Taking bets on the percentages that Gay Marriage is going down.

[Waverley_Hills_Hiker]

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0806-03.htm

Common Dreams says 70% of the Missourians voted to ban gay marraige.

There are other states that will vote on this:

Louisiana residents are to vote on a marriage amendment Sept. 18. Then Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, Montana, Oklahoma, Oregon and Utah are to vote on the issue Nov. 2. There also are initiatives pending in Michigan, North Dakota and Ohio.

Anyone want to give a % spread by how much the various state amendements will pass?

Probably over 90% in Utah. I think over 70% in Oklahoma and Mississippi. 70% in KY, Maybe less than 70% in Oregaon.

As for the political impact, not much, as the states that will be voting on this are mostly GOP strongholds. Michigan and Ohio, however, could swing it to Bush if the RR gets out the vote and ties Kerry to "Gay Marriage".

Since I live in Ohio I have an interest in this issue.

If Kerry/Edwards are smart, they need to come to Ohio to endorse the gay marriage amendment, or say thats up to Ohioans to decide...go on the offensive on this in their campaign swings here, to take it
"off the table" as an issue on the Presidential election. They need to be prepared to actually endorse this, not say its "a states rights issue".

[movonne]

1. I think that if Kerry gets in, it will probably go to the Supreme Court

and they will have to make gay marriage legal. That is why they want to make it a constitutional amendment.

[mike1963]

2. I won't be surprised at around a 70% here in Oklahoma...lots of idiot

rednecks here. :(

[mitchtv]

3. fly-over states

thank god I don't live in one.

[SoCalDem]

4. Those are the same people who would have voted for

the "status quo" on civil rights.. This is why referendum voting stinks..

Kelly-for-nya is living with the results of 20 years' worth of numbskull propositions that have been paid for by agitators.

[Ms. Toad]

5. Excuse me?????

<<They need to be prepared to actually endorse this, not say its "a states rights issue".>>

I'm having enough trouble holding my nose and voting against Bush by marking a vote for Kerry already.

Now you want the Kerry/Edwards team to come to my state and support a constitutional amendment declaring my marriage unconstitutional (and yes, I am legally married)? If they ever go so far as to actively support a constitutional amendment (federal or state), I am not sure I will be able to vote against Bush, rather than just stay home. I think the position you advocate would lose more votes for Kerry/Edwards from folks like me than it would swing from Bush to Kerry (or prevent swinging from Kerry to Bush).

Kerry indicated that he wants to stop talking about family values and start valuing families. That is a line I have been using for years ("When people talk about family values that is a clear message that they do not value my family"). If Kerry is selective about which families he values, his position is no better than Bush's position of talking about family values without really valuing families.

[Waverley_Hills_Hiker]

7. I think they should, yes.

I think they are painting themselves in a "waffling" position by sayting this is a states rights issue, but not saying whether or not they are for or against gay marriage.

If they are against, the logical question from people in a state where this is on a ballot would be "do you support our attempt ot outlaw gay marriages in this state"?

if they cant answer that question, well, do they deserve anyones vote?

They need to be consistent on at least this one issue. If they oppose gay marraige they need to say they support state-level attempts to outlaw these marriages.

[ASanders84]

8. NO NO NO!

Kerry is taking an electable standpoint on this issue, he is FOR gay marriage no doubt. But, if Kerry came out and said tommorow he were going to make gay marriage legal if elected, he would have just committed political suicide and you can count Bush in for 4 more years.

[Waverley_Hills_Hiker]

9. I want him to be clear of where he stands...becausee...

...if he isn't you can be sure the right will gig him on this, and gig him in two key states that he needs to win, Ohio and Michigan.

Why would it be so hard for Kerry to say he opposes gay mariage and supports the people of a states' attemept to amend their constitution.

He could say that easily.

"I oppose gay marraige, believe its up to the states to decide, and thats why I support the efforts of the citizens of Ohio to amend their state Constitution to prohibit gay marriage."

Thats all he really has to say to remove this as a campaign issue for him.

Otherwise he will be reamed as an equivocator and waffler, and rightly so.

[Ms. Toad]

14. Because

many of the citizens of Ohio oppose the attempt to amend the constitution, and Kerry needs them to come out to the polls and to participate in voter registration, and in getting people out to the polls. The latest polls show that among folks eligible to vote, Kerry wins. Among folks likely to vote, Kerry loses. That means that it is more important that he not alienate people likely to vote for him, or people likely to help folks get to the polls. That's folks like me, not folks trying to write discrimination into the Constitution. If he takes the position you advocate, he is in danger of losing both my (current) intention to volunteer to transport people to the polls as well as my personal motivation to get to the polls.

There is nothing equivocal about supporting self-determination. If he supports self-determination, it is hypocritical to support self-determination only if it results in a particular outcome.

[Waverley_Hills_Hiker]

20. I doubt that seriously....

"many citizens oppose"?

Really, news to me. I think more would be working for and supporting the amendment. Kerry doesnt need the gay vote, he needs the non-gay vote who would be against gay marriage.

Thats where the smart money is at...not to support something thats going to cost him more votes and support than it would gain.

[w4rma]

26. Thats up to the the citizens of Ohio. I'm sure that the folks in Ohio

would rather just make up their own minds and vote on their state constition however they want.

A President Kerry's jurisdiction will be the U.S. Constitution and other federal law. He shouldnt be getting mixed up in state politics, especially in a state he doesnt live in.

[Ms. Toad]

10. Why is it any different than

being personally opposed to abortion, yet supporting legislation to protect a woman's right to choose, or opposing/refusing to use contraception from a religious perspective, but supporting legislation to ensure that all individuals who choose to use it have access to it through their health care plans? (Or would you have Kerry/Edwards support overturning Roe v. Wade, ,and providing contraception only to those who can afford it as well?)

If the Kerry/Edwards team takes the position that it is each state's choice, it is certainly consistent that they should stay out of the internal politics of states other than their own. Last time I checked, neither was from Ohio.

[Waverley_Hills_Hiker]

12. The question will be asked, people will be listening for an answer.

If they cant asnwer it, well...

This will be used against Kerry in two ways

a) it will be said he is secretly "for" gay marriage, thus cant give an honest answer

b) hes a flip flopper or wishy washy and changes his position for whover is listening.

[Andy_Stephenson]

15. Why don't you

Kerry, Edwards and the rest of the Government stay out of my bedroom and life?

mkay

[Ms. Toad]

17. You did not answer the question

about why this issue is any different than any number of other issues on which his personal ethics/beliefs may differ from how that translates into a policy position.

[Waverley_Hills_Hiker]

19. Becuase its not relevant.

This is a public policy question where he has to take a stand one way or another.

[Ms. Toad]

21. They have,

As you pointed out in your first post.

With respect to public policy, they have stated their personal positions: that each is opposed, and that each believes that it is a matter that each state should decide. If Kerry/Edwards really believe it is a state choice, there is a public policy reason to advocate for choice. It weakens, not strengthens, that position to advocate that a state reach a particular outcome.

(For what it is worth, the parallel to the question I asked and which you have ignored is very close. I believe Kerry personally opposes abortion, yet has voted for legislation to permit each woman to choose for herself. Kerry has said he personally opposes gay marriage, yet supports permitting each state to choose for itself. There is no reason to advocate state choice then urge a particular outcome in any individual state (other than the state in which each has a personal interest), any more than Kerry should now be running around counseling individual women that even though he advocated for them to be able to make their own choice, that choice should really be to not have an abortion.)

[Waverley_Hills_Hiker]

24. They have not.

With respect to public policy, they have stated their personal positions: that each is opposed, and that each believes that it is a matter that each state should decide.

So their personal positions don't translate into a poltical postion?

Its a matter for each state to decide but they don't have an opinion on how a state should decide, even tho they may "personally" be opposed to gay marraige?

Thats transparent weasel wording. You might be sasitified with this as a Kerry partisan...Joe Public will see right through this as the political bafflegab that it is.

[LiberalPersona]

6. In Kansas

I still have the Wichita Eagle front page from May 5 with the story on this, they tried to amend our state constitution to ban gay marriage here and it failed to pass by five votes. I found that surprising, considering the fact that this is a republican majority state.

I wonder how many of the other republican states will manage to keep this crap out of their constitutions.

[LittleApple81]

18. But they are trying to unseat the "normal human beings" who voted against

the amendment. The candidate for state senate in my district is a "normal human being" republican...and he went through a grueling primary... the main issue for the idiots here was that he, as part of the state house,had voted against the amendment. THESE PEOPLE ARE NUTS.
They elected a repug woman as the candidate for the state school board who is for teaching creationism in schools. This measure had not passed because the board of education was 50/50... now with this idiot on the board Kansas will have creationism in the schools. I am so glad my son is done with his high school... But we will have a new generation of worse idiots coming out or Kansas schools thanks to the voters in this election (by the way, there is no democratic candidate to run against this woman--the guy who ran against her was the incumbent and got kicked out because of creationism).

[lcooksey]

11. Some of those amendments would prevent civil unions, too

Kerry has said that he opposes any amdendments or legislation that block civil unions. Coming out in favor of any constitutional amendments would be a fall back to the bad old days of Democrats acting like "Republican Light".

No thanks. I like the new, improved, "Democrats with Spine" just fine.

[Waverley_Hills_Hiker]

13. Im not seeing much spine yet.

...either way, on this issue.

[NightTrain]

16. Interesting choice of words!

:evilgrin:

[Brian_Expat]

22. If Kerry and Edwards endorse an anti-gay amendment they lose my vote

And a lot of other gay votes that went from Bush to Kerry as a result of the constitutional amendment also probably either go back to Bush or just disappear.

[Waverley_Hills_Hiker]

23. Im not talking about the Federal amendment...

...Im talking about the state amendments.

They have already said they oppose a Federal amendement but have remained somewhat noncomittal on the state amendements, tho Edwards apparently has said he supported the amendement process in Missouri.

I don't think this should be ltimus-test, but I do think Kerry & Edwards are leaving themelves open to charges of wishy-washyness or political cowardice for not taking a stand on the state amendments.

[Brian_Expat]

25. It doesn't matter whether it's a federal or state amendment

If they endorse any anti-gay amendment, I will not only quit voting for them, but will encourage all of my pro-gay straight friends to vote third party. I will ensure that the GOTV organization I work with gets out the vote for Ralph Nader and the Green Party candidate. I will contact all of my friends and associates in swing states who cannot vote for Bush and have misgivings about Kerry and encourage them to vote for the Greens or Nader.

I have about 100 friends and associates who would do similarly, and they all have 100 friends who have 100 friends who have 100 friends. Such an effort, co-ordinated, would cost Kerry about 3% of the vote nationwide and ensure that Bush enters the White House again.

Not only would Kerry not win Ohio in such a situation, but he'd lose other close states including Oregon, Washington, New Hampshire, Maine, and Pennsylvania.

That should pretty much take the wind out of your sails. The assumption that we have "nowhere else to go" and no power in the political process is bullshit. Efforts to disenfranchise gay people ANYWHERE for the sake of winning a few votes will result in a Democratic defeat and rightly so.

John Kerry and John Edwards should take a strong stance in favour of equality, not bigotry in order to net a few votes. If you want to talk about dangerous situations in the electorate, take a look at the danger that happens when you sell gay people and their supporters down the river again this year.

[Waverley_Hills_Hiker]

27. Theyre not going to do that...you say:

"John Kerry and John Edwards should take a strong stance in favour of equality, not bigotry in order to net a few votes. If you want to talk about dangerous situations in the electorate, take a look at the danger that happens when you sell gay people and their supporters down the river again this year."

However, this article quotes Edwards:

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0806-03.htm

"Vice presidential candidate John Edwards, campaigning Thursday in Cape Girardeau, said he and running mate John Kerry have "no objection" to this week's vote in Missouri to amend the state constitution to ban gay marriage.

In an interview Thursday, Edwards told the St. Louis Post-Dispatch: "We're both opposed to gay marriage..."

So, there is a sort of shaded statement that they support the Missouri amendement, or the process that led to it.