National News

 

Why the 'Duck Dynasty' Controversy Could Hurt Democrats

Why the 'Duck Dynasty' Controversy Could Hurt Democrats

Until very recently I had no idea who or what Duck Dynasty was. But now I, along with the rest of the English-speaking world, know far more about Duck Dynastythan I care to. But I am preparing myself for the reality that I will be hearing those two words endlessly over the course of the next year. Because unlike many media scandals that come and go after a 24 hour news cycle, I believe the Duck Dynastycontroversy will have legs. Not only will the controversy linger, it might reignite the culture war that has traditionally hurt Democrats, especially in off-year elections when older, whiter voters have turned out more.

On Friday, A&E announced that it would welcome Duck Dynasty star Phil Robertson back into the fold.

The move was no doubt motivated by the fact that a petition in support of Robertson garnered more than a quarter of a million signatures and his album sales (yes, apparently he and his family have an album) shot through the roof.

For those of you living under a rock (or like Sarah Palin didn’t bother to read the controversial comments in question) Robertson described what he considers sinful during an interview with GQ: “Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there. Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men.”

Despite the fact that in the next quote Robertson also quotes scripture to denounce those who commit adultery, drink too much, and slander others as sinners, he was roundly denounced as a bigot and hate monger, particularly in progressive and liberal leaning news outlets.

This is precisely what will prove problematic for President Obama and the Democratic Party in the upcoming midterm elections.

Though nearly half of the country opposes same-sex marriage, the media narrative has become dominated by the storyline that only a small segment of backward bigots who hate gay people oppose same-sex marriage. That simply isn’t true. (Reinforcing bias in reporting on this story is the fact that many outlets caved to pressure to use the term “marriage equality” in coverage, when such a term is an activist creation. Interracial marriage is called interracial marriage, not “marriage equality.” If supporters of same-sex marriage view the civil rights fights as comparable, the same language standard should be applied.)

Polls also show 59 percent of Americans now find same-sex couples morally acceptable. That means there are plenty of Americans who don’t have a problem with gay couples but seem to have a problem with the word “marriage” being used to define their relationships.  

Among my family members who oppose same-sex marriage, I have been told to congratulate my gay friends whose weddings I have attended. But I have simultaneously been told that such unions don’t fit my relatives’ biblical definition of marriage. I have further been told that in the context of the oft repeated phrase “love the sinner, hate the sin,” they see gay people no differently than they would view a straight person like me who decides to live with someone “in sin” (as the biblical saying goes). It wouldn’t make me a bad person but one who according to biblical text would be “living in sin.” In other words, they wouldn’t throw holy water on me but also wouldn’t throw me a parade. Most of all, they wouldn’t really care how I live my romantic life at all, as long as I was happy. 

There’s a big gulf between the relatives I describe and someone who “hates” gay people. The fact that so many liberals can’t see the difference speaks to the tremendous gulf that has grown in recent years between the increasingly vocal liberal wing of the Democratic Party and, well...everyone else.  

Read The Full Article On The Daily Beast

More articles from The Daily Beast:

© 2013 Newsweek/Daily Beast Company LLC

 

More Articles

 

107MUS is an iHeartRadio Station

© 2014 iHeartMedia, Inc.

*