Discussion: Gay Rights X

[Schlosser85]

I 100% agree with Matt on this.

Either endorse it or don't. He's been saying his views on gay marriage are "evolving" for years now.

"I don't support your right to get married yet, but if you reelect me, maybe I will in my second term, wink wink"

[Matt]

I really think that the gay rights movement needs to vote third party. Just as the religious right needs to vote third party. Neither of the parties respect them. They dangle carrots in front of them to get votes and then pull the carrot away once they have the votes so they can use it again in the next election cycle.

Obama had a super majority. His only accomplishment? Repealing DADT at the last minute (and it wasn't even him, it was Nancy Pelosi....he just signed it because to do otherwise would be political suicide and Pelosi only seemed to do it out of spite before leaving office). Did he campaign for any of the state referendums? Nope. His voice....ONE campaign commercial could've entirely changed the outcome of Maine. Yet he was silent. But it's okay, he's evolving. Vote for him and maybe next time he will have fully evolved....maybe.

Then you have Republicans with religious votes. Once again, Bush had a huge majority and the Republicans have controlled SCOTUS for years. Funny how abortion is still legal, despite Bush and co.'s dedication to overturning it, eh?

Keep in mind, I'm not advocating that position. Just pointing out the way the politicians use these groups which ironically have a lot in common. Pawns to the political parties. Voting third party, really hurting them in the ballot....that is the way to really make them recognize you. Otherwise they'll just keep on "evolving."

[Schlosser85]

I'm considering switching from Democrat to Independent, and that is part of the reason.

Along with the Dems' ineptitude.

[Hotwire]

Sadly, as polarized as our country is, Obama endorsing gay marriage would be political suicide for him. There are just too many people against it. It sucks but, it's true. I mean, Bush got re-elected by promising to Constitutionally ban it.

[Matt]

It would be political suicide for a Republican to endorse it. Obama, Not so much. The far religious right isn't going to vote for him anyway and independents generally won't vote based on gay marriage, not in enough numbers to have a significant effect anyway. Obama could endorse gay marriage and arguably come out stronger.

But he won't because the party doesn't want gay marriage to be legalized. Once it is legalized, the right will inevitably just accept it (probably within five years) and move on. Then a huge voting bloc will vote based on other issues. Some will stay democrat, some will go Republican. But the Democrats will lose part of that bloc (maybe as much as half). So they need homosexuals to be oppressed to keep it an issue that they can use as a rallying point.

[wiegeabo]

Originally Posted by Schlosser85

I'm considering switching from Democrat to Independent, and that is part of the reason.

Along with the Dems' ineptitude.

Do you mean Independent Party, or just a 3rd party?

I was an Independent years ago, but then the party shifted and scared the hell outta me. And I'm not sure if they shifted back.

I'm saying don't just pick Independent. Research the 3rd parties first.

But I agree that the Big Two need some fear put into them with the power of votes. Much like the whole SOPA/PIPA thing did, but on an even bigger scale.

[Schlosser85]

I wasn't talking a specific Indendent party, just voting as an independent.

[Hotwire]

Originally Posted by Matt

It would be political suicide for a Republican to endorse it. Obama, Not so much. The far religious right isn't going to vote for him anyway and independents generally won't vote based on gay marriage, not in enough numbers to have a significant effect anyway. Obama could endorse gay marriage and arguably come out stronger.

But he won't because the party doesn't want gay marriage to be legalized. Once it is legalized, the right will inevitably just accept it (probably within five years) and move on. Then a huge voting bloc will vote based on other issues. Some will stay democrat, some will go Republican. But the Democrats will lose part of that bloc (maybe as much as half). So they need homosexuals to be oppressed to keep it an issue that they can use as a rallying point.

There are a lot of minority voters that are religious. Endorsing gay marriage goes against their religion and could alienate a lot of them. Opposing it certainly got Bush some of the minority vote.

[wiegeabo]

Originally Posted by Schlosser85

I wasn't talking a specific Indendent party, just voting as an independent.

gothca

[Matt]

Originally Posted by Hotwire

There are a lot of minority voters that are religious. Endorsing gay marriage goes against their religion and could alienate a lot of them. Opposing it certainly got Bush some of the minority vote.

McCain got about 4 % of black votes. Bush got about 11 %. These aren't game changing numbers. Obama supporting gay marriage will not cost him the African American vote. Latino voters may oppose gay rights in terms of referendums but they don't trend towards basing their elected officials votes on them.

In the end, any losses endured would be more than made up for by the galvanized gay voters who come out by the masses to support the first sitting president to support their cause. It wouldn't be political suicide. That is simply a convenient excuse for the party to hide behind. The real answer is far more sinister and is all about patronizing and manipulating gay voters.

[Schlosser85]

Whether or not those are game changing numbers depends on how close the election is...

[Matt]

Originally Posted by Schlosser85

Whether or not those are game changing numbers depends on how close the election is...

Hmm, maybe. But you have to consider demographics as well. The only place that the Latino vote would have an impact is Florida, maybe New Mexico and Nevada. And like I said, Latinos put a whole list of other issues before gay marriage. It isn't their one, make or break issue. As for African American voters....the highly religious ones who tend to vote on gay marriage, they tend to live either in poor urban communities in New York, California, Michigan, etc (i.e. states Obama will probably carry easily) or in the South (i.e. states Obama has no shot of winning anyway). From an electoral college standpoint, it's not a huge deal. Especially when those votes come at the cost of doing what is right.

Even if it is a big deal, I'd much rather have a president who will do the right thing, no matter how unpopular than one who will cower from justice in the name of keeping his job.

[SV Fan]

Originally Posted by Hotwire

Sadly, as polarized as our country is, Obama endorsing gay marriage would be political suicide for him. There are just too many people against it. It sucks but, it's true. I mean, Bush got re-elected by promising to Constitutionally ban it.

Polls show that Americas actually are about 50-50 on gay marriage(with a very slight edge to allowing it). I am guessing most that were surveyed though probably list gay marriage very low as a priority on what issues they vote for(especially the pro gay marriage side)

I personally feel that gay marriage(along with abortion) should be fought at the state level and kept out of the federal discussion. Sadly to often it feel like it's an issue brought up in federal elections that gets in the way of real issues they should be talking about

[Thundercrack85]

I'd say the issue of gay marriage doesn't evoke a very strong response in most people. Aside from very liberal people (which includes the majority of gays), and very conservative people (which usually means religious), nobody really gives a damn.

[Marx]

UPDATE: HILLARY CLINTON TO RECEIVE LONDON PRIDE AWARD
http://www.advocate.com/politics/201...on-pride-award

[Marx]

Another new thread means a new poll!

With all of the politicking and posturing over social issues, do you believe there will ever be a US President who openly supports gay marriage? Please be sure to vote in the poll above!

[Matt]

Social issues naturally evolve. In twenty years gay marriage will be a norm of society rather than a debate. Presidents won't even speak of it because it will just be the norm.

[wiegeabo]

A sitting President will endorse it, but 2 of 3 things will have to happen first:

1) It's his second term
2) A majority of States will already have legalized it (or civil unions)
3) It will poll highly in favor (well above 60%)

Of course, by the time 2 and/or 3 happen, no one will really care and he'll just be saying it because it's finally safe to do so.

[Hotwire]

Originally Posted by wiegeabo

A sitting President will endorse it, but 2 of 3 things will have to happen first:

1) It's his second term
2) A majority of States will already have legalized it (or civil unions)
3) It will poll highly in favor (well above 60%)

Of course, by the time 2 and/or 3 happen, no one will really care and he'll just be saying it because it's finally safe to do so.

I can agree with these criteria. Just not sure this country will reach them in my lifetime.

[Thundercrack85]

You'd be surprised. Most people supported anti-miscenegation laws well into the 70's. Now even in Mississippi 60% of people are in favor of keeping interracial marriage legal.

[Matt]

Originally Posted by Hotwire

I can agree with these criteria. Just not sure this country will reach them in my lifetime.

It really depends on how SCOTUS rules on Prop 8, I think. If SCOTUS upholds Prop 8 (and I tend to think that they will as I don't see the Roberts Court as it currently is over turning a voter referendum on contract law, which is how I think they will see it), I think it becomes a vicious battle. The parties will really use it for posturing and in the end, my guess is we will have about 25-30 states where it is illegal and 20-25 where it is legal.

That being said, the real fight is going to be from a social perspective. Overturning a SCOTUS precedent is hard. It takes a full on ideological shift in the Court (which we haven't seen in 30 years). But as public perception becomes more accepting of homosexuality (which will happen in the next twenty years or so IMO), we will see presidents become more accepting, governors become more accepting, state legislatures become more accepting and then the SCOTUS precedent won't really matter anymore.

[spideyboy_1111]

Originally Posted by wiegeabo

A sitting President will endorse it, but 2 of 3 things will have to happen first:

1) It's his second term
2) A majority of States will already have legalized it (or civil unions)
3) It will poll highly in favor (well above 60%)

Of course, by the time 2 and/or 3 happen, no one will really care and he'll just be saying it because it's finally safe to do so.

i concur

[Pink Ranger]

Originally Posted by wiegeabo

A sitting President will endorse it, but 2 of 3 things will have to happen first:

1) It's his second term
2) A majority of States will already have legalized it (or civil unions)
3) It will poll highly in favor (well above 60%)

Of course, by the time 2 and/or 3 happen, no one will really care and he'll just be saying it because it's finally safe to do so.

Maybe not be a "he", right?

[hippie_hunter]

Originally Posted by Matt

McCain got about 4 % of black votes. Bush got about 11 %. These aren't game changing numbers. Obama supporting gay marriage will not cost him the African American vote. Latino voters may oppose gay rights in terms of referendums but they don't trend towards basing their elected officials votes on them.

In the end, any losses endured would be more than made up for by the galvanized gay voters who come out by the masses to support the first sitting president to support their cause. It wouldn't be political suicide. That is simply a convenient excuse for the party to hide behind. The real answer is far more sinister and is all about patronizing and manipulating gay voters.

Actually you can pretty much blame North Carolina as the reason why Obama is being rather wishy washy on gay marriage. He wants that state badly and gay marriage is going to be banned in that state easily. If he supports gay marriage he will essentially guarantee himself a loss in that state (and probably Virginia as well) because what gave him the victory in North Carolina is the rural white vote.

[wiegeabo]

Originally Posted by Pink Ranger

Maybe not be a "he", right?

Oh, come on. Let's be realistic here.