Bush has decided to weigh in clearly on the issue of gay marriage in his reelection run for 2004.

He made it an issue in his State of the Union and the issue is coming to an election year head as San Francisco is presently issuing marriage certificates that are gender neutral to gay couples in an assembly line fashion.


The question for debate is:
Is Bush's stance a winning one for the coming election or is he more likely to get hurt by taking a position on a moral/social issue.

President Bush 'Troubled' by SF Gay Marriages

It will help him. The majority of citizens are not in favor of gay marriage. While the gay lifestyle is widespread in the media, it is rarely depicted as a sexual reality. On "Will & Grace", for instance, Will almost had sex with Grace, but we've never seen him romantically involved with a guy (I haven't been watching for the past few seasons, so I could be wrong). On "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy", the gay guys are flamy but they are depicted as almost asexual beings, despite their obvious come-ons to the straight guys. The only portrayal of gay characters as they really are come from cable shows--"Queer as Folk", "Six Feet Under", "The Shield". When depicted this way, the majority of viewers (particularly men) feel uncomfortable seeing two men kiss (though they are fine with seeing two women kiss).

Given that 38 states have ratified their laws to exclude gay marriage, I would say the majority of voters are not in favor of these unions.

I think that Bush is tippy-toeing around the subject instead of coming right out and bashing gays for wanting to get married.

That said, I also think it's a "don't care" for this election cycle. I think it'll be used to excite both bases (for and against), but the middle is concerned mostly with:

economy
health care
terrorism

in that order. Note that gay rights doesn't make it into the top three, so it's not going to be a deal breaker. I believe Kerry has also said he doesn't support gay marriage, further taking this topic out of the realm of being part of this Presidential election cycle.

Might make more of a difference at the local level, though, where the laws are being fought now in some places.

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/Relation...oll_040121.html


Is Bush's stance a winning one for the coming election or is he more likely to get hurt by taking a position on a moral/social issue.

If he pushes the Amend the Constitution position I believe it could hurt him since it appears that the majority of Americans resist the idea. If the issue is used for grand standing and way to draw attention to his character and his commitment to "family values" he may well pick up some homophobic Independents. I can't see how he would loose with this issue as the country seems pretty divided and the majority is not personally invested in the cause.

Our nation's morality is dead if we cannot recognize homosexuals as equals. I am astounded that Bush's heterosexism is so popular among many Americans, and do believe that it is both a political maneuver, and a move to enforce what he believes is right.

Who isn't recognizing them as equals? Civil Unions give gays all the rights and privledges of marriage without the word "marriage". Marriage has always been between a man and a woman and should stay that way. As far as I know Bush has not said he was against Civil Unions, however if he has or does I do not agree with him.

To answer the debate question I don't think this will hurt him at all. How could it, Kerry has said he was against gay marriage as well.

The thing that bothers me the most about this is the utter lack of respect for the laws being displayed by the mayor of San Fransisco. You can't just go around handing out marriage certificates to gays just because you believe the laws to be wrong. That leads to anarchy. This guy should be removed from office at the VERY LEAST!

The difference between marraige and civil unions goes under "seperate but equal..."... It is not unlike segregating blacks from whites, but in a much milder manner. And civil unions often do not offer the full benefits that marraige does.

It is looking more and more like November will bring us a close election.

Scenario 1) It will probably hurt George W. Bush if the gay Republicans decide to vote against him on principle. It is less likely to hurt him if they simply stay home and don't vote on election day.

Scenario 2) Perhaps Bush is right, and there are no gay Republicans. Then all he risks is having the gay Democrats become activist, and working hard to get out the vote. As it is almost unheard of for either gays or Democrats to be politically active, Bush is likely discounting this scenario.

Is Bush's stance a winning one for the coming election? He is apparently presuming that if 10% of the population opposes him, that the other 90% will unite behind him. A policy of divide and conquer worked that way for awhile with the war on Iraq, and he may feel this is an issue that divide us just as effectively.

At one end of the spectrum are the homophobes, at the other end are the gays. In between? From my window, I can probably see a dozen or so homes. They are my neighbors. Who are they? I don't know. What is their life style? I don't know. Is it any of my business whether or not they are married? Not that I am aware. I am not a policeman, a lawyer, a doctor, a teacher, or a tax official.

I have known, over the years, a number of committed gay couples. I may not be a typical voter, but this is not an issue that is going to cause me to line up behind this President! Ergo, it will not help him to get my vote. In San Francisco, about 2,500 gay couples have been married in the past few days. I would have to count that as 5,000 adults who will likely not vote for Bush in November. How many gay couples were not ready to come out, couldn't afford to fly to San Francisco, felt a marriage license was an overpriced and unnecessary souvenir, or simply didn't get in line fast enough? How many of them will vote "Anyone But Bush?"

Who will line up to support Bush because of this "courageous stance" of his? Likely, this will help him get the support of the Religious Right, and it is possible that he thought they were faltering in their support for "Anyone on the Republican Ticket."

In the background, Lou Dobbs Tonight Quickvote is asking:

Gay marriage is not even being viewed as a real issue in this election by the talking heads... If Don Quixote de Crawford wants to don his armor, climb aboard his elephant, and aim his lance at City Hall... He should be aware, there is a maxim that says, "You can't fight City Hall."

GW Bush is the equivilent of the segregationist Goerge Wallace (hmmm- both GWs?) and the mayor of San Fran is the uquivelent of MLK in this debate- GW is the bad guy, the mayor of San Fran is the good guy and being the bad guy was good for Goerge Wallace's political fortunes in the south, correct?

Yeah ImrsUrSoulInLove, we've all seen how well separate but equal has worked in the past!



Recently, there have been some really stupid policy decisions by the Bush campaign (EX:Bush Supports Shift of Jobs Overseas: The loss of work to other countries, while painful in the short term, will enrich the economy eventually). However, banning Gay marriage is the perfect way to ensure his votes with the conservative base. It was beginning to look like a lot of fiscal republicans were going to sit on their hands during the election. But now, they have a reason to go out and vote for him. As long as he pushes this issue, the right wing republicans will back him up (I doubt this issue is going to do much for most libertarians).

This is the number one reason I believe that Kerry has been tap dancing around the issue of Gay marriage. He has firmly stated that he believes marriage is between a man and a woman. Most likely, the voters in the democratic party could care less about Gay marriage. What he's trying to do is to keep all of those republicans who are upset with Bush to stay home. If he comes out for gay marriage, a lot of republicans are going to get worried and push for a republican victory. Kerry, claiming he believes in a heterosexual union, is probably hoping to make this particular subject a non-issue.

"Yeah ImrsUrSoulInLove, we've all seen how well separate but equal has worked in the past! "

Thats my exaxt point. Gay marriage should be legal, no more "seperate but equal" civil unions only.

Civil Unions are not separate but equal....they are equal with a different title! Its nothing like segregating blacks from whites, do we make gays ride in the back of the bus, or use separate drinking fountains, etc?? NO! What benefits do civil unions not grant that marriage does? Try backing up your opinions with facts. For the record I am proposing Vermont style civil unions. Granting same sex persons the right to marry is a slippery slope, unless you wanna "discriminate" against threesomes, incestuous marriages, etc.

If you are for equality under legalized civil unions, why not just call it "marraige" then. Im bisexual, and I find that heavily degrading to have it be called "civil unions" instead of "marraige."

Not one proposed "civil union" is actually equal, every single "civil union" that has been proposed has differed in significant ways from marriage.
Civil unions are not recognized by other states, nor by the federal government. That makes them less than equal.

As for the topic of debate: I honestly couldn't care less about the politics of the situation. Bush is dead wrong on this issue, and if it helps him to be re-elected the American people deserve him.

I don't see this as a political issue at all, not as far as the Presidential election is concerned. I seriously doubt that the "Log Cabin Republicans" are going to defect to Kerry over this issue, they have other reasons for being Republicans and I don't think many in the Kerry camp are about to switch to Bush because they oppose gay marriage.

It all depends. Listening to the local urban talk radio station, The Buzz, a caller stated that he would have to vote for Bush because of his opposition to gay marriage. The ability to legally discriminate against others is apparently a right many people don't want to accept losing. I was very disappointed by his attitude that he was going to vote by religion (because, let's face it, there are no valid secular arguments against gay marriage whatsoever), and not for what was best and fairest for the country. For example, as an African-American female, it would be in my personal best interests to vote for the Reverend Al Sharpton - a person who would cater to issues concerning myself. However, if I were a white male, I would feel a little annoyed at his almost exclusive catering to minorities, which seems like reverse discrimination. I want a president willing to stand up for everyone's rights, not the will of the Christians (Bush), or the will of minorities (Sharpton), or the will of the working class (Edwards).

Makes me a little ashamed to call myself an American when the president encourages keeping discrimination legal Bottom line, I think Bush's stance on gay marriage will help Bush, but not by much. There are still many level-headed, middle-class Americans who will be turned off by Bush's vehement opposition to giving gays equal rights, and will embrace the idea of civil unions endorsed by the Democratic candidates.

- Washington Post

The proposed amendment (introduced by Marilyn Musgrave of Colorado) states :

- onemanonewoman.com (emphasis added by me)

Obviously, he is not only against using the word marriage, but against equality for homosexuals, as this proposal goes out of it's way to quietly limit the rights of gays. This may be a sticking point, as most people are against just the term marriage, but are for civil unions, which this amendment won't allow the same rights to be extended to.

Its hard to predict who will get hurt in this minefield. All it would really take is one ill-advised comment by a bush staffer to make him seem petty or worse. Its a dangerous game for all parties and I think both sides would prefer not to deal with it right now. Makes for great tv though.

Bush for Constitutional Ban on Gay Marriage-Source



This makes me sick.

Our fearless leader. Picking on a small minority for political gain. How EVIL!

How is this "picking on a minority group"? He is endorsing the status quo. The status quo that many Americans agree with.

California (yes, ultra liberal California) adopted Prop 22, a statewide referendum banning gay marriage, by a 61-39 vote. The initiative was short and clear:



Although there is alot of press on this issue, there isn't alot of popular support for it. More and more states are moving the opposite direction--towards banning gay marriage explicitly.

State Legislatures Jump to Ban Gay Marriages

Heck, even Barney Frank has come out against what is going on in San Francisco (a clear violation of state law if there ever was one...)
Rep. Barney Frank opposed San Francisco's gay marriage effort


By the way, I take issue with this comment by SuzySteamboat:

My argument against gay marriage has nothing to do with religion, it has to do with children. The State's only benefit from marriage is that they produce children. There are many drawbacks to marriage (from the point of view of the state) including court battles over property, loss of productivity due to marriage problems,etc. A stable marriage which produces children produces better children (from society's point of view). Marriages will not all produce children and not all children are the products of marriage, but the State commonly uses laws to "encourage" behavior rather than mandating it. Such encouragement is never universal, either from a cause OR an effect standpoint. My argument is entirely secular (from a legal standpoint), and, I think, a "valid" one.

So you are saying that you oppose gay marriage because homosexual couples are incapable of providing a stable family in which children would be raised?

If that is what you're saying, than I disagree that it is a valid, secular point. I'd say it is an unresearched, unsubstantiated claim.

If you are claiming that a stable homosexual home is less likely to raise "better" children (your own term) than an unstable heterosexual home, than I disagree that it is a valid, secular point.

Suzy's claim that there is no valid, secular reason to oppose gay marriage still has not been debated in a sufficient manner. I encourage those who disagree to continue the debate here -Topic: The Argument Against Gay Marriage.

Same sex couples already have children.
Marriage benefits are not denied to infertile heterosexual couples, nor to those who choose not to have children, nor does marriage end at menopause...

I find this position frankly infuriating, it is quite plainly a justification after the fact and in your zeal to persecute homosexuals you insult heterosexuals who are unable to conceive.

The issue's effect on how it appears to swing voters going into the election. If you talk to John Q. Public or Joe Average, their knowledge of the issue is likely to be sketchy at best. Some think that the democratic presidential candidates back a law forcing churches to conduct gay marriages. I've even seen commentators on TV state a similar "understanding". If people know what civil unions mean and Bush fully backs the current amendment blocking them, I think swing voters will range from apathetic to disgusted.

It's really an issue of spin. The Dems need to play up the essentially boring true nature of civil unions- joint tax returns, oh, the horror!- and the Republican betrayal of their supposed commitment to individual and state's rights. The Republican's need to morph the moderate Dem party line into a conspiracy to have the Supreme Court order compulsory gay marriages performed in every church in the U.S. So far there's much confusion, but convincing straight moderates that gay marriage is actually their business will become harder the more the issue is discussed.

I think it is an issue that will bring the religious right to the polls. I think part of the hype about Gibson's passion movie, is that it gives an opportunity for many christians to publicly demonstrate their support for their faith as well getting to have an issue central to the Christian faith hit popular culture. We are seeing with the advanced ticket sales to this film that their is a group that is ready to mobilize.

The question is, will it drive enough moderate Republicans away from the polls or to the Democratic ticket to turn out to be a negative wedge issue.

I want to get in on this debate, but my comments don't seem appropriate in the will/it can/it pass thread about Bush's proposed Constitutional Amendment.

I think the call for a Constitutional Amendment is a bad political call. For one, I think the repeated use of the phrase activist judges is going to start sounding like the executive branch trespassing on the responsibilities of the judicial branch. He already has been pushing the line in terms of executive versus judicial boundaries with the issue of enemy combatants and secret military tribunals. Now he seems to be going to war with the judicial branch of our government. The last president who tried this, FDR found the limits of his extensive political capital.

I don't think this will attract many new Bush voters, but many people who are undecided will see this as going to far for a variety of reasons, from usurping states rights, to using the power of the Constitution to restrict liberties, to feeling that the power of the government should not be used to discriminate against a minority group.

I think it will help Bush with his get out the vote efforts from the religious right, but I think it will be a net loss issue for him.

It isn't just the religious right that opposes gay marriage -- unless 60% of us are of the religious right. (60% should probably include moderate Republicans, liberal Republicans, and some independents & Democrats.) I think this will help him, since it shows he agrees with the majority, and will have no effect on law, because Constitutional amendments are very difficult to get.

I just finished watching Conan O'Brien. When he mentioned the President's call for a Constitutional Amendment to define marriage, it was met with nothing but boos.

There is a lot on our country's plate; The wars he started, an economy that is relying on exporting jobs instead of goods, "Homeland Security" that is being gained by deploying troops abroad and threatening other countries, and the President's actions on this issue look like he's reaching for dessert before he cleans his plate.

I have been told that the mayor of San Francisco made his decision to allow gay marriages as a reaction to comments Bush made in the State of the Union address. With 3500 or so marriages performed already, there are 7,000 voters who will vote anyone but Bush. This genie is out of the bottle, and none of the Bush supporters seem to be coming up with a better argument for his amendment idea than "We know the plumbing isn't right." or "People have been getting married for 3,000 years." I recall my history teachers in High School saying that the Domesday Book, written in the late 11th Century was the first public record made of marriages. Prior to that point, there were common law weddings and church records, but the state had no public record of marriages. It was also my understanding that licenses began to be issued so that blood tests could be performed.

Many of us recall how long the states struggled with the Equal Rights Amendment before it finally failed. The Constitution is not something that the average American feels needs a complete overhaul. I may be wrong, but I doubt if there have been this many proposed amendments floating around since the Bill of Rights was ratified.

"Let's look at how I handle something we can all agree on." might work in November if this was something that we all agreed on. Had you asked me a year ago if gays should be allowed to marry, I would likely have been bewildered by your question. Had the President really wanted to intervene, he could have called out the national guard or asked the Supreme Court to intervene in Massachusetts. Instead he is asking Congress to enact laws by Presidential request in the State of the Union, asking to amend the Constitution by appealing to the public, and having all of his followers go on talk shows and say "It's just common sense that marriage is one man and one woman." There seems to be no compelling public threat in allowing two men or two women to live together. The claim that this is a plot by Democrats and Liberal judges may hold water until the paper it is written on gets soggy; or it may be spun that this is yet another failure of the Bush administration to lead competently. By November, he had better have something more to show us than invasion plans for Iran and Korea, and several proposed amendments to the Constitution.

I think that Bush will neither gain nor lose support because of his stance.

Those who consider it the top issue were most likely pro-Bush or anti-Bush a long time ago.

My point was that even though polls show that a majority of people do not like the idea of gay marriage, that I think this number will not be the same as the number of people who want a constitutional amendment for this issue.

So I am not sure that in asking for a constitutional amendment that he is agreeing with the majority of the people.

I think the support drops by 5-10% from opposing gay marriage to supporting a ban. I saw one poll showing only 55% support the ammendment.

And thats before the gay marriage supporters start making weepy tv commercials. Americans are pretty easy to influence.

What's funny about this statement is that Kerry is also against the idea of gay marriage. He is for civil unions (just as Bush is for civil unions), but you will not see him taking any flack for his stance. Heck, the media doesn't even ask him why he is against it. Kerry gets a pass, even though his opinion on the issue is just shy of Bush's (he does not support an Amendment, but is anti-gay marriage).

It is easy to reconcile Kerry's stance on gay marriage with his opposition to a Consitutionl Amendment. He obviosuly feels that the Constitution should not be used as a vehicle to codefy a type of discrimination at the Federal level.

Effectively, Kerry is saying "If a state were to ever legislate that a gay civil union be called a marriage, and bestow all the rights that go with it, then it's not my place to stand in the way because the people of that State have spoken." - even though he personally wouldn't have voted for it.

Why should he take 'flack' for such a sensible and fair stance? It is George Bush who is willing to disregard the will of the people in individual states should they deem that only 'marriage' can bestow the same rights to gay couples.

Perhaps it would be useful in this discussion to know exactly what the proposed amendment that President Bush supports really says.



Now I don't see where this prevents a state from legalizing same sex marriage within that state if it wants to. The real purpose of this amendment is to protect other states that don't want to legalize same sex marriage from having it forced on them by federal courts under the "full faith" provision of the Constitution.

I'd prefer that it not require a Constitutional amendment to do this, but I don't really see any other way.

Kerry and Edwards do not support gay marriages, but do not think (like many) a Constitutional Amendment is the way to resolve it and that it should be up to the States to determine and resolve. And, lo and behold...I agree with them.

Contrary to opinions, IMO, the reason President Bush has threatened to step in with an Amendment is that we are faced with the legal avenues being ignored or abused by some. In spite of Bush's religion and personal beliefs, he is threatening an Amendment to the Constitution as a last ditch legal recourse if the governing powers in the States continue down a path of illegal remedies. Bush can no more attempt to Amend the Constitution purely on the basis of his personal beliefs or religion any more than President Kennedy could as a Catholic. To fulfill their personal/religious agendas are not the reasons why Presidents have been given the power to act when other channels fail.

Even Barney Frank believes what the San Francisco Mayor is doing is wrong and will damage the overall progress in the legislation of gay marriages.

Edited to add link to Barney Frank's letter:

http://www.house.gov/frank/samesexamendment2003.html

This gay marriage issue is just as heated and divided as the abortion issue. IMO, his threat of amending the Constitution will neither cost or win him a substantial amount of votes. There are many who don't support gay marriages, but who don't want the issue resolved by an Amendment to the Constitution.

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. This would prevent any state law from conferring the legal status or incidents thereof upon same sex couples. What this means is that state law cannot give any of the rights associated with marriage to same sex couples even under a different name.

That is absolutely untrue. The amendment would leave the decision on same sex marriage / civil unions completely up to the states. It specifically excludes state same sex marriage laws from being imposed on other states under the full faith clause.

If the preceding definition of marriage "in the United States" controls the later use of "unmarried", the plain interpretation of "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" is that it would ban civil unions at the state level, as well as gay marriage. At most, the "require" means that a state may have civil unions that absolutely no one- from nurses controlling visitation rights to judges deciding inheritance to tax collectors- would have to comply with: so any state voting for civil unions or the equivalent would effectively have the law nullified, dead on arrival, thanks to the Feds.

The opening language is careful not to specify that it is defining marriage at the federal level only, as the Defense of Marriage Act did. If the drafters wanted to only prohibit the "full faith and credit" application to gay marriage, it could have simply sought to make the DOMA an amendment (to stave off likely constitutional challenges to that law), and added the language about constitutions to prevent judicial review within the states (yeah, those activist judges. First they took away segregation, now this. Maybe Mass. should just amend away the constitutional prohibition on second-class citizenry that started this mess. Unfortunately, people get all starry-eyed idealistic when they're creating rights for their citizens).

If the amendment's aim was simply what it's supporters claim in public, it could effectuate that end without half the clauses currently there:

"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, shall be construed to require that marital status be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups." Then add DOMA's grant against full faith and credit, which hasn't always been construed to apply to marriage anyway (PA doesn't necessarily have to recognize it if WV allows first cousins to marry, etc. It's just good interstate diplomacy. There's more leeway on this in the real world than in Senator Santorum's fevered mind).

This issue will help Bush so long as the public remains ignorant of the details. The more light that's shone upon it, however, the more it looks like the old adage about conservatives wanting "government just small enough to fit into your bedroom". The intrusion of state's rights is already wearing thin among independents: ABC News/Washington Post Poll. Feb. 18-22, 2004- 56% support letting the states decide. Wait to they know the whole story, and ka-ching!- swing voters who'd be influenced by it start to trend toward the Dems.

Belittling, inflammatory comment removed
I guess I'm going to have to parse this out for you:
Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman.This part would prevent any state from legalizing same sex marriage.
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.After permanently preventing us from being legally married, the amendment goes the extra step of insuring that no state law could be construed to give us the benefits associated with marriage. NO STATE LAW: that would prevent any state from giving same sex couples any of the rights associated with marriage.

I think that's an inherint untruth. There are a LOT of Conservatives, Bush Supporters, and Republicans who either have friends who are gay, are gay themselves, or have family who would be unfairly treated by an amendment like this. (This in fact has been a major story the last couple of days, see links below). Bush's polarizing of this issue has and will cause many people to back away from supporting him. This is not compassionate conservatism, this is what millions of moderates feared in the back of their heads when this guy was put into office, a super-conservative and ultimately utterly non-tolerant stance on social issues.

Bush is talking out of one corner of his mouth saying that everyone needs to love and respect each other, IN THE SAME SPEECH he is supporting an amendment which clearly implies that a homosexual lifestyle is inferior to that of a heterosexual lifestyle. Not only that, but by supporting this amendment he is implying there is something fundamentally wrong with homosexuality (and thus it needs to be disallowed from equal status with heterosexuality).

There is a significant but subtle difference between supporting a constitutional amendment to ban gay marraige, and not supporting the idea of gay marraige.

GOPers: Nup ban a no-go

[URL=http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/02/26/in_gay_marriage_stance_bush_tends_to_gop/]In gay-marriage stance, Bush tends to GOP
His focus shifts to core supporters[/URL]

Poll: Gay marriage, amendment opposed

Gay Marriage Issue Straddles Party Lines

Bush urges gay marriage ban; Republicans hesitate

Gay Conservatives Fight Bush on Wedding Vow

And that's just for starters.. Clearly this could push many, many people who were bouncing back and forth on the Presidential election away from Bush. Now Kerry and Edwards aren't much better (and if one of them would get their noses out of the polls, and come up with a strong stance for gay marraige, we might be getting somewhere).

*Edited to clarify links.*

Well, if it makes you feel any better, Kerry voted against the Defense of Marriage Act.



So much for his "support" of states rights.

Kerry has cited the Act's motive (gay-bashing) and not it's effect on state's rights as the reason he voted against the DOMA. Besides, if the DOMA were on solid Constitutional ground, the Right's claim to Mass. being a national threat would fall flat.

Is Bush's stance a winning one for the coming election or is he more likely to get hurt by taking a position on a moral/social issue.

I believe he is more likely to be hurt by such a stand.

In the If the vote was held today thread Offwind responded to my new stand on Bush as such:

For me this proposal is the straw that broke the camels back. I was unhappy with President Bush’s trampling of civil liberties throughout his term but this one issue brought me to a breaking point. I realized that I couldn’t support a President that would take his personal view of what marriage is and place such language in the Constitution, especially when such a view discriminates against a minority group.

If Bush didn’t want this on his plate then he shouldn’t have brought it up.

Clinton took the first step in discriminating by adding DOMA. Since this law appears, to me, to be in violation of the Constitution there could be legal standing to fight its legislation. By wishing to add an amendment to the Constitution that would remove the power to challenge DOMA. President Bush is taking a serious stand for discrimination and removing all power to challenge DOMA.

I think it will be an issue that will garner a lot of press, be debated loudly by the extremists i.e., the gay community and the Christian right, and unless the civil and legal disobedience continues or increases, it will have little real effect on the outcome.

If the polls are correct, the majority oppose gay marriage and are unlikely to be moved to the left on this issue. I suspect centrists on the issue will move to the right in face of increased civil disobedience. As stated, I would vote against the proposed constitutional amendment if given the opportunity but it's not going to change my presidential vote.

Activists on the issue should understand that a vote for Kerry on this is no different than a vote for Bush! --- That is, if Kerry's telling the truth!

Speaking of truth-telling, you're not. Kerry's opposed to an amendment and Bush is actively championing a version that goes far beyond banning gay marriage. Kerry also voted against the DOMA, which I imagine Bush supports, not to mention Bush's "support" of civil unions being so weak that he's actively campaigning to destroy even the possibility of states choosing them.

I think it will help him.

This strikes me as being a bit of a leap. Being gay now makes one an extremist? I'm sure many Log Cabin Republicans will be startled to hear that. In reality, gay men and lesbians represent every walk of life - including every possible political position from extreme left through moderate to extreme right. People like J. Edgar Hoover, Roy Cohn, Bruce Bawer, Matt Drudge, and Andrew Sullivan may be considered "extremist" by some - but I somehow doubt that's what offwind had in mind...

One thing this issue might be doing, though, is radicalizing some members of the gay community who were previously more moderate. I expect it's losing the Republican Party - and, possibly, the Democratic Party - more than a few votes.

This is very true. But it ignores the legions of votes that will be garnered by those who oppose these illegal marriages and have the guts to say that, clearly. I even acknowledge respect for Hillary Clinton's stance on the issue. If he really means it.

Those who choose to live the gay lifestyle are going to be sorely disappointed as this issue winds its way through the political and legal process. There is nowhere near the support, or even acceptance, of this lifestyle by the vast majority of Americans. This majority had been willing to 'live and let live', but that doesn't include condoning, licensing or promoting it. Nor did it include discriminating against it.