A KERRY BOO-BOO ON SAME-SEX MARRIAGE

Just when I was really warming up to John Kerry, he might have a little problem on his hands.

Compare these two statements on the Massachusetts State Court ruling on same-sex marriage.

First, John Kerry:

I have long believed that gay men and lesbians should be assured equal protection and the same benefits - from health to survivor benefits to hospital visitation - that all families deserve. While I continue to oppose gay marriage, I believe that today's decision calls on the Massachusetts state legislature to take action to ensure equal protection for gay couples. These protections are long over due.

Second, Howard Dean:

I believe firmly that we must do everything in our power to assure that all citizens of the United States are afforded equal rights under the law -- and that includes gay as well as straight couples. As Governor of Vermont, I was proud to sign the nation's first law establishing civil unions for same-sex couples. Today's decision by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court represents a different approach to the same goal. One way or another, states should afford same-sex couples equal treatment under law in areas such as health insurance, hospital visitation and inheritance rights.

Some in Washington will use this decision to justify the proposed Federal Marriage Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. This would be the first constitutional amendment to authorize discrimination, and I oppose it. Marriage is a matter of state law, and gay bashing has no place in the
Constitution.

Which one is better?

See, the reason the right is so gleeful that same-sex marriage is probably going to be a significant election issue is that not only do they think it'll give them a chance to play the "out of step" card on the Democrats, but also because they think it'll be a wedge issue for the Dems, pitting the "I'm for civil unions" types against both the "let states decide" contingent and the "without full marriage it isn't equal protection" people.

Kerry's statement, while usefully referring to the variety of equal rights he supports for same-sex couples, plunges him directly into first of the three just-mentioned categories. Dean's statement, remarkably, manages to transcend all three categories without being a dodge. "Different approach to the same goal" is a rhetorical master-stroke. Dean knows that the Republicans have a divide&conquer scheme in mind when they openly float the idea of a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. Kerry's statement reveals him to be either careless or ignorant on that factor. While Dean says "one way or another", Kerry says "one way... but not that way."

Atrios has more.