Morality Schmorality - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Ustwo · 11-07-2004, 12:27 AM

When, before the election was even over, stations like CBS were talking about it being an election on ‘morality’ my B.S. detectors were buzzing strongly. While undoubtedly moral issues would motivate some voters, its not as if the country is fundamentally different than it was in 2000 when it comes to morality. Without the morality vote, GWB may have lost but that means little in a close election, without any major groups support he would have lost. The morality issue has become a common theme among the left, and the ridicule of the ‘Jesusfreaks’ in the red states knows no limit. Such attacks only shows how little they understand what is happening or why blue is blue and red is red, and I should take heart in that for 2006, but as I’ve stated before I’m almost as worried at an all right nation as an all left nation.

Apparently I’m not the only one who feels that the issue was not morality and perhaps some of you may even trust the source. Its from slate.com , and currently slate.com is basically the democraticunderground.com with a better web design.

Quote:

The Gay Marriage Myth
Terrorism, not values, drove Bush's re-election.
By Paul Freedman
Posted Friday, Nov. 5, 2004, at 1:16 PM PT

Did "moral values"—in particular, the anti-gay marriage measures on ballots in 11 states this week—drive President Bush's re-election? That's the early conventional wisdom as Democrats begin soul-searching and finger-pointing. These measures are alleged to have drawn Christian conservatives to the polls, many of whom failed to vote last time. The theory is intriguing, but the data don't support it. Gay marriage and values didn't decide this election. Terrorism did.

The morality theory rests on three claims. The first is that gay-marriage bans led to higher turnout, chiefly among Christian conservatives. The second is that Bush performed especially well where gay marriage was on the ballot. The third is that in general, moral issues decided the election.

The evidence that having a gay-marriage ban on the ballot increased voter turnout is spotty. Marriage-ban states did see higher turnout than states without such measures. They also saw higher increases in turnout compared with four years ago. But these differences are relatively small. Based on preliminary turnout estimates, 59.5 percent of the eligible voting population turned out in marriage-ban states, whereas 59.1 percent turned out elsewhere. This is a microscopic gap when compared to other factors. For example, turnout in battleground states was more than 7.5 points higher than it was in less-competitive states, and it increased much more over 2000 as well.

It's true that states with bans on the ballot voted for Bush at higher rates than other states. His vote share averaged 7 points higher in gay-marriage-banning states than in other states (57.9 vs. 50.9). But four years ago, when same-sex marriage was but a twinkle in the eye of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, Bush's vote share was 7.3 points higher in these same states than in other states. In other words, by a statistically insignificant margin, putting gay marriage on the ballot actually reduced the degree to which Bush's vote share in the affected states exceeded his vote share elsewhere.

Why did states with gay-marriage ballot measures vote so heavily for Bush? Because such measures don't appear on state ballots randomly. Opponents of gay marriage concentrate their efforts in states that are most hospitable to a ban and are most likely to vote for Bush even without such a ballot measure. A state's history of voting for Bush is more likely to lead to an anti-gay-marriage measure on that state's ballot than the other way around.

Much has been made of the fact that "moral values" topped the list of voters' concerns, mentioned by more than a fifth (22 percent) of all exit-poll respondents as the "most important issue" of the election. It's true that by four percentage points, people in states where gay marriage was on the ballot were more likely than people elsewhere to mention moral issues as a top priority (25.0 vs. 20.9 percent). But again, the causality is unclear. Did people in these states mention moral issues because gay marriage was on the ballot? Or was it on the ballot in places where people were already more likely to be concerned about morality?

More to the point, the morality gap didn't decide the election. Voters who cited moral issues as most important did give their votes overwhelmingly to Bush (80 percent to 18 percent), and states where voters saw moral issues as important were more likely to be red ones. But these differences were no greater in 2004 than in 2000. If you're trying to explain why the president's vote share in 2004 is bigger than his vote share in 2000, values don't help.

If the morality gap doesn't explain Bush's re-election, what does? A good part of the answer lies in the terrorism gap. Nationally, 49 percent of voters said they trusted Bush but not Kerry to handle terrorism; only 31 percent trusted Kerry but not Bush. This 18-point gap is particularly significant in that terrorism is strongly tied to vote choice: 99 percent of those who trusted only Kerry on the issue voted for him, and 97 percent of those who trusted only Bush voted for him. Terrorism was cited by 19 percent of voters as the most important issue, and these citizens gave their votes to the president by an even larger margin than morality voters: 86 percent for Bush, 14 percent for Kerry.

These differences hold up at the state level even when each state's past Bush vote is taken into account. When you control for that variable, a 10-point increase in the percentage of voters citing terrorism as the most important problem translates into a 3-point Bush gain. A 10-point increase in morality voters, on the other hand, has no effect. Nor does putting an anti-gay-marriage measure on the ballot. So, if you want to understand why Bush was re-elected, stop obsessing about the morality gap and start looking at the terrorism gap.

Now if you are a member of the left, and if you are reading this on tfp there is about a 75% chance you are, you should take heart. A persons morals do not change quickly, but national security thoughts can be.

sprocket · 11-07-2004, 12:53 AM

Good article. There does seem to be alot of assumption going around that this election was won by fundamentalist christians who vote was decided by "moral issues" (aka gay marriage). As that article points out it doesnt look like its that simple. I hope the Dems honestly try to get to the bottom it, instead of taking the bait and blaming everything on our new christian fundamentalist overlords.

As a sidenote, I really dont think that many people are all that concerned with gay marriage. Theres been a lot of publicity on an issue that many dont consider to be important. A few powerful people came out against it, and the backlash from the opposition has been severe. But the majority is apathetic. Most supporters will pay lip service to the fact that they support it, but at the end of the day, people arent dying because homesexuals cant marry. Its not a priorty.

Manx · 11-07-2004, 02:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

When, before the election was even over, stations like CBS were talking about it being an election on ‘morality’ my B.S. detectors were buzzing strongly. While undoubtedly moral issues would motivate some voters, its not as if the country is fundamentally different than it was in 2000 when it comes to morality. Without the morality vote, GWB may have lost but that means little in a close election, without any major groups support he would have lost. The morality issue has become a common theme among the left, and the ridicule of the ‘Jesusfreaks’ in the red states knows no limit. Such attacks only shows how little they understand what is happening or why blue is blue and red is red, and I should take heart in that for 2006, but as I’ve stated before I’m almost as worried at an all right nation as an all left nation.

Apparently I’m not the only one who feels that the issue was not morality and perhaps some of you may even trust the source. Its from slate.com , and currently slate.com is basically the democraticunderground.com with a better web design.

You discredit yourself by equating slate.com with democraticunderground.com.

Quote:

The evidence that having a gay-marriage ban on the ballot increased voter turnout is spotty. Marriage-ban states did see higher turnout than states without such measures. They also saw higher increases in turnout compared with four years ago. But these differences are relatively small. Based on preliminary turnout estimates, 59.5 percent of the eligible voting population turned out in marriage-ban states, whereas 59.1 percent turned out elsewhere. This is a microscopic gap when compared to other factors. For example, turnout in battleground states was more than 7.5 points higher than it was in less-competitive states, and it increased much more over 2000 as well.

This section is comparing apples to oranges. Why is the rate of voter turnout of battleground states being compared to voter turnout in marriage-ban states vs. elsewhere? The first sentence of the next paragraph (just below) makes this non-relation even more apparent.

Quote:

It's true that states with bans on the ballot voted for Bush at higher rates than other states. His vote share averaged 7 points higher in gay-marriage-banning states than in other states (57.9 vs. 50.9). But four years ago, when same-sex marriage was but a twinkle in the eye of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, Bush's vote share was 7.3 points higher in these same states than in other states. In other words, by a statistically insignificant margin, putting gay marriage on the ballot actually reduced the degree to which Bush's vote share in the affected states exceeded his vote share elsewhere.

This is an incredible logic leap. The gay marriage ban on the ballot reduced Bush's vote share? Isn't this exactly the type of logic leap that the article is attempting to refute, in reverse? Maybe his vote share dropped because those states lost so many jobs, but he was still able to win because the moral value voters showed up.

Quote:

Why did states with gay-marriage ballot measures vote so heavily for Bush? Because such measures don't appear on state ballots randomly. Opponents of gay marriage concentrate their efforts in states that are most hospitable to a ban and are most likely to vote for Bush even without such a ballot measure. A state's history of voting for Bush is more likely to lead to an anti-gay-marriage measure on that state's ballot than the other way around.

Let's look at the one state that actually means anything in this regard: Ohio. The rural vote in Ohio more than doubled (from 12% to 25%). 3/5ths of rural votes went to Bush. The increase in voter turnout in non-rural areas favored Kerry. It is the rural vote in Ohio which gave the election to Bush. The rural vote is comprised of predominantly social conservatives.

Quote:

Much has been made of the fact that "moral values" topped the list of voters' concerns, mentioned by more than a fifth (22 percent) of all exit-poll respondents as the "most important issue" of the election. It's true that by four percentage points, people in states where gay marriage was on the ballot were more likely than people elsewhere to mention moral issues as a top priority (25.0 vs. 20.9 percent). But again, the causality is unclear. Did people in these states mention moral issues because gay marriage was on the ballot? Or was it on the ballot in places where people were already more likely to be concerned about morality?

This point is misleading, and is ultimately the crux of the entire argument. It is attempting to demonstrate that there is a possibility that "people were more likely to be concerned" about morality therefore the ballot initiative had no relevance. But if people in those areas are more likely to be concerned about moral values, the ballot initiative would assuredly help draw them to the polling both more so than any other issue. And this is demonstrated to be true by the massive increase in rural voters.

Quote:

More to the point, the morality gap didn't decide the election. Voters who cited moral issues as most important did give their votes overwhelmingly to Bush (80 percent to 18 percent), and states where voters saw moral issues as important were more likely to be red ones. But these differences were no greater in 2004 than in 2000. If you're trying to explain why the president's vote share in 2004 is bigger than his vote share in 2000, values don't help.

As for this claim - I simply do not believe it. It offers no comparison other than a single, unsubstantiated declarative statement. Why am I to believe that moral values played much if any role in the 2000 election? Gun control, yes. Honesty, yes. But there was no gay marriage issue in 2000. There was no "Liberals want to ban the Bible" issue in 2000. A major portion of the GOP GOTV campaign in 2004 was the moral values aspect. Moral values was not an aspect of the exit polling in 2000 because it was never a factor.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Now if you are a member of the left, and if you are reading this on tfp there is about a 75% chance you are, you should take heart. A persons morals do not change quickly, but national security thoughts can be.

What you are attempting to demonstrate, that it is a fallacy to claim that Bush won solely on "moral" values, is obvious. What you fail to consider is that it was a major aspect of his win. This is evident by the overwhelming support for the gay marriage bans, the primary concern being moral values and the massive increase in rural voters.

But most importantly, you're barking up the wrong tree, Ustwo. It is not the claims of the liberals that are of concern here - it is the claims of the Religious Right. They are the ones claiming this election was a moral mandate. And they are fueled by Bush and Cheney's remarks stating they will reach out to everyone that shares their goals. Naturally, that would include the extra 4 million Evangelicals that Bush had failed to receive in 2000.

If you want to grasp onto the claim that this election was about terrorism, you're going to need to stop the Religious Right from stealing it from you. You're not going to prevent that here on TFP.

Ustwo · 11-07-2004, 09:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Manx

You discredit yourself by equating slate.com with democraticunderground.com.

You discredit yourself by showing you either have not been reading the slate op/eds since the election, or at all. Try this one on for size.

http://www.slate.com/id/2109218/

trickyy · 11-07-2004, 01:43 PM

while democrats could surely benefit from appearing to have some real moral convictions, the terrorism issue has not received as much press lately.
terrorism was definitely important; the concern was virtually non-existant 4 years ago.

but look at the states that are supposedly concerned...the south and the plains. NY, DC and LA, proven terrorist targets (the LAX plot was foiled), all voted heavily kerry. meanwhile boondocks, alabama and podunk, utah vote for bush. i find it kind of backwards.

i did a post a while back about the statistical insignificance of terrorism. if a mall is completely destroyed each week by terrorists, and you go to a mall for 2 hours a week, you have a 1:6,000,000 chance of being affected....twice as unlikely as being struck by lightning.

i'm not saying that we shouldn't keep terrorism in mind, and there are certainly aspects of the topic besides an attack on the individual american. but to have it as your main decision factor in the election, especially from the lily white, sparsely populated center of the country (where arabian jihadists would stick out prominently), is kind of ridiculous.

one more thing regarding the ballot issues and red states...some were a mixed bag of results. although montana went for bush and passed the gay marriage measure, it also elected a democratic governor and shifted the state legislature democratic. medicinal marijuana was approved along with several environmental ballot issues. i checked some history and it voted for clinton in 1992 instead of bush. so perhaps some red states are not as single-minded as it would appear at first.

here's the national exit polling, in case anyone is interested
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5297138/

Quote:

Which ONE issue mattered most in deciding how you voted for president? (Check only one)
Category.................% Total......Kerry.......Bush.....Nader
Taxes...........................5..........43.........57.........0
Education ......................4..........73.........26.........-
Iraq............................15..........73.........26.........0
Terrorism.....................19..........14.........86.........0
Economy/Jobs................20..........80........18.........0
Moral values..................22..........18.........80........1
Health care....................8...........77.........23........-

guy44 · 11-07-2004, 01:52 PM

Damn Manx, great job breaking down that piece. I read that a couple days ago and felt its logic was dubious, but wasn't going to spend the time to break it down. Nice job.

Obviously, Bush supporters weren't 100% people who just cared about gay marriage. The point is, Rove's strategy revolved around finding enough new voters from the conservative base to offset any increase in voters from the Democratic base. He did this through a variety of means, like semi-illegal push polling, strategically placed terror alerts, etc. One of those things was getting this dormant conservative base to come out and vote on an issue like gay marriage (or, in other states, push messages of abortion, or more general "morals" bullshit). So morals did play a signficant role, AMONGST NEW BUSH VOTERS, but no, it wasn't the only thing responsible for Bush's win.

The biggest thing is September 11th - if that hadn't happened, Bush would be waiting out his last couple of months after a boring and unsuccessful presidency. Honestly - and I'm speaking to everyone here - could you imagine people reelecting him with this terrible economy, underfunded education act, awful job loss, etc., without having had Sept. 11, Afghanistan, and Iraq to boost up his popularity? No way in hell.

Ustwo · 11-07-2004, 01:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by guy44

The biggest thing is September 11th - if that hadn't happened, Bush would be waiting out his last couple of months after a boring and unsuccessful presidency. Honestly - and I'm speaking to everyone here - could you imagine people reelecting him with this terrible economy, underfunded education act, awful job loss, etc., without having had Sept. 11, Afghanistan, and Iraq to boost up his popularity? No way in hell.

Sigh.....

Economy = fine, and would have been much better without 9/11. Try looking at the numbers.

Underfunded education act = Bush has spend more on education than any other president in history.

Awful job loss = See the economy and last months numbers.

It would be a very different world agreed, but that doesn't make the lefts lies about the economy and unemployment true.

joeshoe · 11-13-2004, 12:55 AM

I think morality played a big part in the election, as well as the issue of terrorism. It's the combination of different factors that create the total effect.

smooth · 11-13-2004, 03:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Sigh.....

Economy = fine, and would have been much better without 9/11. Try looking at the numbers.

Underfunded education act = Bush has spend more on education than any other president in history.

Awful job loss = See the economy and last months numbers.

It would be a very different world agreed, but that doesn't make the lefts lies about the economy and unemployment true.

yes, liberal lies

what ustwo has a very serious problem explaining is how he equates a job that leaves the shores paying $18+ per hour with its replacement that pays $5.25 per hour.

Or that the former was 40 hrs/week whereas the latter might give 20 hrs/week.

powerclown · 11-13-2004, 08:41 AM

I couldn't agree more. Iraq & Terrorism (I/T) won the election for Bush, not issues of morality. I/T was the main topic of discussion all campaign long, and its where 99% of almost a billion dollars in advertising (from both sides) was spent. Issues of morality and religion have been in every election since elections began. I/T put Bush over the top in this election.

Lebell · 11-13-2004, 09:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

You discredit yourself by showing you either have not been reading the slate op/eds since the election, or at all. Try this one on for size.

http://www.slate.com/id/2109218/

Ouch.

I didn't see that one.

DU indeed.

11-13-2004, 10:39 AM

I don't believe in morality. Many claim to know what "moral values" are, but they differ from person to person. Why? it's underlying beliefs that we are charged from, and that's why there is so much contreversy, war, hate, and crime in the world.

roachboy · 11-13-2004, 11:32 AM

i dont see any disconnect between the "terrorism" issue (vote for bush or you will die die die.. resolve resolve what matters is a photographic posture that implies resolve yes--without it you will die die die) and "moral" issues (discriminatory legislation or amendments--on the question of morality in general, nietzsche was right)--it would seem that one way to channel the fear used in the campaign to mobilize folk in a negative way (which is all the "terrorism" trope amounts to) would be to invest energy in questions that are irrelevant, that work on different grounds, that enact a flight away from the ugly history thing into a suffocating world of absolutes

maybe bush got one thing right, at bottom--change is scary...why face it when you can run from it. after all, you've got an otherwise inexplicable rise in protestant fundamentalism since the 1970s, which shows you pretty clearly that running away from a changing world appeals to alot of folks.
\
on the article itself, i think manx did a good job dismantling it. the problem seems not only one of internal logic, but also of spotty and questionable source material in exit polls. seems that the article was generated out of a desire to say something quick rather than as a result of a serious analysis. which would run into methodological problems from the outset. if you want to get a better idea of how one might think about this kind of cluster of issues and the rise of the new right, check out the work of sara diamond. it is not perfect, but it is more serious than the slate guy.

Tarl Cabot · 11-15-2004, 09:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Sigh.....

Economy = fine, and would have been much better without 9/11. Try looking at the numbers.

Underfunded education act = Bush has spend more on education than any other president in history.

Awful job loss = See the economy and last months numbers.

It would be a very different world agreed, but that doesn't make the lefts lies about the economy and unemployment true.

Quote:

Originally Posted by smooth

yes, liberal lies

what ustwo has a very serious problem explaining is how he equates a job that leaves the shores paying $18+ per hour with its replacement that pays $5.25 per hour.

Looks like you had to concede #1 and #2. As for #3, in a global economy, you can't sit back and relax. Once Henry Ford got cranked up, even if you were the best buggy-whip maker in the US, you had a problem.

But getting back to the election: Kerry had an even more serious problem in blaming job loss on Bush. Can you quote a single source that DOESN'T say the recession started in 2000?

Certainly not the House Budget Committee, who said:

"The most recent available data on gross domestic product [GDP] – released by the Commerce Department at the end of July – show that the pace of economic growth in 2000 was slipping faster than previously recognized, and that the recession of 2001 was more severe."

http://www.house.gov/budget/econup081402.htm

People also might have had trouble believing Kerry's "plan" which he claimed would create "10 million jobs." That's not a typo. I saw the video of him making that claim.

smooth · 11-15-2004, 10:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tarl Cabot

Looks like you had to concede #1 and #2. As for #3, in a global economy, you can't sit back and relax. Once Henry Ford got cranked up, even if you were the best buggy-whip maker in the US, you had a problem.

But getting back to the election: Kerry had an even more serious problem in blaming job loss on Bush. Can you quote a single source that DOESN'T say the recession started in 2000?

Certainly not the House Budget Committee, who said:

"The most recent available data on gross domestic product [GDP] – released by the Commerce Department at the end of July – show that the pace of economic growth in 2000 was slipping faster than previously recognized, and that the recession of 2001 was more severe."

http://www.house.gov/budget/econup081402.htm

People also might have had trouble believing Kerry's "plan" which he claimed would create "10 million jobs." That's not a typo. I saw the video of him making that claim.

I didn't concede anything, I chose not to get mired down in ridiculously broad and useless commentary on the US economy.

Here, for your enjoyment:

The economy isn't fine. It's balanced on the edge of a cliff according to all kinds of analysts--most of them conservatives.

Bush hasn't funded the school system more than any president in history.

Is that all it takes? I can regurgitate silly statements, too.

If you somehow manage to dig up any evidence for that notion, make sure it's in constant dollars, and recognize whether the funding is enough, not whether it's more the person before. Since I'd be surprised to find out you knew the baseline funding, why are you even giving so much currency to the notion that "more" funding has occurred?

It's this type of 'logic' that makes bush's other statements seem to make sense. The air is cleaner than it was when he took office--yep, if you fail to consider that when someone lowers the point where air is considered dirty and that the air you are breathing can still truthfully contain more chemicals in it and be simultaneously 'cleaner.'

Which wraps back to my original point. It's senseless to talk about job creation without recognizing what types of jobs are being lost and what they are being replaced with.

What kind of stepping up should american workers do?

maybe in your observations you have found people to just want to lay around the house. When I see workers, however, I see a lot of them begging their employers for more hours. But they are often kept hovering just below full-time status so as not to give them benefits.

Then we add in lower wages for service oriented jobs versus industrial.

Then we add in the decreasing buying power of the dollar over the past 4 decades.

and the picture starts to take on something approximating reality.

I would have thought these issues would have been made clear when white-collar jobs starting leaving our shores. before that it was the uneducated/unskilled who were at fault. but now it's american workers are just sloths and the workers making 50 cents a day are just better performers? that's a very odd view of how the economy works and what is beneficial to everyone involved in it.

Irony--you using Ford as an exemplar of the global economy. He would shit his pants at the logic of capitalists in this regard. Tell me, how often do you believe people in Singapore get to buy the shoes they produce? I don't get how people think others are going to consume their products if they can't afford the damn things. Henry sure understood this concept. So did Smith, BTW. I wish people would read the people they quote as the great leaders of capital instead of just spouting off what they believe as something those people actually said.

Kalibah · 11-16-2004, 01:12 AM

Bah
Its like Juan Williams arguing that 11 states had a good ol' "Gay bashing" party on election day. Just because I dont agree with it, or condone it doesnt mean Im gay bashing...

smooth · 11-16-2004, 02:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kalibah

Bah
Its like Juan Williams arguing that 11 states had a good ol' "Gay bashing" party on election day. Just because I dont agree with it, or condone it doesnt mean Im gay bashing...

AFAIK, our society doesn't traditionally ask the bashers whether they feel like they are doing something wrong.

Wouldn't it be sweet if racists got to dictate whether they were harming minorities?

Or domestic abusers whether their spouses and/or children were being physical harmed?

Or whether homophobic citizens were harming "gays" ?

Somehow that would be a very free nation indeed.

aliali · 11-16-2004, 08:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smooth

AFAIK, our society doesn't traditionally ask the bashers whether they feel like they are doing something wrong.

Wouldn't it be sweet if racists got to dictate whether they were harming minorities?

Or domestic abusers whether their spouses and/or children were being physical harmed?

Or whether homophobic citizens were harming "gays" ?

Somehow that would be a very free nation indeed.

I'm missing the point; probably just not getting the connection between your labels for people and what, if any, actions cause harm.

I don't know what makes someone a homophobe. If you support civil unions, but not marriage (as I guess both Bush and Kerry do), are you a homophobe? Are all of the people who voted against gay marriage homophobes regardless of their reasons?

jonjon42 · 11-16-2004, 08:47 PM

aliali
read up on Bush carefully. You shall see that the constitutional amendment that he supported does not make allowances for civil unions..

nor do I believe the majority of the 11 state initiatives...

aliali · 11-17-2004, 09:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jonjon42

aliali
read up on Bush carefully. You shall see that the constitutional amendment that he supported does not make allowances for civil unions..

nor do I believe the majority of the 11 state initiatives...

It is my understanding that Bush believes that marriage should be defined as between a man and a woman, but that the states should be free to allow civil unions. http://www.365gay.com/newscon04/10/102604bushMarr.htm

I think the constitutional amendment doesn't either approve of or outlaw civil unions. Is this it?:
Article --
`SECTION 1. Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution or the constitution of any State, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or group.

I think this means that a state can still give the benefits of marriage as long as it doesn't call it marriage. A civil union should still be allowed and the legal benefits of marriage can be conferred. The laws conferring the benefits, if they can be considered such, may need to be changed to say: married or civil unionized people. . .

I guess it is better to say that Bush believes any state should have the option to approve of civil unions and he does not oppose means other than marriage that confers the legal benefits of marriage on same sex couples. Better?

Kerry does not support the constitutional amendment, but does support a state by state banning of gay marriage, but does support civil unions. Sound about right?

I don't know about the separate ballot initiatives in the several states. However, a ban on gay marriage by itself does not ban civil unions. The language in each state will obviously answer the question.

smooth · 11-17-2004, 04:27 PM

aliali,

you posted the part that explicitly states non-married persons can not have the same legal standing as married couples.

How can you not understand that to mean civil unions will not have the same legal standing as married couples, given that the first line defines "marriage" as only between a man and a woman?

11-07-2004, 12:53 AM	#2 (permalink)
sprocket Psycho Location: In transit	Good article. There does seem to be alot of assumption going around that this election was won by fundamentalist christians who vote was decided by "moral issues" (aka gay marriage). As that article points out it doesnt look like its that simple. I hope the Dems honestly try to get to the bottom it, instead of taking the bait and blaming everything on our new christian fundamentalist overlords. As a sidenote, I really dont think that many people are all that concerned with gay marriage. Theres been a lot of publicity on an issue that many dont consider to be important. A few powerful people came out against it, and the backlash from the opposition has been severe. But the majority is apathetic. Most supporters will pay lip service to the fact that they support it, but at the end of the day, people arent dying because homesexuals cant marry. Its not a priorty. __________________ Remember, wherever you go... there you are.

11-07-2004, 01:52 PM	#6 (permalink)
guy44 Somnabulist Location: corner of No and Where	Damn Manx, great job breaking down that piece. I read that a couple days ago and felt its logic was dubious, but wasn't going to spend the time to break it down. Nice job. Obviously, Bush supporters weren't 100% people who just cared about gay marriage. The point is, Rove's strategy revolved around finding enough new voters from the conservative base to offset any increase in voters from the Democratic base. He did this through a variety of means, like semi-illegal push polling, strategically placed terror alerts, etc. One of those things was getting this dormant conservative base to come out and vote on an issue like gay marriage (or, in other states, push messages of abortion, or more general "morals" bullshit). So morals did play a signficant role, AMONGST NEW BUSH VOTERS, but no, it wasn't the only thing responsible for Bush's win. The biggest thing is September 11th - if that hadn't happened, Bush would be waiting out his last couple of months after a boring and unsuccessful presidency. Honestly - and I'm speaking to everyone here - could you imagine people reelecting him with this terrible economy, underfunded education act, awful job loss, etc., without having had Sept. 11, Afghanistan, and Iraq to boost up his popularity? No way in hell. __________________ "You have reached Ritual Sacrifice. For goats press one, or say 'goats.'"

11-13-2004, 11:32 AM	#13 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	i dont see any disconnect between the "terrorism" issue (vote for bush or you will die die die.. resolve resolve what matters is a photographic posture that implies resolve yes--without it you will die die die) and "moral" issues (discriminatory legislation or amendments--on the question of morality in general, nietzsche was right)--it would seem that one way to channel the fear used in the campaign to mobilize folk in a negative way (which is all the "terrorism" trope amounts to) would be to invest energy in questions that are irrelevant, that work on different grounds, that enact a flight away from the ugly history thing into a suffocating world of absolutes maybe bush got one thing right, at bottom--change is scary...why face it when you can run from it. after all, you've got an otherwise inexplicable rise in protestant fundamentalism since the 1970s, which shows you pretty clearly that running away from a changing world appeals to alot of folks. \ on the article itself, i think manx did a good job dismantling it. the problem seems not only one of internal logic, but also of spotty and questionable source material in exit polls. seems that the article was generated out of a desire to say something quick rather than as a result of a serious analysis. which would run into methodological problems from the outset. if you want to get a better idea of how one might think about this kind of cluster of issues and the rise of the new right, check out the work of sara diamond. it is not perfect, but it is more serious than the slate guy. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

11-16-2004, 08:47 PM	#19 (permalink)
jonjon42 Psycho Location: inside my own mind	aliali read up on Bush carefully. You shall see that the constitutional amendment that he supported does not make allowances for civil unions.. nor do I believe the majority of the 11 state initiatives... __________________ A damn dirty hippie without the dirty part....

11-17-2004, 04:27 PM	#21 (permalink)
smooth Junkie Location: Right here	aliali, you posted the part that explicitly states non-married persons can not have the same legal standing as married couples. How can you not understand that to mean civil unions will not have the same legal standing as married couples, given that the first line defines "marriage" as only between a man and a woman? __________________ "The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann "You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman

11-13-2004, 12:55 AM	#8 (permalink)
joeshoe Crazy Location: California	I think morality played a big part in the election, as well as the issue of terrorism. It's the combination of different factors that create the total effect.

11-13-2004, 08:41 AM	#10 (permalink)
powerclown Junkie Location: Detroit, MI	I couldn't agree more. Iraq & Terrorism (I/T) won the election for Bush, not issues of morality. I/T was the main topic of discussion all campaign long, and its where 99% of almost a billion dollars in advertising (from both sides) was spent. Issues of morality and religion have been in every election since elections began. I/T put Bush over the top in this election.

11-13-2004, 10:39 AM	#12 (permalink)
:::OshnSoul::: Guest	I don't believe in morality. Many claim to know what "moral values" are, but they differ from person to person. Why? it's underlying beliefs that we are charged from, and that's why there is so much contreversy, war, hate, and crime in the world.

11-16-2004, 01:12 AM	#16 (permalink)
Kalibah Insane Location: Padded Playhouse	Bah Its like Juan Williams arguing that 11 states had a good ol' "Gay bashing" party on election day. Just because I dont agree with it, or condone it doesnt mean Im gay bashing...