There have been some grumblings in Democratic circles that the issue of gay marriage may have cost us the election. If ever there was a red herring to rationalize our loss, this is it. In states that had ballot initiatives banning gay marriage, Bush improved his level of support by the same margin as in states without gay marriage on the ballot. Bush simply did a better job of selling himself than our guy did. But we Democrats always love a good scapegoat on which to pin our electoral frustrations. The issue of gay marriage may be this year’s Nader, which is completely unfair to gay activists. We have already won this culture war. I am convinced that the antipathy towards gays is more of a generational issue than a religious issue. Once the Boomers start shuffling off this mortal coil, we’ll probably look back and wonder what all the fuss was about. In the meantime, people in red and blue states will continue to live and work alongside gay neighbors and colleagues. Let the wingnuts like Dobson have their final hurrah. Call me naive, but I believe that most Americans are decent, fair-minded people who won’t go along with the repressive policies of a hateful few.
I wouldn’t be so quick to dismiss the effect that gay marriage may have had on the vote. While I agree that the US seems to be getting more and more tolerant of gay people, there’s still a great deal of discomfort when it comes to homosexuality and I don’t think it’s merely a generational issue. Homophobia’s still pretty rampant among teenagers and college students. (If my experiences online and off with said types is any indication) Perhaps they’ll relax in their views, become a little more informed, but then, perhaps not. I think there’s just as much popular culture pushing people in the other direction.
And now I’ll use an example that isn’t related to what I’ve just written.
My mother’s a total dyed-in-the-wool liberal, completely unabashed: a pacifist, an environmentalist, the whole nine yards, and she even has a homosexual brother with whom she’s on good terms.
But gay marriage bothers her greatly. I’m convinced that if she wasn’t so devoutly committed to her liberal causes, if she were a little bit more moderated in her other political views, gay marriage may very well have pushed her toward Bush.
Because I think that shows another problem that Kerry had with this issue, that he didn’t take a terribly firm stand on it. Sure, he said both he and Edwards opposed gay marriage, but anyone listening and hearing what he had to say about homosexuals would rightly get the impression that he didn’t have any zeal or conviction in his stated position. Bush wasn’t like that. Consequently if this issue were to affect someone’s vote, it would make people more likely to vote for Bush. Anyone who felt the opposite of Bush’s stated view wouldn’t have any compelling reason to choose Kerry over Bush on this issue.
Steve Gilliard made a good point on his blog about this issue after the election when he wrote that the issue needs to be reframed. It shouldn’t be viewed as a rights issue, rather it should be viewed as an issue of simple fairness. When it remains an issue of two flaming gay guys in the park kissing and holding hands being able to consummate their relationship with the state’s blessing, (an uncomfortable image for lots and lots of Americans) because it’s *their right*, dammit, it’s always going to be a losing issue. However, when it’s viewed more as a fairness issue, showing ways that committed homosexuals are being damaged by not having civil unions (e.g. being denied hospital visitation, tax benefits, or a host of other benefits that families take for granted) it’s much more likely a winning issue.
I thought it was an interesting viewpoint.
Anyway, if there’s anything I would have told Kerry to do differently, it would have been to hammer Bush on his conduct on 9/11, and his later comments on how he doesn’t care about Osama Bin Laden anymore. Lots of people felt that Bush was an effective and strong leader that day, and that he could better protect us from future terrorist threats than Kerry, but the fact is, when the second plane hit the tower and no one knew the full extent of what was going on, (meaning that another dozen planes could have been in the air for all Bush knew, most of the responses to which only Bush could authorize) he was sitting there in a children’s classroom with a stupid grim look on his face, reading The Pet Goat.
Could you imagine if a plane had hit the Sears Tower because of Bush’s seven minute reading with the children photo op? It *could* have happened. We only have the benefit of hindsight to excuse that.
The idea that Bush is the best defense against terrorist attacks was a joke.