America Shrugged
by Michelangelo Signorile
New York Press
May 25, 2004
“BARRING A MIRACLE, the family as it has been known
for more than five millennia will crumble," warned the
evangelist and psychologist Dr. James Dobson,
regarding Massachusetts' impending first
state-sanctioned same-sex marriages. Promises,
promises! May 17 came and went, and the last time I
checked, the family was still standing, dysfunctional
as ever. The world is still spinning on its axis, the
American economy keeps sputtering along and Iraq
continues to spiral out of control.
The End of Civilization has proven to be the biggest,
most over-hyped disappointment since the Y2K bug. No
rapture, no floods, no earthquakes, no locusts.
(Cicadas do not count.) The firstborn of every family
did not die, nor did God strike Massachusetts off the
map with an almighty thunderbolt. The weather, from
what I could gather, seemed unseasonably pleasant all
the way to Provincetown, as thousands of gay and
lesbian couples wed across the Bay State last week.
Evangelical leaders were hoping the pictures on
television of gay couples getting hitched would sicken
and outrage the masses, driving millions of Americans
to the barricades to take on the enemy within.
"The attacks on Pearl Harbor, New York and Washington
awakened the nation to peril and called citizens to
action," said R. Albert Mohler Jr., president of the
Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, comparing those
attacks to the Massachusetts decision. (He even called
May 17 "a day that will live in moral infamy.")
Judging from most people's reactions, it's a day
that's already been forgotten. So the new tack by the
goofy God squad is to claim that people are in a state
of shock, experiencing a delayed response.
"The fact is, enough people haven't awakened," the
Rev. Lou Sheldon, founder of the Traditional Values
Coalition, told the Washington Post. "It's a sleeping
giant out there... And when [people] wake up I feel
bad for the homosexuals."
Actually, people have woken up, and they're quite
revolted. But the same-gender photo pairings that got
them sick to their stomachs weren't coming out of
Massachusetts: They were the photos out of Abu Ghraib,
depicting the humiliating simulated sex acts that
American soldiers and civilian contractors—using
homosexual sex in a grotesquely homophobic
manner—forced male Iraqi detainees to engage in.
In that respect, the timing of the Massachusetts
marriages couldn't have been better for the same-sex
marriage movement. The prison abuse scandal, the
continuing violence in Iraq and the administration's
handling of the war puts same-sex marriage in
perspective for most people. George W. Bush's approval
ratings have plummeted as Americans realize that it's
not gay marriage that's destroying the country, but
rather the president, Donald Rumsfeld, Condoleezza
Rice and the rest of the gang in the White House.
They're the ones who've taken us to war based on lies
and have irreparably damaged the nation's integrity.
In Congress, the federal marriage amendment seems dead
in the water. Perhaps it wasn't a coincidence that the
Senate cancelled a hearing on the amendment last week
at which the homo-obsessed Gov. Mitt Romney of
Massachusetts was to appear. How would it look if, in
the middle of all the turmoil in the Middle East,
reports came out of Washington depicting our senators
focused on an issue that ranks at the bottom of
voters' lists of priorities in every poll?
Several months back, I wrote that the FMA could turn
out to be more of a problem for Bush than John Kerry
(who doesn't support same-sex marriage either), as
most voters, no matter how they feel about gay unions,
have little passion to amend the Constitution or even
to waste much time debating the issue. That has turned
out to be true, but I didn't foresee other factors
that have further complicated the FMA from Bush's
perspective. Several recent reports have noted that
the proposed gay marriage ban, while a major talking
point for evangelical leaders, is failing to excite
the evangelical rank and file. Even if they are
adamantly opposed to same-sex marriage, many are
ambivalent about getting the federal government
involved. It's not a black and white issue for them,
like abortion, nor is it one that gets them to empty
their pockets and run to the polls.
"Just four months after an alliance of conservative
Christians was threatening a churchgoer revolt unless
President Bush championed an amendment banning
same-sex marriage, members say they have been
surprised and disappointed by what they call a tepid
response from the pews," the New York Times reported.
If the FMA doesn't energize the GOP's religious base,
and if the abortion issue doesn't fulfill that
function either this year—Bush's chipping away at
abortion rights might make some conservative
Christians complacent in 2004—Bush may get the same
turnout among evangelicals that he got in 2000, which
was a disappointment to Karl Rove. Meanwhile, Bush
will have alienated some moderate Republicans and
Democrats who previously supported him. But perhaps
more important, he will have energized many liberal
Democrats and gay rights advocates, who are organizing
fiercely in light of his support of the FMA.
Gay groups on college campuses and in community
centers across the country are briskly registering new
voters, painting Bush as a tyrant who is turning gays
into second-class citizens. The Human Rights Campaign,
the largest gay group in Washington, last week
launched an ad campaign excoriating Bush, which will
appear more than 85 times in gay, lesbian, bisexual
and transgender community publications. Even the Log
Cabin Republicans launched television commercials
critical of Bush for supporting the amendment.
Most of those in the religious right who feel
passionately about the FMA are voting for Bush anyway.
It's quite possible that Bush's continued vocal
support of the FMA will get more Democrats than
Republicans out to vote—it's certainly energizing
loyal Democratic constituencies like gays and
lesbians. Meanwhile, the majority of voters, including
swing voters, will only continue to note that Bush is
trying to change the subject and focus on an issue
that is not a priority for them. It's not that they
support same-sex marriage necessarily—though the most
recent Newsweek poll showed a slim majority supporting
some form of legal sanction for gay unions—but seeing
Bush pandering to the religious right while there are
so many other issues affecting the country isn't going
to play well. As an issue this election year, same-sex
marriage may turn out to be a trap that Karl Rove set
for Kerry, but which hapless W. walked into all by
himself.
[From Mike Signorile's blog at http://www.signorile.com/articles/nyp121.html]
New York Press
May 25, 2004
“BARRING A MIRACLE, the family as it has been known
for more than five millennia will crumble," warned the
evangelist and psychologist Dr. James Dobson,
regarding Massachusetts' impending first
state-sanctioned same-sex marriages. Promises,
promises! May 17 came and went, and the last time I
checked, the family was still standing, dysfunctional
as ever. The world is still spinning on its axis, the
American economy keeps sputtering along and Iraq
continues to spiral out of control.
The End of Civilization has proven to be the biggest,
most over-hyped disappointment since the Y2K bug. No
rapture, no floods, no earthquakes, no locusts.
(Cicadas do not count.) The firstborn of every family
did not die, nor did God strike Massachusetts off the
map with an almighty thunderbolt. The weather, from
what I could gather, seemed unseasonably pleasant all
the way to Provincetown, as thousands of gay and
lesbian couples wed across the Bay State last week.
Evangelical leaders were hoping the pictures on
television of gay couples getting hitched would sicken
and outrage the masses, driving millions of Americans
to the barricades to take on the enemy within.
"The attacks on Pearl Harbor, New York and Washington
awakened the nation to peril and called citizens to
action," said R. Albert Mohler Jr., president of the
Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, comparing those
attacks to the Massachusetts decision. (He even called
May 17 "a day that will live in moral infamy.")
Judging from most people's reactions, it's a day
that's already been forgotten. So the new tack by the
goofy God squad is to claim that people are in a state
of shock, experiencing a delayed response.
"The fact is, enough people haven't awakened," the
Rev. Lou Sheldon, founder of the Traditional Values
Coalition, told the Washington Post. "It's a sleeping
giant out there... And when [people] wake up I feel
bad for the homosexuals."
Actually, people have woken up, and they're quite
revolted. But the same-gender photo pairings that got
them sick to their stomachs weren't coming out of
Massachusetts: They were the photos out of Abu Ghraib,
depicting the humiliating simulated sex acts that
American soldiers and civilian contractors—using
homosexual sex in a grotesquely homophobic
manner—forced male Iraqi detainees to engage in.
In that respect, the timing of the Massachusetts
marriages couldn't have been better for the same-sex
marriage movement. The prison abuse scandal, the
continuing violence in Iraq and the administration's
handling of the war puts same-sex marriage in
perspective for most people. George W. Bush's approval
ratings have plummeted as Americans realize that it's
not gay marriage that's destroying the country, but
rather the president, Donald Rumsfeld, Condoleezza
Rice and the rest of the gang in the White House.
They're the ones who've taken us to war based on lies
and have irreparably damaged the nation's integrity.
In Congress, the federal marriage amendment seems dead
in the water. Perhaps it wasn't a coincidence that the
Senate cancelled a hearing on the amendment last week
at which the homo-obsessed Gov. Mitt Romney of
Massachusetts was to appear. How would it look if, in
the middle of all the turmoil in the Middle East,
reports came out of Washington depicting our senators
focused on an issue that ranks at the bottom of
voters' lists of priorities in every poll?
Several months back, I wrote that the FMA could turn
out to be more of a problem for Bush than John Kerry
(who doesn't support same-sex marriage either), as
most voters, no matter how they feel about gay unions,
have little passion to amend the Constitution or even
to waste much time debating the issue. That has turned
out to be true, but I didn't foresee other factors
that have further complicated the FMA from Bush's
perspective. Several recent reports have noted that
the proposed gay marriage ban, while a major talking
point for evangelical leaders, is failing to excite
the evangelical rank and file. Even if they are
adamantly opposed to same-sex marriage, many are
ambivalent about getting the federal government
involved. It's not a black and white issue for them,
like abortion, nor is it one that gets them to empty
their pockets and run to the polls.
"Just four months after an alliance of conservative
Christians was threatening a churchgoer revolt unless
President Bush championed an amendment banning
same-sex marriage, members say they have been
surprised and disappointed by what they call a tepid
response from the pews," the New York Times reported.
If the FMA doesn't energize the GOP's religious base,
and if the abortion issue doesn't fulfill that
function either this year—Bush's chipping away at
abortion rights might make some conservative
Christians complacent in 2004—Bush may get the same
turnout among evangelicals that he got in 2000, which
was a disappointment to Karl Rove. Meanwhile, Bush
will have alienated some moderate Republicans and
Democrats who previously supported him. But perhaps
more important, he will have energized many liberal
Democrats and gay rights advocates, who are organizing
fiercely in light of his support of the FMA.
Gay groups on college campuses and in community
centers across the country are briskly registering new
voters, painting Bush as a tyrant who is turning gays
into second-class citizens. The Human Rights Campaign,
the largest gay group in Washington, last week
launched an ad campaign excoriating Bush, which will
appear more than 85 times in gay, lesbian, bisexual
and transgender community publications. Even the Log
Cabin Republicans launched television commercials
critical of Bush for supporting the amendment.
Most of those in the religious right who feel
passionately about the FMA are voting for Bush anyway.
It's quite possible that Bush's continued vocal
support of the FMA will get more Democrats than
Republicans out to vote—it's certainly energizing
loyal Democratic constituencies like gays and
lesbians. Meanwhile, the majority of voters, including
swing voters, will only continue to note that Bush is
trying to change the subject and focus on an issue
that is not a priority for them. It's not that they
support same-sex marriage necessarily—though the most
recent Newsweek poll showed a slim majority supporting
some form of legal sanction for gay unions—but seeing
Bush pandering to the religious right while there are
so many other issues affecting the country isn't going
to play well. As an issue this election year, same-sex
marriage may turn out to be a trap that Karl Rove set
for Kerry, but which hapless W. walked into all by
himself.
[From Mike Signorile's blog at http://www.signorile.com/articles/nyp121.html]
posted by Rev. Rick Mitchell, PhD at 7:27 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home