Rove forced Kerry to explain his position in a way that made it sound, at least to the commenter meaninglessness, but instead of directing Bush to the same "middle ground," he put him where he puts him on every issue: Wherever the people he's appealing to want him to be. Rove's background in direct mail advertising taught him to use the power of lists--lists of churchgoers, lists of veterans, lists of divorcees, lists of everything. Direct mail pieces about how Bush would "protect marriage" were targeted to those who would be interested in hearing about it, while Bush himself struck a conciliatory (and confusing, for some) note a few weeks before the election by suddenly saying he was OK with civil unions. This as Bush's on-air ads denounced Kerry as a flip-flopper!
The question posed by our commenter deserves an answer, though. Yes, Kerry said he wanted to preserve the sanctity of marriage, in that he believes the word "marriage" should refer only to the union of a man and a woman. But there's this to consider, part of his civil rights policy:
Protecting Gay and Lesbian Families: John Kerry believes that same-sex couples should be granted rights, including access to pensions, health insurance, family medical leave, bereavement leave, hospital visitation, survivor benefits, and other basic legal protections that all families and children need. He has supported legislation to provide domestic partners of federal employees the benefits available to spouses of federal employees. He was one of 14 Senators -- and the only one up for reelection in 1996 -- to oppose the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).Kerry also denounced "Don't ask, don't tell," supports the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, and is a cosponsor of hate crimes legislation. All of these are important issues to the gay community.
Was Kerry perfect on gay issues? No...but we gave him a pass on the word marriage because, well, no other presidential candidate was ever so supportive. Says Eleanor Clift: President Clinton, who signed the Defense of Marriage Act when he was in the White House, advised Kerry in a phone call early in the campaign to find a way to support the state bans. Kerry never considered abandoning his principles to that extent, but he also didn’t take seriously enough the threat." Why not? Why didn't Kerry sell out the gay community for votes? For all the bashing he's endured as a flip-flopper, why didn't he put a finger in the air, feel the wind blowing against his position, and close the gap between he and Bush on the issue? Probably because Kerry is comfortable with gay people, comfortable with the idea of gay people, and unwilling to use us as a political pawn. He showed his comfort level when he mentioned Mary Cheney in the debate. Say what you will: Kerry is not a moron. If he had thought his remark would create the kind of furor it did, he wouldn't have said it. He doesn't view referring to someone's declared sexuality as an insult.
Bush, on the other hand, can't even use the word "gay" or "lesbian" in public. He talks about how we can "profess tolerance," how we can "respect someone's rights," but he also encouraged his surrogates to use the gay issue aggressively, and mentioned not once during the campaign a single thing he would do as president to improve the lot in life of a gay or lesbian person. Kerry, in the third debate--after mentioning Mary--had this to say:
The president and I share the belief that marriage is between a man and a woman. I believe that. I believe marriage is between a man and a woman.In other words, for Kerry, this is a semantic issue. "Marriage" is what is always has been--a man and a woman. But the rights that go with marriage? Property rights, visitation rights, the right to work without fear that someone will discover your sexuality and fire you for it? Kerry believes in these rights. Bush doesn't.
But I also believe that because we are the United States of America, we're a country with a great, unbelievable Constitution, with rights that we afford people, that you can't discriminate in the workplace. You can't discriminate in the rights that you afford people.
You can't disallow someone the right to visit their partner in a hospital. You have to allow people to transfer property, which is why I'm for partnership rights and so forth.
The elephant in the room is Bush's comment to Charlie Gibson on Good Morning America, right? Here's what he said: ""I don't think we should deny people rights to a civil union, a legal arrangement, if that's what a state chooses to do so." That's not an endorsement of civil unions, folks. The implication is clear: If a state can choose to offer people civil unions, it can also choose not to offer them, right? And that's what eight states did this week: chose not to offer civil unions, now or anytime in the future, at least until they re-amend their constitutions.
Many in the gay community looked at Bush's comments and said he'd given us what we wanted, that both candidates now supported civil unions. But that's not what happened. Bush muddied the waters in terms of his position, made himself seem more compassionate than his party, and got even gay pundits saying he and Kerry held identical positions. But his words didn't proclaim any deeds that would follow from them; he didn't suggest that states that offered civil unions would also be able to allow gay couples to file federal taxes together, or obtain any of the other federal benefits that accompany a heterosexual marriage. Kerry suggested that these rights should apply to all legally-joined couples, no matter the sex of the two partners.
And, by the way, Bush wanted to AMEND THE CONSTITUTION to ensure that, in a generation, when the momentum has fully shifted on this issue, it won't be easy to undo the damage he's done. Maybe he didn't think the amendment had any chance of passing; maybe it was just a political tool to help him drive out his base. Does that make it any better?
Ralph Nader said after the election, according to Clift, that Kerry failed to draw real distinctions between himself and the president:
Nader offers a plausible if self-serving analysis for what went wrong for Kerry and the Democrats. He blames the “Anybody but Bush” mindset that led Democrats to set aside their issue differences with Kerry and give him a free ride. “Leave Kerry alone—make no demands on him,” that was the mantra, says Nader. The party’s various factions—labor, liberals, women, environmentalists—took a holiday. “They allowed Kerry to adopt ambiguous wishy-washy positions and they deprived him of the key to victory, which is bright lines,” says Nader.Nader may or may not be right about Kerry's defects as a candidate and the party's failure to make its positions clear. But however he articulated his position on gay rights, Kerry always made sure that he stood on the side of equality, if not in name then at least in fact. I may believe that the word "marriage" should belong to all of us, not just heteros, but if I'm in a car wreck tomorrow, I don't care what they call our union--I just want to know that the hospital will call Brad and he'll be there with me, and that if I die he'll be taken care of. John Kerry wanted to give me that. George Bush used the very idea that I might have that to scare voters who have never met a gay person into voting based on it. If that makes them the same, I don't know what could have made them different.
No comments:
Post a Comment