John Kerry has (maybe) backed making state gay civil unions functionally equivalent to marriage as far as federal rights and benefits are concerned.
“It’s the first time in history that a presidential candidate has ever supported full and equal protection for same-sex couples,” said state Rep. Mark Leno, a San Francisco Democrat and an early Kerry supporter who attended Friday’s fundraiser and queried Kerry about his position. “He told me that he would grant all 1,049 federal rights to same-sex couples in whatever legal union their states recognize,” said Leno, who has sponsored a bill that would legalize gay marriage in California.
Or maybe not.
Kerry spokeswoman Stephanie Cutter did not dispute Leno’s characterization of the meeting, but said Kerry was responding to very specific yes or no questions put to him. She portrayed his answer as in keeping with his general support for “providing federal benefits for state-recognized same-sex couples. . . . He has not reviewed the over thousand benefits but stands by his commitment to equality.”
The devil, of course, is always in the details.
But, again, that raises the question of, if you’re going to consider it precisely the same, why use a different word for it?
(One might also ask if the various federal obligations and responsibilities associated with marriage will also be imposed on gay civil unions. One would, if the bennies are to be there, hope so. After all, that’s part of marriage, too.)
Kerry’s walking a serious tight rope here, trying to appeal to those who support gay rights (including marriage), while not alienating folks who are not as comfortable with the idea (or who actively oppose it). He’s previously said he’s against gay marriage, but has voiced opposition to a Federal constitutional amendment. He supports a Massachusetts state constitutional amendment banning it, though, but only as long as it allows for civil unions. As a result, nobody is terribly happy with him on the subject.
Plus, of course, it’s not as simple a position as Kerry paints it, not just a matter of executive order.
Kerry might have a hard time upholding his promise. Granting federal rights to same-sex couples contradicts a major provision of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, said Tobias Wolff, a professor at the Stanford University School of Law and an expert on gay legal issues.
The provisions state that federal benefits for married people may not apply to same-sex couples, and that judgments stemming from a same-sex union are not portable from state to state. While marriage and civil unions are not considered a “judgment” in legal terms, divorce, child support and probate are judgments. That means, Wolff said, that a legal mess could ensue if a partner who is dissatisfied with the litigated decision regarding, say, divorce, in one state, decided to litigate in another state.
Stay tuned …