Here is the response of John Kerry, the probable Democratic presidential candidate:
Personally, I do not agree with the premise of same-sex marriage. I would prefer not to modify to constitution in order to protect it, but it appears that there is no other option at this point. From Massachusetts to California, a few in powerful positions are dictating a new definition of marriage which they feel should be adopted by all. These bold and lawless (at least in San Francisco) moves have forced the President's hand in this matter.
John Kerry's response is interesting because he is saying two different things. First, he declares that civil unions are the way it should be. Then he declares that this is a state's rights issue and should be left to the states. His home state has already working on providing a legal same-sex marriage, so that option contradicts his first statement. Most likely, this is a hot potato which he is trying to avoid.
Andrew Sullivan has been calling for this issue to be resolved at the state level for months. He sees this as the solution to the problem because the people of each state can decide the matter for themselves. I have a problem with this approach to this problem. The "full faith and credit" clause in the Constitution means that this 'solution' will bring about legal same-sex marriage on a national level. Perhaps that is why Sullivan supports it so strongly.
I wrote about this state-by-state approach last August. Here are my comments then which still apply today:
Does this mean that you believe that any field affected by FFC should in fact be the province of the Federal government? Boy, the States’ rights people will *not* be happy with you.
Admittedly it is a tricky question, but I doubt the amendment writers intended it to result in the right to govern these areas being taken away from the States.
No, that is not what I am saying at all. I’m saying that I believe this is something that is going to be decided at a national level.
Given the choice between a Federal decision (constitutional amendment) or allowing one state to decide for the entire nation, I would choose the Federal option.
http://king-of-fools.com/blog/trackback/563/IU2XzKlI/
George W. Bush came out today against Gay Marriage. This isn't a big surprise here, and Kerry is saying he is for civil unions but doesn't want a Federal mandate against gay marriage, yet constitutionally, without it, if one state...