Sep 24, 2004  |  By: CHRIS CRAIN  | COMMENTS     

IF YOU WANT to know why John Kerry has struggled in the polls, then look no further than the issue of gay marriage.

The push for marriage equality and the resulting conservative backlash may not have risen yet to the top tier of issues in the presidential race, though both parties have used it to galvanize core supporters.

But John Kerry’s inability to take a clear, principled position on marriage is depressingly symptomatic of his more famous flip-flops on the war in Iraq.

Kerry has complained loudly that Bush is misrepresenting his view, but the Democrat has supplied more than enough ammunition. This disturbing tendency to blow with the political winds is nowhere as pronounced in Kerry’s meandering, contradictory and even hypocritical positions on gay marriage.

SUMMARIZING KERRY’S POSITION on marriage isn’t easy because as with Iraq and any number of other issues, the twists and turns are enough to make a policy wonk reach for the aspirin.

Kerry spoke out against the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996, and was one of only 14 senators who voted against the measure, and was the only one up for re-election. He says he did so because the measure represented “gay bashing” on the floor of the U.S. Senate.

But in his interview last week with the gay press, Kerry clarified that his opposition to DOMA rested on more nuanced ground. He apparently agrees with one of the law’s two primary provisions, which guarantees one state the ability to reject marriage licenses issued to gay couples by other states.

Kerry says DOMA was unnecessarily punitive — “gay bashing” — because states already have such a guarantee under the U.S. Constitution, an interpretation of the “Full Faith & Credit Clause” with which many gay activists and legal experts would take strong exception.

Kerry admirably supports full federal benefits for gay couples, which would suggest he took issue with the other major provision of DOMA, which withholds any federal recognition or benefits for gay married couples. Although because Kerry opposes gay marriage, it’s actually unclear whether he would restrict benefits to same-sex couples in “civil unions,” the second-class legal arrangement he prefers for us.

KERRY OPPOSES THE Federal Marriage Amendment backed by President Bush because he says it is a wedge issue cynically devised for political gain. He may be right about that, but he backs those in Massachusetts and elsewhere who are amending their state constitutions to accomplish the same end.

Kerry explains his opposition to a federal amendment and support for a state amendment because the issue is one that should be left to the states to decide. This position is in direct conflict with a “dear colleague” letter in July 2002 that opposed as “a grave error” an effort then to amend the Massachusetts Constitution to ban gay marriage.

Kerry’s public support arguably gave political cover to enough swing votes to affect the exceedingly narrow vote by the Massachusetts Legislature in favor of the constitutional ban.

After Missouri voters passed a constitutional ban on gay marriage this summer, Kerry told reporters he would have voted with the majority. Later, when he was under the impression that the Missouri measure banned civil unions as well, he switched positions and said he would have opposed it.

Still later, when his campaign learned that the Missouri amendment actually took no position at all on civil unions, Kerry demurred entirely, saying he would only tell Missouri voters that he opposes marriage and supports civil unions.
Feel a headache coming on?

WE HAVEN’T EVEN gotten to Kerry’s varying explanations for why he opposes marriage equality for gays in the first place.

He’s said at times that there’s no real difference between marriage and civil unions, a claim belied by Kerry’s own opposition to one and support for the other. At other times he’s pointed to the historical, cultural and religious history of marriage as an institution, a circular argument that was attempted by white supremacists who opposed interracial marriage more than three decades ago.

At one point last year, Kerry justified marriage as intended for procreation, the same position taken by the Vatican. But Kerry, who is Catholic, attempted to have his own first marriage of 18 years annulled by the church even after it produced offspring. And his second marriage, to Teresa Heinz ...