Do you think the issue of Gay Marriage should be downplayed?

[oxymoron]

If this is a dupe, forgive me. I remember this coming up as a subtext within another thread.

Do you think this issue needs to be sacrificed to win the election? We all know the admin is going to make an issue of it.

As a gay person I am conflicted. I am tired of long being a second class citizen in this country, but I am also a pragmatist. I would hope this could be part of the platform, but is it just too polarizing to be advocated?

[tedoll78]

1. Easy.

The chances are, our nominee will have the attitude that civil unions are the way to go. Given this, we have one clear strategy for the general election: the Cheney statement in the 2000 debate.

I don't know the exact wording of it, but Cheney said something to the effect of, "..I think states should do everything they can to accomodate those relationships.."

Our line of reasoning? If Cheney isn't an extremist on this issue, then neither is our candidate. In fact, if it becomes a big campaign issue, I can see commercials right now along those lines.

On edit: As a gay person, I too am a pragmatist. My working theory is that marriage equality will come to us via Supreme Court ruling.. and the best route to that would be to get Democrats elected President. Sure, they may not be as liberal as I'd like, but a good Supreme Court nominee or two will more than make-up for it. Hell, look at the damage that Nixon is still doing to us today via Rehnquist..

On second edit: I also note that Clinton was too centrist for me, and yet he still managed to put-up two very high-quality justices. Let's hope they live long and happy lives, and let's hope that Stevens holds-on for as long as he can..

[maggrwaggr]

2. I think we should just ignore it and it will go away

it's a distraction tactic, nothing more.

Unfortunately you can bet the media will play into this one big time.

I say "do not engage" on the issue. Just don't argue it, as soon as you argue it, they've won and they've taken away time from the real issues.

Nobody's going to pass a freakin' amendment to the constitution on it.

[oxymoron]

3. I thought this was a "real issue". n/t

[maggrwaggr]

6. uh, because it's not a real issue

attempts to add amendments to the constitution always fail.

ERA didn't make it, the balanced budget amendment didn't make it, not even the flag burning amendment made it.

This one won't make it either. So why distract from the real issues by arguing about it?

It's a waste of time and energy and just plays into their tactics of distraction.

[Booberdawg]

9. I think you are seeing it backwards

The issue is making Gay Marriage LEGAL, not making it illegal, thus it IS a real issue. And certainly not a waste of time.

[maggrwaggr]

11. It has nothing to do with Bush and getting rid of him and 2004

Okay?

You said it yourself further down.

Sure, bring it up after the election, don't make it an issue for 2004. There's no reason to. We don't think Bush is the worst president of all time because he's against gay marriage, right?

[Booberdawg]

16. Ah, but that is not what you said

You said it wasn't an issue at all and that it would simply go away. It won't. The right for gays to marry is a basic human right that still needs to be addressed.

Yes, in my opinion the subject would be best tabled until after the evil one in the White House is replaced in 2004, but I still take issue with your declaration that gay marriage is not an issue.

[Bertha Venation]

15. "attempts to add amendments to the [C]onstitution always fail."

You mean, like the Volstead Act? (No. 18 in your Program) Like the proposed marriage amendment, the drive behind its adoption was fueled (at least in part) by religious righteousness.

I'm not going to shut up about my opposition to it just because there's a presidential election coming up.

[Booberdawg]

4. I wouldn't say "sacrificed".

It's not going to go anywhere before the election. A Constitutional amendment against it would never pass anyway. I would not make an issue of it until after the election, and then go after it because I do agree it is an important human rights issue.

[pasadenaboy]

5. Yes

This election is too big and this issue is a dead bang loser. We are on the side of history with this one, but we will not win the election if we push this now, in my opinion.

[realFedUp]

7. Civil unions and equal rights

is what Dean is espousing and it's a good thing.

[quinnox]

8. I would advise Dean to make

civil unions the centerpiece of his campaign.

[maggrwaggr]

12. why, do you want him to lose?

Or was that a joke?

[LeftCoast]

10. My prediction

This will be a 'stealth' topic of the election. It will get just enough coverage to rile up the Freepers to go out and vote, but not so much that the suburbanites get upset. Mostly those folks just want the issue to go away.

On edit: Okay, above prediction didn't take into account the radical right wing of rhe repubs making it an issue. It appears that may be what they want to do. I think this will be bad for Bush. It plays right into the stereotype of the new republican party.

[maggrwaggr]

13. why in the world do you think they're even talking about it?

It's because it's a tactic to distract us from the real issues.

Why do we want Bush out?

Why do we think he's a criminal?

It sure has nothing to do with gay marriages for cryin' out loud.

They're the ones bringing this up, and they're the ones who are gonna make an issue out of it, and if they get their way, they're gonna make the entire 2004 election about gay marriage!

And most 'murikans will say "hell, I don't think queers should get married" and they'll vote republican.

Never underestimate the stupidity of the American people.

[Silverhair]

14. Let's look at some facts.

Either 37 or 38 states have DOMA (Defense of Marriage Acts)that allow them not to recognize a gay marriage if another state enacts it. Clinton signed a federal DOMA that give states that authority. In all polls the general public overwhelmingly is against gay marriage being legal. If Gay marriage becomes an issue in 04, there will be a percentage of voters for whom this will be the issue that tips the balance, one way or another. Since way more people are against it than for it, it will tip more to vote Rep than to vote Dem. Remember that elections are decided by the swing votes in the center. Translation: The issue is a big time loser for us.

Will it be an issue? Look at this link: http://www.msnbc.com/news/984936.asp

If the Massachusetts Supreme Court requires legal gay marriage, those gay activists for whom this is THE only issue are expected to file suit in the U.S. Supreme Court. The DOMAs are almost certainly unconstitutional under the "full faith and credit" clause of the constitution. Even a conservative court will almost certainly feel bound by that clause and declare the DOMAs dead. If that happens, the states will feel like they are having gay marriage rammed down their throats against their will.

The Federal Marriage Amendment will then have enough pressure to pass and go to the states. Does anybody here really think that a Rep congressperson or senator will vote against it? What about a Dem C or S in a DOMA state? Hey, they want to get reelected too. It will pass and go to the states. Since 37 or 38 states already have DOMAs, then that is the magic number needed for ratification. Those states have already recently expressed their will on the issue.

Now before anybody flames me as being a freeper, my analysis is not an indication of my personal desires. I have a step-son who is gay and is a loved memeber of our family. I view myself as like a weather forecaster who is looking at a major hurricane that is coming to shore. Wishing it would go away won't make it go away. This storm is going to break during an election year, and I can't see any good for us in it.

[JAbuchan08]

17. When I was researching queer theory

for my multiculturalism class I realized that the main problem for the gay rights movement is that focusing on biological determinism can actually be detrimental to the movement. We need to step away from arguing that homosexuality is biologically determined and start to redefine the terms of the debate. It is kind of a risk, but maybe we should start to argue more openly that even if homosexuality _is_ a choice that it still should be a choice that the government stays out of. We can't allow theocrats to be in control of the terms of the debate. The "marraige amendment" should be cast as an attack not just on gays, but on the seperation of church and state.

[Dr Satan]

18. in terms of priorities

I think gay marraige should be one of the least important "problems" this country is facing.

[ScreamingMeemie]

19. No, I don't. Most people who vote one issue are not going to

vote based on civil unions, I would think. On the bright side, some of the lesser educated voters may think that "civil unions"-emphasis on Union, is pro union, as in labor union. ;) At least, that's what my neighbor thought. Proving that a lot of people go to the polls totally uninformed.

[durutti]

20. No

I would rather have a candidate who will stand up for what is right and lose, than a candidate who won't but will win.