Rush: Gay Marriage About to Explode as an Election Issue (in the Dems' faces)

Rush Limbaugh Show | 2/19/04 | LS

[LS]

Reading from articles about Barney Frank and by Ken Schrag about the SF mayor, it is clear that the "gay marriage" issue is becoming a time bomb. Dems such as Schrag and Frank are warning this is a big problem, especially if the Dem Party as a whole gets tagged with this issue.

Folks, while I've always thought this would break the GOP's way, I never thought it would be a "defining" issue. But Rush was quoting info on the "Defense of Marriage" bill that CALIFORNIANS passed by an overwhelming margin not long ago. This issue by itself puts California "in play" (my gosh, and even Massachusetts?), and could raise utter hell with the Dems' electoral map, not to mention Feinstein's (Boxer's? Who is up?) re-election.

[biblewonk]

I think it will blow up in their face too.

[Rutles4Ever]

Allow me to re-visit a previous post of mine today...

This is turning into a runaway train, and I firmly believe this is Bush's opportunity to win this election:

Make this priority #1. Kerry's trying to steal thunder from the military successes, and he's succeeding. The economic issues are a "push" at this point. Bush needs to make the Marriage Ammendment his focus because Kerry cannot win on this. If Bush takes a firm stand, Kerry will have to respond. If he supports the ammendment, he will alienate the far left. If he has to openly oppose it, he will alienate the moderates and undecided Catholics.

I know it's unorthodox ("it's the economy, stupid"), but I think this social issue is MUCH more crucial than the RNC is giving credit for.

[Astronaut]

I participated in an online poll on the KIRO TV web site. The results were 60 - 40 opposed to gay 'marriage' in WA. And this is commie liberal Seattle! Gay 'marriage' is a great issue for the GOP. Let Bawney Fag be the spokesman for the democrats on this. If played correctly, this court be Lurch's "Willie Horton."

[GiveEmDubya]

It is going to be an issue in the fall. A poll I saw said that 66% or something like that oppose gay marriage, and these lefty Democrats are pushing for and allowing for just that.

This can help Bush out quite a bit if he plays it right.

[I still care]

To me the major problem is the people vote one way, and Dems use judges and oneupmanship to just negate their votes.

The SF mayor's ignoring of the law puts me in mind of the way Nevada voters ended up with a tax increase that they voted down, by way of judges.

When the Democrats talk about taking the country back, I am in mind (with Bill o'Reilly) that it is time elected officials start being held accountable for enforcing the law the PEOPLE vote in.

[LS]

There is even more to it than that. We've seen recent lawsuits in Utah to re-institute polygamy on the basis of the USSC overturning the Texas case, and there is no legal way to prohibit multiple "wives/husbands" or even marriage to animals if the logic of Lawrence is invoked. Once that becomes clear, the numbers will go much higher than 60/40.

[VRWC_minion]

If so, Bush doesn't need to lift a finger.

[cripplecreek]

I think the gay marriage issue is only a symptom of the real problem of judicial activism. Our president has allready defined himself fairly clearly on this issue. Democrats may find themselves in more trouble over judicial activism and fillibusters than they realize.

[MrB]

If those folks in Utah push hard enough and loud enough (even if they don't really want it),

it will show that the slippery slope argument that leftists always poopoo is a clear reality.

Funny that in reality, the left wants absolutely NO standards of behavior, but when you ask them "what's next?" they always say that this issue, right here, is as far as they want to go... (until tomorrow).

[GraniteStateConservative]

Call me skeptical. Kerry has come out against gay marriage, not for it. He says his position is the same as Dick Cheney's ("I think states are likely to come to different conclusions [on civil unions], and that's appropriate. I don't think there should necessarily be a federal policy in that area. I think we ought to do everything we can to tolerate and accommodate whatever kind of relationships people want to enter into." -- October 5, 2000). Maybe if you talk about judicial activism as a grand issue rather than just this one thing.

[george wythe]

In my opinion, it's time for Republicans to keep a low profile on this issue:

When your enemy is in the process of self-destructing, you should leave him alone.

The SF mayor's stunt plus the upcoming Massachusetts gay marriages in May will help Bush get re-elected.

Furthermore, I suspect that gays won't be able to help themselves, and they might have a massive gay weddding (like the Moonies do) to coincide with the Democratic Convention in Boston.

Mark my words. The Loony Left is our friend (remember Dean?) These punks can alienate the middle-of-the-road voters very quickly.

I would like conservatives to push for a Republican supermajority in the US Senate (63+ seats), and I'd like to see 3 or 4 Jesse Helms to be elected this fall

[Destro]

Is that why the Republicans not acted on this issue much until election time? To use as a glag burning like polarizing issue against the Dems? I think it is so because they use the term constitutional ammendment-in politco talk that means we are all for it to gain votes and will do nothing to push it through. Congress has the authority - under the same ruling from the Supreme Court that banned polygamy (Reynolds VS USA) to ban Gay marriage across America by majority vote. Why has the Republican dominated congress refused to do so? Cowardice? Stupidity? Or political opportunisim? I am tired of the yo-yo play on my nation's well being.

[LS]

It ought to be obvious to you that NO statute law is going to deal with this, because of the USSC ruling. State courts and federal courts will simply say that these laws run counter to "right to privacy" or some other nonsense.

An amendment is the only way to go here.

[freekitty]

I agree with you. Until you stop all this negating the people's vote; it will continue.

[american spirit]

The only reason this'll be a campaign issue is that neither political party has the guts to publicize their appalling record on illegal immigration, soaring deficit spending, the FTAA and it's impact on our sovereignty, the Iraq debacle,etc. They're working overtime to make sure they can dupe the American public into thinking this is THE issue for the 2004 election. The alleged leadership of both parities is full nothing but useful idiots, marxists in drag and traitors.

[LS]

I disagree. Kerry will be unable to separate himself from his state and Bush can maneuver him into some clear pro-gay positions. I think Kerry is in trouble on this.

[LS]

Well, this was sort of Rush's point---that this issue will cause them to implode. However, Bush will HAVE to clearly define Kerry/Dems as pro-"gay marriage" to reap the benefit.

[Steely Tom]

Freeper Jim Noble observed (in a thread last weekend) that Gay marriage is the Stalingrad of the culture wars.

I thought that was a particularly apt characterization.

(steely)

[rushmom]

I'm getting very cynical. Tell the senior citizens that their medicare will be in jeopardy if they vote for people that will halt gay marriage, or tell the farmers their subsidies will be at risk if they vote for people who will halt gay marriage, and the seniors and the farmers will volunteer to perform the ceremonies.