End of the Gay Marriage Debate

[Tex]

Originally Posted by ChinoCoug

First of all Tex, I agree with you on this issue. But you are burying your head in the sand. The margins get narrower and narrower with every election. Demographic trends are the easiest ones to predict and are unsettling.

Is this really true? What empirical data to we have to back it up? The most oft cited stat (at least to me) is the change in margin in the two CA initiatives: Prop 22 in 2000 which passed with 61%, and Prop 8 in 2008 which passed with 52%. Usually the stat-citers stop there, without any further analysis.

In that case, I could cite AZ, the only place where an anti-gay marriage initiative actually failed in 2006. Two years later, it passed. Is this evidence support for gay marriage is crumbling?

The truth is the dynamics in all four of those races were different, especially in California. It's very hard to compare apples to apples on this issue. It's even worse when we start hearing predictions made based on the opinions of a bunch of 18-year-olds.

What I much prefer is to look at the trend line across the nation of what states are actually voting for, because I think that's a far better measure over time than comparing votes in a single state. The only state I can think of to popularly vote for gay marriage was Iowa, and oh how the pro-gay movement crowed over that one. "We won in the heartland! It's all downhill from here!" Then came Maine, and New Jersey, and now Hawaii. Can you think of a more left-wing combination of three states?

Levin may ultimately be right. Maybe every pro-gay 18-year-old will hold that exact same view 20 years from now. But maybe not. Back in the 70's people predicted popular opinion on abortion would eventually go deeply anti, because all the pro-abortionists were aborting their future voters! Nearly 40 years later, that prediction has still not panned out.

What I do know, is making such predictions is pretty pointless in a debate. We have no idea what the future holds. Let's talk about the here and now.

[MikeWaters]

Voter attitudes are definitely trending towards pro-gay.

However, the one monkey in the wrench here is that gay marriage is not really about marriage. It's a proxy cultural war. There's no fundamental right here that is at stake, and I believe that in reality most gays do not want to be married. They just want the social acceptance they feel goes along with being accorded this right, if you want to call it that.

Can gays find acceptance through some other means? Would this decrease the drive and desire to change the definition of marriage?

I think there are leaders in the church who do not want to see the church become "the anti-gay church of America." It wil be interesting to see if and how the church steps in on this issue in the future.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Voter attitudes are definitely trending towards pro-gay.

However, the one monkey in the wrench here is that gay marriage is not really about marriage. It's a proxy cultural war. There's no fundamental right here that is at stake, and I believe that in reality most gays do not want to be married. They just want the social acceptance they feel goes along with being accorded this right, if you want to call it that.

Can gays find acceptance through some other means? Would this decrease the drive and desire to change the definition of marriage?

I think there are leaders in the church who do not want to see the church become "the anti-gay church of America." It wil be interesting to see if and how the church steps in on this issue in the future.

I actually agree with this. I've always said that what gays really want is societal normalization. I'm still opposed to that on some levels because I think it's a destructive lifestyle, but I still support some basic "rights" (hate that word) like the standard examples ... hospital visitation, social security benefits transferability, etc.

[Tex]

Yesterday, the CA Supreme Court unanimously advised the Federal Appeals Court that yes, the Prop 8 proponents do indeed have standing to litigate, even though the state refuses too. In their words:

... when the public officials who ordinarily defend a challenged state law or appeal a judgment invalidating the law decline to do so, under article II, section 8 of the California Constitution and the relevant provisions of the Elections Code, the official proponents of a voter-approved initiative measure are authorized to assert the state‘s interest in the initiative's validity, enabling the proponents to defend the constitutionality of the initiative and to appeal a judgment invalidating the initiative.

Should finally put to rest the anti-Prop-8's dispute over standing.

http://www.nationalreview.com/bench-...peal-ed-whelan