Republicans using constitutional amendments for 'higher cause'?

The 2004 Presidential election was a shock to most people. Many experts thought that Kerry had the election in the bag. Most experts had the look of shock on their faces as the time tickled away and it looked like George Bush was the winner. But why did Bush win? Did he win because he was a 'great candidate'? Did he win because the Democrats picked the worse possible candidate? I personally think that they used more 'outside' tactics to win. What were those tactics? Constitutional ammendments.

While people considered the Presidential election their main priority, I feel that statewide constitutional amendments were the real driving force behind Bush's reelection. And which amendment was the main driving force? The gay marriage amendment. With the exception of some religious zealot states, like Utah, Mississippi and Oklahoma, the gay marriage amendment was voted on in 'key presidential election' states. As you know, Michigan, Ohio, Oregon, Arkansas, Georgia and Montana were all states that were considered 'purple' before the people came out to vote. And in most of those states, Kerry preformed worse than Gore in 2000.

The Republicans were able to use the gay marriage amendment to associate "democrats" with being "pro-gay marriage", which most of the electorate, Democrats and Republicans alike, opposed. And in a counrty where 22% of people voted on 'moral issues', the Democrats did a poor job of convincing the voters that their candidates were 'independent' on this issue.

Lets take the state of Ohio for example. Most thought that Kerry would win in a close election because the economy was considered the 'big issue' in Ohio. Many people had lost their jobs and many thought this would lead to a backlash against Republicans. But jobs and the economy only polled 1% higher than moral issues in Ohio according to the Gallup/CNN/USA Today exit polls in Ohio.
The images of 'men kissing' scared the Ohio electorate, leading to a Bush win.

While people's voting trends on 'moral issues' increased, so did the amount of Democrats supporting 'marriage protection' amendments. In Ohio, 44% of Democrats supported the gay marriage ban, in Michigan 45%, in Montana 49%, Arkansas 65%, Georgia 64%. Only Oregon, which saw an increase in support for Kerry over Gore, saw very little Democratic support for the marriage protection amendment, at only 28%.

This is the time when Democrats need to see the Republican tactics and use them to their advantage. Without a doubt, these issues were used to influence the larger race, the presidential race. When talking to some of the people in Utah that supported Amendment 3, they could tell me very little about the actual amendment, but were able to tell me the biography of George Bush to a tee and why we should vote for him. The creators of these amendments could care less if their amendments passed or not, as long as it helped elect Bush.

Therfore, we democrats need to learn how to turn this tactic to our advantage. We need to do 'reverse tactics'. There are very few issues that people agree with Democrats on that isn't already law. For example, we cannot do a constitutional amendment in Florida to legalize abortion, because it is already legal. But if we use reverse psychology, and try to get an amendment on the ballot to outlaw abortion (making it look like the Republicans are actually pushing it), then Democratic candidate will be the benefactors. We can use this and other issues as well, like prayer in school and the posting of the ten commandments.

We also need to make 'wedge' issue the backbone of these amendments as well. Democrats advocate amendments like independent redistricting councils, and other things the average person doesn't give a piss about.

We can actually use 'moral' issues AGAINST Republicans. But I just feel that the Democrats just don't get it.