How is it that when the Economist tries to speak intelligently about race issues in America that if pretends to be totally ignorant about the white majority injustices and immorality that has been the status quo for hundreds of years (and is intelligently acknowledged by even our noble Secretay of State whenever she touches on domestic issues).

The Economist’s latest Lexington column characterizes gerrymandering as a bad thing for African Americans, noting how Sen. Obama was not a product of racially organized political districts. But they fail to name ONE white politician from either house that has benefitted from a long tradition of America’s legislated bigotry, discrimination and bigotry. Wouldn’t it be nice if white politicians didn’t need to have political activists — from Black Hawk and W.E.B. Du Bois to Cornel West and Danny Glover — confront their moral hypocrisy, and instead just represented and spoke to all Americans fairly and justly?

The 1 who’s less politically knowledgeable (like me: Christian & the provider partner are the ones who know their stuff enough to debate) admitted to me once that he voted Republican because when it came down to it, he was more scared of terrorism than attacks on his relationship. I know this is just 1 instance & I’m stereotyping, but it makes me wonder if gay Republicans are what they are out of fear.

Fear is something conservative politicians are excellent at playing on. We liberals play the open-minded card, but if you’re not willing to think about the issues open-mindedly & believe conservatives are the better protectors, maybe that’s how you end up with a gay Republican?

That’s just my experience, since I know neither of my friends have an inner-homophobic bone in their bodies. But do I get them? I try, but I never can.

Actually, the California vote isn’t the worst nightmare of opponents, because it was passed in the face of a referendum and thus presumptively invalid. The political economy of such votes is similar to votes for “bans” on abortion in the face of Roe: radicals on either side vote their own way, but moderates might as well vote for the “recognition” (or in the case of abortion, the “ban”). After all, pro-gay-marriage voters will give them support, while antis and moderates may not even notice that the vote occurred, as it has no effect.

So while I agree that a state legislative act would be big news–and I’ve been in favor of one for ages–the California measure needs to be qualified for what it is.

New York’s highest court ruled Thursday that gay marriage is not allowed under state law.