Is the Republicans key social issue of gay marriage losing it's appeal?

[techs]

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com..._detail_ektid10443.asp
http://www.boston.com/news/loc...s_oppose_gay_marriage/


Up until now, according to the database compiled by PollingReport.com, the closest gay marriage had come to achieving a plurality on the first type of poll was from a Time/SRBI survey in August, 2008, in which likely voters were evenly divided 47-47 on their support for gay marriage rights. However, a new poll from ABC News and the Washington Post gives gay marriage an outright plurality, with 49 percent of adults supporting gay marriage and 46 percent opposed

A University of New Hampshire poll shows that residents of New Hampshire now support gay marriage by 45 percent to 41 percent. Just 2.5 years ago it was the other way with 55 percent opposed to 35 percent in favor.




And for the GOP the demographics are startling. Those under 30 are overwhelmingly for gay marriage. Other social issues like abortion show the same divide.
With Obama getting something like 70 percent of the under 30 vote are we seeing the end of the Republican parties key social issues declining to the point of irrelevance?
With not only more and more people against the GOP's stance on social issues as the older generation dies off and the younger generation takes over, the values of those not under thirty show continued shifts away for the GOP.

 

[Genx87]

You act as if this hasnt happened in the past. Both parties have been reduced to their base in the past. Both parties recovered. The Republican party will change with the times.

 

[nageov3t]

it's not like the democrats are much better, Obama still thinks I should be drinking from a different water fountain than him.

 

[techs]

Originally posted by: Genx87
You act as if this hasnt happened in the past. Both parties have been reduced to their base in the past. Both parties recovered. The Republican party will change with the times.

Yeah. I guess you're right.
A gay marriage, abortion supporting GOP candidate for President will clearly win the GOP Presidential nomination in by 2016.
Not.
As the GOP shrinks to its base it will take years, maybe a decade or two before the GOPs social issue base loses its dominance.

 

[Dman877]

The under thirty crowd has never been solidly republican anyway. The GOP can rely on the fact that a lot of people tend to get more conservative as they get older. The issues will be different from generation to generation but there will always be people resisting change.

 

[Hacp]

They key anything issue about the Republican party is taxes, the economy, and jobs. Lower taxes and you'll get a better economy which will create more jobs.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: techs

Originally posted by: Genx87
You act as if this hasnt happened in the past. Both parties have been reduced to their base in the past. Both parties recovered. The Republican party will change with the times.

Yeah. I guess you're right.
A gay marriage, abortion supporting GOP candidate for President will clearly win the GOP Presidential nomination in by 2016.
Not.
As the GOP shrinks to its base it will take years, maybe a decade or two before the GOPs social issue base loses its dominance.

Highly unlikely

 

[Jeffg010]

Keep dreaming with the polls. Why don't you put it to the test and have the voters vote on gay marriage? How about the states that passed gay marriage have the voters vote on that but oh we can't have that, remember Prop 8?

 

[PokerGuy]

Polls are misleading because people are afraid to seem not-politically-correct. Every place where there's an actual (secret) vote, the general public has come out on the other side of the fense (prop 8 anyone?). Even the "dear leader" said he was opposed to gay marriage.

Also, you seem to think that because people under 30 tend to think a certain way about something that they will always maintain the same stance. In some cases, thats true, in others, it's not. People grow up, they drop some of their youthful stupidity and become less naive when they have a mortgage, a real job and obligations.

In short: wishful thinking on your part.

 

[jackschmittusa]

The "more conservative as they grow older" effect simply means that after a time, people become comfortable with the status quo, and often do not support anything that might rock the boat. Having a mortgage and other obligations just raises the stakes.

They may well continue to support issues such as gay marriage and abortion rights as they age, simply as these issues do not threaten their economic status quo.


edited: spelling

 

[feralkid]

Originally posted by: Dman877
The under thirty crowd has never been solidly republican anyway. The GOP can rely on the fact that a lot of people tend to get more conservative as they get older. The issues will be different from generation to generation but there will always be people resisting change.

Sure, fiscally not socially.

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: loki8481
it's not like the democrats are much better, Obama still thinks I should be drinking from a different water fountain than him.

What? I didn't see that one.

 

[jman19]

Originally posted by: loki8481
it's not like the democrats are much better, Obama still thinks I should be drinking from a different water fountain than him.

Link? Or troll++?

 

[Jaskalas]

Gay marriage is a lost issue, as people continue to become more liberal every generation.

Of course, I don't know why you care so much about it either. I certainly don't.

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Gay marriage is a lost issue, as people continue to become more liberal every generation.

Of course, I don't know why you care so much about it either. I certainly don't.

I'm going to go out on a limb and assume that's because you're not a gay person who wants to marry. Is that the way it works? If I'm not a minority, female, gay, disabled, etc I shouldn't give a shit about equal rights for them? Come on.

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: loki8481
it's not like the democrats are much better, Obama still thinks I should be drinking from a different water fountain than him.

What? I didn't see that one.

I have a sickeningly familiar feeling in my stomach, and the feeling deepens with every interaction with the Obama team on these issues. They want them to go away. They want us to go away.

Here we are, in the summer of 2009, with gay service members still being fired for the fact of their orientation. Here we are, with marriage rights spreading through the country and world and a president who cannot bring himself even to acknowledge these breakthroughs in civil rights, and having no plan in any distant future to do anything about it at a federal level. Here I am, facing a looming deadline to be forced to leave my American husband for good, and relocate abroad because the HIV travel and immigration ban remains in force and I have slowly run out of options (unlike most non-Americans with HIV who have no options at all).

And what is Obama doing about any of these things? What is he even intending at some point to do about these things? So far as I can read the administration, the answer is: nada. We're firing Arab linguists? So sorry. We won't recognize in any way a tiny minority of legally married couples in several states because they're, ugh, gay? We had no idea. There's a ban on HIV-positive tourists and immigrants? Really? Thanks for letting us know. Would you like to join Joe Solmonese and John Berry for cocktails? The inside of the White House is fabulous these days.

Yesterday, Robert Gibbs gave non-answer after non-answer on civil unions and Obama's clear campaign pledge to grant equal federal rights for gay couples; non-answer after non-answer on the military's remaining ban on honest servicemembers. What was once a categorical pledge is now - well let's call it the toilet paper that it is. I spent yesterday trying to get a better idea of what's intended on all fronts, and the overwhelming sense - apart from a terror of saying anything about gay people on the record - is that we are in the same spot as in every Democratic administration: the well-paid leaders of the established groups get jobs and invites, and that's about it. Worse: we will get a purely symbolic, practically useless hate crimes bill that they will then wave in our faces to prove they need do nothing more...

Translation: we're doing the bare minimum to make us look no worse than Bush, but we have no real interest in this and are letting the bureaucracy handle it, and we guarantee nothing. On gay servicemembers, the president is writing personal notes to those he has fired and intends to continue firing. Will he write some personal notes to the people with HIV he deports? Will he write personal notes to the gay spouses suddenly without a home or their late spouse's savings or forced by his administration to relocate abroad because he has no intention of actually fulfilling his promises?

the fierce urgency of whenever

but Obama supports separate but equal civil unions, so I guess it's all good and we should just give him a free pass.

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: loki8481
it's not like the democrats are much better, Obama still thinks I should be drinking from a different water fountain than him.

What? I didn't see that one.

I have a sickeningly familiar feeling in my stomach, and the feeling deepens with every interaction with the Obama team on these issues. They want them to go away. They want us to go away.

Here we are, in the summer of 2009, with gay service members still being fired for the fact of their orientation. Here we are, with marriage rights spreading through the country and world and a president who cannot bring himself even to acknowledge these breakthroughs in civil rights, and having no plan in any distant future to do anything about it at a federal level. Here I am, facing a looming deadline to be forced to leave my American husband for good, and relocate abroad because the HIV travel and immigration ban remains in force and I have slowly run out of options (unlike most non-Americans with HIV who have no options at all).

And what is Obama doing about any of these things? What is he even intending at some point to do about these things? So far as I can read the administration, the answer is: nada. We're firing Arab linguists? So sorry. We won't recognize in any way a tiny minority of legally married couples in several states because they're, ugh, gay? We had no idea. There's a ban on HIV-positive tourists and immigrants? Really? Thanks for letting us know. Would you like to join Joe Solmonese and John Berry for cocktails? The inside of the White House is fabulous these days.

Yesterday, Robert Gibbs gave non-answer after non-answer on civil unions and Obama's clear campaign pledge to grant equal federal rights for gay couples; non-answer after non-answer on the military's remaining ban on honest servicemembers. What was once a categorical pledge is now - well let's call it the toilet paper that it is. I spent yesterday trying to get a better idea of what's intended on all fronts, and the overwhelming sense - apart from a terror of saying anything about gay people on the record - is that we are in the same spot as in every Democratic administration: the well-paid leaders of the established groups get jobs and invites, and that's about it. Worse: we will get a purely symbolic, practically useless hate crimes bill that they will then wave in our faces to prove they need do nothing more...

Translation: we're doing the bare minimum to make us look no worse than Bush, but we have no real interest in this and are letting the bureaucracy handle it, and we guarantee nothing. On gay servicemembers, the president is writing personal notes to those he has fired and intends to continue firing. Will he write some personal notes to the people with HIV he deports? Will he write personal notes to the gay spouses suddenly without a home or their late spouse's savings or forced by his administration to relocate abroad because he has no intention of actually fulfilling his promises?

the fierce urgency of whenever

but Obama supports separate but equal civil unions, so I guess it's all good and we should just give him a free pass.

I figured you had a link. Thanks for the read. Hopefully the Obama administration pulls their heads out of their arses and follows through on same sex marriage and DADT. I think they want to but don't want to risk their political necks - not right now anyway. They are, after all, politicians seeking reelection.

 

[ProfJohn]

I don't think peoples opinions on gay marriage will change as they get older. Unlikely that people who support it now will change back at any time in the future. Gay marriage will happen sooner or later, or civil unions will replace gay marriage as a legal status used by states.

That in itself does not ensure a Democratic majority though.

What will happen is that as Democrats go further and further left on fiscal and other issues the people who are in the middle who voted for Obama because they want change will turn back the other direction and vote for a Republican candidate.

And let's not forget one key point:

All this talk about how the Republicans are becoming the party of religion etc etc and yet we nominated one of the least religious candidates in decades. Mike Huckabee was the religious conservative in the Republican primary and he finished a distant third or worse in every primary until it was just him and McCain.

 

[jman19]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
I don't think peoples opinions on gay marriage will change as they get older. Unlikely that people who support it now will change back at any time in the future. Gay marriage will happen sooner or later, or civil unions will replace gay marriage as a legal status used by states.

That in itself does not ensure a Democratic majority though.

What will happen is that as Democrats go further and further left on fiscal and other issues the people who are in the middle who voted for Obama because they want change will turn back the other direction and vote for a Republican candidate.

And let's not forget one key point:

All this talk about how the Republicans are becoming the party of religion etc etc and yet we nominated one of the least religious candidates in decades. Mike Huckabee was the religious conservative in the Republican primary and he finished a distant third or worse in every primary until it was just him and McCain.

The problem is that the Republicans first have to get their shit together, which doesn't seem to be happening. In fact it looks like they are moving even further to the right. I know most republicans don't like the "big tent" idea, and I don't blame them, but I do think they'll need to be a bit selective as to where they are conservative (economics) and where they should be more moderate (socially).

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: jman19
The problem is that the Republicans first have to get their shit together, which doesn't seem to be happening. In fact it looks like they are moving even further to the right. I know most republicans don't like the "big tent" idea, and I don't blame them, but I do think they'll need to be a bit selective as to where they are conservative (economics) and where they should be more moderate (socially).

The same could have been said about the Democrats after the 2004 election loss.

In 2004 the Dems nominated a very liberal New England Senator and lost.

So what do they do in 2008?? They nominated an even MORE liberal Senator.

Thus proving that the 'they must move to the middle' idea is a bunch of BS. All they really have to do is differentiate themselves from the Democrats and if the Democrats are unpopular in 2012 or 2016 that might be all it takes to win.


IMO they should move to the middle on social issue, but to the right on fiscal issues. Which is what will most likely happen as middle of the road independents who are unhappy with the Democrats move to the left will move into the Republican Party pushing it in those directions.

 

[jman19]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: jman19
The problem is that the Republicans first have to get their shit together, which doesn't seem to be happening. In fact it looks like they are moving even further to the right. I know most republicans don't like the "big tent" idea, and I don't blame them, but I do think they'll need to be a bit selective as to where they are conservative (economics) and where they should be more moderate (socially).

The same could have been said about the Democrats after the 2004 election loss.

In 2004 the Dems nominated a very liberal New England Senator and lost.

So what do they do in 2008?? They nominated an even MORE liberal Senator.

Thus proving that the 'they must move to the middle' idea is a bunch of BS. All they really have to do is differentiate themselves from the Democrats and if the Democrats are unpopular in 2012 or 2016 that might be all it takes to win.


IMO they should move to the middle on social issue, but to the right on fiscal issues. Which is what will most likely happen as middle of the road independents who are unhappy with the Democrats move to the left will move into the Republican Party pushing it in those directions.

Wait, you just said they shouldn't move more to the middle, yet the first sentence of your last paragraph repeats exactly what I said. You might also want to note that I never said they should be more moderate as a whole, but that they might need to be more moderate in certain areas if they want to be successful in the future.

The Democrats didn't win because they nominated someone more liberal, sorry. They won because they were unwilling to change their image.

 

[MovingTarget]

A strong majority of Americans still support not changing the definition of marriage to be between members of the same sex. However, I think the Republicans instead realize that their days of using it is a wedge issue are numbered not because of changing social opinions, but because of people waking up to all the other crap they pulled once put into office over this (and other equally divisive) social issues. Out of a job in a flooded labor market? At least we're anti-gay marriage/pro-life! Have fun in the unemployment lines while we proceed to do nothing to help!

 

[Pulsar]

Truthfully, I believe that in large part the majority of the folks who are against some form of same-sex union are against it for religious reasons.

The Republicans have not signalled, however, that they are ready to begin moving away from their far-right wing religious base. Therefore you can be sure this will continue to be an issue - even if it's only a minor one - for the forseeable future.

In much the same way that abortion rights were pretty much decided a long ago, but are still debated to win over a group of voters, this will still be debated over. Both cater to the same group of.... people.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: Pulsar
Truthfully, I believe that in large part the majority of the folks who are against some form of same-sex union are against it for religious reasons.

Poll after poll shows the strongest indicating factor for opposition to same sex marriage is frequency of church attendance. The IA court addressed in their opinion that when you put aside all the purported arguments against same sex marriage (which do not pass constitutional muster), the real driving force behind the opposition movement is religious arguments...which do not pass constitutional muster.

"Now that we have
addressed and rejected each specific interest advanced by the County to
justify the classification drawn under the statute, we consider the reason for
the exclusion of gay and lesbian couples from civil marriage left unspoken by
the County: religious opposition to same-sex marriage. The County?s silence
reflects, we believe, its understanding this reason cannot, under our Iowa
Constitution, be used to justify a ban on same-sex marriage.
While unexpressed, religious sentiment most likely motivates many, if
not most, opponents of same-sex civil marriage and perhaps even shapes the
views of those people who may accept gay and lesbian unions but find the
notion of same-sex marriage unsettling."

 

[OCGuy]

Youths are growing up in a much more gay-tolerant society (In the media anyway. Im sure outed gay kids still have to deal with a lot in the locker room and on the school yard.)

It is only a matter of time before gay marriage is devoid of its shock value and everyone can just go on with their lives. Once the ball of change starts rolling, it isnt going to be stopped by religion and old people.