1996?

KERRY: I said very clearly -- I could not have been more clear on the floor of the United States Senate. My speech starts out expressing my personal opinion, that I do not believe -- you know, I believe that marriage is between a man and a woman.

But notwithstanding that belief, there was no issue in front of the country when that was put before the United States Senate.

And I went to the floor of the Senate and said -- even though I was up for reelection, "I will not take part in gay bashing on the floor of the United States Senate. I will not allow the Senate to be used...

(APPLAUSE)

... for that kind of rhetoric."

BROWNSTEIN: But you also said in that statement...

KERRY: But let me just finish.

BROWNSTEIN: You also said in that statement that you believe the Defense of Marriage Act was fundamentally unconstitutional. And if the Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional, isn't President Bush right, that the only way to guarantee that no state has to recognize a gay marriage performed in any other state is a federal constitutional amendment?

KERRY: In fact, I think the interpretation -- I think, under the full faith and credit laws, that I was incorrect in that statement. I think, in fact, that no state has to recognize something that is against their public policy.

And for 200 years, we have left marriage up to the states. There is no showing whatsoever today that any state in the country, including my own -- which is now dealing with its own constitutional amendment -- is incapable of dealing with what they would like to do.

KERRY: And I believe George Bush is doing this -- he's even reversed his own position. He's reversed Dick Cheney's position. He is doing this because he's in trouble. He's trying to reach out to his base. He's playing politics with the Constitution of the United States.

(APPLAUSE)

BROWNSTEIN: But let me just nail down one thing very quickly.

So are you saying that, now that gay marriage is on the table in a place like California or Massachusetts, that you would support the Defense of Marriage Act?

KERRY: No, because...

BROWNSTEIN: That it's not...

KERRY: ... the Defense of Marriage Act is the law of the land today.

KING: And you would support it today?

BROWNSTEIN: And you would leave it...

KERRY: ... no votes to take it back. And I think it's more important right now to pass the employment nondiscrimination act, hate crimes legislation, and begin to move us forward so we have on the books those laws that will allow us to protect people in this country.

(APPLAUSE)

MORE: The NY Times laughs at this:

But with the issue now at center stage, Mr. Kerry found himself in the position of defending his vote in 1996 against the Defense of Marriage Act, a law that bars federal recognition of same-sex marriages and allows each state to ignore such marriages performed in other states. He sought to reconcile his vote then with his statement this week that states should not be forced to recognize gay marriages conducted in other states.

Mr. Kerry said he had considered the Senate debate on the legislation an instance of gay-bashing. But he said he was mistaken in 1996 when he asserted that the Defense of Marriage Act was unconstitutional. He suggested, vaguely, that he would vote against it were it to appear before Congress again. Mr. Edwards pounced on that.

"I would not support the Defense of Marriage Act today, if there were a vote today, which is the question you just asked Senator Kerry," he said. "I'm not sure what he said about that. But I would not vote for it."

Death penalty problems for Tall John, as well.

Comments

[tallglassofmilk]

Just one of the many issues on which John Kerry can't decide his position or chooses not to say it out loud.

[Gary B]

This is leadership? Just add this to the long list of issues where Kerry just can't take a stand.

[Dave T.]

At least one knows where GWB stands on the issue, even if you disagree with him. I really have no clue what Kerry thinks.

[dave]

I have no clue what Kerry thinks about anything...except that he definitely thinks he should be president.

[Dan M.]

And what about Kerry saying that his very first act as President will be to renew US Funding for foreign abortions. Is that the most important issue facing our country?

[tombo]

This is the same man who keeps insisting that Al Qaeda should be dealt with by law enforcement measures, not military ones.

If Kerry had Kucinich's looks and voice, would anyone take the man seriously?

[tombo]

"I'm not a president, but I play one on TV..."

[Travis Smith]

Rambling incoherence.....I read all that and still have no idea what he said. I don't think he can communicate what he thinks because he DOESN'T KNOW!

[Smaack]

When you go back and look at the 200 election, the turning point was Al Gore's awful performances in the debates. It was there that the great bulk of undecided voters really got to see what he was about, and an awful lot didn't like what they saw. (His popular vote victory was more the result of a get-out-the-vote machine vastly superior to that of the Republicans, who placed far too much faith on polls showing them to be comfortably in the lead.)

Kerry will sink for the same reasons - he's worse in debate than Al Gore. Americans want a strong and likable leader, and Kerry is neither.

[Mitch H.]

So Kerry doesn't want to push a rope. Oh, alack, alay! Weep for the republic, that has fallen to such depths!

It's one of the few things that might influence me in his favor...

[TM]

Kerry will sink for the same reasons - he's worse in debate than Al Gore.

But did Smaack have the same Al Gore flashback I did watching the debate last night? At one point, Edwards was criticizing Kerry, and Kerry began feigning shock and outrage with as much expression as the botox would allow. At least Kerry did not sigh heavily.

So Kerry doesn't want to push a rope.

I agree, mostly. This is an issue where public opinion is clearly evolving, and Kerry is not publicly advocating a stealth victory through the courts (although he will be complicit in same, and don't ask me about Massachusetts, where he seems to favor a state amendment banning gay marriage). But I am willing to set aside minor agreements in pursuit of my ABK objective.

[Smaack]

The point of my comment was not specifically related to Kerry's position on this issue, but his position(s) on every issue. Kerry's waffling on gay marriage is of a piece with his waffling on the war, trade, tax cuts, and everything else about which he has tried to be all things to all people.

That kind of intellectual dishonesty can work for a while on the local stage (although it may be about to catch up to Tom Daschle), but it rarely works in a national election. Right now, only wonks like us are paying close attention, but it will be painfully obvious in the debates when that 30-40% of the electorate that doesn't decide on the basis of D or R is deciding who they are going to vote for.

[Dave Miller]

Doesn't matter who wins we will all be screwed either way. I can't believe that these 2 clowns are the best people this country can put forth to battle it out for the most important job in the world. Although I guess it does a good job of reenforcing the notion that anyone can be President. God Bless the U.S.A.!!!!

[Jim Hogue]

Dumb me. Someone please explain what is the difference between supporting a State amendment to ban gay marriage but not a federal one?

And, what good will a state amendment do if he doesn't support the DOMA and he (apparently?) doesn't support the full faith and credit portion of DOMA? Which, if I got it right, would force any state to recognize a marraige in another state, regardless?

And....never mind, I already got an ice cream headache. Lets talk about something else. Whadda think about the Braves' chance of a pennant this year???

[Jim]

Kerry is living proof of the strategy of "If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them..." His evasions and unwillingness to actually answer the question asked of him are going to catch up to him. How long before he is referred to as a "snake-oil salesman" or even Slick Willie II ?

[pam]

I think he should pass a gay marraige in all states,cause they are people to. They have feeling like everyone else. look when a man and a women most the time they don't stay married. there is more people comming out of the closet and finially being proud of being gay.

[jim]

Marrige is between a man and a woman and should
remain that way.I live in kerrys state of mass.
he has done nothing in twenty years.We are
drowning in taxes ,and this liberal state is
turning into a cesspool.John Kerry does not deserve to run for any office.He does'nt know
what he wants from one day to another,he is a
bad joke.

[John]

Whatever! It's a non-issue wedge issue really!

However, Bush is a nincompoop on this one.

[ashley williams]

i think people just need to get there shit "stright"

[Rhiannon]

What upsets me is that this is even an issue. What happend to the land of the free? Free to express your love and commitment to whom ever you chose regardless societies personal belief. We all have different opinions but understand others have the right to dissagree. Its not hurting anyone, but allows individuals to publicly display there love and commitement. Since when is that wrong? To ban this due to gender is wrong, its unconstitutional and selfish. Marrage is a finacial and spiritual union that shouldnt be judged because of gender. It may not be your thing or mine but if two people really love eachother who am I to stand in the way. We must remember they are citizens in the land of the free also and deserve equal rights as we have.

At least bush has the balls to say how he feels while kerry is fidle fartin around trying to please everyone, allowing us to see what we want to see in his vague campain. Isnt there a better canditate that belives in human rights to choose, not in governments right to choose for you? I hate to say it but I dont think I will be voting for either. This is a serious issue we have been dodging for way too long...

[Megan]

This whole thing is stupid. you allow people to have guns and dangerous matierals and such in your own homes, but two people, no matter if they are the same gender, who are in love cannot get married. This is insane. Yes, they do say that marriage is about a man and a woman, but homosexuality is not a choice. If it were do you really think that they would be picking it knowing they couldn't live a happy and "normal" life? And not to mention, thanks to this law...i will never be allowed to get married. Even though i do still dream about it happening some day.

[Amy]

"What I said was we need to achieve what we can, and then we will see where we are. It may well be that if we achieve civil union, if we have leadership that advances the causes that I have described to you, that we may all of us progress as we have progressed in the last 15 years to a place where there is a different understanding of it. But at this particular moment in time, I don't believe that exists..."

HUH?

"Achieve what we can, and then see where we are?" What does that mean? "If we have leadership that advances the causes that I have described to you, that we may all of us progress as we have progressed in the last 15 years to a place where there is a different understanding of it?" YOU DIDN'T DESCRIBE ANYTHING!!!!

Meanwhile inquiring minds are waiting with baited breathe wondering what terrific spin Sir Andrew(sullivan.com) will twist himself into about this.

[Amy]

"What I said was we need to achieve what we can, and then we will see where we are. It may well be that if we achieve civil union, if we have leadership that advances the causes that I have described to you, that we may all of us progress as we have progressed in the last 15 years to a place where there is a different understanding of it. But at this particular moment in time, I don't believe that exists..."

HUH?

"Achieve what we can, and then see where we are?" What does that mean? "If we have leadership that advances the causes that I have described to you, that we may all of us progress as we have progressed in the last 15 years to a place where there is a different understanding of it?" YOU DIDN'T DESCRIBE ANYTHING!!!!

Meanwhile inquiring minds are waiting with baited breathe wondering what terrific spin Sir Andrew(sullivan.com) will twist himself into about this.

[Amy]

"What I said was we need to achieve what we can, and then we will see where we are. It may well be that if we achieve civil union, if we have leadership that advances the causes that I have described to you, that we may all of us progress as we have progressed in the last 15 years to a place where there is a different understanding of it. But at this particular moment in time, I don't believe that exists..."

HUH?

"Achieve what we can, and then see where we are?" What does that mean? "If we have leadership that advances the causes that I have described to you, that we may all of us progress as we have progressed in the last 15 years to a place where there is a different understanding of it?" YOU DIDN'T DESCRIBE ANYTHING!!!!

Meanwhile inquiring minds are waiting with baited breathe wondering what terrific spin Sir Andrew(sullivan.com) will twist himself into about this.

[crystal]

I belive that everyone has the right to believe in what they want this a free country and you may not believe in same sex marriage but if you love someone you love them for who they are not to be judged by you or anyone else we will all be judge someday.

[brianna]

i think that gay marriages should be legal in all states because i am gay and me and my partner are very happy together and soon want to get married.

[amy]

GO kerry!!!!!!!

[amy]

go kerry....gay marrage should not be allowed.

[connor]

Man kerry sucks, and he is gay you should vote bush vote republican!

[Nick]

You are all ignorant ass-holes who can not see what is right in front of you faces. Gays are productive citizens of society. Just because you, and by you I mean straight chauvinists, are homophobiec does not mean you can chooses to lead our lives, so I say to all of you..... GO FUCK YOURSELVES....or better yet, let me do it.