It will help him. More Republicans oppose Gay Marriage then support it. Most Republicans that support it (with the possible exception of the Log Cabin Republicans) would not vote against Bush on this one issue.

There are alot of fence sitting conservatives in this election. Many Fiscal conservatives are really mad about the way the Republicans keep increasing spending and the size of government (outside of Homeland Security).

Most will likely vote for him in the end being that their realistic alternative is Kerry. However, many could just stay home on election day.

I think this move is one to try to play to the Conservatives that are Religiously as well as Fiscally minded. I believe it is hoped that this issue will push those people off the fence and bring them to the polls for Bush in November.

Since the Religious Right has a higher membership then the Log Cabin Republicans or the Republican Liberty Caucus I would think this issue would result in a net gain for Bush.

I wouldn't be so sure. According to Pat Buchanan (on The McLaughlin Group), a wedge issue like gay marriage - if fully backed by the religious right, which a Constitutional Amendment might be - only amounts to a gain of 3% for the Republican Party, from a constituency of about 14% or 15% to a constituency of 17% or 18%. I have no other source for this, but I'm assuming Buchanan would know.

On the other hand, in exit polls of voters in 2000, 4% self-identified as being gay - and 75% of them voted for Gore. In congressional elections, polling indicated a 5% gay vote. And that's people who identify themselves as gay to a stranger with a clipboard. At the time, the GOP had made efforts to court the gay vote and support from the Log Cabin Republicans, including meetings between gay organizations and people like Marc Racicot and John Ashcroft, so they evidently have some concerns about the gay vote. As the LCR came out in support of Ashcroft's nomination (and, once McCain dropped out, endorsed Bush as well), it seemed to have been working.

Since Bush's backing of a Constitutional Amendment, however, things have changed. The LCR has denounced Bush and - for the first time ever - has launched a $1 million TV ad campaign in order to oppose the amendment. Further, the GOP may not have their support this year:

This could push that entire 4% or 5% of the (self-identified) gay vote toward the Kerry camp, effectively eliminating the net gain in religious right votes. And that doesn't even take the Republican Unity Caucus, the Republican Liberty Caucus, or moderate Republicans into account - never mind moderate independents.

It will also be interesting to see what Rudy Giuliani has to say about this, if anything, at the convention - especially if there is a movement afoot to replace Cheney on the ticket. He had apparently been lined up as a key figure in New York, but is strongly opposed to such an amendment. Indeed, when the wife booted him out of Gracie Mansion, he moved in with a gay couple...

It's going to hurt him big time. Bush won't be reelected because of THIS issue. Although many Americans are against gay marriage, that doesn't mean they all support a constitutional amendment to outlaw gay marriage.

I voted for Bush the first time but I won't vote for him again. He claims that his proposal to amend the constitution is to protect state rights; however, in actuality such a thing would actually be taking the rights of state away. States that want to legalize homosexual marriage will be forbidden to do so. THAT'S not state rights.

I would have had no problem with Bush merely stating that he's against gay marriage but I take huge issue with someone playing with our constitution to discriminate against a group of people. Our constitution was designed to protect minorities, not exclude them.

Conservatives are also afraid that legalizing marriage will be forcing churches to marry homosexuals. Churches are also promoting this misconception (mine is). The reality is that the government can't force churches to perform homosexual marriages even if they were legalized. Separation of church and state goes both ways.

There are too many contradictions in Bush's position to assure a landfall vote from the conservative public. While opposing homosexual marriage is a conservative position, state rights is also conservative position. Conservatives are intelligent enough to see through the propaganda to realize that the amendment is actually against state rights -- even if it's not the specific rights they embrace personally.

President Bush is wrong to try and change THE most sacred document to Americans over a domestic policy. This should continue to be played out through dialogue and decided upon by the states. I can say it no better than this quote:

SEPERATE BUT EQUAL IS NOT EQUAL

If you are going to take a away a homosexuals right to marry then you must take away all people's right to marry. All Americans should be treated fairly and equally; justice and the American system is or should be blind to all bias.

To say that some people are legaly able to be married and others are not not only defies Brown vs. Board but also our right to the Pursuit of Happiness.

Bush's stance on gay marriage

From the very beginning, Bush has left no doubt in anyone's mind how he felt about gays period. Gay marriage is another of many issues where the American people, regardless of party, are split. Many parents who have gay kids aren't for gay marriage.

That is why I am for letting the States handle it rather than amending the Constitution. IMO, Bush is not going to push amending the Constitution any further. His threat of amending the Constitution was in hopes of snapping everybody to attention and getting them serious about following State's laws.

Although going through legal channels to change laws (no matter how many times) takes a long time, in the long run it is for the benefit of all. Now, we have some gays that are legally married and some that are illegally married. What a mess and how unfair to them!

Tell you what could sway a lot of people's opinions about gays and get some action on marriage laws. If science could produce solid genetic proof that people were born gay rather than choosing to be gay. There have been pro and con theories floating around for years and "proof in the pudding" from a scientific viewpoint would be most welcome.

So, IMO...amending the Constitution to resolve the gay marriage issue is probably on a back burner with Bush and he is going to roll on other issues. IMO, Bush's stance on gay marriage will lose some and win some votes and won't be an overwhelming for or against vote than could either make or break his election.

As with the weather...one never knows in politics...and an election year at that.

This issue wil help him with conservatives for the most part. However we live in a more culturally diverse country than ever before. Bush had better not make the mistake that his stance on this issue is going to give him a free ride to re-election. But this issue should help him with people who go to church and have a relationship with God. From a political standpoint, it levels with abortion.

Hmm... I know some folks who go to church and have a relationship with God who are against what Bush is doing about gay marriage. Perhaps it's a different church, though.

Or maybe they just have a same-sex relationship with God.

I think it will help him in only small part. The fact is that there are few issues of such importance as whether or not people feel their leaders listen to what they (the people) want as opposed to doing what's best for themselves (the leaders). Those who oppose gay marriages will believe that Bush is listening and is willing to do something to achieve their ends.

Of course, I also think that even people who aren't democratic but just believe that a constitutional amendment about marriage is wrong, will perhaps vote against Bush.

The fact of the matter is the US is not a pure democracy. Those that oppose a constitutional amendment, and therefore do not support President Bush, are perhaps more in tuned with what this country is about. Why would anyone approve granting the Federal Government more power when this is clearly an issue for the states?

That is a great question DP.



Those words were John Kerry's. Now I am sure you are wondering why I posted them. Well, it's because it seems to me this is what the whole argument boils down to -- the word "marriage".

As an aside, I've never heard Bush say he was against same-sex civil unions. What I have seen him say is that "marriage" should only be between a man and a woman AND



I do not agree with a change to our constitution with regard to this issue and don't think it will ever happen. Bush has appeased the extreme right wing of the Republican Party by his stance and more than likely that was his intent.

This whole argument boils down to a word - marriage. It's one issue of which I agree with John Kerry wholeheartedly and believe Bush does too.

Edited for clarification.

But Bush belives in a Constitutional Amendment. Kerry does not. Or - gasp! - are you suggesting that Bush is being dishonest in order to pander to extremists? Your "Bush has appeased the extreme right wing... and more than likely that was his intent" suggests as much. I'm inclined to agree, but... is a policy of insincere appeasement "presidential"??

I can see that may have been his intent but Bush makes a err in judgement when doing so. He appeases the extreme right and ticks of the swing voters. Before Bush made this speech
emphasis mine
he still had my vote. I was certainly on the fence with my decision but he still had my vote. I believe he is scared that DOMA will be proven to be discriminatory and Full Faith and Coverage must be provided. While that may be the case, his making an absolute stand could push those that were on the fence away. I doubt the extreme right would have been pushed away from him by not taking an absolute stand.

It's a "winning" issue for him no matter what. Then again, a "winning" position was being for anything but abolition from abougt 1844 to 1860. Men of conscience and constitutional consistency lost the battle, but ultimately won the war. Hopefully the same thing will come about on this issue.

It seems that by making the gay marriage debate an election issue Bush has even further hollowed out the middle, moved the moderates to the edges. It would seem that the result is a fortification of both sides (for Bush against Bush). I assume that the numbers would likely be equal, or near so. You could say that it wouldn't really change anything unless you realized that:
The for-gaymarriage(GM) crowd is predominately younger when compared to the anti-GM crowd. The archetypical 'elders' who reinforce their camp have been doing this voting thing for a long time, however the group that Bush is likely anger (The young, "media influenced," "too liberal" younger people between 18 and 24 who are, or likely would be for GM) are the voting demographic least likely to vote. My high school public policy teacher always reiterated that if the young people of today actually went out to the polls, they'd change the country. I think that Bush's stance kicks up more of backlash than he can handle at this point.
(This is my first post, sorry if I havent got the format down)

Hero:

Interesting response. It does make an interesting demographic (the younger vote).

My Son came home from High School after hearing one of his teachers said roughly the same thing and made the following statement.

He (His teacher), thinks all of us (students) listen to what is preached to us on MTV. He thinks that we will "go along with the crowd" on everything. Dad, I stood up and said, Mr. Burke, no matter what you believe, we are not sheep.

It is a demographic, that often says one thing and does the opposite in practice when out of view of peers.

Let's get this straight, supporters of an Amendment are the "extreme right wing"?

Wow, I didn't realize the "Extreme right wing" encompassed almost half of the US...

Marriage Amendments





Labelling one side of a debate issue as "extremist" isn't very constructive.

Amlord, you base your post off os this information: "Forty-six percent of Americans favor an amendment, while 45 percent say the states should be left to make their own laws on the issue. "

Where did you get these numbers, how many people were interviewed, how trustworthy are your facts? I HOPE that I can trust this quasi-democratic nation to be a least a little skeptical about CHANGING THE CONSTITUTION (caps necessary to express my facial expression). An amendment is a big deal, a decision that carries a lot of weight. I think we the people'd feel that weight a little more than would allow forty-six percent in favor. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Furthermore, this supports that Bush is pushing an issue that is too hot for him to handle at this point. By pushing for constitutional amendments he not only alienates the majority of younger voters who are against DOMA, he also alienates conservatives who aren't of the christian right, those who value the sanctity of the constitution's origin more than the strength of their personal belief. By doing this, bush gives his opponents one more little nail for the coffin.

Interestingly, a significant number of conservatives are very much opposed to the proposed Federal Marriage Amendment. There is an entire website (http://www.lawfullywedded.com/) devoted to the conservative case against it:



So, although Bush might have scored some points among conservatives (who probably would have voted for him anyway), the right is certainly not unified on this matter.

I posted a link to my source, ABC News.

I did not express my opinion one way or the other, this is one of the rare issues that I am on the fence about...

On the one hand, we clearly cannot leave this to the States. It is apparent that under the Equal Protection Clause, the States are not free to decide the issue.

I wish that this could be the solution, since I believe that individual States should be free to foster a social environment to that State's citizens liking. A US citizen is then free to decide where to live, based upon the individual laws and environment of each State.

An Amendment is highly unlikely to pass. To do so, a mandate of more than 50% would need to be the starting point.

My previous post's point was not about my position, however. It was to protest the characterization of one position in this debate as "extremist" or "extreme right wing". If 46% of America is "extreme right wing" then I wonder what the other 54% is...

Amlord I understand your point, of course 46% percent of America is not the "extreme right wing." Also I didn't follow your link (I'm new at this online debate thing) so I didn;t realize there was a source.
I agree that each state should be allowed to make this decision. If this is impossible though, an amendment seems like overkill. Is there not a happy medium? Can anyone suggest one? It seems like the issue need not be as extreme as this all or nothing change the whole country approach.

I would suggest this:

Section 1: No state will be forced to reconize a Marriage or marrital union other an one between a man and a woman.

I'm personally against gay marriage, but I also believe in states' rights (unlike Kerry, who's using states rights as a phony shield). The states should be allowed to decide, but the question is, will the Supreme Court step in? If so, the amendment might be necessary. But I'm still a bit uneasy about supporting this, I don't like messing with the Constitution unless it's absolutely needed. I have a feeling that Bush knows it won't be passed, and he's just throwing a bone to the religious right like he threw a bone to the Mexican interest groups with his immigration proposal. There's no way that this will ever succeed.

Allright, one for you, one for me.

Section 2: No state shall be urged or forced, to limit marriage as between one man and one woman.

(but then aren't we just advocating to let the states decide? Amlord could you explain why this is impossible? Or someone else)

I'm not sure if allowing the states to decide the matter will protect the rights of a minority group of citizens(i.e.-homosexuals) Remember, the south didn't do such a bang up job when ti came to protecting the civil rights of another oppressed group that could not partcipate in some of our American privileges(i.e.-African-Americans & interracial marriage)

I happen to believe that the amendment process should be one that is inclusive of rights and privileges, and not a force for the exclusion of rights and privileges. I would like to see a secular argument as to why same sex marriages should not occur, rather than one based on religious principles.