Here he goes again.
With nothing else left in the right wing's tired play book, former presidential aspirant Gary Bauer is hoping you'll believe that election-year hate-mongering will make a difference in November's contest between pro-GLBT Barack Obama and Republican nominee John McCain, whose bad record on equality is mitigated only by his votes against the Federal Marriage Amendment that Bauer supports. He stated on Politico.com that California's historic decision recognizing equal rights for gay and lesbian couples will be a boon to conservative candidates, alluding to the 2004 election cycle, during which he and his allies attempted to use anti-gay amendments at the state and federal level to fire up the right-wing base. He's dreaming.
The myth of 2004 has been shown, time and again, to be just that. As pollster Mark Mellman points out, the only swing state where an amendment in play was Ohio, and the voting there does not indicate that the amendment made a difference:
[B]eneath the argument of those who point to the centrality of gay marriage in the outcome is the bizarre contention that a significant number of voters didn't really care to decide one of the closest and most important presidential elections in Ohio's history, but were motivated to go to the polls to ensure the anti-gay marriage initiative passed with 61 percent, not just 60.Bush pollster Matthew Dowd agrees that the ballot initiatives did not dictate the outcome of the election:Data make clear there were, in fact, few such people, as sophisticated statistical techniques reveal that less than one-half of 1 percent of Ohio voters cast a ballot on the marriage initiative but not in the presidential race. Four times as many voted for president while skipping the initiative.
A lot of people have talked about that, well, this was a campaign or a constituency driven by certain social issues. That's actually not true. They are very interested in those issues. The primary motivator of these folks of turning out on Election Day was the support of the president in the war on terror. That was the biggest motivator of these folks on Election Day. Now, was gay marriage important? Yeah, it's important to them. Is abortion important? It's important to them. But that's not what caused people to turn out on Election Day.So we know from pollsters on both sides of the aisle that Bauer's California dream wasn't even true then, much less now. Here's why it's even less true today:
In the four years since gay and lesbian couples started marrying in Massachusetts, the sky hasn't fallen. The Massachusetts legislature has defeated a proposed amendment to strip these families of their rights, with legislators who supported the amendment losing their jobs to pro-equality candidates.
Over 53% of Fortune 500 companies now offer domestic partner benefits, recognizing that gay and lesbian employees deserve equal compensation for their equal contributions, and that their families should be just as valued.
In California itself, the legislature twice passed a marriage law, and the Republican governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger -- who vetoed those billS -- now supports the Court's decision to recognize all California's families as equal. Polls show that pro-equality Barack Obama was not harmed in California-or anywhere-by the Court's decision. The ballot initiative now facing Californians was in the works for a long time before the Court's May 15 ruling, and the signatures gathered for it simply aren't evidence of a groundswell of opposition to marriage equality or hostility to the ruling.
So by any tangible measure, Gary Bauer's vision of conservatives riding a wave of anti-gay fervor into the White House in 2008 is pure illusion. Why, then, does he bother? It isn't just about getting people to the polls; it's about getting them to open their wallets and purses, to finance right-wing groups. In the absence of ideas that really would strengthen even one family, it's about attempting to make people believe that keeping gay people from marrying is somehow "pro-family."
Of course, as the California Supreme Court wisely noted, excluding me, and people like me, from marriage does not help different-sex couples raise their children, or stay committed to one another. Preventing gay and lesbian couples from receiving the same protections in return for decades of commitment serves no purpose. Nor does including these families-in California, or around the country-pose any threat to any family.
My organization has endorsed Barack Obama, whose message of inclusion we believe will resonate with voters this fall. We're also fighting the marriage amendment in California with all of our strength: equality is one dream that deserves to be kept alive.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/04/politics/campaign/04gay.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/04/politics/campaign/04poll.html?8bl
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/04/politics/campaign/04assess.html?8bl
The Orwellian attempts at revisionism regarding the 2004 election are just LIES by gay marriage fanatics desperate for Democrats not to speak more strongly against same-sex marriage and lose yet ANOTHER election.
Why are Liberals SO CLUELESS?
If you know your opponent is going to use an issue to hit you over the head with a baseball bat and
at the same time, use it to RALLY THEIR TROOPS and GET THEM OUT TO VOTE...
WHY MAKE IT SO EASY FOR THEM?
Why not BE QUIET AND WIN THE ELECTION and then raise the issue with the new administration?
I hope you're right, Mr. Solmonese. My son and his "partner" received their "Domestic Partnership" Certificate in March, 2007. He and his "partner" were MARRIED in Canada in August, 2007. May his union flourish in all good things -- love and abundance, prosperity and health, peace and comfort, joy and fun, and everlasting friendship.
I don't think they'll renew their MARRIAGE vows in California ... until they're satisfied the sanctified marriage "protectors" are sanctimoniously silenced.
"The Massachusetts legislature has defeated a proposed amendment to strip these families of their rights, with legislators who supported the amendment losing their jobs to pro-equality candidates."
As more fair-minded, free-thinking americans stand UP for EQUALITY, more anti-gay, "pro-family" americans must stand DOWN.
What MARRIAGE has joined together, let no BIBLE put asunder!
I am a loyal supporter of The Human Rights Campaign. You are my hero, Mr. Solmonese!
Stay safe, healthy and happy,
Love, Loretta
WUSSY POLITICIANS. Stupid is as stupid DOES.
of course last week he flipped on the issue and said he was against the november initiative in california which, in my book, made him against marriage equality before he was for it.
so, exactly where DOES he stand. this reader doesn't know.
I agree. I am a life long Republican...and also a transgendered woman. There are a few people in my party who are openly supportive, but they take heat for it. I know that many, and maybe even MOST Republican pols really don't give a rats ass about GLBT issues, couldn't care less who gets married to whom and wish that the fundies would disappear and take the gay marriage meme with them. They have been (deservedly) trapped in their own marriage with religious hatred, and they can't get out of it.
Obama, (who I am reservedly supporting this year) has been far more open and forthcoming in his speeches concerning GLBT issues. I believe he is the first presidential candidate to even MENTION transgendered, for Pete's sake! Don't let his acknowledgment of political reality put you off. He is a far, far better candidate for us then Hillary ever would have been, and certainly light years ahead of McCain.
*God, I wish Ahnold could run... :D *
The APA says that homosexual behavior originates from biological, cognitive, and cultural factors. The biological factor indicates a heightened potential for, but not a guarantee of, homosexual orientation. Cognitive indicates what a person learns. Cultural indicates what he or she absorbs from society. For adults, the sexual revolution undid cultural and cognitive factors that controlled our biological predisposition for heterosexual behavior outside marriage. Consequently, a society that approves or encourages homosexuality will trigger the biological proclivity for the behavioral urge, making those with this tendency more likely to act upon it.
This is important since gay males are at far greater risk for serious disease, making them ineligible to donate blood or organs. These diseases are HIV/AIDS (nine times more than straight males), Kaposi’s Sarcoma, human papilloma virus, hepatitis A and B, anal cancer, non-hodgkins lymphoma, hodgkins disease, gonorrhea, syphilis, proctitis, proctocolitis, and enteritis. For AIDS, male homosexuals are a small percentage of the population but comprise 50% of HIV/AIDS in the U.S. and 70% among American men. Prophylactics do not offer complete protection from these diseases.
Lesbians are at lesser risk but not in comparison to heterosexual women for some health concerns. Examples include breast cancer, ovarian cancer, HPV, BV, chlamydia, syphillis, trichomoniasis, and AIDS/HIV.
For all of these reasons, society shouldn’t codify same-sex behavior in marriage. The government should remain neutral on same sex behavior - allowing it but not legally recognizing it among adults.
Following that logic, since most breast cancer occurs in women, we should probably take away their right to vote - purely out of health concerns I assure you.