Mar 19, 2004  |  By: CHRIS CRAIN  | COMMENTS     

of marriage, like Bush, but supports full equality for gay couples.

He has attacked President Bush for endorsing a federal marriage amendment because it writes discrimination into the Constitution, and yet he backs a similar amendment to the state constitution in Massachusetts, where marriage licenses are actually to be issued.

How can Kerry be against one amendment but in favor of the other, or is he on both sides of this issue, as the president has charged he is on so many others? His aides would undoubtedly say that he sees it as an issue for the states, but then why did Kerry oppose as “gay bashing” language in the Defense of Marriage Act that protected states from having gay marriage foisted upon them?

Kerry presents himself as a champion of civil rights, even on the issue of gay marriage, and yet his actions are more akin to those of a governor from the Jim Crow South, dismissing with a vague appeal to “tradition” the ruling of his home state’s highest court that civil unions are separate and unequal.

Kerry’s reasons for opposing for gay marriage are all over the map, and his own treatment of the institution — obtaining an annulment of his first marriage after 18 years and two children — make his appeals to tradition even weaker.

We should all remember that the battle over marriage and gay civil rights goes beyond partisan politics and a presidential election. The same activists who have rightly condemned with loud-throated voices the president’s position should find their voices and call Kerry into question as well.

If we can force both sides to say what they really mean about gay marriage, we will have won half the battle.