Marriage
by Kerim
Advice to Kerry (or whoever the Democratic candidate turns out to be):
Re-frame the issue of “gay marriage” as an issue of women’s rights. Efforts to re-define marriage in terms of heterosexual procreation are an attack on years of feminist efforts to separate biology from destiny. Re-frame the issue of “gay marriage” as an issue of state’s rights. “The Massachusetts Supreme Court based its ruling entirely on its own state constitution.” The burden should be on the Republican’s to justify such drastic federal intervention.
Kerry has unfortunately come out against gay marriage, even as he supports gay rights. In the words of John Cleese:
…this is just the sort of blinkered philistine ignorance I’ve come to expect from you non-creative garbage.
UPDATE: Anyone interested in the issue of Single Sex Marriage should check out this blog devoted to the topic.
UPDATE: Calpundit agrees.
Why do you think this is ineffective?
Let me try to clarify what I’m saying here:
Let’s just look at the numbers, only about 10% of the population is gay, while over half are women. Moreover, it has been shown that many women vote Democratic even if they are publically Republican. Democratic support for women’s rights have a lot to do with this.
Moreover, I’m not saying that Kerry should *say* it is a feminist issue – I’m saying he should define the debate in such a way so that he isn’t forced to make a choice between gay rights and the sancity of marriage which is how the Republican’s have effectively framed the issue. The result of this is that if you say you are for gay rights you sound as if you are against marriage – no matter what the substance of your position actually is. Kerry’s lack of imagination plays into this trap. However, if he were to creatively redefine the issue, the Republicans would be in the position of defending their stance on marriage as NOT being an attack on women.
Please read the Lakoff article linked above to get a better idea of what I’m arguing here. For instance, he points out how the Republican’s have effectively made taxation seem like a burden, so that Democrats are forced to sound like they are against it, even if they are for it – only by re-framing the issue will they be able to honestly pursue the policies they actually espouse.
“Efforts to re-define marriage in terms of heterosexual procreation are an attack on years of feminist efforts to separate biology from destiny.”
While I agree, this is seriously not an effective campaign talking point. I want a candidate who is pro-gay marriage, but I don’t want her talking about how she’s trying to vindicate feminist principles.