The amendment that doesn't
In Massachusettss, Democrats are offering a "compromise amendment" to the state constitution. Since John Kerry endorses this "compromise," you know there's a catch.
Sure enough: the amendment would call for "civil unions" for gay couples.
Just a few weeks ago, defenders of marriage in Massachusetts might have thought they were getting off easy if the legislature allowed civil unions but stopped gay "marriage." That's because civil unions would have had only legislative approval; the law could have been overturned as soon as legislators recovered their senses. But this proposed amendment would enshrine civil unions in the constitution.
So the net effect of this amendment would be to defuse the public opposition to gay marriage. That's really all that it would accomplish.
And now why did Kerry endorse the measure? Because he realizes that President Bush, by backing a federal amendment that would really protect marriage, has grasped an enormously popular issue. This is Kerry's bid to look "moderate," while still giving gay-rights activists what they want.
All comments are moderated. To lighten our editing burden, only current donors are allowed to Sound Off. If you are a current donor, log in to see the comment form; otherwise please support our work, and Sound Off!