Bad Timing for Gay Rights
I support marraige rights for gays and lesbians 1000%. I hope that they have these rights recognized and respected and theyir unions are equal to hetero marraiges in every way.
Having said that....
Ay ay ay! The timing of this gay rights court decision! This is the reddest juiciest possible red meat to throw in front of Conservatives in an election year. What a disaster. Now Obama is going to be forced to go through endless interrogation on the issue and get on the record for this and that. Dispirited GOP base voters will have something to go vote against. The rightwing attack machine will have something to tie Dem candidates to in every ad.
The sad thing is that these attacks work. The timing of suddenly allowing gay marraige in San Fran, Portland and other places in 2004 was a gigantic disaster for the Dems. Our greatest hope this year is that the GOP voters have nothing compelling to drive them to the polls. This is exactly the kind of stuff that works for Rove and Co.
Again, the court decision and the movement in the right direction on equal rights is laudable, but the timing is Gawd Awful.
American left:
1) Point gun at foot
2) Pull trigger
Having said that....
Ay ay ay! The timing of this gay rights court decision! This is the reddest juiciest possible red meat to throw in front of Conservatives in an election year. What a disaster. Now Obama is going to be forced to go through endless interrogation on the issue and get on the record for this and that. Dispirited GOP base voters will have something to go vote against. The rightwing attack machine will have something to tie Dem candidates to in every ad.
The sad thing is that these attacks work. The timing of suddenly allowing gay marraige in San Fran, Portland and other places in 2004 was a gigantic disaster for the Dems. Our greatest hope this year is that the GOP voters have nothing compelling to drive them to the polls. This is exactly the kind of stuff that works for Rove and Co.
Again, the court decision and the movement in the right direction on equal rights is laudable, but the timing is Gawd Awful.
American left:
1) Point gun at foot
2) Pull trigger
Advertisement
My spelling and grammar in this post were um... not so good. My apologies.
May 15, 2008 3:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh noes! Let's hand wring some more. The mean ol' GOP is going to say mean ol' things about us.
Bleeech.
Obama's stance is for civil unions. He doesn't even support gay marriage, as least politically, IIRC. All he has to do is reiterate his centrist stance over and over.
May 15, 2008 3:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree it is better to fight than to cower, but this issue worked in 2004. The power of this issue to motivate the right is not hypothetical. It was proven four short years ago.
It was a major contributing factor to the fact we still have a President Bush instead of a President Kerry.
Sad, but I think true.
May 15, 2008 4:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
i agree. as a gay man, its good to know i'm entitlted to the same rights as everybody else (at least in california) but i'm also worried that this will motivate McCain's base and give them a reason to mobilize. LEt's face it, mccain wingnut base never liked him and arent very enthused with his candidacy. but this is just the sort of thing that will give them something to rally around.
they couldn't have waited till after november??
oh well...the only way past it is through it. and we have to trust the people not to get distracted this time. the stakes are too high
May 15, 2008 3:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
It'll cause us to lose from both the left and the right. The right you've already mentioned, but more than likely Obama will steer a centrist position on this (as did Kerry, Gore, and Clinton before him), and this will not sit well with those of us who think that separate but equal (i.e., civil unions) is not equal. For people who feel strongly enough about this to harm their own interests, it'll cause them to stay home.
May 15, 2008 3:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Brendan:
Since it is a state issue - and California voters have TWICE voted to support gay marriage - I don't see a problem.
Most other states used 2004 to bring out the 'anti-gay' vote. nearly 30 of them passed such 'marriage bans'.
There is nothing they can use this cycle to draw voters out on the issue - having already shot their wad 4 years ago.
And, of course, all Obama has to do is reiterate his stand on the issue (which we all know is that he will appoint 2 or 3 SCOTUS judges who will vote to strike down all gay marrriage bans when the issue comes before the court in several years.).
So cheer up - and celebrate!
May 15, 2008 3:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Some excellent points.
I'm not sure the State vs. National angle is really going to keep the rabid right at bay. They don't do nuance very well.
But you make a good point that the number of actual "marriage bans" that regrettably came about in 2004 will make it less pressing.
And also, I'm not directly affected so I don't appreciate the full wonderful implications of the gay community and especially gay families. So ignore me and go celebrate!
May 15, 2008 3:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Gaylthacan, I agree. Most of the states that could pass anti-same-sex-marriage amendments DOMA ban did so in 2004-05. Also, I doubt very much that the Christian right will trust the not-very-religious McCain to take a strong anti-SSM position. He opposed the federal marriage amendment. He might flip-flop if he thinks it helps him, but that issue is a loser nationally.
For sure, conservatives will use the issue to GOTV in California. But young people out here (by which I mean under 45 or so) overwhelmingly favor marriage equality. It's a pretty liberal state. I don't think they can win it here, or swing the election to McCain on that issue alone.
That doesn't mean the right-wing crazies won't try to scare us that Hamas-loving secret Muslim limp-wristed terrorist Barack HUSSEIN Obama is trying to force mandatory gay marriages on everybody. I just don't think it'll work with many swing voters. Maybe I'm just optimistic.
May 15, 2008 4:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
whoops. i still need that edit function.
May 15, 2008 4:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is always bad timing for gay rights. Always.
May 15, 2008 3:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Better clarify.
Now is no worse than any other time so might as well do it now.
May 15, 2008 3:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good clarification. Well said.
May 15, 2008 3:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think this is an excellent point. Even if it hurts Obama's chances in November (and that's debatable), this is great news.
May 15, 2008 7:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
I disagree. You cannot halt change because you forsee the risk of not having change in the future.
Many gay couples and their friends and families will tell you- it's not bad timing but it's better late than never.
May 15, 2008 3:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's definitley too late in coming. And since we have elections every two years, I guess it is hard to time things to avoid election season.
The monumental historical importance of Civil Rights is not lost on me. Civil Rights are more important than politics.
I just also think there is a lot at stake on the national level in this particular election.
May 15, 2008 3:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
BBpdx: I agree Obama has to walk a tight rope and he already found himself performing the balancing act, with the real question and quasi-drama like the one with Penn gay rights newspaper.
But Republicans don't need any ammunition to trigger their base to vote against the issue. They would as always resort to exploitings guns, gay marriage and women's rights to rile up their base. That's always a given.
May 15, 2008 4:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
But Obama is the candidate of change. Obama brings a new kind of politics. I've been hearing that for over a year.
May 15, 2008 4:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Otto F, thanks for the sarcasm, but buddy its unwarrented.
May 15, 2008 4:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
God - Rev. Wright, check
Guns - Obama's "bitter...cling" remarks, check
Gays - California Supreme Court decision, check
It's the trifecta! Tighten your onion belts, people...here we go! Wheeeeeeee!
May 15, 2008 4:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
I disagree that the timing is bad. I also disagree if one thinks there is some kind of nefarious purpose behind it. Right now, there is too much else going on re: economy, Iraq, etc. for that to be much of an issue. Sure it will motivate those who wouldn't have voted for Obama anyway. THAT issue isn't going to get asked much, IMO, nor is it going to be the one issue that causes a significant portion of moderate Repugs or independents to swing.
May 15, 2008 4:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Art Buchwald
"Whether it is the best of times or the worst of times, it is only time we [gays] have."
May 15, 2008 4:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
I definitely don't see some sort of nefarious purpose behind the timing. It's just the pace that the California court case took.
My concern isn't that it will affect Obama's vote. I think it could increase the turnout of GOP base voters who make it to the polls instead of staying home.
May 15, 2008 4:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
I just wish it were AFTER this election. Feb. 2009 would be fine.
May 15, 2008 4:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here's a case for a more hopeful note.
Wisconsin decisively passed an anti-gay marriage amendment in 2006.
And still re-elected a Democratic governor who opposed it--rebuffing the GOP's hope that the amendment would mobilize voters for the Republican candidate.
May 15, 2008 4:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here's another hopeful story. In Canada, after the courts had made it clear that it was unconstitutional to limit marriage to different-sex couples, Parliament passed a law changing marriage eligibility from "a man and a woman" to "two unmarried persons". The Liberals narrowly lost the next election (for reasons having nothing to do with SSM -- by the time Parliament passed the law, most Canadians supported it).
The Conservative minority govt, which had opposed SSM when it was in opposition, tried to reopen the SSM debate. They called for a vote on whether to debate repealing the law guaranteeing SSM. The proposal was defeated -- several Conservatives who had voted against the original SSM bill voted against reopening the debate.
When conservatives see that SSM doesn't hurt anyone, and that the equality and happiness of same-sex couples costs heterosexuals nothing, they stop opposing it.
It's not an exact match to the US -- Canada lacks a politically effective evangelical lobby, and most Canadians aren't very religious -- but we are winning this battle. The California victory won't be overturned. [knock wood]
May 15, 2008 5:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
We must also remember that it is 2008 - not 2003.
People have had time to see that Democracy as we know it did not end because massachusetts legalized SSM. Also, three large nations moved to legalize SSM in the interim including a majority CATHOLIC one - and the world did not end.
The tide on this shifts further each year in our favor - and most of the newly registered voters are on our side on this issue as well.
We can even point to Hagee's argument about Katrina being 'God's punishment for New Orleans" and remind the public that the GAY AREAS OF NEW ORLEANS WERE LEFT VIRTUALLY UNTOUCHED! :)
I would appear that God IS on our side!
May 15, 2008 6:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hee hee! I should point out here that Canada also has a Catholic plurality. When the Liberal party (whose leadership contenders were all Catholic at the time) introduced the SSM legislation, Pope John Paul II threatened that any politician who supported the bill would put his or her "immortal soul" in jeopardy. The Liberal politicians told him not to interfere in domestic politics, that they govern all the Canadian people, not just the Catholics, and that they had sworn to govern in accordance with the Constitution, not Catholic doctrine. That is, most of them politely told the Pope to go to hell.
I believe something similar happened in Spain.
Yep, as younger people reach voting age, the tide shifts ever more in our favor!
May 15, 2008 7:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's never the right time for someone else's civil rights. It's never the right time to do the right thing, but people of principle do it anyway - people like LBJ who knew that the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act would kill the Democratic party in the South.
Mortgage regulation, tax rates, education testing and the like are policy matters and of course, you end up compromising to win incremental improvements. However, civil rights are not policy matters, they are matters of principle and you do not compromise and postpone. You stand up for what you believe in.
The public can respect someone who will fight for principles and compromise on policies and have the wisdom to know the difference -- even when they disagree. No one can respect someone who compromises on principles.
May 15, 2008 7:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, that worked out really well in 2000. Why did we wait 8 years? Why does this always seem to come up just before Presidential elections?
There is a time for everything. Right? This is the wrong time, just as it was in 2000 just prior to a major election.
No one is compromising. It's more a matter of strategy. Why would you attempt to sabotage the conditions needed for change by jumping the gun? If a democrat wins in November, THAT would be the time to push the issue, when you have a hope in hell of getting a hearing.
This is sabotage and I just want to know if you're so committed to civil rights, WHY you can't wait for a more favorable political climate if it's only a matter of waiting a few months?
Talk about shooting ourselves in the foot. Can we TRY to think ahead and keep our eyes on the goal?
May 16, 2008 9:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
1) The timing is dictated by the judicial system.
2) Many of the states whose voter turnout increased because of anti-gay amendments passed them. The people there have already passed laws saying gays cannot get married. I suppose they can pass ones that say the really, really can't get married. Or the anti-gay fanatics can propose something too ugly for people to stomach.
3) If you can't delight in the fact that a large number of Americans just got their rights in full affirmed because all you care about is winning - what exactly are you fighting for?
4) The Obama camp has sickened a large number of Clinton supporters, including me, with it hatred for Clinton. Do you plan to start hating on gays now with your insane talk of sabotage?
May 16, 2008 12:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fair enough...
May 16, 2008 12:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
If it's not time when Bush's approval rating is under 30%, I don't know when it would be time. Obama's bigger challenge is to become more convincing on the economy and if it's time for him to give in a bit on anything, he ought to nod in Hillary's direction on universal health care (but make sure it's not universal care for health care industry lobbyists).
Democrats need to get rid of their Stockholm syndrome. When the other guy's approval rating is twenty-something you stop apologizing.
May 15, 2008 8:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is exactly the sort of issue Obama was talking about when he made his "bitter" comment. This is what gets the hillbillies out to the polls. That said, this whole issue could be defused so easily. You'd think an expert in Constitutional law would understand that the real problem here is that the line between church and state has been crossed. I wonder what people would think if the state started performing baptisms? How well do you think that would go over? So why is it acceptable for the state to be involved in the sacrament of marriage?
This is very easy: get the state out of the business of marrying people. All civil marriages are civil unions by definition. Nothing more, nothing less. End of problem.
May 15, 2008 9:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with you. The state should not be giving out marriage licenses.
The word itself is the problem.
Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto G-d the things that are G-d’s
It would make this a non-issue, and yeah, sorry, wait until after November. It's 2000 all over again.
May 16, 2008 9:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Larry Bertels research has shown that the social issue motivated voters are not working class whites but upper middle income whites. But go ahead, hate on the poor. I guess that's the change Obama was talking about - changing the Democratic party in to the party that hates on the poor.
May 16, 2008 12:28 PM | Reply | Permalink