Before I get to Sen. Kerry's stance on gay marriage and the rights of America's gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered community, let me put to rest the broken-record argument coming from President Bush and his cronies: Kerry has not strayed from his stance. I know it's hard for Republicans to understand that not everything is black and white, but Kerry, being a smart man who knows that America is complex and deserves complex thought, is not fickle when it comes to gay marriage - or anything else for that matter.
John Kerry opposes "gay marriage." But before you get all riled up, claiming that this is not his original stance or a politically calculated position, let me clarify: Kerry may oppose gay marriage, but wholeheartedly and consistently supports civil unions that provide complete legal equality for homosexual couples. Civil unions under a Kerry administration would be all-encompassing and include every liberty given to a heterosexual couple. He believes same-sex couples should be granted every right of wedded couples, including health insurance, pensions and family medical leave, as well as legislation to give domestic partners of federal employees the benefits of spouses of federal employees. With Kerry, everyone is equal, and no portion of this population will be "left behind." Not convinced? Try johnkerry.com.
But no matter how he feels about gay marriages, Kerry doesn't think any president should have jurisdiction over the institution. This is a matter best left up to the states, so if a state would like to allow gay marriages, he is fine with that. The same goes if a state wishes to ban same-sex marriages - but there's a catch with this one: Gay couples still should not be denied the legal and medical rights allocated to a man and a woman who are married.
Here's where the differences become glaringly obvious when you compare Kerry with Bush. The president is a staunch supporter of "protecting the sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman," while leaving the gay community out in the cold as if they weren't people at all. This is legislative bigotry. By banning gay marriage and making no allowance for civil unions and all 1,049 federal rights given to straight couples, Bush is segregating a portion of the population and making it "different" and not open to the same protections as everyone else.
When Bush, Sen. Wayne Allard (R-Colo.) and Rep. Marylin Musgrave (R-Colo.) were trying to get the federal Gay Marriage Amendment through Congress in an attempt to legalize the second-class citizenship of our GLBT community, their arguments strayed dangerously close to crossing (or maybe blatantly jumping) the line between church and state. The Bible should not be within 10 city blocks of governmental policy - at least that's what a few dead guys named Jefferson, Adams and Washington thought. Gay marriage is not a question of the "morality" of homosexuality. It's about the constitutionality of denying a large segment of the population the same rights given to everyone else out of bigotry and hate.
The notion of permanently changing the Constitution to shut out part of the population (and the electorate - keep that in mind, Mr. Bush) is one that all freedom-loving people should find terrifying. Should our nation's premier legal document be open to such drastic changes? For Kerry, the answer is no. The states should each decide on an individual basis if gay marriage is something it wants, not the federal government. States' rights are just as important as our individual freedoms, and the debate over gay marriage or civil unions should not infringe on either set.
During his time in the Senate, Kerry has opposed the Defense of Marriage Act, which is very similar to this year's Federal Gay Marriage Amendment, and has consistently supported a plan for civil unions that provides all federal privileges granted to heterosexual couples. Kerry argues that the term "marriage" is often construed as religious. His reasons for not supporting the term "marriage" are not a political compromise; it is simply because he feels marriage is something that is usually religious. The idea here is not to force religious institutions to accept homosexuality, or even to force individual people to accept homosexuality. It is simply to provide a group of human beings with equal rights under the law. It is simply the legal binding of two persons, with or without spiritual significance, with full understanding that every American deserves to be equal in the eyes of his government.
Lisa Petak is a freshman in the School of Communication and the School of Public Affairs.
