Same-sex marriage rising to top of political agenda

By Mary Curtius and James Gerstenzang
Los Angeles Times

E-mail this article Print this article Search archive

Conservatives pressured President Bush to embrace their drive for a constitutional amendment that would limit marriage to a union between a man and a woman. On the presidential campaign trail, reporters deluged Democratic candidate Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts with questions about how his home state and the nation should handle the issue.

In Congress, some senators who had resisted the drive to enact a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage said the Massachusetts ruling was making them rethink their opposition.

Wednesday's decision by the highest court in Massachusetts allows gays to be married, beginning as soon as May 17, and makes it the only state to permit same-sex marriage. The ruling also ensures that the question of gay marriage "will be the No. 1 social issue in this election," said Whit Ayres, a Republican pollster.

If that proves to be true, Bush and the Democratic nominee — particularly if it is Kerry — will need to tread carefully, analysts said.

The dilemma for Bush is how to satisfy his conservative base without alienating the wider electorate, they said. The danger for Kerry is that Republicans could use the Massachusetts ruling to bolster their argument that he is a far-left liberal who comes from a state that is out of touch with mainstream U.S. values.

Bush issued a statement after the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court issued its ruling. "Marriage is a sacred institution between a man and a woman," he said. "If activist judges insist on redefining marriage by court order, the only alternative will be the constitutional process. We must do what is legally necessary to defend the sanctity of marriage."

The statement did not go far enough for some, including conservative activist Gary Bauer. He said the Massachusetts ruling is the kind of trigger that Bush has said would make a constitutional amendment necessary.

Sen. George Allen, R-Va., said Bush and many other Republicans believe that the 1996 federal Defense of Marriage Act is sufficient.

That act, signed into law by President Clinton, defined marriage as a union between a man and a woman for the purposes of federal law and said no state is required to recognize another state's legalization of same-sex marriage. Indeed, many Republicans balked last year when a proposed constitutional amendment was introduced in the House and Senate that would define marriage as a union between a man and a woman. Some said they did not want to interfere with states' rights to define marriage; some said the 1996 law was adequate to protect the institution.

Some senators said yesterday they were reconsidering their positions in light of the Massachusetts ruling.
"I was thinking that the Defense of Marriage Act was enough," said Sen. Don Nickles, R-Okla. "... But this Massachusetts case concerns me greatly."

Kerry seemed to be the presidential candidate with the most immediate problem. The senator has said he supports legal protections for same-sex couples but opposes the right of gays to marry. Still, reporters asked Kerry so many questions about gay marriage after a rally in Portland, Maine, that the candidate became impatient, insisting he had given a full accounting of his beliefs.

"Look, I support equal rights and the right of people to have civil-union, equal-partnership rights," Kerry said. "I don't support (gay) marriage. I never have. That's my position. It's always been that way."

Asked about endorsing a constitutional ban on gay marriage, Kerry said he "would have to see what language there is."

Copyright © 2004 The Seattle Times Company