Encouraging numbers from a new TIME/ABT poll: National support for same-sex marriage is up to 42 percent, with the 51 percent opposition only barely mustering a majority. Gay marriage has moved from the fringes only a few years ago to being within eyeshot of parity. And opposition to an anti-SSM amendment to the U.S. Constitution now runs 58 percent.
Maybe that's why Barack Obama, who has previously said he thinks marriage should be limited to heterosexual couples, has come out against a California state constitutional initiative to do exactly that. In California, Gov. Schwarzenegger is performing the same straddle-that is, opposing gay marriage but also opposing the effort to overturn it.
As IGF contributor Dale Carpenter points out over at volokh.com, being both anti-SSM and anti-anti-SSM makes little sense logically in a world where the policy is either to have SSM or not. But let's not look a gift horse in the mouth. The politicians are straddling because the climate of opinion is shifting. Obama and Schwarzenegger are barometers.
15 Comments for “More Good News for Gay Marriage”
posted by tristram on
“Obama and Schwarzenegger are barometers.”
And McCain? He’s a highly principled pawn of the haters, who, if he gets elected (which is more likely than not), will do his best to reverse that opinion shift.
posted by avee on
McCain strongly condemned the federal marriage amendment, calling it un-Republican. For the GOP, he’s an advance. Put aside your hatred of all things Republican, and you’d see that. No, he’s not even as good as Obama (which ain’t much), but he’s an advance nevertheless
posted by tristram on
“McCain strongly condemned the federal marriage amendment, calling it un-Republican.” Un-Republican because it blatantly contradicted decades of Republican dogma on federalism, NOT on individual freedom or tolerance. And not so un-Republican that he has not now substantively reversed his position.
Since I became old enough to vote (which is much longer ago than I’d like to admit) I voted Republican in every presidential election until 2004. But Bush in that year and now McCain made conscious decisions to use queers as a wedge issue. McCain met in secret with the LCR group (I’d love to see the transcript) and then went to Ohio to meet with the wingnuts and broadcast the fact coast-to-coast. And guess whose position he endorsed? There is every indication that in order to get elected he is perfectly happy fanning the culture-war flames to drive us back to the margins and into the closet.
posted by avee on
McCain didn’t take all that heat from his own party over his opposition to the federal amendment because of his devotion to federalism! (Check out this CNN coverage.)
He did it because he was angling for independents, and that means being gay-tolerant. It was also in keeping with his Barry Goldwater-ish philosophy. He has long loathed the religious right. And he recently met (again) with the Log Cabin guys, which is something Bush wouldn’t do.
Also, I have not seen anything that indicates McCain has reversed his position on the federal amendment.
posted by Priya Lynn on
Tristam said “And McCain? He’s a highly principled pawn of the haters, who, if he gets elected (which is more likely than not), will do his best to reverse that opinion shift.”.
Fraid you’re wrong there. Obama has consistently polled higher than Mccain. Note the graph in this link:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/108376/Gallup-Daily-Obama-McCain-Tied-45.aspx
Although Mccain has occaisionally tied Obama he for the most part has been consistently behind.
posted by tristram on
PL – I’d like to think you’re correct, but July polls are virtually meaningless. Michael Dukakis had a 17 point lead in August and ended up winning ten (10) states against GHWB. The real campaign has not yet started. Wait until McCain’s new team of Rover-boys starts dogging Obama.
avee – McCain said a lot of things in 2000 and for a while afterward that I, as a life-long Republican, found encouraging. But he has back-pedaled furiously from all those that related to social issues. In your CNN clip from 2004, he explicitly stated his rationale for opposing the FMA – federalism. And the last 4 paragraphs of the article set forth his rationale for a potential reversal on the FMA question.
At a time when he did not need to pander to the right, McCain voluntarily campaigned actively for the Arizona anti-marriage/anti-civilunion/anti-domesticpartnership/anti-anythinggayfriendly amendment, and now, after meeting with the LCRs, he promptly announced his support for the California amendment. Did he say anything whatsoever about Hagee’s and Parsley’s anti-gay statements??? Nope, but he dumped them for being unkind to Catholics and Muslims. The only gay-friendly thing he has done in the present campaign was to go on Ellen’s show and refrain from bitchslapping her.
(And, by the way, GWB did have his little heart-to-heart with the gay Republicans before sticking it to them (just figuratively, I’m sure) – check it out here:
http://washingtonblade.com/thelatest/thelatest.cfm?blog_id=19448
posted by Bobby on
“Did he say anything whatsoever about Hagee’s and Parsley’s anti-gay statements???”
—Why should he? They’re not his pastors, he wasn’t a member of those churches (unlike Obama who had no problems listening Wright’s hatred for 18 years). McCain isn’t even an evangelical, in fact, he’s not even a conservative, he’s a moderate. His support among republicans is so lukewarm that Obama might even get some evangelicals since he now supports faith-based initiatives, a program Bush came up with!
Won’t that be fun? Obama gets elected and he’ll give money to all kinds of churches, including homophobic churches. Change we can believe in indeed.
Yes we can! (get fucked by Obama).
posted by tristram on
Oh, Bobby, Bobby – let’s read that again:
“Did he say anything whatsoever about Hagee’s and Parsley’s anti-gay statements??? Nope, but he dumped them for being unkind to Catholics and Muslims.”
The point is that McCain went sucking up to these guys – big time – in return for their endorsements. And he had no problem with anything they said about gays. But when the Catholic League and the arab-americans went after them, he expressed shock and dropped ’em like hot potatos.
And regarding Obama’s faith and neighborhood initiative, if it’s such a bonus for the homophobofundies, why are they screaming bloody murder about it? Maybe because they read the not-so-fine print that you didn’t bother to read, or at least to mention. The whole program would be subject to the pre-Bush restrictions prohibiting discrimination and hate-mongering. No wonder it doesn’t sound much fun to McCain’s new buddies from Evangiland.
posted by Bobby on
I haven’t heard the fundies bitching about Obama’s faith plan. And I read conservativenews.org every day.
As for McCain, no politician in his right mind can afford to offend catholics, which are a lot more numerous than protestants. As for arabs, I don’t get it, must be a moderate thing.
But when it comes to gays, Tristram, we’re fair game. That’s why Obama won’t support same-sex marriage, he will support higher taxes though, so gays like you can pay more to help all those minorities that hate your guts.
Did you hear about Obama’s plan to give illegal aliens the same health insurance prisoners get? Which is a lot better than what you and I get.
Gays, it’s all very simple. Neither Obama nor McCain give two shits about us. The difference is that once politician supports social programs that don’t benefit us while the other doesn’t. So fine, if you want to pay higher taxes, including capital gains taxes which will go to the pre-Bush level of 30%, go ahead, vote for Obama.
As far as I’m concerned, the feds have already stolen enough from me.
posted by Priya Lynn on
Tristam the fact that in one case the leader in the July polls didn’t win the election is irrelevent, in most cases the leader in the July polls did win the election. As it stands you have no basis to state that its more likely than not Mccain will win the election, the reality is the other way around.
posted by Priya Lynn on
Bobby said “if you want to pay higher taxes, including capital gains taxes which will go to the pre-Bush level of 30%, go ahead, vote for Obama.”.
Bobby, you’re blind. Bush has increased spending far beyond what any Democratic president has or would have, he’s run up a monstrous deficit and put the U.S. into recession. The old saw about Republicans being for smaller government and less taxes has been soundly refuted by Bush, if you want to have less government and pay less taxes you need to vote Democratic. The only “conservative” principles the Republicans continue to stand for are social conservative principles, fiscal responsibility is out the window with these guys. Don’t be a fool and vote for Republicans who will further run up the deficit and further cement your position as a third class citizen.
posted by Bobby on
Priya, I don’t deny republicans have wasted too much money and strayed away from party principles. But democrats have never met a tax hike they didn’t like.
Bush can’t be held responsible for the oil crisis and the banking crisis. In this country we haven’t even built a new refinery in 10 years! Bush actually wants to drill for oil but it’s congress that has to approve drilling in Florida and Alaska.
And the worst thing you can do during a recession is raise taxes. You want to encourage people to spend money, that’s why our economy didn’t collapse after 9/11. Bush told people to go shopping, and they did. If people spend money, lots of people benefit, including the government. But if you raise taxes, only those greedy washington bastards get your money.
As for Obama, he doesn’t care about high gas prices, he doesn’t want to drill for oil, he supports alternative energy which remains in its infancy. Sure, California has an electric car, but it costs $100,000 and only sits two people. http://www.teslamotors.com/
That’s the nature of liberalism, expensive ideas that don’t work.
Look at biodiesel, thanks to that brilliant idea that can’t replace oil even if every field was dedicated to it, the price of grain and other agricultural products have risen, so now we’re stuck with higher food bills.
Want solar power in your house? Be prepared to spend $30,000 or more.
Sure, Obama wants to spend more money on that. For what? Government has spent billions on AIDS and we still have AIDS!
Hybrid vehicles aren’t the solution either, with gas prices approaching $5, $6, and maybe someday $10, the gas savings will be negligible. I drive a Honda Accord, even with 28 mpg, I’m still paying up to $60 every time I fill my gas tank. I got a mortgage to pay, HOA, and I only make $45,000 a year. You think I want to pay higher taxes? I’m barely making it on my current salary.
And what about other Americans? The ones with credit card debt, car payments, kids? What about their rights to keep more of their money?
Of course, people like Obama believe that we should all sacrifice. Just like Kennedy did, ask not what your country can do for you. Gee, thanks Kennedy, I already paid taxes, but I guess you want more now, huh?
I wouldn’t be surprised if Obama comes up with a carbon tax, a global warming tax, a “free” health care tax, traffic congestion fees, windfall profit taxes for oil companies (which they will pass to the consumers) etc.
I’ll vote for McCain because I simply cannot afford not to.
posted by tristram on
PL – my recollection is that the July 4 poll leader lost in 4 of the last 5 elections. Whatever the case, I have a feeling the wingnuts (in their determination to re-take the Supreme Court and re-criminalize abortion and sodomy), and their pawn McCain (in his determination to somehow exorcise the demons of the Vietnam war by conquering the Muslims) will find a way to swiftboat Obama.
Bobby – reading your attempts at arguing economics is like watching a tortoise high jump, but it beggars the imagination that even you could believe the Bush bears no responsibility for the housing/banking meltdown. It is the inevitable result of his fiscal and regulatory mismanagement.
posted by Priya Lynn on
Bobby look at the graph on this page:
http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2008/07/those_fiscally_responsible_rep.php#more
Note how the U.S. national debt has grown drastrically under republican presidents and the only time it shrunk was during the Clinton presidency. The Republicans are clearly not the party of fiscal responsibility.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Bush has increased spending far beyond what any Democratic president has or would have
Actually, no; the primary Democrat criticisms of No Child Left Behind and the Medicare prescription drug programs, for example, were that they were too small and didn’t spend ENOUGH.
Bobby – reading your attempts at arguing economics is like watching a tortoise high jump, but it beggars the imagination that even you could believe the Bush bears no responsibility for the housing/banking meltdown.
Isn’t it amusing how Democrat leftists blame Bush for the “housing/banking meltdown”, but insist that Clinton had nothing to do with the dot.com meltdown and the associated stock shenanigans, all of which happened on his watch?
What caused the meltdown is the fact that banks extended too much credit to people with dubious financial backgrounds and low incomes, who then did not pay it back; this then punished people with good financial backgrounds and excellent incomes, who were forced to pay more for credit.
The Democrat Party’s solution: the government should extend too much credit to people with dubious financial backgrounds and low incomes who will not pay it back, funding this with ruinous taxes on those with good financial backgrounds and excellent incomes.
Meanwhile, the Democrat Party, to protect inefficient American manufacturing, seems bound to insist on the revival of Smoot-Hawleyesque tariffs, which brings to mind the old Santayana axiom about those who cannot remember history being doomed to repeat it.
Note how the U.S. national debt has grown drastrically under republican presidents and the only time it shrunk was during the Clinton presidency.
Mainly because, during the Clinton presidency, Congress was fully controlled by Republicans, who forced budget and spending cuts and rammed them through over Clinton’s vetos.
Meanwhile, as Bobby pointed out, Obama states emphatically that he will raise taxes and make massive increases in government spending and size. Why are leftists like Priya, who claim doing so is wrong, so supportive of Obama doing it?