So if the Republicans "understand so well what people are thinking" why did they lose in Louisiana?
And what is it, exactly, that people are thinking? Would it by any chance be something homophobic? So Republicans win by reassuring The People that it's OK to think homophonic thoughts... Yup, that's cynical.
So what do you propose that we do? Pretend that discrimination against gays is unimportant?
I think that this is one of those cases where I want my party to stand up for an important principle. I'm tired of the usual party of cowardly weasels.
I acknowledge that there's surely some point where it matters to stand on principle. I suspect that this is not one of those times
To comments 1,2, and 5, I'd say that I think Fontana is right about this. It's a very dangerous argument to make, because if you make it enough, pretty soon you've sold your soul. But taking any advantage away from George Bush should weigh very heavily in our considerations. Not to sound apocalyptic, but we should keep in mind that if GW wins again, Jeb is almost sure to run in '08.
Does anyone suspect, like me, that the mainstream problem with gay marriage isn't ideological, but rather physiological? By that I mean that most people don't have solid intellectual opposition to gay marriage, but it more simply just makes them uncomfortable? If so, then politics is the last place to fight this battle. Gay marriage has to be presented to people in a way that it overcomes their resistances, via pop culture and marketing most likely.
If the US Supreme Court mandates gay marriage, the decision will be the Roe v. Wade of this generation. Such a decision will re-galvanize the religious right, and many not-so-religious socially conservative Americans will follow along with them. The way to get gay marriage is like Michael says, via pop culture, and by legislative decisions. (This can be by voter initiative, in states that have them.)
If social conservatives believe that something as abhorrent to them as gay marriage has been imposed on them by the courts, they'll rebel against the courts - I could easily see in some states, explicit constitutional denial of sexual equality and elimination of anti-discrimination laws, specifically to prevent a pro-gay-marriage decision. I could also see a conservative governor telling his state supreme court to get stuffed, and refusing to enforce the decision.
Same thing was probably said about blacks in the 60's.
Posted by Seriously, I'm Not Gay | Link to this comment | 11-18-03 7:17 PM
So if the Republicans "understand so well what people are thinking" why did they lose in Louisiana?
And what is it, exactly, that people are thinking? Would it by any chance be something homophobic? So Republicans win by reassuring The People that it's OK to think homophonic thoughts... Yup, that's cynical.
Posted by tdent | Link to this comment | 11-19-03 5:59 AM
[redacted]
Posted by [redacted] | Link to this comment | 11-19-03 7:57 AM
So what do you propose that we do? Pretend that discrimination against gays is unimportant?
I think that this is one of those cases where I want my party to stand up for an important principle. I'm tired of the usual party of cowardly weasels.
Posted by PZ Myers | Link to this comment | 11-19-03 10:36 AM
[redacted]
Posted by [redacted] | Link to this comment | 11-19-03 11:34 AM
[redacted]
Posted by [redacted] | Link to this comment | 11-19-03 11:49 AM
I acknowledge that there's surely some point where it matters to stand on principle. I suspect that this is not one of those times
To comments 1,2, and 5, I'd say that I think Fontana is right about this. It's a very dangerous argument to make, because if you make it enough, pretty soon you've sold your soul. But taking any advantage away from George Bush should weigh very heavily in our considerations. Not to sound apocalyptic, but we should keep in mind that if GW wins again, Jeb is almost sure to run in '08.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 11-19-03 12:28 PM
Derbyshire is obscene. But, frankly, on this issue I think he's closer to the mainstream than we are.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 11-19-03 12:30 PM
Does anyone suspect, like me, that the mainstream problem with gay marriage isn't ideological, but rather physiological? By that I mean that most people don't have solid intellectual opposition to gay marriage, but it more simply just makes them uncomfortable? If so, then politics is the last place to fight this battle. Gay marriage has to be presented to people in a way that it overcomes their resistances, via pop culture and marketing most likely.
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 11-19-03 3:02 PM
If the US Supreme Court mandates gay marriage, the decision will be the Roe v. Wade of this generation. Such a decision will re-galvanize the religious right, and many not-so-religious socially conservative Americans will follow along with them. The way to get gay marriage is like Michael says, via pop culture, and by legislative decisions. (This can be by voter initiative, in states that have them.)
If social conservatives believe that something as abhorrent to them as gay marriage has been imposed on them by the courts, they'll rebel against the courts - I could easily see in some states, explicit constitutional denial of sexual equality and elimination of anti-discrimination laws, specifically to prevent a pro-gay-marriage decision. I could also see a conservative governor telling his state supreme court to get stuffed, and refusing to enforce the decision.
Posted by Anthony | Link to this comment | 11-19-03 3:15 PM
precocious actbothsuntan
Posted by current | Link to this comment | 01- 7-06 12:26 PM