Will the gay "wedge issue" backfire on Rove in 2004?

[election_2004]

As more American soldiers come home in bodybags, will most Americans care about the gay couple down the street getting a civil union?

As Freepers rehash how the economy is *improving* yet the unemployed remain jobless, will working-class voters really be so preoccupied with preventing lesbians from adopting orphans?

As the 2004 General Election approaches, and Congress is forced to plan the next budget and confirm new judicial nominees, how will it look to the public if the GOP leadership is trying (at Rove's nudging) to pass the Federal Marriage Amendment while letting the country's fiscal woes linger?

Why can't the Democrats paint Rove's and the GOP's attempts to "codify" laws against gays as efforts to pass anti-privacy, Big Government legislation that spits at the concept of states' rights?

This would be a double punch at social conservatives, showing what hypocrites they are: they always whine about leaving the Constitution alone, allowing states to have sovereignty over state laws, and keeping the government out of people's lives - - oh, except when it comes to the "gay issue."

Puh-lease!

How much more are we going to let them get away with? Are the Democrats just going to say "Screw the faggots - - they're politically expendable"...?

What about when they come after the abortion laws...or affirmative action...or gun control...or women's rights (anyone remember The Handmaid's Tale?)...?

And don't think that they won't.

If the Democrats need to "play to the center" at the DNC's/DLC's bequest, so be it - - but why can't the Dems utilize this strategy by accusing a shrill minority (and emphasize the "minority" part) of GOP congresspeople of trying to implement an intrusive, Big Government solution to an issue that (according to the DLC centrists) should be left up to the states?

Congressional Democrats have compromised on the Patriot Act, Bush's tax cuts, IWR, Fast Track, Medicare...how many more legislative compromises need to be made in order to win the White House in 2004?

Especially when it comes to something as extreme as reopening the U.S. Constitution to "codify" bigotry against homosexuals?

[Melodybe]

1. Of course it will backfire

The popularity of programs like Will and Grace and Queer Eye show that the majority of Americans are fine with homosexuality. They may not be 100% approving, mind you, but it seems obvious that the concept is not foreign to them and that gay people are no different. People that vote for * are NOT the majority of Americans.

[LittleDannySlowhorse]

2. I don't know if it will backfire

but there's no way it's going to be the issue they seem to believe it's going to be. Only the hardcore religious right will respond to this, and we already know how they're voting anyway, regardless. I think it's just not going to have legs one way or the other, mostly for the reasons you mentioned.

[Lexingtonian]

3. they won't actively use it

-I believe. It's going to be an extremely "polarized" election and bitter no doubt (e.g. Remember Florida....). It's going to be an up-or-down referendum on Bush and all he stands for.

So I believe people are going to brush gay marriage aside as an issue when the going gets tough as a relatively minor- extraneous- thing to settle later. I've already repeated myself enough that any look at the splits about gay marriage are within the parties, not as greatly between them as is generally believed, so it's not very useful to Rove at all.

[LittleDannySlowhorse]

4. You're probably right

I fully expect this issue to catch fire in the mind of the body politic in the same manner as Bush's other fascinating agenda items, like the sex farms for pedophiles in the south Pacific that he mentioned in his ridiculous speech to the UN.

[LoneStarLiberal]

5. I Think There Are Three Variables

I think how much the issue will be leaned upon by Republican strategists is going to depend on:

A) Who our nominee will be;
B) How much defection from the Republican base the Republicans believe will happen; and
C) How close the election is down the stretch.

If the nominee is Howard Dean, I suspect the Republicans will be more apt to trying to make this an issue given Dean's past support for civic unions.

If the Republican strategists see even a marginal defection from their traditional base to either independents or even worse (for them), the Democratic nominee, I would expect the Republicans to really talk this issue up to shore up their traditional base regardless of who the Democratic nominee will be.

If the election is close down the stretch, particularly if the election is close with the Democratic nominee ahead and Bush trailing, I would expect this to be more of a centerpiece issue for the Republicans to use in order to fuel the "immoral Democrats" meme.

[election_2004]

6. But in "shoring up" the conservative base...

Don't the Republicans risk alienating swing voters who care more about their pocketbooks, if the GOP just keeps rehashing the "gay marriage" rhetoric.

I can just see heterosexual moderates/Independents shrugging and asking the GOP, "So you oppose gay marriage...but why aren't you talking about the issues that actually affect us?"

[NicoleM]

7. If he tries, it's easy to counter.

"I agree with Dick Cheney."

[election_2004]

8. Good point....

Does anyone know what Cheney's position is on the Federal Marriage Amendment?

[killbotfactory]

9. Yes.

The more nasty they get, the more it will backfire.

"I lost my job, the deficits growing, more people are dying in Iraq for reasons Bush can't really explain, I have no healthcare... but by golly, we can't let them homo's win! Yay Bush!"

Yeah right.

[election_2004]

10. Hmmm...

I agree with you (if it was evident by the tone of my original post)...so why so much pessimism and defeatism from liberals and progressives when it comes to the notion of defeating the Federal Marriage Amendment?

[rumguy]

11. Yes, repukes always end up looking bad in these culture war issues

It ends up making them seem petty and vindictive. I hope they try and make it a big issue, cuz I believe it will blow up in their faces...especially if they try that const. amendment...

[election_2004]

12. This is strange...

In the previous post I made on this issue, everyone was all gloom n' doom, saying how Dems can't afford to defend the LGBT community because we're a "losing issue" in the next election.

So who here has lobbied their U.S. Senators. I'm about to send off letters to both Feingold and Kohl.

My congressman, Ron Kind, already opposes the Federal Marriage Amendment.

[annak110]

13. I called Wayne Allard's office this morning because he has had

a column published in the local paper if not in several "local" papers around the state of Colorado trying to pump up support for this nonsense. He refers to the "Marriage Amendment" as "our" amendment, "we need it" because marriage between a man and a woman is "traditional". I asked if there would be a clause in the amendment requiring that everyone assume the missionary position since that too is traditional.

[election_2004]

14. What did his office say?

?

[NewJeffCT]

15. good one...

And, if you want to go really traditional - doesn't the Bible endorse slavery and women submitting to their husbands? Maybe we should make it a crime to covet another man's wife? (But, then, would it be a crime to covet another man's girlfriend... I remember a friend of mine having a very attractive g/f and I am sure I coveted her briefly back when I first met her)