One important issue in John Kerry’s past has been studiously avoided this election season. It’s the annulment of his first marriage to Julia Thorne. The Catholic church declared the marriage void – despite the fact that it lasted eighteen years, produced two children, and the annulment was fiercely contested by his first wife. How can such a marriage be understood to have never taken place, as annulments imply? Here’s how a story in the Washington Blade explains it:
Political opportunity arose again after Paul Tsongas announced his retirement from the U.S. Senate in 1984. Kerry won the race to fill that seat and entered into what current wife Teresa Heinz called his “gypsy phase,” commuting between apartments in Washington, D.C. and Boston, and dating actresses Morgan Fairchild and Catherine Oxenberg as well as a former law partner.
Kerry and Thorne finalized their divorce in 1988. After Thorne requested an increase in alimony in 1995, Kerry sought an annulment of their marriage from the Catholic Church, a move observers saw as retaliatory.
Kerry eventually received the annulment from the Boston diocese despite Thorne’s vehement objections. Past media reports did not indicate the grounds on which Kerry sought to annul his marriage of 18 years, after it produced two children, and the campaign also declined to provide any explanation.
Hmmm. I’ve long felt that the annulment issue in the Catholic church has never been fully debated. Who gets an annulment? How is that different from a divorce? It gets at many double standards on marriage and divorce (straight and gay) that the Catholic church and John Kerry and many others have.
BACK-LASH-LASH: A Washington Post poll finds growing support for legal unions for gay couples, but the issue is still highly volatile. Nevertheless, it’s clear that a majority opposes the extreme step of amending the constitution to prevent any state anywhere from enacting civil marriage rights for gay couples. When people realize that the Full Faith and Credit Clause does not affect civil marriage, I think their opposition will grow some more. And it’s also clear that president Bush’s endorsement may actually have solidified opposition to the amendment, as anti-Bush Democrats have come around on the issue (their qualms about civil marriage for gays may well have been trumped by their suspicion of Bush and the religious right). You can make too much of these polls. The shifts are minor. The polls may shift again, depending on events. But the data show one claim from the social right disproved. They argued that this issue would rally the country behind George W. Bush, swing Democrats their way, and decide the election. So far, no dice. Bush has flatlined in the polls; opposition to the amendment has firmed up; all the publicity has led some to think seriously for the first time about marriage rights.
The Dish 