Gay Patriot Header Image

Gay marriage won’t decide the 2012 election . . .

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 12:18 pm - May 12, 2012.
Filed under: 2012 Presidential Election,Gay Marriage

Gay marriage will not decide the 2012 election unless either major party candidate makes it the focus of his campaign. The one that does that will indeed decide the election — for his opponent.

The presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, for the record supports gay marriage; the presumptive Republican opposes it.

Ed Morrissey contends that the manner in which the Democratic candidate came out for gay marriage could hurt him:

When a President goes out of his way to support a position that state after state opposes — same-sex marriage — it’s not going to have a positive result on polling.  It helps even less when (a) no one really believed Obama’s stated former position, and (b) the President has to get pushed into telling the truth, by his own admission, by a Vice President stumbling his way off the reservation.  No matter what the White House wants to claim as courage in this decision, it hardly looks like leadership.

It goes to Obama’s approach to the issue.  People do see it as a pandering political move.  This may excite a lot of left-of-center, but most were already favorably disposed to the Democrat anyway.  This decision will, to be sure, help in Obama’s fundraising — the likely reason for the sudden shift.

The bottom line is that, cultural issues in general (including gay marriage) “rank low”, as Morrissey reports, on voters’ lists of priorities.  If either candidate dwells on the issue, voters may wonder about his commitment to address the nation’s more pressing problems.

Share

18 Comments

  1. Remember how liberals used to whine when Republicans would bring up “divisive social issues?”

    Comment by V the K — May 12, 2012 @ 1:21 pm - May 12, 2012

  2. Yeah like North Carolina

    Comment by rusty — May 12, 2012 @ 1:47 pm - May 12, 2012

  3. *two snaps to Rusty*

    Comment by Cinesnatch — May 12, 2012 @ 1:59 pm - May 12, 2012

  4. So, people
    Let me ask you something, if Romney were to announced that he is for same sex marriage, would you be disappointed and wish that rick santorum was your candidate instead?
    I ask you this because I’m fascinated by your logic.
    I don’t get it.

    Comment by George insane — May 12, 2012 @ 2:37 pm - May 12, 2012

  5. Actually, George insane, I’m of the opinion Romney actually supports “gay marriage” but he knows he can’t get the votes he needs if he says it publically.

    Comment by Richard Bell — May 12, 2012 @ 2:54 pm - May 12, 2012

  6. And would Obama be supporting gay marriage if the economy were healthier?

    Comment by V the K — May 12, 2012 @ 2:55 pm - May 12, 2012

  7. Mr. Bell,
    I think you are assuming that he has stablished his position against it an awful lot. Not a good answer, don’t you think?

    Comment by George insane — May 12, 2012 @ 2:59 pm - May 12, 2012

  8. #7.. Obama was against SSM in 2008. Did you vote for him? If so, why? How could a gay man possibly vote for a presidential candidate that is against gay marriage?

    News flash :

    Obama has come out in support of people who have a shoe size larger than 12 being able to wear shoes. However, they can only wear shoes in states that allow people with a shoe size larger than 12. Also, people with size 12 shoes or larger must remove their shoes when in a federal government building or in federal court. Obama thinks all people should be able to wear shoes but he will not push for federal legislation so that people with shoe sizes larger than 12 can wear shoes in all states. He thinks it is sad that people with shoe sizes larger than 12 can wear them in Massachusetts but can’t wear them in NC. He also understands how much easier life is if you can wear shoes. However, he has no plans to try and change the size 12+ shoe laws. If you have a shoe size larger than 12, please send Obama a check so that he can be reelected and support people who have a shoe size larger than 12.

    Comment by TnnsNe1 — May 12, 2012 @ 5:02 pm - May 12, 2012

  9. Tnns
    You make no sense at all. What’s wrong with you?

    Comment by George insane — May 12, 2012 @ 5:12 pm - May 12, 2012

  10. You make no sense at all. What’s wrong with you?

    That’s odd. I had no problem following Tnns’ logic. I can’t imagine why this “George” fellow did.

    Master’s degree, he says? Curious.

    Comment by My Sharia Moor — May 12, 2012 @ 5:22 pm - May 12, 2012

  11. MSM,

    It’s pretty clear George won’t be voting for anyone this election.

    Comment by The_Livewire — May 12, 2012 @ 5:34 pm - May 12, 2012

  12. I wrote a post about actual VOTES regarding same-sex marriage since 1998. Only one failed in Arizona because it was too restrictive. Two years later, came back less restrictive and passed. Here is the post: http://www.rightviewfromtheleftcoast.blogspot.com/2012/05/explain-if-american-public-is-more.html.
    There are a lot of numbers. But over 60,000,000 Americans have voted on the issue. Over 43,000,000 have voted to affirm traditional marriage. And the Arizona example actually shows some progress on those who favor same-sex marriage.
    But read further because I offer some ways to get there. And I do not particulary endorse same-sex marriage.
    But I am damn tired of being called a ha8er and all that because I don’t want to fundamentally change what marriage means.
    I have an intimate knowledge of this issue. It is hard because of the emotion on both sides.
    But here is for me what is important.
    I do not hate people that are gay or lesbian. Just because I have a traditional view of marriage-hell even that is ridiculed because I kind of think it is serious-and I want to find a way to make same-sex partners OK with all the legal mumbo jumbo.
    Someday there will be a meeting of the minds. But not if we are insulted and ridiculed and cowed into something.

    Comment by Mark J. Goluskin — May 12, 2012 @ 5:37 pm - May 12, 2012

  13. Drop dead, Detroit in 2008 and I saved you in 2012. The Republican candidate needs to pick the Mitt Romney he wants.
    I bet you agree with both statements. For you there is no contradiction. Like voting for anti gay candidates

    Comment by George insane — May 12, 2012 @ 5:52 pm - May 12, 2012

  14. Drop dead, Detroit in 2008 and I saved you in 2012. The Republican candidate needs to pick the Mitt Romney he wants.
    I bet you agree with both statements. For you there is no contradiction. Like voting for anti gay candidates.

    Yeah, I’m gonna go ahead and assume this “George” fellow’s graduate degree wasnt in anything that required formulating a cogent defense of a specific position.

    Comment by My Sharia Moor — May 12, 2012 @ 5:58 pm - May 12, 2012

  15. George… Did you vote for Obama in 2008? Yes or no.

    Comment by tnnsne1 — May 12, 2012 @ 6:01 pm - May 12, 2012

  16. Drop dead, Detroit in 2008 and I saved you in 2012. The Republican candidate needs to pick the Mitt Romney he wants.

    Am I just too stupid to understand this, or does this statement not make any sense? I guess Mr. Insane must think postmodernly, which would also explain why he doesn’t get simple concepts.

    Comment by Rattlesnake — May 12, 2012 @ 7:57 pm - May 12, 2012

  17. As much as anyone might want the happy sentiment of marriage: marriage between two of the same doesn’t make any sense. The whole point of a marriage is uniting complementary difference or opposites. Imagine a top chef saying “for my new recipe I will marry carrot to, guess what, carrot.”??!? Well, the fellow might get a job with the BBC or the Tory party, but the Labour party came to a much more reasonable accommodation: civil union. A truffle is a marriage between a soft ganache and hard shell with a sweet inner and bitter cocoa dusting.

    Gay civil union, yes! Gay marriage: impossible.

    Comment by Eleonore — May 13, 2012 @ 6:39 am - May 13, 2012

  18. TnnsNe1, good analogy. Here’s another news flash.

    A candidate recently spoke to a group of people that refer to him as a cult member. However, the candidate did affirm, with applause, that persons with shoe sizes over 12 should not wear shoes. Candidate states, “In fact, I was a governor of a state in which persons with shoe sizes over 12 had the right to wear shoes, and tried my best to put that to a stop. Unfortunately, I failed. My opponent believes that states should decide the issue, and not push for this law federally. However, I believe my opponent would sign such a bill if Congress sends it for his signature. I promise you I won’t,” again with thunderous applause. The candidate has not decided if there should be a law in which persons with shoe sizes larger than 12 can wear footwear, but not call them shoes. However, it was pointed out that in North Carolina, voters recently decided that persons with shoe size over 12 cannot even wear footwear. It was pointed out that such persons still have the liberty to walk around barefoot, state they are wearing shoes, and not fear of getting arrested.

    Seriously, I understand that there is much more to consider than simply SSM for the election. However, if a voter finds Obama and Romney about equal on other issues, Obama would get the support of those supporting SSM over Romney. But there are almost as many who do not support SSM. So as Dan stated, this election will not come down to the SSM issue.

    Comment by Pat — May 13, 2012 @ 1:57 pm - May 13, 2012

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.