November 04, 2004


I've just published a somewhat more extensive analysis of how much the Rove-Bush victory owed to the White House's decision to surf on the anti-gay backlash. To read how the anti-gay ploy worked--especially in Ohio--click on here for my L.A. Weekly article.

Posted by Direland at 03:37 PM | Permalink


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference HOMO HATE: THE WEDGE ISSUE THAT WORKED:


You mention republican gays in bad drag during election day, in one of the dabates there was a guy in bad white dress drag behind bush I beleive (or was it Kerry?). Really obvious


Posted by: pablosco | Mar 3, 2005 9:15:32 AM

I'm watching Democrats in my area declare exactly what your article's headline says: it's the queers' fault, and we can expect no help from them after this. To which I say, "Like there's been any before?"

I _personally_ have been savaged as an example of "part of the problem" - despite not just voting for Kerry, but actively working to convince others to vote for him and donating hundreds of dollars that I quite frankly couldn't afford to his bid. But I made a mistake, you see: I got too uppity, and said he wasn't perfect. And that makes me evil. Aside form asking for equality; being a dyke and not extolling perfection on part of the Great White Hope is apparently villainy enough. So now some of them are letting the fags and dykes know exactly what they think of us, and it's not pretty. The reveling in the beginnings of the smackdown in Michigan, for example, are particularly galling.

Posted by: anonymous in seattle | Dec 5, 2004 3:41:38 AM

I think Tom Grey is probably right. I believe those homosexuals who want the "right" to social recognition of their condition as something on the same plane as heterosexuality -- which is what the Gay Marriage issue is really about, I believe -- have overplayed their hand. Probably most Americans are content to let homosexuals do their own thing, and I suspect most would not oppose legal remedies of the "civic union" sort for the problems that non-married (same-sex or otherwise) closely-bound couples now have. But what they drew the line at was having to give up their particular prejudice in favor of heterosexuality as the norm -- and I am not using "prejudice" in a derogatory way here. Consider a campaign for the judicial imposition of the "right" of public nudity (anywhere and any time) to see how it probably looked from the point of view of most "antis".

Posted by: Doug Hainline | Nov 27, 2004 12:21:11 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.