ex-idaho

Since Bush came out in favor of a ban on same sex marriage yesterday the right wing pundits have been stepping all over themselves to suggest that this will divide the Democratic party and doom any chance of beating Bush in '04.

I read an article that suggest that support for homosexual rights has fallen since the Supreme Courts ruling on sodomy and that Americans are less inclined to support same sex marriage. The counter argument is that when you ask Americans if they support certain individual rights like the right to visit with a partner in the hospital, pass on inheritence or take the couples tax deduction then support is much higher.

So what are your thoughts? Has the GOP found an issue that could divided the party and undermine support of a Democratic nominee?

pug846

Support is still at 50 percent. I haven�t seen a breakdown, but I would be willing to bet that extending the right to marry to gays is still incredibly popular amongst democrats and incredibly not popular amongst republicans. Regardless, I don�t see it as such a big deal that it would split the democrats. Although I�m going from gut instinct here, something tells me the small number of democrats that don�t support gay rights, but generally support the democrats anyway, would not jumpy ship over this one trivial issue. Usually the people that feel strongly about denying gays the right to marry are religious fundamentalists that would never vote democrat anyway.

Jimmy Higgins

Bush may want Consitutional Amendment
Alright, so why did he say we are all sinners? And who else in here hates it when Born-Agains say this when in their own past, they did shit you'd never dare think of trying. But we are all sinners. "My chronic drug usage is no different to god than you leaving 5 minutes early from work. We are all..." *BANG* (Anvil drops on hypocrites head).

The biggest problem with anti-gay legislation is that it makes no sense except from a religious point of view that is very narrow. It has nothing to do with crime. It has nothing to do with health care. It has nothing to do with anything, but appeasing their god. What angers me most is all this talk about gays wanting "special-rights" when in fact, all they want are equal-rights. The Rabid Right is very good in tainting such things.

I don't think people realize how bad they are discriminated in cases of insurance and hospitals rules/laws. Tell the people what the cards are and they'll understand a bit better. This is not an issue that will hurt the Democrats. In fact, it may help unify more of the stronger left that have been absent in the polls lately.

Arken

I just don't think this will become a big issue in the election... voters will care far more about the economy.

Cynical-Chick

I think the "President" should read this. Or maybe have his aides read it to him (they read him his briefings).

Bill

It wouldn't make any difference. He would view those folks as "living in sin" and dismiss the whole thing from his mind.

Bigots are like that; in fact, the definition of bigotry is exactly that: your mind is made up regardless of the facts that are fed to you, forcibly or otherwise.

== Bill

Bill

I agree with you here. Voters generally vote their own pocketbook. And besides, none of the Democrats, no matter how liberal, are advocating full gay marriage. Howard Dean only wants to see Vermont's civil unions go nationwide. And he is the "flaming liberal" in that crowd.....

== Bill

Leviathan

Idaho, I read the same report today, about political support falling after the Supreme Court ruling. I'm rather surprised that the support has fallen, but I must also concur with the others: single-sex marriages, IMO, will not be a big issue in the election. Iraq, the economy, other issues will take the forefront.

eldar1011

I was going to start a new thread, but this one will do.

My question is:

How does all of this recent talk regarding gay marriage relate to the "Defense of Marriage Act" of 1996 (see here )?

Is this law already on the books? Have there been no Constitutional challenges? Does this already existing law render all current discussion meaningless?

This law already defines marriage as being "only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife".

So, why all the controversy now?

pug846

Under Lawrence, the Texas Sodomy case, that law is probably unconstitutional. Actually, under Romer, which was decided in 90s, the law is probably unconstitutional. So, only a constitutional amendment will be able to keep gay's from having the right to marry. I would assume the current Supreme Court would vote 6-3 that the Defense of Marriage Act violates the equal protection clause, or alternatively, 5-3 that that Act violates substantive due process because marriage is a "fundamental right.� It�s only a matter of time. The Massachusetts Supreme Court will rule shortly on whether gays have the right to marry in that state. I�m not sure how you could possibly not grant gays the right to marry following Lawrence and specifically, O�Connor�s concurrence that argued that the Texas sodomy law was illegal because it violated the equal protection clause since it only applied to homosexuals. Even if O�Connor doesn�t want to go so far because of the lack of a historical precedent here in the U.S., I can�t imagine the five in Lawrence that invalidated the sodomy law on substantive due process grounds would not do the same for gay marriage. They would on either equal protection grounds or substantive due process grounds, assuming the right to marriage is a fundamental right. (And I think it is; I believe there was a case regarding prisoner�s right to marry that was upheld because of that rationale, but I could be wrong.)