Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
This is worth reading. Long excerpt below the fold:
What is it about gay couples like Frank Gill and his partner that are so toxic to children? Florida's current listing of "adoptable" children includes 453 Boys, 274 Girls and 39 Sibling Groups - none of which can be adopted by gay men and women. Having the government (i.e. Katrina bunglers) raise the next generation of Americans seems much more preferential than a loving, stable home with, God forbid, two same-sex parents...My support for gay adoption will surely be met with hostility and, no doubt, charges of RINO'ism by many of my colleagues, but the Grand Old Party is at a crossroads and now is not the time for an echo chamber. Homosexual demagoguery is not the answer to the Party's woes, particularly when gay men and women represent the only demographic in which John McCain bested President Bush (27% to 19% based on exit polling). And as Daniel Blatt notes, gay-hostile rhetoric no longer resonates in suburban areas with soccer moms, many of whom have gay friends or family members, and plays even worse with young voters, 61% of which voted against stripping gay couples of the right to marry.
To my dissenters, let me be clear, I am not advocating some sort of radical "judicial activism." I maintain that judicial resolution to these matters (adoption, marriage, etc) typically leads to protracted and bitter legal battles, but, what is perhaps equally as distressing is our collective failure as a Party to hold a candid discussion on the emerging role of gays in the Party and society at large - not as outcastes, but as equals.
This was written by James Richardson, the Online Communication Manager for the Republican National Committee. And he makes an important point that Republicans should really think about. If they continue to make gay bashing a main focus of their political strategy, they will find themselves increasingly marginalized in American politics. Richardson is right when he says that this kind of thing just doesn't play with younger people.
The country has changed dramatically over the last 30 years. With more and more gay and lesbian Americans coming out of the closet, most people not only know gay people, they know that they know them. And they usually like them. That is a powerful antidote to bigotry. It becomes much more difficult to believe in an evil gay agenda to destroy the country when you know actual gay people. They become something other than a distant abstraction, they become real people with the same problems and flaws and concerns as everyone else.
That's why every survey shows that young people not only aren't as bigoted as their parents and grandparents, they find such bigotry offensive and unnecessary. And over the next few decades, those are the people who are going to run the country. If the GOP really wants to stick with the anti-gay stuff to pander to the religious right, 2008 is going to repeat itself over and over - with the only people supporting them being those over 65.
As appalling as the win for Prop 8 in California was, it is little more than a speedbump on the road to progress. In the last 5 years since the court ruling in Massachusetts that kicked off the gay marriage furor, we've seen an immense shift in public opinion. 5 years ago public opinion was 80/20 against it. Now it's more like 55/45. And if you just don't call it marriage, if you call it civil unions, a majority supports it (yes, that's irrational, but it's reality). That progress isn't going to stop.
In fact, I'll go so far as to predict that what has been a useful political strategy for Republicans is going to be an albatross around its neck in the next 20 years. Karl Rove's strategy was to put anti-gay marriage referendums on the ballot in state after state because it would bring out the base to vote and that would spillover to the presidential ticket. In 2004, with gay marriage still a hot negative issue, it worked.
It isn't going to work anymore. And in another election cycle or two, I think the Democrats will find putting proposals to repeal those earlier bans on gay marriage will do the same thing for them that Rove's strategy did in 2004. The fact is that anti-gay bigotry is increasingly a minority opinion in this country and as older people die off and younger people move into voting demographics, it's only going to accelerate.
Politics
Comments
Ed is right on the demographics of support for gay rights. I have a graph of those demographics that I created from the University of Michigan's National Election Survey. The graph vividly shows the difference in opinion between those in their 20-30s and the older generations.
Posted by: James Hanley | December 4, 2008 9:46 AM
One more republican to be thrown under the bus in 3...2...1....
I dunno, maybe the GOP higher ups are coming to their senses?
I'm not going to hold my breath, but I'm very cautiously optimistic.
Posted by: FastLane | December 4, 2008 10:01 AM
And the 'money quote':
Because, of course, 'equal rights for all, under the law' is all about getting more people to vote for your political party. [/snark]
Still I suppose something is better then nothing. Not that the GOP could be reasonably expected to understand the very principles that the US was founded on! -DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | December 4, 2008 10:06 AM
So, I have to wait for a bunch of ignorant bigots to die to have the same rights as everyone else? I'll continue to fight for my equality in court. I don't mind if people don't want me to have equal rights as long as their opinions don't have teeth. On younger people and homophobia. There are plenty of homophobic bigots who are well under 65. I have even less tolerance with their poison. Those homophobic wimps under 65 would flail around like headless turkeys if they had their rights voted away. Those clowns are in absolute denial that they had voted away a real fundamental right to marry.
Posted by: Flex | December 4, 2008 10:31 AM
What I find sad is that the Republican desire for including Teh Gay is not motivated by conscious but by trying to regain political power. Have they no shame? What would a politician not embrace to gain or retain power?
Posted by: Jim Spencer | December 4, 2008 10:37 AM
That'll be more than enough, Ed. The Baby Boomers outnumber the young'uns by a significant margin, and statistics show that senior citizens vote in record numbers. Unfortunately, it may be a longer battle than we imagine.
Posted by: Anonymous | December 4, 2008 10:58 AM
Well, the Republican Party may find itself in dire straights in the next few decades. It will take more than a "I need you to maintain power" whine. The Republican Party has used a minority to scapegoat. Short of sacrificing themselves to save us from an intergalactic invasion, I'll tell them to stick it in their ear. It's the same reason why I support alternative scout programs, and refuse to assist the Boy Scouts any more.
They've made me an anti-Republican for life, probably. I don't always vote for the Democrat, but I'll not vote for a party of cynical, power-grabbing, theological-spouting b.s. merchants willing to throw out my rights for their power.
They vomited bile into their bed, let them sleep in it.
Posted by: Tenax | December 4, 2008 11:02 AM
While I agree with Ed's perspective, there is a twist to this emerging story that makes it difficult for the GOP to quickly develop a modified coalition that can win national elections and I believe an opportunity for the Dems to shut down GOP power for a generation.
The GOP has failed miserably in delivering strong economic growth, especially in the stock market which never grew under Bush relative to the Clinton era. If you are pro-business with money in the market, why vote for the GOP if they can't manage the economy and are now run by a bunch of hateful loons who couldn't pass a high school econ class if their life depended on it and remain committed to zany economic theories that have consistently failed and never succeeded (e.g., supply side economics, low taxes for the rich coupled to deficit spending even in good times)?
What was a loyal voter base insistent on support for a few issues the power-brokers considered irrelevant is now the very group that stands as an impediment to a party that can garner enough votes in all but the reddest areas. This is especially true if Obama and the Dems remain economic centrists and don't turn into a bunch of limp-wristed pacifists, where current cabinet nominations appear they will not.
So how do GOP power-brokers attract moderates to the party given their extremists won't budge? I don't know; that is what makes this story so interesting to me and many others. I see no way for the GOP to become viable again except by Democratic incompetency or a perception of incompetency. The GOP left such an incredibly large mess for the Democrats that even if the Dems do as best as could be considered, it might be possible for the conservative media and the GOP to attract voters with propaganda that the Dems actually failed.
I see one opportunity for the Dems to really put the GOP back against its own end zone: The enormous risk Obama runs into is that his economic stimulus package has to be large, but an incredible increase in deficit spending will be piling on an already incredibly high debt load. Therefore he needs a sea change in economic growth in order to reduce debt relative to GDP even though nominal debt will rise. I believe he'd get such a sea change by stealing an idea supported by a minority caucus within the GOP - switching from wealth, business, and income taxes to a national consumption tax.
Such a change would almost immediately solve the private capital liquidity crisis that started this mess and significantly increase private capital investment, the # of businesses, the stock market, good paying jobs, and global competitiveness of American businesses if coupled to government funded single-payer universal health care. It would also quickly move money from dying industries to ones with future growth potential, like in the emerging alternative energy markets, given this scheme would eradicate capital gains taxes - which is a primary impediment to the efficient movement of capital where an economy can get the maximum return on investment.
I don't see that happening, but our current tax and health care finance schemes is a primary reason America businesses are no longer competitive. The left has part of the solution, universal health care, and the right the other half of the solution - business-friendly tax schemes, which would be incredibly helpful in attracting alternative energy start-ups. Together the Dems would dominate for a generation.
The Democrats have justifiably called out the GOP on being ideological even if it harms the national interest. I'm calling out the Democratic party to not do the same, to be better than the GOP now that they are in power, in spite of the rejection such a tax scheme would get from leftist special interest groups. I don't think they have the balls to do it, but one can hope and lobby (I'm a member of the FairTax lobbying group).
Posted by: Michael Heath | December 4, 2008 11:15 AM
@flex
yes you do ... when are people going to realize that going to court screwed us in California? You have a friendly legislature and by all accounts a friendly governor. If it wasn't for the Mayor of San Francisco wanting the governors seat gays in California would be in a much better position at the moment. Look at the end goal and choose the strategy that gets you there - not knee jerk actions that tick people off.
Luckily I don't have to deal with such moronic behavior in Minnesota - we are tackling it from the legislative level and are organized to do so.
Posted by: yoshi | December 4, 2008 11:27 AM
Stop with the ageism. I am part of the baby-boomer generation. I have gay and lesbian friends. I support gay marriage and adoption. Many of us do! Besides being the right thing morally and ethically, it would do wonders for the economy.
Posted by: Ann Klein | December 4, 2008 11:31 AM
What I find sad is that the Republican desire for including Teh Gay is not motivated by conscious but by trying to regain political power.
And this is why it'll be a long cold day in Hell before I vote Republican: I never get the feeling that they want what's best for the country, only what's best for them as individuals, or as a group.
Posted by: Becca | December 4, 2008 11:44 AM
You have a friendly legislature and by all accounts a friendly governor.
Not really. Schwarzenegger twice vetoed marriage equality bills that had passed both houses of legislature because he thought it should be put to the voters and not the legislature. See where that got California.
Posted by: Ben | December 4, 2008 11:58 AM
MH said:
"...I believe an opportunity for the Dems to shut down GOP power for a generation."
The past eight years have been a cavalcade of opportunities squandered by the Democrats to gain power for a generation.
Study after study has shown that Republicans/conservatives align with the Disciplining Father model of political worldview.
If the Democrats grew some hair, and acted as the stolid and stern Party of Ethical Rebuke - whether it be for lying us into an illegal war, war crimes, treason in the Plame affair, economic conservatism, domestic spying, corruption etc - conservatives would respect it, independents would finally see what the Democrats actually stood for, and Democrats would love it.
However, I'm afraid that not even round-the-clock high-molarity Rogaine enemas could induce sufficient hirsutism for most of the current crop of Democrats.
Posted by: Gingerbaker | December 4, 2008 12:15 PM
Gingerbaker - I agree the Dems should focus on these issues as well and especially appreciate your point that conservatives would ultimately respect them standing for high principles where the public is apathetic. That will provide a soft-increase in their reputation and intangible somewhat opaque benefits to the country, but ultimately I don't think it will win them votes given the Brits and Danes don't get to vote in our elections.
In the long-run I still believe it will always come back to who is perceived as the superior party to manage the economy for swing voters. The Dems in their cycle to now reign are inheriting a much greater mess than Reagan did in 1980 so more radical actions are required to not only grow our way out of this mess, but provide a perception of success as well.
Posted by: Michael Heath | December 4, 2008 12:38 PM
It's not ageist to report what the survey shows is true. And just because a majority your age is against gay marriage doesn't mean there aren't millions like you who do support it.
Posted by: tacitus | December 4, 2008 12:47 PM
I have to agree with Ann Klein on the ageism. I practically define the beginning of the baby boomer era -- those children conceived as part of or shortly after the return of the troops after WWII -- but that means that I am also part of the "Stonewall Generation." (I was 21 when it happened.)
This was the first age group for which coming out was a possibility, and for whom their contemporaries were supportive. (My lesbian parents were never able to come out their entire lives -- even though their closet door was made of glass.) We fought the battles, when the society as a whole was the way consrvative Christians are now, and while we ran into some opposition from our age-peers, we received more encouragement than any previous generation did, and we were the ones who saw equalithy was possible.
Two other points. Ironically, the Republicans have always been the 'party of the closeted gays.' From the Three Musketeers of the Cold War (McCarthy, J. Edgar and Cardinal Spellman -- all of whom were pro-Republican if not parfty members, and all of whom were closeted) through the brilliant ultra-Conservative Bob Bauman, through Mel White -- until he became honest -- through the various gay speechwriters and think tank members behind Gingrich -- through the group of recently outed Gay Congressman (and at least one Senator -- hello
Larry -- and one Governor -- hi, Charlie), there have always been an incredible number of closeted gays that have driven the Republican policy agenda.
(Interestingly enough, few lesbians.)
Finally, Ed is very right about gays becoming 'more familiar' and we shouldn't dismiss te importance of television in this. Not just the fact that many shows have gay characters -- two people on GALACTICA are going to be coming out shortly. That is important, yes. (Quick Quiz: What prominent tv sitcom -- pre ELLEN -- had a lesbian couple as recurring characters who were even shown in bed together? One member was the sister of the lead character in the show.)
But there are other things that are changing opinions in the Heartland, and don't dismiss the number of daytime and news shows being run by open gays. Even ignoring a prominent news host with 'great hair' -- but not a 'big head' -- whose sexuality has been in doubt, we have Judge David Young, Ellen, and Rachel Maddow on every day.
(If you've never seen Judge Young -- a 'real' judge (both he and his partner were long-time Florida state judges), btw, the opening to his show stresses his 'campiness' the way the PEOPLE'S COURT opening plays to Judge Milian's 'hotness.' And the show is on in every state in the country last i looked.)
Posted by: Prup (aka Jim Benton) | December 4, 2008 12:56 PM
This is all good news for those of us concerned with equality and very, very bad news for the socially conservative wing of the GOP.
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | December 4, 2008 1:15 PM
I agree with tacitus and fail to see the ageism Ann and Jim mention. So you're part of the minority opinion of your age group, big freakin' deal. It's not ageist to point out that the vast majority of the rest of your cohort doesn't hold that same opinion. Be happy to be part of the progressive (and IMO correct) movement to allow equal rights for all, but don't bring up ageism because you'll lose to the numbers every time.
Posted by: Chad | December 4, 2008 1:24 PM
Wow tenax! I was going to say that! But you did it in much less words, much more to the point. Well said. A visceral response IS required to that lot of outgoing crooks and all-round nasty bastards
Posted by: tom | December 4, 2008 1:42 PM
This is about the least appealing plea for homosexual rights I think I have ever read.
Gay adoption - support it because:
1) It has to be better than a(n evil) government service
2) It will help Republicans get elected.
Can't you just feel the love? Indeed, the real opinion of the author becomes a bit clearer further down his web page (emphasis mine):
Posted by: Gingerbaker | December 4, 2008 2:21 PM
There's the problem. He was turned from the Paths of Righteousness by his contact with the InterTubes. Soul-destroying, corrupting influences, them.
The GOP needs to ban them. If not for everyone else, then for the Party's members. If they can't enforce a ban on all of the members, at least they can keep their party officials and officeholders from having anything to do with them.
Posted by: D. C. Sessions | December 4, 2008 2:32 PM
Was it Kate and Allie? I seem to recall some kind of hubbub centered on that show. But it's all rather fuzzy.
Posted by: Abby Normal | December 4, 2008 3:26 PM
If we don't have republicans railing against homosexuals, how will we be able to tell which ones are secretly gay?
They're always the loudest.
We can't rely entirely on an accidental "jazz hands" moment, or someone's male prostitute writing a memoir.
Posted by: ggab | December 4, 2008 4:24 PM
Abby, it wasn't Kate and Allie, they were heteros. I too recall the hubbub, it being based on the storylines which included the unorthodox household K&A had set up, two divorced women living together with their kids, and no patriarch or husbands around to direct their life. Of course this upset the social conservatives.
Posted by: DaveTheWave | December 4, 2008 4:52 PM
So, someone in the GOP figured out they should be doing as the Democrats are, play both sides of the gay rights fence because it improves their chance of being elected.
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz...
Posted by: JED | December 4, 2008 5:31 PM
Oh please, stop the accusations of "ageism." Honestly. It's a fact - not an opinion, not spin, not a slur, a fact - that a much higher percentage of older people carry outmoded cultural prejudices. It has ever been thus, on every issue, and it always will be. Yes, I know *you* aren't a homophobe, and I'm glad. But just because you felt personally offended (and I can't figure out why) doesn't change the fact that your age cohort is statistically more likely to be antigay.
I know plenty of people middle-aged to elderly - my mom, many friends and colleagues - who are just as forward thinking as anyone else. I love them dearly. But they are not representative of their demographic. It's not "ageist" to recognize that fact, and it's downright silly to deny its political implications.
Posted by: JoshS | December 4, 2008 6:16 PM
As appalling as the win for Prop 8 in California was, it is little more than a speedbump on the road to progress.
I guess it's easier to see it that way when you're not part of the group that's being run over.
Posted by: Boo | December 4, 2008 11:25 PM
Ageism rears its head . . . or maybe not. It's important to remember that homophobes tend to be concentrated amongst less-well-educated, highly-religious, lower-class people. Aren't we familiar with the health stats on that particular cohort? They tend to be, overall, looking forward to a somewhat shorter sojourn on this earth than their better-educated and more financially successful peers.
More funerals will be the answer, folks, as the bigots drop in their tracks faster than us non-bigots. Or so we can hope.
Posted by: Leigh Williams | December 5, 2008 1:35 AM
I guess it's easier to see it that way when you're not part of the group that's being run over.
Posted by: Boo | December 4, 2008 11:25 PM
Right on target Boo. The same people likey think Obama waiting until 2010 to allow us to serve in the military is no big deal either.
Posted by: JED | December 5, 2008 2:33 AM
@JED, Boo:
Who said Prop 8 was no big deal - or the prospect of Obama waiting until 2010 to drop DADT? Nobody in this group. Has "appalling" (which Boo even quoted Ed as saying) grown a new meaning of "quite nice actually" recently?
What was said was that taking the longer view - and not much longer, either - bigotry loses.
Posted by: Robin Levett | December 5, 2008 4:01 AM
Robin, which is it? Appalling or a speed bump? An appalling speed bump? Nah. It's crap and I'm tired of hearing, just a little while longer...
Posted by: JED | December 5, 2008 4:12 AM
Who said Prop 8 was no big deal - or the prospect of Obama waiting until 2010 to drop DADT? Nobody in this group. Has "appalling" (which Boo even quoted Ed as saying) grown a new meaning of "quite nice actually" recently?
What was said was that taking the longer view - and not much longer, either - bigotry loses.
Yes, younger voters support us and older voters oppose us, so if we just sit around for 30 years, we'll probably get our rights. Eventually. Maybe. Of course, in the meantime, families are being hurt RIGHT NOW. 30 years in the future, all these idiotic gay adoption bans will almost certainly have been overturned, but that's small comfort to the children who are being denied stable loving homes in the meantime.
Posted by: Boo | December 5, 2008 7:18 AM
@JED:
In the short term - appalling for the individuals involved.
In the longer term - a speed bump in the cause of equality.
@Boo:
Who here told you that you had to wait 30 years? Who here told you to be satisfied with the present position?
Do neither of you understand that is and ought are different?
It ought to be that LGBTs have full equality now (if not before)- but given the forces acting in your country, that isn't the case. You can take some comfort however in the fact that what is now happening suggests that those now opposing that position are going to be consigned to the dustbin of history - rather than despair that they are becoming stronger.
Was MLK's dream speech in the present or future tense? Was he looking at equality today, or "one day"?
Posted by: Robin Levett | December 5, 2008 8:32 AM
But the real danger here is that the kids who have been raised by Liars For Jesus will commit suicide when they find out that gays are decent ordinary people. Did anybody think of that?[/snark]
Posted by: BaldApe | December 5, 2008 9:42 AM
I just wanted to say that I'm grateful to see no comments by mroberts turning this into a circus. In his case, better never than late.
Posted by: democommie | December 5, 2008 11:18 AM
Remember to sign this petition:
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/protect-marriage-protect-children-prohibit-divorce
Posted by: Paholaisen Asianajaja | December 5, 2008 12:39 PM
Do neither of you understand that is and ought are different?
Do you understand that ought doesn't become is simply by wishful thinking?
What may or may not be considered the dustbin of history some time in the future is an abstraction. The suffering being caused to families headed by gay person is concrete and ongoing. Simply rationalizing it as a "speed bump" would seem to point towards the kind of comaplcency that ensures the day when ought becomes is will be yet farther off.
Posted by: Boo | December 5, 2008 7:11 PM
@Boo:
There's a difference between complacency and optimism; learn it, please.
Posted by: Robin Levett | December 6, 2008 3:29 AM
@Robin:
Yes, there is. Rationalizing away current suffering in the name of optimism creates complacency. Learn this, please.
Posted by: Boo | December 6, 2008 9:18 AM
boo -
I am not complacent, even as I accept teh reality that the battle for equality will not be won overnight. Understanding that we have a long way to go doesn't mean I fail to recognize current suffering.
I used to have the attitude that there is no reason to worry about it, because the bigots are dying off and before long equality will be reality. Then I heard the stories of real suffering. Now, I even have friends who are raising kids in same sex run households. Some of my son's friends are being raised by same sex couples. Children who I love as dearly as any of my son's friends and more than many of them. I am not complacent.
That does not change the joy I have in realizing that within my lifetime, the court battles will be a moot point. And within the lives of my children, the political battles will seem a bizarre anachronism. Because no matter how important it is, no matter how much I fight for it, equality by consensus, equality because no one (barring fringe loons, much like our white power rangers) understands why it shouldn't be that way, will be so much greater than court victories.
This is not to say that court victories and political victories we have now aren't important - believe me, I know they are. But regardless of the outcome right now, we are absolutely looking at a very bright future where this will all be moot.
Posted by: DuWayne | December 6, 2008 10:59 AM
@Boo:
...and if you can find someone on this thread doing this, then you might have the beginnings of a point.
Posted by: Robin Levett | December 6, 2008 2:29 PM