Why the GOP Isn't Campaigning Against Gay Marriage

Writing at The Huffington Post, the Cato Institute's David Boaz notes that unlike the 2004 presidential election, the GOP this time around is largely keeping quiet about gay marriage. He writes:

Fortunately, Republicans are mostly ignoring [Rick] Santorum and his allies these days. They see the long-term damage that the anti-gay crusade is doing them. Back in 2004 they thought that social issues, especially gay marriage bans, would help them win the presidential election. It wasn't really true even then: it turns out that George W. Bush's share of the vote rose just slightly less in the marriage-ban states than in the other states: up 2.6 percent in the states with marriage bans on the ballot, up 2.9 percent in the other states.

This year, even though President Obama and the Democratic platform have endorsed marriage equality, Mitt Romney and the Republicans are staying away from the issue. With good reason.

…even as support for marriage equality is just flirting with 50 percent, two-thirds of young voters support it. Campaigning against gay marriage is a good way to make the Democratic advantage among young people permanent.

Read the whole thing here.

Comments

[Hyperion]

They see the long-term damage that the anti-gay crusade is doing them

When they see the long-term damage that the WOD is doing to them and to the rest of the country, then we are talking about some awakening. Until then, same old team Red. NEED MOAR WAR!

[Big 'Orra]

It's the economy, stupid????? (the old Clinton slogan, that is...)

[Hyperion]

And, FIRSTEST!

[protefeed]

Now, if they would stop pissing off Latinos with laws intended to deport immigrants looking for work, and with racial profiling, maybe the GOP wouldn't be facing slow electoral doom.

[Fist of Etiquette]

Definitely. The geniuses in the GOP should be running away from that social noise. People want a focus on the economy.

[R C Dean]

marriage equality

Like "undocumented worker", this euphemism just chaps my ass.

Its not "marriage equality", really, its "marriage redefinition". Just like those aren't "undocumented workers", really, they are "illegal immigrants."

And I say that as someone who supports both letting gay people marry each other, and letting anyone into this country who will support themselves.

[Hyperion]

But, we NEED terms that make people feel better, don't you see? Because feeling good about our intentions is everything, results, not so important. If we can just adjust the message to sound better, then everything will be just dandy.

You know, like being called caucasion or white, that made me feel ok for a while, but I dunno, it's just not working anymore. I think I am going to start a movement to change that to 'European American'... on 2nd thought, scrap that...

[protefeed]

I tease my Vietnamese GF that our ancestors are all Eurasians, hers from the SE part, mine from the NW part.

[Heroic Mulatto]

No, such terms are recognition that marriage and immigration are part of natural law and not positive law.

[Cytotoxic]

This. We need to convey our ideas through Rightspeak.

[Sudden]

I'll say that I dislike the term "equality" within it because I actually don't find the merit in the Equal Protection arguments. To me, same sex marriage should be permitted under freedom of contract and association grounds. But the fact remains that I, a heterosexual man, am unable to marry another man. Moreover, a homosexual man is permitted to marry a woman. Thus, there is no strict denial of equal protection of the laws, even if it seems a trivial point, it is a salient one in my estimation.

Having spoken with some friends of mine who are gay, they would be devastated with a court case that actually reached a favorable judgement but did so on that basis because for many of them, they'll candidly admit that they care less about the underlying right they're fighting for than about the perception of "societal acceptance and equality."

[darius404]

But the fact remains that I, a heterosexual man, am unable to marry another man. Moreover, a homosexual man is permitted to marry a woman. Thus, there is no strict denial of equal protection of the laws, even if it seems a trivial point, it is a salient one in my estimation.

It's a false and ridiculous point. Would you say that a definition of marriage that permitted a white person to marry another white person but not a black person, would not be discriminatory as long as a black person were able to marry another black person?

In each case, a person isn't able to marry someone of the opposite race, so it's not strict denial, see?

In both cases, it's discriminatory. In the first, it's discrimination based on sex: someone is able to marry another person only if that other person is of the opposite sex. They are restricted to the opposite sex for a marriage partner
In the second, it's discrimination based on race: someone is able to marry another person only if that other person is of the same race. They are restricted only to the same race for a marriage partner.
In each case a person's right to marry who they want is restricted: by sex or by race.

[Sudden]

No, such terms are recognition that marriage and immigration are part of natural law and not positive law.

It's also worth note that the concept of natural law would appear on its face to be diametrically opposed to notions of "equality." Equality is a relative notion by its very definition. Natural law postulates that all rights derive directly from one's individual existence and therefore would not bother with comparisons between two separate individual conditions. Natural law theory would maintain that if some law were to violate the rights of a black person, it would similarly violate the rights of any other person, and that it doesn't violate a group right, but rather the right of an individual apart from whatever group affiliations that may be inherent.

[Joe M]

The concept of so-called traditional marriage is relatively new. Women were treated like property for centuries.

[Hyperion]

The concept of so-called traditional marriage is relatively new. Women were treated like property for centuries.

Ah, the good old days. For a couple good goats you could have you a fine young maiden who cleaned house and cooked, instead of watching soap operas and talking to her retarded friends on facebook all day.

[Calidissident]

In many places they still are

[Sudden]

I've always taken the "traditional marriage" term to connote a contractual union between a man and a woman, in which case it is anything but a modern invention. I've never taken "traditional marriage" as a term used to imply any degree of love per se.

And it's worth noting that even in historical societies where homosexuality was largely accepted (ancient Greece and Rome for example), it was never to my knowledge normalized and contract into the way heterosexual marriages were at the time.

[Lisa]

Care to qualify that statement at all? Or are you cool with asserting that you are an expert on every culture since the beginning of time.

[T o n y]

Why are those terms the correct ones? It can't be because they come out of Republican poll-tested wordsmithing factories. "Marriage redefinition" doesn't even roll off the tongue well, though I suppose it is tautologically the point of marriage equality movement. "Illegal immigrant" conveys no more information than "undocumented worker" and is pretty clearly meant to appeal to emotion more. No, I don't think those are the best terms to express those concepts.

[T o n y]

I will agree that "undocumented worker" is a euphemism... as long as you agree that the same is true about "job creator."

[Lisa]

But calling it marriage equality makes it easier to insult the people who don't agree with it.

[Tman]

Why the GOP Isn't Campaigning Against Gay Marriage:

I'll take "It's the Economy, Stupid" for $400 Alex.

[Episiarch]

Maybe because this isn't 30 years ago and hating people for who they want to fuck is monumentally stupid? Besides, there are furries. FURRIES. If you want to hate someone, hate them. Not me, of course. I only hate FoE because he's a vegisexual.

[Hyperion]

He only does it with vegetables?

[Episiarch]

"In the run-up to election day, Albert Goldman publishes The Lives of Bill D. Cat: Vegisexual, Nazi, Liberal. Bill's standing in the polls plummets, and the Meadow Party gets so desperate as to accept Walter Mondale's offer to join the ticket. Despite Milos's increasingly unethical campaign tactics, Bill loses to George H. W. Bush. (p78, 18 strips)"

Link

[Hyperion]

Exactly how does one wind up finding something this bizarre?

[Episiarch]

One reads Bloom County, extensively.

[Hyperion]

I take it that the story tellin on there involves lots of nailin cougars?

[kinnath]

I really miss bloom county

[Tman]

No doubt.

[The Hammer]

Bloom County isn't bizarre.

[John]

And juggaloos. There will always be juggaloos to hate.

[Episiarch]

"First they came for the juggalos, and I did not care, for I understand how fucking magnets work."

[John]

look at this graphic in today's Washington Post.

http://cdn.pjmedia.com/instapu.....ectors.jpg

It says 13% of likely voters who voted for Obama in 2008 plan to vote for Romney this time. Obama got a little over 69 million votes in 2008. Thirteen percent of that is over nine million votes. If you just take those votes and add them to the 59 million votes McCain got, Romney wins easily. Now it is not that simple. The turnout is likely to be different this time. Chances not all 69 million Obama voters are going to turn out this time. So the number is something less than 9 million. But I still don't see how that helps Obama very much since to make the 13% smaller means losing votes because people stay home. The bottom line is, if that graphic is to be believed, Obama is losing a big chunk of his vote from 2008. The only way to over come that is to get the McCain voters to either vote Obama/Johnson or not show up, which is highly unlikely. Or Obama could somehow find several million votes that were not there in 2008. Given the historic turnout in 2008, I don't see how that is possible.

Am I missing something here? I can't see how the math adds up for Obama. Maybe he pulls out some kind of a electoral college win. But I can't see how he can possibly win the popular vote if this graphic is true. And it also makes me very suspicious of the national polls that show this race being within a point or two.

[Hyperion]

We'll see on Tuesday. Right now, millions in NJ and NYC have forgotten about voting because Romney had the tropical storm seeded and turned it into Frankenstorm. Then when it was headed the wrong direction, he sent up planes with huge fans and had it intentionally blown right at NYC!

[John]

Those damn Kochs can do anything.

[tarran]

One of the brightest girls I went to High School with has gone full progresso-retard. Today she was posting llinks to facebook attacking Romney for heartlessly joking about Climate Change while people died!

[Hyperion]

I am guessing that when you look into her eyes now, that the lightbulbs seem to have burnt out? Progressivism fries the brain.

[tarran]

No, she's actually just as cute and bright as she was 20 years ago.

So long as one stays away from politics.

[Romulus Augustus]

So she believes in climate change projections that are based on, perhaps, gigo modeling. I wonder what she believes in the mathematical certainty of S.S. and medicare crashing unless they are changed from "as we know" them?

[tarran]

She believes whatever the party line on moveon.org is. Quite depressing really.

[John]

Climate change. I love how global warmning went down the memory hole.

[Hyperion]

The storm got the Great Goracle to crawl out from under his rock and write a stupid article at Fluff Host for his adoring halfwit fan club, and then he crawled back into his hole, until there is another storm.

[Episiarch]

He's SUPER SERIAL.

[BakedPenguin]

Excelsior!

[Cytotoxic]

His pathetic existence is justice.

[Jersey Patriot]

It's the Global Warming, Stupid (posted Nov. 1, 2012)

You get stupider with every breath, John.

[tarran]

No it's not.

It's just a Cat one hurricane. My mom, who lived through the hurricanes hitting New England in the 40's and 50's is dangerously close to smashing her TV in frustration at all the ahistorical idiots claiming this is unprecedented.

[John]

A cat one hurricane. Patriot you are fucking epic moron. Worse than Tony. Tony is just a clown act. you actually believe this shit.

[Hyperion]

Doesn't David Koch live in Manhatten?

[Sudden]

Yes, but his place was well protected with sandbags (well, they were actually the ashes of the unruly child workers, but no one needs to know that).

[The Immaculate Trouser]

Folks, the social conservatives are a spent force insofar as liberty-destroying politics goes. The real problem with today's GOP has to do with neo-conservatives, moderates, and their conservative enablers -- not with social conservatives.

[Heroic Mulatto]

The fact that for a while Santorum was considered a contender would be evidence against your assertion.

[Cytotoxic]

This. I think it's actually the Neocons that are in faster descent.

[Calidissident]

Based on what?

[Hyperion]

In numbers, maybe, but this years primary season left no doubt in my mind about who is still firmly in charge of the GOP establishment, the Neocons. Unfortunately the SoCons led by their great leader, Sweater Vest, are a close 2nd in rank.

[Hyperion]

Yeah, and in their infinite wisdom, they don't want any dirty Libertarian votes. Because true conservatives want war and .... well .... more war!

[Brett L]

Too busy saying stupid things about rape?

[Sudden]

All re-election campaigns boil down to pussy. In 2004, GWB and Karl Rove tried to convince everyone that John Kerry was a pussy. In 2012, Obama is trying to convince womyn (who apparently are governed by interest only in their reproductive system) that the GOP hates pussy. In both cases, the shadow party has proven remarkably effective at helping the incumbent make the pussy claim authoritatively.

[Lisa]

I think it's retarded how so many people are gung-ho about gay marriage when 10-20 years ago most homosexuals didn't even want to get married. So now, because a higher percentage want to get married....then everyone who doesn't agree with that changed consensus is evil? It's a fundamental difference in philosophy. Some people think that morality should be able to change based on the popular agenda of the day. Others think that what is right or wrong today was also right or wrong 500 years ago, and if 500 years ago no one would agree with what you consider right or wrong....then maybe you need to check your assumptions. The alternative is that you're just so much better than everyone in history. That requires a lot of ego.

[Calidissident]

"Some people think that morality should be able to change based on the popular agenda of the day. Others think that what is right or wrong today was also right or wrong 500 years ago, and if 500 years ago no one would agree with what you consider right or wrong....then maybe you need to check your assumptions. The alternative is that you're just so much better than everyone in history. That requires a lot of ego."

I think there is a ton of stuff that was considered right 500 years ago that any decent person today would consider reprehensible. I know you can think of some pretty obvious ones to start. I'm not saying opposing gay marriage is as bad as that, just that your logic is full of holes. And it doesn't require a big ego to think that fucked up shit that happened in the past shouldn't be acceptable today. In any case, I would prefer if the government got out of marriage all together. No one should be enforcing their personal morality on anyone else. But if we are going to have government marriage licenses, then I think they shouldn't be denied to gay couples