[maxintosh]

The fundies get their way.

Marriage Protection Week, 2003
By the President of the United States of America
A Proclamation

Marriage is a sacred institution, and its protection is essential to the continued strength of our society. Marriage Protection Week provides an opportunity to focus our efforts on preserving the sanctity of marriage and on building strong and healthy marriages in America.

Marriage is a union between a man and a woman, and my Administration is working to support the institution of marriage by helping couples build successful marriages and be good parents.

To encourage marriage and promote the well-being of children, I have proposed a healthy marriage initiative to help couples develop the skills and knowledge to form and sustain healthy marriages. Research has shown that, on average, children raised in households headed by married parents fare better than children who grow up in other family structures. Through education and counseling programs, faith-based, community, and government organizations promote healthy marriages and a better quality of life for children. By supporting responsible child-rearing and strong families, my Administration is seeking to ensure that every child can grow up in a safe and loving home.

We are also working to make sure that the Federal Government does not penalize marriage. My tax relief package eliminated the marriage penalty. And as part of the welfare reform package I have proposed, we will do away with the rules that have made it more difficult for married couples to move out of poverty.

We must support the institution of marriage and help parents build stronger families. And we must continue our work to create a compassionate, welcoming society, where all people are treated with dignity and respect.

During Marriage Protection Week, I call on all Americans to join me in expressing support for the institution of marriage with all its benefits to our people, our culture, and our society.

NOW, THEREFORE, I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim the week of October 12 through October 18, 2003, as Marriage Protection Week. I call upon the people of the United States to observe this week with appropriate programs, activities, and ceremonies.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this third day of October, in the year of our Lord two thousand three, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and twenty-eighth.

GEORGE W. BUSH

I feel ill.

[BlackGriffen]

Target: Howard Dean
Objective: Turn gay marriage in to a wedge issue.

It starts.

Will Dean's stance that goes something like, "Marriage is a religious institution between a man and a woman, so I support granting all the civil and legal rights that come to a couple through marriage to gay couples via civil unions," hold up without completely turning off the homophobes?

We'll see.

BlackGriffen

[MacGorilla]

marriage protection week? What are they doing, handing out condoms?

[clarkgoble]

Exactly how is a marriage protect week a "fundie" issue? Surely, given the rather demonstrable psychological effect on children of divorce, having a strong marriage is objectively a good thing. We may all disagree on how to do it but hopefully not whether we should strengthen and defend it.

I certainly disagree with Evangelicals and "fundies" a lot. And I'm for tolerance towards homosexuals. But it seems like marriage often is under attack in the media even if some of the more frenzied attacks by feminists and the like have died down.

Personally I think the big problem is that marriage moved from being a religious issue to a civil issue. Thus there are all sorts of complexities that make this difficult.

One can't help but think though that benefits for many things given to couples ought to be defined more broadly. For instance if I am heterosexual but single yet live with a roommate, why shouldn't my roommate get some benefits that married people do? It seems that is at least as valid as the cries homosexual couples ask for. It seems difficult to defend the one and not the other.

i.e. if you are going to say that the state ought not to offer incentives just to heterosexual married couples but to any couple, why stop at couples?

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by clarkgoble:
Exactly how is a marriage protect week a "fundie" issue? Surely, given the rather demonstrable psychological effect on children of divorce, having a strong marriage is objectively a good thing. We may all disagree on how to do it but hopefully not whether we should strengthen and defend it.

I read this as defining marriage, not as some appeal to univeral ideals of family values. It's not "protect kids week" or "strengthen and defend families" week. Its "protection of marriage" defined as the union of a man and a woman week.

Wedge politics in the form of "values".

[vmpaul]

Originally posted by MacGorilla:
marriage protection week? What are they doing, handing out condoms?

Better still. Outlaw divorce. That'll keep'em married.

[macvillage.net]

This sounds a little creepy. Unethical at least.

Bush is attempting to bring the Federal Government into something that it really shouldn't touch.

Marriage is is a religious word, shared between many. But clearly religious. "Civil Union" is a legal word.

So clarification should be in place.


2ndly... it's pushing that line of where the government should be touching. Who you live with (or decide not to live with) is your choice.

Not to fond of Bush's continued attempts to integrate Religion and government. If he really wants it so bad, modify the constitution. Stop with the little polks.

BTW: there are some cultures that don't even do traditional "marriages" as found in many western cultures. A marriage is simply a couple that has children together. Not necessarally bond as other cultures imply.

It's a little bit of a push on ethics.

IMHO I agree that Children deserve parents that aren't fighting...

The methods used to promote this aren't very ethical. Even rewording could make this better.

[maxintosh]

Originally posted by clarkgoble:
Exactly how is a marriage protect week a "fundie" issue? Surely, given the rather demonstrable psychological effect on children of divorce, having a strong marriage is objectively a good thing. We may all disagree on how to do it but hopefully not whether we should strengthen and defend it.

I certainly disagree with Evangelicals and "fundies" a lot. And I'm for tolerance towards homosexuals. But it seems like marriage often is under attack in the media even if some of the more frenzied attacks by feminists and the like have died down.

Personally I think the big problem is that marriage moved from being a religious issue to a civil issue. Thus there are all sorts of complexities that make this difficult.

One can't help but think though that benefits for many things given to couples ought to be defined more broadly. For instance if I am heterosexual but single yet live with a roommate, why shouldn't my roommate get some benefits that married people do? It seems that is at least as valid as the cries homosexual couples ask for. It seems difficult to defend the one and not the other.

i.e. if you are going to say that the state ought not to offer incentives just to heterosexual married couples but to any couple, why stop at couples?

This isn't Strengthen Your Marriage week. It's not End Divorce Week. It's not Stop Spousal Abuse week, Don't Cheat On Your Spouse week, Parent-Child Relationship week, or Celebrate Marriage week.

It's, Oh No Don't Let the Homos marry week.

So how exactly is this protecting (heterosexual) marriage?



As for the roommate thing... umm... marriage (at least used to be) a permanent thing. e.g., fall in love, get married, start a family. All we want is the legal recognition of that.

The problem is that people confuse the legal and religious definitions of marriage. The legal definitions are static; the religious are not. I don't have a problem with a religious sect refusing to sanctify gay marriages; I have a massive problem with the state refusing it.

If it makes you happy, don't call the legal process "marriage": reserve that for the churches (many churches would gladly "marry" gay couples). The point is, the legal process should be the same for both hetero- and homo- sexual citizens.

[zigzag]

There might be reason to be pleased about this, in an indirect way. These sorts of pronouncements are often made as sops to a given constituency when an administration doesn't intend to pursue that constituency's agenda more avidly. That way they can say that they've supported the agenda without actually getting any laws passed. I suspect that Bush doesn't want to push the Constitutional amendment thing - I suspect he wants to avoid the gay issue altogether - but he still has to say the right things once in a while.

I thought this was the most interesting line in the proclamation: "And we must continue our work to create a compassionate, welcoming society, where all people are treated with dignity and respect." Perhaps a sop within a sop.

[maxintosh]

Originally posted by zigzag:
I thought this was the most interesting line in the proclamation: "And we must continue our work to create a compassionate, welcoming society, where all people are treated with dignity and respect." Perhaps a sop within a sop.

I bet the irony of that statement went right over his head.

[Nicko]

Institute mandatory shotgun weddings?

[shmerek]

Bush is a pathetic jack ass.

[UNTeMac]

A good friend of mine said it best:

"Amen. I'm totally for it. Hey, while we're at it, I think a little sex training is in order, too. Just to help couples "develop the skills and knowledge" to have un-arousing, Republican sex. It'll make sure that no disgusting, demoralizing things are going on in American Households....evil, terrorist acts like oral sex and the REVERSE MISSIONARY POSITION!!! *gasp!* Thank you, George Bush. Thank you for keeping our country safe from the evils of divorce and, soon, rear-entry."

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally posted by zigzag:
[B]There might be reason to be pleased about this, in an indirect way. These sorts of pronouncements are often made as sops to a given constituency when an administration doesn't intend to pursue that constituency's agenda more avidly. That way they can say that they've supported the agenda without actually getting any laws passed. I suspect that Bush doesn't want to push the Constitutional amendment thing - I suspect he wants to avoid the gay issue altogether - but he still has to say the right things once in a while.

Not that I think it's a 'right thing to say' but I think you nailed it. Possibly, he can say "I've addressed that issue" without addressing it further.

As for gay marriage, of course both sides will play it as a wedge issue, and neither side will touch it for real with a ten-foot pole.

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by UNTiMac:
A good friend of mine said it best:

"Amen. I'm totally for it. Hey, while we're at it, I think a little sex training is in order, too. Just to help couples "develop the skills and knowledge" to have un-arousing, Republican sex. It'll make sure that no disgusting, demoralizing things are going on in American Households....evil, terrorist acts like oral sex and the REVERSE MISSIONARY POSITION!!! *gasp!* Thank you, George Bush. Thank you for keeping our country safe from the evils of divorce and, soon, rear-entry."

I think Republican sex is rather conservative.

Most likely keep your clothes on and stick your weener out the zipper of the pants. Under the sheets, with a woman wearing a long dress.

We wouldn't want to see anything.

[The Mick]

Marriage is a union between a man and a woman, and my Administration is working to support the institution of marriage by helping couples build successful marriages and be good parents.

Bzzzzt, wrong. Marriage is a religious ceremony that unites a man and a woman. No offense George, but I don't need the federal government's help to build a strong marriage and be a good father. How exactly are you helping in the first place?

[macvillage.net]

Marriage is a religous term.

"Civil Union" is what matters to Bush, legally.

He shouldn't legally be discussing marriage through his position (as president), as it violates the constitutional separation between church (which owns the term marriage), and state (which owns his job). A clear conflict of juristiction.




And isn't the the one that refered to his own wife as a "lump in the bed" in a poem or something? Like he should be talking.

[cpt kangarooski]

clarkgoble--

Surely, given the rather demonstrable psychological effect on children of divorce, having a strong marriage is objectively a good thing.

I think that rather depends on the marriage in question. In some cases it's good for kids to have parents who are married. In others, it would probably be best if the parents split up; perhaps remarrying. Some kids are better off not even being raised by their parents.

Promoting _sucessful_ marriages, without suffering the collateral damage of imposing on failed marriages, is what would seem to be a good idea.

And of course, homosexual couples in a stable and loving relationship have been shown to be just as able to raise a healthy family as similarly stable/strong heterosexual couples; so why not encourage them too?

maxintosh--

If it makes you happy, don't call the legal process "marriage"

By this do you mean 'don't call civilly recognized marriages marriages' or do you mean 'don't call homosexual marriages marriages?' If the latter, I'd be inclined to disagree. Having marriage for heterosexuals and a marriage substitute for homosexuals smacks of 'seperate but equal' to me.

Then again, I can't see any particular reason or legal foundation for banning group marriages.

[macvillage.net]

Civil unions should be for everyone. It's discriminitory for it not to be. It's nothing more than a tax form.

If homosexuals can't fill out civil union forms... why must they fill out tax forms? Shouldn't the ban be all or nothing? Either deny access to all tax related forms, or none.

That's all a "Civil Union" really is. It's taxes. That's what the form is for. That's the intent.

For some reason, some religious conservatives decided to call it "legal marriage" becuase you get it when your married in a church.

Marriages are up to the religious institution to decide how to conduct them. Some only do man/women. Some have no decision. Some require you be of a certain age... some don't. Some require you be of the same ethnic background... some do not, some have no preference.

Religious ceremonies are just that... religious... they have no standing in the court of law.

And vice versa.

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE:
As for gay marriage, of course both sides will play it as a wedge issue, and neither side will touch it for real with a ten-foot pole.

I don't think so. It can only be used as a wedge issue by the person who has the majority on his side. Abortion is a good example of a liberal wedge issue. This one is a conservative one.

BG

[BRussell]

Originally posted by UNTiMac:
the REVERSE MISSIONARY POSITION!!! *gasp!*

Err, sorry to take this off topic, but what is a reverse missionary position?

always looking for new ideas to "protect" my marriage -
BRussell

[maxintosh]

Originally posted by cpt kangarooski:
By this do you mean 'don't call civilly recognized marriages marriages' or do you mean 'don't call homosexual marriages marriages?' If the latter, I'd be inclined to disagree. Having marriage for heterosexuals and a marriage substitute for homosexuals smacks of 'seperate but equal' to me.

No, I just mean, stike the word "marriage" from legal doctrine alltogether, heterosexual couples included. So heterosexual couples have "civil unions" and if they want to get "married", they go to church.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
I don't think so. It can only be used as a wedge issue by the person who has the majority on his side. Abortion is a good example of a liberal wedge issue. This one is a conservative one.

A Majority of Americans, both Democrats and Republicans don't support gay marriages. It's an issue that neither side wants to touch for the most part, and in fact when they have (Defense of Marriage Act passed by congress and Clinton in '96, and Prop 22 here in California in 2000), the 'traditional' view of marriage has been overwhelmingly supported and gay marriage rejected by both sides (Reps/Dems conservatives/liberals) all knowing they are playing it safe by doing so.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE:
A Majority of Americans, both Democrats and Republicans don't support gay marriages. It's an issue that neither side wants to touch for the most part, and in fact when they have (Defense of Marriage Act passed by congress and Clinton in '96, and Prop 22 here in California in 2000), the 'traditional' view of marriage has been overwhelmingly supported and gay marriage rejected by both sides (Reps/Dems conservatives/liberals) all knowing they are playing it safe by doing so.

I think its more nuanced than that. Its all how you frame the issue. If you poll people about whether or not gays should enjoy the rights granted by marriage, they are for the most part in favor. Its bascially the word "marriage" that seems to be the hot button.

[clarkgoble]

MacVillage: Bush is attempting to bring the Federal Government into something that it really shouldn't touch.

Are you saying it shouldn't touch it because it is a States rights issue or because marriage shouldn't be controlled by government? If the former the problem is that states are bound to accept marriages from other states. That means the issue can't be simply a state rights issue because of the way the Constitution is written. If the latter then I'd agree except that it clearly has been controlled by the government since before the foundation of the nation. It is thus naive to simply say the Feds should stay out.

Maxintosh: As for the roommate thing... umm... marriage (at least used to be) a permanent thing. e.g., fall in love, get married, start a family. All we want is the legal recognition of that.

Well as you state, marriage clearly isn't a permanent thing. So that line of thinking seems invalid.

The issue is whether the state has a compelling interest to encourage heterosexual marriage over other kinds of relationships. I personally think that marriage should not be controlled or validated by government at all. But if it is then the meaning of marriage clearly then comes into discussion.

Were I homosexual and wanted marriage acceptance I'd fight to get rid of civil marriages entirely.

Maxintosh: The legal definitions are static;

Nothing legal is static.

KangarooskiL Promoting _sucessful_ marriages, without suffering the collateral damage of imposing on failed marriages, is what would seem to be a good idea.

I think everyone agrees with that.

MacVillage: Civil unions should be for everyone. It's discriminitory for it not to be. It's nothing more than a tax form.

I fully agree. And therein, of course, lies the problem. As I mentioned, why shouldn't a roommate be able to get the tax and insurance benefits that a gay couple get?

[Demonhood]

Originally posted by clarkgoble:
As I mentioned, why shouldn't a roommate be able to get the tax and insurance benefits that a gay couple get?

-because roommates don't have/raise children together.
-because roommates (typically) aren't intimate with each other like partners are (thereby granting them those extra rights such as hospital visitation and inheritance).
-because the government has no real interest in seeing roommates stick together.

if you dismiss all of these, then please tell me what the difference is between a married couple and a man + woman who aren't a couple but happen to be roommates?

[clarkgoble]

because roommates don't have/raise children together.

Actually many roommates do deal with children. Especially among single parents. Why shouldn't they have rights even if they aren't in a sexual relationship? Surely if a roommate and friend has helped raise my child for six years they shouldn't be discriminated against simply because I have no desire to have sex with them.

because roommates (typically) aren't intimate with each other like partners are

Why should sex give one special tax breaks? That makes no sense. If I have sex with a roommate I should suddenly get a bunch of extra rights?

Because the government has no real interest in seeing roommates stick together.

What is the government interest in seeing homosexuals stick together?

if you dismiss all of these, then please tell me what the difference is between a married couple and a man + woman who aren't a couple but happen to be roommates?

From the point of view of the government I don't think there should be one. I thought I was rather clear on that point.

I think that civil unions should be purely done in terms of contract law. And I don't think the government has any compelling interest in deciding who can or can't enter into contractual union.

That there are differences between roommates and couples seems clear. But then clearly there are differences between heterosexual couples and homosexual couples. The issue isn't whether there are differences but what the significance of those differences are in different contexts.

The problem is that government has historically tied religious issues and these sorts of contracts. i.e. the meaning of marriage. Once the government has done this then it can't change the contract without also affecting the religious issues. This is why many religious people take it as an issue.

The obvious solution is to divest civil unions of the religious connotations. i.e. divest its connection to marriage.

The problem is that people are trying to have it both ways. That won't work.

[UNTeMac]

Originally posted by BRussell:
Err, sorry to take this off topic, but what is a reverse missionary position?

always looking for new ideas to "protect" my marriage -
BRussell

:shrug: She said it...not me. According to her it's where the woman's on top. I was picturing something altogether different.

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by clarkgoble:

Are you saying it shouldn't touch it because it is a States rights issue or because marriage shouldn't be controlled by government? If the former the problem is that states are bound to accept marriages from other states. That means the issue can't be simply a state rights issue because of the way the Constitution is written. If the latter then I'd agree except that it clearly has been controlled by the government since before the foundation of the nation. It is thus naive to simply say the Feds should stay out.

I was regarding Bush's comments on "marriage"....

Marriage isn't up to the federal government. That's social/religious.

Bush's business is with "Civil Unions", and whether the IRS can discriminate based on sexual orientation.

That's the only issue on Bush's desk.

What the Vatican, or any other religious group does... has nothing to do with him.

His issue is with Civil Union laws.

What many, including Bush have done, is try to make Civil Union and Marriage are the same thing. Fact is, we get married in church (or other religious place), and civil cerimonies are performed by the state, or state appointed (non-religious).

My big issue is that this is a violation of two laws:

1. Separation between Church and state.

This statement by Bush is yet more evidence that people can't separate in this topic. Marriage has nothing to do with laws, or state. Civil Union does.

2. Discrimination.

The main issue here... can the state discriminate based on sexual orientation... or is that allowed under current law... some argue discrimination is limited to sex, religion and skin color... does it extend to other traits?


Those are the issues.

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE:
A Majority of Americans, both Democrats and Republicans don't support gay marriages. It's an issue that neither side wants to touch for the most part, and in fact when they have (Defense of Marriage Act passed by congress and Clinton in '96, and Prop 22 here in California in 2000), the 'traditional' view of marriage has been overwhelmingly supported and gay marriage rejected by both sides (Reps/Dems conservatives/liberals) all knowing they are playing it safe by doing so.

Watch the knee. You posted this... agreeing with what I said. "Gay marriage" is an issue that conservatives can use to divide the liberal base, and win some (thus, a wedge issue). Liberals will never be able to use the issue, as stated, to do the same to conservatives.

I also agree with t_f. The moment you frame it as a question of legal rights, most people are probably more indifferent than anything. It becomes politically sticky when the word marriage is tacked on.

In response to ClarkGoble:

If you're willing to make the property and legal commitments, then you can get a civil union. It's not like the judge will say, "Okay, now you must prove your love to earn this Civil Union license, kiss him!" You'll just have to be prepared for the possibility of someone digging up a civil union license with your name and the name of another man on it (there will be a stigma attached if the sort of relationship you're proposing does not become common).

In fact, you can do it right now if you want. Just move to Vermont, and get a Civil Union with your roommate if you feel like it. I don't know if it will do you any good outside of VT, though, because there's some federal law ("Defense of Marriage Act" IIRC) that makes it so that states may chose to only recognize heterosexual Civil Unions.

Also, if your roommate is trying to talk you in to this, somebody has a crush on you!

BlackGriffen

Edit to add: Even though having sex has never been a requirement for marriage (Christians would have to break their moral code to get married then), not 'consummating' the relationship is grounds for divorce. One of my nephew's friends is gay and got a divorce on these grounds (hadn't come out of the closet yet, I guess).

[zigzag]

I agree with clarkgoble that it would be best to separate the idea of marriage (a religious sacrament, defined by a given church) from the idea of civil union (a secular relationship, defined by the law), and that there's no reason why a civil union shouldn't apply to any two consenting adults.

I think it's useful to remember that "civil union" contemplates legal obligations as well as privileges. Therefore, while it doesn't matter whether the parties are intimate or what-have-you (does anyone think that Liza Minelli and that weirdo she married were intimate? ), it does matter that the parties are willing and able to assume the obligations as well as the privileges of the relationship. So, it won't necessarily be a casual matter between any two roommates.

[MacNStein]

Originally posted by shmerek:
Bush is a pathetic jack ass.

so is any politician who backs an agenda that a person doesn't like. C'mon, get your "dirty bastard" to do something that'll cause sh*t to fly. Bush probably had sex with a farm animal or something, drag it out and crush him in front of his "grass-roots" supporters. C'mon, this is AMERICA, land of the freaks and home of the sh*it slingers!

So, tell me, who's the "dirty bastard" you support? Mine's whoever runs on the Libertarian ticket, their agenda fits me best... though, I'll probably vote for Bush again because I want a bigger tax cut.

[shmerek]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
so is any politician who backs an agenda that a person doesn't like. C'mon, get your "dirty bastard" to do something that'll cause sh*t to fly. Bush probably had sex with a farm animal or something, drag it out and crush him in front of his "grass-roots" supporters. C'mon, this is AMERICA, land of the freaks and home of the sh*it slingers!

So, tell me, who's the "dirty bastard" you support? Mine's whoever runs on the Libertarian ticket, their agenda fits me best... though, I'll probably vote for Bush again because I want a bigger tax cut.

He is a religious zealot and a bigot. He doesn't think gays should have the equal rights as heterosexuals thus my statement that he is a pathetic jack ass. And who needs to sling dirt about Bush when his policies and views do just fine?

Who is my dirty bastard? I don't know yet it isn't Paul Martin and it isn't Stephen Harper (another religious bigot).

[clarkgoble]

...it does matter that the parties are willing and able to assume the obligations as well as the privileges of the relationship. So, it won't necessarily be a casual matter between any two roommates.

Which highlights an other problem due to our (more or less) adoption of common law. (Thus the term common law marriage)

Let's be honest. Marriage law is a hopeless mess that needs some significant house keeping.

But I certainly agree that most roommates wouldn't do it. I just think it equally as discriminatory towards roommates as homosexuals. The fact that a greater percentage of homosexuals may well wish to have these legal rights than roommates is, of course, beside the point.

[MacNStein]

Originally posted by shmerek:
He is a religious zealot and a bigot. He doesn't think gays should have the equal rights as heterosexuals thus my statement that he is a pathetic jack ass. And who needs to sling dirt about Bush when his policies and views do just fine?

Who is my dirty bastard? I don't know yet it isn't Paul Martin and it isn't Stephen Harper (another religious bigot).

Oh, c'mon, Bush is doing this because the extreme Right kisses his a$$, they're his core supporters. though I don't agree with him on this, I just shrug it off as another pre-campaign maneuver.

What about Clark? He cuts a fine gib (the media loves a good looking candidate) and seems somewhat pliable, I'll be watching him too to see how much he can be manipulated. See the key is, you have to pick the "dirty bastard" who has his fingers in the pies that are of the most interest to you.

[shmerek]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
Oh, c'mon, Bush is doing this because the extreme Right kisses his a$$, they're his core supporters. though I don't agree with him on this, I just shrug it off as another pre-campaign maneuver.

What about Clark? He cuts a fine gib (the media loves a good looking candidate) and seems somewhat pliable, I'll be watching him too to see how much he can be manipulated. See the key is, you have to pick the "dirty bastard" who has his fingers in the pies that are of the most interest to you.

Kissing the extreme right's ass is also what makes Bush pathetic.

As I am not an american I don't care who gets elected as long as it is not Bush because his neo-con agenda is dangerous to everyone.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
[B]
Watch the knee. You posted this... agreeing with what I said. "Gay marriage" is an issue that conservatives can use to divide the liberal base, and win some (thus, a wedge issue). Liberals will never be able to use the issue, as stated, to do the same to conservatives.

Granted, I misused the term 'wedge issue' in my first post. My bad. Also, I wasn't disagreeing with you.

My point however, is about the fact that Democrats use the issue as a sledgehammer against Republicans, playing up Republican inaction, while glossing over their own inaction and/or actual lawmaking record of being against gay marriage.