James Taranto of the Wall Street Journal writes of the bluster against marriage equality in New York by the anti-gay National Coalition for Marriage (NOM) that:
the language [on a NOM-affiliated website] implies that the Legislature acted illegitimately when it “imposed same-sex marriage on New York with no vote of the people.” Such a vote is not part of the ordinary procedure for enacting legislation in New York, and it is misleading to pretend otherwise.
Taranto also describes a NOM demonstration he observed in New York:
Most interesting, it was a very diverse crowd–we’d say a quarter to a third black, with lots of Hispanics. That’s not really surprising. Notwithstanding their tendency to vote for Democrats, blacks and Hispanics tend to hold conservative views on so-called social issues. As we noted in November 2008, exit polls showed that black Californians backed Proposition 8 by 70% to 30%. . . .
It may turn out that yesterday’s diverse crowd represented the religious right of the future. If so, it will be interesting to see how the left tries to counter it. Maybe Thomas Frank can publish a book called “What’s the Matter with Harlem?” or Barack Obama can deliver a disquisition on African-American bitter clingers. We suspect minorities would find such condescension as off-putting as whites do.
No doubt they would.
More. NOM blogs in response to Taranto that “There will be an election in 2012, in which we will find out if Republican elites are right they can pass a gay marriage bill in NY without consequences.”
To which Taranto replies:
Imposing “consequences” on “Republican elites” is a perfectly legitimate goal. But to the extent that that is the objective of the “Let the People Vote” effort, it reinforces our view that the effort is deceptive.
22 Comments for “The New Religious Right?”
posted by Wilberforce on
A minority ‘religious right’? No way. And the proff is 70% to 30% for Prop 8? You call that evidence? Which is it, 70% or 30%? Meanwhile, the vast Republican base throughout the South hate us with a burning hatred. A smidge of condenscension from us is nothing to the hate speech and false witness they regularly use against us.
Meanwhile, the NAACP is beginning to address homophobia. And most black leaders are squarely on our side.
But again, diverting attention from GOP realities is a tough gig requiring constant trips into fantasy land.
posted by BobN on
As we noted in November 2008, exit polls showed that black Californians backed Proposition 8 by 70% to 30%. . . .
Sigh. That lie again, and exaggerated, to boot.
ONE poll showed support for Prop 8 in the high 60% range. It was conducted at ONE polling location, somewhere in Los Angeles. The polling organization refused to disclose where. Could there be a precinct in South LA where homophobia runs so deep? Sure. Is it likely that that precinct is chock full of “blacks and Hispanics [who] tend to hold conservative views on so-called social issues”? No freaking way.
Anything to drive a wedge between parts of the Democratic coalition. Amazing.
posted by Tom on
If so, it will be interesting to see how the left tries to counter it.
The left will handle “it” the same way that it handles “it” now, by making the case for “equal means equal”, clearly, consistently and unequivocally.
posted by Tom on
NOM has two efforts going for the 2012 election.
The first (“Help Us Defeat”) targets seven NY senators (four Republican, three Democrat) that NOM considers “traitors”. [ See http://tinyurl.com/4326fng ]
The second (“Let the People Vote”) is targeted at forcing the legislature to put an anti-marriage referendum on the 2012 ballot. [ See http://tinyurl.com/3mw3fec ]
The two projects are related (obviously, NOM has to defeat the “Traitor Seven” for the ballot referendum to have a chance), but distinct. Taranto conflates the projects, which is why his article is confused.
posted by Houndentenor on
More of the same from Miller. If he’s serious about gay rights from a conservative perspective he’ll put some of the energy he currently wastes on finding fault with liberals and now ethnic minorities into getting the handful of gay-friendly Republicans re-nominated as they are surely going to face social conservative (a/k/a Tea Party) in the primary in their next election. Making sure that Republicans who vote for gay rights don’t lose their seat for doing so would be a great help to the Republicans who might support us if it they weren’t fearful that doing so would be political suicide (which more than likely it will be). Instead we get more nitpicking over how things get done and still no solutions or plans.
posted by another steve on
More of the same from Houndentenor (whatever that name means) and friends. If they’re not coming here everyday to insult the blogger and mischaracterized his positions, they’re not happy. (Miller makes his support for gay rights, and working within the GOP and center-right to advance that goal, very clear.)
posted by Jimmy on
“whatever that name means”
Bugs you, doesn’t it?
No one is insulting Miller, and to suggest he has been mischaracterized is to be willfully ignorant of what he has been posting. His usual moaning about everybody else was thankfully interrupted with the post on July 20th where he actually discussed the reality (threw in the towel) of where the GOP is on the question of equality and where the 2012 Republican nominee will likely stand on that question. The he wished upon a star that the GOP “will redo the calculus and a more enlightened conservative will take the day” by 2016. Where is the call to action?
Que sera sera, I guess.
posted by Houndentenor on
I’ll admit to insulting Miller, but in this case I do it because he’s obviously to intelligent for this [deleted by moderator].
I know there are people who foresee a day when there will be a realignment with the religious right siding with the big government social program bunch and the wall street and libertarian crowd becoming social libertarians. Anything is possible I guess.
posted by Jorge on
I don’t see it in this post. I think Mr. Miller is just pointing out a (possible) trend among our opponents that, as usual, isn’t the same old predictable redneck WASPism that characterises a prevailing view of our conservative opposition.
posted by Houndentenor on
“whatever that name means”
Since you are too lazy to google I will do it for you:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Stoned_Guest_%28album%29
About 10 years ago I adopted this name as an inside joke on a forum for classically trained singers in response to a colleague who was using the log-in “off-coloratura” (also referenced in the above link.
“Miller makes his support for gay rights, and working within the GOP and center-right to advance that goal, very clear.”
No, actually, he doesn’t, and that’s the problem. Like most other gay conservatives he is obviously more driven by his hatred of all things liberal than by any wish to advance gay rights. If a fraction of that energy were spent lobbying Republican elected officials then perhaps there might have been more than four Republicans voting for gay marriage in NY.
posted by Jorge on
State Sen. Ruben Diaz, Sr., who organized the opposing rallies last time, is a black Hispanic (he’s dark-skinned, not he’s African-American). His office is in a predominantly African-American/Hispanic area. I would not discount the possibility that the “new religious right” Mr. Miller observes has more to do with Diaz’s personal influence in New York City than with any trend which Sen. Diaz and like-minded people may or may not choose or succeed at bringing into effect.
Yep, I was right! Sen. Diaz urged people to attend that rally on his website.
posted by Jorge on
Although, perhaps that last is evidence Miller is right. I would point out how isolated Sen. Diaz was politically on this issue, as he was only person in the state Senate who even spoke in opposition to the law as it came up to a vote (both times), as those who comment on this site have heard and said before.
posted by BobN on
Diaz is “politically isolated” only from the POV of the Democratic caucus. He voted with with the GOP caucus. The four GOP senators who voted for the bill are politically isolated from their caucus and, if Maggie has her way, from their party.
The reason Diaz was the only one who spoke up is because the GOP tools were too embarrassed to spout their anti-gay shit on TV. Diaz suffers no such restraint.
posted by Jorge on
Why were they so embarassed? This is something I think I used to understand, but I forgot.
I see something happening where I live. There’s a certain minor tension and resentment over this new law. It’s to be expected, I suppose, but I’m a little worried that it will become worse than minor. I think I will not begrudge a “new religious right” forming under a leadership of certain old hands, but the problem is, as always, the thugs.
posted by Wilberforce on
So how many minority senators voted for marraige equality? I would guess that there were plenty. So where is the evidence that racial minorities are against us. You can always cherry pick trivia to prove whatever axe you have to grind. But it’s a crude rhetorical game played mostly on the far left and far right. It’s also very boring.
posted by Houndentenor on
Too bad the facts don’t support your opinion.
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-0cvv4kCZ2DQ/TjKmt76-wfI/AAAAAAABIB4/hTGxJClebKQ/s1600/NYMarriagePoll.jpg
The majority of “non-white Evangelical protestants” are in favor of the bill. It’s the White Evangelicals who oppose it. I’ll wait for the retraction.
posted by Hunter on
I suspect the high proportion of Hispanics and African Americans in the demonstrations is due in n0 small part to the Rev. Sen. Ruben “I am the Church and the State” Diaz’ influence. Depending, of course, on what part of the country NOM bused their demonstrators in from.
The whole “let the people vote” mantra is illegitimate to begin with. I defy Brian Brown or anyone else to provide a constitutional justification for subjecting rights guaranteed in the Constitution to a plebiscite. As for the likely outcome of their campaign in New York, good luck with that — they’ve got at least three years and two elections to go. I wouldn’t take Iowa as the indicator — I think Massachusetts is a better example of their likely success.
posted by Houndentenor on
Not to mention the fact that Diaz bused many of the protestors in from out of state. See the link I posted above to see what the real opinion is on the issue of gay marriage in New York state. Don’t let a manipulated photo-op mislead you into thinking that opinion is different than it really is.
posted by Jorge on
I suspect the high proportion of Hispanics and African Americans in the demonstrations is due in n0 small part to the Rev. Sen. Ruben “I am the Church and the State” Diaz’ influence. Depending, of course, on what part of the country NOM bused their demonstrators in from.
Hey, how about a little credit here? I suggested that first.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
I defy Brian Brown or anyone else to provide a constitutional justification for subjecting rights guaranteed in the Constitution to a plebiscite.
Entertainingly enough, if you read the notations in the New York State constitution, you’ll see numerous times in Article I, Bill of Rights, “Amended by vote of the people”.
Would you now state that those are all invalidated since, according to your intepretation, the New York State Constitution a) cannot be amended and b) the people have no right to vote on laws or their own constitution?
It’s no surprise that gays and lesbians are anti-voter and anti-democracy, just like the Obama Party they support. It’s just hilarious to see them be so brazen about it.
Why do you think gays oppose voting and believe that the people should be stripped of their right to vote? Do you think gays’ belief in government by fiat and destruction of democracy is mainstream and normal?
posted by BobN on
you’ll see numerous times in Article I, Bill of Rights, “Amended by vote of the people”
That doesn’t mean what you think it does.
posted by davinci38 on
Blacks tend to be big old libs on all issues except homosexuality. They are hypocrites, but what do you expect from people with little education.
Hispanics are socially conservative and economically liberal for the most part.