Cowardly Candidates

24 November 2003


Massachusetts Gay Marriage Shows Democrats are Yellow

When the court in Massachusetts said that the state doesn't have the right to ban same sex couples from marrying, six of the nine Democrats running for president showed themselves to be unworthy of the office they seek on the grounds of wishy-washy, mealy-mouthed, milquetoast cowardice. Congressman Dennis Kucinich of Ohio, the Rev. Al Sharpton of New York and former Senator Carole Moseley Braun may not be winners, but at least, they are consistent. The others are not.

The judges in Massachusetts said basically what this journal has said elsewhere; that the state has no standing to deny the right of contract to couple who wish to be married. However, Senator Lieberman of Connecticut flinched, "Although I am opposed to gay marriage, I have also long believed that states have the right to adopt for themselves laws that allow same-sex unions." Congressman Gephardt, whose daughter is a lesbian and who should be a bit braver on the issue for her sake, flip-flopped, "I do not support gay marriage, but I hope the Massachusetts state legislature will act in a manner that is consistent with today's Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruling." Massachusetts Senator John Kerry, who showed more bravery facing the Viet Cong, weaseled out, "While I continue to oppose gay marriage, I believe today's decision calls on the Massachusetts state legislature to take action to ensure equal protection for gay couples."

Remember the old duck test -- if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck? Same with "civil unions" for gays. It is inconsistent with logic, sanity and the proper use of the English language to create a legal situation that is identical to marriage in every way (thus protecting the rights of American citizens equally) but is not called marriage (to help carry the Catholic and southern vote in 2004).

Oddly, the American people are no better are logic and semantics than the pillars of jelly who hope to lead them. Most favor equal rights for same-sex couples, so long as the word "marriage" isn't used -- or so that what the latest polls tell us. Few same sex couples are demanding that they be given a High Church wedding with all the trimmings; they merely want to be able to enter into a contract with another person that requires them to accept certain obligations in return for certain privileges.

There is another, much more conservative view that says same sex couples should not have the legal right to this form of contract. The reasons are legion, and they deserve debunking or acceptance on their merits. Where this view is preferable to the tepid statements of the candidates last week is in its intellectual consistency, honesty, and clarity. Usually, these are the cornerstones of leadership, something the front-running Democrats haven't demonstrated on this issue.

Home