GOP soul searches on same-sex marriage
Karen Bisso says same-sex marriage propelled her to a strong second-place finish in yesterday’s primary.
The last couple of years, polls have shown consistently that same-sex marriage is popular in New York, winning support from between 54 to 58% of voters. That compares with 36-42% who oppose legal marriage for gays and lesbians.
But a lot of the folks with misgivings about homosexuality — not all, by any means — have gravitated to the Republican Party. And yesterday’s vote was a kind of trial run for GOP moderates on the issue.
Three state senators — including Saratoga County’s Roy McDonald — faced conservative challengers who assailed them on the issue. Two of those lawmakers are essentially tied after yesterday’s voting, and now await absentee ballots.
The issue also shaped North Country elections this year. Teresa Sayward from Willsboro, an Assemblywoman who championed gay marriage, chose not to seek re-election. The man who will replace her on the GOP line, Dan Stec from Queensbury, opposes same-sex marriage.
Janet Duprey, the Assemblywoman who represents the 115th district, faced two conservative rivals yesterday and together they outpolled her by roughly 200 votes.
Her strongest rival, Conservative Party candidate Karen Bisso, told NCPR that “95%” of the opposition to Duprey this year was sparked by same-sex marriage.
The issue is a challenge for Northeastern Republicans, who generally prefer to think of themselves — and brand themselves with voters — as more focused on fiscal issues, lowering taxes and balancing budgets.
But particularly in areas with strong Roman Catholic communities, and sizable rural populations, conservative voters are often moved by the same sentiments that shape the political climate in other parts of the US.
Republican voters also tune in to many of the same sources of information, from Christian broadcasters, to Fox News, to Rush Limbaugh — venues where social issues share equal billing with pocket book matters and the economy.
What’s unclear is how this affect the Republican Party’s fortunes overall. Winning a GOP vote in a low-turnout primary is one thing. Finding messages and platforms that will attract enough votes to win in November is very different, and more challenging.
For now, Thursday’s vote is a reminder that while many New Yorkers have “moved on” and no longer see gay marriage as a touchstone issue, for a significant number of our neighbors it remains a crucial flashpoint.
Moderate southern politicians who voted in favor of civil rights also faced a backlash from local voters.
So while contemptible, this is not at all unexpected.
Those who want to deny others rights have to flock somewhere, and the GOP primaries are really their only choice.
It works both ways. While some go to the GOP for social issues, some leave the GOP because of social issues.
Even if the neo-Talibans replaced all the moderate Republicans in the Senate and somehow managed to elect a governor (highly unlikely since the last two hard right social conservatives they ran for governor lost is record landslides), there’s no way a repeal would get past the Assembly, which will remain solidly Democratic despite Speaker Silver’s tolerance of sleaze. So they’re electing these far righties based on a single issue and one that’s basically settled.
If Sen. McDonald loses his seat, which is not certain but now seems more likely than not, then he can retire in good conscience knowing that he was on the right side of history.
Makes you wonder if this civil rights battle is going to split the Republican Party in the same way the last one split the Democrats.
I have a question:
Hypothetically, if the federal government passed a law forbidding marriage between two adults of the same gender, that would set a really important precedent.
And precedent is already a big deal in U.S. jurisprudence. It’s often cited by Supreme Court nominees (in Senate hearings) as a key reason for not overturning Roe v. Wade. And there are lots of other examples.
So, after the passage of a ban on same-sex marriage, lawmakers could then add criteria to the ban. They could essentially come up with other reasons why two people can’t marry each other.
Seems a slippery slope, right? It could lead to forbidding marriages between, say, two atheists. And maybe the people who want to ban same-sex marriage wouldn’t mind such an additional ban.
But things change. I mean, just look at the demographic shift taking place across the U.S. The biggest growth by category, by far, is the growth of America’s Hispanic population.
So what if – 40 years from now – a Hispanic majority calls for and passes a prohibition on the marriage between two people of Anglo/Caucasian descent?
If current trends continue, atheists could outnumber believers in a few decades. What if they wanted to ban marriage between two Evangelical Christians?
Poli-sci-fi, I know. But I think it’s time to chill out with all the talk of banning marriage between adults.
Some day, and not too long from now, those basing their political votes on denying equal treatment to gays and lesbians will be linked in history with the people in this photo:
http://i333.photobucket.com/albums/m387/aleatharhea/Political/TheLittleRockNine1.jpg
WJ: Good points. Since Catholics are among the most socially conservative demographic in the country, it’s interesting to remember that some of the saintly Founding Fathers wanted to deny them the right to vote based on the premise that it allegedly was unclear whether their loyalty would be to America or to the Vatican. Anti-Catholic bias was quite strong until even a few decades ago. Now, both major parties have Catholic vice-presidential nominees. Society has evolved tolerance for Catholics. Will Catholics return the favor?
I have long held and still do that the government should stay out of “marriage” and just deal with civil unions which would be open to all. However, lacking the courage to stand up to either the opponents of same sex marriage or those who want a government sanction of it politicians line up for or against something that is none of the government’s business. Government’s only concern is the civil contract that marriage involves and it should deal only with that IMO. In this less perfect world though it is foolish to argue that gays shouldn’t be allowed to marry and there seems to be no shortage of fools.
It’s a great illustration of Jefferson’s claim that people tend to get the kind of government they deserve.
People claim they want politicians to put country ahead of mindless party loyalty, to put conscience ahead of crass political opportunism, to show leadership not be a lemming to every little public whim. but when it happens, people are eager to punish that politician… even if it’s over a single, solitary issue.
Kudos to Sen. McDonald for standing for his principles of universal freedom and the Pledge of Allegiance’s promise of “liberty and justice for all” even though it may well cost him his job. He upheld the US and NYS Constitutions in doing so in a way that his likely successor has promised not to do.
Hey Erb, that day is today. And just look at this week’s news in the middle East for similar opposition on a different subject but with more demonstrative action.
I agree with Bullard that this is not government’s business but somewhere between concern over child marriage laws, civil marriage, medical exams to get a license to marry (“public health”) and tax “benefits” of married people and contract law, healthcare benefits extended to “spouses” etc. folks have come to believe it is under the government’s pervue.
New York state allows marriage between two people of the same sex, it is legal, I thought this issue was settled? I don’t understand why it is still being brought up?
I do think people are not taking seriously the consequences of this re-definition. There is no doubt that we will have to allow more than two people to marry in the future, which is maybe OK? It just seems like a nightmare administratively. The future will be very interesting.
I would prefer the government simply issue civil unions to all people who want to have one, including heterosexuals, homosexuals, more than two people whatever permutation makes people happy. Its not marriage however, which is fine the government should not be in the marriage business in my opinion.
Mervel, you’re right. After all, a state marriage IS a civil union. Civil as in “of the state” and union as in between two people. If people are hung up on the word ‘marriage’ then the state can give everyone civil unions. I don’t care. But the state has to treat all citizens equally, regardless of the semantic name.
The future will be very interesting…. Let’s go!
Yeah I would agree with you Brian. For me yeah I am hung up on the semantics as Marriage has a specific spiritual and sacramental meaning for me. But the state could save itself so many future problems by simply doing away with marriage and focus on issuing civil unions (which would have everything that we call marriage today has-it would not be some sort of “lower version”). Then you could have all of these possible challenges taken care of. I don’t see how we can logically say three people can’t have this union for example? I just have this vision of continual court battles and campaigns for marriage equality for polygamists or those who do this polymory, or other things we have not thought of. Just issue civil union’s to all adults in whatever permutation they want.
I’m voting for Bisso because she has the most luxuriant hair I’ve seen all week!
Religion needs to stay out of politics. When I got married the State issued us a license and God blessed our union thru the church of our choice. The license entitled us to ” marriage benefits provided by the state” not the certificate from the church. Ridiculous waste of time energy and resources.
Let’s not go back to the days of Holy Wars and fighting the infidels. What did that get us?
I am so tired of the “Family Values” phrase.
Families are not the bedrock of anything. Individual are the bedrock.
To the extent there is such a thing as “Family Values,” it is based upon all who make up the family. One bad apple in a family can pull the whole thing down.
And what makes the whole “Family Value” thing a bit of a con job is that it almost always is nothing more than a code for extreme, conservative Christian values which are often the opposite of the teachings of Jesus.
Jesus never said a darn thing about homosexuality or abortion but often complained about the selfishness of those who have.
Well Pete I would disagree.
Families are a social safety net if nothing else, we do better as a team than we do alone. I work with very low income individuals and believe me families are the main line of defense for many who would otherwise be alone, on the street or dead. They also are a great ground and environment for our willingness and ability to show and experience love. To successfully maintain a family you can’t be selfish, which is what Jesus was talking about, Jesus did talk a lot about marriage.
However I am not sure I know what “family values” mean anymore in the political world? If the government wanted to support families, they would pass funding to provide child care and maternity leave for everyone, they would make sure families have access to decent health care, and provide better addiction recovery centers and rehab etc. Many families are torn apart because of financial problems and stress or addiction etc.
Some families are just torn apart by selfishness, and the government really has nothing to do with that.
The bottom line is societies with a strong family structures are better off.
i for one am looking forward to the day (admittedly far in the future) when republicans try to tell us that they’re the ones who’ve been for gay rights all along, just like they do with civil rights now.
The government has no right regulating religious definitions. However, the government is the only entity that can mandate policy that affects same-sex couples. As an example, let’s say a gay couple who has spent their entire life together, is nearing end of life, and one is terminally ill, ending life in a hospital. The laws as they are written now forbids anyone other than a spouse or “next of kin” to be present during visitor hours. This is an example of a broken law that needs to be fixed by state government. Other examples include “spousal benefits” in life insurance, medical insurance, estate taxation, etc.
All this has little to do with the legal definition of marriage. It has more to do with broken legislation and policy that could easily be fixed by someone like Karen Bisso.
I would agree Mick. I like the way you parsed that.
Regardless of what I hold as the definition of Marriage is, I would have to be intentionally cruel or illogical to oppose the legislative fixes that you speak about above.