My problem with Kerry's decision on the Mass. amendment is twofold:
1) It was politically
stupid timing. He'd been ducking the question, evading the question, and generally "not answering" that particular issue for
weeks. He could have chosen to give another "non-answer" answer (the usual "This is up to the people of Mass., and while I personally support civil unions, blah-blah-blah"). He
should have given that answer, but he didn't.
There was one solid fact in the whole gay marriage amendment issue: While gay marriage wasn't popular, and even civil union support was lucky to hit parity, Democrats and especially independents were loathe to monkey with the Constitution.
We had a giant hammer to smash Bush with. Yeah, he wanted to use the FMA as a wedge (rather, he's being forced to try to use it as one. It's obvious he didn't want the issue on the table). We had a counter wedge, one that played very well with the middle. Changing the Constitution to enshrine discrimination wasn't something many people felt comfortable with. We were setting Bush up to be "The guy who wants to change the Constitution for cheap political points with his base, all so he can get a second term in office".
We venerate the Constitution. Changing it just for political points doesn't sit well with exactly the voters we need. Bush was on the wrong side of history, the wrong side of the gamble and the wrong side of the polls....he was going to split the country, no matter what we did...and it was likely he'd get he smaller piece.
And then Kerry does this. He blows apart our counterissue, our best defense, by supporting an amendment of his own state's constitution. Yeah, in reality it's a different situation (Mass is gay marriage, unless they amend the constitution to specify civil unions) ...but reality is unimportant next to perception.
And the perception Kerry just played into was the worst possible one. He still can be painted as "pro gay marriage", because the wingnuts view civil unions as the same thing. But Bush can also use him for cover. After all, how can we hammer Bush for wanting to amend the Constitution to score political points when he can turn around and say "Well, I've got the same position as Kerry, who also supported an amendment to prevent gay marriage".
Thanks, Kerry! Why couldn't you have kept your fat mouth shut for a few weeks?
2) More ideologically, Kerry's on the wrong side here. You shouldn't be amending the Constitution, state or federal, to deny people rights....nor should you be doing it to create "seperate but equal" situations. It still treats gays as second class citizens.
I'm willing to accept it as a "first-step" solution. I'm willing to accept it as a "we can do this, and we can't do the other". I'm willing to accept it as a political compromise. You didn't hear a word out of me about Kerry's position of "I don't support gay marriage, but I do support civil unions". That was Dean's position, Clark's position...(hell, it's even probably Bush's, who I don't think really cares about it).
But that's different than wanting to amend the Constitution over it, federal or state.
It's a subtle difference, but it makes all the importance in the world to me.
It's been a damn bad morning. I wake up to see Kerry make a major political mistake, and a major ideological one. And this was less than 24 hours after deciding I could happily support Kerry after all. He got rid of my reservations by opposing the FMA.
But now I see him in Mass., and despite the differences, I can't help but seeing Bush writ small. Sure, he's not as destructive. But he's still willing to amend a constitution to deny rights.
And I can't help but think that if the Supreme Court were to come to the same conclusion that Vermont, Hawaii and Mass.'s courts have come to on gay marriage, that Kerry would cheerfully push to amend the US Constitution to bar gay marriage, for no other reason than to get him a second term.
And I can't support that. Not at all.