The War on Gay

Well- it must be an election year, because the GOP has a whole host of anti-gay initiatives on the ballot just to turn out the m0uth-breathing/gaybashing wing of the base:

Efforts to ban gays and lesbians from adopting children are emerging across the USA as a second front in the culture wars that began during the 2004 elections over same-sex marriage.

Steps to pass laws or secure November ballot initiatives are underway in at least 16 states, adoption, gay rights and conservative groups say. Some — such as Ohio, Georgia and Kentucky — approved constitutional amendments in 2004 banning gay marriage. (Related story: Both sides cite concern for children)

“Now that we’ve defined what marriage is, we need to take that further and say children deserve to be in that relationship,” says Greg Quinlan of Ohio’s Pro-Family Network, a conservative Christian group.

Florida has banned all gays and lesbians from adopting since 1977, although they can be foster parents. State court challenges and a campaign by entertainer Rosie O’Donnell to overturn the law have failed. A pending bill would allow judges to grant exceptions.

Surprisingly, this USA Today piece cuts through the crap and tells it like it is:

Election-year politics. Republicans battered by questions over ethics and Iraq “might well” use the adoption issue to deflect attention and draw out conservatives in close Senate and governor races in states such as Missouri and Ohio, says Sherry Bebitch Jeffe, University of Southern California political scientist.

The aim is to replicate 2004, says Julie Brueggemann of the gay rights group PROMO: Personal Rights of Missourians. She says marriage initiatives mobilized conservative voters in 2004 and helped President Bush win in closely contested states such as Ohio. Republicans “see this as a get-out-the-vote tactic.”

Republican pollster Whit Ayres is skeptical. Adoption, he says, “doesn’t have the emotional power of the gay marriage issue because there is no such thing as the phrase ‘the sanctity of adoption.’ “

Shocking to see it that blatant, right there in print, isn’t it?

“Don’t worry about port security, Iraq, Republican ethics and corruption problems, the price of gas, wiretapping, or the deficit and national debt- look over here! Two men who love each other want to adopt a kid. Better put an end to that shit- I read in the Bible that homersexuals are deviants.”






51 replies
  1. 1
    techson says:

    It is disgusting and the reason I’m now a registered democrat… first time since 1984 when I was 18 that I have been anything other than a registered republican.

    My SO is a child psychiatrist at an inpatient psychiatric hospital… you wouldn’t believe the shit that he sees. The state of heterosexual parenting in this country couldn’t be worse than it is.

  2. 2
    Steve says:

    I’d rather lose every election than subscribe to this bigotry.

  3. 3
    zzyzx says:

    What I would give for a backlash.

  4. 4
    Lines says:

    The backlash will be a Supreme Court that is forced to follow the Constitution and dismiss all favorable laws to married couples entirely.

    Oh, wait, thats just my dream.

    But can someone tell me where the Constitution would make marriage anything? Sorry, married people, but your vows are yours and yours alone. Leave the state out of it.

  5. 5
    zzyzx says:

    By the way, if you ever want to know why we need an independent judiciary, this is the reason. Having majorities vote whether minorities should have rights is clearly unfair. Maybe in 2008, we’ll have bills trying to outlaw gays living within 30 miles of any children because they’re – y’know – all child molestors. Anything to stay in power, I guess.

  6. 6
    Vladi G says:

    Quick, John, post something bad about Democrats so you kind remind us why you keep voting for these people.

  7. 7
    The Other Steve says:

    Don’t worry. The Whackos will vote for them. They always do.

  8. 8
    Lines says:

    This is a dead story, its so 1998 DOMA ago.

  9. 9
    ppGaz says:

    Quick, John, post something bad about Democrats so you kind remind us why you keep voting for these people.

    Deflection in the blogoscape is just as effective as it is anywhere else.

    Sheehan thread, anyone?

  10. 10

    The Republican Right is anti-sex. It is another means of fear and control.

    Wilhelm Reich said:
    “Fascism is only the organized political expression of the structure of the average man’s character. It is the basic emotional attitude of the suppressed man of our authoritarian machine civilization and its mechanistic-mystical conception of life.”

    BOHICA

  11. 11
    Krista says:

    Well, exactly. It’s the same thing as marriage – heteros have done a fine job turning that into a reality-television travesty. How people can think that gays would somehow “sully” the institution of marriage is beyond me. Marriage is only as sacred as each couple makes it. Same goes for parenting.

  12. 12
    Vladi G says:

    so you kind remind

    Boy, sometimes my brain works faster than my fingers can type. That should say “…can remind…”

  13. 13
    Mr Furious says:

    Who ya gonna vote for this falll, John? That’s all I want to know. Otherwise cut the charade.

  14. 14
    neil says:

    I don’t see why Democrats don’t try the same trick. For that matter, I don’t see why they don’t try to replicate the Republican church directory trick.

    What’s the equivalent of a church for potential Democratic voters? An apartment building, I suspect.

  15. 15
    John Cole says:

    Not that it is any of your business, but I will not be voting Republican. Not that that really matters, because there are NO Republicans running in national races in WV.

    Alan Mollahan will be essentially (or literally- not sure yet) unopposed, and there will be some token opposition to Byrd, but I will not be voting for him.

  16. 16
    D. Mason says:

    What’s the equivalent of a church for potential Democratic voters? An apartment building, I suspect.

    Starbucks? I kid, I kid!

  17. 17
    Rusty Shackleford says:

    As long as some obscure lefty blogger doesn’t resort to hyperbole while commenting on this issue we may be able to keep Mr. Cole from proclaiming – “This is why I don’t vote for Democrats…”

  18. 18
    cd6 says:

    The political opposite of a church is a university

  19. 19
    Jaybird says:

    The really disgusting thing is that they will stop doing this maybe 3 or 4 elections after it stops working.

    I have no reason to believe we’re somewhere in the middle of the 3 or 4.

  20. 20
    ppGaz says:

    some obscure lefty blogger

    Hey, some of my best friends are obscure.

    And lefty bloggers, too.

    We all aspire to be prominent lefty bloggers. Personally, I want to be interviewed by Maury Povich.

  21. 21
    Lee says:

    I live in Texas and if homersexuals were outlawed our birthrate would drop to zero.

    /rimshot

  22. 22
    Mr Furious says:

    Not that it is any of your business, but I will not be voting Republican.

    I know it’s not. I was asking not for your answer, but for your consideration. I’m happy to hear your answer nonetheless.

  23. 23
    Krista says:

    We all aspire to be prominent lefty bloggers. Personally, I want to be interviewed by Maury Povich.

    Do you want it to be on makeover day or paternity test day?

  24. 24
    rilkefan says:

    Republicans battered by questions over ethics and Iraq “might well” use the adoption issue to deflect attention and draw out conservatives in close Senate and governor races in states such as Missouri and Ohio, says Sherry Bebitch Jeffe, University of Southern California political scientist.

    They manage to find just two words to put in quotation marks in that long sentence?

  25. 25
    Jorge says:

    Andrew Sullivan is right – gay bigotry is the new anti-Semitism. Gays have become the new boogeyman that can be blamed for all of the ills ofn the world. And of course, it is perfectly justifiable to discriminate against them because of very specific and selective readings of the Bible.

  26. 26
    Steve says:

    But it specifically says in the Bible that homosexuality is sinful. (Right next to the part where it says eating shellfish is sinful.)

  27. 27

    […] Perhaps to show solidarity with our newfound friends, ballot measures for the 2006 elections are springing up around the country, concentrating on denying homosexual couples the right to adopt children. (USA Today, via Balloon Juice.) Do you think these efforts arise from a sincere desire to protect children, perhaps bolstered by studies showing that it’s better to be raised in an orphanage than by loving same-sex adoptive parents? Of course you don’t. Election-year politics. Republicans battered by questions over ethics and Iraq “might well” use the adoption issue to deflect attention and draw out conservatives in close Senate and governor races in states such as Missouri and Ohio, says Sherry Bebitch Jeffe, University of Southern California political scientist. […]

  28. 28
    mark says:

    John,
    I assume we can count on your generous support again this year?
    George Bush

  29. 29
    SeesThroughIt says:

    I’d rather lose every election than subscribe to this bigotry.

    You and me both. Just because homophobia is the latest (and hopefully last) “acceptible” form of bigotry–and just because the presently dominant political party promotes it–is no reason for me to endorse it. It’s disgusting. It’s repugnant. And I understand the wheels of progress grind slow and it’ll take a while for the bigots to either evolve or just plain get squelched, but assenting to bigotry is no way to speed up the process.

    Of course, as a friend of mine is fond of pointing out, as disgusting as the GOP’s gay-baiting tactics are, we also have to lay a lot of blame at the feet of people who are stupid/hateful enough to fall for them. It’s a problem that they exist (and in such big numbers), and that problem is amplified by having a political party cater to them.

  30. 30
    jg says:

    This is how the republicans will hold onto thier majority. They let the ‘heartland’ vote their prejudices and continue their raid on the treasury. The heartland will never listen to the rest of us tell them they are being played by folks who tell them what they want to hear. The alternative, siding with liberals, is worse to them. The advantqges of having your base ‘out of touch’ with reality are staggering.

  31. 31
    tb says:

    It’s the same thing as marriage – heteros have done a fine job turning that into a reality-television travesty.

    The usual response is that allowing gay marriage will make it a million times worse. They also bring that one out when you point out how much more destructive alchohol is than cannibis.

  32. 32
    Ancient Purple says:

    The usual response is that allowing gay marriage will make it a million times worse.

    Which, of course, flies in the face of statistics as the state with the lowest divorce rate is Massachusettes (which has gay marriage) and the state with the highest divorce rate is Nevada (which prohibits gay marriage).

    They never want to address that fact.

  33. 33
    Don Surber says:

    “Republican Stupidity”

    And yet Republicans keep winning elections. Imagine that

    I am all for gay marriage. But the reality is the legalization of gay marriage in modern times dates to 2000. Few nations recognize it even now. It is a fool who expects the world to throw away hundreds of years of tradition just because a few pointy headed law professors detect a “right” in the Constitution previously unseen by the naked eye

    Bashing gay-bashing gains you nothing, libs. People might have reasons that extend beyond ignorance, prejudice or fear

  34. 34
    Don Surber says:

    Purple:
    People go to Nevada from other states to divorce
    Massachusetts is majority Catholic which may be why its divorce rate is low

  35. 35
    pharniel says:

    point of order.
    Homosexuality (in men) and Beastality (in women) is right next to the article on wearing a garmet made of two cloths (that’s mixed anything), which you should be killed for both.
    It’s in Liviticus, and it’s a fun read since the rest of the page basically states that most of the people pushing for these sorts of things should be killed as well.

    Hypocracy FTW.

  36. 36
    jg says:

    It is a fool who expects the world to throw away hundreds of years of tradition just because a few pointy headed law professors detect a “right” in the Constitution previously unseen by the naked eye

    The Constitution doesn’t tell us our rights. It gives in detail, the powers that the branches of government have. Some of our rights were mentioned in the Bill of Rights but not all. I never understood how any of the founding fathers would have had a problem with the bill of rights. Now I understand what they meant.

  37. 37
    Pooh says:

    I’ve never gotten a better argument against gay marriage than this.

    1. Gay marriage is legalized.
    2. ?????
    3. The institution of marriage is destroyed by that infectious 3-5% of teh gay.

    At best, it’s sort of a reverse groucho marx argument – I wouldn’t want to be in any club that let’s them be a member.

  38. 38
    Ancient Purple says:

    Purple:
    People go to Nevada from other states to divorce
    Massachusetts is majority Catholic which may be why its divorce rate is low

    #2 in divorce is Arizona. Arizona’s largest denomination is Catholic, followed closely by Mormon and then Baptist.

    How is gay marriage a threat to hetero marriage again?

  39. 39
    Davebo says:

    Bashing gay-bashing gains you nothing, libs. People might have reasons that extend beyond ignorance, prejudice or fear

    Sure they might. In fact the whole point of the article was to point out what those reasons are.

    To rile up your mouth breathing base and make them forget that little Johnny lost a leg in Iraq, the local congressman has a new yacht, etc.

    But other than that reason, which is obvious, what reasons were you referring to?

  40. 40
    Pb says:

    Jorge,

    gay bigotry is the new anti-Semitism

    It’s hardly new, as Hitler could have told you.

    The Nazi campaign against homosexuality targeted the more than one million German men who, the state asserted, carried a “degeneracy” that threatened the “disciplined masculinity” of Germany. Denounced as “antisocial parasites” and as “enemies of the state,” more than 100,000 men were arrested under a broadly interpreted law against homosexuality. Approximately 50,000 men served prison terms as convicted homosexuals, while an unknown number were institutionalized in mental hospitals. Others-perhaps hundreds-were castrated under court order or coercion. Analyses of fragmentary records suggest that between 5,000 and 15,000 homosexual men were imprisoned in concentration camps, where many died from starvation, disease, exhaustion, beatings, and murder.

    In the racist practice of Nazi eugenics, women were valued primarily for their ability to bear children. The state presumed that women homosexuals were still capable of reproducing. Lesbians were not systematically persecuted under Nazi rule, but they nonetheless did suffer the loss of their own gathering places and associations.

    Nazi Germany did not seek to kill all homosexuals. Nevertheless, the Nazi state, through active persecution, attempted to terrorize German homosexuals into sexual and social conformity, leaving thousands dead and shattering the lives of many more.

  41. 41
    Pb says:

    Ancient Purple,

    the state with the highest divorce rate is Nevada (which prohibits gay marriage)

    …and permits prostitution, go figure.

  42. 42
    ET says:

    Of course this comes back. Republicans are scared they might actually have to face consequences for the government under Bush (which may/may not be the case) so in an effort to draw attention away from all the really important issue, they drum up fear over gays and and their plot to take over the world.

  43. 43
    Richard 23 says:

    Bashing gay-bashing gains you nothing, libs. People might have reasons that extend beyond ignorance, prejudice or fear

    Such as?

  44. 44
    zzyzx says:

    How far out of bounds is this? Michael Medved – a strong opponent of same sex marriage – ranted about the stupidity of this idea on his show today.

  45. 45
    ppGaz says:

    People might have reasons that extend beyond ignorance, prejudice or fear

    It’s called “homophobia.”

  46. 46
    Ancient Purple says:

    …and permits prostitution, go figure.

    Yup. Every couple of years, someone tries to get prostitution recriminalized in Nevada and it fails hands down every single time, both at the ballot box and in the Nevada Legislature. Why?

    Because the brothel tax goes a hell of a long way to keep Nevada’s property taxes down and their state income tax at zero.

    I guess everyone is willing to sacrifice their morals for a certain dollar amount.

  47. 47
    Perry Como says:

    Gay people have cooties*.

    * – that’s the medical term

  48. 48
    ppGaz says:

    I guess everyone is willing to sacrifice their morals for a certain dollar amount

    Well, I certainly am.

  49. 49
    ppGaz says:

    Not that it is any of your business, but I will not be voting Republican.

    No, pimping your voting frustrations for two years is no reason to think that anyone out here has an interest in your vote.

    I think the “I hate these Republicans but I’ll never vote Democrat” theme is especially effective in deflecting attention from your voting preference.

    Let’s see …. you are going to vote Sunni? Or, uh, Whig?

    I’m building a color chart here, help me out ……

  50. 50
    Bruce Moomaw says:

    If it’s any comfort, a close look at the vote in 2004 (as broken down by both regions and exit polls) shows that, while the GOP did TRY to rouse an anti-Democratic Yahoo wave with the gay marriage issue, they seem to have failed dismally. Bush’s vote rose LEAST above what he got in 2000 in conservative and rural states, and showed no sign at all of rising in states that had anti-gay-marriage initiatives on the ballot — in fact, he may actually have dropped slightly in the nation’s rural regions as a whole over what he got in 2000. Where he rose most — and what put him over the top — was among more moderate voters (and even liberal ones, although most of them still voted against him), and in cities and Blue states. The state in which his vote rose most was — roll of drums — New York, where it went up fully 6% as against 2% nationwide. Exit polls indicate that it rose most among working-class white women, apparently largely on the national-security issue.

    By the way, the supposed “Red vs. Blue” division in this country is being ridiculously overplayed — it’s tremendously smaller than the division between the Solid Democratic South and the rest of the nation that we routinely put up with for a century.

  51. 51
    ppGaz says:

    the supposed “Red vs. Blue” division in this country is being ridiculously overplayed—

    Personally, I think that “Tastes great vs. less filling” is the greater conundrum.

Trackbacks & Pingbacks

  1. […] Perhaps to show solidarity with our newfound friends, ballot measures for the 2006 elections are springing up around the country, concentrating on denying homosexual couples the right to adopt children. (USA Today, via Balloon Juice.) Do you think these efforts arise from a sincere desire to protect children, perhaps bolstered by studies showing that it’s better to be raised in an orphanage than by loving same-sex adoptive parents? Of course you don’t. Election-year politics. Republicans battered by questions over ethics and Iraq “might well” use the adoption issue to deflect attention and draw out conservatives in close Senate and governor races in states such as Missouri and Ohio, says Sherry Bebitch Jeffe, University of Southern California political scientist. […]

Comments are closed.