The Gay Marriage Debate

How Both Parties Disappoint in Determining Gay Rights

Nicholas Katers

Having heard discussions in Congress regarding a constitutional amendment protecting traditional marriage, I am bothered by the way both parties are approaching it. I suppose I am not surprised that the Republicans are using such a tactic in order to distract America's attention from foreign policy and the economic disasters of the past few years. It is obvious that the doctrine of the Bush administration and the Republican Party is one of controlling the American public when controlling the rest of the world fails.

I am agitated by the fact that the Democratic Party, the "party of inclusion,"is not making many comments in the process of discussing this amendment. The strategy of crossing fingers and hoping the Republicans will stop won't work. Say what you will about the conservative movement, but their dogged devotion to conservative causes has been proved issue by issue. The reason we have two major parties is to represent the different ideas of the American public. Democrats must speak out for the liberal constituency in this nation that is going without voice in many cases, or the Democratic Party will fall apart and fail to regain power.

There are some good and bad signs for the gay community in this debate. The Democratic Party under chairman Howard Dean has adopted the 50 state strategy, bringing Democratic politics to areas in the South and West that have had little in the way of Democratic structure. One way in which this has manifested itself has been an increase in local elections where Republicans don't go unchallenged. Another is the increasing poll numbers nationwide for Democratic candidates, especially in areas that are considered deeply conservative.

However, the recent passage of state constitutional amendments defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman has to be disconcerting to gay activists. In places like Mississippi and Alabama, such amendments are none too surprising but in more progressive states like Wisconsin, the gay marriage issue has been hotly contested heading into the 2006 midterm elections. The 2006 midterm elections may aid the effort of gay activists because of the failure of Republicans to cement many of their safe seats in Congress and the improving ability of Democrats to play hardball politics. In the end, the Democrats will not gain as much ground in state and national elections as they would hope and gay activists will be disappointed at the results of state amendment votes. While people are becoming more comfortable with the idea of gay marriage, there are still a lot of conservative Christians and others in conservative areas who are influential enough to add more discomfort to the debate. It may take until the 2008 presidential election before headway is made on gay marriage at the national level.

Published by Nicholas Katers

Nicholas Katers is a graduate of University of Wisconsin-Green Bay (BA, 2003) and the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee (MA, 2007) in History and currently a freelance writer. You can find his work in the In...  View profile

8 Comments

Post a Comment
  • jason4/23/2007

    and by the way there not asking for attention....just asking for equal rights...

  • jason4/23/2007

    [tom] you are so wrong.....its sad.....homosexuals in no way get treated better than heterosexuals....it's the other way around....also keep your ignorant comment about it being disgusting to yourself next time....

  • Tom10/24/2006

    The gays dont need any more rights or privileges. They already get many things better than others. They just want attention. Besides, they are disgusting!

  • Tom10/24/2006

    The gays dont need any more rights or privileges. They already get many things better than others. They just want attention. Besides, they are disgusting!

  • N. Katers9/15/2006

    Did black people want special rights? Or women? At the time, opponents of civil rights or women's suffrage said the same thing you are, Ken. This is about respecting the rights for two people who love each other to be recognized by the state. Religious organizations are a different story, they can make whatever choice they want about their stance on gay marriage. The state is not an arbiter for morality nor should it ban gay and lesbian couples, many of who have endured social stigma for decades in loving relationships, from getting the same civil benefits as their heterosexual counterparts.

  • Jim Stillman9/15/2006

    I am not certain why a civil union, or marriage, between gay couples is so disturbing to so many. The concept would provide rights to the couple, such as health care and pension rights. As to weakening the sanctity of marriage, when 50% of heterosexual marriages end in divorce and people continue to have child after child without marriage, I really don't see the added threat. Stability in a committed relationship is to be honored, regardless of the "equipment" with which each party is endowed.

  • Ken9/13/2006

    Terrible article. The gay movement does not want equal rights, they want special rights.

  • Erin Capuano9/6/2006

    This is excellent I'm glad to see someone is speaking for the minority. Gay people do not often have a strong voice in the government and are short changed on basic civil rights. Thanks for this article.

Displaying Comments

To comment, please sign in to your Yahoo! account, or sign up for a new account.