Framing the Gay Marriage Issue: A Gift for the Dems From Old Beet

[Beetwasher]

The Dems have been given a gift by this overreaching of Karl Roves. It's obvious what he's trying to do; he's trying to make this the single issue of the campaign and wants to use it to divide and conquer. It's blatant. However, it can be turned against them. In their arrogance they have overreached with this one and it's very simple to turn this around and put them on the defensive about it and use it to divide and conquer them. The Dems have to be united on this and have to use the same phrases, the same wording over and over and bludgeon the country w/ it. They all need to be on the same page and this is what they have to say:

The Repubs want to DENY people their RIGHT to FREEDOM and PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS by ammending the constitution. The constitution was meant to protect these things, not deny them.

Notice the word gay is not in there. Notice the word marriage is not in there. That's on purpose and should remain that way. This needs to be turned into the Repubs defending ammending the constitution to deny people their right to freedom and pursuit of happiness. The words gay and marriage should never be uttered from the mouths of any Dem.

Plain, simple and end of story and I better fucking see this put forth by the Dems in this manner. I'm severely pissed off at this nonsense.

[BOSSHOG]

1. Thanks Beet

Christian Conservative Moral absolutists want to maintain the sanctity of marriage by preventing two people who love each from getting married. The same dumbass "christians" will swear their undying love for you, until you are born.

[Silverhair]

2. I think most Democrats will roll over & play dead on this one.

Here are some brutal facts. 65% of the voting populace opposes gay marriage. Most of the supporters of gay marriage are already democrats. That leaves the right and swing voters as mainly against gay marriage. By bringing the issue to a floor vote it forces Democratic representitives and Senators to take a stand, then go back to face the voters. For the Reps it is a pretty safe vote.

I forget the number, but there are a lot of Democratic representatives in "red" territory, and some senators from red states. For many of them, voting for gay marriage would mean political suicide. I haven't heard of many politicians that go for political suicide.

[Beetwasher]

4. That's Why It Needs to Be Framed the Way I Said

Read what I wrote again. By reframing the issue it's no longer about gay marriage, it's about Repubs DENYING PEOPLE THE RIGHT TO FREEDOM AND PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS BY AMMENDING THE CONSTITUTION.

A Dem doesn't have to even mention gay or marriage. But if they wanted they could say "Personally, I don't believe in gay marriage, but I don't think it's the Govt's job to DENY ANYONE THE RIGHT TO FREEDOM AND PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS and I certainly don't think the constituion should be ammended to do so. It's a matter of States Rights."

This issue is screaming to be turned on it's head and used to bludgeon the Repubs.

[Silverhair]

7. That's why they want to get it to a floor vote.

If they take the proposed amendment to a floor vote, it becomes a yes/no vote. All arguements to redifine the issue will fail. People will know that the issue at hand is gay marriage. The Reps will be able to say, "He voted not to stop gay marriage." You will then be seen as pro-gay marriage, and have to face the electorate on that basis.

BTW - I have gay family members, so don't label me as anti-gay. I am simply being realistic about the electoral landscape.

[Beetwasher]

10. Eh? No one labelled you anti-gay. What are you talking about?

I disagree w/ you. Why will all arguments to redefine the issue fail? Nice defeatist attitude. So the Dems should just give in, once again? What utter bullshit.

The type of vote it is is irrelevant. You could just as easily say "He voted to deny people their right to freedom and pursuit of happiness". It will be debated by the candidates and the parties before it ever gets to the floor and if it's perceived as unpopular then it might not even get there.

I will ask you this: ARE YOU FOR DENYING PEOPLE THEIR RIGHT TO FREEDOM AND PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS?

[Silverhair]

12. I am making a prediction.

I am not saying what should happen. When a weatherman predicts tornadoes, does that mean he wants tornadoes?

I made the statement about not wanting to be labeled as anti-gay because that has happened before, and I was anticipating it. Often, I make predictions based on what I see as the harsh reality of the political situations. Sometimes those predictions are not what the readers want to hear, so I then get labeled as advocating a position.

I am making a prediction, and explaining the logic behind that prediction. I have not advocated anything.

It is like playing chess, and looking a few moves ahead. You have to anticipate what the other side can do, not just what you hope they will do. Your move is easily countered and leaves you vulnerable to a checkmate.

My prediction is that the Democrats will roll over and play dead on this issue.

[Beetwasher]

13. You may be right

But only about the Dems rolling over on this. Unfortunately I think they are missing a golden oppurtunity to turn the tables, for once. You're wrong about it being the wrong move though.

Anytime the issue is brought up the Dems should ask the question I asked you:

Why do you want to deny people their right to freedom and the pursuit of happiness

That's how you frame an issue. Put them in an uncomfortable position to defend the undefensible. And it can be VERY easily done w/ this issue if the Dems can unite to do it (yeah, I know, wishful thinking). I understand what you're saying. You're merely pointing out how spineless the Dems are and for the most part, I agree with you. They very well may in fact roll over on this. But they shouldn't. You are missing MY point entirely. They should grab this and run with it. It is my belief that more people are very uncomfortable w/ ammending the constitution for ANY reason and when it's framed as being done to DENY people their rights, then it becomes even MORE of an uncomfortable position for people to defend. This move is NOT easily countered at all, unless the Dems fail to make it.

[Silverhair]

19. OK, here's the counter move.

I really didn't want to go there, as it is uncomfortable to make the enemy's argument. Remember, their argument won't be addressed to the left, but to those who are already anti gay marriage. They will appeal to the Bible and to tradition. They will claim that homosexuality is immoral, and that gay marriage is even more so. There will also be some argument about costs as business have to provide insurance coverage to high risk spouses. (AIDS)

I can, and will here, make the counter argument to that, but it will be effective only to those with very open minds. That makes it an ineffective argument.

Regarding the cost argument, it can be argued that most gays are already covered by the jobs that they work at, so the net effect would be negligible. Further, gay marriage will somewhat reduce the spread of AIDS.

The counter argument, in brief, dismisses the OT as having been fulfilled and that we no longer live under the Law but under Grace. That brings us to Paul's statement in Romans. In ancient Greece there was a lot of forced homosexuality, in which most normal straight underage boys were forced in homosexual relationships. And mature men who were normally straight forced themselves to engage in homosexuality. Paul statement is about perverting one's own nature, for the one he speaks have have left their natural desires. I don't know of many gays that want straights to switch over. That would mean that a person who is actually born gay should not try to switch to straight also.

[Beetwasher]

21. You Lost Me

I can't even follow what you're talking about when you get into biblical gobbledy gook...Sorry...

Their ONLY counter-argument is one that is going to appeal to people who would never vote Dem anyway, the far right religious fringe nuts. The middle will understand the very simple premise that they want to limit certain people's freedom to pursue happiness. It ends there. Even for people who don't believe in gay marriage, they will not think it's appropriate to go there if it's framed as limiting people's personal, private pursuit of happiness. Any way they try to justify this, they lose w/ the middle. Let them get into their moral preaching in order to defend taking away people's rights. That's EXACTLY what we want them to do. They will play right into the Dems hands.

[SoCalDem]

5. Republicans couldn't care less about gay marriage

It's one of their phony wink-wink-nod-nod election year issues.. They know it's like waving a porkchop under a starving dog's nose..

They have 4 of these phony issues that they trot our every few years (coincidentally election years)

abortion
guns
school prayer
gay issues

they know that these will always work, because as Dems, we do not see these as "issues", we see them as rights...rights that everyone should have..

It's pretty sad that they, as a party, cannot get elected unless they get their murky underbelly of supporters... the frothing at the mouthg zealots, all riled up every few years..

Republicans have abortions, they have gay people in their families, they are not as religious as they pretend to be, and they probably don't want every yahoo in the country walking around with uzis, but they know how to force our hand..

Too bad that we are so dis0united, that we cannot see through this crap, and just not play their game..

[BeFree]

3. Exactly.....

...how sad is it that the repugs hate us for our freedoms?

Deny, deny, deny. For some reason, the pugs think the constitution is meant to deny people this freedom or that freedom. But the truth is the constitution is meant to deny the government from taking peoples freedoms.

[YNGW]

6. Campaign Issues

>It's obvious what he's (Rove) trying to do; he's trying to make this the single issue of the campaign and wants to use it to divide and conquer.

The issues will be the "war on terrorism" and the "economy". Skinner even mentioned this in one of his posts a week or so ago, and it's what all elections come down to, that is people voting their wallets. Things like this are provided for the core constituents, something both parties must cater to in order to keep them satisfied.

If the war is going bad and the economy is perceived as being in the dumps, then Bush is out. Otherwise, he's in.

[Beetwasher]

8. It's a Wedge Issue

Yes, the issues will be the war and the economy, however, those will probably divide the country close to 50/50, unless something big happens to really tilt it one way or the other. It's the wedge issues that are used to split the other party. That's what Rove is doing here w/ Gay marriage. He's using the issue as a weapon to split the Dems and swing voters that are central to victory. I'm saying this issue could be used to the Dems advantage if they could actually get their shit together and frame it correctly. The Dems could use this and turn it around as a wedge issue to split the Repubs.

[Silverhair]

9. That why this is called a "wedge" issue.

Skinner is right about the vast majority of voters. But for a small percentage, this will be an important issue.

Among blacks, 75% are anti gay marriage. I don't have a stat for Latinos, but almost all Latinos are strong Roman Catholics, and the famous Latino machismo has no room for gays. All Rove has to do is peel off one in twenty of those votes over this issue, and he hits us hard in our base.

[Cannikin]

11. I agree that Rove will use it to smear the Dems..

'THEY want those gays to marry! WE want God in every home and classroom.' (that was a generalization, not a quote!)

Of course the war and economy are the true issues, but the fundies are worried that they are loosing there religious control of the country. So the gay issue will indeed be used as a weapon against our party.


What gets me...these fundies freak out like we'll require THEM to marry someone of the same sex! I still have yet to see a valid excuse for the claim that it will 'destroy the sanctity of marriage'. Again...heteros do that just fine on their own.


A dark day for gay rights
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=113&topic_id=5428

[YNGW]

14. This is a change in direction but......

... what are the feelings of people here regarding this question?

What's more important: Holding true to every principle or winning? Often, they are two different considerations.

Reason I say that is because sometimes our party gets caught between a rock and a hard place. We'll support causes even though we know they're likely losing causes, and in the meanwhile we not only lose that particular battle we end up losing more power at the same time.

There are several "special interests" within our party whose issues could be shelved during the election cycles and by doing so could help keep the American people focused on the important issues rather than "wedge issues". Let's consider this, if we were to ask some of these "special interests" to keep a low profile during the election cycle, some of them might get angry, but who else are they going to vote for? The Repugs? Unlikely. A third party? Possibly. But how many Americans who in the last 20 years jumped to the Repugs over these "special interests" issues would come back home to us? Would we gain more voters than we would lose? I don't know, I'm just talking out-loud. Maybe there's a trade-off of votes lost to votes gained there, maybe there isn't.

My guess is that most here would say we need to stay true to our principles, and I certainly understand the sentiments of where that's coming from and would agree. But sometimes I wonder "What if?", and I can't help but think it might actually help us regain power in DC. I just wonder if we're trading principles for power, and in the process, losing power so that we are never able to implement our principles.

[Beetwasher]

15. The Right To Freedom and Pursuit of Happiness

is a tough thing to be against. If the Dems can frame this issue in that way, and they SHOULD, this could be a BIG issue in the campaign.

I understand what you're saying. But this issue can be used to the Dems advantage if they get their shit together and frame it that way. The Dems can have it both ways with this issue. They can stick to their principles AND use it as wedge issue against the Repubs. They can turn the tables with this one. It's a big mistake by Rove to try to make this an issue, but ONLY if the Dems handle it correctly. If they ignore it, they might piss a lot of people off. If they support it, they will DEFINITELY piss a lot of people off. If they reframe it, they win.

[YNGW]

16. I understand what you're saying

It's always good if you can put it back on your opponent. But, I'm sure they thought this through and have a plan in place for whatever response will emerge. If our Representatives come back and say:

"The Repubs want to DENY people their RIGHT to FREEDOM and PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS by ammending the constitution. The constitution was meant to protect these things, not deny them."

then the Repugs would say, What are you proposing, that Gay Marriage be made the Law of the land?", what's the answer? If they say "Yes", they better be prepared to move on it. If they say "No" or they simply repeat "You want to deny....", then doesn't the appearance become that they are compliant with doing nothing, giving lip service yet not acting?

I completely agree that putting the ball in their corner and placing them on the defense is a worthy strategy. I appreciate your dedication to finding cracks in the wall.

[Beetwasher]

18. Well

"then the Repugs would say, What are you proposing, that Gay Marriage be made the Law of the land?", what's the answer? If they say "Yes", they better be prepared to move on it. If they say "No" or they simply repeat "You want to deny....", then doesn't the appearance become that they are compliant with doing nothing, giving lip service yet not acting?"

See, I disagree that this would be the Repub response. They would HAVE TO answer the charge that they are for denying people their right to freedom and pursuit of happiness. They are FORCED into defending the undefensible. If they answer with what you say, then the Dem doesn't answer that question, they DO ask again "Why do you want to deny people their right to freedom and pursuit of happiness?" It's the REPUBS who want to change the law of the land (the Constitution). It's not "doing nothing" to take this stance and that's not the appearance at all. They aren't proposing ammending the constitution to limit people's rights. What the Dems are doing is defending the pursuit of happiness.

[Silverhair]

20. That's what the Reps do to lots of their special interests.

The NRA's issues pretty much sit on the shelf, and they continue to vote Rep. They know that first you have to win office in strength, and then they will expect payback. If the Reps can get a veto proof senate, then look for a slate of bills to payback decades of support to various of their special interests.

[YNGW]

23. Granted, it's a winning formula.

And, our party used to control the special interests and tell them what to do. Now, the special interests tell the party what to do. Because of this, the unity of voice in the party has been lost, and with it the power-base we once enjoyed in DC.

[sweetheart]

17. A bridge too far...

This is a gift, i agree. They will crumble by the wave of activism they just unleashed. Truly, the call to rally the opposition troops could not have had a better platform, had the dems designed it themselves.

[Hamlette]

22. The SOTU will be the last you hear of this

the GOP does not want this as an issue any more than we do. The party that makes it an issue loses. Rove put it in the SOTU to make the religious right think Bush was on their side. An amendment would be a disaster for the GOP and they know it! The neocons are in favor of gay marriage (the libertarian streak) and they sent out their troops to say so after the Mass. decision (Brooks column amoung others). If Bush had really wanted to push an amendment it would have been introduced in congress by now. The only argument they have against gay marriage is religious. They do NOT want to go there.

The way Bush phrased it was so lame. "If the activist courts don't keep their noses out of the people's business we will have to pass an amendment." All Bush has to do now is say: the issue has not played out in the courts/states. We need to wait and see what happens. Not time for an amendement yet. (Bush's utter contempt for the courts in that part of the speech was chilling. But no more so than his utter contempt for us as Americans.)

This country is too volitile for an amendment. It has to be passed by 2/3rds of the state legislatures. Bush is not going to risk lighting a powder keg over something as insignificant as people's rights. I'm not saying he wouldn't strike the match. He would. But only if the issue was money. He's gotta keep his war machine alive.

[Beetwasher]

24. You very well may be right

that they won't force this issue.

One part of me hopes they do, the one that would love to turn it on them as I've shown, the other hopes they don't, the one that fears that the Dems would roll over and not take my advice and in doing so, would make it the wedge issue the Repubs hope it would be. :shrug: