the times they are a-changing (4.00 / 1)

Even in Iowa, several Republicans in the legislature broke ranks to support adding language about sexual orientation to the state civil rights bill in 2007.

I know activists who were involved in that battle. They found it particularly effective to have people who have suffered from discrimination, or their parents or other relatives, contact their own Republican representatives in the Iowa legislature.

There should be no shortage of people who can contact their Republican members of Congress with stories about how they (or their sons or daughters) served this country honorably in the military and wanted to keep serving but were forced out because of their sexual orientation.

Join the Iowa progressive community at Bleeding Heartland.

---

by: desmoinesdem @ Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 10:59:37 AM UTC

Oh yes Oh yes Oh yes (0.00 / 0)

The creation of wedge issues to give Republicans crannialcombustion is a vital part of the Democrats staying in power forever. Being on the sidelines asking for attention is so last year.

Picking up the hammer and tongs to set into the work necessary to get our in stark relief, that is our task now. Well picked topic, great news and it's framed perfectly once again Mr.Bowers

--

The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky

---

by: HousesofProgress @ Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 11:30:29 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

"set into the work necessary to get our in stark relief," (0.00 / 0)

Should have been:

get into the work necessary to set our message in stark relief,

Just more bad typing, tsk tsk.

--

The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky

---

by: HousesofProgress @ Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 13:57:00 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

of course this begs the discussion (0.00 / 0)

Was President Clinton "don't ask, don't tell" policy a good call?

At the time, lots of people (myself included) thought it was a wimpy compromise, but in retrospect, maybe it was a proper reading of the national psyche and an appropriately gentle nudging in the right direction...?

---

by: bluesteel @ Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 12:22:52 PM UTC

Partially, I think (0.00 / 0)

i think a lot of it also has to do with Republicans' overuse of wedge issues in general.  Before they started raising the terrifying specter of gay marriage, it seemed like lots of gay activists were pretty hesitant to bring it up.  But with the Republicans constantly going to the well for Teh Gay, people are forced to think about it more and more and they get used to the idea.  My own very Republican father freaked in the early 90's when the issue first came up, but now it's simply a non-issue for him after having been hammered with it for a decade and a half.

It's like the Overton window functioning in reverse: when the people arguing passionately against an issue become horribly unpopular, the issues they were arguing against become a lot more palatable.  I think this will end up happening with a lot of other issues as well because the fears the Republicans stoked up were so violently irrational; if all along they've been exaggerating to scare people, and the thing they were arguing against isn't actually monstrous it'll probably end up looking good.  I'm sure the glut of Republican gay sex scandals is doing them no favors, either, when everyone (including many Republicans now) just assumes the gay-bashing Republican is probably just screaming from the wrong side of the closet.

I think we're starting to see the same backlash against the Republicans in favor of environmentalism that we're seeing with gay issues, as well.  Took decades of overreaching, but it seems like people are finally starting to come around.

---

by: L Boom @ Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 13:34:15 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

that's a really good point (0.00 / 0)

I hadn't been thinking about how the GOP gay bashing did it's part to keep the conversation going until the rational side sinks in. I'll cross my fingers for the environmental push...

---

by: bluesteel @ Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 17:01:57 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

It doesn't beg the question, it proves it wrong (0.00 / 0)

a fight to say that this is wrong would have saved hundreds, literally hundreds of jobs in in intelligence and translating, people who could have provided the data to avoid many of the mistakes that Iraq caused.

Fire all the translators! We don't need to understand what Arab and Persian speakers are talking about!

This I think is only one little proof that the whole damn thing was hysteria building from the get go.

No it was a pandering ineffective tactic, like so much of that time. Or it was a moral failure. You pick.

--

The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky

---

by: HousesofProgress @ Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 13:38:35 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

were there a bunch of gay translators? (4.00 / 1)

I hadn't heard that.

---

by: bluesteel @ Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 16:59:45 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

yes (0.00 / 0)

--

The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky

---

by: HousesofProgress @ Thu Jul 24, 2008 at 00:17:53 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

What's interesting to me (0.00 / 0)

teaching freshman composition on and off over the last 15 years, is the change in attitudes toward LGBTQ issues and the lack of change in attitudes around abortion.  Even my conservative students started to really not care about sexual orientation quite some time ago, but abortion still gets them all riled up.  These used to be the two big wedge issues, and one of them has shifted and one of them has not. I'm not sure exactly why that is, but it's a definite trend that I've noticed.

---

by: Aunt Martha @ Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 15:09:16 PM UTC

Gays yes, abortion no (0.00 / 0)

It is very striking that as attitudes change, young people in particular are more accepting towards homosexuals, but less tolerant than their elders on the issue of abortion.  Digby had a post on this recently.  I have no real idea why this is, only a few guesses.  Anyone else have ideas?  It can't just be familiarity, because just as almost everyone now knows at least one gay person, most young people must also know women who have had abortions.  Maybe young people just really think it's killing, and see it with less moral ambiguity than older people.  I'd also like to understand what young people's ideas toward contraception are.  Are they becoming more willing to take responsibility, as contraceptive use requires, or just treat sex as an accident?  I do have the sense that there is less promiscuity than there was in the mid '60s to late '70s, which having been through the period, I'd say is probably a good thing, but more sex than in the '50s, which, having been a teen then, I'd say is also probably a good thing.

Any ideas?

John McCain--He's not who you think he is.

---

by: Mimikatz @ Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 16:39:27 PM UTC

My take... (0.00 / 0)

I think abortion is much more personalized that teh gay.  Unless you are gay or have an immediate family member who is, I don't think it is really that hard to be tolerant or homophobic and relative to abortion it is not that difficult to shift that position.  As society makes being gay easier it becomes easier to be tolerant.  Abortion is something than any person can picture themself facing in some way, shape, or form.  For as much as the right likes to act like women who get abortions are just sluts who do it for fun, no one makes that decision lightly and it is much easier to internalize that decision and then judge others.  

I also think as the prospects for a 'wealthy' life decline, as they have been for young people over the past decade, young people look at things differently.  I believe most women (not sure of the stat, but I read it in a human sexuality book once) state economic reasons as a factor in their having an abortion.  But once the livelihood of most people has gone so for south that even one child is a financial burden it must feel untenable to think about aborting your only child because of poverty. I also think for young women the respect of motherhood, especially in immigrant circles, is the easiest path to being seen as successful in the community considering the ability to be a financial/career success is all but a pipe dream.  In fact, the new strawwoman in anti-abortion anecdotes is the woman who has an abortion because a child would get in the way of her career.  

---

by: Ricky @ Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 17:25:37 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Being gay is life-affirming (0.00 / 0)

while abortion is not.


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

---

by: SpitBall @ Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 20:20:18 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Fer crying out loud. (0.00 / 0)

The question should always be do you think Police will help solve this problem? The problem a woman is discussing with her doctor. A woman endowed by her creator with life liberty and rights, this should be self evident.

The doctor will hopefully provide service to make sure the medical care the woman needs is top quality. She is a moral being (why do I have to say that), she is competent, she knows her life and with doctor her medical condition, and has the right to make these decisions. As do you. You don't have right to make her decisions for her (why do I have to say this).

Respect women, provide medical care. Simple.

Oh yeah, Lets support children with lots and lots of daycare, and mothers with equal pay, and maternity leave. Lets give young women medical information, fertility information and sex education, because I think women with good choices won't spend their time in clinic, any clinic, any hospital, if they can avoid it.

--

The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky

---

by: HousesofProgress @ Thu Jul 24, 2008 at 00:32:33 AM UTC