Let's Go Nuclear
Well we can't say we didn't see this coming. Republicans have no issues to run on - the economy is sluggish, and the new jobs just aren't there; the budget deficit has exploded; Iraq continues to be a mess; the prewar excuses for invasion are now widely seen to be just that; and Osama Bin Laden's trail is as cold as
Spot's corpse.
So what do you do when you have no issues to run on? You use a hot button issue like gay marriage to whip up a frenzy.
So what do you do when you have no issues to run on? You use a hot button issue like gay marriage to whip up a frenzy. It motivates your conservative base, scares a good number of moderates into considering voting for you, and lobs a couple of hand grenades into the Democratic camp. Accordingly, Bush today officially proposed the passage of a constitutional amendment that would "preserve the sanctity of marriage" by defining it to legally be only between a man and a woman.
It really is a smart, if sleazy, political tactic. Democrats are going to be forced to either support or hedge their response to this proposal. If they come out for it, or don't come out sufficiently strongly against it, a good number of their supporters might stay home, or vote for someone like Nader. If they oppose it, they risk offending the vast hordes of middle America who might feel comfortable watching neutered gay men on TV shows like "Will & Grace" and "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy", but who draw the line at letting them marry one another.
Although some have suggested that a good way to respond to this new Republican tactic is to donate more money to Democratic candidates, I think more direct action is called for. I've posted more on this on
my own site, but I'll summarize the main points:
1. Their strategy is politically, not ideologically based. Repubs are using it because they think it will gain them more votes than it will lose them.
2. Accordingly, if they can be convinced that the political price for this strategy was too high, then they will drop it.
3. Invoke the "Frank Rule". Closeted Republican figures who support this proposed amendment should be exposed.
4. Doing this will make Reublicans know that there is a price to be paid for pushing this amendment, exposes them to charges of hypocrisy, can be combined with a concerted effort to pressure log cabin Republicans to desert the party, and can be used as a wedge issue to divide Republicans.
Harsh? Yes. But it's very clear that the movement to push a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage is nothing more than the open use of gay-bashing in order to win votes. If liberals, progressives and supporters of gay rights are serious about fighting against this bigotry, then they are going to have to try something other than appealing to people's better nature. The Democratic party, and candidates, of course, will want nothing to do with this strategy. So it will probably be left to the fringe media and the internet to get the ball rolling. But maybe a few highly recognizable names being outed could have an impact, as long as it was done with an explicit explanation of why it was occurring. Exposure and embarrassment shouldn't be the point. In other words, the issue shouldn't be "Governor Y is gay!", but, "Why is Governor Y opposed to marriage rights for gays when he himself is gay?" (note: the use of the term "Governor" is completely gratuitous and is meant to suggest nothing about politicians in certain large southern states).
It's all about framing. The fact that someone may be a closeted gay is not the issue. The fact that someone may be a closeted gay who publicly supports an amendment that is discriminatory towards gays
isan issue.