contact: zawilliams@davidson.edu Created: 10/15/04 Updated: 10/15/04 11:30 AM |
 |
This page is part of a class assignment at Davidson College
Gay Marriage: Thune Provides Better Representation
In order to win this fall's South Dakota senate race, both incumbent Tom Daschle and challenger John Thune are attempting to prove that they can properly represent the people of South Dakota on the highly divisive political issue of gay marriage. On this issue alone, it will be shown that Thune's position is more representative than Daschle's.
The two candidates differ slightly on their positions on gay marriage. Although Daschle says he is against same-sex marriages, this summer he led the opposition to the constitutional amendment banning gay marriage (Madden 2004). Daschle reconciles this apparent contradiction by citing the federal Defense of Marriage Act which says that states are not beholden to decisions made on gay marriage in other jurisdictions (Hulse 2004). Under this view, Daschle maintains that South Dakota’s legal ban of same-sex marriages is safe and the amendment is unnecessary. In contrast, Thune is staunchly against gay marriage and would support a constitutional ban against it (johnthune.com 2004).
The emotionally charged gay marriage issue cannot be dealt with through substantive representation. Indeed, feelings on gay marriage are “arbitrary,” “matters of whim or taste,” and “definable only by the person who feels or has them” (Pitkin 2004, 210). Because of the inherent divisiveness of gay marriage, Daschle and Thune are forced to represent descriptively in order to act in a manner “at least potentially responsive to [the constituents’] wishes” (Pitkin 2004, 213). By acting descriptively, both Thune and Daschle are attempting to convince constituents that they share their “values and commitments” on the gay marriage issue (Pitkin 2004).
In South Dakota, where a recent poll showed 63% of state residents in support of a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, John Thune's position descriptively represents a majority of his state's constituents (Frontrunner 2004). While Daschle hopes to also prove his similarity to South Dakota voters by opposing gay marriage in general, as the Senate minority leader he has blocked the constitutional amendment apparently out of concern for representing the broader national constituency of Democrats. However, despite the fact that, nationally, about 62% of liberals oppose the constitutional ban, polls have shown that a slight majority of democrats actually favor such an amendment (CBSnews.com 2004).
The nature of the gay marriage issue forces the representative to act as a delegate rather than a trustee—he or she is thus beholden to the wishes of those represented. In this context, Thune’s position better represents the constituents, both locally and nationally, than Daschle’s. A clear majority of South Dakotans (63%) support the constitutional amendment banning gay marriage as do Republicans nationally (75%). Daschle’s opposition to this amendment puts him at odds with South Dakotans, Democrats, and Americans in general, 59% of which support the constitutional ban (CBSnews.com 2004).contact: zawilliams@davidson.edu Created: 10/15/04 Updated: 10/15/04 11:30 AM |
|