John Kerry, like Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton, opposes equality for gay citizens in the most fundamental matter related to emotionaland sexual orientation. But, like the Clintons, he offers no argument. Give the far right their due: they really have tried to come up with an infinite array of reasons to oppose civil equality in this respect. But this is what Kerry said:
Marriage is an institution between men and women for the purpose of having children and procreating.
Now, Kerry is in a second marriage to a woman also in a second marriage, with no apparent connection to the goal of reproduction or child-rearing. Like Pat Buchanan, he lives a marriage that is childless. Fred Hiatt homes in on the point in the Washington Post today. It seems to me that Kerry has just argued that he himself should have no right to marry. (I’ll leave the speciousness of the Clintons’ defense of marital privilege to your judgment, but it would be hard to find a deeper example of hypocrisy than their joint defense of traditional marriage.) But his real reason is deeper. It could easily be construed as a statement like: “I am heterosexual, and heterosexuals deserve special rights that privilege them unrelated to any actual roles or acts that they might perform.” Kerry is asserting – frankly, crudely, unmistakably – heterosexual supremacy. Just because. I find this far more objectionable than those on the religious right who at least have some theological or strained sociological reasons for opposition.
The Dish 