Eight years ago, the U.S. economy was languishing. We were bogged down in two wars and the national debt was rising. President Bush was up for re-election, and Republicans needed a wedge issue. They found it in Massachusetts, whose Supreme Judicial Court in 2003 had asserted a statewide right to gay marriage. Seizing the opportunity, Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney ran around the country declaring a national moral crisis. Republicans, urged on by Bush, introduced a constitutional amendment to prohibit gay marriage.
On June 18, 2004, Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, the subcommittee chairman entrusted with the amendment, joined two colleagues at a press conference to promote it. Cornyn declared gay marriage an economic issue:
We know from some of the social experimentation that’s occurred in Scandinavia and elsewhere that when same-sex couples can legally marry, that essentially what happens is people quit getting married across the board, and more people raise children outside of marriage at higher risk for a whole host of social ills, placing additional burdens on the government and the taxpayers that support that government.
A reporter asked the senators about Democratic complaints that the GOP was “playing divisive election-year politics.” Cornyn brushed off the idea. “I don’t think it is a particularly divisive issue,” he replied. “I think, when the American people get a chance to have their voice heard, that they will overwhelmingly reaffirm their commitment to traditional marriage.”
Four days later, Cornyn and other members of the Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing on the marriage amendment. Romney flew down to be the lead witness. Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wisc, called it “a politically motivated exercise” and pointed out that the country was “struggling every day with so many more pressing issues.” Romney disagreed:
I want to spend my time devoted to working in our schools and helping our kids, finding ways to provide more prescription benefits for our senior citizens, doing a better job to provide a stronger economy and more jobs to our citizens. Those are our highest priority. But when our Supreme Judicial Court acted, they brought forward a change in a definition of an institution which is fundamental to my state, fundamental to our nation. And in order to preserve the rights of respective states to set their own policies with regards to marriage, I believe this amendment, or one of a similar nature, is necessary.
A month later, when Democratic senators condemned the amendment as “divisive” and “the politics of mass distraction,” Romney insisted in a CNBC interview that politicians must be put on the record:
A lot of big things are going on. But for some people, myself included, how children are going to be raised in the next generation and the one after that is also important, and it’s worth discussing and having politicians have to vote on. Most politicians don’t want to you know where they stand on that issue. And I think it’s appropriate for us to know where people stand.
That was 2004. Eight years later, Cornyn is the chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, Romney is the party’s de facto presidential nominee, and both men are singing a very different tune. Last Thursday, after President Barack Obama endorsed same-sex marriage, Romney ducked an invitation on Fox News to challenge the president. “Even within my party, there are people who have differing views on this point,” Romney cautioned. “The Republican Party does not consist of people who all have the same views on all the issues.” The next day, Romney dodged another reporter’s bait: “I just don’t think this becomes a hot political issue dividing our nation. Instead, I believe that we should respect the viewpoints of various people and move on.”
On Sunday, CNN anchor Candy Crowley asked Cornyn, “Is this something that you think Mitt Romney ought to bring up frequently?” Cornyn deflected the question: “President Obama brought this issue up because . . . he’s trying to raise divisive issues up to solidify his base and to divide the country, and that isn’t what we should be focusing on now. We should be focusing on jobs and the economy.”
It’s hard to believe these are the same guys who were whooping it up about gay marriage in 2004. What happened?
To answer that question, look at the polls. In 1996, when Republicans campaigned successfully for a federal law against gay marriage, most Democrats opposed the legality of same-sex marriages. They rejected the idea by approximately 60 to 33 percent in Pew and Gallup surveys. Independents closely matched that split. Republicans opposed gay marriage even more strongly, by about 80 to 15 percent in both polls.
In 2004, Republicans were still firmly set against gay marriage. Their margin of opposition was 80 to 19 in Gallup’s May survey, 78 to 17 in Pew’s combined annual data, and 73 to 24 in a February Washington Post/ABC News sample.
The margin of opposition among independents, however, had declined considerably. It was 53 to 37 in Pew’s data, 52 to 44 in the Gallup poll, and 48 to 44 in the Post survey.
Democrats, meanwhile, were now roughly split. In February, the Post found them evenly divided, 48 to 47 percent. A later Post survey, taken in August, found them opposed by 52 to 43 percent. Pew’s yearly average showed them opposed by 50 to 40 percent, while Gallup’s May sample had them favoring gay marriage by 51 to 46 percent.
Since then, public opinion has continued to shift toward accepting gay marriage. Democrats now support it by margins of 64 to 32 in the Post’s March 2012 survey, 65 to 34 in Gallup’s May sample and 59 to 31 in Pew’s combined 2012 data. Independents in all three polls now favor gay marriage: 54 to 42 according to the Post, 52 to 38 according to Pew, and 57 to 40 according to Gallup. At the same time, the Republican margin of opposition has fallen. It’s 74 to 22 as measured by Gallup, 68 to 23 as measured by Pew, and 57 to 39 as measured by the Post.
Republicans aren’t split as deeply as Democrats were in 2004. Nor are Democrats as united today as Republicans were back then. And if you look at polling data over time, you’ll see that public opinion has lurched or backtracked along the way. Just this week, CBS and the New York Times released a sample that leans further to the right.
But overall, the trend is clear. Democrats, who initially opposed gay marriage and then were evenly divided, are gradually uniting in favor of the idea. Republicans, who used to be united against gay marriage, are becoming more closely divided. And independents, who used to lean against gay marriage, now lean toward it. In 2004, if you raised gay marriage as a wedge issue, you divided Democrats, united Republicans and pushed most independents to the right. Today, if you raise gay marriage as a wedge issue, you divide Republicans, unite Democrats, and push most independents to the left.
That’s why Romney and other Republicans who loved to talk about gay marriage in 2004 now call Democrats divisive for bringing it up. Republicans are happy to divide the country. But they no longer like the way this issue cuts.
Civilization is a process.
Conservative politicians have always, and will continue to, follow along behind, dragging their heals, as society marches forward.
Whatever the merits of the two parties’ positions on it may be, gay marriage is a distraction; the nation can live with it, or without it, in roughly equal measure. The important issues in this election are the economy and the proper role of government, and the voters this time have ways to concentrate on those issues despite the mainstream media’s best efforts to stick its fingers in the nation’s ears and sing “la-la-la.”
And for once, it appears that the Republicans’ candidate actually understands this.
In other words, “Nice try, Saletan, but no cigar.” The only real effect of the gay marriage issue on the election is likely to be a reduced African-American turnout since this core Democratic group leans strongly against it.
He only “understands this” because he realizes it’s not the wedge issue it once was. In 2004 Bush used it because public opinion was very much on his side. He was able to convert some from the middle and left-leaning over to vote for him using this tactic. After the election there was no peep about actually going forward with the marriage amendment. Pure politics. And same here, the issue isn’t as divisive anymore, so there is no use in Romney pushing it as it would just alienate the independent vote he needs to win.
I am absolutely sick to DEATH of any person, regardless of their political party affiliation, who says this is NOT an important issue. Of COURSE it’s not an important issue to YOU! But if it were YOUR marriage up for debate by everyone else instead of it being protected by the law, you would indefinitely strive to make it FAIR and EQUAL before concerning yourself with any other issue! Based on your comments, I understand you’re not AGAINST marriage equality, but you’re also not for it because it lacks ‘importance’ in this election. What could be MORE important to an individual than their livelihood, happiness, legal rights to benefits, allowance to carry out specific funeral arrangements, protection for adoption rights (for BOTH parents), etc??? The economy is a concern to EVERY registered voter. If it weren’t, they wouldn’t be politically involved to any extent. However, there are certain steps to take to FULLY UNITE this country EQUALLY (which was the goal from the earliest civilization) in order for our economy to flourish. -Furthermore, focusing on ‘proper role of the government’ couldn’t be a BETTER topic to bring to the nation’s attention… Because the role of the government I want to live under will be made up solely of an intelligent group of individuals who are willing, in ANY light, to protect EVERYONE with equality, fairness, love and respect… even when it’s not economically relevant, or politically inconvenient.
For the record, I think anything that’s not proven harmful should be legal, so gay marriage is fine by me, at least until it proves to have some serious downside. I do dislike applying the word “marriage” to it because that flies in the face of traditional usage, but the actual legal condition – conferring all the rights and privileges of a spouse that you describe – gives me no problems.
That said, we could do all that tomorrow and the problems of unemployment, runaway government spending, poor government performance, ever-bloating bureaucracies strangling the economy, ‘security’ eating ‘freedom’, too few future taxpayers (whose future taxes are already in hock) and actual, graft-seeking corruption – among other things – would still be with us; and all of them affecting straights and gays alike.
So no, gay marriage isn’t important: or to paraphrase Whoopi Goldberg, it isn’t important-important.
Most likely the nation will NOT live because of the abominations that are swallowing it.
If the nation isn’t going to live, and forgive me for being snide, maybe you should leave? :/
Abominations?
In sum, Republican politicians are being hypocrites on this.
Gay marriage trap? Everything being thrown out there
by the libbers is a “trap”. Did we quickly forget there is
also the war on women? They are already planning and discussing
how to make everything racial. Illegal immigration is next in line.
Sorry folks, the people are becoming aware of the “game” being played
and are sick of the phoney “use the flavor of the week issues”. The libbers
are falling all over themselves conjuring up the next warfare rant but could
care less about no jobs and the country being taken over by socialist/marxists.
Thankfully the people are sick of being useful idiots and are waking up to the fact
that we don’t want our traditions and history transformed or changed. Many are
becoming tired of listening to the garbage that if you don’t agree with someone’s
philosophy your a racist, homophobe or whatever. Many are also tired of hearing
how we should have the right to vote on an issue and when it goes down then be
told it shouldn’t be voted on. But if the vote went the other way, they would scream
if anyone proposed another vote later on. My democrat party is no longer the democrat
party I was once proud to be a member of.
Both parties are compiled of any number of flip-floppers; including Barack Obama, perhaps one of the biggest of all time. He’s ragging on the GOP for a stance he had just a couple weeks ago, or so he says. From what I see, he is on the side of whatever is convenient for himself & his political interests.
If a Republican doesn’t like guns, he doesn’t buy one.
If a Democrat doesn’t like guns, he wants all guns outlawed.
If a Republican is a vegetarian, he doesn’t eat meat.
If a Democrat is a vegetarian, he wants all meat products banned for everyone.
If a Republican is homosexual, he quietly leads his life.
If a Democrat is homosexual, he demands legislated respect.
If a Republican is down-and-out, he thinks about how to better his situation.
A Democrat wonders who is going to take care of him.
If a Republican doesn’t like a talk show host, he switches channels.
Democrats demand that those they don’t like be shut down.
If a Republican is a non-believer, he doesn’t go to church.
A Democrat non-believer wants any mention of God and religion silenced.
If a Republican decides he needs health care, he goes about shopping for it, or may choose a job that provides it.
A Democrat demands that the rest of us pay for his.
If a Republican reads this, he’ll forward it so his friends can have a good laugh.
A Democrat will delete it because he’s “offended”.
Or many of us will laugh since its absolute stereotyping is humerous.
And grossly inaccurate.
If you let the craziest people in your group dig a hole and then push you in it, did you “walk” into a “trap?”