I'd been making my peace with John Kerry as nominee--getting ready to give my money to a senate and house race near me and investing in clothespins. I know many bytes have been used up discussing what he may or may not have said over FMA or an amendment to the Massachusetts constitution. Chewing on this whole thing a bit more, I once again have come to the conclusion that this man, while of course better than Bush, is by far the
least appropriate of the 4 remaining contenders to represent us as president. I don't mean to beat a dead horse here, but my feeling of unease extends way beyond the issue of gay marriage at hand.
The Democratic strategy of 2002 was "cede ground to Republicans on 'their' issues so they don't become controversial. Then we can take on 'our' issues." OK we saw how well that worked with "national security" and the war in Iraq, didn't we?
I thought that maybe Howard Dean had taught these guys a lesson--after all they're stealing his lines. But all Howard Dean did was put his body on the barbed wire so that everyone could run over him (um, thanks Bill for the image). When put in a position where he had to, well, lead, Kerry's doing exactly the same thing he did with the Iraq war and those here who are excusing him are doing the same thing those who excused the Iraq vote in 2002 were doing. What I want to know is even if Kerry is elected, how can I count on him to shepherd through controversial legislation or veto dangerous legislation? Mike S has pointed out that country is at about a 50/50 split on civil unions, so no side owns the issue. Framing on either side is what will win the day. Kerry's framing is the sort that just drives everyone away in the end.
Gay marriage is controversial, no doubt. I don't blame anyone for not wanting to give a full throated endorsement now because, well, these guys actually have to get elected to change anything. But supporting, or even hedging on a constitutional amendment (whether it be federal or in Mass.) is craven and unnecessary. I really hope that the other candidates can pick up on this and frame the issue in time. Because there are 2 big states coming up where this could matter--California and New York. The following is how I feel, and what I'd want any of the 4 to say:
I have my private views about gay marriage. I personally do not favor the word "marriage" as it provokes controversy where none should exist. However, I also believe civil rights are not negotiable. Whatever you want to call it, gay Americans should have the same civil rights as all Americans. I also have strong feelings about the constitution. As the founding fathers knew well, the constitution is not just for us, but for our children and our children's children. We should not and must not take the ability to debate away from generations to come.
I would also like to point out something else. The Republicans would like to push this issue on us because of all the other issues they don't want us to look at. They want to divide us here because they know that if we look at the jobs lost, the unprecedented deficit, the death and misery in Iraq, and the lack of healthcare in this country, that we will be strong and united in not just removing George W. Bush from office, but winning back the House and Senate. Don't fall for it. Stand with us.
And if you are a gay advocate or work in gay advocacy, I'd start putting pressure on Kerry right now. Don't be afraid of Bush. Kerry's not the nominee yet, and even if he is, he has quite a lot of time to refine his positions before November. Use language he understands. Tell him that it would be a lot worse for him to lose votes that he wouldn't have otherwise had to work for in exchange for votes that he may or may not win.
