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.

[rafterman1]

My persnal view is, I could care less what two gay people do, it's not my business. But we are, fter all, a nation of busibodies, little gray haired ladies peeking out the blinds of their windows, looking at the neighbors next door going "tsk, tsk".

But I like to look at things in terms of how people will think of issues 100 years from now. I think that 100 years from now, people would be appalled at the bigotry showed *** in 2006 as people now are appalled at slavery 140 years ago.

[osidebear]

If we could separate "marriage" as a religious institution from its legal implications, this issue would quickly disappear. Marriage should be something done in a church, with no government say in who can do it. The joining of two people in a legally-binding contract should be a separate matter.

Of course, it's the junvenile "ick" factor and the medieval morality of many Americans that prevents us from looking at the issue rationally. Our descendants will be looking back at this with the same sense of amazement that we have for our forefathers' position on civil rights for ethnic minorities.

[rafterman1]

Unfortunately, even today, not everyone is on board with "civil rights for ethnic minorities" :)

[cathaleen]

I believe in live and let live. If gay people want to marry, fine. It's nobody's business.

[meboard]

VERY good post osidebear...thank you!

[krisdave1]

Being gay is not being born black or white or being a male or female, it's a choice. If one insist that it is a birth defect, marrige will not fix it. I can only say get over it, marrige is between a birth born man and woman, not I feel like a man or woman. Marrige was ordained by God and the covenat was made with for a man and a woman, not with who ever made you feel good. If the two men or women want to be joined find a way to me joined, but leave marrige out of it. Try as one might, everyone cannot be satisfied. If you'd like to argue race, black America does not enjoy the same rights that white America does, even with all of our "rights". Only by God will we ever be judged rightly.

[l2568]

How sad we have become a nation full of prejudice and envy. We are not happy with ourselves so we need to pick on others...to feel better...
WRONG WAY - WRONG DAY
We need to GROW UP. Gay - Straight - Lesbian or BI sexual. We all are a BIG NATION full of ignorance. We demonstrate who we are on how we deal with facing problems and solving them. That is what demonstrate that we are grown ups" man or grown up women. NOT OUR SEXUAL PREFERENCES.
What happened to the free-spirit americans of the late 60's looking for better freedom and less prejudice and injustice???
What happened to the real men and women...have we become ignorant??? or stupid???
PEOPLE GROW UP!!! Look around in EUROPE when are we going to stop being Bigots and Rednecks???

[osidebear]

krisdave1 agrees with my point without realizing it - typical of people with low intelligence.

Again, marriage is a religious ceremony and, as such, has no business being ratified by government.

As far as your asserion that being gay is a "choice," you're just wrong. I'd guess you know you're wrong, and if you don't, you're just pitiable.

[krisdave1]

No I have to say that in this case you have no evidence that one is born gay. You have the word of people that have made the choice to live this way. I believe that God does not make mistakes, He's always right and He says that this is wrong. Now if you believe that church is the place to settle this argument then, read the bible. Without the bible you have no church. And the bible says, " be not decieved that homosexuals will not inherit the kingdom of God. I Cor 6-9 This is parphrased.

[yborangel]

Dear krisdave1,

So, you are bisexual? Do you still remember the day you made the conscious decision to be heterosexual? Did you look around, and consider the ramifications before making your CHOICE? How did it feel to "pick" your team??

For most people, there is never a "decision" or "choice" to be made. There is NO option. Straight is straight. No question. Ever.

Same with gay. No question. Ever.

ANY doubt involved in a person's "choice" is usually related to the concerns of a family member who will not accept the lifestyle.

The only CHOICE involved is choosing to live your truth or live a lie. We are all as God created us...and God doesn't make junk!

[osidebear]

krisdave1, with respect, I am gay. I assure you I did not choose it anymore than you chose to be heterosexual.

That is my evidence, anecdotal though it may be. It's the truth. Your God may call it wrong, but that does not mean that God does.

[bks59]

There is already confusion on the subject, what about individuals having *** reassignement surgery. If born a man and through surgery becomes a woman, can then this person marry a man? In Texas and Kansas courts ruled this marriage is not legal, though elsewhere it is. Further in Texas and Kansas because of how the court's decsion is worded, only persons born as a man can marry a woman. If man or woman has *** reassignment, then can a man marry a man and a woamn marry a woman?

Google it, it is really in the courts.

[rafterman1]

"Only by God will we ever be judged rightly"


Yes, GOD will judge, not YOU. Unfotunately there are too many people around handing out judgments on people they don't agree with like they were God themselves. Unfortunately, the ones who call themselves Christians act the least like it.

[krisdave1]

I don't agree with homosexuality. I do agree witht the bible. There is only one God. I know that the bible does not have to make me feel good, but it is either a whole truth or a whole lie. It can not be truth when I agree and a lie when I don't. You're right God does not make junk. More so God loves us all, but He hates sin. I say that if you are so sure that this you are right, then don't throw the church and the bible into this. On that point, you can't make it line up with God made men feel like women or women feel like men. Which is it? When you get mad at those that believe that the bible says that if a man lie with mankind as he lieth with a woman, both have commited an abomination: they shall be put to death Leviticus 20:13,I know this is the Old Testament, read Galatians 5:18-21, I Cor 6:9-20. God says He changes not. Now I present to you evidence that this act is not of God. If you base your beliefs on God, then base you evidence likewise. As I stated before call it anything but marriage.

[krisdave1]

I know that some of you may be upset that I do not agree with how you feel, that's not what is important, the truth is what is important. Most often the truth is not popular. I have family members and I know several people that live a gay life style. I am not passing my judgement against them or anyone else, I just happen to believe what the bible says. I also do not believe in living together, *** outside of marriage,or adultry. If this should offend anyone, I would stand by this as well. I am a Christian, 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.

[webdepot]

krisdave1 -
If that is your belief, then good for you.. and more power to you.. Am I affended?? Not in the least. What is important is that you believe in your position for rational (to you) reasons that are beyond my place to comment on.
I prefer to take from the bible (I admit I'm not nearly as religious as I used to be... I've met too many hypocrits in church, no offense intended) the lessons of acceptance, tolerance, love and treating others as I would want to be treated.

[bioignis]

Some many people defend their prejudice of homosexuality on the basis that it offends their personal religion and that gay people could choose to not be gay, while neglecting to realize that they personally made a conscious choice to believe their religion. People are not born believing some faith - they make a choice that has nothing to do with any inherent genetic factors.

That choice to follow a particular belief and not be discriminated against for it is protected by law as minority status. I don't have a right to discriminate against you for your hateful religious attitudes, so why should you have the right to discriminate against me for mine "choices"?

The law protects you from my hateful attitudes toward your religious choice, why can't I have laws that to protect me from yours?

And if your answer must be based on religion, tell me what happened to separation of church and state? And before you go on about the religious aspects of the nation's founding Father's, recall that their religion also allowed men to own slaves and women had extremely limited roles society.

[webdepot]

Oh, and krisdave1 -
Next time you are in church, try to count the number of adulterers around you.. Mark 10:11-12

According to the most recent census statistics, if you are a couple still married to your original spouse, you are a minority in the U.S.
That is only one example of what I meant by hypocritical... they profess to love Jesus and the bible is their guide to life and living... yet they ignore the parts of the bible that cramp their choices... it's easier to jump beds than work out problems with a spouse.

[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?

[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.

[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.

[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?

[bluestardad]

FOLEY, TED HAGGERT...

[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!

[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.

[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]

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 *****.

[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?