Issue: Gay Marriage/Civil Unions

[LuminousX]

What is the 'winning' position on this?

Be for it but not for a national law recognizing it?
Be for it and support a national law recognizing it?
Be against it?

Should the federal government dictate to churches regarding marriages?


If Dean is going to get his ass handed to him by the pukes if he is the nominee because of his signing the Civil Unions bill, how will the other candidates who are advocating federal laws to recognize civil unions going to weather the GOP attack dogs?

[Feanorcurufinwe]

1. False premise.

"If Dean is going to get his ass handed to him by the pukes if he is the nominee because of his signing the Civil Unions bill"

Dean is the most vulnerable because "he signed Civil Unions" fits on a bumper sticker, but your premise is still flawed.

It is Dean's dishonesty, and constantly having to apologize for his comments that are his biggest vulnerabilities.

[LuminousX]

5. Well, at least try to answer the core question

What is the winning position? What position protects Gay rights and innoculates the candidate from GOP attacks?

[Feanorcurufinwe]

7. The only winning position is to stand on our principles.

Anti-gay people will vote for Bush. People who believe in equal rights and dignity for all will vote for the Dem.

I'm for a candidate that does what he believes is right, has the will and strength to weather the storm of criticism even from his own allies, who stands for what he believes in, someone who has fought for our values all his life. I think the idea of adopting one position or another because it appeals to some voter focus group is fundamentally flawed. But I'll admit, it's working for Dean so far.

[LuminousX]

9. Ahh, geez, let's try a different method

You have the option of choosing from an infinite number candidates who, among them all, honestly express every possible variation of the gay marriage/civil union issue.

Which variation would best protect gay rights and best be able to be defended against GOP attacks?

Let's define the ideal and then we can take each candidate's position on the issue and compare it. We aren't going to find an exact match, unless one of the currect candidates does have the ideal position, but we can find who is closest. And we'll discount anyone who is having a Presidential Campaign conversion on the issue.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

2. This will be one of those divisive issues

like abortion. I know people who will vote against their own best interests because they are so focused on this one issue.

since our Constitution believes in seperation between church and state, I don't think there will ever be any dictation to churches on this matter by the government.

Personally, I think that people who hate gays are generally not going to vote Democratic anyway.

[OrAnarch]

11. Divisive but...

I think Dean's view has got to be the most wide reaching accross demographics....


"Be for it but not for a national law recognizing it?
Be for it and support a national law recognizing it?
Be against it?"

How about, be for granting equal rights via Unions, but against recognizing such as a marriage. Im not gay, and couldn't put myself into those shoes and assume I think the same. But I would personally most want such equal protections, knowing that intrinsically I can view such a commitement anyway I want, despite what society says. I am also not a self-rightous right winger, but I assume they want the "sancity" of marriage protected, but when pursued far enough, believe all human beings deserve equal protection under the law (unless those humans are african-american or hispanic :) ). So, Dean appeals to both groups by granting protection and rights to gays, yet without calling such a marriage and forcing churches to recognize it as so. He recognizes the soveriegnity of churches, which the right wingers will like.


"Should the federal government dictate to churches regarding marriages?"

IMHO, its all really a matter of semantics anyway. To legalize gay marriage doesn't force a church to recognize gay marriage, and you know they wouldn't. But by bringing this point into the debate, Dean ingeniously dissolves a wedge issue by appeasing both the right and the left. The government would really dictate nothing...such a point is all politics, and all is fair in that sense. I applaud this argument on a political basis.

[dsc]

3. First your question needs clarification

There is a huge difference between civil unions and marriage politically. Favoring gay marriage would be a kiss of death politically. I sure don't like that fact but it is absolutely true.

As to civil unions. I think a candidate favoring civil unions can, and assuming he isn't a numbskull will, have it help his campaign. I think most people who are adamantly against civil unions (not gay marriage but civil unions) are also adamantly against abortion as well as most other aspects of gay rights. Thus those votes are likely lost by nominating a pro choice candidate which is a 100% certainty. I think the rest of those people either live in the large Gore states we are going to carry huge anyhow or in the South which is for the most part hopeless. On the other hand, this issue does resonate with gays (1 of 5 of whom voted for Bush last time) and with moderates who favor gay rights. Thus we could gain votes in places like Florida, Ohio, New Hampshire and Nevada. Given that both Dean and Kerry would require states to recognize gay relationships I don't see a difference in a law making them call them civil unions (Kerry) and one which didn't (Dean).

[Rowdyboy]

4. Of course, the federal government cannot and will not dictate

to churches that they must marry gays. At least today, that idea is absurd, its an issue for each denomination to decide. The most ANYONE sane advocated has been legal civil marriages, most merely support civil unions (which is about as far as you can go and POSSIBLY be taken seriously today).

[Bucky]

6. Dean or not, this is the GOP's "base motivator"

We will be hammered on this from August to November next year. You will never in your life hear more about gay marriage than you will starting in 9 months. The issue is barely a squeek right now because Dems instinctively wish to avoid our differences. If any candidate pointed out that a significant percentage of Dean's millions are coming from gays who are rewarding him for his bravery on Vermont's civil unions bill, they'd be lambasted for "being divisive".

It doesn't matter who the nominee is, this is the Willie Horton issue of 2004. The issue will both motivate the Republicans' base voters, alienate or discourage swing voters, and dry up Democratic donations. If Dean is the nominee, we'll lose a lot dollars in the south and midwest over this, even tho Dean is not making this part of his platform. If the nominee is someone who crumbles on this issue or says "it's each state's decision"--be it Clark or Kerry or Edwards or Gephardt--much of the gay community's donations will dry up. Probably the only candidate who could survive on this issue is Lieberman.

Yargh!

The only winning strategy is to dodge the ball completely. Say "this is a stupid issue. People are out of work or underemployed; troops are dying overseas; our foriegn relations are in a tatter; North Korea has the Bomb; civil liberties are being strangled; capital is flying overseas... And the Republicans only want to change the subject and talk about gay marriage.

"Leave it up to each state and let the federal goverment worry about protecting us and our children's future."


This is how I would, um, change the subject.

[drfemoe]

8. In a perfect world

civil unions should be supported at the federal level. There is a distinction between 'marriage', which the 'church' sanctions and 'civil unions' which is a function of the state.

Some churches perform and recognize gay marriage / coupling. The state cannot and should not dictate religious practice.

Since the rnc has a goal of 'preserving marriage' (for hetros only) and denying states the right to make their own laws regarding this issue, it is going to be controversial no matter what technicalities are invoked.

The only 'winning' position is freedom and justice for ALL regardless. Maybe we as a nation are ready to move beyond bigotry and hatred as political platforms. We'll see.

[LuminousX]

10. My take on it

Personally, I see the best position to take is to have vocal support for civil unions, clearly distinguish civil unions from marriage, making marriage a clear religious issue. State that you would have no problem signing a federal Civil Union bill in Congress brings one to your desk but you would encourage states to pass their own legislation first to provide pressure on congress to pass the legislation.