Burress Still Living in 2004


Phil Burress of the Citizens for Community Values Action Political Action Committee in Ohio says that if there’s a ballot referendum in Ohio in 2016 to repeal the state’s ban on same sex marriage, that will be the demise of Hillary Clinton if she’s the Democratic nominee for president.

As reported recently by OneNewsNow, Quinnipiac University released a poll last month that showed in head-to-head matchups, Hillary Clinton – currently the odds-on favorite to be the Democratic nominee in two years – beat seven potential Republican challengers in Ohio by anywhere from 9 to 17 points. Even Ohio Governor John Kasich finished 12 points behind the former first lady and secretary of state.

But Phil Burress, chairman of Citizens for Community Values Action Political Action Committee, argues the polls haven’t figured in an important potential factor he believes could change the dynamics in Ohio.

“It is quite likely that same-sex marriage may be on the ballot in Ohio in 2016 – and that changes everything,” he contends. “… If indeed homosexual activists decide to put same-sex marriage on the ballot, it will bring out the conservatives and also the evangelicals in record numbers.”

It’s quite amusing to me how many of these bigots are living in the past. Yes, the ban on same-sex marriage passed easily in 2004, but that was a decade ago and public opinion has shifted dramatically on the issue since then. Indeed, a new poll shows that Ohio voters favor recognizing same-sex marriages now by a 51-44 margin. But keep on living in that fantasy world.

Comments

  1. dhall says

    “Even Ohio Governor John Kasich finished 12 points behind . . .” The fantasy extends well beyond the marriage equality issue. The word “even” shows that Burress is evidently overestimating the governor’s popularity in the state.

  2. corwyn says

    Why would same sex proponents wait until 2016, and put it to a ballot, when they could challenge it in court now, when ALL such cases seem to be going pro-gay marriage?

  3. dhall says

    corwyn:
    Maybe because it was “enshrined” as an amendment to the state of Ohio’s constitution in the same way, and the simplest way to get rid of it is through another referendum vote. I’m not sure, though; you make a good point.

  4. D. C. Sessions says

    Why would same sex proponents wait until 2016, and put it to a ballot, when they could challenge it in court now, when ALL such cases seem to be going pro-gay marriage?

    They’re not going for a change in the law, they’re going for maximum steam pressure in a major election year. That’s a one-time-only opportunity and so they’re planning strategically.

    I’m all in favor of having lots of these initiatives on ballots in 2016.

  5. raven says

    Shouldn’t that be:
    Burress Still Living in 1904 ?

    Probably much further back. The dark ages.

  6. hunter says

    dhall @4: doesn’t matter — state constitutions must bow to the provisions of the federal constitution, which is why anti-marriage amendments in Oklahoma, Utah, etc., are losing in federal court.

  7. Sastra says

    I can empathize a bit with Burress. As I get on in years “the past” gets younger and younger. 2004 seems like just a blip away. I’m very likely to think that trends, fashions, and pop celebrities from 10 years ago are still current and “hot.” Ask me to name a trending new band and my first tendency is to come up with “Pearl Jam.”

    No, wait. That’s not that new, is it? Okay, let me think…

    So I can understand the confusion. BUT — I am not a music critic. I’m not advising anyone on what is in or out. And Burress shouldn’t be pulling this sloppy sort of time warp crap in a topic on which he is supposed to be an expert speaking of politics today.

    So I give him no break and cut him no slack. Yo, he is whack … as the kids today put it.

  8. Trebuchet says

    Why would same sex proponents wait until 2016, and put it to a ballot, when they could challenge it in court now, when ALL such cases seem to be going pro-gay marriage?

    Because all of those cases are being put on hold pending a decision by the Supreme Court, which could very well go the wrong way. The court is much less likely to overturn SSM in states that have individually approved it, such as mine.

  9. dogmeat says

    To be fair to Burress, ’04 was the largest turnout for Republicans in the last three presidential elections, 2.859 million votes. On the other hand, they still would have lost in ’08 with that turnout and would be lucky to win the state narrowly if they were able to repeat that ’04 turnout. Doesn’t change that he’s still living in ’04 and totally misreads the support for SSM in Ohio, but for a Republican talking head in the 21st century, he did pretty well.

  10. matty1 says

    Why would same sex proponents wait until 2016, and put it to a ballot, when they could challenge it in court now, when ALL such cases seem to be going pro-gay marriage?

    Maybe, and I’m just speculating here, they want the PR victory of being able to say The People agree with them.

  11. tomh says

    There are several lawsuits pending in Ohio. The most well-known is a male couple who filed a federal suit to have Ohio recognize their Maryland marriage before one, who was fatally ill, died. In July of last year the federal court ordered OH to recognize their marriage on any Death Certificate via a temporary injunction while the case proceeds. In December, a judge ruled that OH’s ban on same-gender civil marriages (made in OH or anywhere else) is unconstitutional, and ordered OH to recognize such unions on all Death Certificates. The state is appealing and no marriages are taking place while the case proceeds.

    Last month four same-sex couples who want to adopt, filed a federal suit to force Ohio to name both parents on the birth certificate.

    There may be other cases that I don’t know about, but obviously, overturning the constitutional amendment would simplify matters.

  12. tomh says

    Let me correct my faulty memory. The lawsuit last month was filed by three married lesbian couples who expect to give birth, and want both names on the birth certificate, and one male couple who want to adopt.

  13. tomh says

    And one more correction. The Ohio decision was narrower than I remembered, as it only forces Ohio to recognize marriages performed legally in other states. However, it is an invitation for broader lawsuits to be filed, and I would expect any number of them in the coming months.

  14. Childermass says

    “Why would same sex proponents wait until 2016, and put it to a ballot, when they could challenge it in court now, when ALL such cases seem to be going pro-gay marriage?”

    False dichotomy. You can do both.

    It is not exactly a sure thing that the good guys are going to win in the Supreme Court so it is foolish try to win in court without trying to win at the ballot box.

    What is more, it important to win at the ballot box even if one win in court. The bigots continue to imagine it the courts overriding the will of the people. It is important to have have votes which send a message that is no longer true. And the message is not just to those bigots, but to the elected officials who can choose to comply with any court orders or can try to resist them. Many will cease to resist if they think it is safer electoral position to be on the side of equality. And sometimes judges pay more attention to public opinion then they like to admit. So yes, work to repeal the ban electorally in Ohio. And don’t forget to do so in California too.

  15. hunter says

    Childermass @16:

    The bigots continue to imagine it the courts overriding the will of the people. It is important to have have votes which send a message that is no longer true.

    Doesn’t matter — as we saw from their reaction to the set of losses in 2012, they’ll just come back with “narrow margin, we were outspent by well-funded special interests, send money.*”

    (* Just in case you thought it was actually about marriage.)

  16. dugglebogey says

    It seems like people are more motivated to come out to vote against something they hate than people are motivated to come out and vote for something they are “generally in favor of.”

    I don’t know that he’s not correct. This did work to motivate voters in 2000, and while the world has turned since then, it seems like while fewer people are hating, the level of hate has increased. More hate equals more motivation? I’m not sure.

Leave a Reply