GOP to make gay marriage a 2004 campaign issue

[Sal316]

(I apologize if this is a dupe, but search didn't turn up anything)


Kyl panel maps tactic to ban gay marriages

http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/0801kyl-gaymarriage01.html

WASHINGTON - While President Bush and other Republicans press their opposition to same-sex marriages onto the national agenda as a potential 2004 campaign issue, a little-noticed "policy paper" this week from a Senate committee headed by Arizona Sen. Jon Kyl lays out what some see as a road map for the GOP strategy.

Titled "The Threat to Marriage from the Courts," the Senate Republican Policy Committee paper asserts that a constitutional amendment banning such marriages is the way to counter a "willingness" of law school professors, the legal profession, judges and even the Supreme Court to take "pro-same-sex marriage positions."

With a "same-sex marriage" ruling imminent in Massachusetts and court cases pending in Arizona, New Jersey and Indiana, the paper says, "These lawsuits will continue until Congress and the states adopt a constitutional amendment to protect traditional marriage."

"I believe that it is a road map for a Republican Party to make the issue of gay marriage into a divisive campaign issue," said Matt Foreman, National Gay and Lesbian Task Force executive director, after reviewing the document.

<snip>

Why does this not surprise me?

[commander bunnypants]

1. Good

It will mean even more people voting out those wretched, stupid fucking moran neo-cons.

DEMMAN

[HFishbine]

2. Bring it on

;)

[Adamocrat]

16. I second that!

Bush lost my parents due to his comments about gay marriage. Let's see who else he can lose.

-A

[northernsoul]

24. go for it, Pukes!

for every fundy (who was going to vote for B*sh anyways) who gets fired up for their side over this issue, there will be 2 to 3 suburban moderates who have GLBT friends/family or just plain old enjoy watching 'Will and Grace'.

I have several totally apolitical friends and family members who really don't know / don't care about the war, the economy, etc. - but they do care about Human Rights for people that they know and care about - this is the one way the Republicans can guarantee that they'll be out and voting Dem next fall.

This is a major mistake on the part of Team B*sh.

[BOSSHOG]

3. They will inspire their moron base

to hate more intensely. Maybe they can bring gingrich back to spearhead the Pro family crusade. Today's conservatives are really sad human beings. I think its penis envy.

[salmonhorse]

4. They will, however, need more than gay marriage...

...to win ~

[kentuck]

5. It will also divide the Democrats...

Unfortunately, we are blind to that reality.

[tjdee]

6. This will SCREW the Democrats.

This issue has the potential to damage the Dems, which is why the GOP wants to run with it.

Homophobes already vote Republican.

What will happen is that the Democratic candidates/nominee will be boxed into a corner over this. Bush will say I am not for gay marriage. The Democrat will say...well...I am for civil unions, but only if the state determines that it's okay and if they don't call it marriage. And not on the federal level.

And the Democrat will look like an asshole to gay folks and liberals--guess how those groups usually vote?

More splitting of the Dem party.

[kentuck]

7. Don't give us the truth !

We can't handle it! :)

[ima_sinnic]

10. no, we haven't seen WHAT the Dem candidates will say yet

so far, each has come up with innovative answers to one or another or more questions/issues. I'm taking a wait&see attitude, with confidence that someone will answer this creatively.

Also, let's not forget that a constitutional amendment is a huge process that can take years to accomplish; it requires passage by Congress and then ratification by 2/3 majority of every state. The Equal Rights Amendment has still not been adopted, after about 20 years.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

13. It all depends on how they handle it

The gay marriage issue can be made palatable to the masses if presented in the right way.

[ShimokitaJer]

14. the ERA could actually be a great tie-in

I'm sure there's quite a bit of overlap there is between those pushing for an anti-gay marriage amendment and those who have worked against ratification of the ERA.

I know Hawaii granted gay marriage rights on the basis of its state equal rights amendment.

[Qutzupalotl]

23. I like Dean's response on this.

"Mr. Bush, why are you against equal rights?"

[ShimokitaJer]

8. Those gays are happy! My marriage is threatened!!!

I think we can and must control the terms of this argument from the very beginning. The GOP will try to frame the issue in terms of the perceived threat of gay marriage to "traditional" marriage. Despite the ridiculousness of this argument, we can't allow ourselves to get sucked into making this the center of the debate. It's a flimsy enough argument that it should fall apart on its own, and we don't want to validate it and give right-wing pundits an easy talking point.

Instead, we need to focus not on why we should "allow" gay marriage, but on why the government has no right to deny gay marriage. This is a civil rights issue and, if they want to drag the church into it, a separation of church and state issue. The slippery slope argument the GOP so loves to tout doesn't go anywhere if we make this a defense of gay's rights as citizens and as human beings. For those who want to define marriage as between man and woman, nothing less than a constitutional amendment will work because otherwise any law that attempts to forbid gay marriage is blatantly unconstitutional.

If the GOP wants to make this an issue, that's fine. But they can't win it unless we let them control the terms of debate.

[trogdor]

22. Well, nobody's forcing any minister to go along with it.

So the courts sanction it. Big deal. So partners get the same bennies "traditional" spouses get. Big deal. So gay couples can file joint tax returns. Big deal. So jilted partners can go after their other halves in divorce court just like "traditional" spouses. Well, that's a big deal. What needs to be hammered home is:

1. Nobody is forcing any church to go along with it.
2. Nobody's forcing DoD to go along with it (yet).
3. Just because two people of the same sex want to join into a civil union, doesn't weaken anybody's marriage or family. Anybody who says it does should be made to explain why.

So, the whole "gay agenda" thing boils down to homosexuals wanting to be treated like people. Like I said, big deal. Anybody who says there's more to it should be made to explain why.

[DinahMoeHum]

9. If that's all they're running on, they're toast in 2004. . .

and the Dems should hit back hard, saying we've got FAR more important things to worry about. Gay marriages/civil unions should be WAY DOWN the list of priorities.

It wouldn't hurt to point out the various straight marriage failures and divorces of these GOP hypocrites.


:kick:

[ima_sinnic]

11. YES! and that reminds me, a RW radio host said exactly the same

this morning: I don't know about you, but this is way down in my list of priorities.

[OldSoldier]

12. Fine. Let's make MARRIAGE a 2004 campaign issue

If the Repugs want to start screaming about how "gay marriage" is destroying "traditional marriage" let's talk about how "Republican marriage," whose marriage vows somehow left out the "forsaking all others" and "until death do you part" lines that were in my Democratic marriage vows, is destroying "traditional marriage."

I gotta beautiful concept for a commercial: show elderly Democratic couples who've been married for fifty or sixty years, interleaved with guys like Gingrich, Barr and Livingston. Explain that "Joe and Mary White, lifelong Democrats of Valdosta, Georgia" have been married for 62 years while Newt Gingrich, lifelong Republican, dumped his wife while she was in the cancer ward.

When the GOP complains, as they will, the DNC needs to hold a news conference at which they box up a kettle.

[CMT]

15. Bring it on

Let Bush do this. It will give our nominee a chance to say, "I'm talking about jobs, health insurance, and education and Bush wants to concentrate on tearing us apart."

[DoYouEverWonder]

17. Shouldn't W be more concerned about more important issues

Such as a sagging economy, the bankrupting of the US Treasury, finding Osama, the fighting real threats of terroism, rebuilding Afghanistan and Iraq....

[Brian Sweat]

18. This is a bad issue for them.

It will not gain them any votes. The only people for whom this issue matters enough to make them for for the Republicans are already voting for the Republicans. It will just draw people to the polls to vote against the Republicans.

[poskonig]

19. A winnable battle.

Presented as an issue of *fairness*, most Americans are unwilling to discriminate against others when it comes to hospital visitations, social security, inheritance, et cetera.

At worst, we lose Catholic Democrats on this issue. At best, it can make the GOP appear xenophobic. We can run nasty ads linking Bush to Tom Delay, for instance, and scare the shit out of people.

[MattNC]

20. cheney

wouldn't he be against this? with his daughter and all...

[HFishbine]

21. Cheney

"Responding to a question on gay marriage, Cheney said: I think different states are likely to come to different conclusions, and that’s appropriate. I don’t think there should necessarily be a federal policy in this area.'"

http://www.sodomylaws.org/lawrence/lwnews073.htm

[populistmom]

25. One argument on this related to benefits

This is somewhat related to this whole subject, but as a point, one argument made against gay marriage/civil unions will be that civil unions will force religious affliliated businesses such as Catholic hospitals, for example, to insure gay domestic partnership couples. As a counterpoint, such groups insure spouses in hetereosexual couples even if married only civilly. After all, according to the Catholic church, if a married couple is not married in the church, they are not really married in the eyes of God and therefore, living in "sin" and "fornicating" (committing adultry if divorce and remarried civilly). Yet, this group of heterosexuals would still be insured with zero problems. Why should it be any different for a gay couple?
Mark my words, this argument will be made by religious affliated businesses and this will be an excellant counter argument.

[Yupster]

26. Bush will only use this

If Dean is the nominee.

[MuseRider]

27. I don't get it

"These lawsuits will continue until Congress and the states adopt a constitutional amendment to protect traditional marriage."

Protect it from what? If gays can marry can the rest of us not? What are they worried about?