Campaign against same-sex marriage plays to hate and fear

[WingNOT]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1317&ncid=742&e=11&u=/uclicktext/20040202/cm_ucas/campaignagainstsamesexmarriageplaystohateandfear

In Massachusetts, Karl Rove has unearthed a weapon of mass distraction-related program activity. You may recall that the state's Supreme Judicial Court issued a ruling in November legalizing gay marriage.

That ruling allowed Rove, President Bush (news - web sites)'s political handler, to change the subject. He didn't want to go into the presidential campaign talking about the issues that matter most in the life of the republic: the failure to find WMDs in Iraq (news - web sites), the gargantuan (and growing) budget deficit, millions of lost jobs. He didn't want President Bush to have to defend his decisions on the environment, his pandering to Big Business, his knee-jerk allegiance to the wealthy. On those issues, the president is vulnerable.

Now, Bush can run a campaign that whips up fear and hate, primal instincts that often overrun common sense. Gay marriage doesn't affect the household income of the average voter or his children's chances for getting into good colleges. It doesn't outsource jobs to India. And it doesn't contribute to the decline of heterosexual marriage. (We haven't needed any help with that.)

But it does stir the blood and cloud the judgment of many Americans, persuading them to vote for the candidate who pledges to protect them from it. At the very least, Bush believes his signal of support for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage will inspire conservative Christians, whose legendary organizational skills could give him the margin of victory in November.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

1. i am gay

and i wish people would lay off about the gay marriage atleast till this elections is over...and i know a lot of gay people feel like this is betrayal but its how a truly feel..i also think the gay movement has been hijacked by rich gay men and has become an elitist gay movement...this is why marriage is taking precedence over the ENDA act which would be far more beneficial to the middle and lower class gay americans

[Democrats unite]

2. I am Gay & I disagree

This has to do with our fundamental basic rights, until we have acheieved equal rights we have acheieved nothing.

[beyurslf]

3. I;m gay too and I think both are important

and it is tough to say which is more so. Non discrimation is obviously a huge thing but so are the rigths of marriage. I guess when it comes down to it, I think marriage is more. Many many many companies now have their own non discrimination policies. I know that isn't the answer but it is happening already.

[BR_Parkway]

4. Take "marriage" out of equation

I think we are fighting the wrong battle. Marriage, with it's historical roots should be a religious institution only, much at they do in Europe. For an equal standing for everyone, homo & hetero alike - we should have civil unions - those would give all the same rights and privileges.

My union with my partner (gay) is just as valid as any couple who have gotten hitched in front of the justice of the peace - no "supreme being" blessed it. And it is certainly more valid than my (hetero) marriage in front of the minister, back when I was trying to be someone I wasn't.

If we get all caught up in "separate but equal" arguments, we will lose this battle. More Americans are favorable towards gays & lesbians having equal rights but are opposed to using the word "marriage", which has strong religious connotations for them. As long as we define the argument as having our equal rights and protections under the law recognized as such, then the majority stand with us. If we hold so firm and fast to a simple word, we could find ourselves standing further on the outside looking in (or even constitutionally prohibited).

[La Lioness Priyanka]

6. i agree

about the civil union part of your agreement..its not like i am against marriage for homosexuals..i would very much like to marry my girl...i'm against it becoming a divisive issue

[HootieMcBoob]

5. You don't understand

This is not a battle being waged by the Democratic candidates. They would rather not talk about it at all. It's being brought up by Republicans. They're the ones who are pushing for a constitutional amendment. They are stirring up the issue to distract people from the real problems in the country. The Democrats can't do anything about it. If they're asked about it, they have to answer and most are saying that they would rather leave it up to the individual states and that they support equal rights for all Americans. If pressed they would have to say that they don't support an amendment to the constitution.

This is the classic Republican strategy. Bring up divisive, hot-button issues to distract the voters from real issues. It works every time. And a lot of people are stupid enough to fall for it.