Boston, Massachusetts -
Sen. John Kerry has made his strongest statement yet on amending the constitution to prevent same-sex marriage.
In an interview with the Boston Globe Kerry, the frontrunner for the Democratic presidential nomination, said that while he opposes a federal amendment he supports a change in the Massachusetts constitution to bar gays from marrying.
But, said the Massachusetts senator, he would only support the state amendment if it provides for civil unions and allows same-sex couples all of the rights of marriage.
"If the Massachusetts Legislature crafts an appropriate amendment that provides for partnership and civil unions, then I would support it, and it would advance the goal of equal protection," the senator told the Globe, stressing that he was referring only to the state, and not the federal, Constitution.
Kerry went on to say that he would oppose any amendment that did not include a provision for civil unions. "I think that you need to have civil union. That's my position," he said.
It was his clearest statement yet on the issue, but one which angered supporters of same-sex marriage.
Kerry's remarks are also expected to sway a number of state legislators unable to make a decision on a proposed amendment. Last month a joint session of the House and Senate failed to reach agreement on the wording of an amendment. (365gay.com story) They will try again next month, but the earliest a proposed amendment could reach voters would be in 2006, two years after same-sex couples will be allowed to marry in the state under a ruling by the Massachusetts Supreme Court of Justice. (365gay.com story)
"It is harmful for us and could well affect the vote," said Arline Isaacson, cochair of the Massachusetts Gay and Lesbian Political Caucus, which strongly opposes such an amendment.
Earlier this year, Kerry was the only member of the state's all-Democrat congressional delegation who chose not to sign a letter urging the state Legislature to reject a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.
"Marriage - not civil unions - unlocks the door to important federal protections. Civil unions do not provide Social Security survivor benefits - a system we pay into but that our survivors can't access," said Human Rights Campaign president Cheryl Jacques, a former Massachusetts state senator.
"Civil unions do not allow an employee access to the Family and Medical Leave Act - a law that allows an employee to take time off of work to care for a sick loved one without fear of losing their job. Civil unions do not ensure fair taxation on a partner's health insurance or retirement savings. Civil unions are not portable and are currently recognized in only one state - Vermont. When a couple in a civil union leaves Vermont, they are strangers under the law. This list of protections goes on and on."
Kerry's support for an amendment, and for civil unions drew fire from gay Democrats.
"Senator Kerry is wrong. We're disappointed and upset that he would endorse this measure. Amending a constitution is the most drastic step that can be taken," said David Noble the president of National Stonewall Democrats.
"Like the rest of the American public, we need to help Senator Kerry understand that there are major, substantial differences between civil unions and marriage. Civil unions do not provide the 1,049 federal benefits that only full marriage equality can guarantee."
The National Gay and Lesbian Task Force also took exception to Kerry's position.
"Many times in his public career Sen. Kerry has stepped forward to advocate for equal rights for all Americans," said NGLTF executive director Matt Foreman.
"We urge him to do so now, even in the heat of a campaign for the nation's highest office."
Earlier this week President Bush called for an amendment to the US Constitution barring same-sex marriage. (365gay.com story)
by Michael J. Meade
365Gay.com Newscenter
Boston Bureau
©365Gay.com® 2004
In an interview with the Boston Globe Kerry, the frontrunner for the Democratic presidential nomination, said that while he opposes a federal amendment he supports a change in the Massachusetts constitution to bar gays from marrying.
But, said the Massachusetts senator, he would only support the state amendment if it provides for civil unions and allows same-sex couples all of the rights of marriage.
"If the Massachusetts Legislature crafts an appropriate amendment that provides for partnership and civil unions, then I would support it, and it would advance the goal of equal protection," the senator told the Globe, stressing that he was referring only to the state, and not the federal, Constitution.
Kerry went on to say that he would oppose any amendment that did not include a provision for civil unions. "I think that you need to have civil union. That's my position," he said.
It was his clearest statement yet on the issue, but one which angered supporters of same-sex marriage.
Kerry's remarks are also expected to sway a number of state legislators unable to make a decision on a proposed amendment. Last month a joint session of the House and Senate failed to reach agreement on the wording of an amendment. (365gay.com story) They will try again next month, but the earliest a proposed amendment could reach voters would be in 2006, two years after same-sex couples will be allowed to marry in the state under a ruling by the Massachusetts Supreme Court of Justice. (365gay.com story)
"It is harmful for us and could well affect the vote," said Arline Isaacson, cochair of the Massachusetts Gay and Lesbian Political Caucus, which strongly opposes such an amendment.
Earlier this year, Kerry was the only member of the state's all-Democrat congressional delegation who chose not to sign a letter urging the state Legislature to reject a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.
"Marriage - not civil unions - unlocks the door to important federal protections. Civil unions do not provide Social Security survivor benefits - a system we pay into but that our survivors can't access," said Human Rights Campaign president Cheryl Jacques, a former Massachusetts state senator.
"Civil unions do not allow an employee access to the Family and Medical Leave Act - a law that allows an employee to take time off of work to care for a sick loved one without fear of losing their job. Civil unions do not ensure fair taxation on a partner's health insurance or retirement savings. Civil unions are not portable and are currently recognized in only one state - Vermont. When a couple in a civil union leaves Vermont, they are strangers under the law. This list of protections goes on and on."
Kerry's support for an amendment, and for civil unions drew fire from gay Democrats.
"Senator Kerry is wrong. We're disappointed and upset that he would endorse this measure. Amending a constitution is the most drastic step that can be taken," said David Noble the president of National Stonewall Democrats.
"Like the rest of the American public, we need to help Senator Kerry understand that there are major, substantial differences between civil unions and marriage. Civil unions do not provide the 1,049 federal benefits that only full marriage equality can guarantee."
The National Gay and Lesbian Task Force also took exception to Kerry's position.
"Many times in his public career Sen. Kerry has stepped forward to advocate for equal rights for all Americans," said NGLTF executive director Matt Foreman.
"We urge him to do so now, even in the heat of a campaign for the nation's highest office."
Earlier this week President Bush called for an amendment to the US Constitution barring same-sex marriage. (365gay.com story)
by Michael J. Meade
365Gay.com Newscenter
Boston Bureau
©365Gay.com® 2004
This article originally appeared on 365gay.com. Republished with permission.
