Profile
Photos
Comments
by Ethan Jacobs
associate editor
Wednesday Jul 9, 2008
UPDATED noon, 7/10/08
Late
last month a group of about 100 movers and shakers on the religious
right met in Denver and agreed to support Sen. John McCain’s
presidential campaign. To those who followed the 2004 presidential race
news of McCain’s recent efforts to woo the culture warriors of the
religious right provoked an awful sense of déjà vu.
One of those power players, Phil Burress of the Ohio-based Citizens for Community Values, told the Washington Times that he had met with McCain and that the Arizona senator had promised
"to make judicial appointments that will resemble that of Chief Justice
John G. Roberts Jr. and Justice Antonin Scalia, to ’get serious’ on
abortion and same-sex marriage, and to push values issues in general." Last Sunday Fred Barnes, editor of the Weekly Standard,
appeared as a talking head on Fox News and publicly urged the McCain
campaign to talk up his opposition to same-sex marriage and gays in the
military to fire up social conservatives. Those events, coupled with
McCain’s recent announcement of his support for the California ballot
initiative to ban same-sex marriage, raised the specter of the 2004
race, in which the Bush campaign and the Republican Party used the
issue of same-sex marriage to try to drive up turnout among
conservative Christians.
Most politicos believe that the
marriage issue, and LGBT issues more broadly, may play a much smaller
role than they did in 2004, but that could change if the religious
right decides to push the issue independently of the McCain campaign.
Observers
believe that despite pressure from the religious right McCain is
uncomfortable talking about the marriage issue to the extent that Bush
did in 2004. Thomas Patterson, Bradlee Professor of Government and the
Press at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government, said that McCain’s
Western brand of conservatism is far less comfortable taking on the
culture war issues championed by conservatives in the South. McCain’s
record puts him largely in the social conservative camp: he supported
the Defense of Marriage Act, the military’s "Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell"
policy, various state constitutional amendments to ban same-sex
marriage, and opposed the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) and
hate crimes protections for LGBT people. Yet even though McCain may
support the goal of banning same-sex marriage, Patterson said McCain
does not seem passionate enough about the issue to make it a
centerpiece of his campaign, and many on the religious right distrust
his commitment to their agenda.
"It’s a weak suit for him. It
would be hard to imagine McCain giving an impassioned speech on these
issues that would be compelling and authentic," said Patterson.
He
said allies of the McCain campaign might try to use the issue to
mobilize voters in the states, as the Republican National Committee did
in 2004 when it sent out mailings in Arkansas warning that Democrats
would legalize gay marriage and ban the Bible. But Patterson believes
that pushing too hard on the issue could hinder McCain’s efforts to
distance himself from Bush’s legacy.
"I think for him it is a
little bit of a balance. In part he is trying to reach out to
[conservative Christians], and I think the Republicans are worried.
Most of them will vote, but will they vote in the extras they need?
Because turnout is going to be important to them," said Patterson. "On
the other hand he has to be careful to maintain his reputation, no
matter how damaged it may have been over the past year, as different
from Bush."
Patrick Sammon, president of Log Cabin Republicans,
said he expects both McCain and Sen. Barack Obama to spend much of
their efforts appealing to the center to court the independent voters,
and he thinks the far right of the Republican Party will play a more
marginal role. Log Cabin has not yet announced whether it will endorse
the McCain campaign.
"Fundamentally this election is going to
be won or lost based on what independent voters do on Election Day, and
using antigay politics is certainly a recipe for defeat because it
alienates independents," said Sammon.
He also believes McCain’s
own position on marriage equality makes it much harder for him to
attack Obama. In 2004 Bush supported the Federal Marriage Amendment
(FMA), which was defeated in Congress that year, and talked up his
opposition to same-sex marriage. McCain, by contrast, was an ardent
opponent of the FMA in 2004 on the grounds of federalism, speaking
against it on the floor of the Senate. He supports ballot initiatives
in states to ban same-sex marriage and even recorded a TV spot in favor
of a failed initiative in Arizona in 2006, and he has said he might
change his position on the FMA if the efforts to ban same-sex marriage
at the state level fail. Yet many on the religious right have publicly
doubted his conviction on the issue, and Focus on the Family founder
James Dobson, one of the most powerful figures within the movement, has
refused to endorse him. Sammon said McCain’s record on marriage would
blunt any efforts to use the issue against Obama, who opposes same-sex
marriage, supports civil unions, and opposes state ballot initiatives
to ban same-sex marriage. To make matters more confusing Obama publicly
congratulated couples marrying in California in his statement
announcing his opposition to the marriage amendment in that state,
effectively praising them for entering into marriages he does not
support.
"Neither side would be able to make use of the issue in
part due to how difficult to explain their positions are," said Sammon.
"Their complicated positions make it less likely that the issue can be
used politically because their positions are shades of gray, not black
and white, and shades of gray don’t make for good political argument."
Even
if McCain shows a new willingness to exploit the marriage issue, there
will be far fewer opportunities for him to use marriage to drive up
voter turnout among the religious right. Sean Cahill, managing director
of public policy, research and community health at the Gay Men’s Health
Crisis and former director of the Policy Institute at the National Gay
and Lesbian Task Force, said that compared to 2004 the various state
ballot initiatives on LGBT rights questions are unlikely to be a major
mobilizing force among conservative Christians. In 2004 11 states voted
on marriage-related ballot questions, passing them by double-digit
margins. As the Policy Institute documented in its analysis of the
election, three of those states were considered battlegrounds that
year, and Bush won one of those states, Ohio, with the marriage
amendment playing a role in driving up turnout among conservative
Christian voters. The win in Ohio put Bush over the top.
"That
all said, certainly this time around it’s not going to play anywhere
near the role it played four years ago. Right now in terms of what is
likely to be on the ballot, there’s only two swing states I’m aware of
that could have an anti-gay question on the ballot," said Cahill.
In
one of those states, Florida, voters will weigh in on an amendment to
ban marriage and other forms of relationship recognition for same-sex
couples. Cahill said the amendment may invalidate the domestic
partnership ordinances in areas like Miami-Dade County, which could
help mobilize LGBT voters as well as Florida progressives to go to the
polls.
"I think having this on the ballot will turn out
certainly gay voters but also progressive voters in Florida, so it
could actually benefit the Democrat," said Cahill.
The only
other potential battleground state that could face a ballot initiative
is Arkansas, where anti-gay activists are collecting signatures to ban
adoption or foster parenting by unmarried couples. Cahill said Arkansas
will likely only be considered a swing state if Sen. Barack Obama’s
campaign selects Sen. Hillary Clinton, former First Lady of Arkansas,
as his running mate.
There are two other marriage amendments set
to appear on the ballot, in California and in Arizona, but most predict
that Obama will win California handily and that McCain will carry his
home state.
John Green, a senior fellow at the Pew Forum on
Religion and Public Life, said the California ballot amendment might
actually backfire against conservatives who hope it will ramp up
turnout for McCain. He said two of the crucial voting blocks in the
state are black and Hispanic voters, who tend to be more socially
conservative on LGBT issues, and a marriage amendment could increase
turnout among more conservative segments of those communities. But
those voters might not necessarily be filling in the bubble for McCain.
"One
could imagine that the turnout effect gets lots of blacks and Hispanics
to turn out, and they vote to ban same-sex marriage, but they also vote
for Barack Obama," said Green.
He said activists on both sides
of the issue in swing states could try to use the issue to impact the
election even without a question on the ballot. Given the size of
California and its influence as a trend-setter for the rest of the
country, local activists could use the issue of the candidates’ stances
on the amendment to mobilize voters by framing it as an issue of
national importance. If either conservative Christians or LGBT rights
activists succeed in mobilizing supporters for their candidate using
the marriage issue, Green said the candidates themselves may be forced
to talk about it while campaigning in those states.
"It may be
difficult for McCain for both personal and political reasons to make
same-sex marriage a centerpiece of his campaign. So if that’s the case
the dynamic will lie with Christian conservative activists. ... I would
be looking to what extent the Christian conservative organizations play
this issue independently of the McCain camp," said Green. Given the
recent meeting of religious right leaders in Denver pledging to get
behind McCain, it looks as if at least some of those organizations plan
on doing just that. [Update: On July 10 the Family Research Council
stepped up the pressure on McCain to emphasize his stance on the
marriage amendments, releasing a poll showing that support for the amendments enhances a candidate’s status among most voters.]
Regardless
of how the McCain campaign decides to handle the marriage issue, it is
unlikely it will be getting much play from the Obama campaign. Obama
quietly announced his opposition to the California marriage amendment
in a letter to the Alice B. Toklas LGBT Democratic Club in San
Francisco in a letter but has not spoken publicly about the issue.
Instead he has been working to peel off voters from the Republican base
who are likely to support the amendment, promoting plans to expand
funding for faith-based social service programs.
"I think for
Democrats this has always been really a tough issue. They bear the
scars of getting on the wrong side of God and on the wrong side of the
flag, so I think they’re really ginger about where they come out on
these things. And one way to do it is not to say much about it," said
Patterson.
Green said Obama’s liberal positions on social issues
place a ceiling on the number of conservative Christian voters he can
win over who voted for Bush in 2004, but he has the potential to draw
away enough of them to do serious damage to McCain. Green expects him
to be able to appeal to many former Bush voters in the mainline
Protestant community, which has long been shifting into the Democratic
column, and among Catholics, who may line up with Obama on issues like
the economy. The wiggle room among evangelicals is much smaller, but
Green said if Obama can bump up the numbers from the 22 percent of
white evangelicals who voted for Kerry to around 30 percent, that could
draw away a substantial chunk of McCain voters.
"It’s unclear where those folks will come down, but it looks like there’s some real potential," said Green.
Jon
Hoadley, executive director of Stonewall Democrats, said his
organization will push the Obama campaign to speak out on the marriage
issue, but he expects the campaign to focus primarily on
bread-and-butter issues like the economy, fuel prices, healthcare, and
the war in Iraq.
"Do I expect him to talk about our issues? Of
course. We’re going to make sure that he continues to do so. But
American voters are really concerned about the direction of our
country, and this is part of it," said Hoadley.
Making a
not-so-veiled reference to the Democrats’ 2004 nominee, Sen. John Kerry
(D-Mass), Hoadley said that Obama’s position on marriage, while not
ideal, is much stronger than that of past nominees. In 2004 Kerry
opposed same-sex marriage, supported civil unions, opposed the FMA, and
supported several state amendments to ban same-sex marriage, including
the failed amendment in his home state.
"[Candidates in the past
have said] they’re supporting amendments to state constitutions in
their home state and opposing federal ones. It tries to be too
complicated and clouds the key values here. But the value Sen. Obama
shows is clear. ... I think it’s a monumental step, the fact that he’s
saying these ballot initiatives are a step in the wrong direction,
which is why we need to be opposed to them," said Hoadley.
Ethan Jacobs can be reached at e