Posted on 11/05/2004 3:02:07 AM PST by Cincinatus' Wife
The polls indicate that the issue of principal concern for voters in the key state of Ohio -- as well as other swing states -- was not the war or the economy but "moral issues." In Ohio in particular, the Democrats outpolled their performance in 2000 in their Cleveland base. But this advantage was overcome in the rural districts of western Ohio where thousands of Christian voters cast ballots for the first time. What brought these voters out? We can speculate that a ballot initiative on gay marriage may have had something to do with it. The margin of victory for this initiative, which defined marriage as between a man and a woman, was something of the order of 68%-32%. In eleven other states – many of them swing states – similar initiatives were on the ballot and the margins of victory for defining marriage as between a man and a woman was also of the order of 70%. These majorities obviously included independents and Democrats. In other words, the Massachusetts Supreme Court, San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom and the leftwing leadership of the gay community provided George Bush with his margin of victory.
Andrew Sullivan, a strong voice of support for the war in Iraq and the war on terror, defected from the President’s camp largely on this issue (although there were others). In a post-mortem on the election, Sullivan writes, “I’ve been trying to think of what to say about what appears to be the enormous success the Republicans had in using gay couples’ rights to gain critical votes in key states.” This formulation puts the proverbial cart before the horse. It was gay leaders and gay advocates like Andrew Sullivan who forced this issue into the election battle. By circumventing the legislative process, by selecting an arrogant and undemocratic judiciary and an anarchist mayor to attempt to force a victory on this issue the gay left also forced the President and his party to seek a legislative remedy to defend the interests of their conservative and religious base. This is the origin of the eleven initiatives in eleven states that defeated the Democratic candidate.
Sullivan continues: “In eight more states now, gay couples have no relationship rights at all. Their legal ability to visit a spouse in hospital, to pass on property, to have legal protections for their children has been gutted. If you are a gay couple living in Alabama, you know one thing: your family has no standing under the law; and it can and will be violated by strangers. I’m not surprised by this. When you put a tiny and despised minority up for popular vote, the minority usually loses.”
Sullivan is dead wrong about this. The American people – the American majority – is a compassionate majority, and minorities, including gays have gained many rights and other benefits in the last several decades as a result of the good will of that majority. The wound inflicted by this election on gay Americans who want to live in stable couples is self-inflicted. On the eve of San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom’s reckless decision to defy a California marriage law that had been passed by a 60% majority of Californians and illegally “marry” gay couples, polls showed that a near majority of all Americans were in favor of civil unions for gays. I firmly believe that if the gay political leadership and spokesmen like Andrew Sullivan had pressed for the recognition of civil unions, which would have granted all those rights Sullivan refers to in his column, the American people would have granted them. It was the gay community’s contempt for the sensibilities of religious Americans who consider marriage a sacred institution and for others who don’t think that a 5,000 year old institution should be remade overnight by a handful of judges in Massachusetts and an arrogant mayor in San Francisco that led to the election debacle for gay Americans and for John Kerry.
Seven or eight years ago, I called Andrew Sullivan and offered to organize a national coalition with him behind the idea of civil unions for gays. I believed then as I believe now that Americans – even Americans who disapprove of gay relationships or consider them sinful – will in their majority support the rights Andrew mentions in the paragraph above. Because these are human decencies that we owe to people who are different from us, and Americans have shown over and over that the appeal to their decency is in the long run irresistible. I also believe that conservative Americans will support the idea that the community has a vested interest in supporting stable relationships between people who love each other and are gay. But when an institution like marriage comes under assault, and when the religious community comes under assault as it has by gay activists and their judicial allies and by anarchist public officials, a very different dynamic takes over. And that is dynamic we saw on Tuesday.
Andrew Sullivan rejected my offer of eight years ago, saying it was “too late” for civil unions. Maybe for the gay community it seemed too late then. But this is now, and the massive defeat of the gay left’s agenda at the polls is as good a time as any to reconsider.
Dingdingdingdingding! And we have ourselves a WINNAH -- ! :)
I'd suggest that the "moral" issue that turned up in the polls rules out a liberal candidate like Kerry. Liberals have waged war on morals for half a century. It's a bit late for a liberal to claim to be an altar boy.
this is not where George Bush earned his support. And to say that it is plays into liberal propaganda that we are all nuts and bigots.I think you're right about this. The RAT press is going to say that this is all about bigotry and nothing else.
Horowitz is wrong on this. Civil unions might be a dangerous compromise as it still undermines the moral social fabric which supports our culture. Because what it is saying is, if one wants to engage in taboo behavior, one will still be afforded the rights extended by the culture to those who refrain from taboo behavior. What is implied is that the taboo behavior is a private matter but one which is entitled to public endorsement. Once extended, why shouldn't incestuous couples, bigamists and so on enjoy the same civil union? By logical extension of this argument they should. V's wife.
I listened to NPR coverage the day after the election. I think what is finally sinking in with some of them is that the people they consider "nuts and bigots" are actually the majority of Americans, and the "enlightened ones" aren't nearly as mainstream as they thought they were.
They kept going on about how the major issue cited in the election was "moral issues", and those who attended church regularly were more likely to vote Republican, and those who didn't more likely to vote Democratic.
I couldn't agree more!
"My instinct is that the gay marriage issue is not particularly compelling to most people. Of course they're opposed -- it's a no-brainer -- but it's not a hot button issue. Besides, it was only on the ballot in eleven states. Pax, Mr. Horowitz, but this is not where George Bush earned his support. And to say that it is plays into liberal propaganda that we are all nuts and bigots."
I respectfully disagree. Ann Coulter, too, has identified the gay marriage issue as fundamental to the "morals" component of this election. Its common knowledge now that moral concerns outpolled the War as the main issue for most voters. I think people were concerned that the national gay marriage movement would eventually trump any local laws that might be enacted. They feared the Supreme Court would make it happen regardless of what they preferred.
I also think another component of the morals issue was the way in which the Democrats conducted this campaign. The mendacity, charlatanism, cowardice, and outright viciousness exhibited by the left was way beyond anything ever experienced before. They pulled out all the stops! And the majority of decent people were appalled and determined to register their displeasure. I know I was.
Horowitz is absolutely right: whatever woes the homosexuals have suffered from this election will have been completely self-inflicted.
Americans aren't a callow and unreasoning people. Public opinion in this country has shown tolerance for consenting adults who wish to live their lives as homosexuals. But instead of accepting the toleration of mainstream America, the gays have seized the proferred hand, torn off the arm, and beaten us over the head with it.
You both hit the nail on the head- that's exactly how the various Chattering Heads and Politicos are trying to spin this. It's a great base-mobilizer for them, for one thing I have noted over the years is the Left's loathing of any group they perceive as "telling them what they ought not to do."
| KERRY EDWARDS |
and
|
Now that you're BORN AGAIN, why not GROW UP? |
Can't you just imagine how may Bush voters were sent to the polls after seeing this?
Demanding our children be taught about homosexuality in kindergarten is unacceptable.
Throwing condoms into St. Patrick's Church is unacceptable.
Stripping naked in front of St. Patrick's Church is unacceptable.
Gay Pride parades glorifying every depravity imaginable is not acceptable.
Practicing unsafe sex and then demanding the taxpayer pay for the resultant health issues is not acceptable.
That star-studded debacle in New York with Kerry, Whoopi Goldberg that the rest of the Hollywood naval gazers didn't help.
Kerry statment that Hollywood was the epitome of America's values was just...wrong.
Bush got his support from many quarters but he did get a lot of support from people opposed to gay marriage - and holding that position does not make one a nut or a bigot.
The war on terror is but another moral position, along with the sanctity of marriage, that so rankles the left. Give them time and they'll see they are in the minority on that, just as they are on the wot.
Yet they're so go at telling everyone else how to live.
Bump!!
But, the "gay pride" types don't just want tolerance and a live and let live attitude. They appear to want social superiority, the ability to claim "discrimination" at whim, as we often see in affirmative action cases.
Many of the activists actually claim moral superiority over the "breeders".
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.