Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Constitution a right of homosexuals to marry if breeders do, I have been puzzled at the ease
and swiftness, in historical terms, with which the homosexual agenda has progressed in
modern America. I remember my father asserting, with absolute conviction, in the Sixties,
that what is now called the gay rights movement would meet so much resistance that it would
never amount to anything. He was, of course, wrong. In the space of a generation, gayness is
not merely tolerated, but placed on a pedestal, in spite of the fact that gays make up perhaps 2
per cent of the population. (Don't believe the old Kinsey propaganda about 10 per cent—it just
ain't so).
During the same week, Congress was passing, with vetoproof majorities, an
agricultural subsidy bill loaded with goodies for the large farmers, who represent a tiny
proportion of the population.
The notion is hardly original with me, but these events have something in common.
Each represents the triumph, in its main area of political interest, of a small minority whose
interests are at odds with those of the majority. How does this happen?
Several factors are at work:
(1) The minority cares deeply about its issue; the majority is at most mildly interested.
(2) The minority is found in clumps in various parts of the country, and thus has more
influence in a number of places than its national numbers might reflect.
(3) The minority is politically organized, and either has advocates in the scribbling
classes, money to spread around, or both.
The result is that on its issue, politicians in a number of places—and judges are
politicians, of course—have something to gain, but less to lose, by taking up the cause.
Farmers aren't very influential in New York City, but in the rural midwest or California's
Central Valley, they have great power, and cultural standing. Gays are concentrated in
New York, LA, San Francisco, and a few other places, care deeply about their issue, and
their cause has been taken up by many writers, artists, and celebrities, including law
professors, who influence the legal profession and thus, eventually, judges. The average
urbanite, on the other hand, might prefer not to see his tax money go to subsidize
corporate factories with organic parts, but the proportion of the tax money involved is
small enough that he doesn't care much. Similarly, citizens of the heartland may disdain
the shennanigans of the selfproclaimed queers of the Bay Area, but for most it's an issue
far from the core of their being. What's more, as time went on, the idea was sold that it 's
provincial and even bigoted to take umbrage at the normalization of gayness.
This notion extends to other constituencies. The proIsrael lobby is very similar. It has
its rather relentless scribblers, its supposed numbers are not that great but situated in a few
metropolitan areas where they vote out of proportion to their numbers, and at least until
recently has not made demands, say, for US troops, that might arouse strong feelings among
the rest of the population. Support for Israel could also be fit into the prevailing foreign policy
narratives—the Cold War, and later the Global War On Terrorism.
Substitute the Cuban exiles in Florida, New Jersey and New York, and you get a similar
result. The Armenians, fewer in number, less wellorganized, and less vocal among the
scribblers, haven't quite succeeded.