Enough with the “wedge issue” nonsense
CommentsThe good news is the California Marriage Protection Act will be on the November ballot. Of course, predictably, according to the Los Angeles Times, leading California Democratic strategist Garry South “described the ballot measure as part of a decades-old strategy by California conservatives to use a wedge issue to mobilize support during a presidential election.”
Let’s think about that. Same-sex marriage in Massachusetts began in May 2004, and 11 states voted to prevent their state courts from authorizing the same thing that November. California same-sex marriages are set to begin in June 2008, and the state will vote this November whether to overturn the decision implementing them.
On the other hand, in 1998 when the states of Alaska and Hawaii were facing Supreme Court decisions implementing same-sex marriage in the cases of Baehr v. Miike and Brause v. Alaska, voters passed constitutional amendments protecting man-woman marriage that November. Mr. South, who was elected president in November 1998?
Other states that voted on constitutional amendments protecting man-woman marriage at times other than during a November presidential election include Missouri, Nevada, Colorado, Tennessee, Kansas, Texas, Idaho, South Carolina, South Dakota, Wisconsin, Virginia, and Arizona. All but the latter passed by decisive margins.
Mr. South, if your side will agree not to pursue lawsuits redefining marriage in 2011 and 2012, I’m certain my side will agree not to put constitutional amendments on the ballot at the same time as that year’s presidential race.
If you’re not willing to agree to that compromise, will you please stop claiming that our defense of marriage strategy is really a ploy to elect Republican presidents? I’d appreciate it.
I don’t think it is a wedge issue to get republicans elected, although most people who will vote against marriage equality will likely vote republican. I believe these people really believe that marriage for gays/lesbians is bad based on their irrational biblical beliefs. It is sad how the bible has been used as a tool for hate for so many centuries.
More Independents and Democrats, take together, voted for state marriage amendments than Republicans, in absolute numbers.
More Moderates and Liberals, taken together, voted for state marriage amendments than Conservatives, again in absolute numbers.
The man-woman criterion is not simply a religious criterion of marriage. Marriage has been both-sexed in societies where the Bible has not been prominent and where it has even been banned and where religious people — particular those who read and cherish the Bible — have been persecuted.
I agree with David, marriage protection is not a wedge issue. It is an authentic issue that the defenders of marriage have been called to raise in prominence simply because the attack on the social institution of marriage, by the SSM campaign, makes it necessary. SSMers just don’t like to be opposed — even though they generally do not comprehend the actual disagreement. As a result SSMers, and unfortunately some leading Democratic strategists, misrepresent the disagreement and the defenders of marriage.
Damned if we defend marriage and damned if we do not. How convenient for SSMers.
QueerUnity, I don’t claim that you hate the traditional family or heterosexuality because of your belief about what marriage is. I’d appreciate if you didn’t do the reverse for me. It so happens that I have been complaining to my fellow traditionalists when they call themselves “pro-family” - as if a couple of lesbians and their baby aren’t a real family. I don’t hate anybody.
‘Of course, predictably, according to the Los Angeles Times, leading California Democratic strategist Garry South “described the ballot measure as part of a decades-old strategy by California conservatives to use a wedge issue to mobilize support during a presidential election.”’
Err, it says “a” wedge issue. In context that would seem to mean “a” wedge issue for each presidential election, but not necessarily the same one each time, and certainly not same-sex marriage each time.
Mark-
Yes, you’re right, although the suggestion that marriage being on the ballot this time because Republicans need a wedge issue in each presidential election - and not because of the recent legislation and litigation regarding marriage in California - is not reasonable.