NOM BLOG

USNews & World Report: "Gay Marriage Could be a Difference Maker Issue in 2012"

 

Mallie Kim reports:

The economy is king in 2012 politics, but in a close election, the issue of same-sex marriage could make a difference.

With New York recently legalizing gay marriage, the Pentagon processing the repeal of "don't ask, don't tell," and Congress battling over the Defense of Marriage Act, gay rights have gotten a lot of media attention, and activists on both sides of the argument believe they have a politically potent issue.

"Clearly the overriding issue in the next election is going to be the economy and jobs," says Brian Darling, a senior fellow for government studies at the conservative Heritage Foundation. But when votes get close, he says, "issues like traditional marriage can make a critical difference in an election and may be a deciding factor."

24 Comments

  1. Matt
    Posted July 28, 2011 at 8:07 am | Permalink

    I for one would love to see this become a major campaign issue for all candidates.

  2. AnonyGrl
    Posted July 28, 2011 at 10:59 am | Permalink

    Yes. Especially now that the majority of Americans are becoming aware of it, and supporting marriage equality.

    The sooner we get this taken care of, the sooner we have equal rights for all, the sooner we can move on to other issues that need dealing with. But it is good that people are becoming aware, and wanting our government to do the right thing and make sure equal rights means equal for everyone.

  3. Matt
    Posted July 28, 2011 at 12:11 pm | Permalink

    I can't wait to see what happens in Minnesota this next year. A defeat of the amendment would be proof of incredibly changed circumstances.

  4. Barb
    Posted July 28, 2011 at 12:23 pm | Permalink

    The debate is about gay "marriage," not gay rights. Everyone has a right to live as they choose. Nobody has a "right" to redefine marriage. Dishonest people continue to intentionally cloud this distinction.

  5. SammySeattle
    Posted July 28, 2011 at 1:26 pm | Permalink

    All citizens have the right to redefine the laws of our nation. Definitions are not static.

  6. Bruce
    Posted July 28, 2011 at 1:34 pm | Permalink

    "Nobody has a "right" to redefine marriage."

    Your side keeps saying this, but all that repetition doesn't make the argument any less absurd. Civil marriage is a civil contract; therefore, the government has an obligation to define marriage. Just like every other human institution, marriage has been evolving over its entire existence.

  7. Daughter of Eve
    Posted July 28, 2011 at 3:31 pm | Permalink

    Despite differences in culture, politics, govts., skin color, borders, and theology, marriage has always had one common element: the public union of a man and a woman; both sexes joined together to create an entity in which the whole is greater than the sum of the parts. No society is strictly male or female, and marriage between a man and a woman is representative of that duality. No other public relationship encompasses so much, nor has the capability of knitting together our society in as meaningful a way, bonding together both our ancestry and our posterity.

  8. Sam Jones
    Posted July 28, 2011 at 4:22 pm | Permalink

    That's the problem with allowing the government to regulate marriage. It was only a matter of time before it became big enough to think that it owned marriage and redefined it without any regard over how much this intrudes upon religious beliefs and liberties.

    I suppose if the government regulated Kosher food, it would think that it owned that too and redefine that to include ham and eggs to please a minority who want to be considered Kosher, but still enjoy a breakfast at Dennys. It can even be called CIVIL Kosher food to rationalize the intrusion upon a people's religion.

    And then Kosher markets can be oppressed and run out of business by the government because they will not abide by the redefinition of Kosher food by selling ham and eggs, all in the name of "civil rights."

    Down with big government and their intrusive practice of redefining deeply held religious terms.

    LET THE PEOPLE VOTE!

  9. Louis E.
    Posted July 28, 2011 at 5:01 pm | Permalink

    Only by serving as a means of securing to opposite-sex relationships the preferential treatment to which their being opposite-sex entitles them can civil marriage serve any legitimate state purpose.There is no public interest whatsoever in the existence of same-sex sexual relationships.(I am NOT religious and this is not a religious issue).

  10. Little man
    Posted July 29, 2011 at 3:24 pm | Permalink

    What is this about "equal rights"? Who decides what are the rights? and how do we make them equal? If some decide that 2+3=6 and some insist 2+3 = 5, is it about equal rights for all to believe what they want to believe? There is a parallel to same-sex marriage. Same-sex marriage, first of all is not only for people of homosexual behavior. It is for ALL types of same-sex couples, by definition. It is illogical to equate a same-sex relationship with an apposite-sex (anatomically) relationship. We cannot start by saying they are different, and then require that they be treated by legislatures as "equal". The equality argument is a con maneuver. It has no place in secular reasoning. Plus, it is very expensive for the governments.

  11. Jackson
    Posted July 29, 2011 at 5:04 pm | Permalink

    Same article says more than 90 percent of Americans believe DOMA should be repealed.

  12. Skooter McGoo
    Posted July 30, 2011 at 1:40 am | Permalink

    Marriage licenses are issued by the state, not the church. No religion is necessary for a marriage to be legal or recognized.

  13. bman
    Posted July 30, 2011 at 4:07 am | Permalink

    #6/Bruce: Civil marriage is a civil contract; therefore, the government has an obligation to define marriage.

    Government doesn't have an obligation to "redefine" marriage.

    Marriage is defined by the society in its laws first.

    Next, a couple may contract marriage according to the definition of marriage that is at law.

    Its not a case where the couple picks its own definition and then enters a contract to which the state is bound to recognize as marriage.

    Marriage is an institution in which, "....the public is deeply interested, for it is the foundation of the family and of society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress." (Maynard v. Hill)

    And from that same case, "When the contracting parties have entered into the married state, they have not so much entered into a contract as into a new relation, the rights, duties, and obligations of which rest not upon their agreement, but upon the general law of the state, statutory or common, which defines and prescribes those rights, duties, and obligations. They are of law, not of contract. "

  14. bman
    Posted July 30, 2011 at 5:07 am | Permalink

    Skooter McGoo: Marriage licenses are issued by the state, not the church. No religion is necessary for a marriage to be legal or recognized.

    This list below tells you how our system is supposed to work.

    1. God's law (is higher than)
    2. The People (who are above)
    3. The US Constitution (which empowers)
    4. Government (as an agent of)
    5. The People (who are above )
    6. The Constitution.

    Government is like an agent you hired to manage your property for you. You give the agent some rules on how to manage it and let the agent do his job.

    If the agent, however, misunderstands your rules you correct the agent.

    Whenever same sex marriage has become law it was because the agent of the people (government) either misunderstood the will of the people or tried to substitute its will for that of the people .

    Its the right and the duty of the people to correct the agent and restore marriage as they believe God would have it defined.

  15. Jackson
    Posted July 30, 2011 at 7:53 am | Permalink

    Hey Bman -- that list works great in countries like Iraq and Saudia Arabia.

  16. smitty
    Posted July 30, 2011 at 2:52 pm | Permalink

    @sam jones

    "That's the problem with allowing the government to regulate marriage. It was only a matter of time before it became big enough to think that it owned marriage and redefined it without any regard over how much this intrudes upon religious beliefs and liberties."

    Well if 'you' didnt want the government to regulate marriage - you are a little late to the game. there are records dating back to colonial america in which the government issued marriage licenses. So, since 'you' were happy to cede the word 'marriage' to secular society and let the government issue contracts/licenses labeled 'marriage' for the last 250 years, you can't really decide NOW that marriage is a word that belongs to YOUR religion. (please note: there are plenty of religions that sanctify marriages for all couples and have for years).

    As far as your Kosher argument - seems to me that Kosher community wants to have control over the issuing and sanctifying of Kosher institutions, so they have not involved the government in any way. FINE - that's the way to insure that you can do "Kosher" the way you want.

    But LONG ago - people decided that they WANTED certain things - rights & responsibilities - FROM the governement in conjunction to their marriages. so they got the government involved. NOW hundreds of years down the road, you cant expect to take the work marriage for yourself and still expect things from the government - the goverment that I SUPPORT as well as you!!

    "Down with big government and their intrusive practice of redefining deeply held religious terms"

    If the word marriage was such a "deeply held religious term".....why on earth have you let the government use it for the last 250+ years???
    Why wasnt there a push back in colonial america to keep that word from secular society???

    ANSWER THAT!!

  17. bman
    Posted July 30, 2011 at 6:19 pm | Permalink

    "Jackson: Hey Bman -- that list works great in countries like Iraq and Saudia Arabia."

    Its not the model they have now. If they adopted it they would probably move more freedoms than they do currently.

    Also, the model I propose is the one America was built upon.

    John Adams said: "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

    Besides, a religion need not be theistic. Gay-centric secularism would be a form of religion as well.

    And so the problem is really with "what religion" the people look to in the model.

    If they look to Christianity they will be better off than if they look to Gay-secularism or some other religion.

  18. bman
    Posted July 30, 2011 at 6:24 pm | Permalink

    smitty: Why wasnt there a push back in colonial america to keep that word from secular society???ANSWER THAT!!

    It may have something to do with the fact secular society was also based on Christianity, and so there was no need to make it an issue until gays tried to use the word differently than it had been used.

  19. Jackson
    Posted July 31, 2011 at 9:08 am | Permalink

    "If they look to christianity they will be better off..." <--and that's the problem, there are many wonderful religions practiced in the USA. Why should yours drive civil law?

  20. bman
    Posted July 31, 2011 at 12:27 pm | Permalink

    Jackson: there are many wonderful religions practiced in the USA. Why should yours drive civil law?

    A better question is this: Why should the people vote their religion and not some other?

  21. Bruce
    Posted July 31, 2011 at 12:45 pm | Permalink

    bman:
    "Government doesn't have an obligation to "redefine" marriage."

    Maynerd v. Hill:
    "When the contracting parties have entered into the married state, they have not so much entered into a contract as into a new relation, the rights, duties, and obligations of which rest not upon their agreement, but upon the general law of the state, statutory or common, which defines and prescribes those rights, duties, and obligations. They are of law, not of contract. "

    So bman, who do you think writes those laws controlling marriage, if it's not the government? Walmart??

  22. bman
    Posted July 31, 2011 at 1:39 pm | Permalink

    Bruce: ....who do you think writes those laws controlling marriage, if it's not the government? Walmart??

    Your reply does not follow logically from what I said.

    Government isn't obliged to "re-define" marriage based on a contract you make with someone.

  23. Posted August 1, 2011 at 10:39 am | Permalink

    "marriage has always had one common element: the public union of a man and a woman"

    Again, DoE, this is both revisionist history and an outright lie. As mentioned earlier, Ancient and late ancient Rome, Germanic tribes, Celtic tribes, Native Americans,

    In Rome, the Theodosian Code specifically called for the execution of same-gender couples who were married, not simply living together.

    For the paste decade, we have seen marriage equality in Argentina, Belgium, Canada, Iceland, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, South Africa, Sweden, Mexico, parts of the United States, the Coquille Indian Tribe, and Israel when performed abroad.

    Furthermore, the "public union" aspect of your post is irrelevant. In many cultures and communities, marriage has been an exclusively private agreement.

    Stop revising history.

  24. P. Edward Murray
    Posted August 3, 2011 at 10:02 pm | Permalink

    The Nuclear Family is the basis for the nation-state and human civilization period.

    Of course there is a small minority of folks who want to tinker with it to make themselves feel better.

    Show me ONE nation state today that was NOT based on the nuclear family?

    Does not compute!

    In any event, those who wish to re-define marriage may win something but they will never be accepted by most of us who are not gay. Deciding to legislate how a person thinks is not called democracy.

    You may try to shove it down our throats but that doesn't mean you will be accepted ..just the reverse!