[Vision2020] Gay marriage bill could purge GOP of moderates

[bill london]

As Tom Trail's post about this session of the Idaho Legislature reminds 
us, the Republican Right is gunning for gay marriage as a divisive 
election winner for them....but will it work? Here's Dan Popkey's take 
on this....BL

>Idaho Statesman
>February 8, 2004
>
>
>Dan Popkey: Gay marriage bill could purge GOP of moderates
>
> Rep. Bob Ring had the courage to reveal the hidden agenda behind a
>constitutional amendment barring gay unions: Proponents want to purge social
>moderates from the GOP.
>“I´ve been advised by a lot of people that I greatly respect that with an
>election coming that I should be quiet,” the Caldwell Republican said near
>the end of Thursday´s 3-hour hearing on the measure. “The politically
>correct thing to do is to vote for this. However, I do have some heartburn
>with it.”
>
>Ring´s case: Idaho already prohibits same-sex marriage by statute; there is
>“zero” chance of the Idaho Supreme Court overturning that prohibition; and a
>ratification campaign would polarize Idaho between now and the Nov. 2
>election, “causing a lot of ill will.”
>
>“This is, indeed, somewhat mean-spirited and overkill, trying to bring
>something into the constitution which already is pretty well protected in
>our law,” Ring said. “So, at the risk of the next election, I am going to
>oppose bringing this to the floor.”
>
>Ring lost, when the House Judiciary Committee voted 10-6 to send House Joint
>Resolution 9 to the House. He and other moderates could lose again in the
>May GOP primary if social conservatives are able to use gay marriage,
>abortion and the Ten Commandments to drive them from the party.
>
>Rep. Henry Kulczyk, R-Eagle, a former Idaho Family Forum lobbyist, is the
>author of HCR 9. He made the implausible argument that bad lawyering on the
>anti-gay side could lead the Idaho Supreme Court to overturn our law that
>recognizes only traditional marriage.
>
>That ignores reality. First, the law, which has never been challenged, would
>be defended by Attorney General Lawrence Wasden, an able advocate.
>
>Second, the politicization of Supreme Court elections has shown a justice
>can lose her seat over her ruling in a wilderness water case. No court
>majority would take on gay marriage. If gay unions are ever allowed in
>Idaho, it will come from the U.S. Supreme Court, which last year finally
>struck down anti-gay sodomy laws.
>
>Passionate conservatives like Kulczyk seek a reprise of the divisive
>campaign they lost a decade ago.
>
>In 1994, the anti-gay “Stop Special Rights” initiative failed by just 3,073
>votes. I covered that campaign. For for anybody who wasn´t here, or who´s
>blocked the memories, let me assure you a contest on HCR 9, which would
>require voter ratification, would get ugly.
>
>In 1994, Ada County Commissioner Gary Glenn reminded initiative opponents of
>his marksmanship with a rifle. Proponents said gays were pedophiles. Signs
>screamed, “Only Good Queer is a Dead Queer,” “Bag-a-Fag Tags Sold Here,” and
>“It´s Not Adam & Steve, It´s Adam & Eve.”
>
>Thursday´s hearing offered a chilling preview, including a repeat of the
>“Adam & Steve” line. We also were treated to these rhetorical gems:
>
>• Failure to pass the amendment will mean fathers can marry daughters and
>brothers their sisters, and legalized polygamy.
>
>• Gay marriage will promote sexual abuse.
>
>• Gays have no right to use artificial insemination because God designed
>marriage for one reason: procreation. I suspect some infertile, adoptive and
>childless parents may find that revelation offensive.
>
>Proponents said gay marriage would hurt kids because God intended that they
>be raised by a man and a woman, together. Perhaps I´m sensitive to this
>because I´m a divorced father, who equally shares custody with my ex. I
>think we´re doing a pretty good job of raising our kids. Listening to the
>testimony, I couldn´t help but wonder whether we might be the next target.
>
>I think it´s in the state´s interest to support strong, loving relationships
>between couples, whatever their sexual orientation. Gays deserve the same
>tax breaks, the same health benefits, the same inheritance and property
>protections as heterosexuals. I don´t believe civil unions threaten
>marriage.
>
>I haven´t always thought this. The 1994 anti-gay measure helped convince me
>individual choices about love are another step in the long march of liberty.
>
>It took the shock of fire hoses blasting schoolchildren in Birmingham in
>1963 to unite Americans behind the Civil Rights Act. My guess is we´ll look
>back at measures such as HJR 9 as catalysts that helped establish another
>civil right.
>
>Edition Date: 02-08-2004
>
>
>.
>
>  
>