After DOMA ruling, will same-sex marriage bring out Republican voters?
Friday, July 09, 2010 at 3:49 pm
- 17 Comments
Rev up the culture war machine: A federal judge in Massachusetts ruled Thursday that the Defense of Marriage Act, a federal law that bans recognition of same-sex marriages, violated a state’s right to define just what legal marriage means.
U.S. District Court Judge Joseph Tauro also said DOMA denies married gay couples certain federal benefits.
The state had argued the law denied benefits such as Medicaid to gay married couples in Massachusetts, where same-sex unions have been legal since 2004.
Tauro agreed, and said the act forces Massachusetts to discriminate against its own citizens. The act “plainly encroaches” upon the right of the state to determine marriage, Tauro said in his ruling on a lawsuit filed by state Attorney General Martha Coakley.
In a ruling in a separate case filed by Gays & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, Tauro ruled the act violates the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution.
In opposition to same-sex marriage rights, the National Organization for Marriage, which already had a summer anti-gay marriage tour up and running, immediately pounced on the rulings. NOM President Brian Brown said, “With only Obama to defend DOMA, this federal judge has taken the extraordinary step of overturning a law passed by huge bipartisan majorities and signed into law by Pres. Clinton in 1996. A single federal judge in Boston has no moral right to decide the definition of marriage for the people of the United States.”
NOM Chairman Maggie Gallagher took the rhetoric one step further, wondering aloud whether Tauro was asking for a reboot to the culture wars: “Does he really want another Roe. v. Wade?”
The decision magnifies the strains within the Iowa Republican Party in this election year over how to handle both rhetoric and promises attached to the state’s court-mandated allowance of same-sex marriage in the state. Republican nominee for lieutenant governor Kim Reynolds told our sister site, The Iowa Independent, Tuesday that she is in favor of allowing Iowans to vote on civil unions, which has created a firestorm among the state’s social conservatives. Reynolds was on a tour of areas gubernatorial candidate Terry Branstad lost to the more conservative Republican running for governor, Bob Vander Plaats, who now may have new life in the race.
In an interview with The Des Moines Register, Branstad took the opportunity to reassure social conservatives in Iowa and to cover his ticket’s tracks on the issue, saying once elected (he is running against current Gov. Chet Culver) and if Republicans takes a closely divided Iowa House (the Senate is probably unreachable for the GOP), a vote on a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage is likely.
A Republican majority in the Iowa House next year would apply sufficient pressure to force both houses of the Legislature to pass a measure allowing Iowans to vote on a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, Terry Branstad said Thursday.
Democratic leaders in the Senate, who have blocked debate on such a measure, would be forced to take up the issue, even if the Senate stays in their control, the Republican candidate for governor said after a campaign stop in Newton.
And to help cleanup Reynolds’ comments, a Branstad campaign spokesman said the pair does “not favor state-sanctioned civil unions, but would not have the government step in to prevent private companies and entities from extending same-sex benefits if they so choose.”
Outside of Iowa, Tauro’s ruling and the issue of same-sex marriage will likely play a role in 2010 election-year politics. As Andrew Sullivan notes, the tea party faction of the Republican Party, which has consistently decried some of the Obama administration’s actions as violations of the Tenth Amendment in support of federalism, must decide whether to back Tauro’s use of the Tenth Amendment in striking down DOMA.
“The federal government, by enacting and enforcing DOMA, plainly encroaches upon the firmly entrenched province of the state, and in doing so, offends the Tenth Amendment. For that reason, the statute is invalid,” Tauro wrote in a ruling in a lawsuit filed by Attorney General Martha Coakley.
At the same time Obama, a DOMA supporter, must decide whether to fight the ruling in court. And how will Democratic candidates answer when asked what they support? Republicans already enjoy a healthy lead in the voter enthusiasm gap, and Karl Rove long ago proved that social issues can bring out the Republican base. In June, Pew released polling results showing gay marriage was still of prime importance to social conservatives. In addition to the Justice Department’s decision to sue the state of Arizona for its immigration law, which is already playing a part in 2010 politicking, it seems the party has another social-issue cudgel at their disposal, if they choose to use it.
17 Comments
Comment posted July 9, 2010 @ 4:17 pm
If it’s another culture war the social conservatives want, then it’s another culture war they’ll get, and I think this time around time will be in favor of the social liberal’s position.
Comment posted July 9, 2010 @ 5:12 pm
Progressively Queer -
I don’t think I have heard a more stupid comment in my entire life….
Just sayin….
Comment posted July 9, 2010 @ 5:21 pm
If only Republicans had fought harder against gay marriage, perhaps my hetero marriage wouldn’t have ended in divorce. I think it was that lack of sanctity thing that did us in, gays stole our sanctimoniousness or something like that. I for one am thankful that I can blame gays instead of taking responsibility for anything. That’s what Republicans call “personal responsibility”, where you personally blame another person instead of yourself. I like it.
Comment posted July 9, 2010 @ 7:11 pm
The article incorrectly describes President Obama as a DOMA supporter. His position is that the law is not unconstitutional but that it is discriminatory and that it should be repealed.
Comment posted July 9, 2010 @ 8:04 pm
“If it’s another culture war the social conservatives want, then it’s another culture war they’ll get, and I think this time around time will be in favor of the social liberal’s position.”
mmmkay
It had to be disappointing to some that exit polls showed that the black and hispanic voters who joined with gays to put Obama in office were also the people who voted down same-sex marriage in California and elsewhere.
So the dilemma is, if you work hard to get out the minority vote to help democrat chances in the mid-terms, you hurt your chances where same-sex marriage is on the ballot.
Live by the coalition politics sword, die by the coalition politics sword.
Comment posted July 9, 2010 @ 8:31 pm
That’s not necessarily correct, Dennis. We African Americans, in general, do not think along such linear lines as those you identified. In voting a lot of the time, we separate social issues from political issues, but above all else, I’d say that we vote in our own self-interest. See, the missing aspect of the African American Culture that many politicians fail to identify is that our history in America plays a very strong role in determining for whom we cast our votes, and we have built in BS Detectors. This is the main reason you hardly ever see more than 1, 2, or maybe, 3 African Americans at tea party/Republican Party events. Contrary to what some politicians believe, many more African Americans than they think are very much aware of what goes on in politics.
Comment posted July 9, 2010 @ 8:42 pm
It’s not so much how the minorities voted that helped Proposition 8 to pass, but more the role of various religious organizations including the LDS Church and NOM that had an impact with their campaign of disinformation and hysterics. The whole truth has yet to be uncovered. In the meantime, there has been ongoing outreach to the minority communities.
Proposition 8 passed with only 52.24% of the votes; 47.76% voted no. The margin is such that Dennis’ confidence in his usual hokey is again misplaced.
Comment posted July 9, 2010 @ 10:09 pm
“If only Republicans had fought harder against gay marriage, perhaps my hetero marriage wouldn’t have ended in divorce.”
Sure. Blame someone else for YOUR failure.
Grow up, if Jaysus will let ya.
Comment posted July 9, 2010 @ 10:20 pm
“This is the main reason you hardly ever see more than 1, 2, or maybe, 3 African Americans at tea party/Republican Party events.”
Yeah, majii, as a non-white person myself, I’m really disappointed that the movement for a more free society seems to be limited to white people as if only white people deserve or want to be free.
You should read Herman Cain’s book. He’ll sharpen your BS detector.
Comment posted July 9, 2010 @ 11:31 pm
Here’s a sure sign that someone hasn’t read enough books:
“You should read Herman Cain’s book. He’ll sharpen your BS detector.”
Comment posted July 10, 2010 @ 11:46 am
Since this is a citizen rights issue and nothing else, you cannot legislate discrimination no matter how many people want to vote for it. The Founding Fathers were concerned about the tyranny of the majority harming the minority. These stupid laws trying to install a particular religious belief into the law of the land can only fly as an Amendment to the Constitution. That isn’t going to happen and since two citizens have the right to marry why does their gender matter?
Comment posted July 11, 2010 @ 3:47 am
Well said, Amuseinc.
While we cherish our Democratic election of government officials, most people tend to forget that the Constitution promises us a Republican form of government – NOT to be confused with the misnomer “republican” party.
A pure democracy requires only a simple majority, and can easily trample the rights of the minority.
As a Republic, we protect the rights of the minority by requiring a super-majority in the Senate, and in Constitutional Amendments.
Prop8 failed in this protection, and represents a failure of the Republic. Prop8 must pass by a super-majority to be valid under the US Constitution.
Furthermore, the California state constitution should be modified to be a Republican government. They did it for tax increases, they should be able to do it for individual rights and liberties. The things “republicans” allege to endorse and defend. Selectively.
Comment posted July 11, 2010 @ 8:11 am
Defending the definition of marriage isn’t a religious matter, it’s a cultural matter. People of all religions and cultures world-wide believe that marriage is between a man and a woman and anything else, ANYTHING else, is deviant and shouldn’t be officially sanctioned by governments.
That’s not just right-wing christians saying that, that’s everyone from muslims in indonesia to animist eskimos. Get a clue.
Comment posted July 12, 2010 @ 5:26 pm
Maybe that whole “equal protection under the law” thing doesn’t mean anything to him.
After all, like the last conservative superhero said, “It’s just a gawddamned piece of paper.”
Comment posted July 13, 2010 @ 8:33 pm
Number 1, Bush never said that. Number 2, he’s not considered a conservative hero by any conservative I know.
Q: Did President Bush call the Constitution a “goddamned piece of paper?” Is it true that President Bush called the Constitution a “goddamned piece of paper?” He has never denied it, and it appears that there were several witnesses.
A: Extremely unlikely. The Web site that reported those words has a history of quoting phony sources and retracting bogus stories. The report that Bush “screamed” those words at Republican congressional leaders in November 2005 is unsubstantiated, to put it charitably. We judge that the odds that the report is accurate hover near zero. It comes from Capitol Hill Blue, a Web site that has a history of relying on phony sources, retracting stories and apologizing to its readers.
Comment posted July 15, 2010 @ 10:51 am
So Capitol Hill Blue must be a division of Fox News since they have “a history of relying on phony sources”?
Oh, that’s right, Fox never retracts phony stories, therefore they never have to apologize to their audience.
Big difference.
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
