Kerry's conundrum: pro-gay in just about every other way, Democratic presidential hopeful John Kerry says he just won't support same-sex marriage.

In the conference room of John Kerry's modest presidential campaign headquarters in Washington, D.C., sits a black-and-white photograph of Kerry and John Lennon taken at a political rally in the early 1970s. With his leather bomber jacket and thick crop of black hair, Kerry looks more like the antiwar activist he was than the U.S. senator from Massachusetts he would become.

Thirty years later, Kerry is far from a flower child. Dressed in an elegant suit and displaying a formal, almost aloof, bearing, he seems far removed from the days of free love and gay liberation. Kerry is a liberal on most issues--he opposes "don't ask, don't tell" and is a proponent of workplace protections for gay people--but his conservative appearance is right in line with his opposition to gay marriage. Even as his own state's highest court stands on the verge of legalizing it, Kerry repeatedly defends his stance in this exclusive interview with The Advocate.

At one point the senator, who is Roman Catholic, suggests his opposition is based, in part, on his conservative upbringing and religious beliefs. "That's how people view it," he says with little apparent enthusiasm, "with the religious component of it."

It is perhaps unusual that Kerry struggles to articulate a coherent position on the issue, given that his own marriage (his second, to Teresa Heinz, the glamorous heiress and progressive philanthropist) is the source of nearly constant media speculation. Writing in The Washington Post, Fred Hiatt even took Kerry to task for proposing that marriage is reserved for the "purpose of procreation" given that his own "appears unconnected to any such purpose." (In this interview, Kerry denies subscribing to the procreation argument.)

But Kerry is hardly alone in having a hard time getting a handle on what is perhaps the most incendiary political issue in America today. Some Canadian provinces have begun granting marriage licenses to same-sex couples; in Lawrence v. Texas the conservative U.S. Supreme Court all but opened the door to a legal challenge to bans on gay marriage; and conservatives are advocating amending the Constitution to even further strengthen existing prohibitions to equal marriage rights.

Immediately following his Advocate interview, Kerry was whisked across town to participate with other Democratic presidential aspirants in a forum sponsored by the Human Rights Campaign. There, Sam Donaldson of ABC News grilled the candidates about same-sex marriage. Howard Dean, who as governor of Vermont signed the state's historic civil unions legislation, became so frustrated while defending his opposition to same-sex marriage that he simply changed the subject.

It's easy to see why the candidates are so eager talk about anything other than marriage. Despite a huge upswing in support for same-sex marriage, a majority of Americans continue to oppose legalizing it. These politicians are caught between a powerful constituency eager for full marriage rights and the center of the electorate, much of which continues to oppose it.

On nearly every other gay-and AIDS--related cause, Kerry has hardly been a reluctant convert. Since his election to the Senate in 1984, he has been an ardent gay rights supporter. One of the original cosponsors of legislation banning discrimination based on sexual orientation, Kerry has achieved a nearly unblemished voting record on the issue. In 1996 he was the only senator up for reelection to vote against the antigay Defense of Marriage Act. Three years earlier he went before the Senate Armed Services Committee to testify in favor of revoking the ban on gays and lesbians in the military.

As a highly decorated veteran of the Vietnam War, Kerry is perhaps the best-situated presidential candidate to take on "don't ask, don't tell." Having watched President Clinton's effort to lift the ban on openly gay service members go down in flames, he says he has developed a more incremental strategy to liberalize the policy by working in conjunction with the Pentagon and Congress.

The Advocate spoke to Kerry at length about the military, about marriage, and about gay rights becoming a part of the political mainstream.

The Massachusetts supreme court may OK same-sex marriage any day now. Are the courts an appropriate way to change the law?

We have three branches of government in America. Everyone has the right of access. If the courts make a decision in that direction, that becomes the law.

Some are concerned that if courts get too far ahead of the people, it could create a political backlash.

That's all politics. I can't deal with that. You take what comes when it comes along. What I can do is push forward, as I have throughout my political career, beginning in 1985 when I was the original sponsor of the Civil Rights Amendments Act [which would have banned antigay discrimination]--picking up where Paul Tsongas left off. I have tried to advance the cause in any number of ways, including by supporting the rights of everybody to serve in the military. I was the only elected senator up for reelection to oppose the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996. It was a tough position to take, but I took it because I thought [the bill] was outright gay bashing. My support for the Employment Non Discrimination Act and civil unions has been complete.

What will you do if Massachusetts OK's gay marriage?

Every state has the right to make those decisions. I would state my opposition, but I'm not going to go out of my way to oppose it.

Sounds like you are not terribly disturbed by the notion that before long, same--sex marriage could be sanctioned in part of the country.

When you say "disturbed," that's a hot word. I don't think it's the right word. Do I think that's the proper definition of marriage? No. But there are a lot more important things to fight about in this country. People are overly focused on an issue that is not as burning as getting couples a thousand different rights--from the ability to visit a partner in the hospital to inheritance. Sheila Hein died in the Pentagon, and [her partner] Peggy Neff almost lost their home. Those are the kinds of things we are on the brink of achieving.

Does the Senate have the votes to block an antigay constitutional marriage amendment?

I will oppose any constitutional amendment. I don't know at this point whether we would have the votes to block it. My argument would be that a constitutional amendment may in fact have negative effects on people's health rights.

What do you mean?

If you outlaw same-sex marriage, some may extrapolate. Now that it's constitutionally banned, they will try to extend the ban to civil unions and other rights and benefits. Then you would have another round of lawsuits challenging people's health care or survivor benefits. I also believe it would be an enormous attempt--similar to DOMA--to drive a wedge between the American people.

It would be an effort to maximize the issue for political purposes and not because it's some great national priority.

There's an opinion column in The Washington Post quoting you as saying, "Marriage is an institution between men and women for the purpose of having children and procreating." Are you saying same-sex parents don't raise children, both biological and adopted?

I don't make a procreation argument. I was explaining the historical background. Someone was asking me where my opposition came from, and I said it's basically from an old religious belief of what defined marriage. Procreation has nothing to do with my argument.

What exactly is your argument?

My argument is that marriage is a union between men and women as defined through centuries. End of argument. Period. It's just the way I've seen the issue.

When yon say it's "the way I've seen the issue," it sounds like you might be open to changing your position.

Will I come to a different view sometime down the road? Who knows?

But you are not really making an argument. You simply restate the current legal definition of marriage.

It's a statement of belief.

A religious belief?

I was certainly raised in a way that taught me that. [Marriage is] the oldest institution in the world. It's a cultural as well as a religious accommodation. I'm not sure what the benefit is, really, of marriage anyway--as long as you have all the rights of it. If you have all the rights that come with it, what's the big distinction here? I approve of gay adoption. I approve of gay parenting.

But what about the parallel with bans on mixed-race marriages? In that case the issue was race. In this case it's gender. But it's still discrimination.

I don't know if it's discrimination. I'd have to think about that. I haven't done the comparison between the two. It's worth analyzing, but my quick reaction would be that there is a distinction between them. It's really about the integrity of a certain institution rather than a form of discrimination.

If all the energy of this campaign is focused on this issue, we are really going to be set backward in terms of trying to pass ENDA, get rid of DOMA.

Sen. Rick Santorum compared homosexuality to bestiality and incest. He said he based his arguments in favor of sodomy laws on his Catholic faith. As a Catholic, what would you say to him about his interpretation of church doctrine?

In 1960, President Kennedy [also a Roman Catholic] distinguished between those things secular and those things religious. He drew the line between his church and his state. It is a bright line, and I do not take my articles of faith and seek to legislate them against people who don't share them. The establishment clause regarding religion is clear, and I think this administration has crossed that line.

President Bush defended Santorum as a "man of compassion." Having served alongside him, is that true?

I know him. But I don't deal with those kinds of questions. I have a cordial relationship with him. I have no problem with him on a personal level. I just disagree with his opinion.

Trent Lott was ousted as Senate majority leader because he appeared to express sympathy for segregation. Santorum was not punished at all. Is there a double standard?

Santorum's comments were inappropriate, and they merited an apology. He needs to seek understanding. But I don't think they rose to the level of affirming something that has already been determined by law to be illegal rather than something that's still being debated.

Doesn't church--state separation apply to marriage? After all, it is a civil arrangement for many people.

So many people in the country view it as the cultural component of it, the religious component of it. That's how people view it, with the religious component of it.

In your tour in Vietnam, where you saw combat, did you serve alongside gay service members?

That I knew of at the time? No. That I had a sense of? Yes. Did I worry about it? No. Did I learn subsequent to the war that some of my fellow Vietnam veterans were indeed gay and came out? Yes. I know them still today, and I respect them today.

Would it have been relevant had soldiers in the foxholes known some of their fellow soldiers were gay?

You are not going to like this answer. Nobody in my life does. In certain situations, it's possible it is relevant. But it depends on the circumstances. But that doesn't mean you can't have a place for everybody to serve no matter what. Gay men and lesbian women have served honorably in the military since our founding. The notion that we should be drawing lines is ridiculous.

What are those situations?

There are some military situations where some might be disturbed by it. That's an honest answer. It takes time and effort, and in some situations it might not be possible. I do know it takes leadership to begin to work these things. If Abraham Lincoln hadn't led, we wouldn't be where we are today on slavery.

When tackling "don't ask, don't tell," how will you avoid the opposition in Congress and the Pentagon that President Clinton encountered?

My strategy would be to talk, to bring people to the table. We need to work through the modalities about how we could achieve the America that we want to achieve.

Defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld has advocated a more mobile, technologically sophisticated military. Wouldn't that approach argue for changing "don't ask, don't tell"?

I agree. The Arab linguist situation [in which several Arabic-language experts were discharged from the military for being gay] is the dumbest thing I've heard in my whole life. We've lost talented people. It's cutting off the nose to spite the face.

President Clinton was very popular among gay voters, but they were aware that lie didn't get civil rights or hate-crimes legislation passed. How would you deliver?

You have to pick your priorities. I know in my head what I think it is, but I'm not going to lay it out there right now. That's how I'm going to get it passed--by being smart about how we do it.

President Bush's AIDS policy has been criticized for a reliance on abstinence-only prevention at the expense of condom distribution and more comprehensive education.

The president's HIV/AIDS policy is a cave-in to the right wing. It defies common sense. It's a completely craven posture about how the world works and how life works. Abstinence is a fine goal, and we should all urge people to abstain in the appropriate circumstances. But anybody has to understand, for all of human life people have not abstained and won't. If you know people are going to have sex, you have to promote safe sex.

But the president has asked for $15 billion in international AIDS funding--an increase.

His initiative comes late and begrudgingly. I gave a speech at Georgetown University before the State of the Union in which I called on him to adopt a $15 billion program. [Senate majority leader] Bill Frist and I called on him to do more a long time ago. The most we could get is $200 million. This is a politically motivated initiative. It is not comprehensive.

Massachusetts has often been maligned as being out of touch with the mainstream of America. How do you deal with mainstreaming gay rights?

Talk about human beings who happen to be gay. Americans all over the country understand that. I'm doing what's in my gut, and I'll talk to anyone in America about that. I mean, Dick Cheney has a gay member of his family. There are Republicans who are gay or who have gay family members. I served this country in a war and as a prosecutor. I think I speak to mainstream American values and just plain common sense. It's not where you are from but what you fight for and believe and the battles you pick. I'm proud to take gay rights around the country, and I think the country will agree with me.