« 4 June 2006 - 11:58 pm | Main | 6 June 2006 - 8:39 am »

Twenty-five years ago today scientists announced that they had identified a new virus that had infected five homosexual men. That virus was HIV, and those five men were the first documented AIDS patients. This anniversary is getting a lot of attention, but not at the White House. As Mixed Signals points out

this past Saturday, in the midst of all the AIDS coverage, the president could have spoken of AIDS in his weekly radio address. But he didn't. Instead, he told the nation why he thinks gay marriages should be illegal in the United States.

Mixed Signals goes on to call that address "badly timed." That is certainly one perspective. My take is that it was deliberately timed. Bush is using the AIDS coverage -- which for historical accuracy must address the disease's initial spreading through the gay community -- to inflame his base. State ballot initiatives on gay marriage helped carry Bush's re-election effort, and he's hoping to further leverage that issue in the upcoming midterm elections. This morning Cokie Roberts told NPR listeners that the midterm elections are all about getting the two party's bases to the polls. If you accept this premise -- and I think it is about half right: local issues can also motivate people to vote in midterms -- then Bush's tactic of hammering away at gay marriage makes political sense. At a time when there is likely to be a good deal of gay-friendly media coverage, Bush wants to remind the Republican base that there is still work to be done. Marriage must be protected. Only Republicans can protect it. Republicans must be elected. I'm sure Bush would tell you that this has nothing to do with homophobia. It's pro-marriage, not anti-gay. There's no bias here. That's why gay marriage is such a perfect issues for the Republicans. It lets them cater to their base's bias, while giving them plausible deniability of the bias. Like I said, Bush's tactic of hammering away at gay marriage makes political sense. It's just morally repugnant.

Posted by on 5 June 2006 at 10:57 AM

Gay nuptials are neutering our nation's noble intolerance of nancies. Clearly it's more important to address the problem of the gays than, say, the budget, nation-building in Iraq, nation-demolishing in Iran, or complete incompetence in the reorganized disaster response agencies and intelligence agencies. Living so close to San Francisco, and *shudder* Berkeley, I know the dangers. If we started to let these people be a part of general society, a man like Bush wouldn't last a week before he had separated from Laura and was falling deeply in love with a bear named Oliver. People always talk about how traditional marriage must be defended, but don't go into the details. If we just thought of George W. & Oliver sitting in a tree, the message is so much more strong.

Posted by Charlie on 5 June 2006 - 12:21 PM

I agree, mostly. I think it's more about mobilizing his base (who have been angered by his ineffectiveness with every other "conservative" issue over the last six years) in preparation for the midterm election than his actual intolerance for homosexuality. I honestly can't believe he's against gay marriage, which might make the whole situation even worse. He's using an issue he most likely is ambivalent toward simply to further his larger political goals.

I can't stand the faction that actually goes for all of this anti-gay stuff, but it is pretty interesting how gullible they all are. If Democrats remain impotent this time around, I'll be worried.

Posted by Rachel on 5 June 2006 - 9:49 PM