Gay Marriage as an issue in Presidential Elections

[Non Swing Voter]

Thoughts?

[IceSpear]

Depends how you define "giving up". Plus there will always be fringe candidates who will never give up on the issue even when it cracks 80-90% support.

[Mordecai]

As soon as 2016, I think. The establishment Republican who gets the nomination will have a relatively permissive or indifferent stance on it ("Let the states decide", "I don't endorse it but if other states want to do it that's their freedom").

Of course the Santorums and Huckabees won't like it and they'll try to make it an issue to get the support of the social conservatives, but they won't be winning the nomination.

[ElectionsGuy]

Very soon here. I don't think they will actually concede the issue, they'll just let it go and stop caring for it over time as approval rises.

[afleitch]

It will still be an issue in 2016, definitely. It will probably still be opposed by 1 in 3 GOP candidates by 2020, even if it's decided at a federal level. By 2024, the point at which voters born in 1980 will be 44, it'll probably be one of those issues that no one talks about.

[Vega]

They are still blabbering about contraception and abortion; so, 16-20 years.

[Skill and Chance]

The 2016 GOP nominee will either be very mildly opposed or agnostic about it.  At this point, I think the 2020 Republican won't contest it as an issue.

[Consciously Unconscious]

They are still blabbering about contraception and abortion; so, 16-20 years.

The majority of GOP candidates don't talk that much about contraception, unless it's about making employers/hospitals provide them.  Less people support abortion than support gay marriage by the way.  Abortion is more controversial than gay marriage at this point.

I say 0-5 years, except for some fringe candidates.  The Republicans voting for the first time in 2014 and 2016 are going to support gay marriage.  Support will be near universal among political candidates within the decade. 

[Bojack Horseman]

Wasn't that one of the big deciding factors in Ohio in 2004 that Bush supported a federal marriage amendment? 62% of Ohioans voted against marriage equality in '04, which obviously crossed party lines, and seemed to push Bush over the top.

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

In 2012 most of the candidates seemed to avoid the issue, so it won't be that way in 2016, and by 2020 it will be legal in all the states (and territories like Puerto Rico/US Virgin Islands/Guam/etc.).

[Consciously Unconscious]

The vast majority of you think mainstream Republicans will give up on this issue within 5 years?

Seriously? 

Since we're talking about it as an issue in Presidential Elections, I took it to mean presidential candidates. The mainstream Republicans will realize that they have to moderate on this issue to appeal to moderates and independents.  The majority of socially conservative voters may not like this, but hopefully they'll wake up and see that there are much more important issues. 

[HAnnA MArin County]

The vast majority of you think mainstream Republicans will give up on this issue within 5 years?

Seriously? 

I must be in the minority then, because I don't think they'll give up on it. If anything, they'll play it according to the politics of each state. Obviously they'll talk about it a lot more in the Bible Belt states as opposed to the swing states and blue states. As someone already mentioned on here, it's been 40 years and they are still talking about abortion because they know that most rural voters are single-issue voters, and that's the biggest issue to them, and yes, it is still more controversial than marriage equality. Republicans are tone deaf in that sense, if 2012 is any indication when they continued to talk about rape, of all scapegoats to go after rape victims.

The GOP will, in my opinion, continue to exploit religion and claim to be the party of traditional moral family values crusaders and small government but will continue to take a sick interest in what women do with their uteruses and what consenting adults do in the privacy of their bedrooms. They'll continue to do so because they know their base is too uninformed to understand that they vote against their economic interests every time they vote for the party that wants to cut taxes for the wealthy, I mean, "job creators." I think in 2016 they will moderate and take the old Democratic position that they support civil unions with all the same benefits of marriage but oppose marriage equality because of "religious freedoms." They have to do this, otherwise they know that the Bible thumpers will not turn out to vote for them or vote for a more conservative third party candidate. They won't stop talking about it even after it becomes legalized nationally, much in the same sense as Roe v. Wade.

[MATTROSE94]

The vast majority of you think mainstream Republicans will give up on this issue within 5 years?

Seriously? 

You are already seeing an increasing number of Republicans in Congress either giving up their opposition to same-sex marriage or even outright endorsing it like Mark Kirk, Rob Portman, Lisa Murkowski and Susan Collins. As late as a few years ago, even the most moderate Republican member of Congress would have scoffed at the idea of legalizing same-sex marriage.

[Likely Voter]

They have already given up on the issue. The last time they used it as a wedge was in 2004 when Bush came out in support of Federal Marriage Amendment and the GOP got gay marriage bans on the ballot in 11 states (including Ohio which was a tipping point). But in 2012 when Obama came out in favor of it, the GOP accused him of "playing politics", essentially accusing him of pandering and using it as a wedge issue.

Moving forward the GOP will use opposition to gay marriage like they do with abortion, primarily as a fund-raising tool with their base but not something they overtly campaign on on presidential elections. Nominees will be against it, with the caveat that it should be left up to the states (and therefore not the SCOTUS, which is also their view on abortion).

[H. Ross Peron]

I'm not sure it'll be a issue even by 2016, it certainly won't be an issue in 2020.

[The Mikado]

The issue of marriage equality is going to become irrelevant, and the GOP will stop talking about it at that point.

[Suburbia]

Maybe 16-20 years. The Republican Party is controlled by social conservatives and these evangelical pastors (Robertson, Hagee, Ralph Reed) will never let it go.

[Bojack Horseman]

Before the Supreme Court punted on Hollingsworth, I thought that this would be the Roe vs. Wade of my generation, the Supreme Court ruling that the Republican Party will spend the next 40 years trying to undo. Abortion will always be an issue, and I think gay marriage will be as well.

[Bojack Horseman]

Before the Supreme Court punted on Hollingsworth, I thought that this would be the Roe vs. Wade of my generation, the Supreme Court ruling that the Republican Party will spend the next 40 years trying to undo. Abortion will always be an issue, and I think gay marriage will be as well.

Abortion and gay marriage are not remotely the same thing.

Though I lean pro-choice, I will readily admit that the pro-lifers have legitimate claims about "protecting the unborn". Abortion is terminating cells or a fetus that will actually become a human being. Even among the pro-choice crowd, there are huge divides on how far abortion should be permitted to go (example: 1st trimester abortions are generally tolerated, while 3rd trimesters are very much opposed). I'm pro-choice and am deeply uncomfortable with abortion and the procedures. Abortion divides something like 49% - 45% approve/disapprove, while gay marriage is riding high at 53% to 58% approval and rapidly growing favorability.

Gay marriage afects no one except the two getting involved. Abortion has very real impacts and is morally questionable. Gay marriage will be more like slavery and prohibition: resolved, a large majority will be like "no duh" in the future, but it will leave marks on the political landscape for several generations before time makes it irrelevant.

Bad comparison man

This is the Christian right we're talking about. These are the people the GOP has to pander to in order to get elected, and these are the people that think that because folks like you and I can get married in certain states, that some magical "god" will destroy America. I thought the conservative firestorm that would come from a nationwide gay marriage ruling would open Pandora's Box just like Roe V. Wade did.

That and the fact that the people that vote for them just aren't that bright anyway.

[IceSpear]

Once SCOTUS legalizes it nationwide, it will likely cease to be an issue a few years afterward (What can they possibly do about it? A constitutional amendment abolishing hundreds of thousands of marriages? Please.) unlike abortion where they can slowly whittle away at a woman's right to choose. However, while gay marriage will probably cease being an issue, gay as a whole will continue to be an issue. Look at the AZ/KS/MO anti-gay segregation laws for an example of the future.

[TJ in Oregon]

Before the Supreme Court punted on Hollingsworth, I thought that this would be the Roe vs. Wade of my generation, the Supreme Court ruling that the Republican Party will spend the next 40 years trying to undo. Abortion will always be an issue, and I think gay marriage will be as well.

Abortion and gay marriage are not remotely the same thing.

Though I lean pro-choice, I will readily admit that the pro-lifers have legitimate claims about "protecting the unborn". Abortion is terminating cells or a fetus that will actually become a human being. Even among the pro-choice crowd, there are huge divides on how far abortion should be permitted to go (example: 1st trimester abortions are generally tolerated, while 3rd trimesters are very much opposed). I'm pro-choice and am deeply uncomfortable with abortion and the procedures. Abortion divides something like 49% - 45% approve/disapprove, while gay marriage is riding high at 53% to 58% approval and rapidly growing favorability.

Gay marriage afects no one except the two getting involved. Abortion has very real impacts and is morally questionable. Gay marriage will be more like slavery and prohibition: resolved, a large majority will be like "no duh" in the future, but it will leave marks on the political landscape for several generations before time makes it irrelevant.

Bad comparison man

It is indeed a bad comparison. When gay marriage eventually is legalized nationally, I have a hard time imagining the GOP actually campaigning on the presidential level to repeal it. All we're in for politically is a bunch more lawsuits about wedding photographers and cake bakers, which will still serve as enough of a wedge issue unto itself. In 2016, the GOP will probably argue it should be decided by the states and leave it off the presidential campaign if they can and if they still have that option legally by then.

On the other hand, abortion as a divisive wedge issue is here to stay for a very long time. Being pro-life is to not believe in giving up.

[Linus Van Pelt]

I suspect the continued political importance of abortion in the US is tied to the country's continuing religiosity. Abortion has generally dwindled in political importance with the secularization of public life in other western countries. Of course the US has its own trajectory and I don't mean to suggest it will necessarily follow Europe on some sort of linear history, but still, I have a hard time seeing abortion remaining a major issue without a significant core of religious activists keeping attention on it. Centrist voters do not appear enthusiastic about criminalization even when they are uncomfortable with the practice, and even many conservative elites don't seem to love this issue.

Gay marriage, by contrast, seems to be moving quickly to a place where as with divorce, even religious voters are willing to concede it for civil marriage.

[Rockefeller GOP]

0-5...  A majority of Republicans under 50 support it, and like 75% under 30 do.  I flat out guarantee you that by 2016, there will be one GOP candidate who supports it.

[I Will Not Be Wrong]

I suspect the continued political importance of abortion in the US is tied to the country's continuing religiosity. Abortion has generally dwindled in political importance with the secularization of public life in other western countries. Of course the US has its own trajectory and I don't mean to suggest it will necessarily follow Europe on some sort of linear history, but still, I have a hard time seeing abortion remaining a major issue without a significant core of religious activists keeping attention on it. Centrist voters do not appear enthusiastic about criminalization even when they are uncomfortable with the practice, and even many conservative elites don't seem to love this issue.

Gay marriage, by contrast, seems to be moving quickly to a place where as with divorce, even religious voters are willing to concede it for civil marriage.

I think a 20 week abortion ban will still be doable, but yeah, not a reversal of Roe VS Wade.

[bballrox4717]

It depends when it is legalized. Same sex marriage should be done as an issue the second presidential election after it has been legalized nationally. Republicans will run on it as an issue the first election afterwards to test for backlash, but once support for it creeps into the 60s like it is currently trending, no serious Republican will be able to challenge it without getting hammered pretty badly for it.

Hopefully SCOTUS gets the call right when the case eventually hits the floor in the next couple of years. Otherwise the Democrats will have to wait until they get control of all three of the presidency, House and Senate. Even then, they'll have to pray that there are a few more Rob Portmans around to stop the inevitable filibuster.