A headline in today’s Wall Street Journal proclaims, “New York Gay Marriage Vote Alters Political Battle Lines.” Obviously, it is an indication of changing public attitudes, but I think (especially because of poll numbers) it might be a mistake for either side to see gay marriage as the issue worth a major showdown in politics today.
New York’s decision to permit same-sex marriages sets the stage for battles in half a dozen other states and could propel gay rights as a political wedge issue in the 2012 elections.
Will it be a definitive “wedge issue” in the 2012 elections? For some, perhaps. But to most people, the economy is far more important, and gay marriage seems frivolous by comparison.
Nevertheless, some people see battle lines as being drawn.
Opponents said they would go on the attack against Republicans who support gay marriage. Brian Brown, president of the National Organization for Marriage, said New York’s move was a “disaster for the Republican party,” and that his group planned to spend $2 million over the next 18 months to defeat the legislators who supported it.
Whether that approach works will depend on what the majority of Republican voters think. Even if a majority of GOP voters oppose gay marriage, is this an issue that resonates enough to will win the hearts and minds of a majority of ordinary voters in a general election?
A May Gallup poll, echoing a March Washington Post-ABC News poll, found 53% of Americans believe same-sex marriage should be recognized as valid, with the same rights as heterosexual marriages. The poll, which has a sampling error of 4%, found 44% support for same-sex marriage last year.
Opponents point to a May Alliance Defense Fund poll which claimed a 2.53% margin of error found that 62% of Americans think marriage should be defined “only as a union between one man and one woman.”
Regardless of which poll is correct, what neither reflects is how the gay marriage issue ranks in terms of overall importance to voters. In August of last year, a more detailed Pew survey revealed that gay marriage “ranked last among the list of issues we asked about in terms of importance to the vote.”
It strikes me that staking an election on an issue that ranks last with the voters would be a risky proposition even in a dull year.
A major problem with wedge issues is that single issue activists want to think that people who side with them are in the trenches with them . Yet that is absolutely not the case.
On the gay marriage issue I think I can fairly state that I am in no one’s “trench.” While I don’t have strong feelings about this issue, I have long worried about getting the family police involved in what have long been alternative relationships. At the same time, activists who oppose gay marriage annoy the hell out of me (to the point where they have almost inclined me to support gay marriage out of spite), because they seem more driven by antipathy against homosexuality than anything else. I suspect that this is one of those issues where whoever yells the loudest on either side will be most likely to alienate the vast majority who don’t rank this issue high as a priority even if they venture an opinion to an occasional pollster on one side or the other.
My opinion is that those who want to make this the deciding political issue in 2012 may be in for a terrible disappointment.
Comments
18 responses to “Do I have to be in a trench?”
Just barring the gummint/state from the entire issue is the solution. Why the Church ever gave over a Sacrament to the state is beyond me.
Perhaps the gummint should check out the bacterial count in the baptismal font or the lipstick residue on the Chalice.
Get gummint out of the marriage business.
Who cares? Are there really people – even gay people – who care enough about this issue to change their vote?
Get married, get a civil-union, whatever.
Up here in New Hampshire, we Republicans don’t want gay marriage as an election issue. It’s a wedge issue that generates more heat than light. For every anti-gay marriage voter you win, you loose a pro gay marriage voter. The anti gay marriage voters are mostly Republicans anyhow, we own them and we don’t have to pander to them. The pro gay marriage voters are more likely to be independents that we need to vote Republican.
With a solid Republican majority in the NH legislature after the ’10 election, enthusiasts tried to repeal the new NH gay marriage law. The Republican leadership buried the bill as counterproductive.
Defensive trench or latrine? Battles about sex inevitably turn into latrine wars.
One part of the equation that is not mentioned is the welfare of the kids.
Generally, the issue of gay marriage is put in the light of “equal rights”, however, the kids raised in these unions (from what I understand) are generally a mess, both emotionally and spiritually.
Gays are seeking validation for their actions, and have decided to pretty much try to destroy our society in order to do so.
It has been proven over and over that the family must be defended and nurtured in society. The family is a unit that must be strong. This is where CHILDREN gain the skills it takes to get along in the world, such as compassion, love, respect, and self-worth.
Kids want to be in families with their mothers and fathers.
Gays can argue all they want, and they will probably attain “legal marriage” status in our country before long. But the price our society will pay (despite all assurances otherwise)is more than that “right” is worth.
This is what the Left and gay marriage supporters never seem to understand: when you make an exception to a standard, there is no standard.
Now that we’ve deviated from the man + woman standard for marriage, homosexual marriage will open the doors to things like legalized: polygamy, polyandry, and incestuous marriage. How could anyone fight these things in court once one exception is made? More importantly, what kind of society results from legitimizing things like polygamy?
We have seen the family, the basic unit of civilization, being eroded from two directions for decades. One, by replacing husbands with state welfare checks. The other has been a 20-year campaign to do away with the standard of marriage.
This is what the Left and gay marriage supporters never seem to understand: when you make an exception to a standard, there is no standard.
I’m all for keeping up standards. Here’s a link for those who believe in the sanctity of marriage, that holy union of one man and one woman:
http://www.theelvisweddingchapel.com/weddingfaqs.htm
And when your quickie wedding needs a fast annulment or divorce, here’s the Sin City Chamber of Commerce to the rescue:
http://www.sincitychamberofcommerce.com/las_vegas_divorces.htm
If you are interested, here are details on divorce rates. The higlights:
* 41% of first marriages in the U.S. end in divorce
* 60% of second marriages in the U.S. end in divorce
* 73% of third marriages in the U.S. end in divorce
The link to the Elvis Chapel above is broke. Here’s another that works:
http://theelvischapel.reachlocal.net/index_flash.html
Frank is obviously under some laughable impression that simply because something gets abused, that thing has no merit.
A screwdriver is still a screwdriver, even if someone uses it to pry open a paint can. A bank is still a bank, even if people use it to steal. Marriage is still marriage, even if people fail at making it work. See the previous comment on how state money has become a surrogate spouse, too.
Oh, and get a new strawman. Thanks.
Stephen, we could throw arguments back and forth without ever convincing the other. I just disagree with you, for strong personal reasons. Leave it at that.
Disagree with me all you want, but try to put together a cogent argument.
If we’re redefining marriage, to which degree are we defining the institution? A defense: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1722155
Joe Hood, you linked the following summary of arguments from professors Girgis, George, and Anderson – two poli-sci eggheads and one philosophy specialist. What they know about sociology or family law I haven’t a clue. From the summary of their papers on marriage they are under the illusion that the state recognizes marriage solely for the purpose of procreation.
In the article, we argue that as a moral reality, marriage is the union of a man and a woman who make a permanent and exclusive commitment to each other of the type that is naturally fulfilled by bearing and rearing children together, and renewed by acts that constitute the behavioral part of the process of reproduction. We further argue that there are decisive principled as well as prudential reasons for the state to enshrine this understanding of marriage in its positive law, and to resist the call to recognize as marriages the sexual unions of same-sex partners…
I guess that leaves out anyone who is sterile, past menopause, or who simply decides not to have children.
The basis of my argument is that state recognition of marriage is one of codifying an existing custom, nothing more. Marriage was an accepted social practice long before the government got involved. So what is the problem with recognizing same sex relationships that are increasingly socially accepted by a tolerant society? Sodomy is no longer a crime, unlike incest and bigamy. The slippery slope argument also fails here.
It is about equality before the law, nothing else.
[…] My indignation over sodomy laws aside, I find this fascinating from a political standpoint. Regardless of how they might stand on if forced to take a position one way or the other, the majority of voters could care less about the gay issue. Far from being the wedge issue that so many activists want it to be, it ranks at the very bottom of voters’ concerns. […]
[…] despite the fact culture issues rank low with the general voters, the “culture war” is what’s always said to be driving […]
[…] countless other people. This is a political issue on which the country is divided 50/50, but which ranks low on the list of voter […]