Gay Marriage as a Political Issue

[cally]

I think the newest rightwing emphasis to divide the country and garner the 'family values' votes will be over gay marriage. It worked in the past over abortion, civil rights, and all those other 'scary' issues. This is a political question not a question of what's right. I support gay marriage but I worry about the Rep's plan to use this as a campaign issue. I'm worried more than ever because it may divide natural allies. It won't work if Dems develop a sound strategy to counter it. What do we do about it and how do we plan ahead to defeat the message that Dems don't support family values. Our previous efforts to define the Dems as having 'family values' have failed, for the most part.

See this article:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2003/09/18/MN10010.DTL

Alliance backs ban on gay marriages
Religious, ethnic leaders join forces

Carolyn Lochhead, Chronicle Washington Bureau Thursday, September 18, 2003

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




Washington -- An alliance of African American, Latino, Asian, Jewish, Catholic and Muslim religious leaders lent their support Wednesday to a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage that will soon be introduced in the Senate.

Patricia DeVeaux of the African Methodist Episcopal Church said many African Americans along with "millions of Latino, Asian and Anglo Americans . .

. share a deep consensus about the unique nature of and social importance of marriage as the union of male and female."

DeVeaux, who called her church the nation's oldest black congregation and one of its largest, said its position bears no animus to homosexuals, and many of the leaders gathered heralded their own role in the civil rights movement

[bookman]

1. I'm sure they'll use it.

And they'll use exactly that term - Gay Marriage.

I've heard some good replies already from some of the Dems, but that won't matter. They'll just repeat and repeat that "....." favors gay marriage.

Fear IS the key.

[cally]

2. I framed the question with gay marriage because of the article

That article was in the SF Chronicle. So maybe we all focus on framing the question differently. :shrug: Focus on responding to these articles with that distinction. I honestly don't know but I saw it as chilling that the SF Chronicle had this.

[QC]

3. We are going to be this year's Willie Horton.

[cally]

4. I'm worried you might be correct

but there has to be a way to counter that if we prepare.

[davidinalameda]

5. if the Marriage Amendment is put up for a vote and defeated

then it SHOULD be a non-issue

Bush got 25% of the gay vote in 2000---god only knows why but if the Repukes do push the marriage issue, he won't get anywhere near that, especially if the Democrats nominate a moderate like Clark.

[cally]

6. I think it will pass on a straight (no pun intended) line vote

It's the new difference between the parties. Did you read the article, I think they will try to get more religious minorities to vote Repuke over this issue. Dems need to emphasize other issues and stress how Gay rights is a civil/patriotic issue. Dems will not back down from supporting the minority when threatened. Dems are principled and stand up for our beliefs in the face of criticism and naysayers....

Well, a better speechwriter can do this and has to soon. We need the talking points.

[ButterflyBlood]

9. a party line vote isn't enough

it needs 2/3. so that should kill it in the House. I don't think it could pass either chamber, I think it would fall just short in the House, and couldn't get pass the Senate, too many social moderates.

[readmylips]

7. Gay Marriage is Repig Lingo...

same as partial birth abortion. Lingo that spreads fear and disgust from ignorant kkkristians.

Marriage is a religious ceremony and it's optional. I'm sure Catholics will not perform same sex marriages. Legal same sex partnerships, to be legal, a license has to be issued by a state or county. Maybe the name 'marriage license' issued by states/counties should be renamed partnership license, and let the marriage license/certificates be issued by religious organinations. You can get married but when getting divorced, only the state/county courts issue divorce decrees. Not even the Catholic church issues divorces.

[cally]

8. I know that...but how do we convey that to counter

the latest ploy?

[dsc]

10. We need to get our heads out of our asses

to be blunt. This amendment could well pass both chambers. DOMA passed both chambers by immense margins. If this becomes about gay marriage and nothing else we are hosed in Congress. It should be noted that his amendment would also ban civil unions and domestic partnership as well as gay marriage. We would forever be second class citizens at the utter mercy of our inlaws if our partners got sick.

First gay donors need to make it crystal clear that not one cent will go to any candidate who votes for this. That means Log Cabin gays and Stonewall ones. Make no mistake about this. There are several Democrats who will vote for this garbage. In the House there are probably at least 20 who will vote for it and there are five co sponsers. In the Senate, Miller, both Nelsons, Byrd, Dorgan, Hollings, and Conrad are all possible votes for this. I am basing that on past history for them which hasn't been good. Those people need to know that there is a price for that behavior. As to people like Santorum and the host of others across the aisle.

Second, we need to get creative gays and lesbians to make, and wealthy ones to fund, ad campaigns to oppose this amendment. We need regular gays and lesbians who were denied pensions, had their sick partner's care taken over by their inlaws, been unable to sue people for wrongful deaths, been denied visitation in hospitals, had their inheritences taken by greedy relatives of their partner, and on and on and on. It must be turned into an issue of simple, basic, fairness.

Third, we should be choosing around 15 states (we need 13) to be our no firewall. These are states whose legislatures we think will vote against ratification. I would suggest CA, HI, MN, NY, VT, RI, MA, ME, MD, NJ, CT, IL, DE, WA, and AK. Some of these are pretty sure bets. Others are close calls. We may want to take out WA in favor of NH or take out AK in favor of NH. We want either states with very active gay and lesbian communities or tolerant small states. Size is why Alaska is on the list instead of possibilities like PA.

We need to wake up. This is a major threat. We need to act like it

[dsc]

11. kick

rescue from oblivion.

[bushisanidiot]

12. The Struggle for Equal Marriage Rights Should Not Be

confused with "family values" repuke talking points. This is a civil rights topic, plain and simple. The repukes want to drag it into the religious arena and pull "god" into the debate.

I want to see consistency from the dems in voting for gay rights issues such as hate crimes laws, non-discrimation policies in the workplace, tax equity for health plan beneficiaries, etc. These are all civil rights issues and have nothing to do with religion. The dems must not let the pukes drag them into the mud of anti-gay religious propaganda.

The pukes only have one card to play and it's getting old..