Who Says There’s No Such Thing As A Free Ride?

I’m sure you’re all as tired as I am of not reading anything in the mainstream press about how Kerry has been forced to retract 25 years of false statements about his whereabouts on Christmas Eve 1968, an experience, he told the Senate in 1986, that was “seared … seared” into his memory. Well, even brands on cattle can be rebranded when necessary. (A nice summary of what the press continues to ignore can be found on Instapundit today.)

But I’m not going to talk about that free ride. I’m going to mention another one. I don’t have time to track down these links right now (I’m sure someone will correct me if I’m wrong, and others will attempt to even if I’m right), but I’m pretty sure that Sen. Kerry is on record (whatever that means in his case, since his record is pretty malleable) supporting civil unions, opposing gay marriage, and opposing a proposed Constitutional amendment barring gay marriage on federalism grounds, i.e., that marriage is a matter for states to determine.

There is certainly nothing inconsistent or incoherent about holding those three positions. But…. If Kerry opposes gay marriage and opposes the proposed Constitutional amendment barring it only on federalism grounds, he should support state consititutional amendments (such as the one just approved by 70% of Missouri voters), shouldn’t he?

Has he done so? Has the press asked him his position on the dozen or so similar propositions that may appear on state ballots this fall? If so, I must have missed it.

And now that he has revealed a sympathy for states rights, does he support such legislation as the federal defense of marriage act, and similar legislation in various states, affirming that states are not obligated to give “full faith and credit” to marriage decisions in other states? Has the mainstream press asked him about this? If so, I must have missed it.

A judge in Washington state recently declared that state’s version of the defense of marriage act unconstitutional. What does Kerry think of that constitutional argument? Would he be likely to appoint judges who would rule the same way, or who would defend states’ rights to limit marriage to a union between a man and a woman? Has the mainstream press asked him about this?

If so, I must have missed it.

P.S.

For what it’s worth, I’m not sure what my own position is on the legal and Constitutional questions here. But then I’m not running for president, and I’m not likely to be in a position to appoint any judges any time soon.

Say What? (4)

  1. meep August 13, 2004 at 1:33 pm | | Reply

    I’m pretty sure Kerry voted against the federal DOMA, calling it mean-spirited, or something. He was pretty much outnumbered on that vote – many Dems as well as Republicans voted for DOMA.

    Anyway, it’s not so much a free ride as “Have your cake and eat it, too” feeling I get with Kerry. I don’t remember Clinton being able to get away with such shenanigans, but that could be selective memory.

  2. ELC August 13, 2004 at 4:22 pm | | Reply

    “Sen. Kerry is on record (whatever that means in his case, since his record is pretty malleable) supporting civil unions, opposing gay marriage, and opposing a proposed Constitutional amendment barring gay marriage on federalism grounds, i.e., that marriage is a matter for states to determine.” AFAIK, that is all correct.

    “But then I’m not running for president, and I’m not likely to be in a position to appoint any judges any time soon.” What a shame.

  3. Nels Nelson August 13, 2004 at 5:40 pm | | Reply

    I think you might be missing some details on the Washington case. It was a state judge ruling that a state law violated the state constitution. The residents of Washington are now free to pass an amendment and overall the judge. The ruling is neither in opposition to nor in defense of states’ rights as it wholly contained within a state.

    Kerry has definitely changed his position on his 1996 DOMA vote, now saying that he was wrong at the time to have considered the legislation unconstitutional. He has publicly supported the Massachusetts and Missouri amendments.

  4. Nels Nelson August 13, 2004 at 6:27 pm | | Reply

    Sorry about any confusion generated by the typos in the above post. ‘Overall’ should have been ‘overrule’ and ‘as it wholly contained’ should have read ‘as it is wholly contained.’

Say What?