Anyone who opposes gay marriage is a "bigot" or "jerk."

Yes the Democrats are the ill mannered party these days.

But you forgot to mention the other reason that the Democrats claim the Republicans won. The "stupid people" vote.

I just wanna make sure I have this straight. The guy writes, "The Democrats are not going to be able to shift the debate without taking some risks....and perhaps without alienating some people."

So... they alienated enough people to lose the last election by a substantial margin, and the answer for winning next time is... alienate some more people????

One wonders where he must've studied basic arithmetic.

Even simple arithmetic escapes these people but nothing can diminish their misplaced arrogance and delusions of adequacy.
This attitude that anyone who disagrees with them is stupid or bigoted is costing them big time.

Matt,

I recently found your blog entry from Nov. 24th about my Berkeley Daily Planet article. Interesting. I guess I'm supposed to thank you for enlightening me on the issue of "cultural rot." Your piece was apparently intended as a well-reasoned retort to my admittedly simply declaration of center-left principle. I will admit that my argument did not capture all the nuances of our current political economy. Nor was it the article I would write to convince swing-voters in Columbus, OH, Jacksonville, FL, or Fresno, CA. In addition, as I continue to digest the information and analysis available after the election, it becomes apparent that the "moral values" question posed in the exit polls was not only a leading question (who doesn't want to say that they think moral values are important, but that a smaller percentage of voters said they prioritized "moral values" than in any recent election. So the debate over the meaning and impact of "moral values" has been given an inflated importance as an electoral issue.

All that having been said, I have to ask, are you serious?? Are you telling me that the great moral issues of the day are out of control yoga teachers and age-inappropriate T-shirts?? The entries that you cite regarding "cultural rot" read like an issue of the Weekly World News (one of today's headlines -- "Man Kills Mime and Nobody Cares"). Anyone with a cursory knowledge of history would recognize that American culture has been identified as moments away from cultural and moral apocalypse since before its founding. Ridiculous annecdotal behavior that would make your entries look mild could be found from the records of any city or county from any year since 1776. In any human population within any modern society you will find antisocial, stupid, destructive, and morally questionable behavior. That is painfully obvious. So are you dense, or are you putting up a smokescreen?

The great moral issues of our day will not be regulating the clothing choices of teenagers or Brittany Spears' choreography. They will be, among other issues, -- 1) Do we adequately fund those things that the rest of the developed world recognizes as basic social goods (public education, public transportation, medical care, environmental protection, and every citizens' basic needs for food and shelter) or do we continue to dismantle the public sphere under the current regime of privatization ("I'm sorry you were born into a poor family and went to a school without textbooks, but you plainly don't deserve to see a doctor for that suspicious tumor you got from living next to the power plant.")? 2) Do we get our deficit under control, or are we going to let future generations pay of our misdeeds? (and wreck the global economy in the process when the dollar becomes radically devalued) 3) Do we provide future generations with social security, so that people don't have to live in fear of dying in poverty, or do we let Bush bankrupt the system with his ridiculous privatization scheme (which will require at least another $2 trillion in immediate deficits) 4) Are we going to find a way to talk about abortion and reproductive rights which moves away from the current paradigm of pitting religious extremists against rightfully paranoid reproductive rights advocates, and recognizes both that the American public does not want to criminalize or outlaw abortion, but also that society has a right to reasonably limit when and how abortions are performed? 5) Will we continue to extend basic equal rights to all citizens? A gay couple that wants to make a lifelong commitment to each other should have the same legal rights and access to CIVIL marriage as any other couple. The moral and constitutional argument is clear, and the tide of history is inevitably moving in this direction. I'm sure that people were offended by my "bigots and jerks" comment. I'm also sure that nobody wants to think that they are occupying a parallel position to those that argued against giving blacks or women the right to vote. But, uncomfortable as it may be, that's where the anti-gay marriage movement stands today. Squarely against equal rights. Squarely against continuing to widen the circle of American citizens who have access to the full protection of the law. The moral choice on this issue is clear to those of us who believe in the Enlightenment, rationality, the Constitution, the separation of church and state, and other basic tenents of modernity. To those who would like to limit civil rights and to discriminate on the basis of obscure Biblical passages (while they choose to ignore the teachings of so many other parts of that text), I would suggest that they might be more comfortable living in a theocracy (perhaps Spain during the Inquisition, if we ever get that time travel device perfected). The point I was trying to make in my article (and perhaps it was not clear) is that, while the electoral implications of the gay marriage issue may be complicated, the moral implications are simple. Equality or discrimination. Enlightenment or the Medieval mindset. Make your choice, and then fight for your beliefs. And if you choose to live in the Dark Ages, recognize that you will probably either have to lie to your grandkids, or else explain to them through clever nuance why you were not a bigot.

Have a nice day.

Pierre Vladimir

Dear Matt,
Thanks again for your delusional hit-piece. Do you still think that murderous yoga teachers are the nation's biggest problem, or have you started to notice the national deficit, the failed operation in Iraq, the compromised environment, and Bush's plan to destroy social security? Also, do you usually trash people's articles in such a snide tone and then ignore their response? You must be one classy guy. Let's go out to dinner some time.
Pierre Vladimir

Pierre, I wasn't ignoring your response. I left it up, as is only right. I believe people can read my post (plus the link therein to your Berkeley Daily Planet commentary) and your reaction, and decide for themselves who is the greater sage, or fool. Or more importantly, who has a good point, and where.

I'd be happy to do dinner sometime; nice of you to ask. No French restaurants, tho.

(I'll bet we both like Dim Sum...there's this great place out in The Richmond, on Geary.......)

A few points that seem to rise to the surface here:

1. Anyone whose parents named him "Pierre Vladimir" is ok by me from the get-go.

2. Anyone who gets this riled by a progressive article in the Berkeley Daily Planet needs more fiber in his diet. Rosenblog, post your mailing address and I'll send you a subscription to the Washington Times or something more palatable.

3. People who oppose gay marriage *are* bigots and jerks. How hard is this concept? I've heard arguments that gay marriage will ruin hetero marriage, I've heard arguments that we don't fully understand the tax consequences, and I've heard arguments that 5000 years of tradition can't be wrong. All of these sound like bigger boatloads of crap than Pierre's dim sum invite. If you don't like gay people and think they should be denied basic rights, at least stand up and speak your mind as a proud bigot - hey, all it means is that, you know, you hold irrational prejudices.

4. The Right continues to love one-hit wonder stories like a yoga student who kills his friend. Was he listening to the same voices as the day trader that killed his co-workers? And the "teen tartlet" line is fantastic: I know a lot of lefties and, on the whole, they don't listen to tartlet music. I think that's mostly teenagers. And, also, what in the hell does Ashlee Simpson have to do with either the left or the right?

5. Hacks like Rosenblog love that teachers-who-must-be-liberals-make-God-fearing-kids-eat-worms-to-serve-John-Kerry crap because it allows them to forget for another day that having your country run by someone who believes that God'll sort out the worthless dollar, ruined alliances, subdivided national forests, and embarassing social stratification is not a road we can continue on and still have a country and economy that lets every teen tartlet and worm-eating ed school pinko that someday, he, too, will realize the American Dream.

Rock on, Pierre Vladimir, who ever you are!

I forgot one thing: lay off ODB, you fuck. And that goes double for Joan Baez. Have you no soul?