If this ends up being a central issue in the presidental campaign (and it likely will, because it gives the media a semi-salacious angle to plumb), I doubt it helps or hurts either party, aside from possibly impacting turnout from homosexuals and fundamentalists. But I just can't imagine that anybody who would base their vote on this issue hasn't already picked their candidate and isn't already energized.
But, then again, this debate really isn't about marriage, any more than marijuana legalization is about glaucoma or chemotherapy-induced nausea, or the flag-burning amendment is about protecting a national symbol. It's about clashing cultural worldviews and is merely a proxy battle in the cold war between secularists and quasi-theocrats. Trying to turn this into a discussion about marriage, as Saletan suggests, looks like a fool's errand to this fool.
Neither side can win the hearts-and-minds battle in this; it doesn't matter how sound, logical, or watertight your argument is. The folks who are passionate about it didn't arrive at that passion through a Socratic dialogue about the merits or demerits of either position and won't be dissuaded by such.
Oh, and a prediction: two weeks max before a Republican officeholder (or, you know, the monkeys at National Review Online) tries to tie the Democratic Party to Michael Jackson.
"this debate really isn't about marriage...It's about clashing cultural worldviews and is merely a proxy battle in the cold war between secularists and quasi-theocrats"
I think that's right, but I also think it argues against your larger point. If the line between left and right is drawn at gay marriage, I think we'll find a disturbing number of people on the right. Even people who aren't passionate about the issue will be given pause before they cast their votes for the party of the sodomites. Of course, how many voters will be swayed is well-nigh unknowable in advance, but I do think we can guess that more votes will be swayed against the Dems than for.
You all are too fair and balanced. Silly democrats. Listen, from here on out, any Republican who speakis of "protecting the sancity of marriage," will be branded before national audiences as a homophobe and a hate-crime monger. I imagine that's what Newt would do, were he on our side.
If this ends up being a central issue in the presidental campaign (and it likely will, because it gives the media a semi-salacious angle to plumb), I doubt it helps or hurts either party, aside from possibly impacting turnout from homosexuals and fundamentalists. But I just can't imagine that anybody who would base their vote on this issue hasn't already picked their candidate and isn't already energized.
But, then again, this debate really isn't about marriage, any more than marijuana legalization is about glaucoma or chemotherapy-induced nausea, or the flag-burning amendment is about protecting a national symbol. It's about clashing cultural worldviews and is merely a proxy battle in the cold war between secularists and quasi-theocrats. Trying to turn this into a discussion about marriage, as Saletan suggests, looks like a fool's errand to this fool.
Neither side can win the hearts-and-minds battle in this; it doesn't matter how sound, logical, or watertight your argument is. The folks who are passionate about it didn't arrive at that passion through a Socratic dialogue about the merits or demerits of either position and won't be dissuaded by such.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 11-20-03 12:00 PM
Oh, and a prediction: two weeks max before a Republican officeholder (or, you know, the monkeys at National Review Online) tries to tie the Democratic Party to Michael Jackson.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 11-20-03 12:02 PM
"this debate really isn't about marriage...It's about clashing cultural worldviews and is merely a proxy battle in the cold war between secularists and quasi-theocrats"
I think that's right, but I also think it argues against your larger point. If the line between left and right is drawn at gay marriage, I think we'll find a disturbing number of people on the right. Even people who aren't passionate about the issue will be given pause before they cast their votes for the party of the sodomites. Of course, how many voters will be swayed is well-nigh unknowable in advance, but I do think we can guess that more votes will be swayed against the Dems than for.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 11-20-03 12:33 PM
You all are too fair and balanced. Silly democrats. Listen, from here on out, any Republican who speakis of "protecting the sancity of marriage," will be branded before national audiences as a homophobe and a hate-crime monger. I imagine that's what Newt would do, were he on our side.
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 11-20-03 4:34 PM
I hear you Michael. It's very very tempting.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 11-20-03 9:10 PM