http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A28566-2004Mar3.html?referrer=email
Kerry Backs Benefits for Legally United Gays
By Evelyn Nieves and Jim VandeHei
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, March 4, 2004; Page A06
SAN FRANCISCO, March 3 -- Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.), under fire from gay Democrats for opposing same-sex marriage, has promised that if elected president he would grant state-sanctioned gay couples the same 1,049 federal benefits married heterosexuals enjoy, according to people who met here with Kerry last Friday.
Kerry, who personally opposes gay marriage, said for the first time he would bestow all federal benefits such as the right to file joint income taxes and collect survivor benefits to same-sex couples who unite legally in civil unions, domestic partnerships and even marriage
under their state laws. Kerry made the comments at a gay fundraiser in San Francisco's Nob Hill neighborhood.
Until Friday's event, Kerry had talked mostly in general terms of
providing federal benefits and the "same basic rights" to same-sex
couples.
"It's the first time in history that a presidential candidate has ever supported full and equal protection for same-sex couples," said state Rep. Mark Leno, a San Francisco Democrat and an early Kerry supporter who attended Friday's fundraiser and queried Kerry about his position. "He told me that he would grant all 1,049 federal rights to same-sex couples in whatever legal union their states recognize," said Leno, who has sponsored a bill that would legalize gay marriage in California.
Kerry spokeswoman Stephanie Cutter did not dispute Leno's characterization of the meeting, but said Kerry was responding to very specific yes or no questions put to him. She portrayed his answer as in keeping with his general support for "providing federal benefits for state-recognized same-sex couples. . . . He has not reviewed the over thousand benefits but stands by his commitment to equality."
Kerry is carefully trying to reach a middle ground in one of the most explosive political, cultural and legal debates of 2004, his advisers say. He has been inundated with complaints from gays since he told the Boston Globe last week that he supported a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage in Massachusetts as long as it contained a provision for civil unions. His home state is set to begin performing gay weddings May 17.
Some Democrats were threatening to pull back on financial support. "There were a lot of people who were very upset at the way his position was described," said Jeff Soukup, who along with his partner has been a host of fundraisers for Kerry. "And there were a lot of people who had been planning to attend the fundraiser who said they would not attend until Kerry clarified his position." Kerry did, first through surrogates and then in person.
"We disagree with them on one big issue: gay marriage," said Steve Elmendorf, Kerry's deputy campaign manager. "They are for it, we are against it." Elmendorf has held a series of conference calls in recent days with gay leaders to broker peace between them and the presumed Democratic nominee. "We have had a lot of people make it clear they disagree with us on gay marriage." Kerry is searching for a prominent homosexual to serve as his conduit to that community in the general election, Elmendorf said.
Gay marriage is expected to dominate the social agenda of this year's elections. President Bush is pushing for a federal constitutional amendment outlawing same-sex marriage, a move Kerry opposes, and Christian conservatives are fighting for it with the same passion they brought to the abortion debate in years past. Outside of Washington, gays from New York to California are defying the law and marrying, setting the stage for a legal struggle many Democrats consider akin to the civil rights battles for racial equality in the 1960s.
Kerry might have a hard time upholding his promise. Granting federal rights to same-sex couples contradicts a major provision of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, said Tobias Wolff, a professor at the Stanford University School of Law and an expert on gay legal issues.
The provisions state that federal benefits for married people may not apply to same-sex couples, and that judgments stemming from a same-sex union are not portable from state to state. While marriage and civil unions are not considered a "judgment" in legal terms, divorce, child support and probate are judgments. That means, Wolff said, that a legal mess could ensue if a partner who is dissatisfied with the litigated decision regarding, say, divorce, in one state, decided to litigate in another state.
Only California, Vermont, Hawaii, New Jersey and New York have laws that provide for domestic partnerships and civil unions, and give same-sex couples varying degrees of parity with heterosexual couples. The laws in those states do not affect federal statutes, which do not
recognize gay unions.
VandeHei reported from Washington. Special correspondent Joe Dignan contributed to this report.