[politics] the role of same-sex marriage in the election

[topaz]

One of the sentiments I've seen a lot in the last week is that because same-sex marriage proved such a galvanizing issue for the right, Democrats are somehow to blame for pushing this issue inappropriately. For example, "Bush should send a thank-you letter to the Massachusetts SJC," or "If the Massachusetts court had not ruled as they did, Kerry would currently be in the White House." Even assuming that the marriage issue turned out the deciding vote in the election -- and the evidence is mounting to indicate that it didn't -- there are at least two reasons why this is nonsense.

The first is that it's, well, not true. Democrats are "pushing" same-sex marriage? Good Lord, I only wish that they were! Nobody in the political arena wanted this football. This happened because a handful of gay couples found lawyers who were willing to take their case, and they went to court. Just like any other citizens. It was not an issue introduced by Democratic political operatives. In 1996, when the Defense of Marriage Act came up for a vote, it passed overwhelmingly on both sides of the aisle. That bill was signed into law, as conservatives are fond of pointing out, by a Democratic president. In this most recent election cycle, only one Democratic candidate expressed support for same-sex marriage, and he was not the nominee, who turned out not only to oppose same-sex marriage but supported amending his own state's constitution to prohibit it.

So the next time someone suggests that Democrats are responsible for bringing this issue down on themselves, ask them to explain which Democrats made it happen, and how: who brought the issue before the SJC, who arranged for the SJC to decide the way that it did, and who timed it to happen in an election year.

But the other reason it's inappropriate to blame the SJC for making this a campaign issue is that the court, of all branches of government, is the one that should be acting without regard for day-to-day political concerns. To decide issues of civil rights based on which candidate is most likely to be hurt by it is short-sighted almost beyond belief. It is a classic example of cutting off your nose to spite your face. Can anyone possibly believe that same-sex marriage supporters would be better off if the SJC had ruled against it, just so that we could have elected a president who also opposes it?

It seems to me that the "handful of activist judges" meme is not going to hold currency for much longer. When it was just one state, it was at least understandable. But with two states, it would have been a stretch, and when you have three state supreme courts independently ruling in favor of same-sex marriage... well, maybe Arlo Guthrie said it best.

You know, if one person, just one person does it they may think he's really sick and they won't take him. And if two people, two people do it, in harmony, they may think they're both faggots and they won't take either of them. And three people do it, three, can you imagine, three people walking in singin a bar of Alice's Restaurant and walking out. They may think it's an organization. And can you, can you imagine fifty people a day, I said fifty people a day walking in singin a bar of Alice's Restaurant and walking out.

And friends, they may think it's a movement.

Comments

[keyne.livejournal.com]

So the next time someone suggests that Democrats are responsible for bringing this issue down on themselves, ask them to explain which Democrats made it happen, and how...

Well, I hear Barney Frank has been blaming Gavin Newsom, but I'm not sure what the situation in SF has to do with the SJC ruling in Mass., really.

[ceo]

I seem to recall that Kerry opposed the MA anti-gay-marriage amendment.

[qwrrty.livejournal.com]

He opposed the Federal Marriage Amendment, but supported the state amendment: http://www.boston.com/news/specials/gay_marriage/articles/2004/02/27/romney_calls_kerrys_stance_on_gay_marriage_confusing/

He says his reasoning is that he personally opposes same-sex marriage but thinks that it's a matter that should be left to the states.

[(Anonymous)]

You are generally correct but you miss the point. The point is that gay marriage became a galvanizing issue. One of the facts on the ground here is that the Republicans were more successful at getting their core supporters and target voter groups to the polls than Democrats were. Slice it how you like (and I'm well aware of the voter fraud issues) that's still true.

So why did that happen? It happened, in part, because there was a galvanizing social issue around which the Repubs could whip up their core, appeal to many, and which made a large number of natural Democratic supporters upset, if not openly hostile (e.g. black churches and civil rights organizations). These people probably didn't vote Repub, but they didn't turn out to vote in enough numbers nor did they get out the vote of their groups.

The Democrats aren't "pushing" same-sex marriage in the sense we'd like them to. But Newsome is a Democrat and his actions reflect on the national image of the party. Kerry voted against the DOMA, bless his pointy head, but his reasons for doing so were never articulated adequately, nor promoted forcefully enough.

The problem is that the Dems are trapped in their attempt to be more conservative than thou. They'd like the gays (and the environmentalists, and the anti-war folks) to be unseen and un-heard. Vote dependably but don't embarrass Daddy in public because Daddy Dem is out there trying to run farther and farther to the right. The sad part is that this strategy worked for Clinton, twice, so the odds of getting the DLC to change course are near nil. I'd love to be part of a party that embraced its values rather than being ashamed of them, but that seems unlikely any time soon.

--wex

[qwrrty.livejournal.com]

All this is true too, but, so what? Of course same-sex marriage became a galvanizing issue; I'm saying that we shouldn't conclude from that that it was a mistake for anyone to take up the issue in the first place, or that those who did take it up are somehow to blame for Kerry's defeat.

As for the DLC, I note that the strategy of moving farther to the right, while it worked for Clinton, has also failed catastrophically in the last two elections. McAuliffe is on his way out; while I'm not assuming that they're going to change their course I think it's a great deal more plausible than that.

[muckefuck.livejournal.com]

Was it centrism that failed the party in those two elections or are other factors to blame? Gore took pains to distance himself from the Clinton administration. Instead of running on its achievements, he took up an incoherent populist message which The Onion brilliantly summed up as "Our long nightmare of peace and prosperity is over!" (Ah, how true that turned out to be...) And I thought yesthattom hit the nail on the head when he identified the central failure of Kerry's campaign not with centrism per se but with meekness. True, the reason for caution was to avoid offending those sensitive swing voters, but the election was won not by them but by turnout. Kerry deliberately avoided any galvanising progressive issue--including, incredibly, opposition to the war.

Personally, I think a return to a Clintonian blend of fiscal conservatism and social and trade liberalism is the Dems' best hope of landing back in office. My greatest fear is that these setbacks will convince them they have nothing to lose by embracing their leftish wing, with the result that they will succeed only in marginalising themselves for another decade. After all, Republican legislators were in opposition for thirty years until Reaganism made conservatism cool for the working class.

[qwrrty.livejournal.com]

You have a good point with respect to meekness, but I think that's directly related to the centrism issue. Both Gore and Kerry tried to adopt more centrist positions than they might otherwise have taken, in an attempt to win over more voters, but because they never seemed to hold those positions with deep conviction, the electorate ultimately found them wishy-washy. Nor did Clinton completely escape that issue -- not for nothing did Trudeau portray him as a waffle.

I think you said it best yourself: Reagan's strategic triumph was to "make conservatism cool for the working class." I would like to see a Democrat who can make liberalism inspiring for middle America. I don't want to see them distance themselves from left-wing policies. I want to figure out how to make the policies more appealing to people who don't yet get it.

[ckd]

There's an argument that Tom Finneran, of all people, is responsible for bringing it on.

The argument is that because he sat on civil union proposals for so many years, there was no other option except the courts; in this hypothetical, had he let one pass, the Goodridge case wouldn't have happened. I'm not sure I agree (and I have a real distaste for the whole "separate but equal" BS that civil unions represent), but the argument exists.

[qwrrty.livejournal.com]

Interesting way to look at it. By the same token you could say that the Republican Party is responsible for forcing the issue to come out the way that it did, by refusing any compromise. I don't think that's what most people are thinking of when they say that Democrats brought the issue on themselves. :-)

[jacflash.livejournal.com]

For a lot of people, it's less the gay marriage issue in and of itself as it is the American left's tendency to force social change via the courts, rather than via the democratic process. Same-sex marriage is (in many corners of America) an extreme, lurid example, but I think if anyone ever bothers to dig deeper I think they'll find that it's not anti-gay bigotry but resistance to judicial activism that's what makes so many red staters uncomfortable with this.

[hammercock.livejournal.com]

Perhaps that is true. Then again, the reason the left looks to the courts to help change the system is that there are too many people out there who are happy to vote to keep rights away from others. A lot of us think that people shouldn't be allowed to vote to deny others their rights. In cases like that, democracy is the proverbial two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner. Democratic, sure, but hardly fair or just.

[jacflash.livejournal.com]

Well, that's the easy answer. The problem is, however, that there's no settled agreement on whether some of these things are in fact "rights", and while you and I might see the justice of them, who's to say that using the courts to establish them isn't just a matter of inflicting our whims on others against their will?

[lhn.livejournal.com]

And on a purely practical level, if the voters are sufficiently motivated they can and will override the courts. The voters of Massachusetts weren't so motivated, and that's good. But voters in states that are hardly rock-ribbed Republican turned out to make very sure that the same thing wouldn't happen where they lived. I'm not sure how many other places the judicial strategy is likely to work (since it depends on constitutional provisions that not every state has), and if you lose ten states for every one you gain you're going to run out of opportunities pretty quickly.

It may be worth observing that the courts' role in extending civil rights to black Americans only happened once active support for denying them was limited to a geographically restricted minority of the population. And it came nearly a century after the previous attempt to force equality with Federal action foundered. (That's a further compounding of a long national shame, but it also suggests that the civil rights struggle isn't necessarily an ideal model for those who want to see same-sex marriage recognized nationwide before 2090.)

[innerdoggie.livejournal.com]

I'm wondering if Bush won because of war/terrorism issues and not because of social issues. My guess is that those were the issues that motivated swing voters more than the base voters of either party.