Gay marriage tests Kerry and Romney

With the high court's ruling, civil unions, the middle ground Kerry supports and Romney has suggested he would at least consider, were suddenly eliminated as a compromise position. Kerry, now the front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination, issued a statement noting that, though he favored civil unions, he disagreed with the SJC's demand for full marriage. But the thornier issue is one Kerry declined to address. Given his opposition to gay marriage, would he now support amending the state constitution to prohibit homosexual unions? Asked that question, Kerry spokesman Michael Meehan said the senator would wait to see what the Legislature does before commenting further.

Governor Romney, suspected of harboring future national hopes of his own, reacted to the SJC advisory opinion by reiterating his call for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. And by stressing the voters deserved a say in an issue of this importance.

Both men obviously realize the treacherous terrain they face.

Kerry saw up close the way some of the positions former Governor Michael Dukakis took as a Massachusetts politician were used to portray him as a liberal out of touch with mainstream values when he ran nationally in 1988. Romney and his team, meanwhile, are all too aware that the social liberalism that made Bill Weld such a comfortable fit as governor also rendered him anathema to the Republican Party's conservative national base.

Both men also clearly recognize this reality: Although the Massachusetts electorate is split on gay marriage, embracing the idea could prove a decided detriment to a successful national candidacy.

If you agree that fairness means extending the rights, protections, and benefits of marriage to gays and lesbians, but fear that the uncompromising stance of the SJC on an issue that has only been on the public agenda for a short period could trigger a serious and sustained backlash, you can certainly appreciate the political plight gay marriage presents.

The suspicion here is that, if it weren't for national politics, Kerry would support full marriage rights for gays. Certainly one of the past justifications he has offered for his opposition -- marriage is for procreation -- sounded odd coming from man whose second marriage holds neither prospect nor intent of children.

But to say that Kerry should drop the (suspected) pretense is to say that the difference between advocating civil unions and supporting gay marriage outright is one worth possibly losing a national election over. Is it really, particularly when such a loss would only set back the cause?

Although Romney seems uncomfortable about the socially divisive issue, the SJC's advisory opinion appears only to have hardened his resolve to push for a constitutional amendment forbidding gay marriage. There, the high court's new opinion may be creating new allies for the governor. With the compromise ground of civil unions now gone, legislators may decide that the best course on such a controversial issue is simply to put a proposed amendment before the people and let them decide.

And yet, Romney could also declare that though he disagrees strenuously with the SJC, enacting a constitutional amendment that wouldn't take effect until 2006 -- by which time gays and lesbians will have been allowed to marry for two and a half years -- would simply cause too much upheaval to merit its pursuit.

Certainly, the unfairness such an amendment would enshrine in the state constitution makes the consequences of Romney's advocacy graver than Kerry's evasion. And that's why, faced with the SJC's new reality, a politically ambitious governor needs to do some deep and serious soul-searching about what he wants his legacy to be.

Scot Lehigh's e-mail address is lehigh@globe.com.