Was gay marriage Kerry's undoing?

IN THE END, Massachusetts did come back to haunt John Kerry.

ADVERTISEMENT

Just a year ago, justices of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled that same-sex couples have the legal right to marry. George W. Bush is thanking them today.

That is the new conventional wisdom about why Kerry lost to Bush. Unfair it may be, but in the aftermath of defeat, some Democrats directly blame Margaret Marshall, chief justice of the Supreme Judicial Court, for creating the perfect storm: unleashing a highly divisive issue that turned out a passionate Republican voter base in critical states just in time for the 2004 presidential election.

Gay marriage played some part in this election year drama, and it did all start in Massachusetts. The court decision put a spotlight on same-sex unions, drawing a worldwide audience to the emotional debate about amending the state Constitution to ban such marriages. Legislators took a first step last spring to make that happen. Here, the issue receded after same-sex couples began to marry on May 17 -- ho, hum, just another day in the Bay State.

Around the country, the matter of the Commonwealth's activist judges inspired ballot questions seeking to prevent the same type of judicial activism elsewhere. On Election Day, voters in 11 states approved constitutional amendments banning same sex marriages. It was a clean sweep for proponents of traditional marriage. The proposed amendments in Mississippi, Montana, and Oregon limited marriage to unions of one man and one woman. In Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Michigan, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, and Utah the amendments banned civil unions as well. In Ohio, a critical swing state, early analysis of voter returns showed heavy turnout in the western rural counties, where moral issues heavily influenced voter choice.

Even before the Massachusetts court issued its decision, Republican strategists viewed gay marriage as a galvanizing wedge issue in the 2004 political race. In the summer of 2003, Bush declared his belief that marriage is between a man and a woman and said the court "overreached its bounds as a court." A reference to dangers of activist judges was a frequent part of his campaign stump speech. Conservatives failed to muster enough support in Congress to support a federal constitutional amendment to codify marriage as the union of a man and a woman. But state by state, voters backed state constitutional amendments to achieve that end, and they did it on Election Day. Clearly, the Bush campaign understood the potential to galvanize this core constituency.

The court's decision also exposed a rift within the Democratic Party over the issue of gay marriage. Gay rights groups and some liberal Democrats celebrated the court's decision as a triumph for civil rights, but others viewed it as ill-timed and hurtful to Kerry's cause. Kerry tried to finesse it, saying he believed marriage should be reserved for a man and woman. He said it was up to the states to decide.

On Election Day, 11 did; he won only two of them.

In yesterday's elegant and gracefully humble concession speech, Kerry said that no matter who wins on Election Day, "The next morning, we all wake up as Americans." While that is certainly true, this election once again dramatized the vast cultural differences between middle America and the two coasts. The red swatch of states supporting Bush's reelection makes quite a statement against the Kerry blue states. As a candidate, Kerry portrayed a church-going, goose-hunting everyman, but he was surrounded by rap artists and Hollywood celebrities, the perfect foil for Republicans looking to make this race about their definition of morality. He said he believed life begins at conception, but voted against a partial-birth abortion ban. Stances like that helped Bush make his case to antiabortion advocates, who did more than listen to Kerry's rhetoric. They remembered his prochoice voting record.

On election night, the consequences of all this for Kerry were dramatically clear. Get-out-the-vote efforts are no longer the domain of the Democratic Party. The Democrats turned out their vote. Republicans did, too, and they had more to turn out.

And what about the consequences for Masssachusetts? This year, the New England Patriots won the Super Bowl and the Boston Red Sox won the World Series. For the second time in 16 years, a son of Massachusetts tried for the White House and failed. Sharing initials with the last presidential candidate from Massachusetts to win the presidency is not enough. If the presidency is the goal, a candidate needs more in common with the rest of America.

What a sobering thought.

Joan Vennochi's e-mail address is vennochi@globe.com.