This man is not my friend.
Much is being made of John and Teresa Kerry being friends of the gay community. Kerry is often hailed as the savior of gay rights in America. The emotion that is sometimes on display somehow fails to move me, however, unless you count my churning stomach.
If you want to vote for Kerry because he is a liberal and doesn't have the same bald-faced anti-gay agenda as the right, fine. If you want to vote for Kerry because you disagree with Bush's foreign policy, fine. If you want to vote for Kerry because you think he will advance civil rights issues for gay and lesbian Americans then you need to pull your head out of ... the sand. I can pretty much guarantee you that not one ounce of political capital will be spent on gay and lesbian issues by a Kerry administration. Not now during the campaign while he is trying to suck up to middle America and get the votes he needs to win office. Not later, should—by some minor miracle—he manage to do it.
Kerry has studiously dodged the issue of gay marriage during this campaign. Though he has repeatedly stated he is opposed to a constitutional amendment prohibiting gay marriage, he could not take the time to appear and cast his vote. Both he and Edwards were conspicuously absent. You might say it was politically expedient. You might say it was a refusal to be drawn into the fracas Republicans have created hoping to drive a wedge between Kerry and middle America where this election will be won or lost. That sounds more like a convenient excuse. Kerry has repeatedly stated his opposition to the amendment. I fail to understand how casting a vote would be additionally damaging to his campaign.
While Kerry has voiced his opposition to a constitutional amendment, he has also —repeatedly—voiced his opposition to gay marriage and has also stated that he supports a constitutional amendment to the constitution of his home state, Massachusetts. Some friend. So it's not okay to amend the US Constitution to codify discrimination, but it is okay to amend a state's constitution to do the same. Does someone want to explain that logic to me and how we can still call this man our friend? His stance is politically motivated. It gives him a nice middle ground to stand on where he can stroke whoever he is schmoozing at any given moment. When speaking to a gay crowd he can talk about his opposition to a constitutional amendment. When talking to a more conservative crowd he can talk about his opposition to gay marriage. Sorry, but in most circles that is what we call two-faced.
I actually think that it would be safer to have 'W' in the White House when it comes to gay issues. Why? Because the right does not know how to do anything but spout rhetoric and hysteria when it comes to gay issues. The fact that most people can see through this is evident in the fact that the effort to amend the Constitution fell flat on its face. This happened because the right cannot compromise on this issue. It happened because the language specified "no marriage or anything like unto it." Most Americans are fair minded and can see that is unreasonable. The right's agenda is easy to defeat because it is hysterical and irrational. The battles in various states are a completely separate issue and one where the president has little influence—except in his home state.
Consider now what happened the last time a Democrat was in the White House, a Democrat also hailed as a friend to gay and lesbian Americans. We ended up with DOMA and Don't Ask Don't Tell. If you think Don't Ask Don't Tell was a step forward, consider that it actually created legal grounds for dismissing military personnel because of their sexuality and that discharges on these grounds have increased since its inception. These are steps backwards, people, not forward. If you think something similar is unlikely to happen under the Kerry administration, think again. Think about it folks: Massachusetts is the only state where gay marriage is legal. Kerry supports an amendment to the Massachusetts constitution to stop it. Put the weight and prestige of the White House behind that issue and you think it won't make a difference? Well, I hope you enjoy whatever you are smoking and say hello to the Cheshire Cat for me.
There more I watch John Kerry the less I like him. His tax rhetoric rings hollow because you know he's not going to change tax laws to his own disadvantage. The filthy rich will remain largely immune and the burden carried by the upper middle class and moderately wealthy. There is also something fundamentally disturbing about a presidential candidate threatening lawsuits over political ads he doesn't like. If you can't stand the heat get out of the kitchen, or—better yet—answer the allegations and prove them wrong. It's pretty pathetic that this is the best the Democratic party has to offer.