Another explanation for the red-blue divide.
GOD, MAN AND JONAH: The conservatism-of-doubt debate continues here.
THE DUTCH CONFLICT: A good friend of mine dares to walk hand in hand with his boyfriend in Amsterdam. Yes, Amsterdam. A “Moroccan-looking” guy with a heavy accent spits at him in the face, mutters something about “fucking fags”, and then a small gang beats him up. His story is here, including a picture of his bloodied face. Hatred of open and proud homosexuals is intrinsic to Islamist fundamentalism, as it is to Christian fundamentalism. The struggle against both is the same one – at home and abroad.
FUNDAMENTALIST WATCH I: Pat Robertson calls judges he disagrees with a greater threat than al Qaeda. We’re now told Robertson represents very few members of the religious right. So why haven’t they denounced him? The establishment fundamentalist, Bob Knight, meanwhile equates the movement for gay equality with the “criminalization of Christianity.” The voice of Republican reason.
FUNDAMENTALIST WATCH II: The evangelicals’ distrust of science deepens. They are especially opposed to successful vaccines for venereal diseases. Such vaccines might encourage … sex! New Scientist has the details on evangelical opposition to LPV vaccine research that could save countless lives, especially in the developing world.
POLLING ON MARRIAGE: There has, I think, been some turbulence in the national polling over the last year on marriage rights, as Maggie Gallagher points out. This is perhaps understandable. Opposition to equal rights (or any rights) for gay couples in this respect is now a key plank of one political party, and has been amplified by a coordinated campaign against them (including the presidential bully pulpit), using churches, pastors and all sorts of venues to push the message. That’s democracy. Those of us who believe gay couples should be supported in their responsibility; who believe that greater social stability among gays will help heterosexual marriage; who believe that families should include all their members in the same rites and responsibilities; who believe that this country is big enough to allow diversity on this issue among the states rather than a single imposition of a minority view; we need to keep up the debate. Nevertheless, it’s striking that a clear majority of the country in all polls supports some legal protection for gay couples via civil unions or civil marriage – exactly the position that would be made impossible by the federal marriage amendment. Still, even then, Maggie is cherry-picking. She writes:
The ABC News/Washington Post poll (“Do you think it should be legal or illegal for homosexual couples to get married?”) found that in September 2003, Americans opposed gay marriage 55 percent to 37 percent. In the August 2004 poll opposition had climbed to 62 percent opposed to 32 percent in favor of SSM.
This is, er, misleading. Those numbers count supporters of civil unions as the same as those opposed to all legal protections. It’s also out of date. The latest ABC News/Washington Post poll (April 2005) finds that 40 percent want to forbid any legal protections for gay couples, while 27 percent favor civil marriage rights and 29 percent favor civil unions (a combined 56 percent majority for some kind of civil union). In the same poll, the anti-gay-union Amendment gets between 39 and 44 percent support, depending on the phrasing, and between 53 and 56 percent opposition. In fact, this poll shows a decline in support for an amendment over the last year: support went from 44 percent to 39 percent. Support for the federalist solution went from 51 to 56 percent. I guess you now know why Maggie’s study omits the most recent data.
The Dish 