.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

Cracker Squire

THE MUSINGS OF A TRADITIONAL SOUTHERN DEMOCRAT

My Photo
Name:
Location: Douglas, Coffee Co., The Other Georgia, United States

Sid in his law office where he sits when meeting with clients. Observant eyes will notice the statuette of one of Sid's favorite Democrats.

Monday, August 15, 2005

While all the fuss about same-sex marriages is nothing but gay bashing, as a party we believe in the wisdom & legality of conventional wedlock.

Today the Political Insider cuts to the chase on the issue of gay marriage, noting:

"For Republicans, gay marriage is the non-wedding gift that keeps on giving. And giving. And giving.

"Nine months ago, Georgia voters approved a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage (which according to mere statute already was illegal in the state) by an astounding 76 percent.

"Let's dispense with any discussion about morality, and go straight to the crass interpretation that politicians have carried away from that number.

"Seven-six percent means that you can waffle on gay marriage, and even support it. Or you can run for statewide office. But you can't do both.

"To the layman, 76 percent might represent a settled issue — something to walk away from. Democrats, ever a suspicious lot, don't think so. They doubt Republicans will return a stick that handy to the closet. So to speak."
_______________

Next the Political Insider notes that "[g]ay marriage" is "the big daddy of all cultural issues," and that not only will the Philistines revive gay marriage as a campaign issue, but:

"What form next year's culture war will take, Democrats aren't sure. Possibly the issue of gay adoption."
_______________

What the Political Insider did not remind us of is something the Political Insider was the first to bring to our attention.

By challenging the results of the 2004 76% constitutional amendment referendum, the gay community itself has substantially contributed to the gay marriage issue being around come Nov. 2006.

The Political Insider did this when it noted last fall "that the state Supreme Court could toss the amendment aside [, and this] prospect brought a faint smile to the governor's lips. A reworked anti-gay marriage amendment couldn't come back until November '06, when Sonny Perdue would be running for re-election."

6 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

1:17 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

1:38 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

1:50 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

1:54 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I can only imagine what the removed posts said :) Although my personal belief is that "if" Sonny and Ralph decide to use Marriage Equality as an issue, again, there will be a percentage, a small percentage, of suburbanites who will get tired of the issue, much more so than others such as abortion which has taken years to play out.

Sonny can't afford to piss off too many folks. If you look at the returns for Dekalb & Fulton counties, many of the areas Johnny & Georgia carried in 2004 voted a higher percentage NO on the marriage amendment.

8:40 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Gay marriage is an issue that may help Dem’s in the North East, but not the South. We need to concentrate on other issues. Plus if reps beat a dead horse too much, it will hurt the prospects of Urban reps like Log Cabin friendly Karen Handel. Even Johnny Isakson and Sonny Purdue have pretended to be close to the Log Cabins, Gay Reps.

Folks the issue is going to be immigration. The reps are on both sides of the issue. If we are unified then we might be able to make inroads in the suburbs. The problems is that we are just as divided. But, if Gov. Richardson from NM is our standard bearer in 08, it might be better to take a stronger position against uncontrolled immigration. We can portray Bush, Purdue’s, and Reed’s support for amnesty as an anti-labor effort to reduce costs for big businesses. If they really cared they would not defund social programs.

12:12 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home