Posted on 10/10/2004 3:19:56 PM PDT by schaketo
SAN FRANCISCO - The biggest social issue in this presidential race is the debate over whether gays should be allowed to marry.
Louisiana voters recently tilted 4-to-1 in favor of adding a ban on same-sex marriage to their state constitution, and 71 percent of Missouri voters did the same last month.
Voters in at least nine more states will weigh the question on their ballots in November, and legislation on the question has been introduced in at least 25 states this year.
President Bush supports amending the U.S. Constitution to ban gay marriage.
Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., the Democratic presidential nominee, doesn't support gay marriage, but he also doesn't favor amending the Constitution to outlaw it.
He thinks states should be free to recognize same-sex civil unions. (Vice President Dick Cheney also has said that he thinks the issue should be left to the states to decide, although he says he defers to the president's position on the issue.)
It's unlikely that concerns about gay marriage run deep enough to swing the presidential election. Rather, most analysts think the election will hinge on a host of issues, including the war in Iraq, the economy and which candidate voters are most comfortable with.
Nevertheless, the issue of gay marriage could motivate voter turnout, particularly in such swing states as Arkansas and Oregon, which have proposals to ban gay marriage on their ballots in November. And as the results from Missouri and Louisiana show, the anti-gay marriage vote is so overwhelming that it could help Republicans overall by drawing more pro-Republican voters to the polls.
"If it is close, anything can matter, and this could matter to some people," said Gary Mucciaroni, a professor of political science at Temple University in Philadelphia.
The gay marriage issue resonates deeply because it challenges a fundamental institution -- marriage. Polls show that Americans believe in equal rights for all citizens, but remain conflicted on whether they want to include same-sex marriage in that equation.
"We're uncomfortable with the idea of challenge to traditional institutions like marriage," said Craig Rimmerman, a professor of political science at Hobart and William Smith Colleges in Geneva, N.Y. "People are simply uncomfortable with the idea of same-sex marriage. It's a hot-button issue."
Allowing gays to marry implies that "gay relationships are as good as heterosexual relationships," Mucciaroni said. "For a lot of folks that's not the case."
Lou Sheldon, of the Traditional Values Coalition, a lobby made up of more than 43,000 churches, puts it another way.
"The marriage issue is related to a five-letter word: It's called child," he said. "When you put children into the mix, you get a mama-bear reaction."
The debate is fueling a burst of activism on both sides of the issue.
The anti-gay marriage Traditional Values Coalition and the National Center for Lesbian Rights, which favors it, each report that donations are pouring in. Many people are volunteering to register like-minded voters and host house parties to underscore the importance of voting in November.
In 2000, the Traditional Values Coalition struggled to rally its churches to get involved in the election.
"It was a drought, it was dry, it was like pulling an oxcart by hand," Sheldon said. "Now I can't keep up with those who've called."
Kate Kendell, the executive director for the National Center for Lesbian Rights, said the gay community is no different from other voters in holding strong concerns about the war in Iraq, health care and terrorism, but Bush's support of a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage is galvanizing them.
"I truly have never seen a more unified nor deeply motivated response in the gay community before," she said. "There were, perhaps, gay or progressive voters who saw Bush as somewhat more benign until his explicit support for a constitutional amendment, and I do know that for some people, that did solidify their opposition."
Steven Fisher, a spokesman for the Human Rights Campaign, a pro-gay rights group, said it's not just gays and lesbians who are responding, it's also their friends and families.
"They see this (the drive for a constitutional amendment) as an effort to hurt their friends and family members," Fisher said. "Because of this attack we're seeing Republican families not voting for Bush."
The debate over gay marriage cuts across party and racial lines.
"Polls show that a majority of American oppose gay marriage, so these aren't all Republicans," Mucciaroni said. "It's also an issue that splits African-Americans."
Political scientists say that with gay marriage, Republicans have found an issue that energizes their base but doesn't turn off those who remain undecided about how they'll vote on Nov. 2. And Republicans have been able to frame the debate in a way that's not an attack on individuals, but a defense of traditional marriage.
The courts, too, have become a target for criticism by gay-marriage opponents, who blame "activist judges" for overstepping their bounds by permitting same-sex unions.
"Both sides are trying to focus on an issue that will motivate their voters to get out," said
Not gonna happen. "Gay" has been around for decades, but came into common use in the mid-'70s. It's too ingrained in the culture.
You might as well insist on the rejection of "African-American" in favor of "black," or referring to unmarried women as "Miss" rather than "Ms."
The best you can do is not use the word "gay," saying "homosexual" instead. It ain't a crime...yet.
RECALL/IMPEACH JUDGE William A. "Bill" Morvant, Republican
The subject is clear. The answer is clear.
Good post, now how do you define institution?
The government has a legitimate role in controlling personal behavior only to the extent that such behavior directly harms other persons. It has a legitimate role in prosecuting theft and assault and rape. It does not have a legitimate role in telling people who they may enter into consensual relationships with, and it most certainly does not have a legitimate role in redistributing wealth to disproportionately benefit those citizens whose personal relationships meet with the government's approval.
You don't call teaching this immoral behavior to our kids Controlling our lives??? You don't think a male gay couple marching into the Catholic Church and staging a protest, kissing in front of everyone is not an attempt at control?? Who do these people think they are that they are above God, and above church doctrine. The Catholic Church recognizes a lot of things as sin, they have no right to demand they stop any one of them.
What did you do? Burn the meatloaf one too many times?
Good point, gays don't need that, and aren't going to get it, so whats the problem?
Who cares if ALL births are out of government-sponsored wedlock? Fact is, the societies you mention have a much larger proportion of children living with both natural parents than the U.S. Obviously, the existence of government-issued marriage licenses isn't a key to stable families. If the government suddenly evaporated, would the type of marriages you believe to be ordained by God suddenly evaporate too, for lack of government endorsement?
Legislatures, primarily. The people, in places or issues that allow direct democracy.
Occasionally, regulatory agencies with very limited discretionary authority under the control of the Executive, (because direct political authority isn't equipped to handle details.)
Here's a challenge for you. Type the words "homosexual" and "gay" into any search engine and see how many "two consenting adult" arguments you can find. all you will see is radical homo-activists attacking Religious organizations, and demanding that "hatespeech" laws be enacted,homo activist groups demanding accsess to children. ect. etc.
We are also a civil society with a biblical morality. A society with no moral basis is doomed to failure.
In your opinion then, the government may not outlaw polygamy, polyandry, consensual incest, necrophilia, beastiality? Killing animals in the privacy of your home OK (no people are harmed)? Can the government regulate contracts? Adjudicate disputes between parents and children? Blood Relatives? Confiscate personal property with just compensation?
Your concept of government is juvenile. The decision of what areas of personal life the government should regulate is THE most important reason for having State Assemblies and Congress.
The Catholic Church is free to remove disruptive protestors of any stripe from private Church property. A priest officiating over a Mass at which something like this happens should instantly order the protesters to leave, and if they don't respond by heading for the door instantly, the priest should direct worshippers to forcibly apprehend them and hold them for police. Police should be called, trespassing charges lodged, and civil damages sued for. A tough approach to this uncivilized behavior is needed, and frankly I've never heard of the Catholic Church taking any serious action at all in such cases. Can't fathom why not, but if you let people walk all over you with impunity, they'll keep doing it.
I think you need to recheck your statistics. The fact is, in those Scandinavian countries, they have a much higher rate of out of wedlock births than the rest of Europe and more than 60% higher than the US.
Thank you!
In this case they were escorted out, since then, this couple has sued to have "hate speech" outlawed. (grrrrr) and one of this very couple is now running for office here. Nice! Just the kind of person the Congress needs......NOT
No, the government may not properly outlaw any of the practices you describe, as long as they involve only consenting adults. IMO, animal cruelty is a legitimate area for government regulation, since obviously the animals can't consent. Some forms of bestiality would fall under the cruelty umbrella, but if someone enjoys encouraging their horny canine to hump them in their own home, I hardly see any benefit to government agents undertaking a prosecution. As far as I know, there's not a single state which outlaws humane killing of animals in one's own home, whether for food, or euthanasia of sick/unwanted pets or farm animals, or pest control -- nor should their be.
You know how some same sex marriage promoters say that how can two men or two women "marrying" affect your marriage or marriage in general?
Here's an answer: There's real money, and there's counterfeit money. The more counterfeit money there is floating around, the more it devalues the real money.
It's not a perfect analogy.
Here's one I invented: If the landfill/garbage dump spreads out and you wind up having to live in the midst of other peoples' trash, no matter how clean you keep your own house, the stink, flies, and rats will invade your own living quarters.
Condoning or promoting sexually perverted behavior creates a pervasive atmosphere of hedonistic selfishness (Alan Keyes was right) that infects everyone, just as a garbage dump creates a stench that spreads around the neighborhood. Especially as homosexuals (at least the agenda driven ones who are the only ones we ever hear from besides Tammy Bruce) are not content with their private acts of sodomy; they are driven with mission to infect the entire world.
You will have freepmail in a minute.
Sodomites works for me.
I seriously doubt this nut has any chance of getting elected. I knows lots of gay people, and yet not a single one who approves of disrupting worship services. The sort of gay people who engage in this uncivilized behavior are no more representative of gay Americans than Fred Phelps and his followers are representative of Christian Americans. Obnoxious extremists just get more than their fair share of ink.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.