OK, I'll admit that Kerry is in a tough position re: gay marriage. He happens to be from Massachusetts, but even if he wasn't, in an election year, the gay marriage issue is to Democrats what the abortion issue is to Republicans. In essence, what we are faced with is a challenge to uphold our most basic beliefs (on the left, equal rights, on the right, religious doctrine) without offending the majority of the electorate who - right now - disagrees pretty virulently. So what to do? Steal a page from the GOP's playbook...
First of all, the current popular position - of Dean, Kerry, and countless other national politicians - is untenable. The idea that "civil unions" is a compromise that will satisfy both sides is both intellectually dishonest and morally ungrounded. It's as good a "compromise" as can be forged in an election year. But the Mass. Supreme Court has forced everyone to show their cards: what's it gonna be, marriage or no marriage. Separate but equal is no longer an option in Massachussets, and claiming "states rights" or hinting that you would sign an amendment are obvious dodges.
The genius of Bush and the GOP in the 2000 campaign on the abortion issue was to dodge the issue - but to do it honestly and positively. Bush made it no secret that he was anti-choice, but said nothing of litmus tests for judges, and focused his rhetoric on the "creation of a culture of life" and on the reduction of the rate of abortions. Sure, some of that was simply coded language designed to appeal to the pro-lifers and not offend pro-choice independents. But in many ways, it was a politically intelligent - and politically honest - position to take. He was basically saying that his strongly held beliefs were not the position of the majority of the country, and that because of that he would not be pushing through controversial legislation, but instead would focus on convincing the country of his positions.
Why not do the same thing re: gay marraige? Because of the Mass. decision, the dodges that worked before will not work any more. And even if they did, they would be dishonest and dispiriting to the Democratic base. So Kerry should take a page from the GOP book and state the following: "I'm want a country where equal rights are protected, but I will not push for any legislation for or against gay marriage. I will never allow government to interfere with religious institutions. I am aware of the intense emotions surrounding this issue on both sides, and will continue to try to create a culture of understanding and tolerance for gay and lesbian Americans."
It's the only honest position: "guys, I support gay rights, and there's no reason gay marriage shouldn't be legal, but it's a politically untenable position right now, and furthermore it would create a backlash worse than ever against gay and lesbian Americans. So I'm not going to push the issue. But you know where my heart stands."
The only problem is that, unlike abortion where the law is codified and the courts are unlikely to put the hot-button issue in Bush's lap, it is highly likely that at some point during a Kerry term (or possibly before) the courts and legislators in states around the country will put an amendment in Kerry's lap. At that point the only honest and right thing to do is to oppose an amendment. Bush would never let pro-choicers gain any more advances, and Kerry should never let any gay-bashers make adveances either, certainly not by enshrining bigotry in our Constitution.
It's not a perfect analogy, but I think it works. It's the only right, honest, and politically viable position for any Democratic presidential candidate to take. I hope they abandon their current mealy-mouthed quasi-Republican stances, and work out something like this. It's too bad Clinton was never able to.