By Paula Martinac
Kerry'd Away With Marriage
The Democrats are on the verge of choosing Sen. John Kerry as their presidential candidate, and, not surprisingly, Republicans are scrambling to dredge up (or should I say Drudge up?) everything from his alleged marital infidelity to his anti-Vietnam War stance. Never mind that he's a decorated war hero, and that, in addition, almost no one today thinks Vietnam was a good idea.
However, Kerry, a longtime friend of the gay community, is also coming under fire from critics on the left, for failure to take a strong, immediate stand against a possible anti-gay-marriage amendment to the Massachusetts state constitution. To me, these critics are looking through a dangerously narrow lens and playing directly into the hands of the right.
I should say upfront that I'm not a Kerry volunteer or donor; in fact, I haven't endorsed any Democratic candidate. At one time I leaned toward Howard Dean, and my partner and I made a contribution to his campaign. But I quickly joined the "Anyone But Bush" team, which maintains that virtually any of the Democrats would look better in the Oval Office than the sitting president. I reached that "A.B.B." stance even though only three of the candidates at that time – not coincidentally, the three unelectable ones – voiced support for marriage for gay couples.
I should also point out that marriage rights are hugely relevant to my own life, since I am a lesbian in an 11-year relationship that doesn't have a legal leg to stand on. The issue of marriage really hit home for me recently, when my father was hospitalized and I got a close-up look at the privileges and respect that his wife, my mother, was afforded – but that my partner or I, in a similar situation, would have to produce reams of paper to try to achieve.
Despite my own interest in marrying for legal and economic reasons, though, I'm tired of the gay marriage frenzy of recent weeks. It's demoralizing to open up the newspaper and read the negative results of ubiquitous polls with questions like "Should gays be "allowed" to marry?" or "Should gay couples be afforded "any" rights?" (emphasis added). Indeed, there's been so much weight given to marriage lately – by both the right and the left – that a visitor from Mars might conclude there are no other issues or concerns affecting the lives of gay and straight Americans.
Of course, part of the reason marriage is so much in the news is because Republicans desperately want it to be. Right-wing Bush supporters are banking on the fact that most Americans hold marriage as a "sacred" institution – despite the fact that more than half of all straight marriages end in divorce – and that many citizens still don't understand the difference between civil and religious marriage. As a result, there's overwhelming public disapproval of gay couples being able to wed legally, except among Americans under 30.
Indeed, this country's entrenched beliefs about the supposed sanctity of "one man, one woman" marriage could take a generation of public education to erode. If we're lucky and the polls are correct, by the time younger politicos like San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom reach middle age, marriage rights for gays could be something politicians "must" embrace in order to win office.
So the fact that Kerry has evaded voicing an opinion on a still-to-be-finalized Massachusetts amendment shouldn't surprise us – nor should that alone cost him gay votes, as some critics suggest. Gaining civil rights is a long, grueling process; and although it's painful to see Kerry prevaricating, I think we should give him a break. We know from his years in the Senate where he stands on gay-rights issues – he's been a far better friend than Bill Clinton. Unfortunately, we know, too, that he opposes marriage rights for gay couples and supports watered-down civil unions instead – but then, so does Dean.
And believe it or not, marriage isn't the only issue this year, as much as the right wants voters to believe it is. Who, for example, will get to decide the future composition of the Supreme Court? Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, the moderate swing vote in "Lawrence v. Texas," will probably retire during the next administration. Do we want Bush, who sings the praises of antigay justices Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia, to nominate her replacement – or the replacement of liberal Justice John Paul Stevens?
If Bush makes the pick, we should be prepared for how additional right-wing justices will vote on, say, an adoption case brought by gay parents in Florida. With that in mind, I hope the gay community will be able to look at the bigger picture in this election, and not just focus on a gay wedding snapshot.
