Thursday, July 06, 2006

Gays--Why This Support For The Democrat Party?

I've said it before and the stats bear me out: the only group that votes more reliably Democrat than blacks is gays. Why?

I'M CONFUSED: "Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean called the rationale used in a decision by the New York appeals court reaffirming a ban on gay marriage 'bigoted and outdated.'"

How do we square that with this? "Democratic Party Chair Howard Dean has contradicted his party's platform and infuriated gay rights advocates by saying the party's platform states 'marriage is between a man and a woman.'"

Am I missing something? I realize, of course, that a "bigoted" rationale could conceivably produce an un-bigoted result -- marriage only between a man and a woman, which Dean apparently favors -- but that's more nuance than I usually expect from Dean. Something like that certainly calls for more explanation.


Update, 7/9/06: I have to copy this entire Instapundit post because it's just too good:

GAY MARRIAGE UPDATE: "Presidential hopeful, Hillary Clinton has disappointed the New York gay community by specifically leaving out any pledges on gay marriage in her call for equality for gay people."

Michael Petrelis is critical. "Speak up on gay marriage, Senator Clinton, if only because it is never acceptable for public officials to remain silent on important civil rights issues."

UPDATE: The Boston Globe is ordering gay employees to get married or lose their benefits.

Hm.


5 comments:

Ghetto Bob said...

One of these days, you will come to the realization that many people who vote Democrat are what I call “Democrat by Default.” It is a condition one finds oneself in when clearly excluded by the Republican Party. I myself do not ideologically lean one way or the other on most issues, but since I have significant reservations against the Bush administration’s foreign policy decisions in the Middle East, I suppose I might as well don a Che Guevara tie-dyed shirt and start toking a monster bong.

When homosexuals decide to get involved in the political process, they have two choices. They can join the Republican Party, who will gladly take their votes and their donations, but then regulate them to the “kiddie” table, while Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson get to sit at the head table. By the way, Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson did blame homosexuality for 9/11. Small detail, I know.

Or, they can join the opposition party, which contains a lot of freaky, undesirable people. I’ll be the first to admit that. But at least they get an equal voice. There are uncloseted gays holding elected office in the Democratic Party.

When the Republican Party starts running openly homosexual candidates for office, they will get more of the gay vote. The Republicans are doing that with black candidates for 2006. Sadly, they are only running black candidates in blue/battleground states, not their own strongholds. They are a long way away from running black candidates in the deep south, like they did during Reconstruction, but at least it’s a start.

Darren said...

I'm not convinced Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson are taken seriously by most Americans. Michael Moore is, unfortunately, taken seriously by more people than those two--the only difference is that Moore's buddies aren't the ones in power now.

I don't understand the argument that because the Republicans don't run gay candidates, gays default to statism, socialism, and class envy--in other words, the American Left. Doesn't make sense to me.

Ghetto Bob said...

“I'm not convinced Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson are taken seriously by most Americans. Michael Moore is, unfortunately, taken seriously by more people than those two--the only difference is that Moore's buddies aren't the ones in power now.”

You may not take Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson seriously, while viewing Michael Moore as a threat to our Republic. I respect that.

However…

Even in an evil parallel universe, Michael Moore has no where close the devoted following of either Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson. Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson have been major figures in American politics for decades now. Michael Moore is an upstart by comparison, a fad that has already run its course, a “celebrity” who has made only a handful of public appearances in the last 2 years. On the other hand, Pat Robertson is on TV and the radio every day. He has a media empire. Michael Moore was cancelled by Bravo and the BBC after 2 seasons.

Furthermore, Pat Robertson was a Presidential candidate in 1988. Michael Moore ran a potted plant for Congress in 2000, after he brought his own personal mosh pit to the Iowa caucus.

I would go further, but I’ve made my point.

“I don't understand the argument that because the Republicans don't run gay candidates, gays default to statism, socialism, and class envy--in other words, the American Left. Doesn't make sense to me.”

Reality is not bound by logic, and hence is not required to make sense.

I think this has far less to do with rational though, and far more to do with how the Republican Party makes homosexuals feel. I don’t remember 99% of what politicians say, but I cannot forget how they make me feel.

The results do not make much sense, but very little in life does. I know some homosexuals must find socialism repulsive. Likewise, I’m sure that some socialists find homosexual acts to be equally repulsive. However, this isn’t about a marriage based on love or strong family planning. This is an alliance of convenience, Democrats by Default.

EllenK said...

I consider myself conservative. I also don't have a huge problem with gay folks having civil unions.I really believe that what people do at home is their own business and I get really really tired of constant innuendo being tossed about at work. Especially since I teach high school. Having said that, IF gay people want to marry and have a stable family life, wouldn't they actually be more in line with the Republicans than the Democrats? It speaks more towards family values to have a stable relationship no matter what the title. BTW, I think that America would suffer far less having same sex couples marry than they do seeing celebrities set the example of having kids without marriage or stable relationships. If you look at the twin problems of poverty and single parent families, you will see they often go hand in hand. It's pretty irresponsible of anyone to set themselves up as paragons when they act like this.

Darren said...

Some radio talk show hosts I listen to on my way to work said this one morning, and I agree completely: I'd agree to let gays have total and complete marriage, *if* they in turn agree to give up their gay pride parades. From what I've seen from the San Francisco parade, it would be a fantastic trade.