An email: “See the Bell/Cannon article on what Kerry said to The Advocate? . . . Just a few weeks ago, Bush denounced Dred Scot—and reporters at the L. A. Times and New York Times deduced that he was sending a coded message to his base about Roe v. Wade. Sounds to me like Kerry’s using code words, too. And his are easier to decipher. Will either Times run a story on ‘Kerry Promises Pro-Gay Marriage Litmus Test on Judges’?”

I’m not sure I buy either code-word argument. Here’s the passage of Kerry’s interview, which is his explanation for why gay voters should support him: “If they think that they want a Supreme Court with more justices like Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia, then they should stay home. If they want a Court appointed by John Kerry that’s going to fight for equality in America and the fair interpretation of the equal protection clause and due process, this is the most important election of our lifetime.”

Maybe Kerry is referring to the votes of Thomas and Scalia to allow states to criminalize sodomy? And warning that future Bush appointees would overturn the Supreme Court decision that invalidated those laws, while his would not? Or maybe it meant what my correspondent said; or maybe the candidate didn’t mean much in particular. (Which is what I believe was true about the Bush Dred Scot remarks.) But I do agree that the reader’s interpretation is at least as plausible as the media’s interpretation of the Dred Scot remark. It’ll be interesting to see if Kerry’s remarks get similar treatment.