Undoubtedly spurred by the most altruistic of motives, analysts at the California Public Policy Institute, an independent, objective and non-partisan research network - in their own humble estimation that is - sensed a compelling interest in determining who exactly it was that voted in favor of Proposition 8, a ballot measure designed to insert language in that state’s constitution, defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman. In keeping with their trademark fair-minded pursuit of the unvarnished truth, PPI did what every respectable public policy research organization would do that wants to get the unbiased and incontestable facts on any controversial issue: they conducted a poll.
Surely one’s race, education, gender, religious inclination and economic status will, to a certain extent, affect the way in which we vote. Hence whenever a poll is conducted, these factors sometimes offer a glimpse on why a variety of participants have a unique perspective on the social issue in question. The results also help opponents as well as advocates of an issue in crafting long term strategies to capture the sympathies of an otherwise disaffected segment of the population. But more often than not, these results are employed in accordance with the unspoken motives that triggered the exercise in the first place: to confer moral authority for their usage as a legitimate tool of cultural intimidation against those whom the results have shown to be one’s adversaries.
To wit, the poll results yielded – amid other equally provocative
data - that roughly 85% of those who identified themselves as evangelical Christians voted in favor of the measure, as well as 69% of people who never attended college. Apparently, there are still a good number of unenlightened folk, who do not view this rather narrow qualification obstinately interwoven in the traditional definition of marriage as much of a novel rendition. What the results did not show is that this ballot initiative was approved by a majority of citizens, who primarily sought to discourage activist judges from arbitrarily nullifying voter approved measures; a problem that appears to have become an endemic reality in other progressively inclined states.
Naturally these results prompted a flurry of angry protests from many in the homosexual community, sometimes reflective of a level of comportment one typically associates with severe psychosis sufferers in an advanced stage of delirium. One report had it that
protestors stormed local churches in fits of uncontrollable rage and expressed their discontent with those responsible for the measure’s endorsement. Another that a supporter of the measure had a Bible wrenched from her hands and was repeatedly
hit over the head with it. In short, the furious responses from the gay community, who thus far seemed committed to extol the virtue of tolerance, seemed more reminiscent of a Muhadjeen sect trying to exemplify the charitable temper of their religious convictions by decapitating those who dare to oppose them.
Incidentally, an analogous medley of exacting prejudice and moral dissonance is also evident in the breadth of fury from the gay community at the news of an evangelical
Christian giving the invocation prayer at our next president’s inauguration, as opposed to their deafening silence when the president of presumably
gay free Iran took up an invitation to give an
address at a prestigious American university.
In a contrary spirit of openness to diversity, non-progressives may consider an alternative perspective on these results. Perhaps the reason why many who voted for the measure also fall under the category of those lacking a college education may be that they still enjoy the rare blessing of retaining a partly unsullied intellect, since they have been spared the standard progressive indoctrination that governs the current academic regimen. Thus they do not fit so snuggly into the accepted mold of what is typically considered a more open minded breed of citizen. One may even argue in fact, that it is stunning that after being wrung through the gauntlet of relativism that saturates today’s academia, any of the “educated” are able to emerge as truly independent thinkers.
But the actual surmised readings from these results are more in line with the media’s long shared assumption with those in the progressive block – both of whom appear to have authoritative interpretation rights when it comes to these polls - that Evangelical Christians, much like the uneducated, are people whose minds have been sealed shut; and that the biggest thing that they both have in common is an irrational fear of that which they do not understand.
Accordingly, their only hope lies in systematic re-training to help them bridge that gaping chasm of ignorance, which not only breeds intolerance, but also separates them from the more sophisticated folk on the left.
This very sentiment was echoed by Geoffrey Kors, executive director of a gay rights group, who upon hearing the poll results commented that future defeat of similar measures hinge on properly educating a few more sectarian retrogrades on the societal benefits of same sex marriage; more diplomatically stated, gay rights advocates need to “make inroads in every category”.
The implied hope is for the opposition to eventually assume - at least in principle - the role of a marginal minority, which can then be easily bullied into compliance. In this way the homosexual community can engage in their own type of reparatory initiatives to make up for all the decades of oppression they have endured at the hands of traditional, heterosexual families with whom they have such irreconcilable differences.
This is not a new strategy, and you’d think by now the liberal elite would have realized that demeaning those whom you do not agree with by claiming intellectual superiority tends to alienate the very people you want to convince. Furthermore, it leaves them suspecting that you probably don't have much of an argument.
But it is not at all surprising that poll results which seem to draw such intriguing parallels between the voting habits and intellectual coefficient of traditionalists are much too tempting to ignore; especially for a group that prides itself in the unfettered expression of their innermost thoughts and private behavior.
