Friday, July 16, 2004

Same sex

Hmmm why did they push an amendment that they knew would fail?   A lot of people have asked that same question; I heard rush talking about it and several others I read have also asked that same question.    My take on the issue was that they were bringing it to give another point of distinction.  Their are few issues you can be either for or against.  Gay marriage, abortion are a couple of those issues.  
The GOP did it to solidify their base.  


Stephen said...

I didn't agree with that amendment push. I am a conservative when it comes to economic policies, and abortion, but the marriage thing is one area I disagree.

I don't care though, I'll still vote republican.

Andrew said...

The simplest political science explanation is:

They raised discussion on banning gay marriage because it's a divisive topic that reaches the constituency of both parties. So firstly, discussion of gay marriage issues could energize the Republican base, as you pointed out. In addition to that, a roll call vote, as was called in the Senate, would prompt Democrats to supposedly "show their hand". By coming down aganist it for whatever reason (state's rights or topical disagreement) Democrats become susceptible to Republican campaigns that emphasize the vote to anti-gay-marriage Democrats.

Bills that are known to fail are raised this way all the time, by both parties, and in every kind of democratic body. It allows one campaign to truthfully offer a soundbite like: "see? they voted AGAINST policy X!", and leaves the other campaign to defend itself in a crappy position. Most voters won't bother to listen as a campaign responds with "Well, yeah, we did cast a negative vote on that bill, but it was because of terrible provisions A, B, and C, not because I'm really against policy X in general."

That's one of the advantages that non-congressional candidates have in the presidential elections. They have fewer tricky, traded, or nuanced votes to be misconstrued against them.