The "Gay Marriage" Issue: let's do some math.

[Tyler Durden]

First let's make some assumptions.

1. There are roughly 300,000,000 people in the US
2. For the sake of argument, we will assume that 50% or 150,000,000 are of voting age.
3. We will assume that as certain studies state, at least 15% of the public is gay, or 22,500,000 voters.
4. Now let's assume that the Log Cabin Idiots, I mean, Republicans, wake up and see that the Conservatives hate them and want their rights restricted, the "Marriage Protection Constitutional Amendment" just being the first inroad.
5. Now let's assume that 50% of the voting public, or 75,000,000 actually vote next November.
6. Lastly, lets Subtract the potential gay vote (53,500,000), divide the result evenly between Republicans and Democrats, (26,750,000 each), add back the gay vote (assuming 80% vote to protect their rights, or 18,000,000 and 20% are not thinking, 4,500,000), and add it back in:

Results

Republicans: 31,250,000
Democrats: 44,750,000

There hasn't been a landslide like that since the Country started.

I know these are a lot of assumptions, but I don't think any of them are unreasonable. The answer is obvious. On this issue alone, if the Gay population gets out the vote and votes their true self interest, we can't lose. Anywhere.

This, of course, will never happen.

[BOHICA06]

1. But here's the problem ...

if the numbers are only 3-8% and there is an evangelical community of 25% that would crawl over broken glass .... or Kerry has to run from it - thus putting the 3-8% on the sidelines as disaffected - an awful mess.

It's a looser issue - the SCOM may have determined the election of 2004.

[beyurslf]

2. You 100% of the 15% of gays vote but only half of all adults will.

Plus 15% is a little high for those that at least claim to be queer. Try 7 or so. Plus see the above on evengelicals. They would sell a child to vote against gay rights.

[ComerPerro]

5. I agree

Account for only about half of the homosexuals voting, just like in your estimates for heterosexuals.

Maybe you did that and I missed it....

Also, I agree that 15% is probably way too high.

And, as posters have mentioned, what about the potential for motivating Fundies to vote GOP to do "God's work" to "stop evil" and "protect the children" ? :puke:



I don't, however, think this is a losing issue. I think we could successuflly run on it.

I just think your figures might need rethinking.

[AZCat]

3. The Log Cabin Republicans...

They did issue a statement after the SOTUS saying that they cannot support the DoMA.
Link:
http://www.lcr.org/press/20040121.asp

I don't know if they would not vote for Bush* in November over this or not.

[stopthegop]

4. last study I noticed put the number of homosexuals at

about 3-5% nationwide...nothing like 15%

[megatherium]

12. depends on how you count 'em

If you use surveys instead of in-depth interviews, you come up with 1-2% instead of 6-9%.

If your definition of 'gay' is anyone who's ever had sexual contact to the point of orgasm with someone of the same gender, maybe you get 10% or higher. If your definition of 'gay' is anyone who has only had sex with the same gender, or who is currently now only interested in such sex, maybe you get 2%.

Naturally, conservatives like the latter definition (the mere fact you've done it with someone of the opposite gender must surely mean you're actually heterosexual, and if you are sufficiently motivated, you can live a full happy heterosexual life with reparative therapy or something). Gay folk instead suggest that anyone who's ever had same-sex contact who claims to be heterosexual must be living a sad life of denial, and they can only be happy if they come out of the closet. I'll warrent the truth is somewhere in between these two extremes.

So the issue is pretty murky. I'll vote for 4%. BTW I am a member of that 4%. (Or put differently, using another scheme for defining sexuality, I'm about a 5 on the Kinsey scale.)

[locustfist76]

6. Marriage all together

Why must the Federal Government have any voice on straight or gay-marriage? Marriage is a private act between 2 people. Why should the fed care who I marry. The law you all should be trying to pass is to place marriage under the privacy act.

[BOHICA06]

7. Because of

reciprocity & that we award benefits & rights accordingly. Property right, inheritance, child custody, tax breaks ... it is the one area that mixes Caesar & God into a mess.

Now how about eliminating civil marriage for all - and require couple registration.....sorry that's another thread

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

8. no, marriage is a very *public* act between two people

Ever notice how people invite their friends and family to weddings? Ever notive how people often change their last names after they get married? Marriage is a *public* act.

Perhaps you mean sex - that's a private act (usually). Since married people are assumed to have sex, I can understand the confusion.

[locustfist76]

10. Sorry

Marriage may be a "public" act as mentioned, but it's not a "fedreal" act. Marriage is a contract between two partners, which should be handled through lawyers. Sorry, I still see no role of the federal gov't when it comes to marriage.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

11. well, I agree, I don't see a role for the feds in marriage either

state issue if there ever was one - and I'd go a step further and take it out of the hands of the government altogether - domestic partnerships for everyone, regardless of gender or orientation. Let's churches handle marriage.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

9. Conservative Christians: more than 20%. LGBT: less than 5%

I think your math is wrong.

[LeftCoast]

13. Where are people getting 20%

for evangelical christians? Just reminds me of the "Moral Majority" and their claims to millions of members...it turned out to be a complete lie.

[Silverhair]

14. Sorry, but that 15% is way too high.

The best people to go to for data like that are NOT polling people, but marketing people. If there were that many gay people in the USA, then the market for "gay" products would be far higher. It isn't. The actual percentage of gays in the country is about 2 or 3%.

Further, if the number of gays was 15%, AIDS would be far more rampant than it is now. Back around 1985 I saw a statistical study on the rate of AIDS propagation, and the only numbers that agreed with the actual observed results used a gay population of 2 or 3%.

As a wedge issue, it hurts Democrats badly. It is a highly emotional issue, therefore capable of motivating people without a whole lot of logic being applied. The brutal facts are that 66% of the general population opposes gay marriage. Most of the 34% that favor it are ALREADY Democrats. The opposition is all of the conservatives, and most of the moderate swing voters. Further, 75% of Blacks oppose gay marriage. Latinos are almost completely strongly Roman Catholic, (I assume you know that church's stance on the issue.)and the famous Latino machismo leaves little room for gays. Sorry, but it is a fact. The issue will peel off some Blacks and Latinos - and that is part of our core.

The Reps lose very little of their core on the issue. Maybe some of the Log Cabins, but I don't think there are very many of those anyway.

The issue will hurt us most strongly among independents, and will take some of our core away.

Further, you are basing your analysis on a popular vote. DON'T FORGET THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE!!!!!!! Look at the states that Gore barely won, and consider the effect of the gay issue in each of those states, and base it on a mere 3% of population as gay.

Sorry, but this issue will badly hurt Democrats. It may well cost us the election and even give W a filibuster proof senate.

It will have effects in state legislature races too. After the FMA gets out of congress and goes to the states for ratification, state legislatures will be on the spot. For the Reps it will always be a safe vote, but for a Democrat to oppose it may be political suicide. Remember that 37 states ALREADY have DOMAs. Do you think that those bills were passed against the will of the populace?

[shimmergal]

15. Sorry, but your rationale based on the AIDS rate has some holes.

First, it assumes that all gays are or have been having a lot of promiscuous, unsafe sex. Those in a long-term relationship without outside sex would be much safer (assuming that neither partner is already HIV-positive.)

Also, there are a fair number of men who identify with the gay culture but seldom if ever have gay (or any) sexual encounters. Nobody wants to admit to "not getting any" in our culture, so you don't hear about them.

These figuores also ignore lesbians. Lesbians have a lower rate of AIDS than do heterosexual women.

I'm not sure what you mean by "the market for gay products." (Forgive my ignorance, I'm a het woman who's not likely to be looking for such products.) I'm sure there are some small segments of marketplace--like vacation destinations or tours, a few neighborhoods in cities, magazines, etc. But mostly, don't gay people drive cars, use toothpaste, etc. etc. just like everyone else?

Not sure how relevant this all is to the effect of the Massachusetts ruling on the election. Those fundies are probably going to go for the issue hard...after all, the abortion thing isn't working all that well in direct mail etc.. But how many other voters will put it above the vital things like war and death in Iraq, lost jobs, etc.?
At least I hope they won't!

[Silverhair]

19. Remember, wedge issues work on a percentage basis.

All they need to do is peel of one in twenty of the Black and Latinos and we get hurt bad in our base. And if one in twenty of the center swing voters is also swayed by the issue, then our goose is throughly cooked.

So many people here seem to think that people vote as solid blocks and they don't. There WILL be SOME for whom this will be an important issue.

[Tyler Durden]

16. Obviously, none of you have ever been in the Navy.

The percentage in the Navy approaches 25% by my best estimate. I can't believe that they're just that far ahead of the curve.

I don't buy the low figures, though.

[Silverhair]

18. I spend five years in the USN, and served aboard ship too. n/t

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

23. Are you claiming that 25% of the Navy is LGBT?

I'm sorry, I don't believe that, at all. As we have chosen to define it - remember - engaging in homosexual activity does not mean "gay" or "lesbian" - it's simply a self-label, and I don't believe that 25% or anywhere near it, of the Navy identifies as LGBT.

[htuttle]

17. Add another number in there

What is the number of people who have close family members or friends who are gay? Or even just co-workers whom they might get along with or respect?

There are gay men and women on prime time television nowdays. More and more, they are even playing real characters, not stereotypes.

I have a feeling that the American people are actually out in front of the politicians on this one. I think the recent 'backlash' against gays is more the doing of a vocal minority. Caveat: I live in Tammy Baldwin's district, so my view on the world may not be representative of the nation at large. It may not be THAT far off, however.

Even in Middle America, I think there is a qualitative difference between the attitudes of people who are not personally familiar with many gay men and women and may even feel uncomfortable around them, and those who are downright hostile toward them, and wish to go to the trouble of restricting their rights.

It's the same with racism, really. There are still lots of white people in America who really don't feel comfortable around blacks or latinos, since they don't have much experience interacting with them. However, most of them know that they SHOULDN'T feel this way, and wouldn't be in favor of going back to the 'old days'. In other words, they are non-racist in theory, but their current personal implementation of it is still kind of shaky.

That's my view from the frozen tundra of Wisconsin, in any case.

OTOH, if I'm wrong, it wouldn't be the first time I was disappointed with the American people in the last few years...

[Terran]

20. Gay people don't vote as a block

I think the only block of GLBT votes is in big cities, among the semi-ghettoized types (which is, granted, a lot of peole). But there are just as many, if not more, people who happen to be GLBT but don't identify all that strongly with that part of their make-up, and don't allow it to guide their voting habits, or even whether or not they vote.

Gay people can be just as dumb, disinterested, uninformed and ignorant as straight people. Trust me, I know a few like that.

But it's a nice theory!

[Nadienne]

21. Frame this issue

by pointing out to heterosexual swing voters that no one is forcing them to marry someone of the same sex; "Do unto others...": would they want someone to take their choices away?

Could this be turned into an issue about a too-powerful government trying to control and restrict freedom?

[Serenity-NOW]

22. Here's another number I came across in a Psych class

I was doing a paper on suicide and about fainted when I discovered that gays, 3-5% of the population, contribute 30% of all suicides.

It is disgraceful, scandalous and harmful to society at large when a society allows any portion of the citizenry to be so disenfranchised as to result in a number like that.

Do your patriotic duty and give a hug to a gay person, let them know they are not alone out here. Pursuing draconian anti-gay positions is harmful to America, changing the constitution to ban gay marriage removes that much more hope for good, productive people.

[Silverhair]

24. Does anybody have any more information about this?

Confirmation? Is there an age breakdown on those suicides? That is truly shocking!!

[LeftCoast]

25. This is a study that I have seen quoted extensively...

and speaking from personal experience, it doesn't surprise me one bit!