If same sex marriage and abortion are electoral "red herrings" . . .?

Question

Then why don't the liberals neutralize these issues by supporting state and federal marriage amendments, parental notification laws and a partial-birth abortion ban?

If, as some say, these issues are not nearly as important as the war, the economy, etc., then why put up such a fuss?

Either these issues are worth discussing, or they are not. One cannot have it both ways.

Anything else just sounds like sour grapes - disappointment and resentment that one's position is not popular with the voters. Maybe it's not the voters who are the problem.

Just a thought.

Would a more socially moderate Democratic Party make significant inroads? Would their economic and defense messages resonate more? Didn't they try this in 2006, with a great deal of success? Or are the Democrats perceived as "too far left" on those issues too, as some perceive that the Republicans are "too far right"?

Or did a reaction to wastefulness and corruption carry the day?

What say you?

What I am demonstrating - and have demonstrated by my answers is that these issues cannot be "red herrings" if they are important, only if they are relatively unimportant. Arguing forcefully how wrong the conservative position is contradicts the argument that elections shouldn't focus on it.

Correction - I meant to say that by YOUR answers you are demonstrating it's important.

I'm not neceassarily arguing that the Democrats are wrong, or the Republicans are right. Just that the issues are hotly contested, and important.

PS Just good folk - imitation is the sincerest form of flattery! (A sincere compliment.)

Thanks, Amy V, for being consistent.

Answer 1

The importance of an issue should be decided by the public, not the politician. And judging by what I read in YA, I would say that abortion and same sex marriage are very important issues...for both sides!

Parties cannot simply give in so that they can make room for other issues. This is disrespectful of their party, and frankly, America is not all about 'giving in' because it is easier.

Where I believe your argument has merit is in the idea of compromise between the parties. If both can agree that partial birth abortion is wrong, legislate it as a united front. This would not be giving in on either side, and it would go a long way to bring some unity back to this country. We keep fighting the big fights, and don't stop to realize that every war is made up of small battles. Lets do what we can to resolve the small battles...and maybe - just maybe - the two sides may find some peace in the war...

Answer 2

I would like to see an amendment on abortions, to settle the question for or against.

Im personaly against abortions, but I wouldn't support a law or amendment banning them. On the other hand, a minor should never be allowed to have an abortion without their parents being notified.

Every poll I have seen, shows the ,majority of Americans support abortion rights.


The Gay Marriage issue is a political sham, The people in EVERY state in America have banned gay marriage.

Yes the court made gay marriage legal in Massachusetts, not the people. And the Massachusetts State Legislature has sence passed the first reading of a bill to put a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage on the next ballot.

Every poll I have seen , shows that the majority of americans do not support gay marriages.

But I do believe that legal gay civil unions will soon come to pass.

The argument seems to stem from the actual word MARRIAGE.

As to your question about what issues should be important.

I can see abortion being a fundamental issue for alot of people, IE: their #1 issue.

The gay marriage issue is a fringe issue, I believe there are only a small portion of Democrats or Republicans who see this issue as being a major voter issue.

If America focused on what is important, there is no telling how far we could go.

I have never figured out why the Federal Government would fund stuff like looking into the mating habits of 3 legged australian pigmy salamanders.

The other point alot of people seem to miss, is that not all Democrats or Republicans are the same. A Democrat from the South would be closer politicaly to a Republican from the North, than they would be to a Democrat from the North. Both parties have liberal, moderate and conservative wings.

Let me finish by saying , I think America would be better served if most voters voted in the primaries, instead of the fringe 20% who now vote in the primaries. We let the fringe gruops choose the candiates we get to choose between in the general election, and then we wonder why we don't connect with either of them.

Answer 3

You're not understanding how the electoral red herrings work. They are designed to make sure that all the most conservative people come out and vote... and even though too many Democrats DO support a marriage amendment or the segregation compromise (civil unions), the voters who are RALLIED by these ballot initiatives will still vote Republican. Someone's got to stand up for our rights, and we all have the right to marry who we choose. If marriage belonged strictly to the church, my marriage (agnostic man wed to agnostic woman) would be considered a civil union, and I find this completely unacceptable. I am MARRIED, and so can two people of the same sex be.

And about that middle of the road stuff, Democrats can't do it. The Republican party has managed to have it both ways... any concession, like admitting global warming is happening, is HUGE, whereas on the right, everyone thinks Democrats are Communists, and on the left, everyone thinks Democrats are just more of the same money-grabbing jerks willing to make all kinds of concessions to win office. The Democrats would be better off doing what the Republicans do, going as far to the extreme as they can to get their real supporters out, and making some concessions ONLY when appropriate.

You're right, allowing same-sex marriage is an extremely important civil rights issue. It wouldn't be an issue if Republicans weren't trying to ban it simply to rally their voters... that is why it's a "red herring" issue, and a horrifying injustice.


ruth, the constitution is designed to protect the rights of the minority against all but the largest consensus majority. And that majority, in order to legally deny this infinitely small minority their rights, must AMEND the constitution.

Answer 4

votes were definately reacting to the negative press the current gov. has received. those 'red herring' issues are v. important. the governments involvement in them is a clear violation of the seperation of church and state - as gay marriage and abortion are clearly issue divided by religious beliefs and the teachings of the bible. If we allow the government to continue policing these issues, we keep the door open for other civil rights violations. Those decisions are personal. And at this point, sadly, we have to fight for the right to make our own decisions. That is what the democratic party is fighting for. It's not the specific issue - its' not that every democrat agrees personally with gays or abortion rights - it's that they do not believe that the goverment has a right to dictate law on these personal decisions.

Answer 5

First of all, the issues are not "red herrings". They are wedge issues. These are legitimate issues that can be used to bring support from a sector of people even if those same people would otherwise not support the other 90% of that side's opinions.

It's like poor small farmer supporting the GOP because they are afraid of the left trying to take away their right to a shotgun, when the right is trying to take away their farm.

Second of all, true Americans are for civil rights for everyone, not just for those that agree with you. It would be unconstitutional to rule otherwise.

Answer 6

democrats must even out the radical right. Extremists exist on both sides. If you mess with liberties, you are asking for a fight. And no, they aren't too far left...they are just as far from center as the reps. And the middle always wins. We are the majority.

EDIT It is less important to those who support abortion and gay rights (not just dems, and not excluding reps here, since some exist on both sides) because it is settled law of the land.

Answer 7

Its introducing social and moral legislation into the fray in the attempt to garner votes. Its appealing to a demographic's moral senses as a way of saying 'see, I think like you and I'll make the big decisions they way you want.' But the red herrings you mentioned aren't worth discussing.

Answer 8

Think people supporting Gay marriage feel it's about civil rights like segregation was before.They will never compromise n,or should they.Refusing to let Gay people marry is discrimination.If America outlaws it literally it's no longer a free country.Liberty and justice for ALL!The pursuit of happiness is different for everyone.
That's why it's so important to people who are in favor of it.Then there is the other side who also see it as very important to,mostly out of religious motives to stop it and protect the children(I don't subscribe to that view but think i represented it fairly)
I think on that issue there is no middle ground

Answer 9

They are "red herrings" put out by the REPUBLICANS to sucker in votes by people that can't discuss the real issues. I could describe these people more completely, but would probably get reported.

The overwhelming majority of Americans support abortion rights and gay marriage.

Why should Demos give the minority what they want?

Answer 10

So you're telling me that, in order to prove that I think these issues aren't important (even though I think they are), I should support making SOME people sign their basic human rights over to the United States government, when other people are granted those rights without restriction?

Is that what you're saying?

Why would I do that?