Gay Marriage Policy No Linchpin For GOP

American Prospect: Democrats Won States That Passed Anti-Gay Marriage Measures; Lost In One That Didn't

(The American Prospect)  This column was written by Ben Adler.

---

Among the more initially puzzling results to emerge from Tuesday was the case of the anti-gay marriage ballot initiatives. On the one hand, progressives had plenty of reason to be depressed — they passed in all but one state, including moderate swing states, like Wisconsin, where a serious opposition movement had been active. On the other hand, there was the remarkable exception of Arizona, which became the first state in the union to reject an anti-gay marriage referendum. But there's a larger silver lining to appreciate: the initiatives appeared to have no detrimental electoral effect on Democratic candidates.

States that passed anti-gay marriage initiatives showed no more tendency to swing Republican than the nation as a whole. Blue-leaning swing state Wisconsin and red-leaning swing state Colorado both passed anti-gay marriage initiatives, but the Democrats swept the races for senator and governor and won a close key House race in each. In red Virginia, incumbent Sen. George Allen was narrowly knocked off despite a successful anti-gay marriage initiative on the ballot there. Meanwhile, in Arizona, where Democrats had hoped to take out Sen. Jon Kyl, the party fell short by nine points while a gay marriage ban was defeated at the polls.

What gives? Wasn’t the conventional wisdom after the 2004 elections that Karl Rove's brilliant strategy of encouraging marriage referenda on state ballots had succeeded in bringing out the extra white evangelicals that provided Bush’s margin of popular victory? Wasn’t the anti-gay marriage initiative in Ohio credited with delivering that close crucial state for Bush? In the immediate aftermath of the election, major pundits agreed that the ballot initiatives were key. Andrew Sullivan, in late November 2004, described "[w]hat appears to be the enormous success the Republicans had in using gay couples' rights to gain critical votes in key states."

Although more thorough scholarly investigations soon enough revealed this effect to be largely a mirage, the media focus had moved on, and they were little noticed outside of seriously wonky circles. As Hunter College political scientist Kenneth Sherrill noted in a study for the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, "the election returns indicate that President Bush did less well in these battleground states with anti-same-sex marriage ballot initiatives than in battleground states that did not have referenda on same-sex marriage [emphasis in original]." Moreover, upon closer examination, the rise in evangelical turnout merely reflected the higher turnout of the population as a whole. As Sherrill put it, "evangelicals comprised only 17 percent of the total electorate in the 2004 presidential election — the same percentage of total voters as in 2000."

Sherrill also demonstrated that gay marriage bans do not switch votes to the Republicans en masse. Sherrill produced 14 categories of voters in which a majority opposed legal recognition of same-sex partnerships (this means opposing civil unions for gays as well as gay marriages — many of the referenda do indeed go that far.) The majorities were largest among groups with markers of a hardcore religious right identity: 74 percent of people who believe that abortion should be illegal in all cases opposed all legal recognition of gay unions, as did 68 percent of those who attend religious services more than once a week and 64 percent of white Protestant conservatives. But the numbers trail off when it comes down to party affiliation or voting patterns; only 51 percent of people who "usually think of themselves as Republicans" and only 51 percent of those who voted for Bush in 2004 supported banning gay marriage and gay civil unions. In the 2004 election among the population as a whole, only 37 percent opposed any form of legal recognition for gay relationships. This is all to say that support for these referenda is clearly strongest among Republicans' core supporters, and thus does not tend to provoke many voters to switch their other votes at the polls on account of such a referendum appearing on the same ballot.

But the major political reporters and analysts, at least on television (where most Americans get their news), never got the memo. In 2006 they wondered aloud whether the anti-gay marriage referenda would cost the Democrats key states or districts. On November 2, to take one example, Wolf Blitzer did a segment on CNN describing how, "[i]n some critical battlegrounds, a vote on gay marriage could turn the battle for Congress one way or another."

If anti-gay marriage referenda really did boost conservative turnout, then Republican candidates in states with them on the ballot would have presumably outperformed their poll numbers due to higher turnout among the measures' supporters. But in the end, Webb squeaked out a victory that the polls did not clearly predict, while in staunchly Republican Tennessee, black Democrat Harold Ford Jr. lost to Republican Bob Corker by only three points, when most polls in the final week of the campaign had him losing by several more.

All in all, gay marriage policies, including not only anti-marriage referenda but also the New Jersey Supreme Court’s pro-gay marriage decision, proved to be an electoral dog that didn't bark this year. Although the claim that ballot initiatives were Karl Rove's secret WMD had actually already been debunked, the Republican victory in 2004 served to obscure that fact. (It was especially easy for lazy commentators to point out that Bush carried nine of the 11 states with referenda on their ballots, never mind they were almost all decidedly red states anyway.) Hopefully, now that the Democrats have both won handily in states that passed anti-gay marriage initiatives and lost in the one that didn't, the myth of the initiatives' political potency can be put to rest. It's a small victory at a moment of big ones for progressives, but it's important nonetheless.

[mreberry]

I am opposed to same-*** marriage for many reasons. However, it is not because I hate homosexuals. 99% of them had no choice in being homosexuals. They should be able to live their life without shame and persecution. I am a Christian and know the case for calling it a sin. But churches accept adults who they know are committing other types of sin. They even accept adults who have abandoned their spouse and kids because of a better offer. Yet most churches don't want homosexuals showing up.

Back to why I oppose same-*** marriage. First, almost every human culture in all of known history felt that heterosexual families were beneficial to their society. It provided stability for children, women, men, and society in general. It also provided future members of their culture. While there are some cultures that were very accepting of same-*** relationships, none that I am aware of ever said it is just as valuable as heterosexual marriages.

Our government provided benefits to promote stability and population growth, they established benefits to encouraged traditional marriages. Since the government is providing most of the benefits, they have a right to say who is qualified. If they suddenly decided that marriage is not defined as one woman and one man, then they need to decide if same *** is okay, is more than two people okay, and does it have to be a sexual relationship. Who does not deserve these benefits? How will it impact amount of taxes required to fund the benefits?

[marriedlez]

nadeau4201 - Homosexuality is not only defined as a *** act anymore than heterosexuality is.

2 "straight" women may get drunk and have *** with each other but that doesn't make them homosexual -- Just drunk and *****.

[marriedlez]

bluestardad -- I agree with you totally -- Either get rid of draft registration or make women register too -- However that has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

[marriedlez]

krisdave -- It has to be called marriage for one simple reason -- The FEDERAL government grants rights, benefits, and responsibilities to married persons. The words marriage and spouse are in each and every law granting these rights.
It doesn't say marriage and/or civil union and spouse and/or civil partner.

When the government started using "marriage licenses" as a right granting license then marriage became a secular institution sanctioned by the states. The church/bible etc... ceased to be considered in granting a marriage license. If you don't know this -- any man and woman can get a marriage license and marry outside of the church -- Church and religion are not a requirement for a marriage license.

[bluestardad]

TO BE EQUAL WOMEN MUST REGISTER FOR THE DRAFT WHEN THEY TURN 18 AS MEN DO. ANYTHING ELSE IS JUST ADVANCEMENT ON THE FREEDOMS MEN HAVE PAID FOR IN BLOOD!

[bluestardad]

FOLEY, TED HAGGERT...

[krisdave1]

Wow it is good to see all of the response from so many of you. You are right in many of your quotes however, I do not chnage my postion on marriage. If you bring the church into this, then you have no right to leave the bible out of it. I understand that you have a right, but so does the church. You have every right to live how you want to, but the church does not have to allow you to strip it of it's rights so that you can exericise yours. You rights begin where mine end. I'm most offended that this would be compared to begin black. Since you want to equate yourself with begin black, then you really can relate that you are in for a fight. Blacks still are fighting for equality. The fight is not based upon them being called white, is based on equality. Its amazing how you can see just your own view, and trapple over our rights to see your own. Talk about hypocrits! I will ask this question once again, why do you have to call it marriage? There are many rules and laws that govern our everyday life, and we have to follow them. It is important to enough of America that more decided against the proposal than for it. Why does it have to be called marriage?

[Syndicate]

Could some one please explain to me whats wrong with *** without using Biblical passages. I think being a Christian is far worse than being gay. If we are going to start banning things I would like to ban the bible.

[nadeau4201]

Why can't people have an opinion without being called a bigot,ignorant or they're not acting christian enough. Do you realize your views are just as one sided but yet you want other people to be open minded get over yoursef. Maybe the ones who do not agree with the lifesyle only see the sexual side to homosexuality. You have to admit being bisexual contradicts the arguement that they do not choice to be gay but that they are born that way. Or when straight married men are having *** with Joe blow or 2 straight women get drunk and do it for show. Even their parades are sexual when they march down the street half dressed you see chicks with the ***** and men with the breast,and you wonder why some people do not take gay rights seriously. Personally I could careless what people do. But there are some people who do not believe in the gay lifestyle and should have every right to feel that way without being called bigots or hateful.

[sdkrew]

Krisdave1 you said:
"I admit that no one is perfect, but the Word of God makes no excuse for me going against what it says. I am not offended by you believing what you believe in, but I will not agree with you or change my mind."

Please answer this serious question. You have quoted the old testament in your believe that homosexuality is unacceptable. If in fact there is "no excuse for me going against what it says" then do you also believe that eating shellfish or wearing clothing made of blended cloth is an "abomination" on par with homosexuality (as stated in Levitcus"?) Or that slavery is acceptable? Or that disobedient children should be killed? Or that adulterers should be stoned to death?

Do you espouse all of those beliefs? After all, as you say there is no excuse to go against what the bible says. And if you do not espouse these beliefs, then are you just picking and choosing based on your own personal values?