Could Democratic Presidential Candidates be Right in Not Pushing for Gay Marriage?

James Kirchick believes they are in this column published in The New Republic, and he supports his point very well:


During last week's gay issues forum, broadcast on the cable television station LOGO and sponsored by the Human Rights Campaign (HRC), all of the Democratic presidential candidates expressed their support for legal equality for gays via civil unions. But, with the exceptions of former Alaska Senator Mike Gravel and Congressman Dennis Kucinich, they opposed calling those relationships marriage.


This seeming hypocrisy doesn't sit well with gay rights advocates. Evan Wolfson, head of the Freedom to Marry coalition and one of the intellectual fathers of gay marriage, says that, just as previous American presidents made the civil rights struggle into a national issue through the power of "moral suasion," presidential candidates ought to voice support for gay marriage today because it "creates a political, cultural and moral space for America to rise to fairness." HRC's vice president of programs, David M. Smith, says that "The most important role the presidency plays in public policy debates is the bully pulpit, to sway public opinion." And as HRC President Joe Solmonese put it after the debate, "The next president must be committed to not only doing what's achievable, but also what's right."


It would certainly be refreshing to hear a leading presidential candidate come out in favor of "what's right" and support gay marriage. But gay marriage advocates are actually doing their cause a disservice by pushing the Democratic candidates on the issue.


Kirchick reviews the national polls that still show a majority of people are against full marriage rights for same-sex couples and points out that the granting of marriage licenses is still under the jurisdiction of the individual states, not the federal government. He suggests a different approach than what many GLBT advocates are calling for:


But in the present climate, asking that presidential candidates support same-sex marriage--while serving an important moral purpose--demands a significant political sacrifice. At most, gays should expect a president to act as a bulwark against congressional attempts to limit their rights and to support congressional attempts to defend those rights. This means pledging to repeal anti-gay laws like the Defense of Marriage Act and Don't Ask, Don't Tell and to sign pro-gay ones like the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, which all of the Democratic candidates have explicitly promised to do. Seeing the Democrats squirm on the issue of gay marriage may make for good political theater, but it does not make good politics.


Those actions would certainly be important steps toward equality, at least removing some of the largest barriers. However, I'm not sure I trust a politician who does not believe in his heart that GLBT people should completely have the same rights as heterosexuals to take these steps. If they don't believe in equality, then how far will they really go?


That is one of the difficult questions the GLBT community and their advocates must answer when choosing which presidential candidate to support in 2008. I don't have a clear choice at this point, and I suspect many of you don't either.