NYT: Maybe Same-Sex Marriage Didn't Make the Difference

[Bluebear]

"To blame gay people for the failure of the Democratic message to motivate people is frankly unfair, and frankly, it's homophobic," said Matt Foreman, executive director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force. "Yes, the right wing was energized as never before to turn out for George Bush, but it's energized over a whole range of issues. Karl Rove has catered to their every need, with stem-cell research, the ban on late-term abortion, faith-based initiatives, restrictions on funding for overseas contraception, prayer in the schools. Was gay marriage a factor? Yes, along with a lot of factors."

Conservatives have crowed that in 11 states voters passed constitutional amendments to ban gay marriage. And in pivotal Ohio, a sweeping ban on gay marriage won by a 62 percent to 38 percent margin.

Even so, gay-marriage advocates say they do not believe that the amendments had a great effect on the presidential vote, especially because 10 of those states already had laws against gay marriage. "You can look at the three battleground states - Oregon, Michigan and Ohio - where amendments were on the ballot," Mr. Foreman said. Mr. Kerry carried Oregon by nearly 5 percentage points more than Al Gore did, Mr. Foreman said, and won more votes in Michigan than Mr. Gore. In Ohio, he was 2 points closer to victory than Mr. Gore.

Advocates also pointed to exit polls showing that 27 percent of voters support same-sex marriage and another 35 percent support civil unions.'

(27 + 35 = 62% who favor either same-sex marriage or civil unions.)

from "Maybe Same-Sex Marriage Didn't Make the Difference". New York Times November 7, 2004



http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/07/weekinreview/07bell.html?ex=1100494800&en=f283d8ddc008cdd0&ei=5006&partner=ALTAVISTA1

[Catfight]

1. Bush may have won the election, but he lost our hearts and minds.nt

[VivaKerry]

2. What an absurd ASSUMPTION on the part of the NYT

who the hell is blaming the gays for the alleged downfall of the dem party?

It's the hate by the republicans against others.

See the twisted logic? Just create a mantra of a falsehood based thinly on the basic subject and then everyone starts talking as if the falsehood is fact.

[Bluebear]

3. "who the hell is blaming the gays"

Well, the media for one. And it has been an interesting couple of days here! :)

[PittLib]

4. No offense ...

but I've had my share of "arguments" here on this very subject. Some people here are very quick to sell out. Not that I'm naming names ...

[foreigncorrespondent]

8. Haven't you been reading DU?

People have really come out of the wood works since Tuesday blaming the gay community for the loss.

I'm not in the U.S. so I can't speak for what has been said in the media, but from what I hear, the talking heads on tv have been saying pretty much the same thing.

[Misunderestimator]

12. Absurd? Apparently you haven't been reading DU or watching TV.

I can't seem to enter a thread here without seeing someone (in most cases someone I've never seen before) blaming gays and saying that Democrats need to back off of civil rights and back off of women's rights... and absurdly, gun control as well.

But you're right about creating and promoting the mantra of a falsehood... it's exactly what they've done, and I fear that it's exactly what some very suspect people here are doing (as well as a few disappointing long-time members).

[Florida_Geek]

5. How many fundies only came out to vote for this one point

and how many Churchs told their members to vote for Bush over this...

[JI7]

7. yes, but they should just call it the republicans reaching out to bigots

rather than refer to it as gays are to blame for dems loss.

that's the way i see it.

[bunkerbuster1]

6. Sully's "email of the day" contains something worth reading

related to this topic at:

http://andrewsullivan.com/index.php?dish_inc=archives/2004_10_31_dish_archive.html#109978046583291793

Quoting the Republican who emailed Andrew Sullivan:

"...But seeing things a little more clearly and calmly now, I have to say that I am embarrassed by what happened to gays this year. They were crassly exploited by the political party I supported, and the other party didn't do enough to protect them. Not enough people stood up to say "this is wrong." I sure as hell didn't. I just wanted my guy to win. I'm sorry that happened.

"I realize that this apology is probably worth a bucket of warm spit to you. But you should know that I've talked to several other people who voted for Bush, but now have the same sense of buyer's guilt I do. I think that means that next time they start trying to take people's rights away, maybe more of us will stand up and say "this is wrong." I solemnly promise that I will."

This guy's a day late and a dollar short, but I'm certain there are plenty of people who voted for Bush who undoubtedly feel the same way. We progressives can't win by wimping out and abandoning our belief in civil rights.

[foreigncorrespondent]

9. Sullivan is a complete idiot!

I don't care if this time around he voted for Kerry. During the last four years he didn't do enough to speak out for the gay community. He just continued towing the republican party bullshit and kept slamming the dems at every turn. He is as much to blame for Tuesday's disaster as the diebold machines are.

I really hope the next four years he uses his popularity to show people the true colours of Bush* and his evil regime.

bb1, thanks for posting this anyway. It was a good read. I am just one of the many in the queer community who are truly dark on Sullivan.

[charlie]

11. Nope

He won't do squat about Dubya in the coming years, that is. Scroll down just a few posts from the email and you'll see his link to David Brooks, extolling that idiot's post-election take as the soon-to-be conventional wisdom -- crediting Dubya's win to the "moral values" crowd is a liberal ploy to allow lefties to continue feeling smug and superior.

Sully's still whistling past the graveyard. He still hasn't accepted that being the RNC's gay housepet has provided him no protection against becoming their scapegoat of convenience.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

15. Amen

[LTRS]

14. Actually I can't stand him.... but, he did a long tour

all over the country speaking out in favor of gay marriage and against the FMA all during the late summer and early fall. And he speaks very eloquently about it as well. He hits all the right talking points, and is frankly pretty inspiring on that subject if you see him in person.

The rest of his politics reveal him to be a Christopher Hitchens type, but I have to say, he spoke up more than our dem politicians did for sure.

[bunkerbuster1]

17. Sully often infuriates me.

There've been times when I literally threw my copy of the New Republic across the room after reading one of his anti-Clinton screeds. And he infuriated me this year as he waited until the very last possible moment to issue his weak-ass endorsement of Kerry.

Yet he did endorse Kerry. And he's been sharply critical of Bush. I don't think it's just for show; I think he's pretty honest, just fundamentally wrong about some things.

[keith the dem]

10. Blaming the Gays

is like blaming the Jews for the Holocaust. Then as now it is up to people of conscience to do something.

[Bluebear]

19. Welcome to DU and a great post

[LTRS]

13. Hell even Kerry supporters didn't stand up

and say that those 11 amendments were wrong. Most democrats and democratic politicians are the same - they all talk a good game, but they don't take any real action to help minorities, particularly gays. They didn't even stand up and say, this is wrong.

That's one of the reasons they can't win. It's all lip service about supporting equal rights and no action.

[Philostopher]

16. To be fair, people did speak out in Ohio.

You know who the most vocal opponents of the gay hate amendment in Ohio were? Old-style Republican elected officials. George Voinovich and Bob Taft, especially. It wasn't because they're great advocates for gay marriage -- they both knew that existing legislation covered this issue well enough, and the new amendment would enable the RRR (radical religious right) not only to beat up on gays, but also the elderly with common-law arrangements and, worst of all, colleges that offer partner benefits and, potentially, present and future corporations that offer them. The language was too vague, in other words -- and, I'm thinking, likely will fall apart the first time someone of any prominence challenges it above the regional circuit court level. The sole reason for this shit bomb was to draw homophobes to the polls.

To be fair, there aren't many prominent Ohio Dems -- they've redistricted the crap out of this state, it's as bad as Texas anymore -- to have spoken out about it. Eric Fingerhut did, but he didn't get much coverage because even the Dayton paper, which is usually pretty even-handed, spent much of the campaign season sucking George Voinovich's toes. And I don't think much of Mike DeWine (R-Fundie), but he also spoke out against it, and for the same reasons. Bad for Ohio business, bad for older folks who have common-law arrangements. It wasn't specific enough to only punish 'queers,' so they didn't want to see it pass. Tough shit -- hope it falls on appeal for the reasons they didn't support it, though.

[sandnsea]

18. We did in Oregon

We weren't able to create an entire campaign because we were all focused on the Presidential election. But people did speak against it, I know I did and everybody I know did. It's unfortunate because if this initiative had been on the ballot any other time, we would have been able to make a much more concentrated effort and it probably would have failed. But it's already being challenged in court, so we're not done fighting anyway. Now that the anti-liberal fog of the Presidential campaign is over, we can appeal to people's reason and tolerance again. Maybe we can even get a full partnership license on the ballot in 2006 and there's no doubt in my mind that it would pass.