News Analysis

Why Did Sen. Kerry Allow Constitution to be Violated, Is That Showing Leadership?
J. Edward Pawlick
February 12, 2004

   Sen. Kerry is taking hits because he claims to have always supported traditional marriage even though it is not true. He opposed the federal Defense of Marriage Act, being only one of 15 Senators who did so while 85 supported the measure and President Clinton signed it.

   But the Associated Press missed the bigger part of the story.

   In 2002, our Democratic state legislature violated the Constitution and refused to allow a vote on the Protection of Marriage Amendment. But Kerry didn't care at all. If they had allowed the Legislators to vote, there would be a referendum this year to allow the voters to stop Margaret Marshall from imposing either gay marriage or civil unions.

   He was trapped by Tim Russert while on Meet the Press, so he certainly knew what was happening as this transcript shows:

   Kerry : Well, we actually have a ballot referendum this year that will go to the heart of the matter with respect to gay marriage.
   Russert : But it's being blocked by leaders of the state legislature. Do you believe that the people of Massachusetts deserve a right to vote on it?
   Kerry : I think people always deserve a right to vote, and if you have a referendum process, Tim, people have a right to exercise it.

   But it became clear a few months later that he really didn't care. He knew the Democrats were destroying our democracy by refusing to allow legislators to cast their votes on the issue even though the Constitution required it. However, the Senator was nowhere to be seen . . . but he was heard. He signed a highly unusual letter from the Congressional delegation officially telling Party members of the state Legislature how they should vote on a state matter. The letter was delivered on Monday, July 15, two days before the vote of the Legislators.

   Although Kerry went to the effort to them how to vote, he did not tell them that they must vote, even though he was well aware that they were not planning on doing so.

   Opposed Protection of Marriage on Federal Level

   The A.P. says it is concerned this year that "when [Kerry] opposed federal legislation in 1996 that defined marriage as a union between a man and a woman, he compared the law to 1960s efforts in the South to decriminalize integrated marriages and accused his supporters of engaging in the 'politics of division.'

   "'This is an unconstitutional, unprecedented, unnecessary and mean-spirited bill,' Kerry said."

   A Kerry spokesman attempted to spin it by saying that the Senator has consistently opposed gay marriage while approving civil unions. That certainly may apply to Massachusetts but not to the federal law. But more important, many wonder, how could the Senator sleep while interfering in a local state issue and telling them how to vote, while permitting the Legislature to violate the Constitution on purpose without even raising his voice?

   While our young men are battling in Iraq in order to give that country a constitution that is obeyed, do we deserve any less?

   Someone should ask John Kerry that question.