Rick Santorum has suddenly slipped back down to fourth place in New Hampshire, after comments he made about gay marriage leading to polygamy, according to a Suffolk University poll. The pollster cites Santorum’s drop in support among independents and young voters as the reason for his backslide:
Romney leads with 39%, followed by Ron Paul at 17%, Newt Gingrich at 10%, Rick Santorum and Jon Huntsman tied at 9%, and Rick Perry at 1%.
Key finding: “Santorum came under scrutiny at a campaign stop in Concord, N.H. earlier this week when he compared gay marriage to polygamy and admitted he did not know his medical marijuana laws very well. He was jeered for those answers by a predominately student audience. Overnight, his support dropped from 6 percent to 3 percent among undeclared (Independents) and also dropped from 9 percent to 2 percent among voters ages 18-34 years.”
First, we don’t know for sure whether the abrupt drop in support was based on Santorum’s gay marriage comments, but as the Suffolk poll points out, the timing seems to correspond with the polling. New Hampshire primary voters are expected to be more apathetic on social issues (outside of gun control) than Iowa caucus-goers. But if vocal opposition to gay marriage can now actually hurt Republican candidates with New Hampshire primary voters, then what does that say about the future of this issue?
Independents and young conservatives are becoming more supportive of gay marriage (last year was the first that Gallup found that national support for it topped 50 percent). And while the “slippery slope” argument that Santorum often makes has valid points, it hasn’t seemed to be particularly convincing to these groups.
From a legal standpoint, it’s not a stretch to see how some of the arguments for gay marriage could also be used to argue for polygamy. But from a societal perspective, gay marriage is no longer primarily viewed as a deviant act akin to polygamy, bigamy, or incest. In fact, comparing it to these things actually appears to have hurt Santorum in the polls — a red flag that gay marriage opponents will likely find troubling.
Perhaps the better question is : "What does this mean for the relevancy of the New Hampshire Primary"? Nationally, Santorum the republican party is largely with Santorum on this issue. Its the more moderate (whether libertarian, or blue-collar white in New Hampshires case) elements in the party that might have issue. It should be pointed out, that among these moderates, libertarians don't care that Santorum has this view, only how much is he willing to use the bludgeon of government to remake America. As for blue-collar whites, slippery-slope arguments do not get much mileage. They are more concerned with immediate issues. Gays getting married doesn't affect them, they don't care as much either (thats not to say they don't have opinions….its just not one that shapes decision)
Only one candidate running is completely out of sync with the Republican agenda. He voted to repeal dont-ask-dont-tell (1 of only 5 GOP house members to do so). He voted against Bush's FMA to nullify same-sex marriages in all states. And he repeatedly opposes a constitutional amendment to define marriage the way the bible does. So if you really support gays getting married, go right ahead and vote for a democrat like Ron Paul. At least Santorum has the courage to use the power and might of the government to protect Christian values! n
Perhaps the author might want to listen to what Sen. Santorum actually said instead of paraphrasing partisan news accounts. Santorum did not advocate "gay marriage leading to polygamy", but instead was discussing the pernicious effect of upending long-standing societal institutions. n nLike it or not, marriage has been traditionally defined as a union between one man and one woman. We are now considering the redefinition of marriage, not based on its utility to society, but because the current definition hurts some people's feelings. Few can argue gay marriage benefits society as a whole, since the intent of marriage is to provide a stable environment for procreation. We are transitioning from where marriage is no longer a societal institution, but is defined as one that benefits the individual. Santorum's point was that once that threshold is crossed, the definition must continually evolve as someone will always be alienated by marriage restrictions. n nUnderstanding that requires thought and reason, it is much easier to resort to the knee-jerk characterization of Santorum as a knuckle-dragging Neanderthal that hates gays. If we wanted cartoon caricatures of conservatives, we'd be reading HuffPo, rather than Commentary.