September 9, 2004

A GROWING CONSTITUENCY OR A DYING ONE?--YOU PICK:

The losing side of history (Debra J. Saunders, September 9, 2004, SF Chronicle)

THE LOG CABIN Republicans, an organization for gay and lesbian members of the GOP, announced Tuesday it would not endorse George W. Bush for re-election, even though the group endorsed Bush in 2000. This reversal largely reflects the president's support for a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage.[...]

The Bushies may be cleaving to a risky strategy of basing a win on getting people who don't always vote to turn out at the polls, while alienating those who do vote. It is oddly shortsighted.

Bush, after all, stepped up the GOP's courtship of Latino voters, and flirted with amnesty for illegal aliens in order to win the big Latino demographic. Now Bush is pulling America backward, despite polls that show Americans increasingly accepting gays and lesbians. A New York Times survey found that 41 percent of GOP delegates (who are supposed to be more conservative than the general population) support civil unions for gay couples. It is only a matter of time before most Republicans support civil unions so that gay and lesbian couples can enjoy the rights that heterosexuals enjoy. Bush is heading in the wrong direction.


You have to know pretty little about politics not to see the connection between courting Latinos and blithely letting gays bolt to the Democratic Party.

Posted by Orrin Judd at September 9, 2004 5:43 PM
Comments

Same-sex marriage.

Then she says civil unions.

Not the same.

If they would give up on the word marriage, it might be a done deal.

Posted by: Sandy P at September 9, 2004 5:58 PM

It's not shortsighted at all, because homosexuals don't breed well in captivity.

And just because we are "increasingly accepting gays and lesbians" doesn't mean that they should get everything they demand no matter how it affects the rest of society.

Posted by: Raoul Ortega at September 9, 2004 6:32 PM

"despite polls that show Americans increasingly accepting gays and lesbians"

"accepting gays" = "gay marriage". I don't think so.

Posted by: h-man at September 9, 2004 6:33 PM

Raoul, you stole my thunder.

Posted by: h-man at September 9, 2004 6:40 PM

h-man: He does that ALL the time ;)

Posted by: John Resnick at September 9, 2004 7:04 PM

So the agenda of the Log Cabin Republicans is first we secure gay marriage and only then do we give a thought to terrorism?

Posted by: Peter B at September 9, 2004 7:40 PM

Just as to an alky, the Constitutional Right To My Next Drink must be protected at all costs, so the Constitutional Right To Dip My Wick Whenever I Want With Anyone Or Anything I Want trumps whether all America lives or dies.

Posted by: Ken at September 9, 2004 8:33 PM

"Now Bush is pulling America backward, despite polls that show Americans increasingly accepting gays and lesbians."

And here I thought only Marxists were foolish enough to know the course of history in advance. Silly me.

Backwards, indeed. Humph.

Posted by: Arnold Williams at September 9, 2004 8:56 PM

If the Unitarian Church and the Episcopal Church feel free to interpret the Gospel to permit gay marriage, who am I to tell them no?

If two gays get married, no one is getting hurt. My taxes aren't going up. So when did it become my business?

If we left each other alone, this would really be a much better world.

Posted by: Bart at September 9, 2004 10:24 PM

Bart:

Presumably you're an American and an heir to the great Western and Judeo-Christian traditions.

Posted by: oj at September 9, 2004 10:46 PM

And as I've said before, if my rabbi performed a gay or lesbian marriage, I'd be leading the charge to fire him. But that First Amendment Freedom of Religion deal prevents me from telling the Episcopalians what they can and cannot do.

As long as they aren't harming children or scaring the horses, it ain't my business.

Posted by: Bart at September 9, 2004 10:50 PM

Ever read the Constitution?

Posted by: oj at September 9, 2004 11:04 PM

Bart
Marriage is a civil institution that religious officials are allowed to administer, but that does not mean that the religions are allowed to redefine the institution.

We are leaving them alone, gays can partner with whomever they wish. Leaving alone does not require state recognition of their union.

Posted by: Robert Duquette at September 9, 2004 11:35 PM

Then we should withdraw state recognition of marriage altogether. No tax benefits, no legal obligations. Polygamy and polyandry are not my problem either.

That equal protection clause does get a little troublesome.

The State has no interest until your behavior starts imposing costs on others. When the Episcopal Church marries two guys, who is being harmed? That is the question you keep evading. You give me rhetoric about the 'Judeo-Christian tradition' whatever the Hell that is, you complain of 'redefining the institution', what institution is that? Where is it in the Constitution? Isn't it a Ninth Amendment reserved right of the individual to decide whom he can marry? Who are you to compel the State to use your version of theology rather than that of the Episcopal Church? Why can't you be content to lead your life the way you believe is right, and leave others alone to lead their lives as they wish, so long as they impose no real costs on you?

Posted by: Bart at September 10, 2004 6:59 AM

The state has an obvious interest in heterosexual marriage.

Posted by: oj at September 10, 2004 7:23 AM

But promoting heterosexual marriage doesn't necessarily mean quashing homosexual marriage.
The health of hetero- marriage is not dependent on the lack of homo- marriage.

Posted by: Michael Herdegen at September 10, 2004 7:34 AM

Michael:

No. The health of society does.

Posted by: oj at September 10, 2004 8:23 AM

"Accepting" = "Not burning at the stake"

Posted by: J.H. at September 10, 2004 9:08 AM

oj:

Puh-lease.

Why not claim that the future of the entire Galaxy depends on gays not being able to marry ?

Abortion seems like a much bigger problem to me, and yet, somehow, our society has survived.

Posted by: Michael Herdegen at September 11, 2004 5:39 PM

Yes, we've resisted both abortion and gay rights and we import people by the millions. Europe gave in and is dying.

Posted by: oj at September 11, 2004 6:10 PM
« IT IS THE DADDY PARTY: | Main | ON MICE THAT ROAR »