Sure Will and Grace is funny but...
has it actually altered public perception of homosexuality? According to a recent poll, ABC hasn't been successful in convincing Americans that same-gendered attraction is morally acceptable. The Politico is reporting on the numbers that may have Ellen and Rosie's panties in a bunch.
Quinnipiac University polls of voters in Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania -- the big three Electoral College swing states -- found voters by large margins more likely to see the endorsement of a gay rights group as a reason to vote against, rather than for, a candidate.
In Florida and Ohio, for every 4 voters who said affiliation with gay interest groups would impact their choices in the ballot box, 3 would vote against rather than for a candidate who was wrapped in the rainbow colored flag. Even in Pennsylvania, a state the Dems carried in the last two presidential elections, the margin was nearly 3 to 1 with 28% voting against the gay agenda and on 11% voting in favor.
With several states passing pro-traditional marriage legislation by wide margins over the past few years, there is plenty of evidence how voters feel. Even though the courts have managed to undermine the will of the people in many of these instances, even the slowest of presidential hopefuls knows that his chances are weakened with outed activists in his or her corner.
What remains to be seen is exactly how these poll numbers will have an impact on each candidate's position. It will be interesting to see how quickly some distance themselves from the homosexual movement and how quickly gay supporters are shoved back into the closet.
Comment(s) »
» Leave a comment
- Your E-mail address is never displayed. If you enter it, it will only be visible to the blog author
- Since there already are comments to this post, your eventual comment might trigger a notification e-mail to the persons that commented before you.
- The line and paragraph breaks automatically
Apparently "informed" isn't as informed as he/she thinks or he/she would know that expletives like "f******" are deleted from this comment section.
FYI - instead of being vulgar, perhaps you should consider addressing the post. The question is will gay activists be a hindrance to candidates as the quoted poll suggests or not?
I'm going to guess by your vile reaction that you hope they won't.
Frankly, I hope that candidates hold true to the positions they have already adopted with respect to gay marriage and other homosexual issues - it would be so refreshing to see politicians who didn't flip-flop based on poll numbers....
Comment by Cate— 2007/08/08 @ 04:11 PM — (Reply)
Dr. Lewis
Comment by Dr. Forest Lewis— 2007/08/09 @ 05:04 AM — (Reply)
Comment by aza spade— 2007/08/08 @ 06:35 PM — (Reply)
Comment by riffran— 2007/08/08 @ 11:37 PM — (Reply)
When it comes to politics, I think many gay advocacy groups have shot themselves in the foot by overly aggressive tactics and it may be their undoing in the next election.
You've had the groups in Mass. confronting and publicly 'outing' their pro-traditional marriage neighbors. There are the operatives who are 'outing' gay politicians in an attempt to uncover hypocritical voting records.
I'm just wondering aloud if these guerilla style tactics are backfiring. And I hope so. Not because I don't think gays deserve most of the same rights and freedoms that everyone else does, but because these kind of political maneuvers are damaging and debasing to public discourse.
Harrassing your neighbor for not sharing your political views on homosexuality and distributing his/her name and address all over town on handbills is no better than posting the names of abortion doctors on the internet.
Comment by Cate— 2007/08/09 @ 05:33 AM — (Reply)
Comment by Ernie Els— 2007/08/09 @ 07:44 PM — (Reply)
Maybe I'm getting jaded in my old age, but it seems like if you take any expressed opinion, there is likely to be fringe elements who with a take on the opinion that borders on the clinically insane. Then, too often, the debate gets reduced, ad absurdio, to one of extreme (and absurd) pro- position vs. extreme (and absurd) anti- position.
Just a thought for you, Cate, as you reflect on these numbers. If you went back 40 years and replaced "homosexual movement" with "civil rights movement" would the numbers look all that different? Or go back 30 years, and put in the words "feminist movement." Or 20 years, and put in "Moral Majority"
For the purposes of this topic, I'm -not- equating homosexual rights with any of those movements. I'm merely asserting that for any major cultural movement, there tends to be a large number of folks opposed to a trend, as much as there is in support of it.
After all, if society generally agreed with the underlying issue, there wouldn't have to be any sort of "movement," would there? I have yet to hear of any major "anti-breathing" movement, or "down with politeness."
Comment by Michael— 2007/08/10 @ 07:11 AM — (Reply)
Of course, the majority of folks (or as some elitists would say with a snooty tone "the masses") tend to shy away from alterations to the status quo - that's not really the question - the question is will these poll numbers impact the positions politicians take WRT same-sex marriage and other gay issues.
I think the examples you (and most liberals) cite are extremely misleading. The moral majority also opposes pedophilia, drug abuse, and teenage pregnancy - in 50 years will you condemn us as antiquated and simple-minded if those behaviors continue to gain widespread social acceptance?
In fact, both of the positive movements you refer to also inflicted many dire consequences on society. Women abandoning their primary role as mothers led in large measure to the disintegration of the family that is a root cause of many contemporary social ills. Don't get me wrong, I want suffrage and equal pay - I'm just saying there were social ramifications and we pay a hefty price as a society. Does a 6 week old really belong in day care? Should an 8 year old come home to an empty house after school? Is the devaluation of human life evidenced by abortion as birth control an acceptable result of the diminished social perception of motherhood?
As for the civil rights movement, at the risk of being called a bigot for the umpteenth time, I can only say that Bill Cosby has addressed the impact of overreaching in the arena of racial equality and how such efforts have actually bred an underclass.
The is a happy medium between the desires of social movers and we, the commoners. When the movement makers stop pushing too hard, we'll be free to give a little.
And of course, I can't let you use the skin color and gender references without pointing out that there remains no clear evidence that homosexuality is anything but a choice.
Comment by Cate— 2007/08/10 @ 06:00 PM — (Reply)
I admit it- I didn't take the time to review the article. Laziness on my part, but also a measure of trust that you would, as you have generally done in the past, reported the information with only a moderate bias to your tone.
The real story to your article, Cate, is that in all those states, the majority of voters don't care.
Talk about 3 to 1 anti-/pro all you like, but most of the people take the view of "doesn't matter." Perhaps not "active support" or "active opposition," but when you're trying to assert that voters are bolting against Hollywood's liberal agenda, the data is simply being read wrong.
The interesting thing from the data, that I saw at least, was that the prevalence of "doesn't matter" applies for almost every demographic (Rep, Dem, Ind, Men, Women) on the question of gay rights. For all those groups, more voters say "it doesn't matter." The only group where "don't care" isn't at least the plurality are the White Born-Agains.
Further- this same general open-mindedness, or perhaps more likely, general ambivalence, applied to most of the other special interest groups and demographics except one: support from a conservative Christian group was more likely to polarize voters than even gay rights.
So, rail on about the homosexual agenda, Cate, and God bless you for it. It's reassuring to me to see evidence that the masses aren't as hysterical about the issue as some from your side of things seem to be.
Comment by Michael— 2007/08/13 @ 06:04 PM — (Reply)
However, it's when one looks at the raw data that the overall ambivalence comes through.
Comment by Michael— 2007/08/13 @ 06:10 PM — (Reply)
No apology necessary. I think you might have inferred tone because you know how I feel about homosexualitybut my post refers to the numbers as reflecting the views only of "voters who said affiliation with gay interest groups would impact their choices in the ballot box".
You are absolutely correct in saying that the overall numbers were ambivalent to the issue. I never said otherwise. And I didn't intentionally leave that out because I was trying to make a point about homosexuality. I am genuinely wondering if and how these numbers will impact those well-dressed folks who check wind direction before speaking in front of news cameras.
As you and I both know, the people who claim indifference, are less likely to vote than those who care - that is true of all issues.
So the question remains, does this matter?
Comment by Cate— 2007/08/16 @ 07:41 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Ernie Els— 2007/08/16 @ 07:53 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Ernie Els— 2007/08/10 @ 07:51 AM — (Reply)
Comment by Michael— 2007/08/10 @ 09:51 AM — (Reply)
Comment by Barry G.— 2007/08/13 @ 07:22 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Ernie Els— 2007/08/10 @ 12:10 PM — (Reply)
Comment by aza spade— 2007/08/10 @ 04:29 PM — (Reply)
Curiouser and curiouser...
Comment by Cate— 2007/08/25 @ 04:03 PM — (Reply)
Comment by aza spade— 2007/09/02 @ 01:50 PM — (Reply)