Hey Mac:

While I might argue with you about the extent to which racism is still an institutionally-supported platform of the GOP (there's no doubt racism is alive and well here in the South, though), the anti-gay agenda is obviously the growing darling of Republicans.

It seems that promoting an anti-gay agenda is as socially acceptable today as promoting segregation was 50 years ago. And if you look at the "marriage amendment" votes, the anti-gay agenda isn't just limited to the South.

That's got to be really unnerving for gay Americans. Imagine being a black American if today it were socially acceptable to oppose interracial marriage or school integration.

Hell, maybe racism will come back into vogue. Blacks made up around 13% of the U.S. population, right? Estimates put the gay population at around 5 - 10%? That's not much of a spread. If the white folks had as much anti-black zeal as the "Christian" folks have anti-gay zeal, they could vote us back to 1954.

The GOP's growing "Christian" agenda (read: anti-gay, anti-abortion, pro-prayer-in-school, pro-censorship) is the biggest reason I cannot call myself a Republican any longer.

P.S. I really would appreciate an apology for you accusing me of writing things I never wrote.

I too am very disappointed by the use of prejudice as a political weapon, and hope that Americans see it for what it is and respond accordingly.

By the way, I see it as rather a minimum requirement for lashing out to make sure the person toward whom you are lashing is indeed the correct recipient of the lash. There is more than one person named "Ken" in the world - there are actually several names shared by more than one earthling, I have found in my travels.

If you read the February entry excerpted, the movement partly started out as an effort to raise funds. Contributions had fallen off substantially after the GOP achieved most of its goals. Apparently, opposition to gay rights was the issue to get people to open their wallets and contribute to the GOP and related PACs. Now, we see that those people were also willing to leave work, miss their soap operas, sneak away from the retirement home, whatever, to vote for the marriage amendments and for Bush. I foresaw some it, but am surprised by the intensity.

If Ken is not the Ken who called me a moron, I retract being critical of him. If he is, I do not. ( I love contingency clauses.)

"I too am very disappointed by the use of prejudice as a political weapon, and hope that Americans see it for what it is and respond accordingly."

They did, Eric. +4 Senate seats. +4 House seats. A Presidential election decided by an outright MAJORITY, the first time in 16 years. All gay marriage bans being approved overwhelmingly.

Yep, the people decided, alright. In opposition to the unelected court-imposed radical gay agenda.

Puzzling. It would seem more accurate to describe people engaged in the nontradtional practices of living together or single parenthood as having a radical agenda. Instead, people who want to do something as old-fashioned as get married are being described that way.

You can call it the "use of prejudice as a political weapon" but I would argue that most people voting for these gay-marriage bans or calling themselves "values voters" don't consider themselves prejudiced. The issue of gay marriage intruded only very recently on the public consciousness in a big way. It took decades, and generational change, for the civil rights movement to remove (most) institutionalized prejudice against blacks. It will probably take the same time and effort for gays.

But the gay rights movement started in 1960s, partly because of the civil rights movement. (Though most people don't realize it, those were black and Hispanic drag queens who rebelled at Stonewall.) So, shouldn't the matter be settled by now? I mean to the extent of having legislation in place, not people's attitudes necessarily.

Mac Diva, my apologies, I am short on time and will read your blog above later today, but I want to comment on what I am beginning to think cost the Left the election.

If you go to rural America and ask any little ole lady or farmer, etc. what the platform of 'liberals' is...will they tell you what WE define the platform as? Or will they tell you what the liberal platform as defined by Fox news is?

Mention the word 'liberal' to a rural American and watch the hairs on the back of the neck rise. Conservatives have coopted OUR platform. (Bush campaign ad starts out with: Kerry and the liberals in congress.....)

Remember Jesus gave himself up rather than go to war (not that I'm suggesting we do that) but conservatives have convinced people that God is on their side. Deny equality on God's behalf. Deny science on God's behalf. Deny women control over their bodies on God's behalf, etc.

Here is a blog that covers the general gist of what I'm trying to say, even if it's not 100% accurate, it's a good starting point. I'd recommend checking out the ideology there, folks.

To summarize, the Right won the election because they defined their platform for middle America. The Left lost the election because the RIGHT defined their platform for middle America.

Focus on the Family, the Heritage Foundation, etc. there are dozens of groups on the Right who are furthering their agenda. Where is the Left's equivalent?

I cannot believe that because my partner and I want full protection for our daughter's family, that THAT overrode America's concern for the economy or the war. If that is the case though, then the Left's spin machine has several decades to catch up on.

The Bush 'election' makes one thing certain:

Gay-bashing is about to make a big comeback.

You know, it's funny - I've gotten the impression you really thrive on conflict, Mac, but I can't give you any on this one.

Alas, I am in 100% agreement with you.

I'm appalled that we are now, with these gay marriage amendments in particular, legislating prejudice and hate. It is rare that I feel any shame in being a southerner any more - after years of rejecting my background I decided there were things to embrace, after all - but in this instance I feel a great deal of shame at what's happening, this creation of a new Solid South, as you so aptly put it.

And boomcrash - you hit the nail on the head - the right is very steadily and handily winning the propaganda war. They long ago learned the art of appropriating the mantle of righteousness, and appealing to the basest, least intellectual needs of voters. The left, due to it's leading lights not understanding this, not understanding what quite simply works, seems to be falling further and further behind. And I, for one, even if some of my thoughts have tended to err toward the right - never socially, but fiscally and justice-wise - cannot abide the idea that I might end up living in such an unbalanced society. The American system of governing was designed to be bicameral and secular, and both those elements of the design are vanishing. I'm really rather scared.

Bears repeating:

"...They [the Right] long ago learned the art of appropriating the mantle of righteousness, and appealing to the basest, least intellectual needs of voters."

basest, least intellectual...

Hmmm. Bush struck a goldmine:

American Idol does The Fear Factor.


But I think this faith-based fundamentalist American jihad is sure to backfire; Americans might be incredibly stupid and uninformed, but man, do we like to "sin."

Christoid Right-Wing meets American Hedonism = Irresistable force meets immovable object

You've got a point. In fact, I've just today been taking the longer view: this is also another four years for Dubya to hoist himself on his own petard, so that by the time '08 rolls around the movement afoot will be along the lines of, "please God, anyone BUT another Dubya-style republican."

Re comment #4;
What is it about the sexual preference of others, being different than yours, that scares you so? Are you that insecure of your own manhood?

Gay Hate and Fascism

Bush has used Gay Hate to mobilize a great deal of support to himself. This is VERY similar to what Hitler did with the Jews.

Now it is Gays.

My brother is Gay and he is absolutely no different than any other person I've met.

HUMAN!

The turn of events is terrifying.

Very pre-1936 Germany.

PS-You don't need a hyper-inflated economy for a Fascist State (i.e., Corporate Feudal State).

I would normally be a natural Republican but never ever again.

i think shark might be right that it will become open season for gay bashing.

the problem is that most of the gays i know have enough of a voice to bash back. thus creating a problem that has never existed in society since the days of stonewall.

the gay marriage issue was thrown in (and very successfully) to bring out the christians to vote. many gay people could care less about marriage. they just want to be part of society.

christians are bringing on the hate machine and it may backfire this time.

jack e. jett

Man you need help. Hitler and the Jews? You are screwed. Kerry didn't care anymore about the gay community than Bush. You are a disgrace to Jews and African Americans with those remarks.

"What is it about the sexual preference of others, being different than yours, that scares you so?"

It ain't me. It's 70% of America.

And were aren't "scared." We are DISGUSTED at the prospect of unelected judges deciding what is and isn't a marriage.

But, hey, I'm just a drooling right-wing homophobe, like 51% of Americans. So what the hell do I know? ;-D

We are DISGUSTED at the prospect of unelected judges deciding what is and isn't a marriage.

No, you're not disgusted at what the judges did. This isn't about the legal machinations of the court. You're disgusted by what gay people do in their bedrooms.

At least admit it and stop singing the "activist judge" song.

let me try to express my personal feelings on this general matter:

I have had gay friends since my early-20s when my first wife worked in fashion retail. This was eye-opening and my prejudices fell away in the face of real, individual people, who I liked and respected. There are stereotypical behavioral patterns that, especially in groups, came out sometimes and got on my nerves, but lots of things and lots of people get on my nerves. this is hardly a rational foundation for legal inequality.

I also admit to avoiding contemplating the physical realities of those who do things differently from the way I do them because it seems icky to me, but I also realize that a lot of things seem icky to me and it is not my place to root out all that Iperceive to be icky in the world.

I also believe that sexuality is largely genetic and therefore people generally do what they are genetically predisposed to do, and how can I blame them for it?

I, knowing the prejudices of my childhood and adolescence, believe that the vast majority of Americans can and will come around to my general way of thinking on this and believe it is just a matter of time.

I do not balme those who are suffering under the current regime of prejudice for impatience, but it was ever thus for those who are "different" - we just have to keep working on it and find a way to come to terms with our differences.

Additionally, as this post fails to acknowledge, both Michigan and Oregon, two solid blue states, voted against gay marriage, I think there's a deeper issue that isn't being addressed.
Unfortunately, I think, it's not just a matter of party affiliation.

This entry is about how the Southern Strategy has expanded to include overt bias against homosexuality as grounds for solidarity among certain voters. If Michigan and Oregon somehow lift themselves up and relocate, I will include them in the South.

The Southern Strategy is still rooted in the South. Support for the GOP there became even more obvious in this election. Top GOP leadership is also disproportionately from the South, some of it with direct ties to the neo-Confederate movement. However, that does not mean that the biases at issue are not shared by voters in other parts of the country. The NYT focused on the Bible Belt part of Ohio as decisive in that state. Persons on the Right who did not vote in other elections did in this one. They were motivated by the gay marriage issue.

I am knowledgeable about how things played out in Oregon. The margin of passage for the marriage amendment was less than in most other states, partly because of a strong No on 36 movement. However, some persons who might have voted No were concerned that two country commissions approved gay marriage without input from the voters or the courts. They might have set out the vote or voted yes to 'show them.'

Thanks for the clarification and the geography lesson. I thought my point would be useful to someone serious about analyzing the issue.

I have clearly stated, twice, that bias against gays is a national problem. However, because of its history, the South tends to be more hostile toward minorities than any other region of the country.

The bigger issue Joe, is the separation of church and state. From the Right's battle against abortion, their fight to put creationism in public school, their fight to put commandments in federal buildings, their right to keep references to God in the pledge, and the right to discriminate against homosexuals, these are all part of an attempt to control a bigger group of people than the homosexuals. That is the bigger problem you are referring to.

I didn't read any of your comments because there were too many of them.

I think it's too easy to point to race as the core of even the modern Southern strategy and I think there are multiple other factors involved, but I've heard some interesting analysis that the single most predictable, predictive way to look at the electoral map has been on the basis of race in the modern era. The GOP is basically guaranteed the majority of the Confederacy as well as most of the rural West, with virtually non-existent minority populations. Of course states like Arizona, New Mexico, and Florida are exceptions -- they're swing states precisely BECAUSE of their diversity, hence all the research by Rove et al about changing racial demographics in states like Colorado. Sociologists will tell you that race is perhaps the most enduring social cleavage in the body politic, however, especially in self-perception of electoral groups, far more than the shifting perceptions of class, culture, gender, and foreign policy. I think there's a fairly compelling argument to be made as well that economic fortunes are tied into the way people view racial issues in elections. I'm not smart enough to analyze those connections.

That is all.

I think the diversification of political views within a given race is increasing and is a very good i8ndication that race is becoming less of a determinant

The Joint Center for Polticial and Economic Studies has traced the issue over time and reached the same conclusion you did, Bob.

I think the hardest aspect of this is that people, particularly white people, vote what they perceive to be their racial interest over their economic interest. Particularly in the South, there are trailer park dwellers, with minimum wage jobs and no health benefits, who voted for Bush. The challenge for the Democrats is to somehow reach these people.

I don't see that diversification Eric alludes to. Eighty-eight percent of people who voted for Bush were white.

"No, you're not disgusted at what the judges did. This isn't about the legal machinations of the court. You're disgusted by what gay people do in their bedrooms."

Ahh...it's so nice to have words put in my mouth.

Gay people can do what they want. They can even have "civil unions" or whatever.

But "marriage" is a different story altogether...

"Top GOP leadership is also disproportionately from the South, some of it with direct ties to the neo-Confederate movement."

Cite?

No, I didn't think so either...

"Eighty-eight percent of people who voted for Bush were white."

Yeah, well, most of John F. Kerry's "support" came from evil white voters too...

"No, you're not disgusted at what the judges did. This isn't about the legal machinations of the court. You're disgusted by what gay people do in their bedrooms."

Ahh...it's so nice to have words put in my mouth.

You have expressed that sentiment on other threads, RJ.

"You have expressed that sentiment on other threads, RJ."

Well, most straight men are repulsed by the thought of being intimate with another man. And they are also repulsed by the thought of banging a really fat chick. But they don't want that to be illegal.

No, the whole gay marriage issue isn't about the "disgust" factor. If it was, there would be solid, national support for anti-same-sex sodomy laws. And there isn't.

Most people don't much care what goes on in the bedrooms of their neighbors. And they don't care what legal protections their neighbors have vis-a-vis their particular relationship.

But they DO care when one of the most sacred traditions in our civilization is about to be "redefined" by unelected judges in Massachusetts, against the will of a large majority of the people. THAT is what gets us so damn riled up on this issue.

But they DO care when one of the most sacred traditions in our civilization is about to be "redefined" by unelected judges in Massachusetts,

Why does the rest of the country care what is happening in MA? The judges ruled according to the state constitution. It was the correct ruling, legally, whether or not the judges were elected. They're supposed to rule on the state constitution, not on what people want.

Why are all the conservatives, who usually argue for states rights, so wrapped up in what's happening in some tiny little state way on the border of the country?

Why are all the conservatives, who usually argue for states rights, so wrapped up in what's happening in some tiny little state way on the border of the country?

Two reasons mostly, from what I understand.

1) There is ambiguity on whether one state is forced to recognize a contract performed in another state. Some states have passed laws/amendments regarding this issue already.

2) Overall societal trend. This is not limited to gay marriage. You never would have seen Will and Grace in the days of All in the Family. There's been an overall trend towards acceptance and so the battle isn't just against gay marriage, it's against recognition of the relationship, no job protection, no legal protection as a minority group subject to above normal prejudice from school bullying to violent murder, etc. They're fighting us on absolutely every front. Marriage is the very biggest piece of an even bigger pie.