There’s a tsunami, and it isn’t in Japan.
I’ve been blogging for a few months on a series of polls showing increases in support for gay marriage and gay equality. (Here…and here…and here.) They all point in the same direction, and they show such rapid change that, especially at first, I was cautious about taking them at face value, especially when they found majorities for same-sex marriage.
Now comes yet another. And it is as stunning as the others. This is from Gallup, which has asked for years whether gay and lesbian relations are “morally acceptable” or “morally wrong.” In my opinion, this is the single most important polling question on gay rights, because moral disapproval lies at the heart of anti-gay discrimination and animus. As I argued here, when moral disapproval falls below a certain critical mass, the whole superstructure of discrimination will eventually topple with it.
So…in 2011, 56 percent say gay relations are morally acceptable, up four points since just a year ago, and up seven points from just a year before that. Disapproval is down to 39 percent, just over a third of the public. As Gallup’s chart shows, in the past ten years the approval/disapproval contingents have traded places. In other words, our side is where their side was just a decade ago!
And, no, it’s not a fluke. Pew has 58 percent saying that homosexuality should be accepted by society.
Gallup headlines another result (same survey), which strikes me as less important but still interesting: 64 percent say gay or lesbian relations between consenting adults should be legal, the highest in the 30 years since the question was first asked.
Political polls bob up and down, but never in my career of covering politics and society have I seen such rapid movement of public opinion on a core social values. But I think one must bow before the accumulating evidence and say this: we are at a Berlin Wall moment in gay-straight relations. Right now.
We’ve won. It’s all over but the shouting. Now, there will be a lot of shouting, and some of it will matter. But there will be no going back. History has happened.
More: But…an important cautionary note from Steve Chapman in the Chicago Tribune. Change in public opinion does not mean the Republicans change their steadfast opposition any time soon. Money quote:
In fact, there is every reason to think that for the foreseeable future, the GOP will continue to reject gay rights — and there are ample grounds, alas, to think it can do so without any real political penalty.
69 Comments for “This Just In: We’ve Won”
posted by Stefano A on
Saying “we’ve won” in this instance, is a bit like Bush proclaiming victory upon an aircraft carrier.
All the “public” polling in the world has little meaning and will continue to be meaningless until such results are reflected in the attitudes of lawmakers who are actually setting policy and passing law.
posted by JohnAGJ on
Exactly. Until we start seeing these anti-SSM amendments defeated at the polls (hello, Minnesota!) and even the start of repealing those previously adopted, we haven’t won squat.
posted by Tom on
I agree that we have turned the corner, and that we will, in time, win equality under the law. I think that result is certain.
However, I caution you that the struggle will be hard and will try our patience.
We have will continue to make progress two steps forward and one back for years to come, and it will probably be another 10-15 years before we are able to undo the damage the Republican Party did to us by making the anti-marriage amendments a successful, short-term wedge issue.
I wish that this weren’t so, because I would like to see what was started with Stonewall, when I was 21, come to fruition will I am still alive to see it. But I know that we will prevail, and the forces of anti-gay darkness in our country, try as they might to keep bigotry alive, will be overcome.
Meanwhile, let’s work on the possible, fighting issue by issue, legislature by legislature, block by block. Let’s refuse to support the politicians who oppose equality, regardless of party, and support those who support equality, regardless of party. Let’s make ourselves more visible than we now are in our neighborhoods and workplaces, in our churches and synagogues, and in our communities.
posted by esurience on
We’ve got a 2 party system, and politically we won’t win until both parties support us.
I can easily imagine the Republican party holding out on these issues for another 40 years…
posted by Jorge on
Well I for one have been happy to consider the early part of the last decade a victory in itself, since legal marriage is not my goalpost. So good things come of it. Better to not live in a world of darkness.
But the souls of the youth still cry out in pain. Yes I am well aware that the way things have gotten better overall is insane. We still have terrible fears controlling people, even many of us. To be gay is still something that is viewed as a misfortune or something freakish. To accept being gay is something some of the most powerful people in our communities are harsh and silent on.
When you say “we’ve won”, I worry that this will be the death knell for progress and the beginning of a deep social and political decline as people refuse to accept that and cling to being outsiders.
posted by Carl on
We won in an opinion poll that rarely has any bearing on votes. Meanwhile, in places that have votes, Minnesota seems likely to ban gay marriage, Tennessee has banned mention of homosexuality in school and banned cities from having anti-discrimination ordinances. North Carolina is likely to pass a ban. Wyoming supposedly only avoided a ban because some felt the legislation wasn’t anti-gay enough. In Congress, Republicans continue to work hard to stop DADT repeal, and Democrats will only be able to stop them (if they even bother to stop them) because they control the Senate, which they probably won’t by 2013.
Essentially things are getting worse everywhere but in an opinion poll.
posted by JohnAGJ on
The only thing I disagree with you on is DADT repeal. By the time the Republicans possibly regain the Senate repeal will have been in effect for about a year. There is no way that military commanders are going to support the kind of disruption repealing and trying to reinstate DADT would bring to the armed forces. Besides, the Republicans would have to retake the Senate & White House along with holding onto the House before even getting a shot at tampering with DADT repeal. Let’s not forget as well that they would have to have 60 Senators agree to reinstate DADT in order to avoid a filibuster, something I very seriously doubt. Finally, the LCR lawsuit is also still out there which would resolve this matter from the courts if necessary. All in all the GOP is playing politics on DADT repeal to toss a bone to their social con base, know full well it ain’t going anywhere.
posted by esurience on
Well, because the repeal is merely a repeal, and didn’t add any anti-discrimination protections by statute, a future President could theoretically reinstate DADT by executive order. And that’s exactly what the current crop of Republican candidates have vowed to do.
Whether such an executive order would survive a constitutional challenge, who knows, but it could be done.
If Obama wins re-election, then gay and lesbian soldiers would have been serving openly with integrity for 5 years at least, which would make an executive order to reinstate DADT pure insanity… but I wouldn’t put it past some of the Rethuglicans.
posted by Carl on
Good point.
I think ANY Republican President would sign an executive order reinstating a ban, whether it’s 2 years from now, 5-6 years, or 10 years. Their base demands it.
The days of just placating the base are over. Many who have power in the party truly believe that homosexuality is sick and destructive and work hard legislatively to stop it.
posted by JohnAGJ on
Sure, a future GOP president will have the ability to put such an executive order in place. However, they will not find much support among the top brass for this for starters. Why do I say that? Because one thing they hate is chaotic change. A policy which is repealed, reinstated, repealed, reinstated, ad nauseum depending upon which party is in power is something they would strongly oppose. Either reinstate the ban by law so is remains in place for a long period of time (something they will not be able to do) or let repeal stay. Once repeal happens this year every day that goes by will see more and more support for the policy change – especially as servicemembers get to know that their buddy who saved their ass is one of “them”. The GOP knows this. All the noise about DADT now is just a sop to their social con base that has no chance of getting through. It’s no different than their repeated calls to overturn Roe vs. Wade, something they haven’t been able to do for about 40 years. Whether it should be overturned or not is immaterial, what is relevant is that the GOP has done nothing but pay lip-service to this supposed goal. I expect the same to happen with DADT once repeal actually goes through this year. They’ve lost on that and know it.
posted by Carl on
In the past I think the repeal of Roe v Wade was lip service, but that was when big business was still the main force of the GOP. In the last 5-6 years there has been more and more of a move in the states to pass laws that will chip away at and ultimately remove Roe v Wade. They are essentially daring pro-choice groups to go to court, as they know Roe v Wade would probably be overturned.
Those who oppose DADT repeal will always have allies in the military (as it’s become very focused on social conservatism and fundamentalist Christianity) and they also know most of the public won’t care. Democrats, who are so terrified of being seen as weak, will go along too.
That’s the biggest card on their side. Most people who support gay rights do so half-heartedly and rarely make any effort. Those who oppose gay rights are very willing to give as much of their time and money as necessary. That’s why they almost always win.
posted by Carl on
I can see the Republican attaching repeal to something important, and the Democrats passing it, and just saying, “Don’t blame us.”
posted by esurience on
Also, this is only one half of the equation…The other half is “Do you think being anti-gay is morally acceptable?”
When we’ve got a super-majority saying ‘no’ to that, then we can really bust out the champaign. I’m afraid that’s going to be a very long time though.
posted by Houndentenor on
We haven’t won. We are going to, but we haven’t yet and it’s going to take awhile. You tout numbers that everyone has seen coming, especially the social conservatives. Why do you think they pushed so hard for constitutional amendments? Laws are easy to overturn. Constitutional amendments are a little harder to get rid of. Why do you think that the emphasis in campaigns against gay rights and gay marriage they always bring up children? Because they know the ick factor approach is not all that effective any more. In several states we have seen polls show us ahead only to have that lead collapse (and reverse) at the ballot box.
But most importantly, so long as gay Republicans and the “friends” and family of gay people will continue to support vehemently anti-gay politicians so long as they get their tax cut or votes against unions or whatever, we have not won. Karl Rove did this math a long time ago. A lot of Republicans are either indifferent or even position about gay rights, but they aren’t going to vote on that issue no matter how much it harms their sibling or cousin or next door neighbor. So long as those voters aren’t willing to withhold their votes and donations until the GOP stops the anti-gay fearmongering, we haven’t “won” anything.
posted by Jorge on
But most importantly, so long as gay Republicans and the “friends” and family of gay people will continue to support vehemently anti-gay politicians so long as they get their tax cut or votes against unions or whatever, we have not won.
I take great satisfaction in knowing that every single dollar I give to support “vehemently anti-gay politicians” causes you another restless night of sleep.
posted by Tom on
It should cause conservative gays and lesbians who vote for these anti-gay politicians the restless nights, Jorge, not Houndentenor.
I keep seeing the same pattern, over and over, on IGF. Conservative gays and lesbians help anti-gay politicians get elected, and then complain that the Democrats aren’t doing enough to counteract their anti-gay votes.
Witness the long, protracted IGF discussion on DADT. It would have been funny if it weren’t so sad.
posted by Houndentenor on
“I take great satisfaction in knowing that every single dollar I give to support “vehemently anti-gay politicians” causes you another restless night of sleep.”
We think a lot of ourselves, don’t we?
The only thing causing me to lose sleep these days is the tornado alert siren that keeps going off in the middle of the night.
But thanks for confirming my long-held observation that homocons only real issue is hating liberals. You’re only harming yourself by continuing to support politicians who deny you the same rights everyone else takes for granted.
posted by Jorge on
First of all, let’s be clear that I’m only “conservative” in comparison to the rest of the gay community. Overall I consider myself a moderate.
Complaining (or more accurately, pointing out) that Democrats are not pro-gay is not the same as complaining that Democrats “aren’t doing enough to counteract [Republicans’] anti-gay votes.”
I march to my own drumbeat. I don’t even share some of the goals of the gay rights movement, and I certainly don’t approve of a lot of its methods, so I’d rather keep to my own definitions of who is “anti-gay” and who is not and work it out from there without having self-appointed guardians of political righteousness and questionable critical thinking ability looking over my shoulder. The orthodoxy to support only Democrats and to never support “anti-gay” Republicans is not only stifling, it is wrong on the merits.
You’re only harming yourself by continuing to support politicians who deny you the same rights everyone else takes for granted.
I think our disagreement here is irreconcilable.
posted by BobN on
Or… you could clarify which Republicans you give money to.
I believe you said you were in NY. Is your state senator a Republican? Did you donate to his campaign? Where does he stand on SSM?
posted by Jorge on
No, every single one of my representatives in every office is a Democrat.
I am voting for the Devil.
I want to go back to big government conservatism, the days when the right believed in using government power to solve social problems and give everyone more opportunity, the right way. When we believed in Democracy in the Middle East, standing up for human rights, and giving generous aid to help other nations. Nobody cares anymore.
posted by Tom on
All the “public” polling in the world has little meaning and will continue to be meaningless until such results are reflected in the attitudes of lawmakers who are actually setting policy and passing law.
Dead on.
Gallup notes that The recent jump in support for same-sex marriage came entirely from Democrats and independents (69% of Democrats and 59% of independents support marriage equality), but Republicans numers have not changed. Only 28% of Republicans favor marriage equality, the same percentage as last year. The shift in opinion does not change the political equation.
Accordingly, the change in opinion is not likely to translate into changes in opposition to marriage equality by Republican politicians any time soon, as others have noted, for the simple reason that few voters are “equal means equal” single-issue voters, or even care all that much whether gays and lesbians are treated like citizens, placing greater importance on other issues.
Republican resistance to equality will not soon disappear for two reasons: (1) “faggot, faggot” continues to energize the base, turning them out in general elections, and (2) taking strong anti-equality positions is essential to winning over anti-gay voters in Republican primaries in most states, including blue and purple states. That’s why Republican presidential candidates are falling all over each other to establish their anti-equality credentials in Iowa. In red states like Texas, taking a “gay-friendly” stance on anything is political suicide, and will be for a long time to come.
So don’t expect any significant changes in the political landscape any time soon. The house of cards — and it is a house of cards, built on false facts and faulty reasoning — won’t come crashing down any time soon.
Perhaps I am missing something, but I don’t see that the shift in public opinion, as welcome as it is, is going to change the timetable. It is an important step — an essential step, to be truthful, and one that has been hard-earned by the hundreds upon hundreds of thousands of gays and lesbians who came out to their families, friends, neighbors, co-workers and communities over the last several decades, often at personal risk — but it will be a long time before our gains translate into legislation.
posted by Matt on
I would like to add to the pile-on. You don’t take enough note of the fact that the Gallup poll showed no movement at all among Republicans. We had our window of all-Dem control of the government — during which we got almost nothing, and DADT didn’t get repealed until after the elections. We are unlikely to see such a period of Democratic power again anytime soon.
The “it’s inevitable” argument, in general, is a weak one. And also passive — it suggests that actual gay people (or straight supporters) need do little or nothing, that things will change for the better thanks to inertia. Haven’t you noticed that the Platonic Ideal of ineffectiveness, the Human Rights Campaign, uses the “it’s inevitable” argument as their automatic responses to everything? Let’s ditch inevitability and focus on making a specific case based on specific individuals who are deserving of having their marriages recognized.
Lastly — show these same people who took the Gallup poll even one National Organization for Marriage-produced “Mommy, why are we being taught about men wearing dresses in kindergarten?” and support would drop into the low 40s or high 30s. This is a low-salience issue for a lot of people, and they will respond to scare tactics.
posted by Amicus on
Two thoughts.
Opponents like Robert P. George have said publicly that the issue is like abortion, so they think they can hold the line overtime. I suspect that he’s incorrectly equated aborted fetuses with loving couples, so he may get a big surprise on that calculation.
On the other, I hope cautious (rather than “conservative”) watchers like Blankenhorn stop trying to ‘hold the line on homosexuality’ and really sit down and think about how to propagate a so-called conservative ethic for gays (as opposed to, say, “the full Stacey”), thereby pivoting in an appropriate and productive way on the issue. If he doesn’t know/see how that can be done, we can put words of wisdom in his hands, perhaps…
posted by JohnAGJ on
Agreed. George forgets that the reason abortion remains controversial isn’t because of Roe vs. Wade, which is to say not because of the ruling itself from SCOTUS. No, it remains controversial because abortion opponents rightly or wrongly believe that the taking of innocent human life is involved here. That critical component is missing in the same-sex marriage debate. Once SSM becomes more common even many of those who oppose it on religious grounds will not advocate for changes in the law like they do on abortion. Well, that is as long as they believe their religious rights are being respected under the law. We have a long way to go before this happens and it may not occur during my lifetime but eventually I am confident it will.
posted by Cindy on
Sometimes, I guess it’s fun to count your chickens…
posted by Lymis on
Sometimes. But I think at this point, some of those chickens are not only not yet hatched, but they are in the eggs that are still being thrown at us.
Progress? Definitely. Victory? Not yet.
posted by BobN on
Pffff
And worse than “Pffff”, a very puzzling column from an otherwise usually thoughtful person.
posted by Lori Heine on
Perhaps the puzzlement, from those who are reluctant to see progress here from the Right, is caused by the fact that the Left keeps moving the goalposts.
It used to be that Right-Wingers were united in opposition to gay rights of any kind. Then it was that Republicans were. Now, because neither conservatives in general nor Republicans in particular are united in opposition to ALL gay rights, the Left has shifted the standard.
Now, not only every Republican, but every individual on the Right, who opposes gay rights of ANY sort must magically evaporate into the ozone in order for gays to take seriously that we have allies on that side of the aisle. How likely is that to happen? Not very. Thus can the Leftists retain our support.
Opposition to our progress still exists on the Right in general, and in the GOP in particular. Moreover, in some quarters it is still quite strong. The only way to change this is to get involved in quarters other than on the far Left, and to stay involved. Not to quit when things don’t go our way, or when some asshole makes a homophobic remark.
This isn’t junior high school. We’re not twelve-year-olds anymore. The cool kids may not want us to sit at their table in the cafeteria if we associate with those icky conservatives. But in the adult world, sometimes we have to do things that aren’t always fun or that don’t provide us with instant gratification. This is going to take time, and plenty of patience, and it will take lots of hard work.
Can we, or can we not, participate fully in democracy according to our own lights about what’s best for this country? If we cannot participate as conservatives, or Republicans, because many of them persist in being icky and mean, then we do not enjoy full citizenship. Period.
Those who hate us — really do hate us, and wish us ill — would much rather see us as Leftist Democrats than as libertarian or conservative Republicans. That speaks volumes, in and of itself.
posted by esurience on
So your strategy for us to get full equality is to give more power, money, volunteering time, and votes, to the party that opposes us.
If you’re going to say something that stupid, try and use fewer words next time.
Ultimately, the Republican party will need to be changed from the inside. But gay-supportive voters switching sides to the Republicans wouldn’t facilitate that change, it would delay it.
If there’s no electoral cost to their position there’s no reason to change their position.
I don’t object to you sitting at a table with conservatives, I object to you giving your money, your time, or your votes to them.
posted by Tom on
Lori, I will simply say what I’ve said many times before: The reason, and the only reason, that the Democratic Party is currently supportive of equal treatment under the law for gays and lesbians, is that gay and lesbian Democrats got involved at the local, state and federal level 35 years ago, and kept the pressure on Democratic politicians ever since.
Progress has not been as fast as I would have liked, and we have not always won our battles, but we have made progress, little by slowly, through the legislative process in the blue and purple states and, to a somewhat lesser extent, at the federal level.
You are right to point out that the process of turning a party is slow, hard work, requiring persistence and, to some extent, patience. But there is also a limit to patience, and boundaries that need to be set with politicians. With a few exceptions, gay and lesbian Democrats have not given time or money to Democratic politicians who do not support equality. I believe that is as it should be.
And we have “moved the goal posts”, at least in one sense, as the political environment changed through our own efforts, although I think that it is less a matter of moving goal posts than going for the next down as we marched downfield.
Years ago, we fought to end outright discrimination — changing the US Postal Service’s ban on mailing gay and lesbian magazines and newsletters, an end to sodomy laws, an end to federal job discrimination, defeating Prop 6 in California, legal demolition of Amendment 2 in Colorado, an end police raids on gay bars, and so on.
Today, having achieved those goals, we fight for equality — DADT repeal, marriage equality, and so on.
We changed our objectives as we moved down field, but we never changed our objective (the “goal post” so to speak) — equal treatment under the law. I believe that is as it should be, as well.
The simple fact is that the Republican Party is under the thumb of forces that oppose equality and, to be blunt about it, want to undo most of the gains we’ve made — look, for example, at the “don’t say gay” legislation just enacted Tennessee, or the Republican assault on Wisconsin’s very limited Domestic Partnership law. We have to fight on two fronts at once — moving toward the goal post, and fighting off attempts to push us back down the field. It takes a lot of time, determination, energy, and money to be in the fight.
I’ve pretty much given up on the Republican Party as a change agent. I don’t think that the Republican Party is going to stop fighting equality until after the war is long over.
But that doesn’t mean, to my mind, that those of you who are conservatives should sit around and wait for those of us who are aligned with the Democratic Party to achieve change. All of you should be involved in conservative politics, active members of your local and county party organizations, pushing for change along conservative lines and making yourselves thorns in the side of the anti-gay forces that currently hold sway in the Republican Party.
Either that, or leave it and join the Libertarians. But for God’s sake don’t support anti-gay politicians.
posted by BobN on
Exactly!
Except it’s been longer than 35 years. Also, contrary to Lori’s summary of the situation, 40-some years ago there were already pro-gay Republican pols. They went into hiding and/or changed their views. It was easy for them to do so because so few gay Republicans came out to them.
posted by Houndentenor on
There are very few Republicans who hold office who are for gay rights of any kind. That’s not a fiction of the left. That’s just a fact. Continuing to vote for anti-gay politicians with the hope that they will somehow see the light has been the policy of the gay conservatives for a long time and what has it accomplished. Nothing. Oh, occasionally the wife of someone who once ran for national office will come out for gay rights only to take it back in the same news cycle? Who cares.
It’s obvious that the only win is Democratic majorities and even that requires pressuring them to make good on their promises. Republicans block any progress and brag about it.
posted by Lymis on
Don’t confuse removing necessary obstacles with moving the goalposts.
When nearly every state in the union had anti-sodomy laws, often criminalizing any form of same-sex conduct, including merely “soliciting” sodomy (otherwise known as asking for a date), it was pointless to talk about things like workplace protections or marriage equality.
So those laws had to go first. And yes, at the time, nobody was talking about marriage, not because we didn’t want it, but because it was pointless to talk about it until some basic huge obstacles were removed first.
I’ll agree that anyone who claims that there has been no progress on gay rights is delusional. But progress is not the same as equality.
And no, it won’t be over until no major party includes explicit anti-gay policies in their official platform, and until no politician can be explicitly anti-gay any more than they can now be explicitly racist.
But that doesn’t mean the next step is to join the current Republican Party. The Republican Party DOES have to change from the inside, but they’ve made it crystal clear that those changes aren’t going to be made by gay people becoming Republican, but rather by proving to Republicans that it is costing them too much to stay anti-gay.
posted by Tom on
It used to be that Right-Wingers were united in opposition to gay rights of any kind. Then it was that Republicans were. Now, because neither conservatives in general nor Republicans in particular are united in opposition to ALL gay rights, the Left has shifted the standard.
The Republican Party has not always stood in opposition to gay rights. In the 1970’s and into the 1980’s the battle was fought in both parties, with measurable success in both parties.
Let me give you an example. Wisconsin was the first state in the union to pass an anti-discrimination law that included gays and lesbians. The law passed with a significant number of Republican votes, and was signed into law by Lee Dreyfus, the state’s Republican governor.
The Republican Party went south, both figuratively and to some extent literally, on gay rights after Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell and the gang were invited into the party’s center by Ronald Reagan’s political operatives. Barry Goldwater and a few other Republicans of a libertarian streak strongly opposed the religious takeover of the Republican Party, and lost the battle.
As much as I am disgusted with the current Republican Party, which seems obsessed with “faggot, faggot”, I think that it is important to keep the party’s history in mind.
posted by Lori Heine on
“But for God’s sake don’t support anti-gay politicians.”
Agreed. Is that a surprise? You seem to automatically assume I would “support anti-gay politicians.”
Every social reactionary who knows me knows my position. And they think that I’m a pain in the ass. No one would confuse me with somebody who supports anti-gay politicians.
Again, what most pisses off those who genuinely hate and oppose us? Not when we stand up and crow proudly as Leftists, or function as good little Democratic Party flunkies. What they can’t stand is when we join their party — and insist that they move over to make room for us.
I switched from the Libertarian Party to the GOP so I can vote in the 2012 Republican primary. I can assure you I didn’t do so in order to vote for anybody who’s anti-gay. Nor was it even to cast my ballot for anybody on the fence.
It is probably a mistake to assume that every gay or lesbian voter to the Right of the Democratic Party would vote for those who hate us. I understand the whole “self-hater” narrative, but it’s gotten very tired and silly. It depends on never bothering to find out why we take the stand we do.
posted by Tom on
It is probably a mistake to assume that every gay or lesbian voter to the Right of the Democratic Party would vote for those who hate us.
I don’t make that assumption. I am puzzled, though, by the relatively large number of gays and lesbians who vote for politicians, almost all Republicans these days, who actively oppose gay rights, and by that I do not simply mean marriage equality.
What would motivate a gay or lesbian in Wisconsin, for example, to vote for politicians who have pledged to repeal Wisconsin’s Domestic Partnership Act, which grants hospital visitation, end-of-life decision, inheritance and burial rights to registered domestic partners, and not much else? What would motivate a gay or lesbian to support Tim Pawlenty, who vetoed a Minnesota law granting domestic partner’s the right to bury each other, and nothing else? I don’t get it.
I do not volunteer time or contribute money to politicians unless they support equal treatment of gays and lesbians and are willing to say so in public. I am a bit less stringent on voting, but I do not vote for politicians who actively oppose equality.
I guess each of us has to make our own decisions about where to align ourselves and what to do, given our binary system. I’m glad you are actively trying to turn the Republican Party around, and I’m gladder still that you don’t support anti-gay politicians. I wish more conservative gays and lesbians were like you.
Not enough conservative gays and lesbians are willing to get involved or put the pressure on Republican politicians. You are, and that’s great.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Because, Tom, gay and lesbian Republicans are normal, functioning adults.
If most gays and lesbians were actually adults, they would realize that “hospital visitation, end-of-life decision, inheritance and burial rights” were all things they are capable of securing yourself quite nicely and neatly. They’re called wills and powers of attorney. Furthermore, should you start whining about the estate tax, I will simply remind you that, as an Obama Party member, you have endorsed forcing people to pay more in taxes and eliminating what you term “tax loopholes”, and you have pushed rhetoric that the only people who are subject to estate taxes are greedy rich folks who should have to pay anyway.
Now you see, Tom, once you realize that what the Obama Party is offering you are things that you can secure for yourself right now without their help, you tend to look at the price of what they’re offering with a more jaundiced eye — and it is ugly. Higher taxes while they dodge them themselves, like Sebelius, Rangel, Geithner, Solis, and Obama himself. Rampant corruption and kickbacks, such as Barney Frank abusing his position to get his sex partners cushy jobs at agencies he oversaw and helping racist Maxine Waters channel taxpayer dollars to banks failing from mismanagement and threatening her profits. Threats of audits against political opponents made by Obama. Clear reports of the Obama Department of Justice insisting that black people should never be prosecuted. Honoring rap singers who endorse and support misogyny and killing police officers. Calling for Sarah Palin and her family to be raped, imprisoned, tortured, and murdered.
And my personal favorite, Barack Obama’s Organizing for America and the Wisconsin Obama Party causing death threats to be sent to Republicans and their families and openly calling for the bombing of public spaces, regardless of how many other people might be killed.
People who send death threats like that are filth, Tom, and the Obama Party fully supports, endorses, and refuses to punish their actions. But you can’t recognize that because, as a childish gay and lesbian, you won’t take responsibility for securing your own “hospital visitation, end-of-life decision, inheritance and burial rights”, and thus need the government to do it for you.
That’s the problem, Tom. You and your fellow Obama Party members rationalize your vote and brainless support for the Obama Party by claiming that everything Republicans do is “antigay”, just as Evan Hurst at Truth Wins Out and Wonkette claimed that anyone who opposed their malicious attacks on Trig Palin was a homophobe.
Intelligent adult gays have simply figured out that you call everything with which you disagree antigay and homophobic. And since you disagree with everything Republicans do out of blind partisanship, you simply consider anything and everything Republican to be antigay.
posted by BobN on
“What they can’t stand is when we join their party — and insist that they move over to make room for us.”
Nonsense. There has been a concerted effort to win over gay voters on the part of the GOP. From well before the 2004 election, various GOP pols made speeches — and risked cooties — at Log Cabin functions. The gay press — largely corporately owned by that point and tricked by the “diversity of voices” garbage — was chock full of articles about “gay doesn’t define me, especially not my politics” crap. Then there’s the mindless acceptance of “polling” giving the GOP 25-35% of the gay vote.
Of course, this stuff is to get our money and our votes and you’re probably right that they really don’t want our actual participation in other ways.
posted by Houndentenor on
Did I miss something? Among the announce GOP presidential candidates for 2012 is there a single one with a pro-gay voting record? If Giuliani announces, his record is actually pretty good. (Not perfect, but then neither were Obama’s and Clinton’s.) Is there anyone else running on the Republican side who is pro-gay or even just not too anti-gay? Will any of the candidates make even the slightest attempt to remove the anti-gay language from the GOP 2012 platform?
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
The funny part is how the definition of “antigay” and “pro-gay” changes with party affiliation.
For example, according to Houndentenor and his fellow Obama gays, supporting and endorsing constitutional amendments banning gay-sex marriage is “pro-gay”, and gay and lesbian organizations should endorse and support those people who push it.
That’s why Republicans don’t bother, Houndentenor. No use trying to appeal to a bigot or to make an intelligent argument. You have made it clear that you don’t think for yourself and that you rationalize based solely on party affiliation. You’re an irrational bigot, and pleasing you is something only a group of idiots like the Obama Party would try to do.
posted by Jorge on
I switched from the Libertarian Party to the GOP so I can vote in the 2012 Republican primary.
*Sigh!* Good luck with that one. When I pulled that four years ago Giuliani’s campaign went splat!
Now? I’m looking for Bush Republicans who aren’t slaves to low-low-low spending, and the only one who qualifies is at the bottom of every single list.
I think your earlier post was awesome.
posted by Cindy on
From the Chicago Tribune article
“But the resistance is still strong and broad-based. The recent jump in support for same-sex marriage, Gallup notes, came entirely from Democrats and independents. Among Democrats, support now stands at 69 percent, with 59 percent of independents agreeing.
Republicans have not changed their minds. Only 28 percent are in favor — the same as last year.”
It’s taken decades to get Dems and Independents to move, but once the tipping point was reached, look at the pace of change in opinions from those two groups. Do you all think it’s another set of decades to reach the same type of tipping point for Republicans or can we have more hope than that?
posted by MNP on
Just remember, one party fought this every step of the way, and one party while not perfect had the discussion and did not reject it out of hand.
posted by Lori Heine on
“Nonsense,” Bob? And how is that? You basically said the same thing I did.
I wasn’t attempting to imply they don’t want our money or our votes. They won’t get either from me, unless they support me instead of attacking me. Most of the gay Republicans I know follow the same policy.
I would also point out that you are lumping all together into one big “they” two totally different groups of people.
Social reactionaries most certainly do NOT want us in “their” party. Economic conservatives are generally the ones courting us. These two groups are largely mutually exclusive. Social reactionaries don’t tend to care about the economy unless it absolutely directly affects them. Sometimes their zealotry burns so intensely that they don’t even care then.
Economic conservatives will bend over for the social whackos when they think it’s necessary to help hold the party together. But there is a third element, many of whom are very new to the GOP, and these are libertarians. They left the GOP years ago (if they ever belonged to it) because they couldn’t stand the whackos. Now they’re back, because demographic studies have shown that the GOP of their grandkids will be much more libertarian than it ever has been in the past.
The same Democrats and “progressives” who gleefully entertain themselves with the infighting that now rages in the GOP would do well to remember that in a party torn by infighting, there must — by logical inference — be more than one, monolithic “they.”
posted by BobN on
“Most of the gay Republicans I know follow the same policy.”
Most of the gay Republicans I’ve known over the years, don’t. They gave generously to the GOP. Mind you, it’s a fairly small data set in my case. This was also a while back — though not that far — when gay issues weren’t quite so front-and-center.
I’m glad to hear you give them no money.
posted by Carl on
“Economic conservatives will bend over for the social whackos when they think it’s necessary to help hold the party together. But there is a third element, many of whom are very new to the GOP, and these are libertarians. They left the GOP years ago (if they ever belonged to it) because they couldn’t stand the whackos. Now they’re back, because demographic studies have shown that the GOP of their grandkids will be much more libertarian than it ever has been in the past.”
The problem is that libertarians in the GOP are more than happy to go along with anti-gay legislation. Rand Paul is a hero of libertarians and he found reasons to oppose marriage equality and oppose DADT repeal – I don’t think I’ve heard him espouse any opinions in favor of equality.
The Tea Party is supposed to be libertarian. Yet all we have seen from legislatures won by Republicans in a “Tea Party” election year is a slew of anti-gay legislation.
There is a very strong status quo in the GOP, and that is, with each passing year, views on social issues move more and more towards an extreme social conservative view.
posted by Lori Heine on
Carl, and you point is…
That we should all just stay on the plantation? That we should march in lockstep with a party we generally find abhorrent? That we should simply go along with the wrecking of the country?
I hate absolutely everything the Democratic Party has become. Everything. Even the support for gays is not enough, because usually it amounts to tossing us a bone when they really need us. Screw them. I’m tired of holding my nose.
Nobody is ever going to find a political party they agree with all the time. We have exactly the same choice every other citizen has, which is to pick the party that best fits us, or the one we believe we can change.
If it’s possible to help throw a monkey-wrench into the social-reactionary works in the GOP primary in 2012, I’m damned sure going to do it. Then I can go back to the Libertarian Party and be happy and safe. If ALL I cared about, all the time, was being happy and safe (even in a crucial election year), then I should have been born a hamster in some nice little kid’s cage.
Life’s not perfect. We have choices we must make, and some of them suck. I don’t like the stand of any party on gay issues, except for the Libertarians. As long as our system is dominated by two parties that suck — both run, basically, by irrational, bullying children — then you follow the strategy that seems best to you, and I’ll follow mine.
posted by Houndentenor on
You still haven’t answered the question of which GOP presidential candidate with a good record and position on gay issues you plan to support.
And of course we all think (unfairly, I suppose, since we don’t know you but then only your own blog you claim that liberals all want to destroy the Christian church so I already think you’re a nutjob just from that!) that gay conservatives will vote for antigay candidates when a quarter of gays and lesbians voted for Bush/Cheney in 2004 even though he ran on an anti-gay platform.
Do they economic conservatives really support gay rights? Or do they just “tolerate” gays without lifting a finger on their behalf. There’s a difference.
posted by Jorge on
Bush and Cheney ran on an anti-gay platform?
In case it wasn’t already obvious, anti-gay must mean different things to different people.
posted by Tom on
I think that the semantics of “anti-gay” are largely irrelevant, given where we are as a country right now.
At this point, although far-right, anti-gay conservatives still advocate such measures and isolated instances of anti-gay repression continue to crop up (for example, the “Don’t Say Gay” law enacted last week in Tennessee), the political environment has shifted and we are no longer fighting sodomy laws, police raids on gay bars, bans on gay/lesbian employment in schools and government, laws restricting discussion of homosexuality and other similar repressive laws that existed when the modern struggle began in the early 1970’s. We’ve won those battles.
We are now fighting for equal treatment under the laws — DADT repeal, marriage equality (whether you define that as civil marriage or civil unions), two-parent adoption, and so on.
So perhaps a better word would be “anti-equality”. It is a lot clearer in today’s political environment. I think I’ll start using it instead of “anti-gay”.
Whether you chose to define it as “anti-gay” or “anti-equality”, the 2004 Republican Platform contained these planks:
And, of course, it is worth noting forget that the Republican strategy for 2004 brought us anti-marriage (many with the nuclear option banning civil unions) in a large number of states, a strategy that continues in the present day.
posted by BobN on
And I would emphasize to Jorge the following:
The Constitutional amendment process guarantees that the final decision will rest with the American people and their elected representatives. President Bush will also vigorously defend the Defense of Marriage Act, which was supported by both parties and passed by 85 votes in the Senate. This common sense law reaffirms the right of states not to recognize same-sex marriages licensed in other states.
It sounds nice and democratic, but what it means in context is that the ONLY way to overturn the Constitutional Amendment they fully backed would be another Constitutional Amendment repealing it. That’s one damn high bar.
posted by Jorge on
Got tired of me dismissing Bush’s support for the amendment (which in my mind relied heavily on the last of the three points in the platform) so you sidestepped to cite the Republican party platform, eh? I was expecting that.
It is said that Bush’s support of the Federal Marriage Amendment tied in with the Republican party platform’s even stronger language to bring scores of conservative voters to the polls who improved the Republican majority. I consider the Republican party platform irrelevant to the Bush 2004 campaign. I reject the assumption that where one person stands on principle is linked to where other people in the party may choose to stand, even as part of a political movement.
So perhaps a better word would be “anti-equality”. It is a lot clearer in today’s political environment. I think I’ll start using it instead of “anti-gay”.
I will not contest that term.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
And of course, it is worth noting how the Obama Party candidate in 2004, John Kerry, fully endorsed and supported said constitutional amendments, and proudly bragged that he and Bush had the “same position” on gay and lesbian issues.
But of course, Houndentenor and his fellow liberal gays were out there screaming that Kerry’s position was pro-gay and shoveling millions of dollars and volunteer hours toward it.
That election was when I realized fully that Houndentenor, Tom, BobN, and their fellows were just irrational bigots who were looking for any excuse to hate Republicans, bash Bush, and mindlessly serve the Obama Party that owned them and for whose approval they were desperate.
And that’s why they call gay and lesbian conservatives and Republicans, quote, “scumbag traitorous Quisling self-hating homo KAPO”.
Fully endorsed and supported by GLAAD, by the way. Pretty funny that an organization that wets itself over “defamation” would be supporting and endorsing calling people Nazis, but then again, the gay and lesbian community is more about hating Republicans, bashing Bush, and mindlessly serving the Obama Party than it is about consistency or intelligence.
posted by BobN on
Tsk, tsk, ND. Linking directly to a source which contradicts your statement within just a few words of its beginning?
Your filing skills are slipping….
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Pity that’s all you read, BobN.
John Kerry, who Sullivan supported, isn’t for gay marriage: “The president and I have the same position, fundamentally, on gay marriage. We do. Same position.” Or, as he said on another occasion: “”I’m against gay marriage, . . . Everybody knows that.”
And, as was pointed out:
And it’s not the GOP that’s circulating a “list” of gay Congressional staffers in the hopes of getting them fired.
So let’s see, once again, we have BobN and his fellow gays and lesbians shrieking that opposing gay-sex marriage is always antigay and that anyone who does so is a theocrat and homophobe while simultaneously insisting that anyone who would deliberately try to get a gay person fired should be in jail — while at the same time insisting that opposing gay-sex marriage is pro-gay and gay-supportive and deliberately trying to get gay people fired.
posted by BobN on
More pity that’s all you quote or link to or ever manage to say about anything.
Yes, Kerry opposes SSM. Yes, Obama opposes SSM (last time he addressed the issue directly — some say he’s fibbing — I’m ambivalent as to whether I like that). Both support fully equal civil unions.
And the GOP? Well, just look around. State after state. Near lock-step opposition to civil unions and total opposition to SSM.
I really can’t imagine why you waste your time telling a bunch — ooops, a handful — of gay people on here the same thing over and over. It’s not like anyone here doesn’t know all of this. Your relatively long vaca from IGF lulled me into forgetting how tiresome and pointless it is to engage you.
Sorry ’bout that. Won’t happen again.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
I really can’t imagine why you waste your time telling a bunch — ooops, a handful — of gay people on here the same thing over and over. It’s not like anyone here doesn’t know all of this.
It’s mainly to demonstrate that “antigay” and “homophobic” as screamed by gay and lesbian people has the same meaning as “racist” when screamed by Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton.
Which is to say, it really has nothing to do with homophobia or race, but more about throwing tantrums to get your way.
posted by Carl on
“That we should all just stay on the plantation? That we should march in lockstep with a party we generally find abhorrent? That we should simply go along with the wrecking of the country?”
If people truly feel that helping Republicans will save the country, then I respect their choice. I personally don’t see Republicans doing anything that is saving the country. I see them falling all over each other to prove who is the most conservative, to the point of twisting themselves into knots and being terrified to actually give their honest opinion. I see them grandstanding over not giving money to people who lost their homes, incomes, friends and family in natural disasters. I see them anointing certain members of their party as heroes for little other reason than boilerplate like, “They took on the unions” or, “They don’t raise taxes,” even though this is often done in hamfisted ways that do Republicans far more harm than good (like the Wisconsin fiasco) or these taxes just come out in a different, and more damning, way (like Pawlenty’s endless “no taxes” dance in Minnesota).
Who are these Republicans who are trying to save the country? Where are they?
There are no Democrats I really support at this point. I don’t care. I give no money. All I do is vote. And the GOP has given mo no reason, on any level, to vote for them.
Even the possibility of choosing a less extreme nominee for the GOP seems to backfire, given that McCain ended up choosing Sarah Palin and then, after he lost, spending two years voting out of what seemed to be spite.
posted by Lori Heine on
“You still haven’t answered the question of which GOP presidential candidate with a good record and position on gay issues you plan to support.”
As the primaries are still more than a year away, Hound, why would any reasonable person necessarily expect me to? Perhaps Ron Paul, though more likely the more gay-positive Gary Johnson. Who knows who else might even be in the running by then?
“only [sic] your own blog you claim that liberals all want to destroy the Christian church so I already think you’re a nutjob just from that!)”
Well, I’d sure like you to link to precisely where I said that “ALL” liberals want to destroy the Christian church. What’s far more likely is that you are the nutjob for having drawn such an over-the-top conclusion.
You actually reveal far more about yourself, in making statements like that, then you do about me or anybody else. You, evidently, have to act like an asshole and insult anyone with whom you disagree.
And this “we all think” business is truly pathetic. Are you really twelve? Do you feel the need to hide behind whatever you feel the crowd’s opinion to be?
Perhaps I am a nutjob. But perhaps, in personally attacking someone who has simply come here (gasp! how threatening!) expressing an opinion different than yours, you have shown yourself to be an insecure, immature little jerk.
posted by Houndentenor on
From Jan. 17, 2011:
“I became a conservative because I am a Christian. Though some of my gay Christian friends would not like to hear it, every Christian — straight AND gay – is, essentially, a conservative. We are conservative because the world will not have it any other way. Our Leftist/collectivist champions have nothing but hostility for the Christian faith, and give every indication they wish to destroy it. They hate not only the faith of our fathers and mothers, but everything about the Western civilization whose principles give us our sole real hope for a decent life.”
posted by Lori Heine on
And from THAT quote, Hound, you are able to come up with the fantabulous charge that I stated “ALL” liberals want to destroy the Christian church?
The phrase I used was “our Leftist/collectivist champions.” If you think I meant that to apply to every liberal in America, you must think I hail from some planet upon which there are no liberals.
The people to which I referred are those who have invested considerable time and effort into turning left-leaning churches into arms of the Democratic Party. Having been a member of several of these churches over the past nearly fifteen years, I believe I have some credibility in saying this is happening. They may do it primarily in the context of church members’ political involvement, but they definitely encourage them to drag their political agenda into almost every conversation that takes place at church activities — even supposedly casual ones.
When did this last happen to me? How about last night? It has happened several times over the past month alone.
The same thing happens in Right-leaning churches, as social reactionaries in the GOP try their best to bend them into arms of the Republican Party. If you bothered to look hard enough, you’d probably find that somewhere I am on record as having said as much. Of course, that would not further your case against me as a Right-Wing collaborator and “nutjob.”
I do not believe that Marxism — which I think is the true goal of Left-Wing politics in America today — is compatible with Christianity. If that makes me a “nutjob,” then I am in good company. I have heard fellow church-members openly declare themselves to be socialists, and this just within the past couple of weeks. If somebody’s crazy in this picture, I would contend that it is not me.
To twist what I said into some statement that I think “ALL” liberals are out to destroy some monolithic entity (which I do not believe exists) called THE Christian church is absurd. The church today is so divided — largely because of the insistence of politically-minded people to drag it into politics — that it has long ceased to function as a unified entity. It is more divided now, thanks to politics, than it has been at any time probably since the Reformation.
Many liberals, moreover, have such deep contempt for the Christian faith that they cannot be bothered even trying to coopt it. Some Christian liberals, on the other hand, have the sense to realize that the Body of Christ should never be subordinated to temporal political concerns.
I do stand by everything I said in the statement you quote. It simply does not say what you are trying to make it say. In trying to smear me as a “nutjob,” just because you disagree that any gay person should be other than a bootlicking toady to the Democratic Party, you have done nothing but reveal yourself as a liar.
But I guess that is the Obama, Chicago gangster politics way…
posted by Houndentenor on
You ARE a nutjob. All these tirades over the word “all”. If I had just left out that one word it would accurately interpret your position? The difference between “liberals” and “all liberals” is paper thin.
And really…was it liberal Christians that dragged the church into politics? You must not go to a Baptist or charismatic church very often. I will agree with you that I’d prefer my religion and my politics separate. As it is I have had to turn down jobs here in the midwest (as a church musician) because the politics of the church were so extreme. I knew I couldn’t stomach it and I just couldn’t stand whoring myself out to such hateful awful people. (Note: I guess they have a right to be hateful and awful. I just don’t have to be there.)
posted by Jorge on
How come no one ever calls me a nutjob?
You just heard her say she doesn’t believe all liberals hate Christians. If you take her word for it, you still get to call her a nutjob. So take her word for it and run with it.
We have a very important job to do and we must all try our best. When you stand up for what you believe in, you put yourself out there. You look wacky. So call the kettle black.
posted by Lori Heine on
“And really…was it liberal Christians that dragged the church into politics?”
Now, Hound, your pettiness and childishness really has reached ridiculous lengths. Did you somehow miss what I said in my previous comment:
“The same thing happens in Right-leaning churches, as social reactionaries in the GOP try their best to bend them into arms of the Republican Party.”
Jorge is right. If it’s so important for you to call me a nutjob, absolutely no one’s stopping you. The problem is you look sillier, pettier and more dishonest the deeper you dig the hole. And of course, you keep on digging.
“The difference between “liberals” and “all liberals” is paper thin.”
And in your preadolescent mind, Hound, I’m sure that’s very important. Had I realized someone would snip my quote out of context, to try to prove my insanity, I probably would have made sure to say “SOME liberals.” But if I allowed people like you to make me that paranoid, then I really would be a nutjob.
In Hound’s narrow little world, gays and lesbians should never take a stand on anything he doesn’t agree with. When they do, they’re crazy. It’s really rather sad he fails to realize that says little about me — and much about him.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
That’s because, Lori, Houndentenor, Tom, and their fellow liberal gays and lesbians NEED all other gay and lesbian people to agree with them on everything — because they have literally hinged their life, their explanation of everything that they do, and the like on their sexual orientation requiring them to do it.
It’s like Tom claiming that he’s pro-business and supports economic growth, but then needing to explain why he votes for and gives endless sums to job-killing, anti-business Obama Party members who support and endorse planting bombs in public spaces to kill Republican legislators.
That is not a rational thought process by any stretch of the imagination. The only way it could even be socially acceptable is if something beyond your control FORCED you to think and act this way.
That necessity and need underpins their entire attitude toward sexual orientation. Literally, it MUST be unchangeable, immutable, and fixed. Moreover, it must not just have to do with sexual attraction, but with every single mental process, decisionmaking faculty, and the like. It must determine your life patterns and be the reason that you do everything.
And that is why they are so incredibly threatened by people who don’t fit their standards.
That is why their first step is to deny that such people are gay — and then, when that fails, accuse such people of being “self-loathing” and “closeted”, the implication being that if such people were REALLY gay, they would agree with them on everything.
And when that fails, they resort to the “Uncle Tom” screaming that their fellow plantation members employ, insisting that anyone who disagrees with them or doesn’t buy into their sexuality-first agenda is a race traitor, a kapo, a Jewish Nazi — you know, all the things that GLAAD endorses and supports calling gay conservatives.
posted by KD on
If you think either party has much ability to create jobs you are delusional. If you think the difference between 35% and 39% on only earnings over $250K is huge then you are delusional. If you think that giving all gay people access to all the same privileges that come with marriage is not a big deal then you are delusional.
There are plenty of gay couples who have never seen a lawyer in their lives, don’t know the first thing about power of attorney or wills. Just like there are plenty of straight couples like that too. They’re called poor and uneducated people. To expect every gay person in this country to assemble the necessary legal documents to have something that kinda sorta resembles the rights of marriage is ridiculous. SSM will make a tremendous impact on the gay community and I am surprised so many people are so short-sighted not to see this.
Obama is on record against SSM but if you tease out his position historically and see what kinds of judges he appoints (i.e. those that will rule for a constitutional right to gay marriage) then you will see that effectively we will reach SSM sooner than with Republicans in office. If you don’t agree that judges should make this decision, then I don’t know what to tell you but I’m not willing to wait the extra couple of decades it will take to get politicians to recognize full equality.
posted by democraciaglobal.net » Gay by the numbers on
[…] close tο flipped, wіth 40% accepting аnd 53% thinking thеm morally incorrect. Jonathan Rauch thinks thіѕ shift earnings thе “superstructure” οf discrimination […]
posted by A new poll suggests that Americans may be coming to accept homosexuality more than ever « InvestmentWatch on
[…] wrong. In 2001 that was close to flipped, with 40% accepting and 53% thinking them morally wrong. Jonathan Rauch thinks this shift means the “superstructure” of discrimination against gays is about to […]
posted by Gay by the numbers « MGN: Miami Gay News on
[…] wrong. In 2001 that was close to flipped, with 40% accepting and 53% thinking them morally wrong. Jonathan Rauch thinks this shift means the “superstructure” of discrimination against gays is about to […]