I think you have this totally wrong. Most moderate voters on both sides of the aisle are not for gay marriage. We see this in the 11 states that have passed constitutional amendments recently.  They want to keep marriage the way it is or improve on it and they don’t see gay marriage as helping.  As the left gets further left this will make the moderates rebel and go to the right.  Which I believe will lead to a break up of the Dems into two groups far left and moderates. This will kill them politically making the republicans the leading party.  As for the Libertarian party Republicans don’t need them. There isn’t enough to do significant damage during an election. Plus the only people nominated are nut jobs making less likely for them to become anything significant in the eyes of the American people. 

Now for expanding the rights of marriage and I do mean expanding not “making them equal”.  You say that this would be a great ally builder how so? The gay community votes dem not because the dems would allow marriage (at least moderates anyway), but because they also follow the other aspects like universal health care, welfare, and most other leftist causes. So giving them marriage isn’t going to get them on our side. It’s like throwing a dog a bone sure he will like you for a few minutes but in the end he is just going to want more. When you can’t give it to him he bites. 

This is just a quick thought of mine.

1) There’s another rebellious, organized group that feels marginalized, and it’s a group that spoke loudly in this election: evangelicals.

2) Sipidation makes a good point, which is that homosexuals are usually liberal anyway.  Roughly 3/4 voted for Kerry, which is roughly the same ratio that voted for Gore.  Kim Du Toit had a post about this yesterday.  He singled out Andrew Sullivan as not only not having kids, but not even having a car.

3) From a practical standpoint, the gay vote is still a small voting bloc.  The potential return on investment from courting the gay vote is small.

I can follow an argument for gay rights from a principled civil rights standpoint, but I don’t see one from a practical standpoint.

It won’t work.  Failure to oppose gay marriage is a sin.  At least that’s what many hard right Christians will say.  If we go for the gay vote, we’ll lose the Christian vote.

The reasons civil unions won’t work aren’t religion or homophobia; it’s the almighty buck.  Expanded rights in the eyes of government means expanded rights over-- and fewer profits for-- insurance companies (health insurance...) and banks (trusts, inheritances, control over accounts...), both of which are major politial contributors, both of which will only go along with the idea kicking and screaming. I love the idea of civil unions, and in an ideal world thinking like that would create alliances, not strong divisions.  Thinking practically, though, politicians go with the bankroll, whether Republican or Democrat. Besides, having Evangelicals and homosexuals in the same party won’t work for the same reason that there probably aren’t many openly-gay, Evangelical homosexuals.  If you start ticking off the rural conservatives now, especially the ones in Ohio, 136,000 of them might just go the other way next time.

I said in the other topic how I wasn’t sure where I stood on this whole issue.  After more consideration, I know exactly where I stand.  It is my personal belief that homosexuality is a sin.  However, I also believe divorce and especially getting remarried is a sin.  What I plan to do is to personally not engage in the above behaviors.  I’m also going to teach my children that it’s not right to engage in these behaviors, regardless of what “society” says.  The follow up to that of course, will be to respect their fellow man.  “Judge not, lest ye be judged yourself.” That’s always scared the hell out of me.  I wish it did the same to a whole lot of other people.

I’m against any Constitutional Amendment that limits rights to any individual.  The government has plenty of methods available to it to take rights away, they don’t need to write it down on the one document we have that defends our unalienable rights as human beings.  You see, it’s possible to not endorse a behavior, and at the same time, not endorse legislation against it. 

I also don’t believe we “need” the far right to win future elections.  First of all, where are they going to go?  Will they latch on to the pro-choicers, because, at least they’re not gay?  Second, a lot of the people here don’t seem to be far anything.  We’re the moderates, and we’re the majority.  There’s always going to be people who vote one way or another based on abortion, guns, etc.  The rest of us find the candidate that we agree most with on what we consider the most important issues.  Lately, that’s been the republican candidates, but who knows what will happen in 10-20 years or sooner.  God help us, we may even have a legitimate 3rd party that is a common sense candidate, rather than someone who’s even further left or right than the big two.

I am very mixed on the subject.  at this point I don’t have an opinion one way or another.  my belief is marriage is between an man and a woman, but you do bring up a good point about an alliance.  good thing I don’t have to go on record with the subject

Oakslicer, *sigh*

You can’t ‘plan’ to not engage in the above behaviours.  That you’re not gay is nothing to do with choice - it’s on the same level as what hand you write with, what colour hair you have, and whether you can roll your tongue or not.  Similarly, no amount of ‘teaching’ will stop your son bending over another boy and giving him a good seeing to, if that’s the way he is made.  All your teaching will do it alienate him should he turn out gay.  As for your ‘choice’ to not engage in divorce, what will you do if your wife says she wants a divorce?  Or if, say, one night something clicks in her head and she turns into a knife-weilding maniac bent on killing you and your kids?

I think that the GOP would be risking the loss of a powerful voting bloc if it embraced gay marriage.  The upside to embracing gay marriage would be what, the possibility of gaining a few votes from the Democrats?  At what cost?  I think that the majority of gay marriage supporters are most definitely left leaning (Jim K. et al notwithstanding). For those, the thought of voting Republican is inconceivable.

Oakslicer, I disagree with your statement that the GOP doesn’t “need” the far right to win future elections.  I infer (if I am wrong about this, please correct me) that you are saying the anti-gay marriage folks and the pro-lifers are part of this “far right”.  If that is the case, the answer to your question “where would they go?” is simple:  They will go home and stay there on election day.  The pro-lifers have done this in the past, and they would do it again.  It would be foolish to underestimate the effect of traditional moral values on the electoral process.