for having endorsed the Marriage Amendment.
At my wife's suggestion, I went and thoroughly read Andrew Sullivan's Blog http://www.andrewsullivan.com and I strongly recommend that others do likewise.
Many gays are politically very conservative. Things like the Log Cabin Tepublicans are just the tip of the icebox. For many, they have for years being willing to put up with nods in the direction of the social and religious conservatives because they thought they ageed with Republicans on other points of the angenda. But now they are faced with the inconceivable - to continue to support a Republican party whose president can so disrepect and dishonor them is more than they can take.
Let's use conservative (small c) numbers. Assume that 1% of those who voted are gays who voted Republican. Were they to switch on this issue, that is a 2% swing.
I think the effect of this miscue by Bush is worse than this. I think potentially, even though the amendment will not pass the House, may mean as many as 3% of those who voted Republican switching sides, with probably something under 1% of the those who voted Democratic switching the other way. There will be many not themselves gay but who know and love those who are gay who will also be greatly distressed by this cynically political action on teh part of the president. Potentiall that means a change in up to 5% of the margin.
That may blow the electoral college wide open. Of greater importance, it potentially, if played right, can bring the House into serious play. I think House Republican know this, which is why you are seeing people like Dreier of California and even Delay trying to back away from this.
I truly think the Democrats in the House should hold the Republicans' feet to the fire on this. They should make sure it gets voted out of the committee, if necessary sign a discharge petition to force it to the floor, and make everyone vote on it. How many closeted Republican Congerssmen are willing to take a chance in being caught in hypocrisy? What does the one openly gay Republican Congressman, Jim Kolbe, of AZ, do? Democrats should insist on bringing this up on the grounds that they want to be sure it is killed, voted down in the House -- remember, it takes 2/3 of each House to send an Amendment to the states. The Republican love to bring things up they know won't pass to force Dems to vote on them, as campaign issues.
My wife notes that - other than Prohibition - this would be the first time we would ahve amended the Constitution with the intent of limiting people's basic rights [I do not consider the 22nd amendment to truly due that, since its limmits were only exceeded by FDR and that in a war situation, even if we were officially neutral). Any Republican who votes for it can be attacked as willing to distort our Constitution for shallow political purposes, to appeal to a narrow segment of the population.
Remember -- whether or not people favor gay marriage, or even willing to consider it, most people have a reluctance to change the Constitution. It is an opportunity for Democrats to start standing up for basic Constitutional principles -- perhpas including requiring a declaration from the Congress to go to war?
I think George Bush has just given the Democrats a huge Christmas present, and we are not even out of February.
