Republican = Antigay rights; Democrat = Progay rights?

Great Debates
1

WASHINGTON (AP) - Supporters of Howard Dean’s presidential campaign will be celebrating Saturday’s third anniversary of his signing of the nation’s only law giving gay partners the same legal rights as married couples. The loudest cheering, though, might come from Republicans. Several of Dean’s rivals for the Democratic nomination also are speaking out in support of increased rights and acceptance of gays. But many Republicans say strong support for gays will backfire in the general election and help President Bush win more conservative and southern states.

Richard White, a Republican state senator from Mississippi, said any candidate talking about gay rights might as well not even visit his state. “The people down here, they are not going to put up with that kind of stuff,” White said. “We’re not prepared for all that in Mississippi or anywhere else in the southern states.” The public has mixed feelings about homosexual acts, recent polls suggest. While a majority feels such acts should not be illegal, a majority does feel that such acts are immoral. When Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa., compared homosexuality to bigamy, polygamy, incest and adultery in an interview with The Associated Press this week, Bush remained silent while the Democratic presidential candidates roundly denounced his remarks.

The opposition research on Dean posted on the Republican National Committee’s web site leads off by declaring that he is “ultraliberal on civil unions.” And some Democrats say Dean will hurt himself in the South with his outspoken support for gay rights. Darryl Tattrie, chief financial officer of the Kentucky Democratic Party, said he personally supports civil unions, but he doesn’t think it would be a winning issue in his state. “I don’t think voters in Kentucky would be for that,” he said. “It’s the way folks are raised.” Dean says he won’t back down on the issue anywhere.

2

Hmmm, I realize I didn’t really post this as a debate, did I? I just wonder if it’s really so monolithic—I know religious Christians who are in favor of equal rights for gays; surely, all Republicans can’t be anti-gay?

3

Well, I’m one example of a Republican who isn’t against gay rights. My opinion is that whatever happens between two (or more!:D) consenting adults is entirely their own concern and the government has no business trying to regulate “decency.” After all, how in the world does it hurt me or infringe on my rights to let two women or two men get married? It just doesn’t, plain and simple.

And really, I think this stance overall is in accord with the basic Republican philosophy of minimum government involvement–it just often doesn’t happen like that because the Republican party is greatly influenced by the highly conservative Religious Right. (I’m not Christian, either.)

4

The most famous exception to that “rule” (truism?) would probably be Barry Goldwater, but in general I think it holds. I’d guess that there’s probably members of both parties that feel differently but don’t make it public as they think they’d lose either voters or part support.

5

I think Oreo nailed it. Because of the influence of the Christian Right, pro gay-rights candidates probably have a harder time getting far in the Republican party.

6

I think many people are scared not just about anti-gay rights, but seeing their right to be anti-gay circumscribed by speech codes, anti-discrimination laws, and so on. And they have a right to be scared: the left, unfortunately, is the only side that seems willing to defend homosexuals right to live unmolested or specially ill-treated by the government. Unfortunately, the left is also the side that thinks it is just to ill-treat those who don’t share its views. That’s fundamentally aliberal and anti-democratic impulse, and its no wonder that lots of ordinary people, in Ole Miss’, are scared of that complete programe (not just gay rights, but also restricting the degree to which a private citizen can safely hold anti-gay views).

7

I’d really resent it if I were a Republican and the leaders of my party were monolithically anti-gay rights. Have the Log Cabin people ever publically tried to justify their party’s stance?

8

Can you give an example of this?

9

Well, who defines what gay rights entail?

I am in favor of gay people having no establishment of religion and having the free exercise thereof. I am also in favor of gay freedom of speech, and of the press; and the right of gay people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of gay people to keep and bear arms, should not be infringed.

No soldier should, in time of peace be quartered in any tastefully decorated house, without the consent of the gay owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

The right of gay people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, should not be violated.

No gay person should be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor should any gay person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor should be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor should gay owned private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused gay person should enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury of a gay person should be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, should be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Excessive bail for a gay person should not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

These are rights I believe gay people should have, no more or less than any of us. Anything else (ie. marriage) isn’t an enumerated Constitutional right, and is subject to regulation by law. And, as spelled out in numerous threads, marriage is denied to people for all sorts of reasons.

10

I’m a republican, and I’m not “anti-gay”. I do, however, squint and cock (watch it) my head to the side when same-sex relationships are treated the same as man/woman marriages, law-wise. Not because I think it’s wrong to be gay, you can’t change how you were born, but two men living together do not a family make.

11

Supporting tort law that penalizes discrimination by private bussinesses.
Supporting campus speech codes that criminalize anything that “offends” the gay community.
Calling for people with anti-gay views to apologize, shut-up, step down, take back what they say, etc.

These are things that conservatives and ordinary joes with anti-homosexual feelings fear, because its the sort of thing that DOES happen after the left wins a cultural battle: those “left” behind are belittled, called ignorant rednecks, put-down, told that their opinions are no longer welcome or allowed in public, cannot be expressed out loud, are beyond the bounds of what we and we alone decide are reasonable debate, etc. That’s what’s fundamentally aliberal, and frankly, holds up the cause of gay rights.

12

I am a Republican. I support some sort of legal gay union, although I’d prefer it not be called “marriage.”

However, I must sadly agree with Eve that my party lags on this important issue.

13

And man and a woman living together do not a family make either. But sometimes, if they want, they can start a family. And so can two men.

The fact is, two men or two women they can do all the key things that make a family a family. They can live together with common finances, share each other’s trials and tribulations, raise kids, help each other in deciding their medical care, etc. All these things are what the LEGAL contract of marriage is meant to encompass and support. So, if they qualify for all the things the law is supposed to support, why should they be specially denied it’s use?

14

Perhaps we can discuss raising children in same sex homes in a different thread. But for the sake of the argument, I’ll conceed adoption.

Not to get all Santorum on everybody, but where do you stop? I think that consenting ADULTS have the right to do anything they want in private. This means I support hetero, homo, bigamy, poligamy, sodomy, and incest and prostitution. Even though some of those make me cringe, it not mine or the governments business. So where are you going to draw the line? If my sister and I decide that we are going to be life partners, do we get to file joint taxes?

15

How so?

And besides-what if they’re brothers? Or Father and son? Or cousins? I mean, you just said two men living together-that doesn’t even mean they’re gay! Hell, they could be Siamese Twins!!!

:stuck_out_tongue:

Family isn’t just blood. I’ve known people who weren’t blood related that I still considered family.

16

How about the Supreme Court of the United States?

I find the idea that legalizing gay marriage is an open doorway to legalizing everything else amusing. That argument didn’t fly when racists were trying to keep interracial marriage illegal either. The law doesn’t work like that. Giving gays the right to marry will do just that; give gays the right to marry. If polygamists want the right to marry, they’re going to have to have separate legislation passed. Same goes for all the other boogeymen you’re afraid of legitimizing. Gay marriage won’t open those doors, and I’d love to see some proof that it will.

The idea that legalizing gay marriage will have surprised lawmakers exclaiming “Ooops! We just legalized incest by mistake too! Well, shucky-darn!” is the worst kind of straw man.

17

You draw the line were the situations of individuals cases make sense to draw the line. Why should gay men that have every intention of doing the things that a marriage involve be denied the legal protections involved with marriage? No seriously: why? Because I can think of reasons why in the cases of incest and poligamy (I’m not sure why you included sodomy or prostitution, as these have nothing to do with marriage). Can you think of reasons why in the case of two gay men?

This isn’t an issue of “what’s done in private.” Marriages aren’t necessarily about sex: they are about family. They are public legal arrangements meant to give partnerships legal status and a range of related rights.

Well, why not (not asuming that there’s a sexual relationship here)? If you run a household together with combined finances, why shouldn’t you be able to file jointly? Incest is another ball of wax.

18

Maybe that Mississippi state senator is just trying a pre-emptive stratgey, trying to convince gays rights supporters not to campaign. Amd maybe the reason he’s doing this is that he’s worried that many Mississipians might, in fact, support the idea of gay rights.

The general problem, in electoral terms, is that many people who support platforms like gay rights are not willing to make those issues the key determinants in their voting decisions. And there are also people who oppose gay rights, but who do not use this as the main criterion when deciding who to vote for. This applies to many other issues, like abortion rights, environmentalism, even gun control. The impossibility of finding a political candidate with whom you agree 100% on every issue means that people tend to rank their issues and look for the candidate or party that they are closest to on the “big issues.”

This is not to say that gay rights is not the primary focus for some voters. I’m sure that there are some people who would not vote for a gay rights candidate under any circumstances. There are probably others who would not vote for an anti-gay rights candidate under any circumstances. But i don’t believe that this issue is the definig one for the majority of voters. Of course, if that Mississippi state senator is right, it could well be that ALL candidates in Mississippi will oppose gay rights, and battle each other on different issues.

19

Agreed. I feel closer to some of my friends than some of my immediate family.

See my above post for clarification.

And if they are Siamese twins, they are “family”! :slight_smile:

20

No! I demand a cite for this outrageous assertion!