I haven’t had anything hugely positive to say about Virginia governor Tim Kaine, mainly because I see his positions on gay issues as a kind of bellwether for how Democrats might try to win over a few more conservative voters. So when I read yesterday that Kaine refused to sign and anti-gay marriage amenement, I thought I might have occasion to praise him. At least, until I read further.
In a symbolic and rare action, the governor refused to sign the bill that places the language of the amendment on the Nov. 7 ballot, indicating that he opposes the measure but believes it should come before the electorate.
… Kaine said that the amendment, which received final approval from the General Assembly this winter, was too vague because it reads in part that the Virginia Constitution should not recognize "another union, partnership, or other legal status to which is assigned the rights, benefits, obligations, qualities, or effects of marriage."
He said this wording could adversely affect unmarried heterosexual couples.
Kaine said in a statement that he was concerned about "the broad wording of the proposed constitutional amendment," saying that it threatens "the constitutional rights of individuals to enter into private contracts, and also . . . the discretion of employers to extend certain benefits, such as health care coverage, to unmarried couples."
"For those reasons, I will vote against the marriage amendment in November, and I urge other Virginians to vote against it as well."
Kaine added that he believes that marriage is between one man and one woman.
I have a question for Kaine (and Democrats like him). I know his gesture is only symbolic, but if the Assembly came to him with an amendment that didn’t "adversely affect" heterosexual couples, would he still sign it? Because even if it didn’t threaten our right to enter into contracts like medical powers of attorney, etc., that net us about 2 or 3 of the rights and protections based on marital status, gay families would still be adversely affected by a having any hope of access to those rights cut off constitutionally.
Beyond that, I think Kaine’s move is indicative of the problem facing Democrats and their gay constituents in the foreseeable future. On the one hand, at least some Dems believe they have to curry favor with conservative voters if they hope to regain power. But in the process they’ll probably have to jettison issues of concern to some of their core constituents, and once in power they may find that their new conservative constituents won’t let them drift back to progressive positions on those issue and stay in power. One the other hand, gays in some states may have to accept that the best we can expect from Kaine-esque Dems are symbolic gestures, and may find that as the Dems drift rightwards that there’s no major party left that will stand up for issues related to gay & lesbian equality.
Henceforth, I’ll refer to this as the Kaine Conundrum.
