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
No it isn't. Marriage is a public act. It is a contract involving many obligations and priviledges between a man and a woman. It is given a special status, because it children need to grow up in stable families with a mother and a father. Up until the invention of modern contraception, heterosexual relations were likely to result in pregnancy. The institution of marriage ensured the children would be legitimate and have a father who would support them financially and emotionally.
Homosexual sex is not procreative, so there is no societal benefit in giving homosexual relationships the type of social and legal status that heterosexual marriages have. I a personally am opposed to adoption by homosexual couples, and I have a feeling there are large numbers of people who share that view. I guarantee if "gay marriages" are recognized, "gay married couples" will demand and get the "right" to adopt children in all states.
Don't worry. In a few decades, the decendants of Islamic immigranst to Scandinavia will outnumber the native Scandinavian population in Scandinavia. They will abolish this nonsense.
"And this proposed ban is actually a direct restriction on individual rights."
And what about the rights of little altar boys being raped by nasty closeted queers posing as holier than thou? Where are their rights?
" In any case, this whole situation is not worrying me too much because I am more concerned about foreign policy and the economy."
Agree, America shouldn't be bothered with a perverted minority group squealing about their sado masochism rights when the nation is at war with terrorists who would kill queers just as quickly as the rest of us.
Are you comparing the Christians who founded, created, and populate this country to radical Islamics? I guess you must think we did a horrible job here. Maybe you need a new screen name to irrational Christian-fearing Libertarian.
No. I was not talking about the US, and I was being sarcastic. Look at the sentence you wrote that I quoted. You wrote it. You were talking about how the left has screwed up Scandinavia by destroying the instiution of marriage. I am merely pointing out by simple mathematical logic what the the results of that policy will be in the not too distant future. Their destruction of the institution of marriage in Scandinavia is merely temporary.
As Muslim immgigrants who don't adhere to those ideas have large families, their population will increase while the native Scandinavian population will decrease. This is a mathematical certainty. Assuming the principle of "one man, one vote" eventually Muslims will dominate the voting populuation and will be able to impose their will on the Native Scandinavian population. The future belongs to the fecund.
Here it is: Tolerance a 'One-Way Street' to Homosexual Activists, Says Attorney.
You know everything.
:-)
You're only saying that because it's true. ;-) But seriously, I had to search for that one as it wasn't in the database... but now is... filed under Miscellaneous.
I have seen no evidence that Scandinavian families on the whole are any more of a "mess" than U.S. families. I don't believe the statistics about cohabiting couples being more likely to split up are comparable between the U.S. and Scandinavia. In the U.S., couples who are seriously committed to staying together and raising children together, are more likely to get married in the first place than in Scandinavia. The high U.S. split-up rate among never-married reflects their original lack of commitment to staying together, and is not a result of their lack of a government-issued marriage certificate.
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.