BY DAN
KENNEDY
Serving the reality-based community since 2002.
Notes and observations on
the press, politics, culture, technology, and more. To sign up for
e-mail delivery, click
here. To send
an e-mail to Dan Kennedy, click
here.
For bio, published work, and links to other blogs, visit
www.dankennedy.net.
Friday, February 27, 2004
An interesting wrinkle on gay
marriage. Maybe I'm reading too much into this, but I thought
John Edwards said something surprising and significant about gay
marriage at last night's debate. Like John Kerry, Edwards opposes
same-sex marriage and the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, a stance that
places both of them squarely in the middle. (Kerry voted against
DOMA; Edwards was not a senator at the time.)
Here
is the relevant exchange:
EDWARDS: Here is my
belief. I believe that this is an issue that ought to be
decided in the states. I think the federal government
should honor whatever decision is made by the states.
I want to say a word in answer
to the question you asked very directly. 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. I'm not
sure what he said about that.
LARRY KING: You would not
vote for it?
EDWARDS: I would
not. I would not for a very simple reason. There's a part of
it - there's a part of it that I agree with, and there's a part of
it I disagree with.
The Defense of Marriage Act
specifically said that the federal government is not required to
recognize gay marriage even if a state chooses to do so. I
disagree with that.
I think states should be allowed
to make that decision. And the federal government shouldn't
do it.
And can I say just one other
word about -
RON BROWNSTEIN: The part
that you agree with is what?
EDWARDS: Well, the part I
agree with is the states should not be required to recognize
marriages from other states. That's already in the law, by
the way, without DOMA.
Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but
it seems to me that Kerry has never given a reason for voting against
DOMA beyond his concern that it was a form of "gay-bashing." Edwards,
by contrast, is saying something very specific: that marriage should
be left entirely to the states, and - here's the crucial part - if a
state decides that gay marriage is okay, then the federal government
should honor that, and allow married same-sex couples from that state
to collect Social Security, receive married-couple tax breaks, and
all of the 1000-plus
federal benefits that
equal-rights advocates cite.
Not to give Edwards a pass. As
this
April 2003 Boston Globe story makes clear, Kerry explicitly
advocates civil-union rights for gay and lesbian couples, whereas
Edwards has shown some reluctance. But Edwards's willingness to defer
to states that let gays and lesbians marry is interesting
nevertheless.
Edwards also doesn't have the
political problem of coming from a state that is wrestling with the
issue. Still, Kerry has tied himself into knots. His current position
- for an amendment to the state constitution that would ban marriage
but guarantee civil unions, and against an anti-marriage amendment to
the US Constitution - is almost a parody of Kerry's congenital need
to have it both ways on every issue.
Yes, there is a certain logic to
his seemingly contradictory stands (Mitt's
pandering as usual, in
other words), but politics is about passion and symbols as much as it
is about logic and legislation. George W. Bush is going to paint
Kerry as a gay-marriage supporter anyway. Would that Kerry were bold
enough to make it so.
posted at 12:18 PM |
|
link
MEDIA LOG ARCHIVES
Dan Kennedy is senior writer and media critic for the Boston Phoenix.
