The whole gay cootie thing is a loser issue. Republicans are going to need to find a way to appeal to religious voters without bashing on gays politically. It’s one thing to be against gay marriage, even Democrats aren’t coming out in favor of that, but it’s another thing to suggest we need to change our constitution because of what the queers are doing to the soil. If we lose the next generation of voters to the Democrats, we’re royally screwed, especially if they are going to keep nominating candidates like Barack Obama.
UPDATE: This doesn’t seem like a good idea either.
Wholly agreed.
It’s a matter of individual freedom, as long as it comes with individual responsibility. One might discuss the right to abortion issue in these terms as well…though that might be a little tricky regarding rights (of unborn).
At any rate….I have often told people that if they don’t like guns, then they should choose not to own one. Perhaps the same for being gay…if you don’t like homosexuality, then choose not to be gay. But it’s increasingly unpopular to force one’s own version of morality upon everyone else … and this is one thing that the social conservatives are bound to loose on (politically).
As the guy who I think started using the term ‘gay cooties’, amen.
Though now we have those ‘radical islam cooties’ to deal with.
Yeah… but those cooties actually bite.
The abortion issue is just going to go on and on, and you’ll have political groups appealing to each side of it. As a political matter, the abortion issue is one that appeals to religious voters, without grossly offending the middle. I’m not really in favor of abortion being illegal myself, but I side with social conservatives in believing Roe v. Wade was a bad decision. Where I start getting more offended is when they rail against biotechnology.
Nah, i don’t think we need to fear Rachel Ray’s cooties
Y’know, Stuart, I like you–you’re not like the other people here in the trailer park.
If you want an idea of what we’re really up against, here, spend some time over at redstate.com; in particular, read the screeds of Paul Cella.
For all that we can find some common cause with the SoCons on the occasional personal liberty issue like guns, we have a very, very different view of what should be government’s priorities. We think the proper role of government is to defend the country, provide some infrastructure, and otherwise get the hell out of the way; they think the proper role of government is to preserve and defend American culture, as they define it, even if that means codifying their cultural tics into law.
DEAD MILKMEN REFERENCE I WIN.
I said much the same yesterday in a comment at the Mad Pigeon. However, I really have to defend Malkin here. Her article was not at all unhinged, as it’s being painted, but very reasonable — and she does come unglued, but not in this case.
It is the one that will separate the Republicans from future generations – the rantings of the religious right.
Are they the “core” of the Republicans? Funny, I would have said all of the Reagan Republicans who went on to put the Contract with America Republicans (and Bill Clinton) in power were more of the core of the 80s and 90s Republican party. Individual liberty, individual responsibility, fiscal responsibility – not Republican representatives who spend money like Tipp O’Neil – etc. How about national security? That might have been an issue in the Reagan/Carter election.
Prayer in schools, 10 commandments on courthouse lawns and the gay cooties issues are NOT what drove the core of the Republicans in the 80s and 90s. They certainly aren’t issues that speak to the up and coming generations.
(Oh, and thanks for the link!)
I agree with you. Republicans need to keep religious voters in the coalition, but they need to understand that people like Dobson don’t speak for most religious voters. Sometimes it’s wise to throw baggage overboard, and if the Republicans want to appeal to social conservatives, they need to do it in a way that’s not gay bashing, or shoving religion down people’s throats. There are plenty of freedom issues that appeal to religious voters that the Republicans don’t seem to want to talk about these days.