IOWA LAWMAKERS REFUSING TO ACT ON A MOTION TO INTRODUCE LEGISLATION TO BAN GAY MARRIAGE IS: GOOD FOR THE GAYS.
As was noted in last week's WQI, Iowa's Supreme Court ruled the state could not forbid same-sex couples to marry; a move that when coupled with Iowa's arguous system for approving constitutional ammendments, all but gaurenteed a permanent win for gays in the state. All but gaurenteed as long as the Iowa Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal stayed true to his word and blocked attempts to introduce legislation that would ammend the state constitution. Well Gronstall did more than just deliver on his promise, in rejecting a colleague's attempts to introduce a bill to ammend the constitution, Gronstal made a quietly impassioned speech for gay marriage (you MUST watch the video of it). Among the choice quotes from his speech:
As was noted in last week's WQI, Iowa's Supreme Court ruled the state could not forbid same-sex couples to marry; a move that when coupled with Iowa's arguous system for approving constitutional ammendments, all but gaurenteed a permanent win for gays in the state. All but gaurenteed as long as the Iowa Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal stayed true to his word and blocked attempts to introduce legislation that would ammend the state constitution. Well Gronstall did more than just deliver on his promise, in rejecting a colleague's attempts to introduce a bill to ammend the constitution, Gronstal made a quietly impassioned speech for gay marriage (you MUST watch the video of it). Among the choice quotes from his speech:One of my daughters was in the workplace...and there were a whole bunch of conservative older men, and those guys were talking about gay marriage. They were talking about discussions going on across the country. And my daughter Kate, after listening to it for about 20 minutes, said to them, "you guys don't understand, you've already lost. My generation doesn't care." I think I learned something from my daughter the other day.
With that observation Gronstal ensured gay marriage's safety in Iowa until at least 2014, by which time it's doubtful Iowans will vote to overturn the court ruling.
The generational divide on the issue of gay marriage became something more than a talking point (or blog leitmotif) this week following news of our next item.
NATE SILVER ANALYZING DEMOGRAPHIC TRENDS TO PREDICT GAY MARRIAGE WILL BE UNOPPOSED IN THE US WITHIN 25 YEARS IS: GOOD FOR THE GAYS.
Nate Silver and his blog fivethirtyeight.com is the closest thing we in America have to Nostrodamus. While many pollsters make grand claims on scant evidence, Silver's methodology is based on a careful readings of statistics and is startlingly accurate. His statistical models sucessfully predicted the outcome of every settled senate race in the 08 elections, the breakdown of the 08 presidential popular vote (within tenths of a precentage point), and the unlikely resurgance of the Tampa Devilrays last season.
He' also really cute.
In a post this week examining the likelihood of Iowa banning gay marriage, Silver made an astonishing claim: a marked downward trend of support to ban gay marriage of roughly two points a year.
Silver created a suprisingly accurate model of state-by-state rejection of marriage protectionism through regression analysis of three variables:
NATE SILVER ANALYZING DEMOGRAPHIC TRENDS TO PREDICT GAY MARRIAGE WILL BE UNOPPOSED IN THE US WITHIN 25 YEARS IS: GOOD FOR THE GAYS.
Nate Silver and his blog fivethirtyeight.com is the closest thing we in America have to Nostrodamus. While many pollsters make grand claims on scant evidence, Silver's methodology is based on a careful readings of statistics and is startlingly accurate. His statistical models sucessfully predicted the outcome of every settled senate race in the 08 elections, the breakdown of the 08 presidential popular vote (within tenths of a precentage point), and the unlikely resurgance of the Tampa Devilrays last season.
He' also really cute.
In a post this week examining the likelihood of Iowa banning gay marriage, Silver made an astonishing claim: a marked downward trend of support to ban gay marriage of roughly two points a year.
Silver created a suprisingly accurate model of state-by-state rejection of marriage protectionism through regression analysis of three variables:
1. The year in which the amendment [to ban gay marriage] was voted upon [by a state];
2. The percentage of adults in 2008 Gallup tracking surveys who said that religion was an important part of their daily lives;
3. The percentage of white evangelicals in the state.
According to his predictions the last state to have enough of an electoral opposition to gay marriage would be Mississippi, which would itself be demographically pro-gay marriage by 2024.
If this seems oddly rosy even Silver himself acknowledges the many problems his model faces (public backlash around increasing gay rights for one). Also not having enough votes to block gay marriage doesn't necessarily mean there are enough votes to pass it.
In a follow-up post from last Thursday, Silver reiterated that the crux of his arguement is about generational differences:
If this seems oddly rosy even Silver himself acknowledges the many problems his model faces (public backlash around increasing gay rights for one). Also not having enough votes to block gay marriage doesn't necessarily mean there are enough votes to pass it.
In a follow-up post from last Thursday, Silver reiterated that the crux of his arguement is about generational differences:
Support for gay marriage, however, is strongly generational. In a CBS news poll conducted last month, 64 percent of voters aged 18-45 supported either gay marriage or civil unions, but only 45 percent of voters aged 65 and up did. Civil unions have already achieved the support of an outright majority of Americans, and as those older voters are replaced by younger ones, the smart money is that gay marriage will reach majority status too at some point in the 2010's.
After a week like this though it does seem possible that gay marriage could be legal everywhere in the next twenty years. The next item perfectly captures the bredth of the momentum.
THE VERMONT LEGISLATURE VOTING FOR GAY MARRIAGE AND OVERRIDING A GUBERNATORIAL VETO AGAINST IT IS: GOOD FOR THE GAYS.
The fact that the Vermont legislature passed this law, and that it passed it with a super-majority (two-thirds) of its elected officials truly makes this a watershed event: the first state to legalize same-sex marriage through legislation. The override vote was a squeaker, passing by a single vote, but again this was a super-majority of the legislature. In the past, conservatives arguing against gay marriage (in CA, MA, and CT) used court actions as a large part of their argument. They contended that this reversal of past norms was being ordered by court fiat, and that only voters and legislators should have the right to make this kind of policy decision. Vermont did just what the conservatives demanded; any petition in the future to ban gay marriage will have to be opposed to gay marriage on it's own terms and not use "activist judges" as an excuse.
Also, this is only the 7th overide of a Govenor's veto in the state's history.
DC CITY COUNCIL VOTING UNANIMOUSLY TO RECOGNIZE SAME-SE WEDDINGS PERFORMED IN OTHER STATES IS: GOOD FOR THE GAYS
This bit of news is a bit of a sticky wicket. First off it's worth noting that the DC Council did not vote to start performing gay marriages, but only to start recognizing gay marriages performed in other states. Also this was a preliminary vote, a final vote is needed next month before this can become law. Perhaps one of the reasons the council chose not to vote on performing gay marriage directly is that the US Congress has to approve all decisions made by the DC Council. If the council had voted to approve gay marriage, the nation's legislative branch would essentially have to weigh in on the issue. And no one wants this congress weighing in on gay marriage just yet. Approving recognition of gay marriages performed in other states is an easier pill for the congress to swallow. It's also a usefull canary in the coalmine of this issue. But even if the congress decides to turn the DC Council vote into political red meat it might not play well, as Nate Silver also pointed out this week:
THE VERMONT LEGISLATURE VOTING FOR GAY MARRIAGE AND OVERRIDING A GUBERNATORIAL VETO AGAINST IT IS: GOOD FOR THE GAYS.
The fact that the Vermont legislature passed this law, and that it passed it with a super-majority (two-thirds) of its elected officials truly makes this a watershed event: the first state to legalize same-sex marriage through legislation. The override vote was a squeaker, passing by a single vote, but again this was a super-majority of the legislature. In the past, conservatives arguing against gay marriage (in CA, MA, and CT) used court actions as a large part of their argument. They contended that this reversal of past norms was being ordered by court fiat, and that only voters and legislators should have the right to make this kind of policy decision. Vermont did just what the conservatives demanded; any petition in the future to ban gay marriage will have to be opposed to gay marriage on it's own terms and not use "activist judges" as an excuse.Also, this is only the 7th overide of a Govenor's veto in the state's history.
DC CITY COUNCIL VOTING UNANIMOUSLY TO RECOGNIZE SAME-SE WEDDINGS PERFORMED IN OTHER STATES IS: GOOD FOR THE GAYS
This bit of news is a bit of a sticky wicket. First off it's worth noting that the DC Council did not vote to start performing gay marriages, but only to start recognizing gay marriages performed in other states. Also this was a preliminary vote, a final vote is needed next month before this can become law. Perhaps one of the reasons the council chose not to vote on performing gay marriage directly is that the US Congress has to approve all decisions made by the DC Council. If the council had voted to approve gay marriage, the nation's legislative branch would essentially have to weigh in on the issue. And no one wants this congress weighing in on gay marriage just yet. Approving recognition of gay marriages performed in other states is an easier pill for the congress to swallow. It's also a usefull canary in the coalmine of this issue. But even if the congress decides to turn the DC Council vote into political red meat it might not play well, as Nate Silver also pointed out this week: Considering that (i) there is some opportunity cost involved to the Republicans in attempting to attack on the gay marriage issue (ii) the issue is the almost literal embodiment of the Rovian politics that the public appeared to have rejected in 2006 and 2008, and that (iii) liberals, following the passage of Proposition 8, may for the first time be at least as energized on the issue as are conservatives, it is less than obvious that a debate over gay marriage is the way back to the promised land for the GOP.
ADAM LAMBERT GETTING A STANDING OVATION FROM SIMON ON AMERICAN IDOL IS: GOOD FOR THE GAYS
I'm not a big Idol watcher, it's just too much advertising for me (the whole show is essentially a giant focus group for a new product owned by Simon Cowell) but it is a cultural phenomena, and so respect must be paid. This season's favorite Adam Lambert has (apparently) cultivated an ambiguously gay persona (or perhaps is merely in the closet and everyone can tell.) Photos were leaked a couple week ago on line of Lambert making out with other guys, while he was in drag no less:
See, what happens at Burning Man doesn't necessarily stay at Burning Man.
This prompted Bill O'Reilly to devote a whole segment to his show on how this wil harm his chances on the show (his two guests totally disagreed).
Of course O'Reilly is part of the generation that doesn't understand its all ready lost, my generation doesn't care.
Of course O'Reilly is part of the generation that doesn't understand its all ready lost, my generation doesn't care.
And as if to prove the young don't give a hoot about sexuality, Lambert performed a viruoso cover of Tears For Fear's "Mad World" to a standing ovation from Mr. Cowel. Of course sexually ambiguous singers are nothing new, and the first winner of "Pop Idol" the original British version of American Id0l was an openly gay man. What's important here is the distinct generational reaction to the cultural event: O'Reilly raised eye brows and the younger generation merely plucked their eyebrows to look more like Lambert.
INEPT OPPOSITION IS: GOOD FOR THE GAYS.
Last week was not a good week to be a gay marriage opponent. Not only were they delivered judicial AND legislative defeats, but two of their big initiatives intended to revamp their campaigns backfired. First the National Organization for Marriage released an incredibly hokey and melodramatic anti-gay marriage ad only to have the audition tape for the commercial (filled with awkward stumbling "actors" trying to read the lines believably) leaked by the Human Rights Campaign. It's hard to convince people that real people are being hurt by gay marriage when audtioners for the commercial could barely buy it. The indominable Rachel Maddow tackled the fracas on her show with the usual wit and wisdom (she starts talking about the commercial at 2:28)
Then THE SAME anti-gay marriage organization released a new campaign named "2 Million for Traditional Marriage" or "2M4M" in an attempt to be all 21st Century and text saavy. Had the National Organization for Marriage actually been savvy at all (or had anyone from my generation in their organization) they would have realized their abbreviation is also the abreviation men use when they're cruising online for sex with other men.
This should quiet any fears that those in the gay right's movement had about a formidable, well-organized opposition, a fear that was talked about ad naseum after Prop 8. To be fair, all liberals believe the opposition is unbeatable when they loose. Remember when everyone thought Karl Rove was an invicible evil genius after he somehow managed to defeat the UNSTOPPABLE JOHN KERRY?
Let's just admit it, conservatives and their cultural warriors are just as inept as progressives. It's an even playing field and after the past two weeks we're still winning.
A POLISH POLITICIAN DENOUNCING A GAY ELEPHANT IS: BAD FOR THE POLES.
A city councilman in the polish city of Ponznan raged against the elephant his city had bough for the zoo because he refuses to mate with other female elephants. According to the Reuters story the councilman, Michal Grzes said, "We didn't pay 37 million zlotys ($11 million) for the largest elephant house in Europe to have a gay elephant live there." The same article gets a reaction from the city zoo-keeper who assures the reporter than because the elephant is four years shy of reaching sexual maturity it's impossible to say the elephant has a preference for one sex over another.
I'm part Polish so let me be the first to say that we don't need the country of Copernicus and Chopin being sullied by idiots who keep adding fodder to (admittedly hilarious) Polish jokes.
INEPT OPPOSITION IS: GOOD FOR THE GAYS.
Last week was not a good week to be a gay marriage opponent. Not only were they delivered judicial AND legislative defeats, but two of their big initiatives intended to revamp their campaigns backfired. First the National Organization for Marriage released an incredibly hokey and melodramatic anti-gay marriage ad only to have the audition tape for the commercial (filled with awkward stumbling "actors" trying to read the lines believably) leaked by the Human Rights Campaign. It's hard to convince people that real people are being hurt by gay marriage when audtioners for the commercial could barely buy it. The indominable Rachel Maddow tackled the fracas on her show with the usual wit and wisdom (she starts talking about the commercial at 2:28)
Then THE SAME anti-gay marriage organization released a new campaign named "2 Million for Traditional Marriage" or "2M4M" in an attempt to be all 21st Century and text saavy. Had the National Organization for Marriage actually been savvy at all (or had anyone from my generation in their organization) they would have realized their abbreviation is also the abreviation men use when they're cruising online for sex with other men.
This should quiet any fears that those in the gay right's movement had about a formidable, well-organized opposition, a fear that was talked about ad naseum after Prop 8. To be fair, all liberals believe the opposition is unbeatable when they loose. Remember when everyone thought Karl Rove was an invicible evil genius after he somehow managed to defeat the UNSTOPPABLE JOHN KERRY?
Let's just admit it, conservatives and their cultural warriors are just as inept as progressives. It's an even playing field and after the past two weeks we're still winning.
A POLISH POLITICIAN DENOUNCING A GAY ELEPHANT IS: BAD FOR THE POLES.
A city councilman in the polish city of Ponznan raged against the elephant his city had bough for the zoo because he refuses to mate with other female elephants. According to the Reuters story the councilman, Michal Grzes said, "We didn't pay 37 million zlotys ($11 million) for the largest elephant house in Europe to have a gay elephant live there." The same article gets a reaction from the city zoo-keeper who assures the reporter than because the elephant is four years shy of reaching sexual maturity it's impossible to say the elephant has a preference for one sex over another.
I'm part Polish so let me be the first to say that we don't need the country of Copernicus and Chopin being sullied by idiots who keep adding fodder to (admittedly hilarious) Polish jokes.
WQI TOTALS
GOOD FOR THE GAYS: 6
MIXED NUTS FOR THE GAYS: 0
BAD FOR THE GAYS: 0
BAD FOR THE POLES: 1
No comments:
Post a Comment