Considering that the Democrats and Republicans are mostly united against gay marriage, it’s not likely that there will be much of a campaign issue of it that will swing public opinion.
If the Democrats take the bait Bush will win.
In virtually every poll I’ve seen on this, the majority of the people are against gay marriages. So what can the Democrats do? They can stick to their guns and lose the majority, or they can pander to the right and get hosed for being disingenuous and phony.
Of course, you get guys like Daschle that have already come out against it, so it’s up to you to decide whether he’s pandering or is genuine. I think for all his liberalism, his true colors came out on this one.
True, but on the other hand if the Democrats embrace it, they will look like they were ahead of the curve in twenty years or so. Public opinion will inevitably move towards more and more tolerance and equal rights for homosexuals. And people will remember which party stood for justice and which stood for repression, to be overly dramatic. People still remember who stood for civil rights, and the Democratic Party still benefits from their reputation among African-American voters, even though African-American interests are moving further and further away from the party. I also notice that the Democrats still get support from civil libertarians who favor smaller government but can’t stomach Republican attitudes towards race, perceived or real. So taking a principled stand on gay marriage, while it would hurt them in 2004, would possibly benefit them in a big way in the future.
Issue? What issue? Whether allowing two men to sit in the living room and argue about what color the new drapes are going to be will presage the collapse of all moral order? This is an issue?
No, this is pandering. GeeDubya needs the Troglodyte Right, he needs them mobilized and energized and the terrible truth is: he can’t deliver. It is beyond his power, or anyone elses for that matter, to return America to its previous state of OzzieandHarriet bliss, of picket fences and freshly scrubbed children with minds entirely free of any disreputable thoughts. He can’t give them what they want, nobody can turn the clock back on social change.
What he can do is frighten the bejabbers out of them with boogymen. Oooooh, the queers are coming! The queers are coming! Save your children from the queers!
Even if there were no human cost to all of this, it would still be ridiculous and repulsive. The Tighty Righties are pandering directly to our worse instincts, while they shuffle our children off to war for masturbatory dreams of world hegemony, and offer our environment as raw material for men who would rather make money than breathe.
If the Log Cabin Republicans had 100 million dollars in campaign funds to offer, this “issue” would vanish. Poof!
Bush is hardly pushing this issue. Barely a word emanates from this administration on gay issues. When asked about it directly, he hardly went all Buchanan on us. He just mumbled some religious stuff about how we are all sinners and moved on to the next question. I don’t think Bush feels all that strongly about this.
Why should he? It’s all being done for him. He has already “come out” on the issue by assuring the Godfearing that he has people working on the matter of a Constitutional Amendment to Protect the Santa Claus of Marriage. The Sanctity, that is. So he is on record. He just stands back and lets the Radio Right and the 700 Club carry the ball for him.
No, he won’t get into it that deep, he doesn’t want to actually offend those of us who really care about such things as tolerance and acceptance. That might cost votes.
Don’t be a bit surprised if he comes out strongly against the epidemic of hippies burning flags, and radical liberals trying to make God illegal.
I don’t think Bush wants to run a campaign on the culture wars. As a matter of fact, if you go over to many conservative websites, he’s taking a lot of heat for not waging the culture war like a good Republican should.
Bush has tax cuts and the war on terror to base his campaign around, and his first campaign ad indicates that these will be the big issues. I don’t think Bush wants to get into a debate on homosexuality or abortion, even if he can win. He seems distinctly uncomfortable talking about them.
adaher, The fact that he hasn’t said much proves that he’s obviously thinking hateful evil thoughts in secret, which is worse.
Stop questioning the axioms.
For a humorous and scurillous take on this:
http://www.whitehouse.org/news/2003/111803.asp
WARNING: Explicit and graphic humor! The humor-impaired are urged to avoid! Contains the word “felching”!
Rumor has it that the White House has uncovered links between homosexuals and Al Quaeda. You heard it here first, folks.
Seriously though, I’m guessing the Republicans will stay with the Iraq/War on Terror focus as the primary vote-getting strategy, as fear is better at driving the less discerning voters rightward than mild repugnance.
I don’t think thats the point. Its not so much about moving middlish voters right, as it is about energizing the kind of voter already on thier side to get out and vote. Hence, as noted before, all Bush need do is state his position of approving a “Sanctity of Marriage” Amendment, which he has done. If questioned, he merely says he has made his position clear, and moves on. Hammering the point would only alienate the sane and tolerant voter.
But in no wise will he discourage others from spreading hysteria on this “issue”.
elucidator, you say that like any of the other candidates have come out in favor of gay marriage. I’m sure some have and I’m not really interested in the specifics, but if both party nominees for the general election come out againsy gay marriages, who will the “sane and tolerant voter” vote for?
There’s a bit more to this than “Bush is the bad guy”.
No, but “Bush is the Bad Guy” wil hopefully be the prevailing theme of the election. There is no moral justification for voting for Bush. He is Caligula. Rich, entitled, emotionally stunted, callous, careless, greedy, morally crippled.
There is likely a very successful Republican strategy that this will play into: the courts are now making the law against the decisions of the people’s elected representatives, and the Democrats are supporting this to circumvent the will of the people.
This will likely be argued mostly around the Democrat’s fillibuster of a couple of prospective federal judgeships over ideology. Despite the fact that a majority of the Senate wishes to confirm these individuals, the Dems have be successful in preventing their confirmation (one, Miguel Estrada, even dropped out of the running). So you can pitch this as anti-democratic. Throw in the pledge decision, the gay marriage decision, and the 10 Commandments decision and abortion (although the latter two probably only work in the South, and could come back to bite you in the rest of the county), and you can make a case that important social policy is now being made primarily in the courts in an effort to circumvent the democratic process, and to ensure that the social policy is decided in a way the Democrats like, they are trying to pack the courts with people that share their philosophy.
If I were Bush/Rove, that’s how I’d pitch it. Keep asking the question, “why aren’t these decisions being presented to you for your vote? who controls this country: you, the people, or a bunch of judges?”
That’s a very compelling argument and you don’t even have to get into any sort of name calling or religious-based moralizing that would turn off the libertarians and non-religious, and subject you to charges of bigotry.
If the candidates spar about gay marriages, it will be like the Nixon-Kennedy debate, each claiming to be more against them than the other one. No candidate with the moral courage to advocate gay rights and alienate the bigots will make it through the primaries. With the serious domestic and international issues facing this country, I don’t doubt that both candidates will relish a framing of the debate that makes “a big issue” out of whether or not this country ought to go on the slippery slope towards legal equality for all people.
I find it surreal that any other question then the Iraq war could be of any importance in the election.
“You lied to the US people and Congress”
“Yeah, but my opponent here wants to let GUYS marry other GUYS!”
“Holy shit, we can’t have that! I’ll vote for ya!”
Or… what?
AD, USA If I explain this again, I fear I will sound patronizing. If this is the case, forgive and forget.
I don’t expect an either or situation, just as you point out, no one dares, except Kucinich and Whatshisfacewiththehair. It falls in with the Irrational Issues, like the death penalty. (I recall first losing faith in Bill Clinton when he flew back to Arkansas to sign off on the execution of a brain-damaged man when he was getting shit about being soft on crime…but I digress) It was never going to be “I’m for it/I’m agin it”.
The “sane, tolerant” crowd doesnt enter into the equation: this issue wont decide anything for them. But there is a sector of the population that orbits around these sorts of issues entirely. I’m sure it won’t surprise you to hear they are predominately Republican in voting habits. So they won’t be swayed either, since they are already going to vote Republican if they vote
That’s the punch line. Even if these people represent only 5% of the population (lord, that it were so…), in a very evenly polarized electorate as we have recently demonstrated, that can be the source of vastly exagerated power. Kind of like some parliaments, Israel the best example, where inordinate power is held by a very small, but very intense, minority, i.e., extreme Orthodox Jews.
So the object of this Rovian excercise is to energize these people. They have been promised much, but little has been delivered. Between Bush and any conceivable Dem candidate, which would do more to prevent the horror of “gay marriage”? I’m sure you take my point. He doesn’t even have to bring it up all that much, he’s on record as supporting a constitutional amendment, fer chrissake! Can’t trump that one.
To my mind, as you probably know, this ain’t an issue at all: of course some accomodation can and should be made, if it is at all reasonable and doesn’t scare the horses. On the other hand, I’m not ready to man the barricades over it, either. We have much bigger fish to fry.
(But, I swear, to hear some people talk you’d think Jesus was the single most unforgiving and intolerant human being ever born!)
Stick to what guns? It’s not like the Democrats have been running with the issue of gay marriage up till now. It’s not part of their platform at all. As fror being disingenuous and phony, it’s not clear why you’d say that. Most of them have always supported some sort of domestic partnership/civil union option and continue to, without wanting to go full on to marriage.
Also, what’s the difference between pandering and faithfully serving your electorate’s wishes? Just whether or not you happen to like them today?
A lot of Democrats opposed abortion when the majority opposed it. A lot of those same Democrats now say they always favored reproductive rights.
I think we’ll see the same attempts at revisionist history in the coming decades when it comes to homosexual rights.