Court Ruling Puts Bush, Rivals in Bind re: gay marriage

[LWolf]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20030710/ap_on_el_pr/gay_rights_politics_2

<snip>

As a result, the Democratic candidates have adopted a cover-all-angles position: While the top six candidates all say they oppose same-sex marriages, they reject the notion of a constitutional amendment that would ban such unions.

<snip>

Of the nine Democrats, only Al Sharpton, Carol Moseley Braun and Rep. Dennis Kucinich (news, bio, voting record) of Ohio have indicated their support for gay marriages, said David Smith of the Human Rights Campaign, the nation's largest gay rights group.

[jody]

1. Isn't it possible the ruling gives Bush a campaign issue "Elect me if

you want a Supreme Court that will rule against gay marriages"

[LWolf]

2. Maybe, but

as strongly as some on the right feel about the issue, I don't think it can distract from the lies, the budget, and the fraudulent spending of american blood.

[villager]

3. SF Chronicle ran this analysis...

...before the ruling. I had it posted on the old DU board:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Landmark gay ruling may put Bush in bind

Carolyn Lochhead, Chronicle Washington Bureau
Sunday, June 15, 2003

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Washington -- The Supreme Court will decide within the next two weeks one of the most important cases in the history of civil rights for lesbian and gay Americans, reigniting a battle in the Republican Party that President Bush has delicately sought to avoid.

At issue in Lawrence and Garner vs. Texas is a state sodomy law that strikes the most fundamental chords within the GOP and threatens to split two party blocs pivotal to Bush's re-election.

<snip>

WARY OF GAY MARRIAGE
On the other side are those who back the Texas law based on their religious and moral convictions. Members of these groups, which make up a big chunk of the conservative GOP base, warn that equal protection for sodomy is a giant step toward gay marriage -- still unacceptable to most Americans -- and that no politician, including Bush, a former Texas governor, will be allowed to abide it.

Republicans generally, and the White House specifically, largely avoid the topic for fear of alienating either side. But that tactic may not work when the Supreme Court issues its ruling either this Monday or next.

"The implications of this case are difficult to overestimate," said Patrick Guerriero, executive director of the Log Cabin Republicans, a gay Republican group. "It would be a grave mistake for the White House to say in the year 2003 that laws should allow police to enter homes of consensual adults. . . . It's out of the mainstream, it's a politically losing point and would only cater to the fringe, radical-right elements of our party."

Ken Connor, president of the conservative Family Research Council, insisted that if the high court rules against Texas, Republicans will be expected to muster a vigorous defense of heterosexual marriage and traditional family values.

"Regardless of their desires to the contrary, Republicans will not be able to duck-and-cover on this issue," Connor said. "The debate will elevate to a white-hot temperature about what the role of marriage is in society."


<snip>

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2003/06/15/MN184416.DTL