Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

BlackGriffen · Jul 21, 2004, 12:21 PM

Excellent Op-Ed by Andrew Sulliven for TIME.

Excerpts:

[...]If the stakes are this high, you would think last week's humiliating defeat of the Federal Marriage Amendment would provoke despair among these advocates. But you would be wrong. Within minutes after losing the Senate vote, they were preparing to introduce a similar measure into the House, knowing full well that there is no hope of passage. But success at this juncture is not important. In fact, failure helps entrench the sense of alienation and anger that is already being stoked for political ends. The members of the religious right have therefore achieved what they set out to achieve. They have used this issue to galvanize parts of the evangelical base, just as President Bush's political mastermind, Karl Rove, intended.[...]

[...]There is, in fact, no danger to traditional marriage at all � just a move to bring the last remaining citizens into its embrace. As I've argued for more than a decade, giving gay couples the right to marry is, when you think about it, a conservative measure, demanding of gays that they live up to standards of fidelity, responsibility and commitment never before asked of them. It is pro-family, uniting those gay family members with their siblings and parents in the unifying ritual of civil marriage. Why cannot marriage be defined by the virtues it includes rather than the people it excludes?

In order to believe that this threatens heterosexual marriage, you have to believe it's a zero-sum game. If gay couples get married, then somehow straights will not. But why not both? Why cannot marriage bring us together rather than tear us apart? The answer, alas, is that this President has decided it will help him politically to tear us apart. His base is restless over government spending and Iraq, and this is a means to placate and energize it. If that means turning a tiny minority into a lethal threat to civilization, so be it. If that minority's sole crime is to seek to live in fidelity, uphold the family, support responsibility, then that also is beside the point. In this battle, the President has shown his true colors. He is a divider, not a uniter.

The 22 word summary: this issue is being fobbed off to distract you, Bush's supporters, from his fiscal irresponsibility and strategic failures as commander in chief.

Unfortunately, it will work like a charm as Bush plays his political base like a fiddle and alienates the Log Cabin Republicans.

BlackGriffen

Spliffdaddy · Jul 21, 2004, 12:26 PM

It isn't enough to uncover reasons not to vote for Dubya. The Dems can't win like that. There needs to be some compelling reasons to vote FOR Kerry, instead. That's something a bit more difficult. Sure, Dubya sucks, but what makes Kerry any better?

Give voters a reason to vote FOR someone, and they will. Give voters a reason to vote AGAINST someone - and they'll stay home.

BlackGriffen · Jul 21, 2004, 12:38 PM

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
It isn't enough to uncover reasons not to vote for Dubya. The Dems can't win like that. There needs to be some compelling reasons to vote FOR Kerry, instead. That's something a bit more difficult. Sure, Dubya sucks, but what makes Kerry any better?

Give voters a reason to vote FOR someone, and they will. Give voters a reason to vote AGAINST someone - and they'll stay home.

Excellent point, but it's not quite that simple. Because Bush is an incumbent, the people have to have already mentally fired him before they start looking for alternatives.

That said, this is off topic for the thread. The topic is about whether or not the whole homosexual marriage issue is a red herring.

BlackGriffen

dcmacdaddy · Jul 21, 2004, 12:41 PM

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
It isn't enough to uncover reasons not to vote for Dubya. The Dems can't win like that. There needs to be some compelling reasons to vote FOR Kerry, instead. That's something a bit more difficult. Sure, Dubya sucks, but what makes Kerry any better?

Give voters a reason to vote FOR someone, and they will. Give voters a reason to vote AGAINST someone - and they'll stay home.

As far as I'm concerned, Kerry isn't better than Bush. Kerry just
sucks in ways that I find more amenable. You want me to vote FOR
someone, nominate John McCain for President at the August Republican
Party conventation. He'll get my vote in a heartbeat.

Spliffdaddy · Jul 21, 2004, 12:52 PM

I thought the topic was whether or not gay marriage was a reason to vote against conservatives. See, anybody who opposes gay marriage must be a conservative Republican. And, by default, the liberals just stand around and hope everybody believes they feel the opposite way from Republicans - even though they feel pretty much the same way.

While almost half of the population would support gay marriage/civil unions - almost *none* are advocates of gay marriage. In other words, they don't feel strongly enough about it to change who they vote for. And they probably don't consider it among their top-20 most important issues.

As far as the election goes, the issue of gay marriage won't help anybody and it won't hurt anybody. Mostly because nobody cares.

Millennium · Jul 21, 2004, 01:03 PM

I still think the only clean way of doing this is going to be to excise the word "marriage" from law, give it some nice religion-neutral name, and then allow all, gay, straight, or otherwise, into that fold. Given that using a religious term like "marriage" in law already violates the separation of Church and State, this allows us to rectify another long-standing mistake in the process.

stevesnj · Jul 21, 2004, 01:23 PM

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
Sure, Dubya sucks, but what makes Kerry any better?

True but when the current leader of the free world says God personally speaks to him in the Oval office, time to get the hook. Also I just want a president that can actually hold an inteligent conversation, even Rep. have to admit he's not the sharpest knife in the drawer. But let me tell ya as soon as Kerry gets personal messages from God while in office it time to get the hook for him. God help us all!!

Dakar · Jul 21, 2004, 01:24 PM

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
[B]While almost half of the population would support gay marriage/civil unions - almost *none* are advocates of gay marriage. In other words, they don't feel strongly enough about it to change who they vote for./B]

Originally posted by Millennium:
I still think the only clean way of doing this is going to be to excise the word "marriage" from law, give it some nice religion-neutral name, and then allow all, gay, straight, or otherwise, into that fold. Given that using a religious term like "marriage" in law already violates the separation of Church and State, this allows us to rectify another long-standing mistake in the process.

I think these two posts hit the nail on the head. So it should be all downhill from here. Buckle up.

BlackGriffen · Jul 21, 2004, 01:41 PM

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
I thought the topic was whether or not gay marriage was a reason to vote against conservatives. See, anybody who opposes gay marriage must be a conservative Republican. And, by default, the liberals just stand around and hope everybody believes they feel the opposite way from Republicans - even though they feel pretty much the same way.

While almost half of the population would support gay marriage/civil unions - almost *none* are advocates of gay marriage. In other words, they don't feel strongly enough about it to change who they vote for. And they probably don't consider it among their top-20 most important issues.

As far as the election goes, the issue of gay marriage won't help anybody and it won't hurt anybody. Mostly because nobody cares.

Almost none? Would about 30% fit your definition of almost none? A mess of polls that are all pretty consistent.

And, again, saying nobody cares isn't quite right. From the poll page:

CBS News Poll. May 20-23, 2004. Nationwide:

"Is it possible that you would ever vote for a candidate who does not share your views on the issue of gay marriage, or is the subject so important to you that you could not vote for a candidate who disagrees with you?" N=923 registered voters, MoE � 3 (for all registered voters)

ALL: yes-56% no-35% depends-5% unsure-4%
Republicans: yes-46% no-44% depends-7% unsure-3%
_ Democrats: yes-57% no-34% depends-3% unsure-6%
_ Independents: yes-64% no-27% depends-5% unsure-4%

"Do you think the issue of gay marriage should be part of this year's election campaign, or not?" N=923 registered voters, MoE � 3

5/20-23/04: should-29% should not-70% unsure-1%

So, contrary to your belief, nearly a third of all people do care, and nearly half of Republicans. I agree, though, that this issues isn't critical, and also wholeheartedly agree with Millennium.

That's the point, though, is that there is a sizable minority for whom this issue is like waving a red cape in front of a bull. Bush is trying to use that red cape to energize people to work for his reelection and vote for him that might otherwise have second thoughts because of his failings on other traditionally conservative issues like fiscal prudence.

So, this isn't a thread for "gay marriage is a reason to vote against conservatives." This is a, "opposing gay marriage should not be sufficient reason to volunteer for, donate to, and vote for Bush."

BlackGriffen

Edit: fix tags.

Spliffdaddy · Jul 21, 2004, 05:24 PM

NOR

volunteer for, donate to, and vote for Kerry.

SimeyTheLimey · Jul 21, 2004, 10:10 PM

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
It isn't enough to uncover reasons not to vote for Dubya. The Dems can't win like that. There needs to be some compelling reasons to vote FOR Kerry, instead. That's something a bit more difficult. Sure, Dubya sucks, but what makes Kerry any better?

Give voters a reason to vote FOR someone, and they will. Give voters a reason to vote AGAINST someone - and they'll stay home.

True, the Democrats have no affirmative message this season. I have never seen anything quite like it. As I walk around Washington, there are DNC fundraisers in the street whose line is "do you want to help defeat George Bush"? Are they even running a candidate of their own? I can't tell. It's just a space with "not George Bush" in it. Will people really vote for a nonentity just because it isn't Bush?

This is reflected in Kerry's "message" on gay marriage. The guy was a complete cowardly no-show. I can understand voting against Bush on gay marriage, but Kerry presented nothing to vote for.

UNTeMac · Jul 21, 2004, 10:27 PM

I can't wait for the debates. That's where we'll see the real candidates. They were too nice in 2000 and that's certainly not happening this year. Simey, I'm sure you'll get your wish in hearing Kerry debate this with Bush.

BlackGriffen · Jul 21, 2004, 11:55 PM

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
NOR

volunteer for, donate to, and vote for Kerry.

As Simey deftly pointed out, that's very true. I'm of a mind to keep it on a state level, even if it means keeping that unconstitutional DoMA on the books for pragmatic reasons.

BlackGriffen

SimeyTheLimey · Jul 22, 2004, 05:03 AM

Originally posted by UNTiMac:
I can't wait for the debates. That's where we'll see the real candidates. They were too nice in 2000 and that's certainly not happening this year. Simey, I'm sure you'll get your wish in hearing Kerry debate this with Bush.

You mean Kerry will actually campaign? Himself? Wow!