Defeating Gay Marriage A Political Winner
An analysis of the Texan vote on Proposition 2, amending the Texas Constitution to define marriage as between a man and a woman, shows just how much harm was done to the gay marriage movement by the premature unilateralism of the Massachusetts Supreme Court and Mayor Gavin Newsom of San Francisco.
There are 255 counties in Texas, including the major metropolitan areas of Dallas-Ft. Worth, Houston, San Antonio, Austin, and El Paso. In all these areas, only in ultra-liberal Austin was the proposition defeated, and even here, 40% of the voters backed the amendment. Further, the overall margin for the measure statewide was 76-24; removing Austin moves the margin up more than two full percentage points.
Another way of looking at the numbers: 104 of the 255 counties of Texas approved the margin by more than 90%. Those 104 counties had a turnout of 24.72%, a full 7 percentage points higher than the statewide average. The more opposed, then, the more motivated to vote…
Backers of gay marriage will no doubt point to results like this and say it is a measure of how bigoted Texas remains towards homosexuals, and opponents will say it’s a sign that traditional values are respected far more by the general populace then they are outside of the ‘cultural centers’ of New York and Los Angeles (i.e., the ‘Jesusland’ thing). Maybe both are right, maybe neither, but tactically, the moves by Newsom and the Massachusetts Justices have failed miserably.
I’ve tried to be fair to both points of view in this analysis, but clearly the lesson is this: gay marriage is deeply unpopular with the vast majority of Americans. Perhaps if the proponents had given the issue more time, and continued the comparisons with the struggle for racial civil rights, that would have changed, and maybe it still will. As it is, with 19 states already banning the practice, and more no doubt to follow, by then, the battle may be lost irretrievably…
UPDATE 3:30 p.m.: Ryan James notices a most hilarious bit of spinning:
Reverend Michael S. Piazza, president of Hope for Peace & Justice, a faith-based organization headquartered in Dallas, Texas, noted today that only eight percent of all Texans support banning gay marriage in the state. Of the more than 22 million citizens of Texas, only 1.7 million voted in favor of Constitutional Amendment Two, the so-called Texas “Marriage Amendment.”
…“Ninety-two percent of all Texans either voted against Constitutional Amendment Two or didn’t vote at all,” Rev. Piazza said.
Read the rest of Ryan’s post for his witty rejoinder…
I think that part of the unpopularity with it has more to do with the confrontational manner of the pro-gay-marriage camp than anything else. I argued a number of years ago to a friend that it might be prudent to go small-steps and try for something more attainable like civil unions (not unlike the French PACS model). The friend’s response was that he felt no need to justify himself to those in power who may have had an affair while married or even divorced and remarried. I mentioned that, true though that may be, they were still in power and one would catch more flies with honey than vinegar.
Fast forward 10 years or so – we’ve now gotten a rather unpopular law imposed upon us by judicial fiat here in Massachusetts. One group tried to get the marriage question on the ballot, but couldn’t get enough signatures on their petition due to a couple factors: one polling company was accused of getting people to sign the petition under false pretenses (who signs anything without reading it?) and out and out intimidation by gay rights groups (one group threatened to publish the names, addresses, phone numbers of anyone who signed the referendum petition). Have also seen some seriously nasty treatment of the people trying to get signatures.
Though I back civil unions of some sort, I don’t back changing the definition of marriage. I also think, based on the behavior of some activists (entitlement combined with anti-straight, anti-other-points of view bigotry), that some folks deserve fewer, rather than more rights. Not a good job in the PR department, as I’m a self-professed fruit-fly from Cambridge.
bebere, without a doubt, the confrontational style is a loser…if Malcom X had been the only civil rights icon during the 1960′s, few of the resulting gains would have been made…Martin Luther King understood that only by appealing to the better side of white Americans, until they were ashamed or angry at the discrimination taking place, could the country finally be moved to tackle the issues…
Note that I’m not equating the gay marriage movement with the civil rights movement; I’m merely reiterating, as I said in my post, that tactically, that would have been the better route…
Gay marriage?
Then bigamy is not a crime.
I’m all over the polygamy thing…
one wife that works, one that cooks, one to raise the kids…maybe one that is a doctor that will keep me rolling in viagra…sigh.
earnings would improve drastically for Americans.
ABC would get several new sit coms.
I can’t understand why the gay community thinks they should only complain about the unfairness of marriage laws relating to them, but won’t help me in my cause.
I’ll let Santorum argue the bestiality issue. (who comes up with his talking points anyway?)
Bottom line:no MTL sandwich by law, no gay marriage by law.
Mark – I agree with you on that. I’m very sympathetic to the cause of giving same sex couples the same legal protections as hetero couples. The whole framing this as a culture war, however, has really soured me.
Creative spin from the losing side on this:
Since only 8% of Texans voted for Prop 2, 92% must be against it.
http://ryanjames.tv/ryanvox/?p=167
If Patrick Fitzgerald were gay, his lover could be Gerald Fitzpatrick…