A few years ago it looked like opposition to gay marriage was going to equal or surpass abortion as the ultimate wedge issue - a device capable of defeating Democrats in all but the most-liberal districts.
And yet consider this:
-The topic didn't come up in Tuesday's debate
-There's not been a single McCain-Palin ad on gay marriage.
-John McCain did not mention it in his acceptance speech at the Republican convention.
-Sarah Palin did not mention it in her convention acceptance speech, either.
-Of the 57 speeches listed on McCain's Web site, I couldn't find a single mention of the gay marriage issue.
What happened?
For starters, the topic has less currency because there are fewer referendums on state ballots. While 11 states considered ballot initiatives in 2004, only three are this year. That means fewer campaign dollars and volunteer hours focused on the issue.
More important, public opinion has shifted. Social issues in general have become less important to voters as the economy has worsened. The new Twelve Tribes study by Beliefnet and the University of Akron, showed that percentage of people listing moral issues as most important is now half what it was in 2004.
But that's just part of the explanation. After all, abortion is getting significant attention. The Catholic bishops, for instance, have been far more vocal opposing abortion than gay marriage. It's not like social issues have completely disappeared.
Rather, while the public hasn't much changed its views on abortion, it has on gay rights. For instance, in 2004 48% of "Convertible Catholics" supported civil unions or gay marriage. In 2008, 61% do. Among Moderate Evangelicals, the percentage was 33% in 2004, 42% in 2008.
Just as important, young people have starkly different views on gay issues than their parents. Most surveys show this but it's particularly striking among evangelical Christians, who are just as anti-abortion as their parents but significantly more supportive of gay rights. The Barna Group asked "born again Christians" if they believed that "homosexual lifestyles" are a "major problem" The results show a stunning shift by age:
Age
18-41 -- 35%
42-60: -- 52%
61+: -- 71%
With support for gay marriage or civil unions rising, conservative politicians have to be careful where and how they push this issue.
Though McCain approved a Republican platform that called for a constitutional amendment on gay marriage, he routinely contradicts that view by saying he wants it left up to the states. When McCain and Palin do discuss their opposition to gay marriage it's now usually accompanied by a statement of tolerance towards homosexuals.
Political strategists realize there are still large numbers of people who view gay marriage as a major threat. But now, candidates must appeal to them without alienating moderates or younger voters.
Since abortion seems to work just as well as ever among culturally conservative voters like moderate evangelicals, they figure: stick with that.
Adapted from Steven Waldman's "Political Perceptions" column at the Wall Street Journal Online.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
I really think Charles is right, that despite the aversion to gay marriage exhibited by a very vocal Evangelical & Catholic segment of the community, the definition of marriage is going to have to change. Why would I say that? Two reasons:
First, the main argument against same sex marriage is a religious one. Despite the obvious argument - that there exists in the US a "wall of separation" between church and state, there is also another compelling argument for gay marriage. That is, marriage is not only a religious ceremony / institution. Atheists and other non-religious people get married all the time, and do so for security, commitment and to make public their love. So arguing that marriage is a sacred institution that is inherently religious isn't going to cut it.
Second, there's the "what about the children" defense that many against gay marriage will try to use. It's the idea that marriage is for the purpose of procreation and child rearing. The problem with this, obviously, is that not every couple will have children, and "family" has never been uniquely defined as 1 man, 1 woman, and their progeny. Consider Barack Obama, for instance. He never knew his father, and was raised by his grandparents for much of his formative life. Does that mean he wasn't part of a "family" because of the non-traditional makeup of his family unit? No one would try to argue that.
So if you take away the religious argument and the children argument, all you have left is the argument from tradition. And I don't think anyone is naive enough now to put all their eggs in THAT basket.
Or perhaps they are starting to look at themselves and their own and realize that we heterosexuals have been destroying marriage for quite some time. Regarding marriage, heterosexuals need to make things right before going after the gays.
Then there's always the rendering unto Caesar what is Caesar's.........
pagansister and Warren Cheswick,
Your arguments are right on. I especially agree with Warren in that traditional nuclear families aren't the only valid family structure. At least a third of the world practices polygamy, and all kinds of alternative marriage structures are found in the Bible-including polygamy, levirate marriage, concubinage, etc. I mean, I know all kinds of people who were raised by single parents, and I would never dream of telling them their families were not valid.
And I wonder why the received text included mention of David's love for Jonathan that exceeded David's love of women. Maybe younger Christians no longer have a need to define their virtue in terms of someone else's sin.
and both are up for some kind of reform - legal status for homosexual unions, as long as it isn't called "marriage"?
But that's the problem. The "Marriage Protection" Amendments specifically state:
Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution or the constitution of any State, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups."
That means that unless the GLBT community gets to use the exact term MARRIAGE, we don't get the equal treatment of partner visitation, Social Security benefits, or any of the other 1200 tax and legal protections that are specific to marriage. This is why civil union is not equivalent to marriage. Look at all of the marriage amendments that have passed so far, everyone, and you will see why it would be illegal for a civil union to be treated equally as a marriage.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.