Presidential hopeful and U.S. Sen John Kerry (D-Mass.) said he might support
a state constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, if it allowed for civil
unions. (Photo by Charles Krupa/AP)
advertisement
advertisement
|
By JOE CREA
Friday, February 13, 2004
Democratic presidential frontrunner Sen. John Kerry indicated this week he
would support an amendment to the Massachusetts state Constitution banning
marriage, despite his opposition to a similar effort two years ago and his
current opposition to a federal marriage amendment.
In an interview with National Public Radio on Monday, Feb. 9, Kerry was asked
if he would support “a constitutional amendment that would define marriage
as a heterosexual union”; the questioner did not clarify whether she was referring
to the Massachusetts Constitution or the U.S. Constitution, and Kerry made
no distinction in his answer.
“Well, it depends entirely on the language of whether it permits civil unions
and partnership or not,” said Kerry. “I’m for civil union; I’m for partnership
rights.”
Kerry added, “What ought to condition this debate is not the term marriage
as much as the rights that people are afforded.
“Obviously under the Constitution of the United States you need equal protection
under the law. And I think equal protection means the rights that go with it,” Kerry
said. “I think the word marriage kind of gets in the way of the whole debate,
to be honest with you, because marriage to many people is obviously what is
sanctified by a church. It’s sacramental. Or by a synagogue or by a mosque
or by whatever religious connotation it has. Clearly there’s a separation of
church and state here.”
“Marriage is a separate institution,” Kerry said. “I think marriage is under
the church, between a man and a woman, and I think there’s a separate meaning
to it.”
Steve Elmendorf, Kerry’s deputy campaign manager, who is gay, confirmed on
Wednesday that Kerry was referring specifically to an amendment to the Massachusetts
state Constitution, which he supports, and not proposed amendments to the U.S.
Constitution, which he opposes.
Elmendorf, who was until recently the staff chief to former presidential hopeful
Rep. Dick Gephardt, said Kerry isn’t prepared to take a firm position on the
Massachusetts amendment because a number of different versions are currently
under consideration in a state constitutional convention now underway.
“He hasn’t seen what the amendment is,” Elmendorf said. “The [state] senate
has different versions. The state could end up with a horrible amendment, a
good amendment or anywhere in between.”
But when efforts were undertaken to amend the Massachusetts Constitution two
years ago to ban gay marriage, Kerry joined with all 12 members of the Massachusetts
congressional delegation in a letter opposing the proposed ban, which was virtually
identical to the one currently under debate.
“We believe it would be a grave error for Massachusetts to enshrine in our
Constitution a provision, which would have such a negative effect on so many
of our fellow residents,” said the joint congressional letter, dated July 15,
2002.
“The proposal to add to that document — essentially a charter of liberty and
democracy — a provision as harsh both in its intent and its effect on our gay,
lesbian, bisexual and transgendered constituents is in conflict with the generous
spirit that motivated its adoption, and that should continue to govern us today. … We
are therefore united in urging you to reject this Constitutional amendment
and avoid stigmatizing so many of our fellow citizens who do not deserve to
be treated in such a manner.”
In the letter, the congressional delegation also warned that such an amendment
might “prevent not only the state government, but also the cities, towns and
counties from acting as they might wish to provide some form of recognition
for same-sex relationships.” Kerry’s interview on NPR indicated that an amendment
preserving civil unions and other forms of legal recognition for gay couples
might be enough to win over his support.
Dominick Ianno, executive director of the Massachusetts Republican Party,
said this week that the senator’s “waffling” was “typical Kerry behavior,” and
the chair of that group, Darrell Crate, said that the question of whether or
not the senator supports an amendment “is a simple yes or no question.”
“This is not a question of language, it is a question of principle, and the
senator owes the people of Massachusetts a straight answer on this issue,” Crate
said.
The issue of marriage for same-sex couples reached a political turning point
last week in Massachusetts, when the state’s highest court issued an advisory
opinion at the request of the state Senate rejecting civil unions as a constitutional
alternative to marriage for gay couples.
The Kerry campaign released a statement after that court decision in which
the Democratic frontrunner took issue with the ruling, while reiterating his
opposition to gay marriage and his support for civil unions.
In that statement, Kerry said he remains “firmly opposed to any federal amendment
on this issue.”
Elmendorf defended Kerry’s position on the issue, noting he has “never waffled
or equivocated on the [Federal Marriage Amendment]” and added that Kerry is
not alone among Democratic contenders in preferring civil unions over gay marriage.
“Voters have to understand that all the major candidates are against gay marriage,” said
Elmendorf. “Our answer is that [Kerry] has a 30-year, pro-gay record, a far
superior record to George Bush and the Republicans. This is the one issue where
we will disagree, but we are not going to disagree on [the Employment Non-Discrimination
Act], hate crimes legislation, and money for HIV” prevention and treatment.
Last month, in an interview with ABC News, Kerry was asked to react to statements
made by President Bush in his State of the Union address opposing gay marriage
and suggesting the president was prepared to support an amendment to the U.S.
Constitution dealing with the issue.
Kerry responded that when it comes to gay marriage, “I have the same position
as the president,” and did not address specifically the question of a federal
marriage amendment.
John Marble, communications director for the National Stonewall Democrats,
noted that Kerry stopped short of fully favoring a Massachusetts marriage amendment
and said he thinks “every GLBT American knows that Kerry is very supportive
of our community.”
“Of course we want all politicians to be against such amendments,” Marble
said. “But we also understand that one can make an understandable argument
for letting voters vote on something on the local level as opposed to supporting
something on the federal level telling states that they would have to rewrite
their state constitutions and follow federal rules.”
The following is an excerpt of an
interview conducted on Monday, Feb. 9, by Melissa Block
of National Public Radio’s “All Things Considered” with
Democratic presidential frontrunner Sen. John Kerry of
Massachusetts:
Melissa Block: I’d like to turn to the subject
of gay marriage. The highest court in your home state of Massachusetts has
said that same-sex couples do have the right to marry. I know you’ve said that
you oppose gay marriage, but would you support a constitutional amendment that
would define marriage as a heterosexual union?
John Kerry: Well
it depends entirely on the language of whether it permits civil union and
partnership or not. I’m
for civil union. I’m for partnership rights.
I think what ought to condition this
debate is not the term ‘marriage’ as
much as the rights that people are afforded. Obviously under the Constitution
of the United States you need equal protection under the law. And I think equal
protection means the rights that go with it.
I think the word ‘marriage’ kind of gets in the way of the
whole debate, to be honest with you, because marriage to many people is obviously
what is sanctified by a church. It’s sacramental. Or by a synagogue or by a
mosque or by whatever religious connotation it has. Clearly there’s a separation
of church and state here.
Block: And why would you support, say, civil
unions or what you call partnership rights and not gay marriage, then?
Kerry: Because I
think marriage is a separate institution. I think marriage is under the church,
between a man and a woman,
and I think there’s a separate meaning to it. That’s why.
Block: Even for marriages
that aren’t conducted
in a house of worship?
Kerry: Correct, even
for those that aren’t,
there’s still two meanings. I mean, the state picked up the concept afterwards.
It’s a latecomer to the state. For those who have separate beliefs, there ought
to be a way here to be able to deal with it. But what you call something is
not that critical.
Block: You were one of 14 senators who voted
against the Defense of Marriage Act back in 1996 that was signed by President
Clinton. Why did you oppose that bill?
Kerry: I objected
to it because I thought it was gay bashing on the floor of the United States
Senate. It was one of
those examples of ideological Republicans trying to drive wedges into the electorate
of America, and I objected to the Senate being used for that, even as I still
said at the time I don’t personally support marriage as we understand it within
the context of religion.
|
