“Anti- gay rhetoric,” contended the friend of a liberal friend in a recent Facebook thread, “is one of the main points of all of their [i.e., Republican] campaigns.” Really now?
By and large, Republican candidates have steered clear of gay issues (save when the media bring them up). And for good reason. Making such rhetoric the core (or even a peripheral) aspect of your campaign won’t help a candidate muster a majority (or even a plurality in a crowded field) in Republican caucuses and primaries.
Now, to be sure, Rick Perry did raise his opposition to gays serving in the military in a campaign ad* and the media helped made Michele Bachmann’s opposition to gay marriage well known.
A lot of good that did them.
Perry finished fifth in Iowa, Bachmann sixth. In New Hampshire, he slipped into sixth — barely breaking into single digits. Rick Santorum’s focus on inability to avoid harping on social issues may have contributed to his failure to translate his strong showing in the Iowa caucuses to a better position in New Hampshire. He finished fifth, behind Newt Gingrich and ahead of Perry.
As Philip Klein reported in the Washington Examiner:
After coming off of his come from behind near-victory in Iowa, instead of pivoting to his economic populist message, Santorum got sucked into fights about social issues. In Concord last week, he mixed it up with a college audience who opposed his views on gay marriage and drug legalization. It may have been admirable in the sense that it showed he has true conviction, but it wasn’t helpful for competing in a state in which 51 percent of the electorate turned out to be either independent or Democratic.
Factoring out those independent and Democratic votes, Santorum only bumped his tally up slightly to 13% (of Republicans voting in the Granite State’s GOP primary). Now, to be fair articulating your opposition to gay marriage is not engaging in anti-gay rhetoric. But, even as polls show that majorities of Republicans oppose state recognition of same-sex marriage, making that the focus of your campaign doesn’t move the dial, even among Republicans.
*His rhetoric there is not “anti-gay” per se, but his position on that issue is misguided.
BDB, signing NOM’s marriage pledge falls into which category?
I have a pair of gay friends who share some acreage in a rural part of my state and I can tell you for certain the last thing on their mind is SSM. What is first on their minds is if the economy is going to pick up before one of them gets laid off or if their municipality is going to come up with some cockamamy land use scheme that will affect them. At this point and time if I were a candidate and anyone asked me a question about “gay issues” I would tell them to go to my website to read my policy and move on.
rusty, signing the pledge is one thing (& I wish the various candidates hadn’t done that). Making that a key issue in your campaign quite another.
Gay marriage is legal in New Hampshire. They’ve moved on, unlike like the vast majority of the U.S. But doesn’t most social change first find the greatest support in New England? Even with the condensed support from Bachman’s departure and Perry’s withering away, Santorum couldn’t gather a huge swath of so-cons in NH, probably because they either are dying out or they’ve redefined themselves as being for two-parent households regardless of gender. Who knew. Maybe not having to pay income and sales tax makes you quicker on the draw. j/k
rusty,
I’d say it falls into the category of keeping the definition of “marriage” to a standard of a man and a woman.
And while gay marriage is legal in Iowa, there isn’t a systematic witch hunt in New Hampshire to eliminate those who made it legal. (yeah, I know, I know … there’s a big difference between how it got legal in both states–legislatively vs. judicially)
Huh? What rhetoric? Oh, you can dig up some example but it will be minor at best. Unless you consider disagreeing with gay marriage when asked to be tantamount to death camps, and the be-all and end-all of the 2012 election. I don’t… and I say that as a longtime marriage supporter.
Cinesnatch, you say that because New Hampshire has gay marriage it has “moved on”, by which I assume you mean that New Hampshire has entered some HGHER PLANE of ENLIGHTENMENT that still escapes the majority of the country. Is that what you meant, Cinesnatch? This is what so irritates me about supporters of “gay issues”, namely, their tendency to make concepts like “freedom” or “being civilized” EXCLUSIVELY about support for homosexuals. As if “freedom”, for example, were defined as: the condition or state of homosexuality having the same social and legal approval as heterosexuality. I don’t define “freedom” that way. I don’t define “civilized” that way, and I resent being told by gay activists that I have to or else I’m a hater and an extremist. But I expect gays to keep using this strategy because it’s been so successful. Unfortunately.
ILC in #7, well said.
In my opinion anything “gay” or other social issues is not our enemy at this point in our country. The harm this congress and this president are inflicting is far more devastating and will have far more long term impact on our nation than whether or not gays can get married. Our true enemy is in the White House and our Congress. Just my humble opinion
Terms like “higher plan” and “enlightenment” are grandios and lofty, as if suggesting some kind of overall superiority. So, no, I meant “moved on” as far as their reasoning skills are concerned in the morality department. As in “moved on” from the long-term, widely held fallacy that two people of the same gender can’t commit to a monogamous relationship and raise a family that positively contributes to our society.
I’m not sure where you’re getting this from. You’re irritated by something you’re projecting on me. I have no way of addressing this, as it has nothing to do with me or how I think.
My definition of freedom is pretty sexual-orientation-specific free.
If you don’t define freedom in terms of sexual-orientation, then you must not support DOMA. Here, here. I can’t wait until it’s ruled unconstitutional by a majority conservative court.
Again, Seane-Anna, I don’t see the need to bring one’s sexual-orientation into a definition for civilized.
I’m not telling you anything, but I’m also not a gay activist. But, those that are telling you that don’t really need to.
It sounds like you have lumped me in with Gay, Inc here, because I believe in marriage equality. If that’s the case, do you consider yourself an anti-marriage-equality activist? If so, God speed and keep up the good work. We only have a limited time here on earth and it’s up to us to choose how to spent it wisely.
Seane-Anna,
I’ve been thinking about this for some time and I keep coming back to what seems to be the germination point of “gay issues” and that point seems to reside in the left. If I’m right, what you lay out is the natural result.
Happy Martin Luther King weekend Seane-Anna!
always refreshing to take time to reflect on MLK and Coretta Scott King
On April 1, 1998 at the Palmer House Hilton in Chicago, Scott King called on the civil rights community to join in the struggle against homophobia and anti-gay bias. “Homophobia is like racism and anti-Semitism and other forms of bigotry in that it seeks to dehumanize a large group of people, to deny their humanity, their dignity and personhood”, she stated.[15] “This sets the stage for further repression and violence that spread all too easily to victimize the next minority group.”
In a speech in November 2003 at the opening session of the 13th annual Creating Change Conference, organized by the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, Scott King made her now famous appeal linking the Civil Rights Movement to LGBT rights: “I still hear people say that I should not be talking about the rights of lesbian and gay people. … But I hasten to remind them that Martin Luther King Jr. said, ‘Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.’ I appeal to everyone who believes in Martin Luther King Jr.’s dream, to make room at the table of brotherhood and sisterhood for lesbian and gay people.”
Coretta Scott King’s support of LGBT rights was strongly criticized by some African-American pastors. She called her critics “misinformed” and said that Martin Luther King’s message to the world was one of equality and inclusion.
In 2003, she invited the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force to take part in observances of the 40th anniversary of the March on Washington and Martin Luther King’s I Have a Dream speech. It was the first time that an LGBT rights group had been invited to a major event of the African American community.
On March 23, 2004, she told an audience at Richard Stockton College in Pomona, New Jersey, that same-sex marriage is a civil rights issue. She denounced a proposed amendment advanced by President George W. Bush to the United States Constitution that would ban equal marriage rights for same-sex couples. In her speech King also criticized a group of black pastors in her home state of Georgia for backing a bill to amend that state’s constitution to block gay and lesbian couples from marrying. Scott King is quoted as saying “Gay and lesbian people have families, and their families should have legal protection, whether by marriage or civil union. A constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriages is a form of gay bashing and it would do nothing at all to protect traditional marriage.” wiki
God, I love that quote.
Thanks for sharing and educating me on this, Rusty.
rusty,
The word marriage sets a standard of one man and one woman. That is the only discrimination it makes. I’m sorry if the LGBT community doesn’t fit the standard but there is no hate, no standard of morality, no standard of religion implied in that definition, only a qualification of biology.
How exactly are people who are opposed to gay marriage arguing that?
Good point Rattlesnake. I should have tacked on “and be treated equally under the eyes of law.”
But they are treated equally under the eyes of the law. There is nothing stopping a gay man from marrying a woman. A straight man can’t marry another man any more than a gay man can.
I am expecting a response along the lines of “not this argument again”, but I don’t see how it’s not technically correct. It might not be necessarily fair, as it fails to take into account the involuntary nature of homosexuality, but it is technically equal.
Having said that, I support civil unions that are legally equivalent to marriage. I just don’t support the government calling it marriage; the only point of doing so seems to be to spite people who respect marriage in its traditional definition. And that wouldn’t preclude two men or two women from calling their civil union a marriage themselves, or having their union sanctified by a religious institution that does so willingly.
And that, of course, only applies to jurisdictions without gay marriage.
Any law against two people of the same gender from marrying is discriminatory. If marriage was between a man and a woman in the eyes of the law, then that’s how it should have been set up from the get-go. It wasn’t. It was only an “understanding,” which, in my mind, is as good as a verbal contract. Personally, I like to have signed agreements. Too bad traditionalists didn’t have the forethought.
If marriage were only a religious contract we wouldn’t need to be having this discussion. But, it’s not. It should be civil unions for all as far as legality is concerned. And if our society is not wiling to relent to that possibility than the legal definition of marriage will have to exist separate from religious interpretation(s) of the word.
The foundation of civilization is the family, or more accurately, reproduction. It only exists to propagate itself. Two men can’t reproduce. Only a man and a woman can reproduce. Men and women are fundamentally different. Laws that are irrelevant to that difference should treat them without regard to their genders.
They did have the afterthought, though.
We agree on this point.
If you place emphasis on the foundation for civilization being reproduction, then barren women, post-menopausal women and sterile men should be restricted from being married. Additionally, women should not be allowed to marry sterile men and men should not be allowed to marry barren and/or post-menopausal women.
As are laws against three or more people, children of the same parents, those who prefer minors, and those who prefer animals marrying.
And yet, the world continues to spin.
If it’s equality and justice for all you want, then demand that these laws be abolished as well.
If you won’t do that, then acknowledge that you don’t believe everyone has the inalienable right to marry whomever they want.
Which leaves you your only option to be persuading people why gay-sex marriage is worth recognizing and passing said into law through normal due process.
And before you decide to quote Loving, keep in mind that the law in question not only blocked the recognition of interracial marriages, but also criminalized them. Laws limiting marriage to two consenting adults of the opposite gender do not automatically criminalize other relationships.
You are not a barren woman, Cinesnatch.
You are a male who prefers to have sex and romantic relationships with other males.
Society has already determined that it will extend the privilege of marriage to barren women and sterile men.
You cannot persuade society to extend the privilege to you because you are not making a cogent or intelligent case as to why you should do it. Instead you sit there and demand it as a “right” — and then, when you are denied it, demand that this important “right” be stripped from others.
Your only concern, Cinesnatch, seems to be whether you get yours. You clearly do not have any interest in marriage’s value for society or the impact of your decision. Your interests appear to be based primarily on your own aggrandizement and animus toward religious beliefs.
ND30, the two of us have already had this conversation in the past. If you want my response, it’s in the GP archives. If you don’t have the links, please check the GP archives and/or I’ll gladly correspond with you on this via email.
Indulge those of us who can’t be bothered. If it was worth it the first time, it should be worth it again, right?
Meanwhile:
Democrat President of Maryland Senate Insults LGBT Families As Liberal Activists Stand By
http://tinyurl.com/796pljd
And:
Republican Party embracing the LGBT community
http://tinyurl.com/7dbk8ct
The beautiful thing about the time in history in which we live is that commenters like Seane-Anna and Richard above, assuming they are not 89 years old, like most of the people who hold such morally disgusting positions on things, will live to see their beliefs about things negated on a full, American, societal level. They will be free to hold their beliefs, of course — the thing about liberals is that we, and our military family members, fight for the right of people to be as boldly ignorant as they please — but their beliefs will be negated by pure force of the other 98% of the country laughing at them.
We, and by “we,” I mean the gay community, whether Bruce and Dan are happy about it or not, have already won this “culture war.” We’re over 50% national support for marriage equality. The rest is actuarial tables.
ND30: I recommend Grindr. You may not find anyone to save you from your loneliness, but at least you won’t be on the internet.
EVan Hurst’s smug condescension and moral self-righteousness is exactly what most of us can’t stand about the liberal left.
Evan Hurst,
Aw…………Don’t be a hater so early in the morning, I probably have had/have/will have more gay friends than you. In my opinion, passage of “gay marriage” legislation will lay a wreath of unintended consequence on our society that casual supporters of the legislation will regret. Your arguments for redefining marriage may garner my sympathy but in doing so we aren’t giving anyone “rights” we are just removing the standard set in the definition.
I’d like to point out that Ohio and California have both ‘moved on’ on Gay Marriage as well, By Vince’s standards. So has the Federal Government (Baker v Nelson) so why not join us Buckeys and move on?
I also love how anyone who disagrees with Evan is ‘disgusting’. Where have I seen that attitude before? Oh yeah, such enlightened groups like the Taliban, Saudi Arabia and Fred Phelps. Such rarified company you keep Evan.
As much as people may choose to deny it, NDT and Richard both have the truth of the matter. Marriage has a definate, fixed meaning in Western Civ. To change that definition should require consensus, not judges making stuff up.
To argue that SSM is only changing one component and no other is the height of willful blindness. The only argument I ever hear is “Well that would never happen.” 30 years ago, the same thing would have been said about SSM.
The gay left is a group of people whose lives and loves are so empty meaningless they require a piece of paper signed by a bureaucrat to validate them; and they happily elect people who will enslave them just for the sake of that little pat on the head.
But as the people of Europe (and California) are learning, that little piece of paper doesn’t mean much when your state is bankrupt, you can’t find work, you pay outrageous taxes for deteriorating public services, and there are gangs of ‘youths’ who can assault you with impunity because their ethnicity shields them from prosecution.
#28:
From what ethic is one informed that opposing gay marriage is morally disgusting ?
Liberals use their military might to protect boldly ignorant people and overwhelm them by imploying the pure force of mockery. So much for tolerance and diversity. The gauntlet has been thrown down.
Are you sure that 50% of the nation is ready to redefine marriage and make gay marriage legal across the land? Or are you hoping that the 50% of the people who are saying “who cares?” is actually an energized band of acolytes who will take pitchforks and torches in hand and boldly and militantly march on the opponents of gay marriage and use the pure force of mockery to shove them into submission and corner them in their Neanderthal ignorance in the dark caves where morally disgusting people are forced to hide?
You certainly are a brilliant light for “hope and change” and social justice. I think I could find your language and thinking all over the Third Reich.
As usual, I expect no reasoned response, if any at all.
Note that the progressive left is now demanding that law and public policy be used to enforce moral standards.
Only Froma Harrop has a less developed sense of irony and self-awareness.
Here is an interesting take on the growing numbers of Conservative support for SSM
http://www.good.is/post/the-conservative-evolution-of-gay-marriage/
From the one that considers this a factual statement and insists that criticism of hit pieces on a baby is homophobic.
In short, it’s the morality that gays and lesbians should be judged by their sexual orientation rather than by their actions or character.
And at the AFER event a mix of folk, conservatives and liberals working together on SSM
http://towleroad.typepad.com/.a/6a00d8341c730253ef01348798c343970c-popup
Will they? Nobody’s free to openly disagree with the SCOAMF without the threat of being called a “raaaaaaaacist!” How long would it take for liberals to create an AttackWatch type website for reporting these thought criminals? How long before the liquidation of the people “free to hold their beliefs”.
Give me a ufcking break, Evan.
I only watched one debate and in that one sex seemed to be the major topic. Lets go back to the famous Lincoln and Douglas debate. Lincoln says, “I am for same sex marrage”. Duglas says, “I am agin same sex marrage”. The people would thinks that they were crazy and rightly so. We certainly would not have had Lincoln at the helm during the Civil War. But you say we have advanced so much in the last 100 years. As a 90 year old I have my doubts.
This country is falling apart and all we can think about is SSM.
Um, John R, same sex marriage was not the major topic because the candidates chose to emphasize it, but because the moderators chose to ask about it.
Huh?
More than six hours ago I did a Godwin’s Law thing @ #34 and not a single liberal moral popper has descended upon me?
What’s up with that? Is it “be kind to senile seniors week”?
Hey Helio. I am not a senile senior. I am still a young ??? 90 year old.
Good on you, John R. Keep giving then Hell!
Or we could just solve the problem by getting government out of the whole marriage business completely.
Lagwold. Yes. Absolutely.