Is Bush playing the "gay marriage" issue at the right pace...?

[kentuck]

For the Repubs, that is? He's lurking in the shadows, not coming out to say too much at this time. He's letting his surrogates do it and he's exploiting any stories that may arise that may tangentially relate to the issue.

No doubt to many, this is his ace in the hole and he believes it also. Whether it is or not, remains to be seen. God forbid that someone start a rumor that Jesus was gay. I have no idea how the right-wing would counter, except to say that there is no proof or anything to suggest it is true?

But, the issue will not disappear...you can bet the farm. In his heart, Bush believes it is the "divisive" issue that will keep him in power. Because, in his heart, he is a very divisive person.

[Dogmudgeon]

1. The counter-play

Kerry and Edwards are claiming that they are against "Gay marriage" but for civil unions. This should take a lot of wind out of the Right's sails.

Once civil unions are a done deal, it won't take much to either permit actual marriage OR to make marriage religion-only and replace the legal language with "civil unions". Either way, it will be up to Bush and the Right to make the case that the GLBT community should be discriminated against -- a case they can't win. It puts the onus on them, and Bush knows it, which is why he's saying so little.

--bkl

[kentuck]

3. People believe what they want to believe....

Just as they hear what they want to hear. Expect the push to be made by the Right that there really is no difference between "civil unions" and gay marriage and that the Democratic candidates are only trying to mince words. You think their supporters and other anti-gay folks want eat it up?

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

6. In my case, marriage was religion only

My husband and I went through a civil ceremony in '89, but had our spiritual union in '90, when our spiritual teachers could come and officiate. I've always looked on marriage as a spiritual union. The fact that a minister can also sign the civil document just expedites things.

[BradCKY]

2. He's going to alienate libertarians

Because I doubt those on that side want to add a restriction into the constitution, so it may end up hurting him much more than helping him.

[mhr]

4. The Whole Issue Can Be Diffused Very Easily

The problem is that we confuse marriage with two distinct bonds.

The first bond is a civil contract between the state and the individuals.

The second bond is between the individuals and their god and church.

By focusing on the state contract and not the religious contract, we can place the issue squarely in the public domain and not the spiritual domain.

The refrain to fundies is simple. A civil contract is a state matter; who Jerry Falwell wants to marry in his church is his business not the states.

Case closed and puts the religious types in their place and out of state business.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

7. I like your thinking!

You echo my thoughts exactly. I believe that there have been ministers and churches in the past who have condoned spiritual unions even if they weren't considered legal. I think that making all unions civil unions and marriages something strictly to be done by a religious institution is the best way of doing things. As you said, if Falwell doesn't want to marry gays in his church, he doesn't have to. If I want to marry gays in my church, that's my business.

[unblock]

5. how they'd counter 'jesus is gay' rumor:

they'd simply paint anyone who even remotely suggested that as being a blasphemer, a heretic, and worse, a liberal.