The right wing and same-sex marriage


I had lunch with my old friend Johnny Angel Wendell, a musician, actor, and radio personality in LA, who was up here on vacation (and to hype his new vinyl, "My Lesbian Friend,") and we got to talking about the Supreme Court and same-sex marraige, and Johnny and I have agreed for years that this debate is essentially over. When 80 percent of people under 30 think same-sex marriage is fine, then it's really only a matter of time before it's legal and encouraged in every single state.

Johnny knows a lot of folks in talk radio, and a lot of them are on the right-wingy side of things, so he's a dinosaur watcher, and he had this suggestion: The reason the right wing is all agitated about same-sex marraige, and really wants the Supreme Court to avoid saying that Prop. 8-style laws are all unConstitutional, is that these folks are starting to run out of divisive social issues. The "god, guns, and gays" approach doesn't have the power it once did -- and once that stuff goes away, then they'll have to start talking about economic issues -- where they will always lose.

Thomas Frank figured that out in What's the Matter with Kansas -- social issues have been driving working-class Americans to vote against their economic interests. Imagine if the next generation doesn't care about gay marriage at all; then maybe those voters will think about taxes and wealth inequality and corporate power. And for a certain segment of American politics, that's really frightening.



people for political gain when the entire class warfare meme that you endlessly trot out here involves the exact same types of self-serving categorizations such as "conservative", "religious", "one percent" and (here, pricelessly) "old".

BTW, just because the young support gay marriage doesn't mean they will when they are older. Everyone knows that most people become more conservative as they age.

If the last election had been decided only by the over 30's, Romney would have won with 1.8 million more votes. That's the problem with the young - they grow up.

Posted by Guest on Mar. 28, 2013 @ 2:04 pm

You know you're on shaky ground when your argument starts with, "Everyone knows that..." In your case, Guest, you couldn't be farther from the truth. Most people do NOT become more conservative with age. That's one of those chestnuts that has no basis in fact. People become more settled in the beliefs they hold as they're growing up, so while it may seem like there are more conservatives now, it's because the Baby Boom generation grew up in a more conservative time. Young people today are not suddenly going to flip-flop on gay marriage once they hit 40. They'll likely become more tolerant as they age.

Here's an article that you may find interesting.

Posted by Todd on Mar. 28, 2013 @ 3:44 pm

people will think when they are older - you are simply speculating and projecting from your own world view.

The fact is that this nation is heading for a fiscal disaster as the boomers age and I consider it to be very probable that today's under 30's, when faced with funding the crippling cost of MediCare, MediCaid, Social Security, ObamaCare and the whole gamut of entitlement culture, will become very conservative indeed, rebelling against the high-tax welfare culture we are creating.

Now, it's possible they will remain more liberal on issues like abortion and gay marriage. But conservative views in the heartland are extremely well-entrenched, so I suspect that will remain a State-by-State thing.

Posted by Guest on Mar. 28, 2013 @ 3:56 pm

Wow, there's a whole lot of stupid wrapped up in yourcomment. Do you really think claiming "Everyone knows" lends any authority whatsoever to your argument? No, not everyone "knows" that, because it isn't true. But hey, sure, ignore every possible trend line showing increasing support for same-sex marriage and give us some fantasy that support for same sex marriage will peak and then decline as people get older. Furthermore, you can't take total national vote and claim that if the election had been decided by the over 30s, Romney would have won with 1.8 million more votes. There's this thing called the electoral college, you see.....

Posted by Citizen Charles Foster Kane on Mar. 28, 2013 @ 3:57 pm

to back up the claim that people get more conservative as they age.

Whether they will change their mind on gay marriage as they age is another matter since, if and when it ever becomes legal, it would be very hard to reverse.

So chances are it will linger around even if many people oppose it.

Your argument seems to be that everything is linear rather than cyclical. My experience of politics is the exact opposite.

Posted by Guest on Mar. 28, 2013 @ 4:43 pm

Notwithstanding how delusional Republicans and the NRA can be, the public overwhelmingly supports gun control - and the right is marginalizing themselves in that regard.

Posted by Paul Hogarth on Mar. 28, 2013 @ 2:35 pm

The exact same Constitution that I'll be willing to bet you are clinging to for gay marriage.

Posted by Guest on Mar. 28, 2013 @ 2:43 pm

The courts have held that reasonable restrictions on the ownership of firearms, like background checks, are constitutional. Banning guns, as San Francisco attempted to do in the past (cheered on by the SFBG) is unconstitutional.

On gay marriage I believe the court will rightly strike down DOMA and Prop 8 but not find a constitutional right to gay marriage. But the impetus will lead to gay marriage nearly everywhere in 20 years anyway.

Posted by Lucretia Snapples on Mar. 28, 2013 @ 4:02 pm

vested interests are too strong for that to prevail. And anyone can get a gun if they want one enough anyway, so it makes less difference in practice.

To be honest, I don't really care if gays can marry or not. It's a non issue to me, which is why i am happy for each State to decide for itself. For that matter, I have always been OK with abortion.

So I'm fairly moderate on such things, despite being painted here as a conservative. I'm only right-wing on economic issues. I'd give you gay marriage in a minute as long as we could repeal MediCaid and cut taxes.

Posted by Guest on Mar. 28, 2013 @ 4:46 pm

Some people get more economically conservative as they age. (Some don't; my mom, who was once a Republican, became a union organizer at age 60.) But on same-sex marriage, the polls are only going in one direction. It's over, Guest.

Posted by tim on Mar. 28, 2013 @ 2:36 pm

Although, absent an overly-broad SCOTUS ruling, it might be a cold day in June before places like Alabama and Utah approve it.

But writing off the GOP has always been proven wrong, most recently in 2008 when, just two years later, they came roaring back on a populist backlash against the overbearing excess that is ObamaCare.

Posted by Guest on Mar. 28, 2013 @ 2:46 pm

"They came roaring back on a populist backlash against the overbearing excess that is ObamaCare".

None of which had kicked in by 2010, really--which means your assertion is balderdash, regardless of what the leaders of your idiotic cult claim.

The economy was still awful in 2010, period. That's the cause. Anything else is ephemera.

Posted by JAW on Mar. 28, 2013 @ 3:04 pm

about the impending ObamaCare with it's excessive costs and bureaucratic essence.

The fact that Obama screwed up the economy was just yet another factor.

Posted by Guest on Mar. 28, 2013 @ 3:25 pm

Obama screwed up the economy? Conservatives are like a guy who pushes someone off the top of a building, then claims he isn't responsible for murder because it's the other guy's fault he didn't learn to fly before he hit the ground.

Posted by Citizen Charles Foster Kane on Mar. 28, 2013 @ 3:59 pm

There comes a point where you can't blame the guy before any more.

But hey, the S&P 500 closed at an all-time high today and SF home prices are also at an all-time high. So maybe you're right.

Woo hoo.

Posted by Guest on Mar. 28, 2013 @ 4:47 pm


It fascinates me that the same people who have a real problem with the voters of CA deciding the issue, seemingly have no problem with one elderly white guy who nobody elected making that decision for them.

Posted by Guest on Mar. 28, 2013 @ 4:51 pm

And if a huge progressive backlash hadn't stopped Robert Bork from getting that seat, there would be no "swing vote."

Posted by tim on Mar. 28, 2013 @ 5:12 pm

Reagan, Robert Bork, Rose Bird, Prop 13 - it's as if this shady cast of characters from decades ago, all of whom are dead, preoccupy you endlessly. You're like a Republican talking about FDR or Alger Hiss as if they're still around, always haunting your existence...

Posted by Lucretia Snapples on Mar. 28, 2013 @ 5:22 pm

at least a little more like what he envisages. He lost the battles and so, in a sense, never accepts the way SF has evolved. To him, and Steven, it will always be this smelly hippie town even though the 60's were never really that great to start out with.

A mid-life crisis always embodies some soul-searching and wallowing in the past. The key to dealing with a mid-life crisis is to understand that that is what it is, and not make the mistake of thinking that you can go home again.

Of course, the demise of the SFBG has hardly helped either, and he has to worry constantly about his continuing employment and pension prospects, particularly since he has no discernable skills other than as a socialist hack.

So, please, some compassion for the man. And humor his worst excesses.

Posted by Guest on Mar. 28, 2013 @ 5:34 pm

Of course, the demise of the SFBG has hardly helped either....>>

I see copies of the paper right outside the door.

Generally, when something is dead, it's gone.

Apparently, it isn't dead. Your frontal lobe, however.....

Posted by JAW on Mar. 28, 2013 @ 8:42 pm

Ask yourself this. Would anyone pay for the content?

Posted by Guest on Mar. 29, 2013 @ 6:55 am

Such delusions.

Tim thinks that the senators who voted against Bork were "progressive".

Or maybe it was the 5% of the population that identifies as progressives got senators to oppose Bork, because of the massive progressive voting block.

Tim, you mean well I'm sure, it's just the delusions that are so strange.

Posted by matlock on Mar. 28, 2013 @ 5:39 pm

Historically, the GOP have held power more than the Dem's, so it is reasonable that sCOTUS be slanted towards the conservatives.

The composition of SCOTUS is something of a lottery, since it depends as much as anything on who is Prez when a justice happens to die.

Posted by Guest on Mar. 28, 2013 @ 5:41 pm

The President would have been able to fill that vacancy - fill a conservative seat with a liberal.

Posted by Lucretia Snapples on Mar. 28, 2013 @ 6:37 pm

Of course, we never would have had a Lawrence decision if Bork had gotten in instead of Kennedy.

Posted by Guest on Mar. 31, 2013 @ 7:09 am

"Thomas Frank figured that out in What's the Matter with Kansas -- social issues have been driving working-class Americans to vote against their economic interests. "

In SF everyone is for left social issues and still the moderates(conservative according to the RCP Redmond/Jones types) beat the so called progressives all the time.

Posted by matlock on Mar. 28, 2013 @ 5:43 pm

(which 90% of the voters do not give a crap about anyway) to get the troops out. Just like the GOP.

But in the end, it's the economy, stupid. And progressives have no sane policies on the economy. They are stone age.

Posted by Guest on Mar. 28, 2013 @ 5:56 pm

The hysterical right and left have much in common.

They howl about how if things don't go their way the next step is Fascism or Communism or some such thing.

The rest of us get to laugh at the groupings of people who get their info from, Democracy Now, the 700 club, Ayn Rand news letters, and the like. Those people think that the rest of us are too stupid for our own good.

Posted by matlock on Mar. 28, 2013 @ 6:22 pm

covering GENOCIDE by the military of our "Indonesian freind" Suharto in East Timor -- exactly the sort of friend Pat Robertson of the 700 Club likes: Mobutu Sese Seko former dictator of Zaire, and Charles Taylor the Liberian war criminal.

East Timor is now a free and independent nation thanks in large part to the work of Amy Goodman and many other journalists who stayed with the story despite great adversity.

And thanks not one bit to matlock and his ilk.

Posted by lillipublicans on Mar. 29, 2013 @ 3:36 am


Indignation Is Not Righteous

Online Extras
Gary Longsine and Peter Boghossian
September 27, 2012

The Twin Fallacies of Appeal to Righteous Indignation and Appeal to Sanctity.

Appeals to righteous indignation or sanctity—which attempt to shield ideas from contemplation, discussion, investigation, or criticism—are common, impede rational discourse, and should be recognized as logical fallacies.


Posted by matlock on Mar. 29, 2013 @ 6:12 am

I don't "appeal to righteous indignation" -- though is certainly is a natural response to your trite yet libelous attempts at rhetoric.

Posted by lillipublicans on Mar. 29, 2013 @ 6:58 am

Blah Blah Blah. It's all the same. People fighting for liberty and economic justice are exactly the same as people fighting to repress liberty and economic justice, because they're uh, both fighting for something. Yeah. Exactly the same. When you point out what horseshit that is, he'll dig deep into the trashbin of history and trot out some long-forgotten pseudo-intellectual who thought the same way as matlock. Matlock thinks this makes him sound erudite, but all it does is prove that one or two other people have shared his particular brand of nihilistic, misanthropic cynicism. Matlock thinks he's so original, perversely because so few people are as intellectually bankrupt as he is. But in reality he's never had an orginal thought in his life. No, there have been one or two others over the years. So what?

Posted by Greg on Mar. 29, 2013 @ 7:27 am

fights for "injustice". Of course, everyone thinks they are right and that the other guy is wrong. But the fact that you think you are right does not make you right. It doesn't make you wrong either, but then that was Matlock's point.

There are more similarities than differences between the intolerance of the extreme left and the intolerance of the extreme right. To deny that is to admit that you are yourself an extremist.

Posted by Guest on Mar. 29, 2013 @ 7:42 am

Greg defines himself a certain way and thinks the world works a certain way.

Greg's left spent a lot of time on speech codes and PC hectoring of people and have called it tolerance. The Greg left doesn't like the old rules of society, instead of wanting to remove these rules they just want to change them to suit themselves. Changing schools from being indoctrination centers for rah rah USA, they want to change them into indoctrination centers for feel good happy talk. Witness the witless antics around the JROTC of a few years ago.

The far right of the religious variety have the same mentality, if they could they would be forcing everyone else's kids praying to the correct vengeful anti gay god.

This all is really quite obvious to the rest of us, Greg/Lilli types live in such a world that is so artificial that they define themselves into pointlessness.

Posted by matlock on Mar. 30, 2013 @ 11:39 am

even though a majority see them that way.

Indeed, the fact that people like Greg and Lilli, see Obama-voting Democrat moderates like me and you as extreme right-wingers tells you everything anyone could want to know about who are the real extremists here.

Wisdom starts with self-knowledge and, sadly, Greg and Lilli have no such self-awareness. They delusions starts with themselves and then percolates outward to a world they see as bitter and unjust - in essence that is pure projection of their own skewed internal states.

Posted by anon on Mar. 30, 2013 @ 11:56 am

When I was in college, people thought I was a conservative because I fought against speech codes and PC. I must be doing something right, if you guys think I'm a speech code PC liberal.

Posted by Greg on Mar. 30, 2013 @ 8:01 pm

Anon, you have managed to surprise me. Most of your opinions as expressed here would look awfully Republican to your average Republican voter.

Posted by Hortencia on Mar. 31, 2013 @ 7:11 am

You can be anything on the internet, haven't you realized by now? That's why every anonymous guest talks a great game about how they made millions in real estate. They can live in a one-room hovel, but here on the net they can be as successful as they like. They spout Cato Institute platitudes, but when it's convenient they'll say they vote "Democrat" [sic] or wax poetic about how they're "pro-abortion" [sic]. Just prove their um... "moderate" bona-fides. Point out to them that their choice of language doesn't exactly match their pronouncements -no problem. They'll just attack you for being a PC zealot. See how it works?

Posted by Guest on Mar. 31, 2013 @ 7:35 am

So maybe Greg loves Asians, Cops and America?

And he's just pretending to be a bigot?

Posted by Guest on Mar. 31, 2013 @ 8:53 am

be liberal on social matters like abortion and gay marriage, while maintaining a solid belief and conviction in free-market capitalism.

Such a person would find more common ground with a Clinton or Obama than with a Bush or Romney.

Some here to think that being fairly centrist, politically, is being right-wing. But that's the problem when one views everything from a very left-wing perspective.

Posted by Guest on Mar. 31, 2013 @ 8:49 am

Nicely summed-up, but I'm concerned that you meant seriously to admonish me for posting a reply. Your friend (?) marcos elsewhere jumps to agree with comments by this one on a regular basis, so I don't think my defense of Amy Goodman is wasted.

Posted by lillipublicans on Mar. 29, 2013 @ 10:54 am

Matlock's a turd, pure and simple.

Posted by Greg on Mar. 30, 2013 @ 7:36 am
Posted by Guest on Mar. 30, 2013 @ 8:02 am

Someone can be a turd without me thinking that "everybody who disagrees with me" is a turd. And matlock most certainly is one.

Posted by Greg on Mar. 30, 2013 @ 8:53 am

someone simply because of the political opinions that they hold. We see this all the time here where anyone expressing even a moderate, centrist position is routinely insulted.

Where is the alleged tolerance that progressives like to claim to have?

Posted by Guest on Mar. 30, 2013 @ 9:10 am

No, the left is quick to hate based on perceptions of political positions that one holds based on one's income where that income is greater than that of the leftist.

Disagreeing with someone's political positions is not necessarily hating on them, you all are too sensitive, binding your egos to your indefensible libertarian positions and taking it personally when challenged or, worse, ignored.

Posted by marcos on Mar. 30, 2013 @ 9:23 am

Hate is a property of the Right.

Left-oreinted people only start to feel hatred towards those who are actively engaged in some poisonous behavior such as despoiling public spaces with privatization schemes; rendering their habitat unrecognizable. Otherwise we tend to view reactionaries as sick people.

Rightist almost uniformly hate. Simply revealing one's political leaning to a rightist will elicit a desire in them to *punish* you for it.

Do it marcos. Leave. You are not helpful here anymore -- if you ever truly were.

Posted by lillipublicans on Mar. 30, 2013 @ 9:51 am

Leftist operators hate anyone who contests their claims to be King of the Leftists as their answers to the Great Question in scripture are the Sacrosanct Word.

The primary goal of the Kings of the Leftists is to assert dominance over the subculture, not to move an agenda.

Once enthroned, the enemies of the Kings of the Leftists become the pretenders and contenders, not the capitalists with whom business gets done.

Posted by marcos on Mar. 30, 2013 @ 9:55 am
Posted by lillipublicans on Mar. 30, 2013 @ 10:29 am

I only hate losers who pretend to act on behalf of "losers" and end up losing for the "losers" but winning for themselves. "Real San Franciscans," those who are not nonprofit and labor activists don't hate me.

Posted by marcos on Mar. 30, 2013 @ 10:45 am