The GOP Divide On Gay Marriage -- Andrew Sullivan

[Khephra]

(Yeah, I know...it's Sullivan. But sometimes he's been known to actually make sense. This is one of those times.)


It has become almost a cliché that the issue of marriage rights for gays is a wedge issue for Republicans. It divides Democrats, the argument goes, because they don't want to endorse marriage for gays but equally can't afford to alienate their gay base. It unites Republicans, it is claimed, and helps them win over some conservative Democrats who aren't too comfortable with homosexuality.

There's some truth to this, but it's a largely dated analysis. Since the last major battle -- over the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996 -- the country has changed, and so have the issues. People are far more comfortable with gay neighbors, friends and family than they were seven years ago. The culture has moved on from fear to almost excessive interest. The result is that the issue of same-sex marriage -- most specifically the issue of a constitutional amendment to ban it -- is now dividing Republicans while uniting Democrats. That's one good reason the president hasn't endorsed it so far. And if he's sensible about maintaining his own electoral coalition, he won't.

Here's why. Polls show the public much more evenly divided now than it once was on marriage for gays. In Massachusetts, the most recent polls even show a majority for it: 50 percent to 39 percent. Nationally, 37 percent now support it, with 55 percent against, according to a recent ABC News poll. But when you ask the 55 percent opposed whether they would go so far as to amend the Constitution to ban such marriages, only 36 percent say yes. That amounts to 20 percent of the entire electorate. Most constitutional amendments, even those with overwhelming public support, fail. What chance is there for one to succeed with a mere 20 percent?

Worse, many leading conservatives oppose the amendment. George F. Will, for example, opposes it because he shares many conservatives' view that the Constitution should be amended only sparingly -- and certainly not to resolve a contentious social issue on which public opinion is in flux. David Brooks opposes it because he wants gays to be included in societal norms of monogamy and fidelity. Former congressman Bob Barr opposes it because his own Defense of Marriage Act already prevents one state from forcing another state to recognize a same-sex marriage. House speaker Dennis J. Hastert has argued that DOMA needs to be tested in the courts before he is ready to press forward with an amendment. Conservative activist David Horowitz sees amending the Constitution as an opportunity for the radical left to try to amend the Constitution in turn, bringing the unifying founding document into disrepute. Others, such as Vice President Cheney, have said they believe that marriage should remain a state matter, as it always has been.

more...........

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A40183-2003Dec5.html

[pistoff democrat]

1. I don't mean to be mean, but

this particular opinion of Sullivan's is self-serving. Were he not gay, betcha he'd be towing that repig party line himself.

:hi:


:kick:

[Khephra]

2. Oh, well, yeah

That goes without saying...but I still thought it pointed out some aspects of the situation that people might not have thought of before. He's pretty much on target about how the GOP is torn on how they should handle the situation. Bits and pieces that I've read in the conservative editorials (and other conservative sources) back up his argument.

:hi:

[pistoff democrat]

6. You are correct, sir!

I've seen him argue this vigorously on MSRNC as well.

Credit where credit is due ...

[Lexingtonian]

3. well....

He's gay and Catholic and (de facto) Republican, and he championed gay marriage back in his days as editorial muppet at The New Republic (does anyone ever read it anymore?). I find him easy to summarize in two sterotypes- Catholic Guilt and Catholic School Girl Run Loose.

Sure, it's selfserving. But if Democrats are presently split 50/50 in polling, the numbers for Republicans are 30/70 (each side has 10% Undecideds, but they don't really change the equation). It's not much of a wedge issue but Rove could secure some of the swing states with lots of Democratic-voting Christians (i.e. Hispanics) with it. OTOH, if not carefully contained it would cause a massive outbreak of Christian Right insanity and backlash to it in the relatively secular states along the Great Lakes and parts of the West.

[w4rma]

4. This editorial reads somewhat like a warning, IMHO. Nonetheless,

I think Sullivan's analysis is solid.

[The Backlash Cometh]

5. I don't think Sullivan is the marrying kind.

:-)

[pistoff democrat]

7. Ya' know,

I was doin' okay until I read #3's last sentence and noticed #5's screen name...eeeeeeeeeeek!