Will gay marriage be a major issue in the 2008 presidential election?

[Stranger in a strange land]

In 2004, many were surprised by the degree of backlash against gay marriage. It may indeed have been the final nail in the coffin of the kerry campaign. Across the country, voters turned out to vote for Republicans because they percieved them to be superior on "moral values."

In 2006 however, gay marriage was a minor issue, and in Arizona, an anti-gay marriage ballot initiative actually failed. In Virginia, the gay marriage referendum was supposed to be George Allen's insurance policy, and we all know how that turned out.

In 2006, the Foley Scandal neutralized the GOP's ability to use gay panic to scare up votes. Also, the war in Iraq was widely seen as a failure and Bush's approval ratings had plummeted to below 30%, whereas in 2004 the economy was fairly good, the War in Iraq was seen as a success or at least "worth it" by most people, so people felt free to vote based on moral issues.

However, California legalized gay marriage this year. While that will have no actual implications outside of that state, as the judges arrived at their decision using the California consitution, the conservative bogeymen of activist judges and radical gay activists might again be used to motivate social conservatives to vote. However, gay marriage isn't seen as extreme or out there as it was in the 90s and early 2000s. So I ask, will gay marriage be a major issue in this campaign?

[Albus Dumbledore]

Republicans will try using it to mobilize people but it won't work quite as well as it did in 2004.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

A very minor issue, and McCain cannot exploit it nearly as well as a Bush or a Huckabee could have.

[Reaganfan]

A very minor issue, and McCain cannot exploit it nearly as well as a Bush or a Huckabee could have.

Agree....although a smile still comes to my face when I think of how hugely it was shot down in 2004.

[Albus Dumbledore]

A very minor issue, and McCain cannot exploit it nearly as well as a Bush or a Huckabee could have.

Agree....although a smile still comes to my face when I think of how hugely it was shot down in 2004.

Why do you oppose equal rights for gays?

[Keystone Phil]

A very minor issue, and McCain cannot exploit it nearly as well as a Bush or a Huckabee could have.

Agree....although a smile still comes to my face when I think of how hugely it was shot down in 2004.

Why do you oppose equal rights for gays?

Marriage isn't a right. I do, however, support civil unions so don't tell me I'm not for "equal rights" for gays.

[Albus Dumbledore]

A very minor issue, and McCain cannot exploit it nearly as well as a Bush or a Huckabee could have.

Agree....although a smile still comes to my face when I think of how hugely it was shot down in 2004.

Why do you oppose equal rights for gays?

Marriage isn't a right. I do, however, support civil unions so don't tell me I'm not for "equal rights" for gays.

Unless you support everyone getting civil unions(and leaving marriage soley for churches to handle with no state presence), your position still opposes gay rights. It may be more moderate and a good start but it's still anti-gay rights.

[Keystone Phil]

A very minor issue, and McCain cannot exploit it nearly as well as a Bush or a Huckabee could have.

Agree....although a smile still comes to my face when I think of how hugely it was shot down in 2004.

Why do you oppose equal rights for gays?

Marriage isn't a right. I do, however, support civil unions so don't tell me I'm not for "equal rights" for gays.

Unless you support everyone getting civil unions(and leaving marriage soley for churches to handle with no state presence), your position still opposes gay rights. It may be more moderate and a good start but it's still anti-gay rights.

Oh darn. I guess I'm against gay rights then.

By the way, marriage still isn't a right.

[Albus Dumbledore]

A very minor issue, and McCain cannot exploit it nearly as well as a Bush or a Huckabee could have.

Agree....although a smile still comes to my face when I think of how hugely it was shot down in 2004.

Why do you oppose equal rights for gays?

Marriage isn't a right. I do, however, support civil unions so don't tell me I'm not for "equal rights" for gays.

Unless you support everyone getting civil unions(and leaving marriage soley for churches to handle with no state presence), your position still opposes gay rights. It may be more moderate and a good start but it's still anti-gay rights.

Oh darn. I guess I'm against gay rights then.

By the way, marriage still isn't a right.

The constitution guarentees equal rights for citizens. If heterosexuals can get marriage benefits why not homosexuals?

[Keystone Phil]

The constitution guarentees equal rights for citizens. If heterosexuals can get marriage benefits why not homosexuals?

That's why I support civil unions. I don't want and we shouldn't expect to make the institution itself a right just because the government recognizes it.

[Albus Dumbledore]

Would you be okay with leaving marriage entirely for churches to handle and having everyone get civil unions via the state(they can get a church ceremony afterwards)?

[Keystone Phil]

Would you be okay with leaving marriage entirely for churches to handle and having everyone get civil unions via the state(they can get a church ceremony afterwards)?

I still don't have a problem with the government recognizing marriage. I guess this is the "anti gay equality" in me.

[Albus Dumbledore]

So you're against a simple reform which would more or less end political bickering over gay marriage by moving the question of recognizing gay marriage to the churches?

[Eraserhead]

Would you be okay with leaving marriage entirely for churches to handle and having everyone get civil unions via the state(they can get a church ceremony afterwards)?

I still don't have a problem with the government recognizing marriage. I guess this is the "anti gay equality" in me.

Sounds like it.

[Albus Dumbledore]

Would you be okay with leaving marriage entirely for churches to handle and having everyone get civil unions via the state(they can get a church ceremony afterwards)?

I still don't have a problem with the government recognizing marriage. I guess this is the "anti gay equality" in me.

Sounds like it.

He needs to realize that America isn't only a christian nation.

[Keystone Phil]

So you're against a simple reform which would more or less end political bickering over gay marriage by moving the question of recognizing gay marriage to the churches?

Uh, I want to end it by favoring civil unions.

Would you be okay with leaving marriage entirely for churches to handle and having everyone get civil unions via the state(they can get a church ceremony afterwards)?

I still don't have a problem with the government recognizing marriage. I guess this is the "anti gay equality" in me.

Sounds like it.

He needs to realize that America isn't only a christian nation.

Give me a break. Seriously. If I thought that was the case then I wouldn't even support civil unions.

[Alcon]

How would civil unions end this issue where the government is still explicitly identifying one type of relationship as "superior"?

[Keystone Phil]

How would civil unions end this issue where the government is still explicitly identifying one type of relationship as "superior"?

So you're not even happy with extending every other marriage benefit to gays? Unbelievable. It's not a matter of "superiority."

[Albus Dumbledore]

How would civil unions end this issue where the government is still explicitly identifying one type of relationship as "superior"?

It wouldn't.

[Torie]

How would civil unions end this issue where the government is still explicitly identifying one type of relationship as "superior"?

So you're not even happy with extending every other marriage benefit to gays? Unbelievable. It's not a matter of "superiority."

What is it a matter of? The "game" of capture the word?  Why is that important?  Some say it is important precisely because it does serve as a little dig at "the other." If it is not that, than what is it?

[Keystone Phil]

How would civil unions end this issue where the government is still explicitly identifying one type of relationship as "superior"?

It wouldn't.

Oh, ok. You win!

Only on this forum can someone be in support of civil unions and still be considered "anti gay." Nothing is good enough.

How would civil unions end this issue where the government is still explicitly identifying one type of relationship as "superior"?

So you're not even happy with extending every other marriage benefit to gays? Unbelievable. It's not a matter of "superiority."

What is it a matter of? The "game" of capture the word?  Why is that important?  Some say it is important precisely because it does serve as a little dig at "the other." If it is not that, than what is it?

It's a matter of respecting the institutions that have traditionally decided marriage. I'm not comfortable with the government deciding to expand the boundaries of marriage. If my support for civil unions isn't good enough, whatever.

[Albus Dumbledore]

Note how my proposal involved having the churches decide what marriage is and left all the administrative/benefits related to it to civil unions.

[Torie]

I am not sure you have answered my question. If all substance has been drained out of the matter, other than the use of the word "marriage," as nomenclature that is used in the civil law, why is that so important? Tradition? And why if that is the case, why should that in and of itself be the policy trump card here?

[Albus Dumbledore]

Give it 10 or so years and the debate will be civil unions vs gay marriage.

[Torie]

Give it 10 or so years and the debate will be civil unions vs gay marriage.

Civil unions are pretty accepted now, although the issue of extending federal benefits to those bound by a "mere" civil union, will be a firefight. But that is not Phil's point here. He's "conceding" the fiscal issue. It is the use of the term, in and of itself, without more.