Gay Marriage, Pet Rocks, the Peterson Trial and Campaign Finance Reform
We’ve argued previously that Gay Marriage was 2004′s Pet Rock, a fad that would fade over time. The point was that something totally unimportant, indeed unimagined, for 5000 years to become suddenly the burning issue of the day is more than a little suspect. Take a time out, we counseled; it it’s so darned important, it’ll be important in twenty years, and we can act on it then.
That’s before we had the numbers. In 2004, 4% of voters said they were gay. 23% of them voted for George Bush. That means that 3% of the voting population — as the maximum figure — is worked up about gay marriage.
All three percent work for ABC, CBS, NBS and the New York Times. As in the case of the Peterson trial, or women at Augusta, or Campaign Finance Reform in 2002, the Mainstream Media believe something is important just because they say so.
The idea that society should reorder itself about anything important to accommodate 3% of the voting population is absurd in almost all cases. Speaking anecdotally, every gay man I’ve known has been happy to be unmarried so that he can pursue his hogamus higamus lifestyle in peace. That may be unrepresentative, but take this example: what’s your attitude on the idea that there should be a law to protect Charlie’s job in Customer Service if Charlie decides one day to start showing up for work in petticoats? If you think it is outrageous! that I fire Charlie, then I submit to you that you are the problem — if you are full of righteous anger about protecting the ridiculous behavior of .001% of the population, then you’ve got way too much time on your hands.
In 2002, George Bush signed McCain-Feingold in stealth to limit the extent that he would have to campaign for the midterm elections, and 2004, in the teeth of the Mainstream Media. It didn’t work out that way. 2004 is the first election in which the Mainstream Media openly campigned side-by-side with the Democratic candidate. Fortunately for Bush, there exists the New Media, and a deep resentment of the MSM. A majority of voters understood in 2004 that approving some new and faddish innovation is not an urgent matter just because the Mainstream Media turn the klieg lights on it.

December 7th, 2005 at 10:48 am
“The idea that society should reorder itself about anything important to accommodate 3% of the voting population is absurd in almost all cases.”
You say absurd in “almost” all cases. So obviously there are cases where it’s ok for society to reorder itself for a small minority. What justifies those exceptions?
April 4th, 2006 at 5:02 pm
I suspect that negroes made up about 3% of the voting population in 1948 in many of our states. (9% nationally.)