Just looking at Bush's stance on gay marriage from a political perspective...

[AgPete]

Ignoring arguments about the implications of gay marriage, religion, and all that jazz, is Bush's decision to try and force an amendment that doesn't allow gay marriages a good or bad move for his politcal future?

** One big group that supports this are members of the religious right (many that are Southern) who are already going to vote Republican anyways. Were members of Pat Robertson's flock thinking about switching to a liberal Democratic Yankee anytime soon? (i.e. Kerry) I doubt this changes anything with this demographic.

** He might have pulled in some Catholic voters that were considering voting for the Democratic candidate.

** He might have alienated conservative Republicans who don't mix social conservatism with their views of states rights, fiscal policy and other issues. Not only those voters but also Republicans who are more moderate in general.

** Probably the largest group he lost were the independent voters who might have re-elected Bush until they were turned off by his decision to insert the federal government into private bedrooms and not leave it up to the states. Speaking for myself, I'm an independent who will vote for any party and I look at Bush's ammendment as legalized discrimination. He just lost my vote. But that's not what this thread is about. I'm just using myself as an example of one type of voter who was influenced by this.

So when it's all said and done, do you think Bush wins or loses more votes because of this? Did he just help oust himself out of the White House, help keep himself in for another term, or did it make any difference?

[Maple Leafs]

If this becomes a major election issue (which is still a big if):
- All the really right-wing and religious folks will back Bush, which they would have done anyways
- All the the really left-wing, campus academic types will hate Bush, which they do anyways
- All the undecided swing votes will have to figure out if they want to vote for or against gay marriage

And obviously that last one is the key. Does the typical American want to see gay marriage or not? Do they even care enough to have it sway their vote?

I don't know the answer to that. Bush obviously thinks this will help him in the election, because he wouldn't have done it otherwise. I guess we'll find out if he's right.

[Desnudo]

** He might have alienated conservative Republicans who don't mix social conservatism with their views of states rights, fiscal policy and other issues. Not only those voters but also Republicans who are more moderate in general.

** Probably the largest group he lost were the independent voters who might have re-elected Bush until they were turned off by his decision to insert the federal government into private bedrooms and not leave it up to the states. Speaking for myself, I'm an independent who will vote for any party and I look at Bush's ammendment as legalized discrimination. He just lost my vote. But that's not what this thread is about. I'm just using myself as an example of one type of voter who was influenced by this.

These two sections would describe me as well. He lost my vote with this proposal. This proposal concerns me greatly about the future of our civil liberties with him as our president. It's not like the track record until now had been great. Socially he's off the scale to the right and it outweighs any favoritism I have towards him due to fiscal policy. I'd prefer an income tax hike with Kerry over wearing a tracking anklet under Bush. Although I'll throw my protest vote to the Libertarian candidate.

[Fonzie]

From a political perspective, I think Bush's goal here is to ignite the religious right element of his base to get out the vote - i.e., to ensure that the "I might sit this one out" crowd doesn't. That's the only political gain I can see coming from this proposed constitutional amendment.

[CamEdwards]

all this talk about the religious right... here's a question.

Most polls show Americans opposed to gay marriage by a 2-1 margin. Would you consider 66% of Americans to be members of the religious right?

At the same time, the polls show Americans split on the issue of whether or not a constitutional amendment is needed (right at 50-50). Are half of all Americans members of the religious right?

I think this issue clearly goes beyond religion, or at least the hardcore Christian minority in this country.

[RendeR]

President falling out of favor...................Busch
Major societal issue...............................Gay Marriage
President pushing for Constitutional Ammendment..........Dumbass

People taking the decision away from big brother government *san fran*



PRICELESS

[Telle]

From what I've heard, Bush's religious-right "base" supporters threatened to not vote in November if he did not support such a constitutional amendment. So regardless of whether or not he might gain votes by doing what he did, he was in danger of losing votes if he didn't.

[MrBug708]

California voted nearly 2-1 a few years back to not recognize Gay Marriage.

Not that Bush has a snowball's hell in chance in taking Los Angeles County as well as San Fran

[Fonzie]

Cam,

I don't think anyone would deny that the religious right is, by and large, in favor of this constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. The logical inferential error that you're hinting at is that of "because one is opposed to gay marriage, one must be a member of the religious right." But that is not an assertion anyone here is making (that I can see). Members of the more mainstream schools of social, religious and moral conservatism also clearly feel this way, although perhaps less passionately so. But the queston raised in this thread was: what are the political benefits of doing this?

And the answer that a couple folks have offered is that it is an attempt to invigorate the religious right into voting in greater numbers, as this is an issue near and dear to their hearts. I suspect that this decision will not have much of an invigorating effect on the more mainstream conservative cohort that identifies with the gay marriage ban - there are likely to be other issues they are more concerned with.

[stevew]

Ignoring arguments about the implications of gay marriage, religion, and all that jazz, is Bush's decision to try and force an amendment that doesn't allow gay marriages a good or bad move for his politcal future?

** One big group that supports this are members of the religious right (many that are Southern) who are already going to vote Republican anyways. Were members of Pat Robertson's flock thinking about switching to a liberal Democratic Yankee anytime soon? (i.e. Kerry) I doubt this changes anything with this demographic.

** He might have pulled in some Catholic voters that were considering voting for the Democratic candidate.

** He might have alienated conservative Republicans who don't mix social conservatism with their views of states rights, fiscal policy and other issues. Not only those voters but also Republicans who are more moderate in general.

** Probably the largest group he lost were the independent voters who might have re-elected Bush until they were turned off by his decision to insert the federal government into private bedrooms and not leave it up to the states. Speaking for myself, I'm an independent who will vote for any party and I look at Bush's ammendment as legalized discrimination. He just lost my vote. But that's not what this thread is about. I'm just using myself as an example of one type of voter who was influenced by this.

So when it's all said and done, do you think Bush wins or loses more votes because of this? Did he just help oust himself out of the White House, help keep himself in for another term, or did it make any difference?


I think he's trying to bring in the votes of "religious" people who may still vote for the Democrats. This should be a pretty big issue with both protestants and catholics.

[AgPete]

all this talk about the religious right... here's a question.

Most polls show Americans opposed to gay marriage by a 2-1 margin. Would you consider 66% of Americans to be members of the religious right?

At the same time, the polls show Americans split on the issue of whether or not a constitutional amendment is needed (right at 50-50). Are half of all Americans members of the religious right?

I think this issue clearly goes beyond religion, or at least the hardcore Christian minority in this country.

If that many people oppose gay marriage than I guess Bush shouldn't have too difficult a time, right? I brought up the religious right because I know where they stand on the issue. I just wonder why Bush bothers to bring this up when it causes so much controversy. It seems like leaving it to the states to choose would have been a safer path to guarantee another election.

[Ryche]

I just wonder why Bush bothers to bring this up when it causes so much controversy. It seems like leaving it to the states to choose would have been a safer path to guarantee another election.

One potential reason that Sean Hannity brought up, which I'm not sure if it has validity or not, is that if a gay marriage is performed in one state, other states must recognize it as well, ala recognizing other state's driver's licenses and such. Again, I don't know if this is the case or not.

[Desnudo]

all this talk about the religious right... here's a question.

Most polls show Americans opposed to gay marriage by a 2-1 margin. Would you consider 66% of Americans to be members of the religious right?

At the same time, the polls show Americans split on the issue of whether or not a constitutional amendment is needed (right at 50-50). Are half of all Americans members of the religious right?

I think this issue clearly goes beyond religion, or at least the hardcore Christian minority in this country.

I think you are right that the issue does clearly go beyond the religious right. I am about as far removed from there as possible, but I don't believe that gay marriage should have the same stature as hetero marriages. On the other hand, I don't think the federal government should be involved and that an ammendment like this would belittle the constitution.

What's funny is that this issue wasn't even on people's radar screens until the gay and liberal community forced the issue public. If they'd be less militant and aggressive about it, they probably could have gotten some latitude. Now they draw a line in the sand.

[Fonzie]

What's funny is that this issue wasn't even on people's radar screens until the gay and liberal community forced the issue public. If they'd be less militant and aggressive about it, they probably could have gotten some latitude. Now they draw a line in the sand.

I agree that this seemed to come straight out of nowhere - and wasn't that an interesting strategic decision on their part? I have no idea whether it'll end up being a good one or a bad one (with regard to their goals), but they at least succeeded in getting their issue on the political map. My guess is that they're gambling that enough people will believe that a constitutional amendment that effectively creates either another social system based on the "separate but equal" or exclusionary principles is a mistake, and will alienate some of the moderates away from Bush. But that's a big gamble.

[Dutch]

And obviously that last one is the key. Does the typical American want to see gay marriage or not? Do they even care enough to have it sway their vote?
Bush obviously thinks this will help him in the election, because he wouldn't have done it otherwise.

The pro-gay crowd has been hounding the President since he got into office. He had repeatedly stated that the institution of marriage is between a man and a woman.

Then the anti-Bush crowd joins the pro-gay crowd and they break the laws in San Francisco to get attention.

President Bush didn't think this would help him in an election year by *not* repeating his stance. And it would have hurt him if he buckled to the pressure of activist law-breakers. I don't see where he really has much of a choice.

The anti-Bush activists are the one's who have drawn the line in the sand, not the pro-gay crowd. The pro-gay lobby has been suckered into this one for another groups political gain. If the liberals really wanted to do this properly, they would have waited for a Democrat to get into office and easily steamroll that guy (or gal). But the intent is not to grant gay marriage, but to hurt Bush. It's just another battlefield to the liberals on which they can fight.

[AgPete]

The anti-Bush activists are the one's who have drawn the line in the sand, not the pro-gay crowd. The pro-gay lobby has been suckered into this one for another groups political gain. If the liberals really wanted to do this properly, they would have waited for a Democrat to get into office and easily steamroll that guy (or gal). But the intent is not to grant gay marriage, but to hurt Bush. It's just another battlefield to the liberals on which they can fight.

That's a good point. Especially if the Democrats were to win this year. The Dems are worried that they're losing left-wingers to Nader and others. Dean got a big boost just because he was the angry liberal who was pissed at the conservative direction in the USA. If gays had brought this issue up with a Democratic president, regardless of their own personal beliefs, the President and Dems probably would have stayed silent and let it take its natural course out of fear that they might alienate the social left-wing element in the party. I'm sure some Republicans would have rode the issue to prominence but the Constitutional Ammendment never would have arisen.

[Peregrine]

I think the President's actions are more a response to pressure that has been escalating on him from the religious right to "do something" about the problem, rather than a calculated political move. He wants to make sure they're happy and come out in numbers to vote for him in the election. However, there are a good many moderate Republicans that I think will have major problems with this issue, especially those with many socially moderate voters in their states/districts. I think this amendment will have a good bit of trouble passing the two-thirds majority in the Senate, much less in three-fourths of the states.

I also think Bush won't want to push this issue too hard as an election year issue. For one thing, Republicans pushing a federal government squashing states rights agenda on this issue goes against their general inclination and there are certainly people who are in the moderate Republican camp who will want the party to be dealing with more important issues. There was a poll recently of younger voters, 18-30 I believe, and it was shocking to the extent that they were apathetic to social issues like gay marriage, it was like 23 out of 24 in the most important policy issues, jobs and national security were the biggies, like they are for most groups besides those social conservatives who want to deny rights to gays.

[Swaggs]

Sometimes I wonder if I will ever see a non-polarizing president during my lifetime.

[BishopMVP]

In addition to firing up the religious right, it also forces Kerry to take a position (or knowing Kerry 2 or 3, but that's a different thread.) Previously Kerry has sort of supported the amendment (which seems overblown and pretty much a non-factor legally) and so it might throw some more far left votes over to the supporter of Gay Marriages - Ralph Nader.

I dislike the maneuver, but politically, it seems to be fairly good.

[Dutch]

Is there now no such thing as a Christian Democrat? I don't get it.

[stevew]

Is there now no such thing as a Christian Democrat? I don't get it.

I'm sure there are some, but its hard to reconcile the some of the party planks(Pro-choice, Pro-gay) with religious views on the matters.

[clintl]

Sometimes I wonder if I will ever see a non-polarizing president during my lifetime.

I don't think that George Bush I was all that polarizing in an ideological sense. His problem was kind of similar to Jimmy Carter's - his perceived lack of competence, and as with Carter, his downfall came because significant numbers of his own party turned on him.

[Fonzie]

I'm sure there are some, but its hard to reconcile the some of the party planks(Pro-choice, Pro-gay) with religious views on the matters.

I would mildly disagree with this - I think there are plenty of Christian democrats out there (if you look at the numbers there have to be), but I would speculate that for them:

1. religious matters are not of high political importance, and they probably are more wary of blurring the church/state divide;

2. they actually do adopt positions contrary to the more conservative religious electorate, such as being pro-choice or sympathetic to homosexual causes.

I would imagine that the reason you don't hear from them as much on these issues is because they aren't (or don't want to be) as organized as their more conservative, and politically-minded, Christian bretheren.

[sterlingice]

I love this thread. It's something different than the average "You suck" "No, you suck" political thread! :D

I would mildly disagree with this - I think there are plenty of Christian democrats out there (if you look at the numbers there have to be), but I would speculate that for them:

1. religious matters are not of high political importance, and they probably are more wary of blurring the church/state divide;
There was a poll recently of younger voters, 18-30 I believe, and it was shocking to the extent that they were apathetic to social issues like gay marriage, it was like 23 out of 24 in the most important policy issues, jobs and national security were the biggies, like they are for most groups besides those social conservatives who want to deny rights to gays.
I think if you put these two together and you have an answer. I can't see a "religious left" any time soon because if you are left and religious, you don't find yourself as concerned about solely relgious issues. If you were, then you fundamentally could not be on the left- you *would* become a single issue voter on things like abortion or gay rights and vote right every time. Instead, those who are religious and left, don't end up in the political spectrum with "religious" and "left" as their calling card much as the "religious right". Instead, they are identified as "left" and "religious" doesn't define their stance within the politcal spectrum at all.

I think I fit somewhat into both of these categories in the quotes above. I find that I care so little about a lot of social issues mainly because they have nothing to do with me, I just can't get into firey debats over gay marriage or abortion. If two gay people want to marry, I'm not going to stop them but at the same time, if they spend a lot of time and energy telling me how wrong I am for not caring when clearly I don't, then you're not going to get any help from me. Same with women and abortion. I can't get all worked up about it because when push comes to shove, in a court of law, I'd never be allowed to make a choice about it. How both of these groups can take my apathy as a personal affront is beyond me (you want my help, ask for it, don't demand it), but that's another story for another day.

SI

[Peregrine]

I can't see a "religious left" any time soon because if you are left and religious, you don't find yourself as concerned about solely relgious issues. If you were, then you fundamentally could not be on the left- you *would* become a single issue voter on things like abortion or gay rights and vote right every time

I can't agree with this. Many people I know are very religious and vote left every time. Their feeling is that the Democratic party (whether this is true or not) is more in tune with social justice, concern for the poor, which they view as more fundamental religious values than things like restricting gay rights.

[AgPete]

If anyone watched the Democratic candidates debate last night, I thought Bush's strategy revealed itself. When the Dem candidates were questioned about gay marriages it was one of the most uncomfortable moments in the debate. They had to give an answer that appealed to the liberal side of the Democratic party but yet kept the social conservatives happy. It also makes someone forget about the economy, Iraq and other prevalent issues. I think it's a good political move by Bush because while he has to worry about segments of the Republican party who haven't merged religion and politics, this issue doesn't divide his party like it does the Democrats.

[Dutch]

I think it's a good political move by Bush

And to think it was the extreme left liberals that created this situation, not George Bush/Republicans or even the Democratic Party for that matter.

[WussGawd]

I still believe that the Democrats can successfully turn this thing on Bush by arguing against the amendment on constitutional grounds, rather than the pro vs. anti gay marriage debate.

[Dutch]

I still believe that the Democrats can successfully turn this thing on Bush by arguing against the amendment on constitutional grounds.

Anything is possible in politics. But I think the Republicans will have the upper hand since Kerry and Edwards have both come out and basically said they disagree with gay-marriage but agree with civil union. Which is exactly what the Republican party has always been willing to agree to and what the ammendment would not conflict with.

The ammendment is really a win for traditionalists (like me) and for gays, not just the gays.

[sachmo71]

I'm glad Rosie was married. Now there is no chance of the amendment passing.

Boy, she's ugly.

[Easy Mac]

I'm glad Rosie was married. Now there is no chance of the amendment passing.

Boy, she's ugly.
we almost made it through a thread without an idiot.

Anyway, the thing about civil unions are they wouldn't hold up in court (at least an unbiased one). They just delay the inevitable clash an extra 2 years while the courts hammer it out.