We’ve all heard the debate on whether gay marriage will hurt John McCain. Well, now the tables are flipped a bit: could California’s ruling – and other state initiatives – help presumptive Democratic nominee Barack Obama?
Yes, according to Democratic political strategist Darry Sragow. But, also, possibly no.
As has been mentioned before, Obama has done a tremendous job energizing young and other news voters, groups who may be inclined to vote against anti-gay legislation. The youth vote, however, solves only part of the problem. Obama, Sragow says, will have to measure homo sentiment across all 50 states:
With Obama turning out the young and educated,” says Sragow, “(the anti-gay marriage initiative) obviously adds fuel to the fire.”
Sragow believes leaders in the gay community have already reached out to the Obama campaign, but the senator will have to consider his position carefully. “He’s running to be president of all 50 states,” says the political strategist. In other words, Obama needs to gauge how any kind of support for gay marriage will affect him throughout the United States, not just the Golden State.
Sragow says if Obama played it right, he would create a “floor” and a “ceiling,” telling voters on the campaign trail that civil unions–the “floor” and Obama’s current position–should be available to all gay couples, with marriage–the “ceiling”–to be determined by the states.
Obama has already seemed to take that line.
Yes, he has. And, to flip things again, there’s also debate on whether Obama’s “lackluster” position will hurt him among the homos.
The latest Gallup opinion poll puts Obama ahead of McCain, by only by the tiniest of margin: 47 to 44 percent. If gays swing away from Obama, then they could feasibly give this shit to McCain. And, to agree with LA Times‘ Patrick Ranch McDonald concludes, Obama and his campaign needs to kiss some major gay ass.
How about we take this to the next level?
Our newsletter is like a refreshing cocktail (or mocktail) of LGBTQ+ entertainment and pop culture, served up with a side of eye-candy.
fredo777
As willing as I am to vote Obama, I definitely could do without gay unions being equated to the “floor”. Different terminology, thanks.
M Shane
Clearly, any gay person whether or not they believe that marriage is the”ceiling” of anything, which not everyone does, isjust stupid to consider voting for McCain. They don’t comprehend what they have at risk. The simple fact that Barak is an overridingly compassionate, intelligent person ought to be sufficient.
Suggesting that he needs to “kiss some gay ass” arrogant , unrealistic, and uncomprehending of Obamas historical statements vis-a-vis the corrupt and dangerous position of the republican party.
Obama has already made it clear that his only reason for supporting civil unions with rights was related to the political difficulty of threatening a heterosexual “tradition”–nothing more. That if we are interested in getting the rights and not just mimicing ma and pa we will go farther by not seeking something without the name marriage but the benefits.
It stricks me, in reality, that the benefits of marriage are often related more to one’s pocketbook than one’s heart, and that people should ask themselves whether it is greed or somthing real which motivates them. And them ask what matters: are we looking for real gay rights which will be determined by the legislation we get and the kind of judges our courts are peopled by.
JPinWeHo
The premise is somewhat unbelievable – gay voters will certainly not turn in large numbers from Obama to vote for McCain. (God help us if they do). Gay voters will also not vote for a 3rd party candidate – they must understand that while Obama’s failure to support gay marriage fully is disappointing, the Democratic candidate is their best shot at ensuring that Republican-based morals do not become enshrined further in our law and Constitution.
Gregoire
Again, Supreme Court, people. This should be reason ALONE. The next president will assign at least two justices to the bench.
Just because right-wing judicial choices sometimes turn moderate on the court, that’s no reason to even risk it in November.
CitizenGeek
Only self-hating gays (like the Log Cabin Republicans) will vote for McCain. It’s not like the rest of the gays have a choice, really; Obama is overwhelmingly the better candidate when it comes to gay issues.
CHURCHILL-Y
Supreme court justice James meeks and Leah Daughtry, Ooh the future sure looks bright and inspiring.
CHURCHILL-Y
“Obama has done a tremendous job energizing” black voters who are more inclined to vote in favor of anti-gay legislation.
This is a double edged sword.
emb
OK, I’m going to ignore Churchill-y’s comment at No. 6, and totally agree with #7: That’s one that could totally bite gay marriage in the ass: We always knew that whomever (realistically) the Dems nominated would be offering half-hearted lip-service to the gay/lesbian community anyway; by motivating large numbers of evangelical blacks (assuming they don’t take the self-hatred road to culturally conservative McCainland), it seems unlikely they’re going to ignore Prop. Hate-The-Homos once they’re in the booth. And I just am not confident that they’re going to be suddenly feeling the love for the gays. So yeah, there’s a risk.
On the other hand, we’d’ve been no better off with Hillary, who would’ve polarized the Dems and given the repubs reason to turn out too.
Either way, it’s a risky thing to get married in California for the next few months.
But the bottom line here is a bigger issue, to quote Gregoire: “Supreme Court, people”!!
Been Waitin All Day for This Moment
Churchill-y, I’ve been waiting for this moment all day. What’s ya game plan now? And don’t let Obama put Hillary on the ticket (I’d love it if he did just to hear your rationale). First I hate Obama, now I gotta vote for him to support Hillary as VP or be seen as the Republican coward I am. A vote against Obama would be a vote against Hillary. Poetic Justice for all those who forgot we are all supposed to be for the same party!
Bill Perdue
Have you noticed that instead of hoopla and joy apologists for the bigoted leaders of the Democratic and Republican Parties are reduced to whimpers and whines.
They’re squeamish about calling “civil unions†by it’s real name, “second class marriage for second class citizensâ€. The truth is slowly dawning on them that they’ve trapped themselves into apologizing for a party of bigots. Second class citizenship is the best that Republicans or Democrats will offer. It’s sinking in now – when Obama and McCain pandered to christian bigots, and they still do, it wasn’t a mistake. It was a strategy, the same one used by Bill Clinton and George Bush.
Apologists for the Democratic Party certainly have their work cut out for them. They have to dream up a scare tactic to frighten the clueless into voting for bigots because the evident truth is that McCain, Clinton and Obama agree on nearly everything, beginning with a bigoted position on same sex marriage. They each voted for NAFTA, a union busting measure and a rolling environmental disaster. They each voted to cut taxes for the rich and welfare for the poor. They each oppose socialized medicine.
All three will continue the genocide in Iraq for years. More GI’s and more Iraqis will die. All three support zionist ethnic cleansing and apartheid. More Palestinians will die. McCain says he’’ never surrenderâ€, but so did Nixon, who surrendered. Hillary Clinton wants to nuke the Iranians and Obama promises to invade Pakistan. They’re lunatics. Their wars for oil companies are killing people.
Clinton and Obama’s Party refused to repeal DADT and DOMA. Then they shredded ENDA and finally dumped it and the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes bill in the garbage. McCain’s party, who are also against GLBT equality, happily supported the Democrats.
So in 2008 the only thing Democrat apologists can come up with is “McCain will appoint Bogeymen to the Supreme Court†to gull the clueless into voting Democratic. It’s not very effective when you remember that the California Supreme Court, with a six to one majority of Republicans, voted for full marriage equality. Just like the US Supremes who’ve occasionally voted for us, those occasions occurring when our movement had become powerful enough to compel them. The courts main role is to protect the rich, and if they have to throw us a bone or two they will, but that happens ONLY when we force them to. It our strength that wins, and that has nothing to do with the political makeup of the courts, the Congress or which lunatic is prowling around in the White House.
jk
Freedo777: sensitive much?
fredo777
JK: It’s Fredo, with one “e”.
And, no. It’s a simple observation.
Tom in Boston
As a gay man, I cannot support a party candidate who 2x’s rejected progressive gay issues. This country is crumbling under religious ignorance and fear. To use a gay hate-mongering speaker in rallies for black voters, Obama offended my person. To state that marriage is made up of only a woman and man, is deeper an offense, and totally ignorant. Marriage is a word, and needs to be defined, not based on a cultures fear of homosexuals. The turpitude felt by the black christian community, and the street community towards homosexuals is disgusting and should not be pandered to. More black young men are getting infected with HIV than any other group in the U.S. Because they cannot embrace being gay in their community and have scores of “down low” encounters and choose unsafe practices, since they aren’t really “having sex with men.” I am not going back to this and will not support this candidate. I am going with the third party and think every gay man and woman should abandon the white republicans and the black democrats until they get with the 21st century and abandon their bible hate and prejudiced thinking.
fredo777
Sorry, Tom, but if by “third party” you mean Bob Barr, you might want to do a little more research on some of his past views on gays.
http://www.queerty.com/behind-bob-barrs-gay-flip-flop-20080602/