Mar 05, 2004  |  By: ADRIAN BRUNE  | COMMENTS     

In remarks made Feb. 26 from the campaign trail, the presumed Sen. John Kerry unequivocally backed amending the Massachusetts Constitution to prohibit gay marriage, disappointing a number of the presumed Democratic presidential nominee’s gay supporters.

Ending speculation around previous statements that appeared to back such an amendment in theory, Kerry explicitly stated he would support the amendment if it also guaranteed same-sex couples access to civil unions, which he said convey all the legal rights provided to married ones. That claim is disputed by gay rights activists and runs contrary to a ruling last month by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court.

At the same, Kerry also reiterated his opposition to a similar ban proposed by President Bush for the U.S. Constitution, saying, “For 200 years (marriage) has been a state issue.”

Kerry waited weeks before nailing down his position, but gay lobby groups immediately issued statements of disappointment, calling into question their support for Kerry’s White House bid.

“While we acknowledge the senator’s strong opposition to a federal constitutional amendment, supporting a divisive measure in his own state is exceptionally disheartening,” said Cheryl Jacques, the executive director of the Human Rights Campaign, a position she took after stepping down as a Massachusetts state senator. “Make no mistake, civil unions single out a group of people for second-class treatment.”

Other activists went as far as to question whether there was hypocrisy in Kerry’s effort to defend “traditional marriage” in light of his own nuptial history. In a Washington Post interview last year, Kerry said, “I have a belief that marriage is for the purpose of procreation and it’s between men and women.”

“This is a familiar objection to gay marriage, and one that may sound reasoned and substantive, but it amounts to ridiculous sophistry,” wrote Michael Crowley, a New Republic columnist. “By Kerry’s procreation logic, why allow infertile heterosexuals to marry? What purposes could these marriages have?

“The question answers itself. Particularly for Kerry, whose marriage to Teresa Heinz has yet to produce a child — and, it seems safe to say, isn’t likely to produce one in the future.”

Kerry’s recent proclamations actually reversed a position he took two years ago, expressed in a letter he signed with his congressional colleagues beseeching the Massachusetts legislature to terminate the amendment. Grassroots organizers say Kerry is sacrificing his original views to reach out to moderate voters in the general election.

“This last month has shown us that leaders across the country — from San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom to Richard Daley in Chicago — can stand up for our rights without backlash,” said John Aravosis, co-founder of DontAmend.com, a Web site opposing a federal marriage amendment.

“Kerry may think that by taking this point of view, he is appealing to the mainstream. But by reinforcing it consistently, he is annoying gay people and causing straight people to regard him as a candidate who waffles on more universal issues,” Aravosis said.

Kerry’s marital history
The Kerry campaign maintains that, as a candidate for president, Kerry has a responsibility to separate his own personal experiences with marriage from the positions he believes will benefit the country as a whole.

“He must support policy which he believes is in the best interests of the public and uniting the public,” said Jeff Trammell, an adviser to the Kerry campaign on gay issues who played a similar role during Al Gore’s 2000 candidacy. “This is best achieved through civil unions.”

Trammell also said that Kerry has not wavered in his support for limiting marriage to heterosexual couples, while he built a career history of rejecting legislation that jeopardized the recognition of gay relationships.

“He, like everyone, is shaped by personal experience, but he showed great respect for LGBT people long before the mainstream.”

After meeting his first wife, Julia Throne, through his best friend and her twin brother, David, Kerry’s married life started out conventionally enough. Introduced in 1963 during a visit to the Thorne family’s Long Island estate, Thorne — heiress to a $300 million Wall Street fortune — remained with Kerry through his Yale years and his two tours in Vietnam. They married in 1970, according to the Boston Globe.

When he returned home, Kerry became active in politics, leading the Vietnam Veterans Against the War, followed by a run for the U.S. Congress in 1972 on an anti-war platform. The change in focus catapulted Thorne into the “teeming and often vicious world of politics,” she said in an interview with the Mail on Sunday, a British tabloid, and their marriage began to suffer. ...