Will Gay Marriage Help McCain?
News: Now that same-sex love is legal in California, Connecticut, and Massachusetts, should Obama brace for a ballot backlash?
|
|
In February 2004, San Francisco mayor Gavin Newsom began officiating same-sex weddings on the steps of City Hall. Over the next month, more than 4,000 couples tied the knot in defiance of a state referendum that had banned gay marriage in California in 2000. Newsom says he challenged the law out of a sense of "moral obligation." But his move awakened a sense of moral outrage among Republicans, who raced to put anti-gay-marriage initiatives on the ballot in 11 states. After John Kerry lost in November, some Democrats suggested that the specter of gay marriage had thrown the contest to George W. Bush. "I believe it did energize a very conservative vote," Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) said immediately after the election. "It gave them a position to rally around. The whole issue has just been too much, too fast, too soon."
Now that the California Supreme Court has legalized gay marriage, should Barack Obama brace for another round of backlash at the ballot box? Bill Whalen, a Republican media consultant and a research fellow at Stanford's Hoover Institution, describes gay marriage as a "gift" to John McCain. The California ruling is "going to make people mad," says Carrie Gordon Earll, a policy analyst for Focus on the Family. Both predict that Christian conservatives in California, Florida, and Arizona will flock to the polls to back constitutional amendments that ban gay marriage. They also expect voters in other states to think twice about voting for an Illinois senator who supports the California ruling and says he wants to repeal the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which would open the door for married gay couples to sue for legal recognition in any state.
However, for many Americans, gay marriage may not seem as frightening as it did four short years ago. "You have a country that is evolving pretty quickly on these issues," argues Chris Lehane, former communications director for the Kerry campaign. It's not just the popularity of shows like Queer Eye for the Straight Guy. Anti-discrimination laws have afforded gays a new degree of safety and visibility in the workplace and acclimated more straights to the idea of same-sex relationships. While 63 percent of Americans opposed legalizing gay marriage four years ago, recently 63 percent told USA Today that same-sex marriage should be "strictly a private decision."
To be sure, the gop strategy isn't about reversing trends, but mobilizing the base. Unlike Bush in 2004, McCain could have a hard time prodding social conservatives to the polls, and gay marriage just might help. John Stemberger, an attorney who's the lead backer of the Florida ban, says conservatives in the swing state "feel like there is something they can really get behind." Yet it's unclear that this will translate into votes for McCain. This month, 55 percent of Florida voters said they supported the ban; only 46 percent said they'd vote for McCain. Pastor Roland Comellas of the New Testament Worship Center in Tampa supports the measure, "but we're more concerned about the economy," he says. Last year, Florida's moderate Republican governor, Charlie Crist, moved to yank his state party's funding for the measure and proclaimed himself "a live-and-let-live kind of guy."
The tacit support for gays by prominent Republicans such as Crist and California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger plus the recent defeat of anti-gay-marriage amendments in Iowa and Indiana suggest that opposition to gay marriage may no longer be a slam dunk for the gop. "McCain has gone to such pains to try to distance himself from Bush and to make clear that he represents a different kind of politics that he's ultimately going to be forced to address this," Lehane says. "Either he waffles on it, which just irritates everyone; he takes the conservative position, which undermines his brand; or he takes a more open-minded, progressive view of the world, and he really hurts his base. What worked great in 2004 doesn't work so well in 2008."
Both McCain and Obama have said that marriage should be "between a man and a woman" and that the states should decide the issue for themselves. But McCain voted for the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, and in 2006 he campaigned for an unsuccessful gay marriage ban in Arizona. He also says he supports the California anti-gay-marriage initiative. According to Focus on the Family's Earll, McCain's record will resonate in the 27 states whose constitutional bans could be overturned by Obama-appointed "activist judges."
But even if a Democratic Congress repealed the Defense of Marriage Act, the review of state laws would still fall to the Supreme Court. As a result, some conservatives say they no longer see the spread of gay marriage as the imminent threat they did in 2004. "I think Virginians feel very confident about our situation for the most part," says Victoria Cobb, president of the Family Foundation of Virginia, which pushed through a gay marriage ban in 2006, "and so we are more focused on other issues." In other words, recent victories in rolling back gay marriage may make it less of an issue in 2008.
Still, opinions of gay marriage are volatile. Throughout the summer the California gay marriage ban had trailed in the polls, only to leap ahead by 10 points early this month after attack ads painted the legalization of gay marriage as dictatorial and intrusive. The most striking flip was among young voters. Typically stalwart supporters of gay marriage, they now favor banning it by a 14-point margin, according to the poll, which was conducted by SurveyUSA on October 6th and has a 4 percent margin of error.
Yet young voters are notoriously difficult to poll, making the larger trend more instructive: in 1996 support for gay marriage among the under-30 set stood at 42 percent, in 2004 at 46 percent, and in May of this year at 52 percent, according to the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life. In the long run, "the issue breaks along generational lines," notes Whalen. Take for example Pete Knight, the Republican state senator who wrote California's gay marriage ban. His son, David, married his partner in San Francisco in 2004. This year, Whalen says, Obama might bring out enough young voters to uphold gay marriage in California. (Obama is expected to beat McCain in the state by a double-digit margin.)
Plus, it's not even a sure thing that gay marriage sank the Dems in 2004. Kerry pollster Mark Mellman has found that anti-gay-marriage ballot initiatives didn't boost voter turnout for either party. Moreover, political scientists at mit found that Bush's share of the 2004 vote increased in most battleground states, but not the three that had gay marriage bans on the ballot. Stephen Ansolabehere, one of the study's authors, concludes that the gay marriage referenda may have given Kerry a bump. "That suggests there might even be some sort of backlash against this kind of politics," he notes.
During last month's vice presidential debate, the GOP took a less confrontational tack. Sarah Palin cited no differences from Joe Biden gay rights and even sought to temper her opposition to gay marriage with a shout out to her "very dear friends who do not agree with me on this issue." The GOP’s more conciliatory approach indicates that gay marriage might soon play very differently. "Five years from now, ten years from now," predicts Lehane, "you are going to have a bunch of people trying to explain their hypocrisy on this."
For the time being, however, mayor Newsom’s more aggressive support for gay marriage remains ahead of its time—if not in substance, than at least in style. After the California Supreme Court upheld gay marriage this year, the exultant mayor and soon-to-be gubernatorial candidate mocked his adversaries in speech on the steps of city hall. Later edited and re-broadcast by gay marriage foes as a highly effective attack ad, his words will prove famously prescient or famously premature: "It's inevitable, this door's wide open now, it’s gonna happen, whether you like it or not," Newsom said of gay marriage. "This is the future, and it's now."
Editor's note: An earlier version of this story ran in the September/October 2008 issue of Mother Jones.
Josh Harkinson is a reporter at Mother Jones.
Photo: Reuters/Erin Siegal
Hopefully this is a non-issue in 2008, which I know is asking a lot because the issue of equal marriage is emotional for both sides.
It's the old fool me once thing. My father though signed a petition in FL to get a gay marriage ban on the ballot. I called him on it, told him it was wrong of him.
Why? Because his only son has been in a relationship with another man for 16 years now. Don't we deserve the same protections covered by marriage?
I won't stand for being a second class citizen. It's why today I wrote both my state Speaker of the House and President of the Senate calling them obstinate [deleted]s.
I did this because if a certain divorce challenge is brought before the RI Supreme Court on the equal protection clause of our Constitution (Article 1, Section 2) it will invalidate the Family Court Act as well as grant marriage equality.
I can't wait for the legislature to go back into session in January.
Hopefully with people like Ellen DeGeneres and Jay Leno speaking out the ban in California, others will see it isn't the end of the world as some would hasve us believe.
So while they sit around at rallies yelling "KILL HIM" and "TERRORIST" and all the other circle jerk stuff they do, now they can add "GAY SYMPATHIZER". They'll have to come up with something else, it will probably be "[deleted] LOVER" or something equally offensive.
My, what a lovely country we have here. The guy on the next computer to me is in the midst of getting Irish citizenship. I hadn't thought of that, I'm thinking more along the lines of Canadian.
-Wexler
Before I posted here I was a spaceman, a cowboy, and a secret agent.
That's the cool thing about the Internets, you get to be everything you want! Oh, I left out world-famous brain surgeon.
-Wexler
With whom?
Do we have to sic the management on you. You just may be breaking the rules. Tsk, tsk.
Can I also surmise from your posts that you are doing so from a library? Keep it legit, no porn now.
Just sayin...
No prob... consider it done.
-Wexler
Can someone tell these people that the world is facing overpopulation issues which could threaten our basic natural resources. What's that? Gays can't conceive? Thank Jesus, there's still hope!
Meanwhile, all these daughters of conservatives are getting knocked up at 16 and being forced to keep the baby. *tsk tsk*, haven't heard of condoms, dear? Here's the number to the nearest branch of Planned Parenthood.
This whole 'gays are wrong because they can't have kids' is absurd. I think almost 7 Billion people on the Earth is enough right now, isn't it? We could stand to have a negative birth rate for a few years (Not that it will happen, of course).
Thanks for the post and the reality check.
-Wexler
The lengths humans will go, it never ceases to amaze~
Watch out, here comes another barrage from the talking snake crowd.
All religion is codified superstition. The GOP has learned how to manipulate that superstition, which is rampant and in my opinion out of control in what is supposedly the most advanced nation on earth.
It's sickening, it really is.
-Wexler
Fortunately this generation's kids will be the ones who right this wrong, but the cowardice displayed by far too many on our team in this generation is to the entire progressive movement's eternal shame.
my friend is larry craig....
And yes, it broke my heart that the cradle of democracy has become a hotbed of discrimination.
You talk about the term "men" being expanded to men and women in the constitution. Well, holding aside the problem noted above about the language you cited being part of the Dec. of Ind., the Equal Rights Amendment to the constitution was NEVER ratified. The only explicit "gender equality" component of the constitution has to do with voting -- nothing else. Do we need to have another constitutional convention before we can ban gender discrimination?
Also, let's take your cherised freedom of speech, protected by the First Amendment. Read the amendment. By the explicit text of the amendment, it only applies to Congress -- not to state governments ("Congress shall make no laws...."). So, states can ban speech all they want IF we take the constitution literally, as you have suggested.
I could go on and on but you get the point. Which right are you willing to give up that is not explicitly listed in the constitution? Probably only those with which you disagree.
how are you going to feel on nov. 5th, when you see the headline: OBAMA WINS IN A LANDSLIDE.
thanks for leaving us the GODDAMN MESS.
Please do us all a favor and move to the south and take larry craig with you.
Oh for all you republicans who dont remember larry craig.
He is the republican senator from Iduho who likes to hang out in restrooms and well you know be disgusting. i think all republicans are like Larry Craig.
so have a nice day on Nov. 5th when you wake up and see the headlines:
OBAMA WINS IN LANDSLIDE AND HAS TO CLEANUP THE GODDAMN MESS THE GODDAMN republicans and LARRY"the restroom king"Craig made....ha ha ha ha
i am a disgusting republican and i am going to move to Alabama.
i heard that the restrooms are very nice there.
well i am off to Dixie....
he stood me up.
you know how long i waited in that stall for him.
i am going to move to alabama too.
that will be the new state to hide if you are a disgusting republican.
ask larry craig. the us senator from iduho.
we republicans have to stick together, if you know what i mean.
i heard that mccain and larry craig are b buddies. is that true .
see you all in alabama after obama wins.
have a nice day on nov. 5th when you lose....
Also, despite the fact that FactCheck.Org and most leading economists blame the financial meltdown on consumers ever-extending themselves, refinancing their homes to spend needlessly, banks making risky loans and the securitization and distribution of that debt throughout the world, Democrats still point to "deregulation" as the cause. That's just STUPID. Deregulation did not cause this meltdown, neither did the tax cuts. Instead, it was very low interest rates and consumer and bank greed. This is not a "Republican" or "Democratic" problem. It was completely bipartisan. Until liberals are honest, they will just give us "more of the same." What's the difference between having conservatives who lie and liberals who lie? Not much in my opinion.
Besides, even if deregulation caused the problem, then you need to attack Joe Biden, Bill Clinton and Rubin for supporting it. Reich - an Obama advisor -- also supported NAFTA, as did Biden. This all sounds like "smoke and mirrors."
Question: If you deem you have a right beyond what is enumerated in the "Bill of Rights" of the Constitution, from where does it eminate? Hence a Constitutional Convention.
Let's not dirty the water with a descrimination argument. The subject is rights, rights afforded under the Constitution. And NO, states cannot override the Bill of Rights.
"Which right are you willing to give up that is not explicitly listed in the constitution?" Again, which are these? And from where do they eminate?
Maybe you need to re-address your grievances, Equal Rights Amendment, towards the U.S. gov't.
Lastly, as for the same old tired argument statement, it goes both ways.
Also - what do YOU make of terms like "privileges and immunities," "rights," "equal protection," and "due process," which are contained in the document, but not defined at all? Also ,the Ninth Amendment itself says that the people retain "rights" not listed. It was a warning against the very argument you are making -- that all rights are already in the document. The document itself proves you wrong.
The constitution does not define or list these "other" rights, but it certainly tells us that the fact that the Bill of Rights lists some rights, that others exist. And the 14th Amendment gives us "privileges and immunities," "equal protection," and a right to "due process of law" where life, liberty, or property is at stake. Please note that none of these terms is defined, including "liberty," which could have many meanings.
To all of our gay brethren who just don't get it.... you've made your bed, now lie in it!
The arrogance of pushing the gay "marriage" issue every 4 years, when we are in the midst of the national presidential election cycle, is exactly why Democrats have lost close elections.... Four years ago it was Gavin Newsom "performing" so-called "weddings" on the steps of City Hall and now it is the CA Supreme Court decision that is energizing the far Right... hopefully, they won't be able to make it a national issue in states like Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida...
Guess what?.... If you are not elected to the White House, then you don't get to choose who will serve on the US Supreme Court.... Gaining equality by recognized "civil union" could be lost for at least a generation, if not more, if the Democrats lose this election.... DO YOU UNDERSTAND!!!!!??????
I thought Mother Jones was a liberal publication. Its web site sure draws a lot of superstitious anti-gay bigots!
I would ask you to explain how Obama's position on this makes him a "radical" but it's obvious I'd be wasting my time.
And you're wrong about McCain. He's going to lose and lose badly. This week his campaign is going from the toilet down the tube towards the waste treatment plant. It will be hitting the sewer line about Wednesday at 9:00 Eastern.
-Wexler
Also, do not expect the Supreme Court -- even liberals on the Court -- to rule favorably for gays and lesbians on this issue UNLESS states do so first. The court constantly looks to states on "novel" rights questions. Can't you tell that's the strategy of the gay rights groups? They did the same thing to get sodomy laws overturned. Finding no relief in federal courts, they went state by state getting sodomy laws overturned before they went to the feds.
As it happens, this time the GOP has handed them the election on a plate. All they have to do is take it.
However, saying that, it would not surprise me in the least if something happens between now and November 4 that causes the Dems to lose the election... if it's even held at all.
-Wexler
/encyclopedia/Homosexuality-in-animals The entire page is interesting but if you go down to the references section you can easily get citations for the information on the page. You'll notice they are from university presses, Scientific American, American Scientist, Journal of Primatology, among many others. Look those up and read them and then go to their reference sections and you'll find many more articles to read.
Sorry if you felt I misquoted you. When you said that you thought people were cross wired, that implied mental illness.
NO ONE SHOULD BE A SECOND CLASS CITIZEN. This is America! We have the Constitution. Suck it up and stow your insane bigotry. All Americans are due their rights and freedoms.
Arguing whether being gay is biological, a choice or whatever, while may establish the reason for someone being gay, does nothing for making us a just society. However someone is a gay person should have no bearing on how many rights are due that person. No one should be denied rights because they are a Methodist. No one should be denied rights because they are white. No one should be denied rights because they have asthma. Choice or not. Genetic or not. A person is who they are. No person should be alotted any more or less rights that another person. Anything less than equality is adject immorality. A debasement of what America is supposed to stand for. Our God given inalienable rights.
The Supreme Court needs to recognize and uphold the Constitution for the equality and rights of all the peoples of the United States.
Regarding Kerry's campaign...
I was there and you are wrong. I was working on the campaign. I was assistant to the head of PR for the second half after the firing. Then I doubled as finance manager and legal consultant. Towards the end, when they really needed somebody competent at the top, I actually BECAME John Kerry.
-Wexler
The commercials running here in CA by the anti-gay forces are trying to scare people into voting to change our constitution enabling legal discrimination.
I certainly hope that people do not vote for this, and feel pretty confident this will lose here in CA.
See where the candidates stand on LBGT rights in this video below
www.youtube.com/watch?v=5YKVvT44cNs
Also, children are a rather natural part of marriage too, despite many married couples not having children, so children should never be forgotten either when discussing marriage and laws related to it.
It is difficult to change the cultural customs, beliefs and values of others. Generally, people have right to their beliefs and values. A major part of people still see marriage as a union of one woman and one man, and that is not likely going to change any time soon. They have every right to hold to that belief, especially as that belief has been so strong throughout the whole world, and for quite natural reasons too if you think about it a bit more. They also don't offend anyone's human rights by doing so, especially if they don't try to force their views on others. Neither side of the fight shouldn't be trying to force their cultural values on others as long as their values respect the basic human rights of those others too.
But I suppose we are talking about the laws related to marriage and not so much about some cultural customs and beliefs? Well, defenfing the human rights of homosexual people and gay couples could be done also without mixing the traditional marriage customs to the matter - like it is already done in many countries. You can have laws defending the rights of gay couples without trying to force the valus of some gay culture down everyone's throats.
What's wrong with the idea of registered partnership for gay couples, by the way? It can guarantee all the same legal rights to gays as married men and women have. We may never get to the situation where everyone would see gay marriages and couples being equal to heterosexual marriage anyway. It is not just about gays being a small minority, but also about the simple fact that homosexual people cannot get children, only maybe adopt them.
You're free to disagree but personally I'm not sure if I would see it a good thing if gay couples start adopting children a lot? Often when discussing the rights of children, many specialists assure us that - in an ideal situation - small children should have both a father and a mother (and biologically they always have, of course). So both a male and a female role model in the family for children. But suddenly, when discussing the gay rights, the whole matter is often forgotten, and even those very same specialists can suddenly turn their position and start claiming that all gay couples should have every right to adopt all the children they may ever want to have too.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not claiming that gays couldn't understand children at all, not to mention that they would be bad people. I'm sure many gay families could raise children just fine, or sometimes better than some heterosexual couples. But still, shouldn't we try to offer children the best possible and most balanced and natural families they could have? Most children would also want to know and live with their real biological parents if anyway possible. Many specialists agree that children should have both a mother and a father in an ideal family - that simple - even if they couldn't admit that in front of the huge pressure from those supporting the gay rights.
But I suppose that our western society sees the rights of sexual minorities (and sexual rights in general) so utterly important nowadays that they go even before children's rights too?