E-Mail This Article to a Friend What does John Kerry think? The SJC's latest ruling is probably bad news for the Democratic frontrunner BY ADAM REILLY

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 4, 2003 -- John Kerry can't be too happy today despite his strong showing in yesterday's slew of primaries and caucuses. Today’s Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruling -- which says civil unions aren’t an acceptable alternative to marriage under the state constitution -- provides perfect fodder for the Kerry-is-a-Massachusetts-liberal-out-of-touch-with-the-mainstream spiel that the GOP is already hurling his way.

Attempts to reach the Kerry campaign for comment were unsuccessful early Wednesday afternoon. But here’s a bit of free advice for the junior senator from Massachusetts: You’re not going to be able to duck the issue, so you might as well learn to handle it competently. Which he's yet to do. It’s worth noting that Kerry’s avoidance of the issue of gay marriage was a lowlight of the January 22 Democratic debate in Goffstown, NH.

At that debate, moderator Peter Jennings asked Kerry how he’d respond when the Republicans 1) connect him to the "activist judges" of Massachusetts who Bush claims are threatening the sanctity of marriage; 2) point out that Kerry was Michael Dukakis’s lieutenant governor, and 3) claim he’s more liberal than Ted Kennedy. "I look forward to that fight, and I want particularly want to have that debate with this president," Kerry declaimed. Then he referenced, among other things, his service in Vietnam, his work as a prosecutor, his support of welfare reform, his gun ownership, his support of education reform and Medicare, and the unfairness of the American workplace. Gay marriage? Not a peep.

Kerry did close his answer to Jennings by promising to show voters that "there’s a way to make America fundamentally fair and live up to our promise to all of our citizens." If Kerry is looking for a rebuttal to ominous Republican references to "activist judges" -- a virtual certainty, especially after today’s ruling -- the notion of "fundamental fairness" would be a perfect place to start.

None of this means that another Democratic candidate would have an easier time with this issue than Kerry. The Phoenix had no luck, either, in reaching the campaign of Senator John Edwards (no doubt Kerry and Edwards are consulting with advisors as you read this on how to respond to the ruling). But Edwards seems to have an easier time talking about this issue in general than Kerry does. On the same evening Kerry chose to ignore Jennings’ reference to last year’s landmark SJC decision establishing a right to same-sex marriage, Edwards offered a heartfelt, compelling defense of gay rights that was marred only slightly by his misinterpretation of the federal Defense of Marriage act. At the Goffstown debate, Edwards had this to say:

"Massachusetts, for example, has just made a decision -- the supreme court at least has made a decision - -that embraces the notion of gay marriage. I think these are decisions that the states should have the power to make...Here’s what I believe: I believe it is the responsibility of the president of the United States to move this country forward on this important issue. And there is so much work to be done to treat gays and lesbians and gay and lesbian couples with the respect that they’re entitled to. They deserve, in my judgment, partnership benefits. They deserve to be treated fairly when it comes to adoption and immigration."

It wasn’t an unequivocal defense of gay marriage. But at least Edwards engaged the subject, and did so passionately and forcefully. Kerry’s going to have to stake out a credible position on gay marriage, and he’s going to have to do it soon.