JOHN KERRY is still in hiding–and still sinking–but if he ever does surface for an on-camera meeting with the press, it will no doubt be dominated by Christmas-not-in-Cambodia and magic hats from CIA men. I hope a second press conference can immediately be scheduled to catch up on all the other broken glass his careening campaign has left in its wake.
John Kerry was for reducing troop strength in South Korea before he was against it. And John Kerry was against national missile defense before he was for it. Both subjects need even more dizzying elaboration. But he especially needs to get us the latest version of his gay marriage stance.
Here’s what we know about where he has been on the issue to date: It is the political equivalent of a marathon game of Chutes and Ladders.
John Kerry was one of only a handful of senators to vote against the federal Defense of Marriage Act in 1996, which passed both houses with overwhelming majorities and which Bill Clinton signed into law. (Here’s one explanation of what that law intended.)
We also know that Kerry opposes an amendment to the federal Constitution providing that in the United States marriage will only be between one man and one woman.
But what does he believe about amendments to state constitutions that provide for limiting marriage to one man and one woman?
On July 12, 2002, Senator Kerry co-authored a letter to the Massachusetts state legislature which was considering an amendment to the state constitution limiting marriage to one man and one woman. Kerry termed the proposal a “grave error.”
On August 6 of this year, however, in the aftermath of a huge vote in Missouri in favor of an amendment to that state’s constitution which was designed to protect marriage as it has always existed in Missouri–as well as in the United States and, indeed, all of Western civilization–Kerry told the Kansas City Star that he would have voted for that amendment. Kerry had earlier flip-flopped on the Massachusetts amendment, too, drawing criticism from proponents of same-sex marriage.
Kerry used some pretty basic code to signal the Democratic convention that he would be a reliable guy when it came to expanding marriage to cover same sex couples. His recent comments in Missouri and Massachusetts notwithstanding, the best predictors of the sorts of judges that Kerry would put on the federal bench are the judges on the Massachusetts bench who struck down marriage as a violation of equal protection guarantees and about whom Kerry has not issued a single word of criticism that I can find.
IT SEEMS CERTAIN that same-sex marriage and a federal amendment to prohibit it should be front and center in any presidential debate devoted to domestic issues. It seems just as certain that Kerry will intone his “I am opposed to gay marriage, but in favor of civil unions,” and that a friendly press corps will leave it at that.
But the marriage issue is a driving force in the election, as the vote in Missouri and future votes in other states, including Ohio, will prove. It is not an answer to say “oppose / favor” referring to gay marriage and civil unions. There needs to be a plan as to how to achieve that end because, unimpeded by legislative action, judges have been pushing decisions that impose same-sex marriage, decisions that will inevitably hop state barriers. Either you are in favor of obstructing the export of same-sex marriage or you are in favor of its inevitable transfer via judicial decree. That’s the question that needs to be asked: “John Kerry, since you opposed DOMA, what actions do you support to prevent the courts of one state from imposing their rulings on another state?” Followed by: “If federal courts strike down DOMA, thus providing for the export of same-sex marriage from one state to another, would you then support an amendment to the federal Constitution to prohibit such export?”
If Kerry tries to avoid this issue with calculated doublespeak, the mainstream media will no doubt attempt to help him carry off the ruse. And then the new media–which brought the Swift boat story to the front pages–will have to do the work of the old media, again.
Hugh Hewitt is the host of a nationally syndicated radio show, and author most recently of If It’s Not Close, They Can’t Cheat: Crushing the Democrats in Every Election and Why Your Life Depends Upon It. His daily blog can be found at HughHewitt.com.
