Robert F. Kennedy and Social Issues

My understanding is that, of all of the Kennedy brothers, RFK was by far the most devout Catholic. Now, he was assassinated in 1968 - just before the Stonewall riots launched the modern gay rights movement, and only a few years before the Roe v Wade decision legalized abortion nationally. As the decades passed, the Democratic Party became more and more closely associated with various socially liberal causes, including feminism, gay rights, and pro-choice activism - all positions that alienated traditionalist Catholics. Furthermore, given that RFK led a very healthy lifestyle, so it's likely that if he avoided getting shot in 1968, he likely could've remained politically active for many more decades.

All of this to say that, in many "Bobby Kennedy lives" scenarios I've seen bandied about (whether he becomes president in 1968, becomes president at a later date, or merely remains in the US Senate for the rest of his career), I've never seen it discussed how he would've reacted to things like the gay rights movement and the legalization of abortion. It will become relevant if he loses the Democratic nomination in 1968 but seeks the presidency at a later date - another devout Catholic, Ed Muskie, famously had disputes with feminist and LGBT groups when he ran in 1972. So, if RFK lives and remains politically relevant, how would he handle the leftward trend of his party on social issues. Would he end up becoming pro-choice and pro-gay rights, as the rest of the Kennedy family has? Or would he steadfastly hold to more traditional beliefs, and risk eventually becoming something of a pariah within the Democratic Party - or at least put himself in a position where he couldn't plausibly win the presidential nomination?
 
I know that a lot of people think that Ted Kennedy's switch to a pro-choice position is something Robert would never have made, but in fact that switch did not come out of nowhere and was at least in part prefigured by what some Catholic theologians had told both Bob and Ted:

"The "personally opposed" argument had been percolating through the Kennedy clan and the Catholic Democratic establishment for years. In 1964, there was a weekend meeting at the Kennedy compound in Hyannisport hosted by Senators Robert and Ted Kennedy. Robert Kennedy was running for the New York Senate seat, "and their political advisors wished to discuss the position a Catholic politician should take on abortion." Present at the meeting were Jesuit novice Albert Jonsen, Father Joseph Fuchs, Father Robert Drinan, Father Richard McCormick, and Father Charles Curran of Catholic University of America. All of the theologians were Jesuits, except for Curran, who was a diocesan priest. The theologians worked together at a hotel nearby and tact with the Kennedy clan in the evening. After a day and a half of discussion, they reached the conclusion that "Catholic politicians in a democratic polity might advocate legal restrictions on abortion; but in so doing might tolerate legislation that would permit abortion under certain circumstances if political efforts to repress this moral error led to greater perils to social peace and order." "This position," according to Jonsen, "seems to have informed the politics of the Kennedys."

"There was a follow-up meeting at Hyannisport in 1968, hosted by Senators Robert Kennedy and Sargent Shriver. The purpose of the week-end meeting was identical, and many of the participants were the same. Shriver, of course, was chosen in 1972 as the vice-presidential running state to George McGovern." The line of thinking coming out of these conversations with the Kennedys was the same one formalized by Governor Mario Cuomo in his September 13, 1984, speech at Notre Dame. By 2004, the Church of John Paul II and his bishops was no longer willing to ignore that challenge..." https://books.google.com/books?id=-kxKOrqtQBQC&pg=PA286

There's another account of the 1964 Hyannis Port meeting at https://books.google.com/books?id=sjUlDQAAQBAJ&pg=PA106

The fact is that the Supreme Court under Robert F. Kennedy would have decided *Roe* the same way the Burger Court did--but probably even more decisively, given that it wouldn't contain Rehnquist. And I just don't see President RFK repudiating that decision.
 
Last edited:
@David T - presume that RFK wasn't elected in 1968, though. Even if one accepts that RFK wouldn't be as strongly pro-life as, say, Bob Casey was, would his position on social issues have been truly indistinguishable from that of Teddy post-1973?
 
@David T - presume that RFK wasn't elected in 1968, though. Even if one accepts that RFK wouldn't be as strongly pro-life as, say, Bob Casey was, would his position on social issues have been truly indistinguishable from that of Teddy post-1973?

Apart from abortion, what are the other social issues on which his Catholicism would allegedly conflict with his need to keep up with the liberalization of the Democratic Party on social issues? Gay rights? Same-sex marriage was a long way in the future, and it would hardly cause a scandal in the Church for RFK to say that whatever you think of homosexuality, gays should not be discriminated against in housing or (at least if religious organizations are exempted) employment. He would oppose any effort to prevent gays from being teachers--and so did Ronald Reagan! "Whatever else it is, homosexuality is not a contagious disease like the measles. Prevailing scientific opinion is that an individual’s sexuality is determined at a very early age and that a child’s teachers do not really influence this." https://web.archive.org/web/2017081...ves/2010/10/ronald-reagan-and-gay-rights.html

No doubt if RFK lived he would be opposed to gay marriage--but Barack Obama didn't come out in favor of it until 2012...
 
Apart from abortion, what are the other social issues on which his Catholicism would allegedly conflict with his need to keep up with the liberalization of the Democratic Party on social issues? Gay rights? Same-sex marriage was a long way in the future, and it would hardly cause a scandal in the Church for RFK to say that whatever you think of homosexuality, gays should not be discriminated against in housing or (at least if religious organizations are exempted) employment. He would oppose any effort to prevent gays from being teachers--and so did Ronald Reagan! "Whatever else it is, homosexuality is not a contagious disease like the measles. Prevailing scientific opinion is that an individual’s sexuality is determined at a very early age and that a child’s teachers do not really influence this." https://web.archive.org/web/2017081...ves/2010/10/ronald-reagan-and-gay-rights.html

No doubt if RFK lived he would be opposed to gay marriage--but Barack Obama didn't come out in favor of it until 2012...

If we assume that RFK stays alive at least as long as Teddy (and there's reason to believe he could've lived longer, given his healthier lifestyle), there are plenty of other gay rights issues aside from housing/employment discrimination that would've been relevant in his lifetime. For instance, in the 1990s the Defense of Marriage Act was voted on, and Teddy was part of only a handful of Senators to oppose it. I have a hard time believing that Bobby would've taken in a similar position on such an issue (of course butterflies would change the exact circumstances, but you get what I mean).
 
If we assume that RFK stays alive at least as long as Teddy (and there's reason to believe he could've lived longer, given his healthier lifestyle), there are plenty of other gay rights issues aside from housing/employment discrimination that would've been relevant in his lifetime. For instance, in the 1990s the Defense of Marriage Act was voted on, and Teddy was part of only a handful of Senators to oppose it. I have a hard time believing that Bobby would've taken in a similar position on such an issue (of course butterflies would change the exact circumstances, but you get what I mean).

He could quite plausibly oppose it on federalism grounds. http://volokh.com/2013/03/29/three-senses-in-which-doma-implicates-federalism/ Look, it is extremely unlikely that he will be president in 1996, anyway. If he will be president at all, it will almost certainly be at a much earlier time. If he will still be Senator from New York in 1996, opposing it on federalism or other grounds not involving an actual defense of SSM would hardly be politically fatal for him in New York, nor would it be one-tenth as objectionable to the Church as being pro-choice on abortion. If he's simply a retired elder statesman, I don't think people will care much, any more than they cared about Jimmy Carter's positions on gay rights in the 1990's...
 
He could quite plausibly oppose it on federalism grounds. http://volokh.com/2013/03/29/three-senses-in-which-doma-implicates-federalism/ Look, it is extremely unlikely that he will be president in 1996, anyway. If he will be president at all, it will almost certainly be at a much earlier time. If he will still be Senator from New York in 1996, opposing it on federalism or other grounds not involving an actual defense of SSM would hardly be politically fatal for him in New York, nor would it be one-tenth as objectionable to the Church as being pro-choice on abortion. If he's simply a retired elder statesman, I don't think people will care much, any more than they cared about Jimmy Carter's positions on gay rights in the 1990's...

Well, let me ask you this: assuming RFK survives his assassination, and never becomes President, Vice President, or some high-level cabinet official like Secretary of State, is there any reason to assume he wouldn't spend the rest of his natural life in the US Senate, as Teddy did?
 

I see Bobby navigating the waters just like Teddy, John Kerry, or Mary Landrieu. One big difference is that Robert Kennedy (especially if he stayed in the Senate if he lived) would probably be one of the most foremost thinkers on poverty, and maybe even criminal justice reform later in life. Two Kennedys in the Senate might have given us a public option when it came to health care. On social issues though Bobby would bend to the winds of change, and I don't mean that in a bad sense. It's just what Democratic politics called for.
 
Top