Do you have any studies or surveys to back up that claim? When I think of the conservatives I know many are either racist or sexist, or both. All though some conservatives in politics have made an effort to promote women and minorities, this may be a largely cynical ploy to counter a deserved image of racism and sexism. As a prime example I think of Mccain picking Palin. Its clear to me she was picked primarily to counter the image that it is the Democrats who support women and minorities. Certainly Repulicans had supported reams of legislation aimed at controling women’s bodies in order to deny them birth control, abortions, fair wages, and so on as well as reams of legislation ostensibly aimed at reducing (non-existent) voter fraud but which in reality are aimed at making discouraging minorities from voting.

I think it is perhaps simplistic to assume that the more conservative citizens are racist and sexist.

It was certainly true that women and people of color were not supported until fairly recently in conservative circles. And it is also true that women and people of color are assumed by both sides to be liberal in political view and therefore have to prove their conservative credentials before being accepted by the right. And it is a sad fact that racism and sexism are alive in America and often find a home among conservatives.

But it is simply not true that all conservatives, most conservatives, or even a large minority of conservatives are racist and sexist. Some of the most championed of right wingers are women and in the past 5-10 years the number of people of color among the “heroes on the right” is skyrocketing. The right has adopted non-traditional minorities, Cubans and Indians, and pushed the promotion of African Americans such as the much-respected Condoleeza Rice.

And if you count up the number of Republican women governors and Senators, you might find yourself surprised. Add in the pundits and activists, from Shlafly to Palin, and the portrayal as sexist starts to look odd.

Remember, the judge is a black woman who is Republican, was nominated by a Republican president, and supported in her confirmation by Republicans.

This isn’t to say that the instinct toward sexism and racism isn’t just under the surface. That may continue to be true for a while. But it appears that conservatives are fighting that instinct and doing so far better than I would have predicted.

Some among us will ignore what they see in favor of fighting cartoon enemies who are “haters and racists and bigots”. Reducing those who oppose your rights down to stereotypes requires less thought (and justifies hating them in return) but is it a terrible strategy for winning.

As for going after Judge Bryant, they will attack her as black woman. Black & female are something the radical right cannot handle.

“Poor National Organization for Marriage. What slurs will they have for Ms. Bryant? How can they spin her as out of touch or a radical? It’s enough to make a NOMer want to eat a quart of ice cream. Or two.”

Other than the fact that this makes me think of a cheap tabloid sneer, we really shouldn’t be getting smug at the opposition at this stage.

Please keep it professional.

I’ll have to defer to you on that as my feeble memory doesn’t even recall the contitutional basis for Loving v Virginia (was it the right to privacy, equal protections? id have to look it up).

I should have been more precise, and hopefully I am not misstating, going from sheer (and feeble) memory, but I was thinking of Loving v/s Virginia.

Thanks

Not exactly. States have rights and individuals have rights and each are supreme in their own realm. For example the state’s right to tax you trumps your right to property. And your right to speech trumps the state’s rights to enact civil law.

Similarly, the Federal Government and the various state governments each have their own sphere in which they are to hold power. None of these need be at war with each other.

In this instance, it is actually an individual rights claim that was made (equal protections principle within the 5th Amendment). However there is also a states rights claim that Massachusetts has made insisting that the Federal Government usurped the rights of states to determine family law.

These are two separate claims based on the idea that there are two separate victims, individuals who are denied equality and states that have had their position usurped.

If I am understanding correctly, the Rights of Individuals under the Constitution trump the Rights of States.

“Jonathan & David: A Love Story”