Mickey Kaus asks me to deal with John Kerry’s statement yesterday about marriage rights:
“I think you have to draw that line, so the answer is yes, they reached beyond that line, and in my judgment they’re trying to exploit certain issues,” he said. “The president and I have the same position, fundamentally, on gay marriage. We do. Same position. But they’re out there misleading people and exploiting it.”
I should be plain. I have never trusted Kerry on gay civil rights, still don’t, and wrote a piece earlier this year for the Advocate, warning gay voters not to trust him. So, yes, Mickey, I am aware of his slippery, unprincipled and vacuous stand on civil rights for gay couples. (This, of course, is indistinguishable from his slippery, unprincipled and vacuous stand on almost every other issue as well). I trust Kerry about as much as I trusted Bill Clinton. The similarity is not just that both Bush and Kerry oppose equal marriage rights for gay couples but that neither have ever given a single argument in defense of their position. Kerry tried to pull the civil-marriage-is-procreation point, until he realized that his own current civil marriage has nothing to do with procreation. In general I have been struck both by how ignorant Kerry has been about some basic facts – like the content of the Missouri amendment, for example – and how eager to pander to both sides. Surprise.
VIVE LA DIFFERENCE: The difference, however, is obvious. Kerry supports civil unions that contain all the rights and responsiblities of civil marriages; Bush doesn’t. In fact, Bush has endorsed a federal amendment that would bar both gay marriage and any civil arrangements that, like civil unions or even domestic partnerships, would give gay couples even basic protections. So the difference is stark. And, of course, the constitutional amendment is a HUGE deal. I endorsed Bush in 2000 knowing full well he opposed civil marriage rights, had backed criminalization of gay sex, and opposed including gays in hate crime laws (while inexplicably supporting such laws for other minorities). I’ve never regarded support for civil marriage rights a litmus test for supporting a candidate. But elevating this to the level of a completely unnecessary constitutional amendment was a new development, an unprecedented attack on gay citizens, on states’ rights and the constitution. Kerry’s opposition to such an amendment is a vast and vital distinction. For gay voters, there is therefore no meaningful choice.
WIPED OUT: I’ll be blogging more later this morning. But I’ve just gotten back from that speaking tour – ten separate forums in less than two weeks across the country, and I’m exhausted. The T-cells need some R&R. Later.
The Dish 