No time for fence-sitting

How much uglier does it have to get for Senator John F. Kerry to climb off the fence on gay marriage?

The front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination voted against the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996 because he said it represented "gay bashing on the floor of the United States Senate." Well, what exactly does the state's junior senator think is happening in the halls of the Massachusetts State House this week?

While Kerry was sidestepping the issue in Virginia and Tennessee, hysterical opponents of gay marriage were on Beacon Hill warning that same-sex unions would open the door to legalized incest, polygamy, and bestiality. Not toxic enough for Kerry? How about their assertion that children reared by same-sex couples are condemned to lives of physical and sexual abuse, drug and alcohol addiction, crime, out-of-wedlock pregnancies, and failed marriages?

One would have expected that kind of hate-mongering to elicit a stinging rebuke from a presidential candidate with a long record of championing the civil rights of homosexuals. Not during the same week that he faced electoral contests in two Southern states, apparently.

Kerry is kidding himself if he thinks he can have it both ways on this one. The decision by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court in November declaring a ban on gay marriage unconstitutional leaves him no wiggle room. His position favoring civil rights, but not marriage, for gays has been eclipsed by events. Last week, the SJC made clear that civil unions will not do; only full marriage rights for same-sex couples will pass constitutional muster. "Separate is seldom, if ever, equal," the court said of a state Senate proposal to offer same-sex couples civil unions, or marriage-lite, in place of marriage itself.

Notwithstanding the court's clarity, Kerry refuses to take a stand on a proposed amendment to the Massachusetts Constitution that would define marriage as the union of one man and one woman, the same language he rejected as "gay bashing" in 1996. Where's the consistency?

How can a candidate whose campaign slogan is "The Courage To Lead" say he needs time to see what the Legislature does before he can declare a position of his own? Is Kerry really looking for guidance from House Speaker Thomas M. Finneran, the man whose response to any court ruling he does not like, from campaign finance reform to gay marriage, is to ignore it or try to subvert it?

How can Kerry keep silent on the state convention that meets today, knowing that lawmakers could enshrine bigotry in the oldest constitution in the nation? Does he think he has so little influence in his home state that his voice need not be heard in this historic debate?

The timing of the court's ruling and this constitutional convention might be politically inconvenient for Kerry. Tough choices often are. The country is genuinely divided on gay marriage. The issue is challenging to people of good will, as well as those of ill intent. A strong position, either way, might cost Kerry a primary or two. But the Republicans are certain to raise the issue in the fall campaign. President George W. Bush knows what he thinks. Shouldn't Kerry decide what he does?

The Kerry campaign wants its candidate to reap the benefits of his past support of gay rights, but is unwilling to risk the political capital it might cost to stand up against discrimination now. The truth is, it was not all that courageous of Kerry to vote against the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996. He was in a tough reelection fight, but his opponent, Governor William F. Weld, was an equally strong defender of gay rights. Kerry had nothing to lose.

He has a lot to lose now. He can keep dodging the issue. Or he can take a principled position and stick to it, regardless of the political consequences. What are the chances?

Eileen McNamara is a Globe columnist. She can be reached at mcnamara@globe.com.