posted
OK, we have covered the "anti-gay marriage is bigotry" and "people who think religious people are bigots are bigots" arguments pretty well.
So, without resorting to arguing over the merits of gay marriage debate, what do you think are the political ramifications of the debate?
One proof that this forum is crawling with liberals is the fact that there is strong support for gay marriage on this thread. But I believe the national pulse is more like two to one against gay marriages.
So the two Democratic frontrunners have specifically stated that they are against gay marriages. Then where does that leave me? Do I vote for them anyway just so that they can beat Bush?
If the situation were reversed and Bush is actually for gay marriages while the Democratic candidates propose a constitutional amendment banning gay marriages, what would the conservatives do? Is gay marriage an important enough issue for them to abandon Bush?
Posts: 4116 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
If I were going to have a litmus test issue, it would be abortion. Small chance of an overlap in a candidate of my views on abortion and my views on gay marriage. So likely it will the issue will not effect who I will vote for.
Dagonee Edit: Of course, my views on these two issues are not likely to represent a large bloc of voters.
posted
That's a much more concise way of framing my question, thanks! Is gay marriage your "litmus test" issue? Or is it abortion, Iraq, environment, national security, etc?
Posts: 4116 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thanks for introducing this topic. I'm fascinated and concerned by some of the consequences of the San Francisco action. Not sure if it's been posted, but Massachusetts Representative Barney Frank, who is openly gay, is also concerned:
quote:SAN FRANCISCO -- Rep. Barney Frank said San Francisco's decision to challenge state law and grant marriage licenses to same-sex couples could damage efforts by gay rights advocates to defend the Massachusetts court decision legalizing gay marriage.
"I was sorry to see the San Francisco thing go forward," said Frank, an openly gay congressman from Massachusetts who shared his concerns with fellow Democrat and San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom before the city began marrying gay couples last week.
In an interview with The Associated Press, Frank expressed concern that the image of lawlessness and civil disobedience in San Francisco would lead some in Congress to support a federal constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.
If gays tend to view the Democrats as more sympathetic to their rights than Republicans, it is not something that is currently helping Democrats. For at least a week, the White House was able to steer discussions away from the economy and Iraq and focus on gay marriage.
In any case, I think that politically active folks tend to get less emotional about these issues (unless they're posturing for the crowds). Barney Frank's statement is a good example of that.
Another good example of the downplay of emotion is that a fair number of Republicans have voiced opposition to a Constitutional amendment concerning gay marriage. Not because they support gay marriage, but they're very reluctant to tinker with the Constitution.
Finally, it will be interesting to watch Andrew Sullivan and who he ends up supporting for the presidency. Sullivan is gay and has been writing in support of gay marriage lately. Sullivan is a "libertarian" brand of conservative and supported Bush in the last election. The reaction of Bush to gay marriage should come as no surprise to Sullivan or anyone, really.
But I wouldn't be surprised if, when push comes to shove, Sullivan backs Bush. Why? For Sullivan, low taxes may be important than the right to marry.
Obviously, Sullivan is not typical of the Gay community. Especially for those in lower income brackets. But it's interesting to see how these things play out with folks who deal with politics on a daily basis.
posted
As I've argued before, the misuse of war, the misleading of the public, the infringement on the bill of rights, and the provocation of terrorism through arrogant foreign policy should take precendence over a social issue like gay marriage. Nobody will die if it takes four more years to make gay marriage legal.
Having said that, the person who is President will probably have very little relevance to a Constitutional amendment getting passed. The ratification process was deliberately designed to be exclusively in the hands of the legislative branches. So, if you are worried about an amendment, vote gay-rights advocates into Congress rather than into the Presidency.
posted
Aww Tres, you took all the fun out of my speculations.
quote:If gays tend to view the Democrats as more sympathetic to their rights than Republicans, it is not something that is currently helping Democrats.
I am very torn on this point. During the last election, I blasted some of my friends for voting Nader. My Green friends told me that for them, environmentalism is so important that it is worth it to cast a vote solely on that basis, even if that vote is merely a symbolic one.
I want Bush out of the office as much as the next leftie, but I cannot, in good conscience, vote for someone who is opposed to gay marriages. The smart thing to do is to work within the Democratic political system. But it just doesn't feel right to me.
Edited to make all sorts of evil changes to make your posts sound stupid and out of context.
[ February 27, 2004, 01:47 PM: Message edited by: Beren One Hand ]
Posts: 4116 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I personally think that the abortion issue is nearer and dearer to the hearts of many conservatives than the gay marriage issue is. So I think even if Bush suddenly decided to support gay marriage, he wouldn't lose too many followers, but he would lose a lot if he decided to become pro-choice.
Rush Limbaugh actually commented on this just a couple days ago -- that Bush could probably really wrap up the race with a trump by simply coming out in favor of gay marriage -- it will swing the gay vote, not lose too many conservative votes (because they wouldn't be willing to go to the opposite side on the abortion issue) and he would beat the democrats at their own game (his words).
I think most of us who are conservatives ALSO known of some one, work with someone, or are related to someone who is gay. So perhaps we are more open-minded to flexibility on this issue.
Are you "abandoning Bush?" I didn't get the impression you would be voting for him even if the gay marriage issue had not exploded.
And what's the sense of abandoning Bush when his opponent holds the same beliefs? (Except for Nader, of course.)
I'm referring to conservatives in general. I'm pretty sure that this is a major issue for many conservatives, and that's it's important enough for many conservatives that they would abandon Bush if he supported gay marriage. Do you deny this is true?
I understand what you're saying about the alternatives, but there's always the option to not vote at all. I'm not sure that I won't take that route this time around. Still thinking. (Though I probably won't. )
posted
What, I have to wonder, is the point of speculating over what would happen if Bush suddenly came out in support of gay marriage?
quote:And what's the sense of abandoning Bush when his opponent holds the same beliefs? (Except for Nader, of course.)
Believing that gay marriage is an issue left to the states, opposing a constitution ammendment defining marriage, and actually supporting civil unions is a FAR cry from Bush's push towards a constitutional ammendment.
Posts: 4292 | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
One problem is that the gay marriage issue is what political scientists refer to as a "cross-cutting cleavage." Reactions to this issue don't follow strict party lines. Instead, they follow regional and age demographic lines -- people in cities, the northeast, and California; young people; and well-educated, wealthy people typically support it, while the elderly, workers in the Rust Belt, as well as the religious tend to oppose it.
Clearly, most of these demographic trends don't follow party lines -- the elderly and Rust Belt workers tend to vote Democratic, while the wealthy are often Republican.
The question, really, is how much precedence this is going to take in the eyes of these voters. The reason the Democrats are playing it down so much is that many of their key consitutiences (particularly the elderly) often oppose gay marriage. While the Republicans also risk alienating people over this, they stand to lose less because the Republican constituencies they stand to lose probably don't place as much emphasis on social issues as they do economic ones.
To win this one, Democrats need to keep focused on jobs and the economy -- these things tie workers and the elderly to the Democratic party, while gay marriage alienates them.
So this is really a terribly divisive issue, and not very easily analyzed or solved.
[ February 27, 2004, 02:16 PM: Message edited by: Kasie H ]
Posts: 1784 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, there is quite a bit of discussion on liberal sites as to how the whole SF gay marriage thing is going to play out come the election. Many people think that it's not the bomb that some Dems are making it out to be and might help because it's creating some discord in the Republican party.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
wow Kasie, I liked your post. Are you a poli-sci major? I never thought of it like that.
I think what I said before, is that I think Bush is just making a lot of noise in order to appease his fundamentalist constituency, but that I don't think we will actually see a bill, since many of the same conservatives really are anti-tinkering with the constitution.
I voted for Bush last time which may surprise some of you. I've always viewed myself as conservative, but a conservative Californian is different than most other brands of conservative. I don't want to vote for Kerry, because his economic policies scare me, more than Bush's though I dislike Bush's policies intensely. But if Bush actually truly tries to ramrod an ammendment through Congress, then I would definitely have to re-consider, who I vote for in the national election.
Oh. That makes your whole post read rather differently, doesn’t it?
quote:I'm pretty sure that this is a major issue for many conservatives, and that's it's important enough for many conservatives that they would abandon Bush if he supported gay marriage. Do you deny this is true?
Actually, I don’t think it is. Where are the types of conservatives who really care about stopping gay marriage going to go?
quote:I understand what you're saying about the alternatives, but there's always the option to not vote at all. I'm not sure that I won't take that route this time around. Still thinking. (Though I probably won't. )
quote:Actually, there is quite a bit of discussion on liberal sites as to how the whole SF gay marriage thing is going to play out come the election. Many people think that it's not the bomb that some Dems are making it out to be and might help because it's creating some discord in the Republican party.
Storm, I haven't seen the sites, but frankly it sounds like wishful thinking. There's always been divisiveness within the Republican party - California's governor Arnie is mostly a social liberal. The core Republican issue is an economic one and they close ranks around that, especially when the presidency is at stake.
It's a lose-lose situation for the Democrats, probably. If they start strongly and loudly proclaiming their opposition to gay marriage, they'll be the focus of attacks from the progressives - especially with Nader on the scene.
If they support gay marriage, according to every attitude survey out there, they will give that small group in the "middle" one more reason to drift toward Bush in the national election.
I want to make it clear that I'm in the camp that favors formal civil unions at the least. I can't quite wrap my head around the marriage issue - I'm in a long-term hetero relationship in which we choose not to be married. So in some ways I feel like that last person to be writing about marriage as a "right."
But conservatives have proven to be much more skilled at playing these issues than liberals in the past couple of decades. I wouldn't be surprised if it happens again.
quote:I want to make it clear that I'm in the camp that favors formal civil unions at the least.
This is a battle free zone, no need to declare your loyalty to the Truth (But your name is going into my list though)
I have to go with sndrake on this one. During the last couple of years, Republicans have clearly presented a much more united front than the Democrats. Storm, can you give us a summary of why some Democrats feel this issue will cause more divisions for the Republicans than the Democrats?
Posts: 4116 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Rush Limbaugh actually commented on this just a couple days ago -- that Bush could probably really wrap up the race with a trump by simply coming out in favor of gay marriage -- it will swing the gay vote, not lose too many conservative votes (because they wouldn't be willing to go to the opposite side on the abortion issue) and he would beat the democrats at their own game (his words).
I think this would actually guarantee a Bush loss because, given his previous claims, both the gay vote and the conservative base would realize he's lying to them, resulting in the gay vote staying Democrat and the conservatives dropping support.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm really not sure where I stand on this one.
I think Bush is a liar, but one who ultimately did the right thing for the wrong reasons. I don't trust him to stand up for social conservativism anyway, and it would not surprise me if he switched sides.
What this means for my vote--if I even bother--I'm not sure. Should I favor someone I know is not on my side, or someone who claims to be on my side but isn't trustworthy?
Posts: 1041 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Gay Marriage isn't my litmus test. Abortion is. Abortion is an issue of life and death, so I can't compromise on it. I won't vote for anyone who favors abortion on demand.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah....while I'm mostly a moderate, and try not to be a one-issue voter....abortion is the litmus test for me as well. Only I can't vote for someone who is pro-life.
Oh and Banna -- yes, I'm an International Affairs & Poli Sci major.
[ February 27, 2004, 11:34 PM: Message edited by: Kasie H ]
Posts: 1784 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Belle and Kasie - At all? What about someone who supported it only in special cases, or someone who said first two trimesters only? (Or any position that is not your ideal, but closer to the middle than the extremes.)
What about other "litmus" issues that people have? Is it really absolute? If both main candidates are basically opposed to your desires, do you tab over to the next most important thing, or vote for a third party that will not win?
Posts: 1364 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
Babies survive that are born in the middle of the second trimester.
Danzig, that's a really good question. THough I think I should point out that most political candidates who are pro-life usually add "except in special cases when the life of the mother is in danger or the pregnancy results from incest or rape". That's not part of the litmus test. Like Belle said, it's abortion on demand that's the issue.
I think the abortion issue is a litmus test because it depends on what one believes about human life, the worth of human life, and the human soul.
Generally, people who practice religion of some kind believe in souls and in the worth of every life, not just the more powerful ones.
People who don't believe in God are more likely to not take that view.
I think other issues are cloudier (like the capital punishment debate, or gay marriage) but, generally, the religious usually vote one way and the secular vote another.
In the absence of the abortion litmus test (if both candidates were pro-life, say; if they were both adamantly pro-choice I wouldn't feel so much like voting, for all the trouble it's worth) I would go with foriegn policy. Or maybe the religious issues like school prayer and vouchers and stuff.
That's a big if, though. Gay marriage irritates me slightly, and I feel I can afford to be flexible on it; abortion breaks my heart and there's no way I'll bend on that issue.
Posts: 575 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:A willingness to amend the Constitution to enshrine an ideological position is proof positive for Democrats and potentially independent and swing voters that Bush is no compassionate conservative.
For all you swing voters who oppose gay marriages but also oppose amending the Constitution, is this true? Do you view the amendment as a sign of intolerance or do you believe that, while you would not go as far as changing the constitution, you understand where Bush is coming from?
Posts: 4116 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sachiko, I think you show insight into the way groups of voters will think and react in your post, but I think some of the assumptions you state about people who disagree with your position on abortion will prevent some people from fully appreciating your post. This is the land we get into with the gay-marriage debate, where everybody's calling everybody else a bigot or an enemy of religion and the family. Let me submit that we should give people who disagree with us credit for not being evil. People who are pro-choice might be wrong in their beliefs, but I don't think that they all have a different opinion from you on the value of a human life. Specifically, I don't think anybody on this board who is pro-choice would agree with your assessment that they believe that the only lives which have worth are "the more powerful ones." I would say that most of the people here value life; they just disagree with you about the specifics. Aside from the fact that I truly believe that, though, is the fact that you are not engaging in a dialogue when you insult those who disagree with you. When you rant, you rant alone.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
)![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
(But your name is going into my list though)
