Is this the way to win in 2006?
So there is now a push in 16 states to ban gay adoption. The Republican leadership hopes that it will draw the base out of their homes and into the polls in 2006. All I can say is, "Not so fast, Republican leadership."
The idea is that it worked in 2004 when they used the gay marriage issue to get conservatives out. Unfortunately, gay adoption is hardly a pressing issue that the average American is concerned about. In fact, the Republicans run the risk of bringing out the REALLY REALLY conservative base at the expense of moderates who will think it's all a bit silly.
Gay adoptions account for less than 1/10 of a percent of all adoptions in the U.S. That is an issue that definitely needs attention, don't you think?
Bush is looking at some major losses in congress this fall if he doesn't give up on this UAE Ports wackiness and find some other issue to rally the troops around. This is an assertion based on the political reality and it has amazed many Republicans (including myself) how we EVER elect officials to office. So many political blunders have been made, which must show that the American people agree with us on substance. They probably hold their noses while pulling the lever saying to themselves "why can't you guys find some better way to package your message?" But man, Rove and Melman could not see an opportunity to win seats if it jumped up and bit them in the ass.
I pray the party will rethink this strategy. It makes us look like a bunch of weirdos.
Here is the story
posted by Scott Klajic @ 10:10 PM
4 comments
4 Comments:
It's difficult to say these days what is or is not a non-issue for Americans. You state that gay adoption is not really on the radar of most Americans, but what is that very assertion based upon? After all, we all know that any article that criticizes gay adoption will be stillborn. The 'con' side of the argument will never make any major media venue with serious consideration. The liberal media has been successful in their marginalization of those who dissent the fashionable concept of gay adoption as 'extremists'. When the standard is moved so far to the left, how can any differing opinion be viewed otherwise?
I suspect that in rural America, there may be less concern about global warming or muslims rioting in Europe than what they see as affecting their lives, in their homes and schools.
Given the prior success of 11 pro-traditional marriage ballot initiatives in all 11 states that brought them forth, I find it difficult to argue the record, notwithstanding the method. I too saw the tactic as tacky, but the strategy brilliant. And lest ye forget, Bush won re-election largely on the 'character issue' in '04. Many post-election surveys bear this out as fact.
Much rests on how strident this new anti gay adoption strategy is delivered. Sure, if it's Fred Phelps shrieking everywhere-(you seem fixated on this person as representational of Christians in America),-than this will be a loser issue. If, however, this issue is eased into the social consciousness as one of defense of traditional values and family, while delicately respecting the rights of homosexuals, it can succeed.
But it is a gamble.
Many Americans are much more concerned with our borders and immigration as it affects the war on terror more than social issues of the moment. I realize this contradicts my previous statements, but it’s a simple issue of timing. If the war drags on without clear victories, political or military, the electorate grows impatient. Add to this calculus the egg timer effect. Bush will be officially a lame duck in 9 months, a blink of an eye in political time. With Roberts and Alito confirmed, the time is ripe to pursue these admittedly back-burner issues. In the long term, bringing gay adoption forward now is good triangulation for revisiting Roe v. Wade, which may actually be the bulls-eye on George Bush’s wall. If conservatives are in the mood by November 2006 to address gay adoption, and the Democrats scream ‘tolerance over all’, then the GOP does in fact position themselves as defenders of family values while Democrats are seen as obstructionists.
Morally, however, I could not disagree with you more. Gay adoption is a post-modernist social experiment more about being tolerant and accepting than it is about doing what’s right for children. In fact, many gays themselves do not support gay marriage for the very reasons that affect being gay: it’s a difficult world, and made all the more difficult for a young child when he has to constantly explain and/or defend his home life. I have heard Al Rantel say this very thing on air. Many offer the retort that ‘love is all that matters to a child’. As a parent, I can tell you that is garbage of the worst variety. When a kid is viewed is different, he is often picked on. Result?-hate crime/hate speech legislation, reminiscent of Soviet-era speech codes. When social meddling is forced upon us, force is required to maintain a false sense of normalcy.
Gays have all the rights of any American, and now benefit from a victim status. There are gay kisses on prime time, gay TV shows, gay day at Disneyland, mortgage lenders specifically for gays, even all gay cruise ships. There is no shortage of education about the gay world. I support their rights to health care, co-habitation, even civil unions for legal purposes. But I will never condone a mockery of marriage, and more importantly the distortion of the family that consists of a man, a woman, and their children.
Having said that, I realize that there are in fact loving, committed gay couples doing the best they can for their adopted children. No doubt some of these children will grow up to be successful, well adjusted adults. But they will always be in the vast minority.
But we are a nation of majority rule, and for good reason.
ps- You have many times advocated states rights. From the article you cite:
"Florida has banned all gays and lesbians from adopting since 1977, although they can be foster parents. State court challenges and a campaign by entertainer Rosie O'Donnell to overturn the law have failed. A pending bill would allow judges to grant exceptions.
Mississippi bans adoption by gay couples, but gay singles can adopt. Utah prohibits all unmarried couples from adoption."
So, are states rights only 'good' when you agree with the issue?
As example,Roe v. Wade is bad law for this very reason, and should be overturned. You shoul din support of these states regardless if you like the policy or not, if you are to maintain a professed reverence for the Constitution.
It's a tough one. I for one wrestle with states rights. My state decides what type of firearm I can own, even though the 2nd amendment offers no such specificity. Yet the alternative is centralized federal decree.
Pick your poison.
I will always defend the states rights to have whatever policy they want regarding gay adoption. The problem is it's being presented as some kind of national level party push. Of course, the party has the rigt to make that push at the state level if they want, but they still run the risk of looking like they are preoccupied with something the majority of Americans don't care about.
The "immigration as a national security problem" seems like a better strategy, because everybody agrees it's an issue.
I agree. As Tammy Bruce -(lesbian ex-L.A. chapter president of N.O.W., turned conservative republican)- has said, these social issues are luxury items, not worthy of consideration at this time of war and national security.
but as I said above, the meter is running on the Bush administration. If the 06' mid-terms go south, there will not be anohter chance to sort this gay adoption issue out unless the GOP manages to keep the white house in 2008, which I think is next impossible.
Post a Comment
<< Home