Mainstream Democrats Should Back Gay Marriage

[ruggerson]

Ok, bear me out here.

I don't think this is quite the wedge issue Republicans would like us to believe it is. Sure, if a constitutional ban is on a ballot in a Southern or conservative Midwestern state, it will pass by 60% or more.

But that does not mean this is an overriding issue for more than about the 15% of the electorate that is hard core religious rightwing.

Nationally, gay marriage runs about 60-40 against us in the polls. Civil unions, obviously run in our favor about 70-30.

We've had a series of Republican presidents who framed abortion as a moral, "pro life" issue, took the "pro life" side (which is only about 30-40% of the electorate) and STILL won the Presidency, because even nominal pro choice people voted for them.

If a candidate TAKES A MORAL STAND, a courageous, ethical moral stand on same sex marriage, about 85% of voters would still seriously consider voting for him. He/she only loses those 15% for whom same sex marriage is the make or break issue (and none of these people would vote Democratic anyway).

I suggest a candidate model their support for same sex marriage thusly:

I stand for equal rights for all citizens under the law, because I believe that is what the constitution stands for. I know good Americans will disagree with me, and I do not think America, as a whole, is ready yet for same sex marriage, and so I would not seek to actively impose or legislate my private views on this matter, but I do oppose any attempts to write bigotry or second class citizenship into the constitution of the United States. This, for me, is a simple, moral question of equal treatment under the law of the land.

A candidate who takes a strong, moral position defuses the "wedge" issue right away and earns the respect of even those who disagree with him.

[EFerrari]

1. Duh.

[ruggerson]

2. thanks for the intelligent response

[EFerrari]

6. I'm sorry, ruggerson. The stupidity is contagious. :(

[ruggerson]

7. And what stupidity would you be referring to?

[EFerrari]

9. I'm referring to the cultural stupidity that hampers the Dems

from not stepping up as my mayor did.

The tank of stupidity that makes people hesitate before they simply do right.

And, apparently, I'm not doing a good job.

[ruggerson]

11. I agree

and I think history will judge Newsom very kindly.

I don't know if civil disobedience would play on a national level.

But, certainly, Dems have to STAND UP for something, they have to get some moral spine, and Newsom did just that. He's moved me profoundly the times I've heard him speak to the subject.

Unfortunately, national Dems just don't get it. People are thirsting for candidates who stand for something. Not people who hedge every issue just to get everything exactly right for the pollster.

[EFerrari]

14. Feinstein galloped out here to spank Gavin.

As expected.

And I cynically believe he went with "gay marriage" over attending to "homelessness" because some focus group told him to do that.

Whatever.

He did it. And if he doesn't follow up on gay marriage, he will hear from us. That's all.

He will also continue to hear from advocates for the homeless. Our goals are not mutually exclusive.

[Q3JR4]

3. I like it!

Don't think you'll have many takers from the dems though. Not really feeling them as a political force right now.

:(

[panader0]

4. I've been married and divorced three times

and I don't see what the big deal is about gay marriage. Why should anyone care? My marriages didn't work, and they were not gay.

[DRoseDARs]

12. SEE SEE SEE?!?! Even TALKING about them gay marriages causes...

...traditional marriages to fail. Just imagine what would happen if we really allowed them gays to marry... :scared: /freeptard

[hlthe2b]

5. just curious...your thoughts...

Should they also take a moral stand on choice? I am increasingly hearing some of our more pragmatic Dems suggest we just might have to sell out women's rights to win elections....:shrug:

[ruggerson]

8. Yes, of course they should

but it should be along the same lines.

On these issues, need to take a cue from the strategy of the rightwingers, only because they have been far more successful at framing them than we have.

On abortion, if I were a candidate, this is what I would say, roughly:

The overriding issue for me here is the right to privacy for a woman and her family. Big brother government should not be legislating private medicial decisions for women. I understand that this is a very contentious, divisive, difficult issue, and that those who wish to prohibit all abortions do so because of strong, sincere conviction, and I respect their beliefs. The paramount moral principle for me here, however, is that Americans, in their private medical decisions, have the right to be left alone, within reason, from government intrusion. And we must honor that fundamental, very American, right to privacy.

[hlthe2b]

10. Very good answer... thank you...

I absolutely agree that these issues are linked to each other and to basic rights to privacy for all. It worries me when some try to delink the issues...

[dsc]

13. I think this is true of most of the contraversial culture issues

There are some people who are single issue voters in favor of same sex marriage, some single issue voters against it, and the vast majority don't care enough to alter their vote based on that issue alone. All the compramize crowd does is piss of some number of single issue voters on our side.

[EFerrari]

15. Fly in the ointment response: Some of us are not single issue

voters AND are standing with the GLBT community.

That's it. That's all.

/damn

[dsc]

17. then you probably aren't one of the voters the comprimise crowd

is costing us. I am not saying anything like all gays are single issue on this (I am not either) but that some number are and that the compramise crowd is only alienating them not picking up other voters.

[EFerrari]

18. Ah. I see what you mean. It's a matter of the best way to

get into a position of power. Is that right? Compromise or take it to them.

I may be just too old for this discussion.

Because my instinct and my heart says take it to them and never let up.

Never. Not for a moment.

And this isn't about what kind of voter I am. This is a civil rights issue. Plainly.

[davidinalameda]

19. sort of how the Civil Rights acts back in the 60s alientated

single issue voters?

[dsc]

22. I think you missunderstand my point

we lose the othersides single issue voters off the bat by not being Republicans who are much more consistently antigay. Thus by compromising on this issue we are actually only costing us our own single issue voters. That is why I don't think compromise is a good idea.

[gator_in_Ontario]

16. I am legally married

to my wife...almost 3 years now. It did not rock the world. Folks just need to calm down. "Straight folks" need to realize that "gay folks" are among them. We take nothing from them, and we just might add something.

[xchrom]

20. being direct and authentic is what will get votes.

whether the issue is gay marriage or choice or creating and keeping jobs in america.

what anyone wants is to believe in direct communication, a muscular and assertive stand.

that doesn't mean bullheadedness.
americans can like intelligence -- but they dislike what might be construed as waffling.

give them a direct, charismatic speaker that breaks with bush's daddy image -- treats them like thinking people but is still muscular and assertive.

fear of modernity is haunting americans right now -- whether it's confrontation with the muslim world or gay marriage -- self confidence and and competence will go very, very far in the minds of many americans.

[terrya]

21. I completely agree with you

If the issue is framed as full equality, then we ultimately win.

The problem I have with Democrats who oppose same-sex marriage (besides the obvious), is, once again, the impression of being Republican Lite. This country knows where the Republicans stand on this issue...solidly against. If Democrats support full equality, on principle, then they are seen as different. And a party of principle, dedicated to full equality. And we win.

No, the country is not there yet on same-sex marriage. But the country will come around. And the Democrats will be seen as leading the way.

[moose65]

23. Agreed. And...

I hope that someone somewhere is keeping an archive of all these anti-gay amendments and laws that have been proposed. Has there been a single instance where the idea came from a Democrat? I didn't think so. One of these days, when we have full equality, we will look back at this time and wonder what all the fuss was about. And the right will try to rewrite history and say "Oh, we supported equality all along," just like they are trying to do now when they bring up the civil rights act and the fact that a lot of Southern Democrats voted against it. Ugh. I will preach from the rooftops that the Republicans were the hate-mongers in the gay rights movement. We can't let them take THAT frame from us!

[sui generis]

24. I would add that civil marriage confers property rights

first and foremost. By denying adults who choose to live in a committed relationship the right to determine the disposition of their own property, and by denying them the ability to legally protect their own families, denying civil marriage to same sex partners actually hurts non-traditional families and their dependents.