Michael Medved
Actually, the gay marriage debate helps the GOP
In the four liberal states where advocates for same-sex marriage won their victories, the redefinition of marriage proved much less popular than Barack Obama. In Maryland, for instance, Obama cruised to victory with 62 percent of the vote, but same-sex marriage squeaked by with just 52 percent. In other words, more than one out of six of Obama supporters voted with Republicans, not their fellow Democrats, against same sex marriage.
In Maryland, Maine, Washington and Minnesota, opposition to gay marriage averaged more than 48% but Romney averaged only 41%. In other words, traditional marriage is more popular than the GOP itself – providing a way to win over new votes, not to lose them.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Here is an idea for the GOP. If you’re running for president, the most anti-gay marriage you should get is to say “Thats an issue the states have to decide” and shut it from there on out. Its not a federal issue. Not in the constitution. Of course preventing it just makes government bigger, but whatever.
Zaggs on November 16, 2012 at 11:01 AM
He is right that opposition to changing the definition of marriage is more popular than the GOP itself… but the pro-traditional marriage side should have at least waited on Minnesota… and maybe should have given up on Maryland and Washington. They’ve built up a bandwagan effect against themselves.
This issue isn’t winning the GOP any votes though… blood is thicker than glitter.
ninjapirate on November 16, 2012 at 11:03 AM
LOL.
Punchenko on November 16, 2012 at 11:08 AM
I agree..
UMM no, issueing licenses for PRIVATE relatonships and additional tax payer bennies make government bigger.. not the other way around.
melle1228 on November 16, 2012 at 11:11 AM
Don’t bother with logic, it’s “inevitable”. Which is the main reason these referendums squeaked by in a low voter turnout election. Why should people vote on something if it’s going to shoved down your throats regardless?
Rocks on November 16, 2012 at 11:12 AM
There is a huge part of this which effects the federal government alone. DOMA itself leaves the issue entirely up to the states as you suggest. DOMA only sets rules on what will be called marriage for the federal government.
Rocks on November 16, 2012 at 11:15 AM
As an issue it’s double-edged in both parties, so it’s a dubious partisan talking point.
Seth Halpern on November 16, 2012 at 11:18 AM
When you break down the exit polling numbers a bit, you see how the picture is not quite what presented. To take Maine as an example, the same sex marriage initiative outperformed Obama in every age group from 18 to 49 (for instance, 71% vs 63% in the 18-24 group). This trend is reversed in the 50+ age groups, and is most extreme in 65+ where Obama won 55%, but the initiative only received 44%.
Rangeley on November 16, 2012 at 11:21 AM
Straights-only marriage for Republicans, like abortion for Democrats, might win an election or two now, but seems like a long-term loser. Only reason to keep that position is if it’s the right thing to do, not for electoral advantage.
My 1040 says otherwise.
calbear on November 16, 2012 at 11:32 AM
I fully support traditional marriage and wish that heterosexuals would obey their vows, remain married and have children. Can someone explain to me how the state recognition of same sex marriage is going to effect traditional marriage?
SC.Charlie on November 16, 2012 at 11:36 AM
I approve the comment following the article:
As state pass laws supporting gay marriage, teaching gay marriage as a norm moves into the school curriculum, and kids are educated away from their parents.
However, if people vote against gay marriage in State law, but vote for Obama, they choose someone who is enforcing gay marriage practice wherever possible federally, as in the military. Such voters are obviously not dead set against the practice, only in their own back yard.
No untapped mother lode here, just knee jerks.
entagor on November 16, 2012 at 11:40 AM
Because people will start marrying their dogs is why!
Pablo Honey on November 16, 2012 at 11:42 AM
I doubt it.
But out of curiosity, who do you think should not be allowed to “marry”..and why not?
Mimzey on November 16, 2012 at 11:49 AM
1st, when did the criteria for government action become “Well, it doesn’t hurt anybody.”? 2nd, Can you explain to me how a same sex union is marriage in the first place?
Rocks on November 16, 2012 at 11:50 AM
It’s not marriage.
I’m offended that some would call it that.
Why not take the PC route and demand it be called something else because people in that group find it offensive? All it should take ( based on precedent set in other situations)..is one person to complain.
“Indian” is no longer acceptable because some found that traditional word offensive. Same with many other situations. Retarded?..no way. Midget?..nuh uh.. Man married to a man? Nah. Call it something else.
Mimzey on November 16, 2012 at 11:59 AM
Thank you married 21 years faithfully to one man(first marriage for both of us) and have two children together.
melle1228 on November 16, 2012 at 11:59 AM
Children.
Pablo Honey on November 16, 2012 at 12:15 PM
Pablo Honey, you just have responded with one word, “Children”. You need to elaborate.
SC.Charlie on November 16, 2012 at 12:23 PM
melle1228 on November 16, 2012 at 12:26 PM
Medved’s claims are so delusional as to only merit comparison with the “it’s only a flesh wound” knight of Monty Python fame.
thuja on November 16, 2012 at 12:30 PM
Congratulations, do you think that same sex marriage will effect you marriage in any way? I am gay. I come from a family of five children. One brother and three sisters. My brother had a horrible divorce. My three sisters have all been happily married for over 25 years. My Mother and Father were happily married for their entire lives.
SC.Charlie on November 16, 2012 at 12:32 PM
I guess what it comes down to is that the Republican Party needs to stop trying to play the gay menace card come election time. Too many people now know people who are gay, such as myself, and who are just trying live the life that God gave them.
Even though Romney was not for same sex marriage during the past election, I did vote for him. There are far more important issues than same sex that decided for myself for whom I would vote.
SC.Charlie on November 16, 2012 at 12:46 PM
No, but that is the specious argument that YOU made not me. And BTW, the peice of paper that I from the state 21 years ago doesn’t effect my relationship either. Our commitment doesn’t have anything to do with the state sanctioning or not sanctioning it.
melle1228 on November 16, 2012 at 12:48 PM
Of course the answer to my simple question, does same sex marriage effect anyone’s “traditional marriage”, is of course it doesn’t. The vows you and your husband took between the two of you were personal vows given to one another. But the state recognizes those vows and your marriage. And, your marriage can only be dissolved by the state.
SC.Charlie on November 16, 2012 at 1:14 PM
There are other things that are affected by marriage other than other’s marriage. How about all the PRIVATE businesses being sued for discrimination if they don’t want to associate with gay marriage? How about the parents who are forced by the judiciary and can’t opt out of their children learning about homosexuality? You don’t want socons to force their morals down your throat, but the gay that be have NO PROBLEM using the judiciary to shove their morals down socons throat. Gay marriage will effect freedom of association and freedom of religion. And there will be a constitutional repercussion of protecting something as complex and self-identifying as a sexual orientation. And if it is unconstitutional for states to regulate who can and can’t marry in their own interests then polygamy will follow, because it will be unconstitutional to deny them marriage licenses as well. And the last point of fact, the state recognizing ANY private relationship is big government.
melle1228 on November 16, 2012 at 1:27 PM
This is exactly the problem with the state recognizing gay “marriage.”
I couldn’t agree more.
Othniel on November 16, 2012 at 1:54 PM
Well, then let’s all send those horrible gays back into closet. When are people such as yourselves going to grow up? My guess is never. Perhaps one of you will grow up when one of your children tells you that he or she is homosexual.
SC.Charlie on November 16, 2012 at 3:00 PM
I don’t care if you are in the closet out or love five people mmkkay. So no need to go back in the closet. Just like I don’t care if people are single parents etc. as long as my family is NOT effected by it. And if one of my children came out as homosexual, I would continue to love them unconditionally like I do now, but I STILL WOULDN’T SUPPORT gay marriage.
melle1228 on November 16, 2012 at 3:05 PM
I hope your homosexual son or daughter well. And, that they know their place at the back of the bus. BTW, every child these days learns about human sexuality one way or another. If you want to indoctrinate your children that homosexual people are inferior or immoral, I guess that is your choice. Have a happy Thanksgiving and be sure to pass the gravy over to your lesbian first cousin to the right of you at the dinner table.
SC.Charlie on November 16, 2012 at 5:49 PM
Look I know that you have had a hard time of it coming out, but don’t you think you are assuming a little much about me. You are flinging the same “if you are against homosexual marriage” then you must be homophobic” victim mentality that I have come to know and love out of homosexuals. I don’t indoctrinate my children to see homosexuals as inferior, and my children are quite comfortable with people who are different and may “love” someone different. That doesn’t mean that I think the STATE can force me to let them teach something. If YOU don’t understand that, then you really aren’t for equality and liberty-just your own pet interest group. BTW, I don’t support being a single parent, divorce or polygamy-but I don’t hate people or think they are inferior than me who do. And I was also very progay marriage until I got wind of the fascist victim mentality that most of you have.
melle1228 on November 16, 2012 at 6:50 PM
Wow, lighten up on the strawmen. For the record, this disrespectful, nasty and accusatory childish argument that ultimately is “Disagree with me and you are a bigot” is PRECISELY why I oppose gay marriage. That, and as others noted, the threat it is to actual constitutional rights — you know, freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of conscience. That’s more important to me than the state giving a victim class special recognition.
And yet, naturally, all you have in response is that I just hate teh gheys. When in fact I am non-religious, mostly libertarian on social issues (which unlike most libertarians realizes that does NOT mean social liberalism) and don’t give a damn who or what you like to fuck.
jjraines on November 16, 2012 at 9:34 PM