The right wing and same-sex marriage

|
(75)

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.

 

Comments

*usually when such a phrase is used it is to mischaracterize the opinions of others so I use it advisedly; in this case I think it apt.

Posted by lillipublicans on Mar. 30, 2013 @ 10:57 am

No, they think that everyone who is not one of them is a pretender for power. Elaborate social structures have been put into place such that the vast majority of San Franciscans can be judged too racist, sexist, homophobic, classist or divisive and thus excluded. This only inures the Kings of the Leftists to corporate and government power and alienates them from the communities they purport to represent but in actuality screw.

Posted by marcos on Mar. 30, 2013 @ 11:05 am

elsewhere for that matter. He judges people on nothing other than the extent to which they agree with Lilli.

Not surprisingly, therefore, Lilli hates a lot of people, since his viewpoint is such a tiny minority view.

When outnumbered and outgunned, all he has left is his anger and his envy.

Posted by Guest on Mar. 30, 2013 @ 10:39 am

The end goal is not moving an agenda it is in enforcing conformity and submission. "The Left" as a political culture could not walk in power if it had to, it is so imbued in its own oppression and inferiority that it attracts few and alienates many. And this offers zero resistance to, natch, often encourages the rightward march.

Posted by marcos on Mar. 30, 2013 @ 10:47 am

Do they actually enjoy displays of peoples of colors culture? Do they really find, graffiti, poetry, street performers, mimes etc... enjoyable? Is processing that enjoyable when nothing ever comes from it?

Can anyone sit through a native American dance for more then five minutes and not be bored? Do they really think dressing up a tiny Latino girl in a ridiculous frilly dress is cute? Does anyone really like poetry readings (do they go just to get laid? Thats my Guess.). When sitting around with fellow studies majors bemoaning the manarchy does their do nothing status ever sink in?

Posted by matlock on Mar. 30, 2013 @ 11:02 am

Used to be that the leftists would do something or at least try to. Now it has been reduced to a martyr economy, the currency of the realm is personal outrage and insult sheathed in the veneer of political indignation.

All the while, conditions slowly deteriorate for most Americans. Most leftist activists cheer this on as finally, some day soon, everyone will be in need of paternalist activists to provide services for us.

Posted by marcos on Mar. 30, 2013 @ 11:25 am

You have no leg to stand on with you anti-Asian rants here. Who are you to be calling others names?

Posted by Lucretia Snapples on Mar. 30, 2013 @ 11:15 am

Like you for example, with your virulent anti-gay rants and statements like "blacks should be grateful to Europeans for their enslavement." Then you have the audacity to project your bigotry onto others.

Posted by Greg on Mar. 30, 2013 @ 11:35 am

as well as Gregs are based on your own righteousness and feelings as proof of your point.

You said progressives don't have floating values, then you said Democracy Now was good for allowing bomber Bill Ayers to ramble unchallenged on her show, now you say Democracy Now is good because it is opposed to terrorists?

All of your Jesse Helms like ravings couched in your own righteousness.

This is the entertainment value of the high comedy right and left. Your position is always "I'm right by nature of being right"

Posted by matlock on Mar. 30, 2013 @ 3:26 am

As an added plus, East Timor's second president after independence was the silicon based life from from Star Trek TOS "Devil in the Dark."

http://www.startrek.com/watch_episode/YkLHBmVwUu_E

Posted by marcos on Mar. 29, 2013 @ 8:08 am
Posted by Guest on Mar. 29, 2013 @ 8:44 am

Same sex marriage to TOS, you mean.

Posted by marcos on Mar. 29, 2013 @ 9:20 am

As early as 1975, a journalist described Trekkies as "smelling of assembly-line junk food, hugely consumed; the look is of people who consume it, habitually and at length; overfed and undernourished, eruptive of skin and flaccid of form, from the merely soft to the grotesquely obese." Take pity.

Posted by Guest on Mar. 29, 2013 @ 12:11 pm

You pegged me, obese and undernourished! My only mistake was paying more attention to Grace Lee Whitney than George Takei.

Posted by marcos on Mar. 30, 2013 @ 7:45 am

such an astute synopsis of the changing dynamic which portends such a dismal future for the corporate/religiosity union which is the Republican party, he'd be pilloried as a "troll."

Posted by lillipublicans on Mar. 29, 2013 @ 6:25 am

The gentleman who used to post here...? Not a big fan of the subject but I thought her comments were quite moving in the segment. Hope I'm not mixed up here...

Posted by Guest on Mar. 30, 2013 @ 1:01 am

Smug and preachy.

Arthur Evans was a good poster here - he wasn't afraid of ruffling feathers and rattling cages.

Posted by Guest on Mar. 30, 2013 @ 8:15 am

Maddow is too much of a conventional party dog, much like Stephanie Miller. I prefer someone capable of criticizing both parties when they deserve it. But I seriously doubt that she was referring to that Arthur Evans. That guy was irrelevant and unknown to anyone outside of the local sphere. PS, glad he's gone, although some of the trolls who replaced him are even more insufferable.

Posted by Greg on Mar. 30, 2013 @ 8:58 am

in the early struggle for gay rights, before moving to SF?

I'd venture to suggest that he is more well known that, say, someone who posts on SFBG as "Greg" but is otherwise unknown to anyone.

Evans made some cogent criticism here of SF progressives and how they have failed. For that matter, Marcos does the same thing. While others, like you and Lilli, endlessly trot out socialist cliches as if you live in some alternate universer where reality never troubles you.

Posted by Guest on Mar. 30, 2013 @ 9:13 am

Arthur Evans' life journey was instructive. It is for his cautionary tale that I am contemplating a move abroad. I do not want to become Arthur Evans, where my cynicism flips me into being subsidized by the worst moneyed interests.

Posted by marcos on Mar. 30, 2013 @ 9:19 am

I think you'd be happier in some truly socialist place like Sweden or France. 60% to 75% income taxes do not appear to phase you, so go for it.

Posted by Guest on Mar. 30, 2013 @ 9:25 am

There was no plan, more like contemplating the full range of options.

Posted by marcos on Mar. 30, 2013 @ 9:37 am

always seek a new place where things will be different, and yet never find it.

Ultimately every place is the same, because we take ourselves and our flaws wheresoever we travel.

Posted by Guest on Mar. 30, 2013 @ 10:37 am

Don't even pretend to have reconciled the nature/nurture dichotomy. 24 years in one city is not restless.

Posted by marcos on Mar. 30, 2013 @ 10:44 am

Ther's nothing like a long trip for a few months or a year - preferably overseas where language, customs, race and/or ethnicity make it easier to feel a little bit off balance - to get a good reading of one's mental and emotional state. No matter how stimulating the new experiences or how exciting the new friendships, the brain that one takes on the trip is always there to remind us of our true emotional state when the experiences and friendships are at a lull.

Fortunately for Bay Area travelers who realize their brains may not be as well-balanced as they would like, when they return they can avail themselves of a very extensive mental health services network to tune up the brain's thinking patterns that may have us in a rut, prescribe medications to mitigate any hard-wiring that's a little messed up, or find us group sessions for working on those all-important interpersonal relationship skills.

Arthur's last years are a cautionary tale for everyone. Being angry and bitter is no way to spend the few precious years we have on earth. And, more importantly, the anger doesn't change anything other than make our own lives even more miserable. The world moved on before we were here and will move on in a similar direction after we are gone.

This is also why it's senseless to debate the anons and Lucretias of the world. They are sitting pretty owning real estate and collecting rents, while politicians watch out for the financial elites' self-interest. They can post on this chatboard and have some fun messing with people who'd like to see a more economically just world, knowing that the politicians will never let it happen. Whether it be Mayor Lee, Governor Brown, or President Obama - "liberals" all - politicians are never going to make the landlords, property speculators and big businesses receive less economic spoils. The politicains entire rhetoric is, "If we give the wealthy elites even more economic benefits, some of it will trickle down to the masses," or, "If we try to extract more tax from the wealthy elites, they will leave us and take their wealth and businesses to Bermuda or Cayman."

The politicians treat us like low educated trailer trash, and most of us just look the other way while scrambling to pay the rent, pay the mortgage, and put a little food on the table, while the wealthy elites watch their assets keep growing in value.

Posted by Guest on Mar. 30, 2013 @ 11:37 am