Anyone think the gay marriage issue might be a deliberate GOP distraction?

[liberalhistorian]

I'm all for allowing gay marriage (never understood what the big deal was in the first place), and was very happy to hear about the Massachusetts Supreme Court decision. It's about damned time!

But, at the same time, it's looking more and more like a repuke distraction tactic, keep the heat on a cultural hot button that is, admittedly, a very divisive cultural issue, so that the heat stays off all of the bullshit happening in Iraq, the economy, etc., etc. I'm beginning to think the repukes and the fundie nutballs are doing this on purpose, and we're feeding into it. What do all of you think?

[La_Serpiente]

1. You seem to have pretty perceptive posts

so I will respect that. I tend to agree with you on most issues.

Is this a Republican forced issue? I don't know. But I don't think we can shy away from it. I think we should take back the issue and frame the message in a way that gives us the advantage. I think we can do it and defeat the Republicans at the same time.

[Ksec]

2. I think we need to get in before we can fix anyones problems

And we wont get in by making gay marriage a battle cry. Trust me.

BTW before the homosexuals of the board attack me Im for civil unions allowing all denefits that marriage does.

[blm]

3. I agree. I also don't think it's just coincidence the case was in Mass.

Just like the Democratic convention. Those debauched liberals, doncha know? The GOP will use EVERYTHING they think they've got.

[Plaid Adder]

13. The GOP has nothing to do with the case being in MA.

That has to do with the fact that that's where the plaintiffs live, and that the MA constitution provides good support for the argument they were making. Unless you want to believe that the Human Rights Coalition is really a GOP front, which I think stretches credulity even for the tinfoil hat brigade, there's no way they could have 'made' that ruling happen.

C ya,

The Plaid Adder

[liberalhistorian]

19. Good point!

n/t

[maggrwaggr]

4. Duh! I've been trying to tell people that here for a WHILE

And it's extremely frustrating.

We'll go down over this one issue.

It's gonna be

"The Democrats care more about a few gay people they they do about the average American."

That's the problem with the issue.

[HFishbine]

5. Bull Shnikees

How are the repukes keeping it in play? It's the courts responding to suits from people pursuing their equal rights that are making it an issue. If it weren't for the courts, the issue would not be in the news.

You say you think the rieght is doing this on purpose. Doing what on purpose?

[liberalhistorian]

17. I agree that it is, indeed,

the courts ruling on cases people filed to demand and gain their civil rights, that's not what I meant. It's the WAY that the repukes have taken advantage of those decisions and spun it in language that's to their advantage, the HYPE that it's given by the repukes and their media whores, and the way they've kept it in the forefront, pushing for that ridiculous "Marriage Defense" bill, or whatever the hell cute little euphemism they're calling it this week, making it seem as if the world will crumble into hell if gay marriage is allowed.

You have to admit, the repukes and fundie nutballs are, unfortunately, very, very good at doing things like this and leaving the Dems in the dust.

[HFishbine]

43. Things are simply coming to a head

Well, you are right. The courts are ruling and the reight is responding. But it's not as if the reight is creating an issue out of thin air. It is an issue. The rubber is meeting the road. It's time for the dems to do what's right. Get out in front of the issue and make the case for equal rights, or side with the republicans in "defense of marriage." The only option not available it to ignore it an hope that it will go away. The courts are acting, the reight is responding. If the dems don't take a position it will be the decisions of the courts versus the reight wing PR.

[mitchtv]

6. the Dem response must be Fairness

and get away from the word Marriage and replace it with discrimination and the question of being fair to taxpayers/citizens. Commit to a 'fair' solution. that guarantees all the same rights. Leave the word marriage out. (I am for it, but steps will suit me.)We can win on fairness and non discrimination-.They should be called out on their obsession with peoples orientation.

[LeahMira]

54. Fairness or equal rights?

Leave the word marriage out. (I am for it, but steps will suit me.)

Well, once a contentious issue has been resolved one way or the other, generally legislatures are reluctant to revisit that issue again in a year or two... or ten. If steps need to be taken, one of the steps is to educate those who are willing to listen.

My experience is that you have to ask for what you really want. If not, you'll only get what you ask for.

Also, to me the word fairness sounds a little like noblesse oblige. Let's talk equal rights under the Constitution, as in no choice. Obey the law. End of story.

[foreigncorrespondent]

7. Yes I do.

The Bushies needed something to take the heat of them, and unfortunately it is us in the gay community that is going to be the right wing target yet again.

The question that this situation leaves me with though is the democratic party going to stand beside us a whole and try and teach tolerance and understanding, or are they going to play right into the repukes hands?

[quaker bill]

8. No, but they will use it for such

I think the issue arose on it's own. But I have no doubt the repugs will use it as a wedge if we let them.

The issue will be hyped beyond its merits. It will be labeled as a 'threat to the sanctity of marriage'.

There is no threat to the sanctity of marriage here. Many issues mostly economic are far greater a threat but will be disregarded for this symbolism.

[Dagaz]

18. Yup, it's all about the toss up states

The younger generation is all for this so it will eventually pass but not this year. This is all about FL, PA, MI, OH, IA et al where gay marriage doesn't play well.

[poskonig]

9. Civil Unions yes, Marriage no

is the best answer, imho. The gay issue becomes a distraction when candidates claim they support "equal rights for everyone," which merely opens them up for more attacks.

[Bertha Venation]

39. civil unions = separate not equal

Civil unions are the best answer for whiners afraid of losing votes, whiners who will not stand up for EQUALITY.

In reality civil unions are not an answer at all. They're a temporary measure designed to placate us. I won't accept civil unions.

I AM NOT "UNIONED." I AM MARRIED.

Gay marriage as a wedge issue will backfire on the Republicans. More people are beginning to understand that it is a matter of equal civil rights -- and rights are not subject to plebiscite!

[Plaid Adder]

10. It is a real issue. However, they are certainly pushing it.

The Massachusetts court case would probably have made it a national issue anyway. But even before that, the Republicans were pushing this Marriage Protection bullshit:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/plaidder/03/01.html

They were looking to make it an issue no matter what happened in Massachusetts, and clearly it's because they think it's a winner for them. I don't think they're necessarily right, but a lot will depend on how the Democrats respond.

Although I am not a huge Dean fan, one thing I can say is that I respect his willingness to stand by the decision he made in Vermont. And I think that's the right thing for him to do. If he wants to avoid being hurt by this he just has to set the tone of the debate himself, and the tone should be that this is an issue about equal rights, and if you are against equal rights for all Americans then I'm done talking to you. That's the only thing that works, because if you try to debate right-wing fundamentalists or homophobes in general you usually end up nowhere. The only way to win on this issue is to keep hammering it home: this may not be popular, but it's the right thing to do, and so that's why we're doing it, and that's the end of the story.

I'll tell you this, though: the Marriage Protection Amendment may play like a dream to the far right, but I think they may get a nasty surprise in terms of how it plays to the mainstream.

Take, for instance, my brother, who has always voted Republican and thinks that the best kind of government would be the kind where nobody paid any taxes and everyone just kept their money and there were no federal services except maybe for highway construction. My brother is happy about the Massachuestts decision, and why? Because a) he's not a fundamentalist Christian and b) it will benefit me, his sister. When I told him about Marriage Protection Week and the Marriage Protection Amendment--neither of which, I point out, he had ever heard of--he was taken aback, and he refused to believe that the MPA would ever pass, as it was too "aggressive." Because for non-fundie fiscal conservative small-government types like my brother, the MPA is just a negative: you undercut states' rights, get the federal government involved in something it should leave alone, plus you deprive him of the chance to attend his sister's wedding.

Or, take my father, who is a Christian but not a born-again one, and who is also a fiscal conservative who thinks that the Iraq war was a good idea poorly executed. He is also hugely pleased with the Massachusetts court decision, and would also oppose the MPA if he knew about it which I doubt he does--because he doesn't see why gay marriage should be a national menace, and besides, if I can't get married, he may NEVER see one of his kids get married, my sister and brother being apparently terminally single.

My point is that it's not 1950. More gay people are out to their families, friends, and coworkers than ever before, and that means that a lot of people who are not necessarily Democrats but who have gay friends, relatives, colleagues, and children will become more and more uncomfortable as the debate gets uglier and uglier--which it will undoubtedly do. The more the fundie base reveals its evil to the Jedi, the more frighened the moderates are going to get. Because let's face it, assholes like Ashcroft and Santorum don't just want to regulate *my* sexual behavior, they want to regulate *everyone's,* and that is going to become real apparent real soon now.

So, would I have picked this as my major issue if I were a Democratic candidate? No. But I have hope that this is going to detonate in the GOP's face, much the way the Iraq war has, and wake up most of America to the fact that the country is currently being run by a relatively small far-right minority who have utter contempt for 'freedom of religion' and will not be satisfied until everyone in America is living according to their rules.

C ya,

The Plaid Adder

[roughsatori]

23. It is not a "real" issue--it is an "unimportant wedge issue"

or just a "fringe issue," or a "phony issue." Just ask our fellow Liberal DUers, those are their words.

Tonight proves to me how funny it is for this site to be called "underground." It has truly become Democratic-Centrist.com. Hey, that's fine with me, but the name has become false advertising.

[LastTime2BeFree]

11. The gay couple that filed suit are repubs?

They look pretty sincere to me and their cause should not be ignored out of fear of backlash. Honesty trumps politics every time.

[Silverhair]

12. Did the Reps control thegays that brought the suit & the MA court?

I hope that you don't think that. There are some things that depend on chance for their timing. Whatever side you are on you have to be alert for the things that help you and take advantage of them. This has been a growing issue, and it finally burst open. 25% chance of it happening during a presidental election year, 25% chance of it happening in the year just before a presidental election, 25% chance of it happening in the year just before a congressional election, and a 25% chance of it happening during a congressioal election year.

Get the point? There isn't a good time for it to happen. The gays have been pushing it for years, and now it is here.

[liberalhistorian]

20. No, I don't at all think that they had

anything to do with the court cases themselves. But I do think they've got a very acute sense of political timing and advantage and I think they've taken advantage of the timing of these decisions, and spun it to their advantage, and hyped it to their media whores who've been keeping it in the forefront.

[Silverhair]

22. OK, We agree. n/t

[Yupster]

14. Classic wedge issue

Handed to the Republicans on a platter.

I don't think the Republicans controll much in Massachusetts. I think it's just a nice issue that came up for them.

I think if Dean gets the nomination, it would have become an election issue anyway.

[Myra]

28. Yes! Totally agreed Yupster & liberalhistorian: Wedge issues!

There are certain gotcha issues the Dem *candidates*
can't win on so the Pugs will force them
to the front so other issues won't be properly
debated.

Gotcha issues:
--------------
Gay Marriage
Gun Control
Abortion
God popping up in all sorts of places (hi god)

Don't get me wrong, all of the above are important
as hell to me and society. But they're losers in
terms of running for office. If a candidate picks one side,
any side, they'll lose enough votes to make a big difference.

Examples:
-----------
There are a zillion people that will refuse to vote for anyone who might
try to take their gun. The Dems have largely lost
the big western "red" states because of this red (heh) herring.
(Reference "Bolwing for Columbine" - Cananda
has a ton of guns but not a ton of gun murders. And
as Steve Earle has long said, it's way too late for gun
control in the states).

Gay Marriage. If a Dem candidate says the decent and proper thing,
they'll get zinged by the religious right. No doubt one reason the right
wing is in bed with the religious right is to take the bogus public moral high
ground on social gotcha issues while taking the low ground in policies.

Abortion is the right wing's wet dream gotcha issue. It's got it all.

Anyway, I think the wise candidate recognizes this.
But the media whores will keep trying to force the gotcha/wedge
issues on them.

Thanks for posting this alert liberalhistorian.

[Yupster]

29. The big one

I predict will get into the campaign.

Parental Notification of minor's abortions.

I predict that would be a killer wedge issue for Democrats. Don't be surprised if it ends up a campaign issue.

[liberalhistorian]

36. A lot of states already

have the parental notification law, despite all efforts to stop their implementation.

[QC]

15. We will be this year's Willie Horton. Just watch.

The Republicans always run on divisive "culture war" issues, because they cannot do otherwise.

Hardly anyone would vote for them if they ran on their real agenda, which is corporate enrichment at the expense of the nation. So they have to run on race, sexuality, abortion, guns, etc. The goopers are like the pickpockets robbing the crowd while they're too distracted by the dancing bear to notice.

[ozymandius]

16. OF COURSE it's a distraction!

This will keep the eyes off the ball of more important things. The winner in any political pissing contest is the one who can direct the tone and theme of the contest.

[roughsatori]

21. Yes and the Dems can put the issue off like the cowards they have become

recently (IWR, Patriot Act, Medicare, etc) or they can come up with a unified position that embraces the Constitution and equal rights for all Americans without shame or fear.

During Jim Crow I wonder how many well meaning White liberals told African-Americans--put off your fight for equality until we are stronger to fight for you. If people had listened to those cowardly and unimaginative liberals African-Americans would still be forced to enter movie theaters by a separate entrance and sit in "Nigger Heaven" (that was the southern White word for the Balcony).

Notice I say "liberal" instead of "Dem" as the parties positions have reversed since then.

[liberalhistorian]

24. Good points!

And I do, indeed, wish the Dems would start to get a real backbone on these things and quit cowering in fear before the RW fundie nutballs and their lackeys in the press.

[maggrwaggr]

30. give me a break. Gays are not being treated like the blacks of old.

there's no institutionalized segregation of gays.

If I were black I'd be insulted by your depiction of it as such.

The color of your skin does not make you gay.

Got it?

[liberalhistorian]

38. Are you gay?

If you're not, how would you know for sure what they have to deal with on a daily basis?

[adriennel]

40. no?

gay people are not offered the same protections under the law as heterosexuals. in some instances, they are prohibited by laws from participating in certain aspects of American life in a way that heterosexuals are not.

this is INSTITUTIONALIZED discrimination.

gay people cannot legally merge as a couple. They must pursue an alternate legal form of guardianship to secure medical and property rights. They are not guaranteed job protection or benefits for partners. They are forced to live a certain way that heterosexuals are not. How is this not segregation? because I don't "get it"

[maggrwaggr]

53. do you have separate drinking fountains? Hotels? Bus seats?

give me a fucking break

[Bertha Venation]

45. "Gays are not being treated like the blacks of old."

It's not an invalid comparison. What's analogous between Jim Crow and discrimination against gays today is that our civil rights are in fact being trampled upon.

[maggrwaggr]

52. The color of your skin does not make you gay. Got it?

You can't compare the two, and to do so is an insult to the RACIAL minorities that fought for civil rights.

Your attitude is frankly disgusting and childish.

[terrya]

55. Discrimination is wrong. Period.

Plus, when was the last time racial minorities were told that God hates them?

[Bertha Venation]

56. to Maggrwaggr

"The color of your skin does not make you gay."

I didn't claim that, Maggrwaggr.

"You can't compare the two"

I am not comparing skin color to sexual orientation. I am comparing the discrimination against people with skin colors other than white to discrimination against people with orientations other than heterosexual.

"and to do so is an insult"

I intend to insult no one. A minority is a minority is a minority. To one extent or another all minorities -- defined as non-white and/or non-christian and/or non-straight, for ease here -- are or have been discriminated against.

We gay Americans are discriminated against. I don't see you denying this, but I find your bombastic reaction toward what I've posted puzzling, especially this:

"Your attitude is frankly disgusting and childish."

I am puzzled by this. Care to elaborate?

[kodi]

25. gee, ya think?

"lookee enid, them thar democrets is toolking 'bout them hoo-moo sexuls a marring!....we needs to vote for presdent bush heel save us from them sodomites."

as if whether such a personal and private thing is more important than the war, terrorism, the economy and health care issues......were i at that hall i would have screamed at brokaw for being such a frigging media whore.

once, just once i would like a candidate rear back after being asked such dumb questions blast the questioner and demand that the press grow up and start doing its job of informing the public by asking non-frivolous questions.

[liberalhistorian]

37. Yes, I agree, but the problem

that you and many other Dems don't seem to understand is that this IS a critically important issue for a large block of voters, and the right is managing so far to get them whipped up enough to be a danger in an election.

This is a real hot button for many people who think that allowing gay marriage will be the end of society as we know it, and we really have to face that and deal with it. I know plenty of otherwise sane people who froth at the mouth at this issue, and the repukes are taking advantage of that. It matters to a lot of people a lot more than you may think, or want to think.

[Hippo_Tron]

26. n/t

[leesa]

27. I think it most certainly is. I'm sure most repugs could care less about

the issue, just like abortion. After all, they usually are the most immoral thugs around....seems everyone arrested for child molestation, or cheating on their third wife with their 16th mistress is a Repug. They don't care about anything but money and power. Why on earth, except to get single issue bigots to vote, would they care who you marry or screw?

[Myra]

31. Hm, I should get out more. SmirkingChimp has a great illustration.

Rich Procter: 'GOP consultant previews Bush media campaign 2004'
Contributed by drprocter on Monday, November 24 @ 10:00:32 EST
-------------------------------------------------------------------
By Rich Procter

I was able to grab a few precious minutes with Republican Advertising Consultant Norval Screedmore this past week. He agreed to give us a preview of the RNC/Team BushCo campaign strategy for 2004.

Q: First, of all, thanks for agreeing to this chat
...
Q: Right. So let's begin. How will you address the fact that almost 70% of American voters believe President Bush was "misguided" in committing the country to the Iraqi quagmire, and believe we're hopelessly bogged down there?

A: GAY MARRIAGE!!! AHHH! KILL IT! KILL IT! CATS AND DOGS, LIVING TOGETHER! LEVITICUS 20:13 HOMOSEXUALITY IS AN ABOMINATION TO GOD! LINE THEM UP AND SHOOT THEM! NOW!!!
...

And so much more:

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/article.php?sid=13896&mode=&order=0

[REP]

Yup

Equal protection is an important American concept, and it's about time that the state stopped recognizing religious marriages and start recognizing civil unions (marriage is a church concept, and they can marry whom they want). Getting the state to stop kowtowing to (any) religion is a big issue with me, and the simple extension of equal rights to evreyone is a no-brainer.

But we're talking about a party that's willing to ditch the rights of 51%+ of the population because abortion is icky to talk about, and will no doubt gather up their skirts in horror at civil unions with equal rights for gays. Due to the party's recent inability to stand up and do the right thing, the Repubs will take advantage and make gay unions a Willie Horton.

[radfringe]

32. it's a "platform" for more of their Family Values rhetoric

easily countered if the Dem candidates flip the argument.

It's not FAMILY VALUES it's about VALUING THE FAMILY

when you value something you take care of it and nurture it, you don't destroy families by cutting programs that give families a hand up in times of need.

then you start listing all the programs that have been cut/scaled down or otherwise eliminated followed by a list of corporate wealthfare giveaways that Bush and his cronies have shoved through congress

talking about family values is one thing, but doing something that VALUES FAMILIES is another thing - rhetoric is easy, action takes courage

[CShine]

33. You're wrong.

This is going to be a major, hot-button issue no matter what the GOP does about it. Naturally, they're going to try to exploit it to full advantage, as would any political party, but this is not something that they just invented to shift attention away from their failures. This is an issue whose time has come, and it's going to be center stage no matter how the GOP spins it.

[Lexingtonian]

34. yes and no

Yes, the Right is trying to exploit this. But no, they didn't have anything to do with it getting set up or making its appearance at this moment in political time. Waaay back when the US Supreme Court issued the 6-3 verdict overturning a pile of sodomy laws in Lawrence v. Texas, on the 26th of June (five months ago), the commentators were pointing to 'the Massachusetts case' already. Which was already past trial phase, I think.

But it's an issue that splits Republicans around 70:30 and Democrats 50:50- as a 'wedge issue' it only works if one side finds it easier to rationalize the whole thing and be accepting of either outcome. Democrats will probably have an easier time of that. So it really is only going to be useful with uniform or fringe constituencies that the other Party has no chance with anyway. So Republicans are probably working all the various scenarios out on their focus groups- which surely they have already done in preparation for dealing with Dean in the General election campaign.

My hunch is that swing voters get over the shock quickly and get more ambivalent/permissive ('liberal' in one sense) with prolonged exposure. IOW, at bottom it doesn't mean anything to them personally, and by now just about anyone of voting age over age 60 knows a number of their peers to be gay and pretty mainstreamed on the whole- more to be pitied than feared, in any case. There just isn't a latent, significantly large pool of Democrats or swing voters out there with a hidden desire to see police breaking up gay weddings at the altar. (Well, OK, there are! But they only want it in a form that can be rented as comedy at their local Blockbuster's or in that funny adult section of their local video rental place.)

Have a look at Yvonne Abraham's front page article in yesterday's Boston Globe,

http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2003/11/23/10_years_work_led_to_historic_win_in_court

for how the story has gone. It was carefully engineered by gay rights advocates- the venue, the squeaky clean nominal plaintiffs, the argument for marriage over 'civil unions' figured out from Hawai'i and Vermont and Ontario, etc. Everyone involved knows the game was worked out in great detail ahead of time. And the figurehead behind which the opposition hides, the Catholic Church, did its part too in trying to run interference.

Though one has to wonder whether the mid level Church people in Boston really were in such a hurry to make life easy for John Paul II and the rest of the reactionary crowd running the Church. I'm more inclined to believe that the local lower clergy don't actually mind giving Rome some serious heartburn and more reason to cut the American RCC loose.

[kentuck]

35. Best thing to happen to Bush since 9/11...

In my humble opinion.

[1songbird]

41. It's defintely a distraction and a wedge issue

[terrya]

42. Expect Santorum to talk about this ad nauseum at the convention.

This is red meat for the fundies. And expect a renewed push for the FMA in Congress.

Karl Rove is playing this, of course. It's political.

[Bertha Venation]

44. What's your opinion on marriage v. unions, terrya?

thanks

[terrya]

46. It's semantics, Bertha Venation

I'm not hung up on the word "marriage", Bertha. I'm a realist. I want us to have the same rights and benefits as heterosexual married couples have right now. Period.

I'll take civil unions. Because, to me, that's the state saying: yes, these relationships are valid. Yes, they are worthy of respect and worthy of recognition. And yes, these relationships are just as entitled to the same benefits as heterosexual married couples.

[Bertha Venation]

47. On one hand, I agree.

On the other, there are just too damn many loopholes in "civil unions." They don't have to be portable -- that's the biggest. Civil unions will be limited to states that wish to enact them; other states will not be required to recognize them. Marriage is portable.

CU is separate but equal -- thus, not equal.

If Maryland enacts civil unions, Kathy & I will be among the first in line. Then we'll be available as plaintiffs in the next step.

[terrya]

48. I think it depends on how quickly we want this.

Civil Unions will be easier to get. It's a secular issue.

I can see your point. But I'm pragmatic. Civil unions will be easier.

Marriage will take longer, IMO. Here in Illinois, gay marriage will be a long time coming. We still have our version of DOMA on the books. My goodness, we're still trying to enact a statewide gay rights bill, SB 101. I don't know when we're going to get to that.

Gay marriage will take longer because of the religious opposition. It's powerful and we're going to have to take it on, which will be difficult (but not impossible). Gay marriage IS going to happen. It will take awhile, IMO.

Meanwhile, all my best for you and Kathy. You both are what the gay community needs...involved, passionate people willing to fight for what we want and deserve.

[HFishbine]

50. In your view

What is the difference between civil unions and marriage?

[FlaGranny]

49. I believe that nearly everything

is a deliberate distraction.

[QC]

51. The issue is in play. Period. End of story.

And the public already believes that Democrats are more sympathetic to gay interests. Thus, there is absolutely no way to back off from this issue without looking like cowards and hypocrites.

The only question still open for us is how we should face the issue. I say that we should own up to it, and then go on to deal with more relevant things.

Bill Clinton was a master at this. Do you remember what he did every time George I questioned his patriotism or brought up "demonstrating against his country in a foreign land"? Clinton would immediately remark that it was perfectly understandable why the last thing in the world Bush wanted to do was run on his own record, and would then explain, again, why that record was so lousy. That's making a good defense of a good offense.

If we tremble in fear every time they bring up an issue that is, for better or worse, definitely in play, then we let them dictate the terms of the debate, and they win by default.

[KittyWampus]

57. Would Dick Cheney Deny His Own Daughter Her Civil Rights?

and her right to pursue happiness.

[Bertha Venation]

58. Don't know, but it seems Gephardt is willing to do so.

He stands against gay marriage.

[Damodar]

59. vote "no!" to constitutional amendment banning gay marriage

news poll

www.times-news.com

username: visitor
password: tnweb

There is poll asking if you support a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. Click on "Hell no!" and vote!