This time, gay marriage won't galvanize voters

[meegbear]

Desperate times, it is said, call for drastic measures.

In the United States, the Republican Party is certainly desperate; it's in fundamentally worse shape in this presidential election than in probably any since Watergate.

It's not surprising, therefore, that some conservatives want to capitalize on the recent ruling by the California Supreme Court overturning a ban on gay marriage to galvanize voters in the presidential election.

The court decision will deliver a generation of children "straight into the arms of the homosexual activist community," warned James Dobson, the Christian evangelical leader. Dobson is calling on citizens in California and elsewhere to mount a protest.

That dog, as they say in the American South, won't hunt this time.

The gay marriage issue, seized on by President George W. Bush's former political guru, Karl Rove, may have been moderately helpful to Republicans in 2004; but it won't distract voters from other concerns - like the economy, health care and the war in Iraq - in 2008.

The presumptive Republican presidential nominee, John McCain, seems to have little interest in trying to take advantage of the ruling; he opposes gay marriage, yet has no inclination to demagogue the issue and knows this is a big-stakes, big-issues election, not one for focusing on peripheral matters.

He also knows it's a long-term loser for Republicans. One reason that the party's fundamentals are so bad in this election is the overwhelming shift of younger people - those between 18 and 29 - away from being swing voters and toward the Democratic Party; they are also turning out to vote in higher numbers. They're driven by concern about the economy and the war, as well as by revulsion at what they see as Republican intolerance.

<snip>

http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/06/01/america/letter.php

------------------------------------------------------

Click the link for the full article; it's a good writeup on the topic (or non-topic)

[xchrom]

1. recommend

[sui generis]

2. yeah but

20 percent of the U.S. population can reliably be counted on to explode on cue when you say that gays are human, and that's enough to edge in a victory.

The sad part is our younguns get all tuckered out by the time it's votin' time, while the rabid foaming-at-the-mouth folks are arriving at the polls by the church busload.

I was just sickened by the voting turnout in Dallas in some of the poorest neighborhoods, and most shamefully in the very gay-dense central "gay" district (Cedar Springs/Midtown/Uptown) of Dallas.

We have electile disfunction. We need some kind of political viagra to get up to the polls, all good intentions aside.

I am so cheery and optimistic this morning!

Seriously though, I agree that the tide is turning, just hope we don't drop the ball when the whistle blows.

[TechBear_Seattle]

3. You mean we WON'T cost the Democrats the election this year?!

Damn, now what am I going to do as a hobby this summer? And whoever will they blame if the party manages (yet again) to find crashing defeat in what should be a slam-dunk win?

[DCKit]

17. It's "Outrage Fatigue".

With economic and energy issues hitting home, it's going to be hard to distract even the short-sighted yet again from what's really important. We're all going to sink together if the Republicans get another shot at it.

[tanyev]

4. I was astonished by (religious conservative) Rod Dreher's column in Sunday's Dallas Morning News.

He wrote it in a Q/A (sort of) format.


Retreating to a defensible position on gay marriage


The California Supreme Court says gay marriage is a constitutional right. What a gift to Republicans!

You're kidding, right? Republicans are all talk. Conservatives should quit lying to themselves about the culture war. It's over. We've lost.

How? Polls show that most Americans are against gay marriage.

Yes, but not young voters. There's a clearly emerging social consensus in favor of gay marriage.

Maybe conservatives need better arguments.

Good luck with that. What we're arguing against is not gay marriage, really. It's modernity itself.

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/opinion/columnists/rdreher/stories/060108dnedidreher.4edccbb6.html


I kept waiting for him to change tone, to reveal sarcasm or a gotcha!, but it didn't happen. Now I plan to check the LTTEs all this week, to see how much hate mail rolls in from his fans.

[Zuiderelle]

6. As it approaches the end of the article, it is still quite insulting to us.

In the long run?

Well, it's cold comfort, but this can't go on forever. Sorokin argues that once sensate culture plays itself out, people will have to yield to an ideational model of some sort. It is doubtful that any culture can long survive without strong, traditional families and durable moral norms based in a transcendental source. Our civilization's prosperity has masked its social weaknesses.

Which a deep and prolonged economic crisis would reveal.

You got it. The broader culture is lost. Contemporary moral philosopher Alasdair MacIntyre – no conservative, he – believes we've lost the core convictions required for a politics of the common good. Today's politics, he concludes, amount to "civil war carried on by other means."

Cultural conservatives should focus on strengthening their families and local institutions. Dr. MacIntyre's advice is stark: "What matters at this stage is the construction of local forms of community within which civility and the intellectual and moral life can be sustained through the new Dark Ages which are already upon us."

The broader culture is lost. Gay Americans have caused a new "Dark Ages." Whatthefuckever.

[4_TN_TITANS]

11. Dark Ages my ass...

Which played the bigger role in creating and sustaining the Dark Ages - religion or gay marriage? sheesh... Even in victory, I can't stand to listen to conservatives.

[electropop]

12. I agree we're in the Dark Ages. Thanks to the "Conservative Revolution."

The Dark Ages in Europe featured lots of powerful religion, famine, tremendous concentration of power and wealth in a few hands, marauding armies, and a populace helpless to do anything about it. Sound familiar?

[sui generis]

15. actually in the so called "dark ages" things weren't all that dark

There are recorded ceremonies of same-gender "unions" in the church, and so-called "witches" were not executed for perceived crimes. Usually a warning, or a fine or even, gasp, an investigation would take place.

It wasn't until the 15th century, in the Renaissance that we started consistently burning, hanging, disemboweling, decapitating or e-all-of the aboving accused witches and heretics on the silliest flimsiest pretexts.

Nice rebirth there, humanity.

It seems like every time we believe ourselves to be at the fullness of light and knowledge, such as the Victorian Age of Enlightenment (and female suppression), that we tend to do be the most violent and irrational to the people around us.

[closeupready]

13. As I've said before, if heterosexuals NEED taxpayer subsidies in order to reproduce, then

marriage is a perverted institution, because that which is "natural" exists independent of outside influences. So taxpayer-supported marriage amounts to a baby making institution. So fine, let the government raise those babies, and raise taxes on the rich so that they can be raised in a manner commensurate with the class of people who most benefit by encouraging the making of babies.

[tanyev]

16. Oh yeah, sorry. Didn't mean to imply that he had had a change of heart.

Notice how he now wants to amend the constitution in order to "protect" religious institutions.

So what are cultural conservatives supposed to do?

Now? Push for a constitutional amendment carving out a religious liberty exception to federal civil rights laws regarding homosexuality. Otherwise, religious institutions that adhere to traditional sexual morality are going to be strictly penalized once gay marriage is declared to be a federal constitutional right.

Still, viewed in the context of everything else I've ever read by him, it's quite astonishing.

[baby_mouse]

20. He's got the "sensate" versus "ideational" bit backwards.

Well, it's cold comfort, but this can't go on forever. Sorokin argues that once sensate culture plays itself out, people will have to yield to an ideational model of some sort. It is doubtful that any culture can long survive without strong, traditional families and durable moral norms based in a transcendental source. Our civilization's prosperity has masked its social weaknesses."

It's BECAUSE the sensate, mass delusion-driven, populist and frankly somewhat tabloid tropes of conservative religion are corrosive to useful ethical thought that people are turning to ideationally based (i.e. logical, evidence-based and dialogue-derived rather than monologue-derived) morality, i.e., liberal philosophy.

There is no logical reason whatsoever for gay people not to marry. Homophobia is not a durable moral norm, no kind of irrational phobia is. Tolerance and acceptance are truthfully the ONLY AVAILABLE durable moral norms and the fulfillment of the human spirit through love, however it comes about, is the only available transcendental source.

You can take that to the bank, says I.

Oh, incidentally, Iraq was stuffed with strong traditional families, didn't do them much good, did it?

[Turbineguy]

5. The Gay Marriage Issue always

seems to get trotted out for viewing during an election year. A few people get married, civilization doesn't collapse and it goes into hybernation until next go-around.

To all those Christian homophobes: worry about being part of the Rapture instead.

[miles 2 go]

7. I think thats why it passed

so they could use it to rile up the rednecks.

Can't let them gays marry.
Don't take away my guns.
and
If you ain't Christian, you should die.

(Paraphrasing for the rednecks of course)

[Turbineguy]

10. 10 million Gays

16 percent of whom are married. 3 percent of the population. OOOOOOOH!! better watch out for those guys!

A number of years ago at a coffebreak discussion with a serious homophobe this topic came up. Basically I told him: "If they weren't there you'd notice and miss them." I think I was able to give hm a little insight and he looked at things differently after. Babysteps.

[LeftCoast]

8. Good article...thanks for posting it

:hi:

[Coexist]

9. funny thing, I was just polled today and asked if I would vote for a POTUS who disagreed

with my personal stance on gay marriage and then on abortion.

I have never been asked that in a political poll before. Perhaps it is indicative of what the above article points to.

[closeupready]

14. Since Karl Rove and George W. Bush made gay marriage an issue worthy of presidential face time,

the answer is absolutely not, I will personally never ever ever vote for a candidate who opposes gay marriage, full stop. (Not that anyone was asking me, but for what it's worth. :D )

[DCKit]

18. The question is, just what are they going to hit us with this year?

They've worn out "Teh Gays", "Terra! Terra! Terra!" and "The Axes of Eeeeeeevil" so what does McSame have left? Change? They're done stealing in the million$, billion$, trillion$ and Brazillion$ and they're going to start shaking us down for Change?

[terrya]

19. Thank you for posting this