The whole gay issue thing...

[DemWitch]

This is long… sorry.

There’s been a lot of talk on the boards lately about how “we” (us gay folk) cost the election. Opinions are all over the spectrum on this issue and some harsh words have been said. I kinda knew after we lost there would be some finger pointing and blame placing (imagine DNC Headquarters!!!). If we all sit back for a minute, with cool heads and take a long honest look at what occurred, the finger pointing can be directed right at the White House.

I’m 41, and have been “out” since I was 19 (do the math… 1982). I have lived in several areas of the country until the late 80’s when I returned to my home area. I live in upstate NY, outside of a small city called Utica, in a village called Ilion. This area is pretty representative of a lot of areas in the country. About a 50/50 mix of Dems and Repubs, half the Dems being centrist, a quarter being on the right side of center and the other quarter on the left.

The “gay issue” breaks down a bit different. About a third could care less, has no problem with gay marriage, and doesn’t see what all the upheaval is about (my Dad falls into this category). Another third thinks being gay is no big deal, doesn’t want to see anyone hurt, fired, discriminated against (marriage they don’t consider under this topic as discrimination) etc., but because of strong spiritual beliefs think gay marriage is wrong. (my Mom falls into this category). The last third thinks most gays are sick, sinful, you name it and think they should be anywhere from ignored to separated out from “regular” society.

Now I’m going to use Ohio as a example. The gay marriage issue is magically put on the 2004 ballot. One third will say not a problem. Two thirds, for whatever their own reasons are going to say “no way”. This is an important issue to Xtians and homophobes. The number of voters is going to increase to make sure it doesn’t pass. The two thirds against gay marriage are also very highly unlikely to vote for a Democrat, ESPECIALLY one who is labeled by the God-Fearing President who wants a gay marriage ban as a “Massachusetts liberal“. Notice Bush never said just liberal… it was always MASSACHUSETTS liberal… and what has happened in Mass. Lately? Gay marriage. Bush Inc. is extraordinarily good at playing on the fears of people, and they did it very well this time to ensure his victory by using the gay marriage issue as a way to get out the right wing vote.

I wish it wasn’t the case, but it is. Most of America is not ready for a major shift in their long held belief of “traditional values“. It doesn’t make them or us bad people, but it does cause a wedge, and one that can turn the outcome of an election.

I suspect in 2006, and 2008 you will see a decrease in the number of Xtian voters. Hopefully we can keep the 7% gain of younger Democratic voters, who I hope aren’t too disappointed and give up on politics. With the gay marriage issue off the table in the “red states”, the Xtian vote will go down, ours will (fingers crossed) remain high and we will be able to make some inroads to Congress and the Senate. Maybe even make a solid run for the White House in 2008.

I hope DU’ers don’t think I’m trying to be a disruptor, but facts are facts. I don’t like the idea that two thirds of America thinks that I shouldn’t have the right to make a legal commitment to someone I love. I don’t like that I’m being treated as a second class citizen. More times than not I just want to scream that I’m an American too, I pay my taxes, I work hard, I volunteer, dammit I deserve better. But, I also realize that change doesn’t happen overnight. And I look back over the past 22 years and see the leaps and gains “gay folk” has made and I do still have hope for a brighter and better tomorrow. But for now, we just have to deal with the cards we have, until we can reshuffle the deck.

So, anyway… “we” didn’t cost the election, but Bush playing on the fears of others about “us” did.

[Fovea]

1. Very reasonable

Well thought out.
But the flaw will be that there will be no more fairly counted elections in the US. It won't happen, so don't be dissapointed when the re are no exit polls and coast to coast black box voting.

Big Brother will win a 3rd term, since they will be changing the constituion by fiat from now on, and SCOTUS will be right behind them.

By then, I will be in Vancouver, hopefully.
My sweetheart and I have started the process.

[rocktivity]

2. They're trying to set us up again

They're trying push the idea that Bush won on God-Guns-Gays. Don't buy into it for a millisecond. THEY WON ON VOTER SUPPRESSION!!!!

:headbang:
rocknation

[salvorhardin]

6. Yes, it is a setup

I first heard this meme of "the gays cost the Dems the election" the day after the election. Next I heard from a friend who's a sociology professor at the local state university that he's heard it from members of his department. Then we saw it floating around here on DU, with the most egregious example I saw perhaps being Waverley_Hills_Hiker's thread. I even caught Michael Savage flogging the meme.

I'm sure this is a Rovian meme being floated to distract from the election fraud. It'd be interesting to see where and when this idea came from.

[jdots]

3. They will arrange all marriages.

Ask people what they think of that little concept .That still goes on in the world,let them live there. " I'm sorry George you can't be married to Laura ,we had decided on Dorris " We will stand together on this one,because if we don't ,it could get there.

[Justice]

4. Couple of Thoughts

First, the 2004 ballot initiative in Ohio was not to ban gay marriage.
It went much farther - here is what it said: "First sentence simply decrees that marriage is between a man and a woman, the second says, "This state and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance or effect of marriage."

So that pretty much blows your theory. Those that voted for it wanted not only to ban gay marriage, they also wanted to ban any creation of rights between two gay people. That includes health care, adoption, rights to children, hospital visitation etc.

Second, with all that was at stake in this election, there were some individuals who sought to push a pro-gay marriage agenda. They brought the MA court case. They pushed for marriage in SF and upstate NY, and for civil unions elsewhere. They didn't just push for baby steps -- health care coverage or hospital visitation rights --they pursued an aggressive agenda and pushed for gay marriage. "They" did so knowing full well the risk. They must take responsibility for that, like it or not. Live by the sword, die by the sword. In that sense, they cost us the election. Yes, --Bush -- and really Rove --- played on the fears of others about “they” did. But if "they" didn't bring the case in MA, in all likelihood, John Kerry would be president-elect today.

[Beware the Beast Man]

5. Issue 1 was deceptively worded as well.

I can't believe I had to make a decision on such a thing. Naturally, I voted "no".

[johnnie]

8. The assholes up here in Ohio....

..that I know who voted to add the amendment were doing it purely for the gay marriage issue. I tried to explain to the homophobic idiots in my office that it went much further than that. It was lobbied as purely a "gay" issue here in Ohio and not too much was spoken of the other parts of the issue.
I believe this won't pass legislation and the amendment won't ever be added. From what I understand, there is already something stating these things in the Ohio constitution, and this amendment is just redundant. I would have to believe that this is the case in the other 10 states, but I don't know for sure.
I believe this issue was added purely as a way of getting the religious right to get out and vote.

[xchrom]

10. rove didn't need gay marriage

rove's political strategy since 00 was to create{and he did it} a political network through a grass roots church and individual movement.
the gay marriage thing alone didn't get these people to vote -- smart moves on the part of conservative activists did.
you once again fall into the trap of NOT giving credit where credit is due -- and you will continue to wallow in not uderstanding dem losses.
there is no way gay marriage was reaching into voter minds the same way iraq and supporting the bush doctrine there did.
this is just so much excessive hyperbole to bash gay folk on your part and not understanding the repukes worked hard to set up their victory -- along with voter theft.

[On the Road]

13. This Evangelical Network Was There Before

the Chritian Coalition and similar groups have been around for a long time. Why is it that only in this election could Republicans mobilize those voters?

[orwell]

7. Critical Mass

The Cons would have found wedge issues to run on. If it wasn't "Gay Marriage" it would have been "Gun Control". That is what they do. That is what they are good at. That is the fundamental framing of their mindset. Us vs them.

That being said, this was a gift handed to them in a close election year. While I think there is enough circumstantial evidence to suggest that the election may have been stolen, it can only be stolen if it is close. If Bush was down 10 points nationally, which he would have been without a compliant media, they couldn't have pulled it off.

If Dems ever want to be the majority party in this country, they have to pick a few big themes and stick with them. The themes must reflect their values. They can't let the Cons define them, especially when the definition is flat wrong.

Large social changes take time, but they will happen sooner if we market them within frameworks that those opposed can accept. Unfortunately, the Massachusettes marriage meme fit right in to labeling the Massachusettes senator as the flag bearing enemy of conventional values instead of one who sought equal protections under the law.

This proved to be a grave tactical error that only added the *'s base turnout, which was the plan all along.

Don't get mad, get smart.

[yellowcanine]

9. Bush and the Repubs demagogued this issue -Gays are no more to "blame"

than Blacks were to blame for the race-baiting politicians who won elections in the 50s and 60s in the South. No one has the right to tell a group of people to "wait for the right time" to ask for their basic human rights. The "right time" is now for the oppressed group and there never will be a "right time" from the viewpoint of the oppressors and those who haven't had their consciousness raised.
I am straight and I support gay rights, including civil unions regardless of what they are called for the same reason that I support civil rights for other minorities - because it is the right thing to do. I think the notion that gay marriage will destroy straight marriage is ludicrous and I have not heard one rational argument from anyone to convince me otherwise. Of course rational arguments are not offered just emotional ones like slippery slope arguments of polygamy, incestual marriages, bestiality, etc.
Keep the faith - there ARE a lot of us out here and we are starting to speak out - not enough of us to be sure but we are growing. The young people are on our side, I am convinced.

[miss_kitty]

11. bigotry against gays was one of the factors

notice how the Thugs mess with voting, steal the election the the Democrats jump on the "Nader cost us the election" bandwagon. Now since they fucked Nader so bad, "Gays cost us the election." Can't take responsibility for their own ineptitude. Warming up a new hate-filled meme.

No. the cheney-bush junta STOLE the Election. Again. To say "gays cost us (the Dems)the election" is a bigoted statement. Would the same people just substitute 'black people' or 'women?' for the word 'gay' in any of those nakedly gay-bigoted homophobic statements? No. not even if it were true.

I got your backs, my gay brothers and sisters.

[On the Road]

12. I Haven't Been on Most of the Threads

which led to the crackdown on gay-bashing. And I hope this doesn't drive a wedge or get my post deleted.

I do think that gay marriage was the single issue that decided the election. And I don't blame the gay community as such or John Kerry. I think the primary blame is with the Massachusetts Supreme Court for a bad legal decision. And to a lesser extent, justices of the peace who performed or approved marriages on a dubious legal basis. Those are what fueled the public controversy. The impression that was created of going beyond the law and the will of the voters is what inflamed the anti-gay voters -- much more than the passage of civil unions or other gay rights legislation.

I think it's important to understand this. Some people are taking the position that this was a win for a right-agenda, and that Democrats should accommodate more Republican positions in their platform. Nothing could be further from the truth. In a normal election with normally heavy turnout, Kerry wins. Democrats should not change their party platform because of this election.

The polls were accurate. The difference in the election was the unbelievable turnout by Bush voters. Look at some of the increases in the turnout for Bush by precinct -- +30%, +40%, +50% over the last election. The evangelical agenda has been around for years. So have liberal demons. It was too widespread to be due to fraud. There was only new major wedge issue in this election.

When Lyndon Johnson signed one of his major civil rights bills, he realized that race was the issue that would hand the South to the Republican party for the next 50 years. That realization did not prevent him from being a hero of civil rights.

Personally, I have been for civil unions ever since it originated as a political issue. And gay marriage in any state that decides to adopt it. I am not in favor of the position that the constitution already provides the right and only needs a judicial decision to affirm it.