On Tuesday, a left-wing blog reported something that our readers have been noticing now for at least since the dawn of the Tea Party movement two years ago, that those joining these grassroots protests against excessive government spending are, by and large, not concerned with gay issues:
During a recent trip to Concord, New Hampshire, to cover a Tax Day Tea Party sponsored by Americans for Prosperity, I [Igor Volsky] asked attendees how the state’s 2009 same-sex marriage law has affected the state or their private lives. New Hampshire Republicans have promised to repeal the law next year and conservatives in the state have promised to turn the marriage issue into a litmus test for potential 2012 presidential contenders.
But at Friday’s event, not a single Tea Party activist told me that expanding marriage to gays and lesbians has undermined their relationships or in any way changed the state. In fact, everyone I spoke to insisted that changing the marriage law was not a priority
A number of the participants said that gay marriage just wasn’t a “priority” for them. They’re more concerned with “bigger problems.” Nice to see a left-wing blog helping debunk the (false) narrative of Tea Parties being a socially conservative movement where gays are unwelcome.
(H/t Memeorandum.)
AE should be along with some variation of his “hypocrisy” bullshit any minute now.
Oh ffs; we’re all uptight about language. Go ahead keep ignoring people like me who are former conservatives with gay children who MIGHT have something to offer here…SCREW it. Ain’t got a shred of even a reply here even once. Yeah, pretty much screw it.
I dont need to TGC, I think everyone knows Dan is being enormously hypocritical telling Republicans not to focus on social issues while he continues to hype the change in attitudes towards gay marriage and otherwise push his agenda down the field he demands remain clear.
He even conceded the point to me himself in a private email as is his apparent motus operandi: push his agenda in public, concede the hypocrisy of it in private.
I suppose you think he’s full of bullshit when he concedes the point to me too. Of course not, because youre just a little upsucking sycophant — not anyone who has original thoughts or even moderately insightful contributions. Just regurgitating what people much more intelligent than you have said, and a lot of swearing and whole lot of very juvenile cliquish behavior — acting like a little pissy 13 year old girl when someone criticizes your friend.
I do keep hoping you’ll grow up, but I see I hope in vain.
AE, so Dan conceded to you in an email that he is a hypocrite or that his “modus operandi” is hypocritical, his words, not yours?
Dan, it is good to see that there is a large group of Tea Party people that aren’t anti-gay, and want to focus on fiscal issues instead of social conservative issues. They probably don’t want a disaster like 1992 with persons who haven’t evolved from 20 years ago hijacking the party. And one can still hold that ideal, and yet on their own blog, write about their own opinions about social policy. Not sure why one would think that is hypocritical.
Anyway, this is obviously something Republicans will have to work out for themselves.
from Nate Silver
Republican candidates, who have placed less emphasis on gay marriage in recent years, probably cannot expect their opposition to it to be a net electoral positive for them except in select circumstances. If support for gay marriage were to continue accelerating as fast as it has in the past two years, supporters would outnumber opponents roughly 56-40 in the general population by November 2012. Past trends, of course, are no guarantee of future ones, and it’s always possible that the momentum toward increasing support for gay marriage could flatten out or even reverse itself. But this does put Republicans in a tricky position. Their traditional position on gay marriage is becoming less popular. But to the extent they disengage from the issue, they may lose even more ground. One way to read the trends of the past few years is that we have passed an inflection point wherein it is no longer politically advantageous for candidates to oppose same-sex marriage, which in turn softens opposition to it among the general public, creating a sort of feedback loop and accelerating the trend.
Keep dreaming. Ultimately, the sociopathic liberal bodies of the APAs and the APA will have to show emoirical data that borderline caretaker environments consisting of the homosexual/bisexual dyad psychologically harm/damage children.
rusty,
Articles like that presume two factors. 1) humans are predictable in cultural norms and b) trends will continue.
We’ve had, in the past, backlash against the ‘previous generation’. It could happen again.
Whew! I just went through a micro-blast starting @ #2.
To the point: Gay marriage and going on the metric system rank about the same level on the critical issues charts of 2011 and the foreseeable future.
We are standing in a bucket line at a disasterous fire and someone wants to set the bucket down and discuss gay marriage? Please take your silly priorities down the road and give the bucket to someone who shivs a git about putting himself into the business of saving the future.
On a sub-theme coaxed out above: gay marriage is so non-traditional in concept that it has a steep, upward battle in convincing society that it is a societally beneficial concept. Conservatives require more than “feelings” to alter the traditions.
Heliotrope, I can agree with you that the nation’s fiscal crisis is considerably more important than advancing gay marriage.
Having said that, if a candidate or cause or party were strongly anti-gay, I wouldn’t get behind it even if it were right on some other things. There is a moral principle which says, don’t work for your own destroyers. Where the Gay Left goes wrong – and, “go wrong” they do – is that they haven’t kept up with the times (they haven’t understood reality correctly). For example, they insist that Tea Party Christianists are out to get them blah, blah, blah. No, actually. Tea Partiers only want to reduce their cowboy poetry grants and welfare checks, heh. As those of us who have been to Tea Party rallies know – and as Dan’s new post confirms – they choose to believe something tha taint so. Meanwhile, back in the real world, Islamists really are out to get them.
LW so true, but I still note Silver’s reflection:
One way to read the trends of the past few years is that we have passed an inflection point wherein it is no longer politically advantageous for candidates to oppose same-sex marriage, which in turn softens opposition to it among the general public, creating a sort of feedback loop and accelerating the trend.
There are those who views on SSM run from indifference, ambivalence, and all the way to ‘out’ right support.
Will have to see how this all plays out for like Silver, one can never truly count on the extrapolation of poll numbers . . .
Heliotrope: Conservatives require more than “feelings” to alter the traditions.
Well back last fall with the Mehlman AFER party at Paul Singer’s NY home, some think that Mr. Singers emotional ties to his gay son and his new ‘son-in-law’ lead to Singer’s support to alter the tradition.
rusty,
I’ll agree to disagree. *shrug* And as to your example of emotion I’ll give you a counter one. I still oppose SSM (and prefer ‘Fred’) despite my mom and her partner outlasting both of my marriages.
So predictable. Thanks for demonstrating that I should never be doubted.
LW kewl by me. . .as I have said before I do like your proposal ‘Fred’.
TGC, yes a solid prediction.
I’m reminded of the left-wing jerks who come ’round to trash our hosts. Those jerks are entitled to their opinion, even if it’s dumb. What makes them (extra) jerks is that they trash their host while sitting at his table, counting on their host’s goodness (his virtues of restraint and generosity) to ensure their continued welcome.
Yeah, it is bullshit to give a spoiled brat cock bite the piece of candy he demands so he’ll shut the hell up. But that’s just me.
rusty:
Way too deep in the tall grass to mean anything to me. Sorry. Really! Not being gay, I tend to see the world from a broader perspective than special interest politics.
That is not a swipe or a jab at your comment, it just went over my under-educated head.
Heliotrope, if you want try a search: Mehlman, AFER, Singer … will try to find a web address later. Ciao
Geography might play a role here. This is more popular in New Hampshire than, say Maryland- let alone Oklahoma.
Its called being CONSISTANT. Which has been the entire point all along.
I truly am amazed your tiny little brain finally grasped that.
Actually, that’s one of Rush Limbaugh’s trademark lines and far from demonstrating that you shouldnt be doubted, YOU have just demonstrated MY point that you havent got an original or worthwhile thought in that entire empty head of yours.
Just regurgitating what your intellectual superiors — and lets be honest, thats pretty much anyone — have told you to think.
You are a self-parody.