How the state of Arizona gave the religious right the finger; a brief recap, and a look ahead

A friend of mine today suggested I do a recap of the 2006 ballot measures, more specifically the Arizona gay marriage measure which failed, the first one of it's kind to meet such a fate. At first I thought "no, that's sort of dated," but then decided it may be a good idea, especially considering the possible implications the amendments may have on possible 2008 presidential candidates. So here goes...

ARE MODERATE REPUBLICANS AND LIBERTARIANS NO LONGER WELCOME IN THE REPUBLICAN PARTY???

As many of you know, there were so called "marriage amendments" on the ballot in eight states, including Virginia, Colorado, South Carolina, Idaho, Tennessee, South Dakota, Arizona and Wisconsin. The amendment passed in each state except for Arizona. However, despite the fact that the measure passed in seven other states, gay and lesbian activist groups were still encouraged because the measures, on average, passed by less than in recent years. Fierce battles were fought over the amendment particularly in Virginia, Wisconsin, and Arizona. In Virginia, an anonymous homosexual couple donated $1 million to The Commonwealth Coalition to oppose the measure, and in Arizona, the Human Rights Campaign donated $100,000 to fight the measure. Organizations fighting the amendments held out hope they would be able to pull out a win in both Wisconsin, and Virginia, but were unsuccessful. In Arizona however, they DID pull out a victory when the measure failed on November 7. Even in traditionally red state South Dakota, the amendment BARELY squeaked by.

Like Virginia, opponents of the measure in Arizona tried out a new tactic to fight the amendment. Instead of focusing on how unconstitutional the amendments were, they decided to focus on how heterosexual couples were affected, especially since gay marriage and civil unions are both already outlawed in both states. Steve May, co-chairman of the Arizona Human Rights Fund, had the following to say in May, 2005 when it was first proposed that the amendment be placed on the ballot,

This initiative would take away health insurance to unmarried couples across the state. Voters are intelligent and fair. They will know what this is really about.

Unlike most other states, the amendment trailed in the polls from the very beginning in Arizona. A January, 2005 poll done by the Arizona Republic showed 54 percent were not in favor of the measure, while 40 percent approved, and 7 percent were undecided. In the end, the voters in Arizona made the right decision, shutting the door on the measure by a two percent margin.

In Virginia, some bloggers, and commentators even speculated that the amendment possibly HELPED Democratic Senator-elect Jim Webb defeat incumbent Senator George Allen, since polls show that many people that voted "YES" on the amendment, also voted for Jim Webb (I don't buy it - voters DRIVEN to the polls for the soul purpose of voting "YES" on the amendment were probably never going to vote for Jim Webb to begin with). Might this perhaps mark the beginning of the end to the marriage fear mongering from the right in attempt to rally the religious zealots for votes? According to an Associated Press article, Matt Foreman (executive director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force) thinks it's a possibility,

"What we're seeing is that fear-mongering around same-sex marriage is fizzling out," said Matt Foreman, executive director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force. He noted that the bans that succeeded won by much narrower margins, on average, than in the past.

Aside from gay marriage measures, other "Liberal" measures were very successful on election day 2006. In Missouri, voters passed a measure backing stem cell research, in South Dakota, voters struck down a law limiting a woman's right to choose to only cases where the mother's life was threatened, and in all SIX STATES holding a vote on state minimum wage (Arizona, Colorado. Missouri, Montana, Ohio and Nevada), voters approved wage hikes.

The Liberal Progressive believes the GOP is clearly alienating some "moderate Republicans," and "independents," which it could typically have counted on in recent years. The executive vice president of the Log Cabin Republicans agrees,

"Republicans lost this election because independent voters abandoned the GOP. Social conservatives drove the GOP’s agenda the last several years. Their divisive agenda alienated the mainstream Republicans and independents who determined this election's outcome. Social conservatives should take responsibility for this loss."

This brings me to my next question, which is, how will "socially liberal" Republicans do in their 2008 presidential bids? An argument could easily be made both ways. On the one hand, one could say that potential candidates like Rudy Giuliani (former Democrat, and mayor of New York), could potentially do well because Republicans feeling alienated from the party would come out in large numbers to support. On the other hand, one could also argue that "light R's" may not come out to vote in primaries, therefore more Conservative candidates like Mitt Romney will more likely advance to run as the Republican parties nominee for President in 2008.

Needless to say, it will be interesting to see how this all plays out in 2008. The 2006 mid term elections were certainly at least a slight step to the left for America, although I think it will take until 2008 for us to see just how FAR to the left we have actually gone. I hope Americans continue to wake up to the fact that Republicans use issues like gay marriage, and abortion to "divide and conquer" the electorate, and hopefully Americans will continue to reject these tactics of using bigotry and intolerance to win elections.