Most are cautious in voicing support
BEDFORD, N.H. -- Democratic presidential candidates, acutely aware of the political risks surrounding gay marriage, yesterday reiterated their prior positions on the subject: Most approve of expanding legal rights for same-sex couples but prefer not to label a gay union "marriage."
One by one, the candidates addressed the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court's decision with a mix of praise and caution, most of them stopping short of advocating gay marriage outright.
Exceptions were Representative Dennis Kucinich, who supports federal legislation legalizing civil unions and who called marriage "a civil right that should not be denied," and Al Sharpton, who advocates "equality for all Americans, regardless of race, color, or sexual orientation in every state in the union."
Front-runner Howard Dean, who as Vermont's governor signed a bill creating civil unions in his state, praised Massachusetts' decision without mentioning the sensitive "marriage" question.
"One way or another, the state should afford same-sex couples equal treatment under law in areas such as health insurance, hospital visitation, and inheritance rights," Dean said in a statement. And Senator John F. Kerry of Massachusetts, who also favors civil unions over gay marriage, said he has always supported "equal protection under the law" and doesn't think the ruling will affect the presidential race.
"My position is very clear," said Kerry. "It isn't changed by this." Wesley K. Clark shared that sentiment and, in a statement, cast the issue in terms of states' rights.
"If the Massachusetts Legislature decides to legalize same-sex marriages, it will be up to each state to decide whether those marriages will be valid in their state -- and that is a choice each state, not the courts, will have to make," the retired Army general said. Senator John Edwards of North Carolina said that while "I personally do not support gay marriage, I recognize that different states will address this in different ways, and I will oppose any effort to pass an amendment to the . . . Constitution in response to the Massachusetts decision."
Senator Joseph I. Lieberman also repeated his opposition to gay marriage, but endorsed Massachusetts' right to define marriage within its borders.
"I have also long believed that states have the right to adopt for themselves laws that allow same-sex unions," Lieberman said in a statement. "I will oppose any attempts by the right wing to change the Constitution in response to today's ruling, which would be unnecessary and divisive."
And Representative Richard A. Gephardt said he supports a federal law creating civil unions.
Gephardt, whose daughter, Chrissy, is a lesbian, acknowledged that gay issues are tricky territory in Washington. "We can't even get hate crimes [legislation] on the floor of the House to pass it," he said.
The issue didn't come up at all at an AARP candidates' debate in Bedford. But in the crowd afterward, some voters said they were pleased with the Massachusetts decision. "An alliance of two people that want to love each other and stay together? Same difference as a man and woman," said Rivelle Feldman, 77, of Manchester.
About 50 people from the New Hampshire Freedom to Marry Coalition agreed, rallying outside the State House in Concord yesterday evening with signs that said "Honk for Equality" and "Congratulations Mass."
But at a VFW hall down the road, where Clark had campaigned a few minutes earlier, others addressed the decision less warmly.
"You're in a veterans' crowd, and I am dead against it," said Jim McKinnon, 56, of Central Ossipee.
