Not publicly, that is, not this year. Yes, shocking as it may be, candidates, even Democrats, do sometimes declare positions based on the net voter support they expect to gain from them. There were times earlier in history when majorities appeared in favor of full rights for the black minority, and when a majority of men became in favor of allowing women to vote, and …
It’s simply a matter of time, and, as Bryan points out, maybe not that much time.
Elvis: I’ll agree that MA may not pass a state constution disallowing gay marriage. But I don’t see how that will lead to gay marriage being a national issue in '08. No serious Democrat is going to endorse it a national level, and we’ve seen what happens when the anti-SSM crowd tries to push their views for a constitutional amendment at the national level. So what does that leave, other than a recognition by both sides that it’s going to be decided state by state? Our resident lawyers (including minty green) have convinced me that the SCotUS is not going to touch the issue except to validate that the FF&C clause does not apply. There just isn’t a position to stake out (at the federal level) on the pro side that will do anything but get you defeated. Four years hence, things won’t be all that different.
You’re correct but as baby steps turn into adult steps toward this goal, vocal elements within the Democratic party will try to force this issue to the forefront and the Democratic candidate will have to at least appear neutral on the subject or face losing a fair number of votes to a third party and subsequently a close election to the Republicans. And as some states edge toward full parity, the Republican candidate will have more strident voises raised from his party, forcing him to cater to them.
What I trying to say is that the heat on this particular issue (as well as a lot of issues) will likely simmer down after this election (during which legal advances can quietly occur) and start to build again as the 2008 election approaches, renewing the polarization.
I don’t know what the pressures on the Democrat will be, but I can’t see any viable Republican candidate being more strident than Bush on the anti- side. As I said earlier, the federal constutional amendment is a dead issue. The social conservatives tried and lost on that.
Where’s the heat now? Neither candidate is talking about it.
Well, the Republican candidate won’t be able to simply ignore the issue and focus on something that might be more important, because being oposed to the (I predict) rising tide of pro-gay-marriage legal decisions will be what the rightmost portion of his party demands.
It’s not a good issue to base the 2008 election on, but I predict it will be sufficiently “resonating”. That is, assuming the candidates’ war records or other personal trivia aren’t cosidered newsworthy enough.
You didn’t present a case, you just tried to shoot down my case, Mister Smarty-Pants.
Well, we don’t know what international events might occur (full-blown civil war in Iraq, a North Korean nuclear test, war between India and Pakistan, etc) or how well the U.S. economy will do, but gay marriage as an emerging civil rights issue will still be around over the next four years.
I’m personally hoping Bush won’t be, but I don’t have a say in the matter.
If you look at the polls by age this isn’t likely to really be true, at least if we’re talking about a generation being about 20 years.
The people who are most in favor of it are within my age bracket - 18-29, and then the tolerance loses a few points each age group older they go. Look at the Newsweek Poll conducted by Princeton Survey Research Associates on May 13-14, 2004 for example. 64% of 18-29s and 54% of 30-49s support some sort of marriage or civil union for gay people. Even in the 50-64 group 50% do as well. It’s only those over 65 who are extrodinarily opposed (57% against). The average life span is still 75 or so right?
That’s all it will take for the issue to be “demagogued”, won’t it? You know what has happened when a GOP candidate has tried to make hay with a flag-burning amendment - we “sophisticates” know it’s just an act, but it does resonate with a good part of the electorate and does put the Dems on the defensive (“I am NOT in favor of burning the flag”) and distracts from the real issues.
It’s nice that you’re convinced. But we shall see. Note that the arguments to that effect from the firm of Doper & Doper are based mainly on the current court’s *political * views (“The Supreme Court follows the election returns” - Finley Peter Dunne). Notwithstanding, SSM is a national issue now, regardless of how it eventually gets resolved nationally, and it defies the precedents of history to think it will stop with a patchwork of state laws in effect. The worst case is that elfkin477’s generation outlives us and takes over, right?
Assuming Bush is re-elected, by 2008 the overwhelming issue will be the deteriorating situation in the Middle East and the massive U.S. casualties and chaos. Trust me, gay marriage will be the last thing on anyone’s minds; getting the hell out of the quagmire will be the #1 through #100 issues.
Rgiht. Afterall, I presented actual data as opposed to you presenting your highly esteemed opinion. My bad. :rolleyes:
No one will argue that the issue won’t “still be around”. The question is whether it will be a top issue in '08. Move the goalpost if you wish, but your original claim remains unsupported.
If Bush is reselected or somehow cheats his way back in again, I predict the following issues will be key in '08:
The depression.
The continuing quagmire in Iraq and probably Iran or Syria.
A further erosion of civil rights, with even more unimpeded broadsides against the first amendment and due process. Eventually, even conservatives will become tired of it.
Gay rights.
The Zombie problem.
Environmental crises which can no longer be ignored.
Widespread terrorism and fires.
Think before you vote.
