Sometimes it seems like the presidential election, which ought to be about the whole country picking a president to represent them, comes down to the primaries and caucuses in a few states which are at the top of the schedule. How things go in otherwise minor states like Iowa and New Hampshire, which happen to have the right dates for their primary votes, sets the tone and may well determine the outcome of the entire primary process.
On Friday a court ruling in Iowa — which holds its primary caucus on January 14th — may have thrown down the gauntlet and established what the dominant issue is going to be for the entire election. Polk County Judge Robert Hanson struck down Iowa's Defense of Marriage Act and declared gay marriage to be legal in the state. Almost immediately a unitarian minister in Des Moines married the first gay couple before the judge issued a stay of his ruling to give the legislature time to reassess the act.
Iowa is a relatively socially conservative state, but one where the Democratic party is quite strong. This ruling creates a peculiar situation, because it plays to a position which most Democratic candidates feel compelled to support, but which will likely lose them votes in the Iowa caucus. It presents a similar conundrum for Republicans, most of whom have opposed gay marriage, but realize that opposing this ruling in Iowa may win them votes in the caucus but will cost them among independents in the national election.
What it has undoubtedly done is bring the issue of gay marriage to the forefront of the election debate, and put a lot of candidates in a very awkward position on an issue which seems to be a struggle between legislators pandering to conservative minorities and courts ruling arbitrarily, with no one considering the actual will of the public. And polls continue to show very clearly that a strong majority favor either same-sex marriage or civil unions with full equal rights for same-sex couples.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Irene Wagner
Gay marriage is not an insignificant issue, but certainly the Iraq War should be THE central issue for 2008.
And if RON PAUL does well in a few Eastern primaries, he stands a good chance of going toe-to-toe against Guiliani again in debate. 1800 dead in Iraq this month. I'm thinking there are a lot of gay couples who would prefer to prolong their engagement rather than seeing THAT engagement prolonged.
2 - Dave Nalle
But why would they not want to vote for Giuliani who supports gay marriage and also supports protecting the Iraqi people from those unnecessary deaths?
And regardless of whether the war SHOULD be the central issue, the point of this article is that gay marriage is actually going to be the central issue.
Dave
3 - Zedd
Doc,
The main character on Torchwood, BBC's new show is bisexual. At least he was on the Doctor Who episode, "The Empty Child" (the one on the London bombing)where he debuts. I wonder how his sexual preference will be played out in the series.
He is amazingly good looking.
4 - Zedd
Dave,
I think this issue will come up as something to stump the candidates but I don't think it will be as central as you suggest.
Health care is going to be huge. The latest stats reflect that 46M Americans are not insured. Companies are dropping insurance coverage because its getting too expensive. This is at a time when people are having to work more hours for less money to make a decent living.
A major factor that will be hovering and contributing to who gets elected this time around is lucidity. I sense that Americans are tired of the hypnotically vague, drivel of this current administration and will be looking for substance. Simplicity, clarity, with no huge promises slogans or imagery will prevail. Ron Paul and Obama are attractive because of their ability to speak simply and clearly. Hillary is trying to shed herself of her politician's image (it may be too late). Giuliani is jerk-some. However he may win because he is nothing like Bush.
Off course the war will be front and center. The person that can convey the most pragmatic ideas regarding this fiasco will win. Again the most clear person.
Same gendered people getting married will not be all that big. Its too extravagant, seemingly, when we are at war and people are lacking basic health care.
5 - Zedd
If I were a Republican, or a person who spun for the Right, I would be exploiting the issue of gay marriage in order to put Democrats on the spot. Wouldn't you Dave?
6 - Irene Wagner
If what Guiliani supports actually HAD protected the unneccessary deaths of Iraqis (which it didn't, as Guiliani is and was in favor of continuing the war) then your point, Dave, might be well taken. 10th term Congressman Ron Paul spoke out against invading Iraq from the very beginning, and has consistently spoken out against it ever since.
Ron Paul stands head and shoulders above Republican presidential candidates (and Democratic, as far as I'm aware) in that regard. And his foreign policy would prevent us from getting involved in more foreign wars, either through sending troops or supplying weapons and training (these often make the wars more deadly.)
Ron Paul does NOT believe the federal government has any Constitutional authority to decide whether or not couples (or triples...) heterosexual or homosexual, have the right to cohabit. Adding a Constitutional amendment that further solidifies the federal government's intrusion into that area of private life is not the direction Ron Paul wants to go.
Ron Paul's economic policies (and federal bureacracy cutting policies) would remove much of the tax burden on ALL households, no matter what the sexual proclivities of their inhabitants. Ron Paul also has ideas about cutting health care costs that will further increase the burden on households, traditional and otherwise. Men and women fighting fatal diseases, such as AIDS (at a certain stage), wouldn't have to keep paying social security, for instance--that's legislation that Ron Paul supported, by the way.
Neither one of us REALLY knows whether gays would rather get married soon more than they want to see US military involvement come to an end in the Middle East soon. I propose that I'm giving gays a lot of credit by saying they, in general, wouldn't.
RON PAUL IN 2008!!!
7 - daryl d
Dave:
Did you say Giuliani supports gay marriage? Your research is just as bad as mine lately.
8 - Dr Dreadful
Although I'm strongly in favor of full marriage rights for same-sex couples, I'm really not convinced by Dave's argument. It's pretty clear that religious evangelicals are the only voting bloc (other than those with a vested interest) who are particularly concerned about gay marriage as a major issue. And all indications are that their influence on the 2008 election is going to be far less pronounced than in 2000, 2002 and 2004.
Dave does have a bit of a reputation on BC as a spinmeister, and having scrutinized his own link to opinion polls on the matter, I can see why. It really seems to depend on what question is asked of those polled. Given a straight yes/no question, a large majority comes out opposed to marriage or civil unions for gays and lesbians (depending on which one is asked about). Only when there's a three-way choice is there a minority against any form of legal recognition. So Dave's assertion that the majority strongly supports gay marriage or civil unions is shaky at best.
I'm more inclined to agree with Irene that the Iraq war - and, as usual, the economy - will have a far greater bearing on the outcome.
9 - Dave Nalle
Did you say Giuliani supports gay marriage? Your research is just as bad as mine lately.
Daryl, did you READ the quote from Giuliani's campaign manager in the last paragraph of the article? Giuliani supports civil unions, but clearly he has no real objection to gay marriage.
As for Irene's contention that Ron Paul supports gay marriage, sorry not true. Ron Paul is personally totally opposed to gay marriage. He touts it as a states rights issue so he doens't have to take a position on it and offend his more liberal supporters. In fact, what Paul believes is that if it is left up to the states they will mostly ban it, and that will satisfy his fundamentalist desire to keep gay marriage shut down. And btw, Paul's 'foreign policy' is to not have a foreign policy.
And yes, Zedd, I think a smart GOP candidate would come out 100% for civil unions with marriage status left up to the church and steal the issue from the democrats.
Dave
10 - Dr Dreadful
Zedd,
From what I've read, Captain Jack's bisexuality (which should more precisely be described as multisexuality, because he's from the 61st century when contact with aliens is commonplace, and not all alien species have a mere two sexes... you get what I'm saying?!) is going to be a strong theme in Torchwood, and there are also bisexual situations involving other characters.
But mostly, the action looks like it's going to revolve around big ugly monsters. Pretty much like the 2008 election...!
11 - Dave Nalle
Although I'm strongly in favor of full marriage rights for same-sex couples, I'm really not convinced by Dave's argument.
Then I suspect you haven't thought it through. And I suppose I could have done more explicating in the article. This ruling is like a gift to the far left and far right. They can use it to polarize both primaries and try to drive the debate to the fringe and destroy moderate candidates. That's why the Giuliani move is so smart. It takes him off the fence early so he can't be targetted on this issue.
It's pretty clear that religious evangelicals are the only voting bloc (other than those with a vested interest) who are particularly concerned about gay marriage as a major issue.
Sure, but both they and the GLBT activists on the other side are used to being represented disproportionately by their respective parties and this is an opportunity for them to both push their agendas and grab that extra attention they feel they deserve.
And all indications are that their influence on the 2008 election is going to be far less pronounced than in 2000, 2002 and 2004.
If that was the case, this ruling in Iowa is their chance to gain their special position back.
Dave does have a bit of a reputation on BC as a spinmeister,
LOL. Only among those trying to spin perception of me for their own purposes.
and having scrutinized his own link to opinion polls on the matter, I can see why. It really seems to depend on what question is asked of those polled. Given a straight yes/no question, a large majority comes out opposed to marriage or civil unions for gays and lesbians (depending on which one is asked about). Only when there's a three-way choice is there a minority against any form of legal recognition. So Dave's assertion that the majority strongly supports gay marriage or civil unions is shaky at best.
Wrong. You didn't scrutinize very well.
Here's how it actually breaks down.
Consistently you get a strong minority which opposes gay marriage and a strong minority which supports civil unions. Then you have smaller minorities which oppose both gay marriage and civil unions or who support full-on gay marriage.
So you can draw two possible conclusions from the polls.
First, that a strong majority (60+%) support gay marriage and/or civil unions.
Second, that an equally strong majority (60+%) oppose gay marriage.
Either interpretation is equally true and correct.
So the subjective part is what you think the 40-some percent who support civil unions would do if civil unions were out of the picture and they had to choose between gay marriage and a ban on gay marriage, with no middle ground. I think most of them would choose the protection of civil rights over the protection of a word.
Does that make my thought process any clearer?
Dave
12 - Dr Dreadful
So the subjective part is what you think the 40-some percent who support civil unions would do if civil unions were out of the picture and they had to choose between gay marriage and a ban on gay marriage, with no middle ground. I think most of them would choose the protection of civil rights over the protection of a word.
Does that make my thought process any clearer?
It does, but still when those polled were directly given that choice, they came out strongly in the negative. The numbers were similar when the direct choice was between civil unions and nothing, with marriage not on the table.
Plus, there's nothing to suggest that all voters are even aware of the civil union option. For many, it's a black and white issue.
I'd like to think you're right about a majority opting for some form of legal recognition, but I fear we may end up with a down-the-middle 50/50 schism.
You're also forgetting that there will be many "pro" voters who would reject the civil union idea precisely because it's not marriage, which is what they want.
13 - Dave Nalle
Dr. D. If you look at the link I provided and check all the polls you'll find several which ask the question in detail, giving people the choice of civil unions, gay marriage or nothing. In those polls the combination of civil unions and gay marriage comes up 50% or slightly higher and opposition to both is in the mid to low 40% range. So overall the country does favor equal spousal rights for same-sex couples.
Another trend I didn't bring up earlier is that successive polls have been pretty rapidly shifting towards more support for civil unions and gay marriage. If the current trend continues then I think there's not going to be any question about which way the country leans well before this primary campaign is over.
And if there's a 50/50 schism or close to it, then that's the way it is. This is one of the most unambiguous civil rights issues possible, and if it takes the courts and a great struggle to make people understand, as it did in the civil rights era, then so be it.
I still don't really understand the segment of the gay population who would rather have no rights than give up the word 'marriage' and have a fully equal civil union. They're as nutty and self-defeating as the most extreme marriage defenders.
Dave
14 - Baronius
I see gay marriage as being an important issue in the Republican primary, but not necessarily the Dem or the general election. The average Republican voter (let me pretend there's such a thing for now) is unsatisfied with the current choices. When the all-wise Fred arrives, issues like gay marriage will help him whittle away at the current front-runners.
15 - Cindy D
Re: #6
Candidates who were clearly opposed the Iraq war from the beginning include Kucinich, and Obama in addition to Paul. Richardson and Gravel also clearly oppose the Iraq war.
Kucinich and Paul, of course, being the only two who could vote on the issue in 2002.
16 - Dave Nalle
Baronius, you and I both know that the all-wise Fred has about the same positions on most issues as Giuliani, he's just a bit less crazy, hates taxes more and doesn't wear dresses.
Dave
17 - Dr Dreadful
Dave, there's nothing wrong with a presidential candidate who wears dresses. In the last 25 years we've had an actor, a porn star and a clown in the White House. There's certainly room for a transvestite.
18 - Clavos
"In the last 25 years we've had an actor, a porn star and a clown in the White House."
At least they weren't all rolled into one, which could easily have happened, given those three particular proclivities.
19 - handyguy
If Dave's odd prediction about what the biggest issue in the Presidential race will be is right, I'll make a salad of Clinton, Obama, and Edwards bumper stickers and eat 'em.
In terms of motivation to vote, this issue stirs mostly the rabid fringes of the GOP base and wouldn't make the Top Ten Issues of any other demographic, except of course us gay folks. But most of us will end up voting for one of the 3 top Dem candidates anyway, all of whom have the same position on the issue [anti-marriage, pro-civil-union] and who in fact would rather not discuss it at all most of the time.
Under those circumstances, I'm not sure how it moves to the top of the agenda unless someone makes a bad gaffe in a debate much later in the season. It has too much potential to turn voters off, so I predict both parties will play it down.
And your analysis of polling numbers is just weird. As has been said before, if you torture the numbers long enough, they'll tell you whatever you want to hear. I believe a substantial number of Americans have a live-and-let-live attitude about this, but I don't believe very many of them place a high importance on it.
20 - handyguy
As for Giuliani's alleged support of gay civil unions, he has been playing some Mitt Romney-like games with his former positions on this, on gun control, and on abortion. An article in the Boston Globe a couple of weeks ago has details. Here are the first few sentences:
"Former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani continues to discard the moderate and liberal positions of his past. The latest is civil unions for same-sex couples, which the Republican presidential candidate has been backing away from in recent months.
"A campaign aide told the Globe this weekend that Giuliani favors a much more modest set of rights for gay partners than civil union laws in effect in four states offer.
"Giuliani has described himself as a backer of civil unions and is frequently described that way in news reports. But he began distancing himself from civil unions in late April, when his campaign told The New York Sun that New Hampshire's new law goes too far because it is 'the equivalent of marriage,' which he has always opposed for gays."
21 - Dave Nalle
Handy, it's the primary. Everyone moves towards the extremes of their party for a few months. When the primaries are over and it's the general election, the Republican and Democratic nominees will both move back towards the middle.
As for the role of the gay marriage debate, it's not driven by what the candidates want to talk about, but by what's going to be a hot topic on the local level in key states like Iowa, and both extremes there are going to be out in force and pushing this issue because of the ruling. It may not end up totally dominating the election, but it's going to be a key issue, especially for those who want something other than the war to talk about.
Dave
22 - daryl d
Will Bill O'Reilly and Matt Drudge, two of the most closeted homo Republicans of the century, ever get married?
23 - Irene Wagner
Cindy, you're absolutely right in pointing out that Kucinich, as well as Ron Paul, were the only candidates who protested the war from the very beginning. So many of the other Democrats CLAIM to want to end the war, being so bold as to vote against it in NONBINDING resolutions. Their anti-war politically constituencies are getting fed up with it, too.
I have noticed Obama trying to make himself look more hawkish recently, when he's described what our policy toward other Middle Eastern countries should be. Ron Paul's proposed foreign policy (yes, Dave Nalle he does TOO have a foreign policy) is to maintain friendly international relations so as to promote trade, and to stay out of foreign conflicts.
Dave Nalle, Ron Paul opposed Partial Birth abortion because he felt it was a human rights offense. (Even YOU made the claim in the thread attached to "Only Brain Dead Jackasses Support Ron Paul," that only extremists supported partial birth abortion.)
Ron Paul opposes the Death Penalty because he believes it is a human rights issue.
Ron Paul does NOT believe that being deprived of a State-issued certificate declaring "Your Union is Precious in Our Sight!" is a human rights offense.
And, this is significant, he doesn't believe that the government should be wasting time passing laws decaring that Marriage Should Only Be Between A Man and a Woman, either. He's taken it on the chin from his co-religionists for THAT, too. Be fair, Dave.
24 - handyguy
Bill O'Reilly? Come on! He's a disgusting hetero pig who harasses women he works with. Matt Drudge issues periodic and unconvincing denials about his own orientation. I believe David Brock when Brock says Drudge tried to date him 10 years ago.
25 - daryl d
Bill O'Reilly uses dildo machines on himself
Do NOT tell me this man is straight!!