How do you think the ruling in MA regarding gay marraige will be used by Republicans (and maybe other Demos?!) against Kerry and what do you think he should do about it.
We have already seen (at least I read it in the NYTimes this morning) that the Republicans are planning to paint Kerry as on the more liberal side of his party - more liberal than Kennedy. Basically, the same approach as with Dukakis.
ooops - “marriage” grumble darned hamsters. Please forgive that, and a lack of a “?” at the end of the first paragraph…and any other mistakes you find…
It’s certainly something he and his campaign staff had better be getting ready for. If he goes all deer-in-the-headlights the first time he gets baited on it, he’s toast.
I’m no professional campaign coordinator, but I suspect the way to handle it with the least damage is to go on the offensive. If he makes an issue about not being against gay rights and allowing the legislature or the courts to address the situation as they see fit rather than posturing in favor of amendments that would specifically make it illegal for gay people to get married – thus striking a pose as socially liberal but not personally responsible for the activism – he may be able to put the Republicans (and other detractors) on the defensive. He could say things like “I’m not convinced that the court decision was in fact solidly based on factors appropriate to the judiciary, and I prefer to see such matters addressed by the elected legislators, but I will say this: I do think the current situation in America subjects gay and lesbian people to undue hardship, and if the Congress of the United States is ready to address that, I am ready to work with them. In contrast, Mister Bush seems primary interested in pandering to the fundamentalist right who believe these people to be pariahs and call them evil, wicked people. <cite some Phelps, Falwell, etc. stuff> So perhaps it is time we had a national debate on whether the best solution to the problem is to extend marriage to gay people, or to offer benefits and protections in some other form. We certainly need to offer them some sort of protection. And let us be clear: it is gay and lesbian people who need protection. Not marriage, Mister Bush. Marriage is not a weak and fragile custom. Marriage is in no danger from any of this, and I don’t think Mister Bush honestly believes it is.”
That is very well said Ahunter3. I just hope that whoever the anti-Bush candidate is can say it as well and not cave to the bigotted appeal of Bush’s stance on gay marriage.
Kerry and all the other Democratic candidates have all been asked repeatedly already about their stance on same-sex marriage. All of the majors have offered similarly wishy-washy answers. While I would like to see Kerry (or whoever the nominee is) offer an answer similar to AHunter’s (I would re-think the bit about “now is the time to have a national discussion” or whatever as it leaves open the idea that discussing a constitutional amendment is an appropriate or even a good idea) but I like the bit about how marriage is more than strong enough to survive the inclusion of same-sex couples in it.
Kerry was asked the question on one of the Sunday interview shows just before the NH primary. He said he was opposed to gay marriage, but thought same-sex couples should have the same protections that traditional married couples had. He was saying that if one gay partner was hospitalized, the other partner should be able to have a say in medical care. That’s not really wishy-washy – it’s a thoughtful position
<editorial>We need both politicians and voters who don’t reduce all uses to binary situations. Too many people think that saying anything other than “It’s great” or “It stinks” is a sign of pandering, when it can often be an indication that the issue can’t and shouldn’t be reduced to a yes/no answer.</editorial>
Kerry will simply say that he was not involved in the decision and did not agree with it (perfectly true).
I disagree that the “I’m opposed to gay marriage but I support equal rights” answer is a thoughtful one. It’s wishy-washy, trying to please everyone. Supporters of SSM hate it and opponents of SSM hate it. It’s an attempt to appeal to both sides and satifies neither. It also demands an answer to the follow-up question, which is “why do you oppose SSM?” Such answers without fail tend to be rooted in tradition (“that’s the way it’s always been”) or religion (“God made man and woman”), neither of which is thoughtful.
Otto - I hear you and that may mean that candidates will have to take a more polarizing stand if, in fact, this is made to be an election-defining issue, which may happen.
I saw an interview of Kerry, where he stated that his stance - opposed to gay marriage but in support of civil unions - was based on the thinking that marriage is something based in religion and should be the purview of religions - i.e., the government should not legislate on it. Civil unions and providing for the equal rights of SSPartners, to him, is something that is covered by law and should be supported by law. One may not agree with his going in assumption - that marriage is on the “church” side of “separation of church and state” while civil union is on the “state” side - but his explanation seems clear and thoughtful.
I am not gay, nor am I active in an organized religion, but I am supportive of equal rights for gays, and at first thought, this seems to be not wishy washy, but more a thoughtful distinction - let a given religious group set rules for their community - granted, most would not be in favor of gay marriage, but I don’t think legislating religious beliefs and ceremonies is good either.
It is very difficult - I want to find a way to support SSP’s in every legal way possible, while respecting a religious community’s right to set rules for their rituals and beliefs. And, I would like to find a way for Kerry and other Democratic candidates to voice support for gay rights while not alienating too much of the voting public so they can retain, or grow, their popularity and end up winning in the election. Tough stuff.
WordMan, I think it’s important to realize that there already is a separation of church and state in marriage as it stands. There is the religious ceremony, which is performed at churches’ discretion, and the legal ceremony, which consists of signing a marriage certificate. You can have a religious ceremony, but that won’t mean you’re legally married until you sign the papers; you can have a legal ceremony, but not be married in the eyes of a church.
The government cannot force a church to perform a marriage it doesn’t endorse; the religious aspects of gay marriage will, I’m certain, be hashed out over years, and different churches will adopt different policies.
Nobody is trying to force any religions to do anything. We just want the same legal rights that are conveyed by the signing of that legal document.
Yeah, what MrVisible said.
What I always find amusing (in a thoroughly disgusted sort of way) is that the same people who decry the government for getting involved in marriage don’t seem to have that much interest in disentangling government from marriage by, say, repealing the marriage laws in their entirety or repealing the laws which confer benefits to married couples.