Dan Kennedy points out how John Edwards’ compromise position on gay marriage - though not radically different from Kerry’s - stands in sharp contrast to the convoluted semantic-mincing of Kerry. In sum, Edwards says (at least now) that DOMA is unnecessary because the full-faith clause doesn’t apply here and that the federal government should allow state-defined gay marriages but that states should be able to recognize marriages or not, as they choose. If I’m not mistaken, that’s not far from Andrew Sullivan’s federalism-will-make-this-work argument.
Of course, as Kennedy points out, Kerry might not have the same liberty to make that argument because of his label as MA liberal. Still, it shows the possibility for one in-between position which is not mealy-mouthed.
Meanwhile, the Economist comes forth today with a forceful editorial for gay marriage. Taking on arguments against gay marriage, they write,
But marriage is about children, say some: to which the answer is, it often is, but not always, and permitting gay marriage would not alter that. Or it is a religious act, say others: to which the answer is, yes, you may believe that, but if so it is no business of the state to impose a religious choice. Indeed, in America the constitution expressly bans the involvement of the state in religious matters, so it would be especially outrageous if the constitution were now to be used for religious ends.
The importance of marriage for society’s general health and stability also explains why the commonly mooted alternative to gay marriage—a so-called civil union—is not enough….Marriage, as it is commonly viewed in society, is more than just a legal contract. Moreover, to establish something short of real marriage for some adults would tend to undermine the notion for all.
While Kerry splits hairs and Edwards focuses on legal framework, someone - any major national Democrat beyond Kucinich - should be taking a chance and saying something as forceful and right.
No comments have been added to this post yet.