Sen. John Kerry, in the hopes of forcing himself back into mainstream America, now trumpets his opposition to same-sex “marriage.” He has even endorsed a Massachusetts constitutional amendment defining marriage as an act between a man and a woman (he opposed that amendment just last year, but that’s another story). He nevertheless opposes a federal constitutional amendment on grounds of states’ rights. Marriage, Mr. Kerry declares, has been regulated by the states for more than 200 years and is therefore out of the purview of the national government. Public policy, along with the Defense of Marriage Act (which he opposed back in 1996), according to Mr. Kerry, is enough to keep same-sex “marriages” from moving across state lines.
His same-sex “marriage” stance sounds plausible until you look at other aspects of his record, at which point any semblance of clarity immediately vanishes. In this case, a simple comparison with his positions on abortion does the trick.
Mr. Kerry most emphatically does not support leaving laws on abortion up to the individual states. He considers the right to privacy an essential part of the Constitution. According to his Web site: “John Kerry believes that women have the right to control their own bodies, their own lives, and their own destinies. He believes that the Constitution protects their right to choose and to make their own decisions in consultation with their doctor, their conscience, and their God.” He was one of 34 senators to oppose the partial-birth abortion ban, and he cheered when it was temporarily enjoined by a federal judge. Mr. Kerry has a 100 percent lifetime rating from Planned Parenthood. In other words, Mr. Kerry strongly believes that the right to abortion on demand is enshrined in the Constitution. His voting record and public statements make it abundantly clear that he believes the right to abortion is far too important to be left up to the states.
Why then, does he support leaving marriage laws up to the states, but not abortion laws? Is it because marriage has been traditionally a state issue, and we ought to stick with things the way they are? Put aside the obvious rejoinder that marriage has traditionally been between a man and a woman, and if we were to keep that the way it has been for well over 200 years, Mr. Kerry’s “states’ rights” construction would crumble. It’s more telling to note that abortion only became a federal issue in the aftermath of Roe v. Wade in 1973. Before that, it was entirely left up to the states.
So, after putting all the pieces together, where must Mr. Kerry actually stand? All sidestepping and verbal acrobatics aside, the right to abortion on demand, in Mr. Kerry’s world, must be a more fundamental part of American life than maintaining traditional marriage. But even more likely, given Mr. Kerry’s opposition on “gay-bashing” grounds to DOMA in 1996 and his contradictory current position in favor of leaving the issue up to the states, Mr. Kerry intends to allow the inexorable drift to the same-sex “marriage” version of Roe v. Wade, which would install homosexual “marriage” as a federal right. Looks like Mr. Kerry might not oppose same-sex “marriage” after all. That’s not a big surprise.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.