Thursday, December 4, 2008

The Anti-Gay GOP

Andrew Sullivan sees why they might think it's the way of the future:

"New polling on Prop 8 reveals the kind of political coalition that focusing on same-sex marriage has created for the GOP:
  • Evangelical or born-again Christians (85%) were far more likely than others (42%) to vote yes.
  • Three in four Republicans (77%) voted yes, two in three Democrats (65%) voted no, and independents were more closely divided (52% yes, 48% no).
  • Supporters of Republican presidential candidate John McCain were far more likely than those who backed President-elect Barack Obama to vote yes (85% vs. 30%).
  • Latinos (61%) were more likely than whites (50%) to vote yes; and 57 percent of Latinos, Asians, and blacks combined voted yes. (Samples sizes for Asians and blacks are too small to report separately.)
  • Voters without a college degree (62%) were far more likely than college graduates (43%) to vote yes.

The trouble for the GOP is that this is one of very few issues on which Asians, Latinos and blacks vote for them. But it reinforces the identity of the party as primarily that of white, less educated fundamentalist voters. I've no doubt there's a place for such a party in American politics. I also have little doubt it will never be a majority."

There is no way the GOP survives as a national party if it goes down this road. Too much of history is against it. And while the Latinos might seem to be a part of this coalition, they run for the hills once the rest of the coalition has a say on immigration.

However it's the easiest route, and it's the route that's cost them this year.

The real touchstone will be the 2010 nominees.

For more, visit Rants, Raves and Rethoughts

1 comment:

Macht's gar nichts! said...

Why is government in the marriage business anyway? People are classified for taxation and benefit purposes as married or not, but the conferrence of that status is made largely by religious institutions! Does anyone see a conflict in the separation of church and stste here?
The issue will never be resolved until union is a two-step process, with civil unions done by government determining legal statuses, and marriage being in the purview of churches, mosques, synagogues, etc. according to their own standards.
Most of the arguments I've heard on the part of marriage 'defenders', no matter from how loftily they start, end up in the area of 'my taxes going to something I don't believe in'.

I thought I was the lone party on this, but our local paper ran a columnist arguing to the same effect yesterday.