Republican Andrew Smith, candidate for House District 77, is trying to gain a foothold in his race against incumbent Phil Hoy. But, he’s trying to do it on the backs of homosexuals and altering Hoy’s statements to do it.
Smith said the letter, [concerning Hoy’s position on homosexual rights] mailed to about 200 GOP voters who describe themselves as opposed to same-sex marriage, deals with legitimate public-policy issues for voters in House District 77.
“Phil gets upset whenever his extremist views are talked about,” he said.
The letter prominently features in enlarged letters a United Church of Christ statement and includes this quote: “Homosexuality is a good gift of our Creator, as is its responsible, loving expression.”
Smith acknowledges that he changed the word “sexuality” to “homosexuality.”
Hoy’s response:
Rep. Phil Hoy, D-Evansville, contends that the letter — paid for by Andrew Smith’s campaign — is a “smoke screen” to energize social conservatives while avoiding more important issues.
“Why don’t we talk about education, health care, Medicaid?” Hoy asked.
This is nothing new, really. Howard Dean identified the strategy succinctly back in 2004 when he referred to the GOP’s “God, Gays, and Guns” wedge strategy. Get folks all worked up over emotional issues, and they won’t notice so much that their paychecks are stagnant, their environment is deteriorating, the government’s safety net is getting frayed, and the super rich are getting a lot richer.
I can certainly understand gays voting primarily on gay rights issues. And I know that there is a certain segment of the population for whom gays being treated equally under the law is anathema. But I would think that for a substantial majority of citizens, gay rights is something of a side issue. Not to minimize its importance to the people it effects directly — for whom the issues are of immense importance, but for the average Hoosier, the ability of gays to marry or otherwise receive the rights and privileges afforded to other citizens simply does not affect their daily lives.
This issue should be discussed, but it should not be emphasized disproportionately to its actual importance. And altering the text of what Hoy actually said is wrong.
For my part, I’ll go with the “if it doesn’t break my leg or pick my pocket, it’s probably o.k.” reasoning. Also, I suspect that the anti-gay position will eventually be seen as being on the wrong side of history, along side Bull Connor and the segregationists. I’m sure there were many, many good people from that era who held segregationist views for reasons they saw as perfectly legitimate. But they were wrong.
Doug-
I’m involved in a discussion of this over on Gary Welsh’s site (advanceindiana.blogspot.com) right now. If you are interested in joining in, please come on over. I’d be happy to answer any questions you have.
The bottom line is that this issue is by no means central to my campaign. In fact, with the exception of David Hennig’s letter that went out to a very small list, it simply hasn’t come up very much.
I’m spending far more time talking about immigration reform, education reform, infrastructure and economic development. And that’s how I’d prefer it.
Phil and I would vote differently on the marriage amendment. Voters in the district know that. Now let’s move on to bigger topics.
This is the exact same issue that the Republican who ran against Hoy (in a three way race, might I note) tried to use in 2004 to no avail. It’s a liberal (read open minded) district. Hasler voted against the law barring same sex marriages back in the day and it didn’t hurt his standing one bit in the district. If Republicans really want that seat (which they have little chance at), they should find someone who is middle of the road on social issues and is willing to talk about something other than same sex marriage.
Congratulations Mr. Smith on only sending your doctored quote to a very small list.
The political weggies in your rump rumble has begun
The democrats and the republicans divide and conquer warfare has begun. Those who oppose same-sex anything and those who oppose same-sex getting married have gotten gay-rights advocates and opponents worked up for the election fight.
What I don’t understand is why would the gay community, being as large as it is support either party? If neither party is representing your needs, start your own!!! This is the United States of America and that is what the founding father did. Could it be that if they are going to belong to a group, the preferred group would be mainstream rather than support other disadvantaged group issues such as African-Americans, Latinos and so on and so on. Can’t have it both ways, self-interest is no different than mainstream sanction of racism.
Whatever ones’s view is on ‘gay life style’it should bother any well meaning honest human being that the best way to rally the base is by anti-gay rhetoric.What kind of scary base is that?Where is this country going?