February 26, 2004
Eyes On The Prize
I have recently (and rather reluctantly) participated in the ongoing gay marriage debate. In a number of web postings, I have tried to impart what I considered valuable input from the vantage point of an engaged and concerned gay man. I framed gay marriage as a modern day civil rights struggle, yet I endorsed the compromise allowing civil unions. I cautioned against, but knew it was almost certain President Bush would soon endorse the amendment to ban gay marriage.
Since hearing the news, I have run the gamut of emotions: sadness, anger, cynicism and frustration. After taking note of the news accounts, I went to the web to gage the reaction of friends, some insightful weblogger pals, WatchBlog.com, a few news oriented message boards, etc. Surprisingly, as a result, I am now heartened, emboldened and even more determined to do my part to fight such intolerance and discrimination.
I cannot believe I’m writing this, but Joe Scarborough actually made an interesting observation. On his show, he asked with genuine surprise (and concern), why the people of California have not yet arisen in anger and protest over the law breaking actions of San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsome. The former mouthpiece to Gov. Ahnold then surmised that the electorate was instead ‘stunned’ by the flaunting of the law, thus unsure as to how to react. Laughable.
The real reason, (and I believe a very important point, so far overlooked), is that the gay marriage issue is not a major concern of American voters. A wedge issue (example: the Confederate Flag) needs to resonate and find genuine grassroots advocacy, on both sides of the controversy, in a detectible sector of the electorate. The Human Rights Campaign and PFLAG fit the mold, but the latest Heritage Foundation funded social Conservative group, which shares the very same mailing lists as it’s previous incarnation, exists only in a parallel world shared with Dick Cheney’s Energy Task Force.
Eager to reverse their ’04 fortunes, the boys at RoveVision forgot to give Tom Delay and the Congressional Republicans a heads up, or at least an email/fax of talking points. A Bush/Cheney ’04 launch was not about to be bogged down by a fickle, weak-kneed and increasingly undisciplined bunch of party subscripts. ‘Steady Leadership And Wedge Issues In A Time Of Change’ is the battle cry!
But, even before Chris Matthews could salivate with Ann Coulter over the quandary facing the Dem Presidential candidates, the Kerry campaign responded in no uncertain terms – a no vote on the Constitutional amendment. No doubt, sensing little or no political fallout (for the reasons I stated?), Kerry’s emphatic stand could resonate through the party’s base similar to that of Howard Dean’s anti-war position and transform him into a truly bold and compassionate image of a future President.
Instead of posting an angry, resentful and cynical response to the President’s announcement, I’ve decided a more positive effort is warranted. I’ve begun research dealing with the subjects of gay marriage, gay unions, relationships and other facts and substantive information. And, in an effort to educate, inform and arm like-minded folks (especially you heterosexuals!), I will be blogging and posting this information online, in hopes of impacting the debate.
I look forward to those future issues polls citing where gay marriage ranks in importance. And, after this fight pulverizes the American public’s psyche and snaps it’s threshold for annoyance (by a media seemingly hyped on steroids and ‘Jesus juice’), this country may finally awaken from the dark days of Bush’s failed presidency.
(Note: I highly recommend a visit to Andrew Sullivan’s website. His thoughts on this subject and emails he’s posted, are an important read.)
Posted by Bert M. Caradine at February 26, 2004 01:39 AMI am happy that current events have emboldened you to fight such discrimination. It occurs to me that these issues are every bit as much about civil rights now as the civil rights movement of the 1960’s was then.
Posted by: Anthony at February 26, 2004 11:23 AMI think this issue is a huge distraction. Not because it isn’t an issue of genuine importance to civil libertarians, but because this amendment doesn’t have a chance in hell of being passed.
It’s been brought up to start a culture war. To get the Republican base energized, and to get the gay community irritated with the Democrat’s cautious response. It’s divide and conquer—an old and effective strategy.
It also, not incidentally, gets activist energies turned away from the election and onto an issue which the Republicans don’t even mind losing at the expense of the white house—it’s not even that important to them.
Losing on gay marriage, if it wins them the white house, is a win-win situation for almost every rank-and-file Republican.
Posted by: Stephanie Dray at February 26, 2004 01:42 PMhello !
I respectfully disagree with the previous posts for several reasons
1) gay marriage is a huge issue for the republican base, yes, but also the “reagan democrats”or “nascar dads”, or “conservative democrats.”
the tactical mistake of the mayor of san fran is that he thought that “everybody” felt as he does. If Bush can highlight this as the major culture war issue, then the dems are sunk (remember that 38 states passed defense of marriage acts)
2) the timing of the gay marriage push was too late. Gay “rights” depends strongly on political correctness and pc is dying a well deserved death. I have seen people “reopen” the whole “gay rights” debate with this issue (i.e. is being gay moral? should it be supported or scorned ?)
3) I want to marry my horse. I want to marry the bobsie twins. Using these simple “soundbites” the gay position has to defend.
I guess we’ll see
Posted by: mackinacnick at February 27, 2004 12:04 AM‘Fool me once, shame on me. Fool me twice?’
Stephanie - I would be very worried if the only Americans echoing your insightful sentiments were angry gays and others of the Left.
However, I have heard and read the exact same viewpoint from Independents, Nader voters, Bush voters and a heck of a lot of heterosexuals - married or singles!
Recent polls show Bush leading in the Red States and, no doubt, this issue will be the main rationale to cling to, when defending a vote for his re-election.
But, what makes me hopeful is what I sense is the tide turning among swing voters (not NASCAR Dads). They were those Nadar voters and reluctant Bush voters of the 2000 election, and they’re not even among the ‘Anyboby But Bush’ crowd.
They get it! They do not accept the arrogant rationale of the war, or the rationale that tax cuts for the wealthy create jobs, or that a compassionate leader could support a Constitutional change to institute discrimination.
I have done the Electoral College math. I am more than happy to write off the South and other Red States, knowing we have a damn good chance of taking Florida, New Hampshire, Missouri and, just maybe, Ohio.
And, this is one of the main reason it will happen!
Posted by: Bert M. Caradine at February 27, 2004 12:25 AM
