This past Saturday, The Guardian ran an interview with Snoop Dogg/Lion about his reinvention as an artist – from “gun-toting Dogg to peace-loving Lion”. Interviewer Simon Hattenstone asks Snoop a variety of questions about Snoop’s progression from his Dogg Pound days and changing opinions — including his opinion on gay people and Frank Ocean’s coming out:

“I don’t have a problem with gay people. I got some gay homies…Yeah, for real. People who were gay used to get beat up. It was cool to beat up on gay people back then. But in the 90s and 2000s, gay is a way of life. Just regular people with jobs. Now they are accepted, not classified. They just went through the same things we went through as black.”

He recently spoke out in support of gay marriage in America. Does he think that Frank Ocean coming out is a sign of progress in the rap world?

“…[I]t’s acceptable in the singing world, but in the rap world I don’t know if it will ever be acceptable because rap is so masculine. It’s like a football team. You can’t be in a locker room full of motherfucking tough-ass dudes, then all of a sudden say, ‘Hey, man, I like you.’ You know, that’s going to be tough.”

Snoop’s commendable comparison between racism and homophobia notwithstanding (a parallel I always make), and shoutout for telling how it was in the 80s-90s (open hunting season on gay kids – “cool to beat up gay people” is putting it lightly), I think Snoop is incorrect in his view of the rap game today. While Snoop’s words may have rung true in the days of “Gin & Juice”, their truth has faded in the age of Yung Money & Macklemore, and the scene is only getting more accepting of LGBT people.

Up until coming out last year, I thought much like Snoop – that hip-hop had not progressed much from its days of lynching gay-bashing and lyrics like Brand Nubian’s “f*ck up a faggot, don’t understand their ways and I ain’t down with gays”. And while I was encouraged by rappers like Noreaga who said in 2009 that “he laughs off any notion that there’s something wrong with welcoming” gay MCs, I felt like Snoop said, that an out gay rapper – and much less an unabashed one – would “never be accepted” in the “masculine” world of hip-hop. If I didn’t lose shows, I’d lose fans; if I didn’t lose fans, I’d lose sales, or else the clubs would be unsafe for me. Fears like this would keep me in the closet professionally until reaching a breaking point in 2012.

And even before coming out, I learned that many of these fears were unfounded.

A few months before coming out, I would go to “Hip-Hop Hanukkah” sponsored by New York’s Hot97. Kosha Dillz was playing, and our manager, Diwon, wanted there to be a representation of the artists on the label. Naturally, he called me on the day of the event, and I was thrilled to attend, except for one thing: I had a full set of acrylic nails on and 2 1/2″ heels. The shoes I could change, but the nails? Reluctant and scared, I went to the event. After a couple drinks, I gained some courage: I wasn’t going to be closeted, I was going to be my fem gay self. I stood right next to my manager as he introduced me to some of the MCs: other than the fact that the nails seemed to contradict the dreadlocks (people had been calling me “Rasta” at first), no one (save one ignorant bartender) had any negative vibe or words for me. Instead, the haters left well enough alone and I was getting love in the crowd.

Once I was in a cipher across from the projects in Fort Greene, Brooklyn. The scene reminded me of a scenario which would have ended badly for me in high school: by myself, in the hood. The MC who was hosting me, a Brooklyn rapper named Pop Buchanan, grabs me before handing me the mic: “Yo, this is my n*gga Y-Love. He Jewish, and this is the gayest motherf*cker out here, and he’s my n*gga!”. He gives me a hug and then I start to flow. No negativity, no lack of “acceptance”.

Yes, homophobia is still alive and rampant in the rap scene. I would be hallucinating if I said otherwise. But stories like mine are happening in every club in every hood – that gay MC who walks in reluctantly, if he can hold it down on the mic, can get respect as much as his hetero counterpart. Hell, I’ve even flirted with a couple MCs – “hey, man, I like you” would be a Disney Channel rendition of some of the things I’ve said – all in good fun, and rarely receiving drama in response.

The game done changed, Snoop – and it’s only getting better.

My entire life I lived with two axioms: “G-d is always there” and “Judaism is correct”.

As long as I can remember, I always knew: G-d “was watching” my actions and wanting me to do good, and that I was destined to become a Jew. What else would make a 7-year-old child clamor for a yarmulke and say kiddush on video?  What would make a child throw his mother’s loaves of bread out in 2nd grade, so as not to have chametz (leavened grain) over Passover?  My faith in G-d has never been something I “questioned” or “struggled with” — atheism was never an option in my mind.

I grew up with a desire to observe Torah; every law I learned during my teen years, I struggled to keep.  I cried myself to sleep listening to the D’Veykus IV album, drenched in guilt, after losing my virginity to a boy when I was 15.  At every point in my life, Torah was on the radar – whether I listened or not was a different story.  When I turned 21, I knew I needed to make a concrete move to put Torah in my life.  I also “knew that being gay was wrong” – having been in the closet since first realizing “I like boys” as a child.  I packed my bags and moved to Brooklyn to become a chassid.  I decided I was going to put my previous life behind me, and in the place of the old me would stand a new Creation of Hashem, ready to do His Divine Will.

A new child of G-d. A new heterosexual child of G-d.

The Torah is as clear of G-d’s omnipotence as it is in its prohibition of mishkav zachar — “היד ה’ תקצר”/”is the Hand of G-d limited?” asks the Torah rhetorically. G-d can make vinegar burn as the Talmud says, He “makes the great small and makes the small great”, He Creates light and forms darkness. You’re damn right I was asking G-d to “cure me” back then – why shouldn’t I? Didn’t G-d want me to be straight? Could He not make me straight? And so I would pray for Him to do so.

The Gemara tells us in Yevamot that a convert is like a newborn child — the commentator Aruch LaNer tells us that we can look at this as if the non-Jew “died” in the conversion process, his place being taken by a new Jew. As far as I was concerned, gay me was dead, Jewish me was taking his place.

Where in the hell does one get off saying that my conversion was only “masking my [homosexuality]“? Can this person — presumably heterosexual — imagine the level of faith, of sheer mesirat nefesh (dedication), required to get one to act out of their inborn orientation and put it behind? The only equivalent that comes to mind is for a heterosexual man to be sodomized. Yet, this is precisely what I went through, after years in yeshiva, when I got married in 2003.

Our Sages teach that under the wedding canopy, all gates of prayer are opened and all sin is forgiven – and also teach that “He who comes to purify himself, Heaven helps him.” Here I was, under a wedding canopy, praying for the ability to be with my wife and produce children (undoubtedly a mitzvah right?) – and after four arduous hours of attempting, I was shown from Heaven that my answer was “no”.

Every gay indiscretion during my charedi life was followed by intense amounts of guilt and prayer. I went to therapists.  I dated women for years. I gave charity. I immersed myself (alone, thank you very much) at sunrise. Any hishtadlus (effort) the anti-gay person would suggest, I did repeatedly. What else would you have me do?  Continue – married to a woman I increasingly resent, seeking stronger and stronger pharmaceuticals to numb my self-hatred, looking to “the kids” as my life’s only highlight?

What you see here is now a gay Jew who is trying to realize His place in the Divine plan, finding a place halachically, and realizing that that place is not next to a woman in a faux-heterosexual charade. I am out and proud as gay for all those kids out there going through what I went through, exhorting them to ask their rabbis for better answers than I was given back then.  I call myself OTD (Off the Derech/ex-observant) now, because of interpersonal issues I have with the charedi world. Who is to say I won’t return to my previous level of observance?

And I have no time for those who would say that I can’t.

G-d saw every tear of mine, heard every prayer of mine, and knows that כיון דנייחא לי שעתא, since Judaism was good with me once (and still is), I’m “as Jewish as Tevye” (to quote the film).  Baruch Hashem.

As progressives know President Obama wasn’t the only one who won on Election Night: from same-sex marriage wins to marijuana legalization to Minnesota’s defeating its proposed marriage amendment, progressive causes seemed to be winning nationwide.  And while Democrats didn’t flip the balance of power in Congress, defeats of Massachusetts’ Scott Brown, Missouri’s Todd Akin and Indiana’s Richard Mourdock meant victories for women’s rights and a resounding “no” to forcing motherhood on rape victims. Social conservatives were sent off to ask why and to regroup for 2016.

But as many have noted (and warned against) Tuesday night wasn’t just a victory for the liberal agenda, it was a defeat of the social conservative one. It wasn’t just a vote to continue the liberal program begun in 2008, it was a vote not to switch to a drastically different one.  And for its part, the GOP did not “fail to properly frame the conversation”, or to communicate a “vision“, or to “fully communicate their ideas” – voters were awash in hundreds of millions in advertising for months. Rather, the GOP has a fundamental issue with the American public:

The social conservative agenda is a hard sell, and no one wants it.  It’s not that social conservatives are backward people, or that they’re irrelevant, old, and white (á la Newsweek).

It’s because we, the American public — we’re human. We have empathy.

Anti-gay bullying, a very real phenomenon, usually involves one (usually bigger) student (or group of students) picking on one student, singling them out for being different, ostracizing them, and often, telling them they are evil. Social conservatives tell the public to side with the bully, and to defend his “religious freedom” to scream “you’re evil” in any way they see fit.  They champion the freedom of “ex-gay therapists” to practice toxic quackery to their hearts’ content, and defend parents who subject their children to them.

If a teacher is involved in an anti-LGBT issue, embarrassing a student for wearing a T-shirt or daring to bring their partner to a school dance, social conservatives defend the teacher over the crying student, rallying behind their job and decrying the “liberal agenda in the classroom”.

A rape victim, crying in a hospital, receiving her rape kit, is told the heart-wrenching news that on top of her assault, she is pregnant. Social conservatives like Todd Akin tell the public to consider the needs of the fetus to trump those of the distraught victim, and tell us to elevate the potential of a zygote over the palpable reality of a crushed human being in front of our eyes. They tell us that it is okay, a good thing, for a person to be deprived of sovereignty over their own bodies twice in a row: first by an assailant who put a sperm cell in, then by a government who won’t let her take the embryo out.

A poor mother in the social conservative conversation struggling with 50-hour work weeks is told that she is too lazy if she applies for government benefits, and dreads being called a “welfare queen” if she dares give birth while receiving them.  Social conservatives tell us to side with armed ICE officers over crying Mexican children, and then ridicule those who bring up those children for humanizing the issue.

Combined with attacks on social programs, that’s a pretty hard sell in a diverse America.

This is a hard pill to swallow, and transcends any multicultural outreach the GOP wants to do. The social conservative agenda either has to be expunged from the GOP platform – allowing pro-marriage equality libertarians and moderates like Colin Powell to shine – or this will not be the last victory of humanity over impersonal, draconian social protocol at the ballot box.

If anyone has brought us closer to a repeat of the tragedy of 9/11, it’s Nakoula Basseley Nakoula.

His anti-Muslim, Islam-denigrating atrocity has caused nothing but death and destruction in its wake ever since his demonic finger clicked “Upload”.  It has been connected to the death of the U.S. Ambassador to Libya. It has caused uproar in Yemen. And now, Pakistani Railways Minister Ghulam Ahmed Bilour has placed a bounty on Nakoula’s head, saying:

“I announce today that this blasphemer who has abused the holy prophet, if somebody will kill him, I will give that person a prize of $100,000.”

Bringing the violence to America’s worst case scenario, Bilour then cried out for help from our most active enemies:

“I also invite Taliban and Al-Qaeda brothers to be partners in this noble deed,” he said.

By calling upon Taliban and Al-Qaeda to be “partners”, he is making a rare direct call to the two groups to unite, to unite against America and American interests.  And he’s not alone.  Bilour’s announcement came after 5,000-strong protests in the Pakistani capital of Islamabad, and a protest of 500 in Lahore, led by Islamist group Jamaat-ud-Dawa. This week’s protests in Bangladesh were the bloodiest this week. Nigerian Muslims protested by the thousands in Kano, chanting “death to America, death to Israel and death to the enemies of Islam.” Thousands of Indian Muslims have protested as well. Hezbollah led masses through the streets in Lebanon.

Following Nakoula, not to be outdone, another buffoon decided to sacrifice human lives on the altar of nebulous “free speech”, publishing a defamatory cartoon in the French rag Charlie Hebdo. Germany’s “Titanic” is going to do a similar cover next month.

What in the hell is wrong with these people?

Every single cartoon (looking at you, Jyllands-Pøsten) published in this vein has brought violence in its wake.  This alone should make one question these cartoonists’ blind pursuit of free speech at all costs. And unlike the Danish Kurt Westegaard in 2005, today’s cartoonists aren’t bearing the brunt of the outrage themselves. Nakoula is living in hiding with his family while Americans die around the world for his attention-whorism. Nakoula sleeps quietly while Al-Qaeda are rebuilding their murderous chemistry sets and young, fresh Taliban recruits do calisthenics.

France has banned protests in the wake of the “Innocence of Muslims” film, with cops vowing to “break up” any mob.  Do our troops in Afghanistan have to protect themselves from mobs now as well?

How many people have to die before these people get off their Voltaire trips?  Yes, we have free speech. Many fought and died for it. Mr. Nakoula, if you want to die for free speech, feel free to do so.

Do a film screening tour of Pakistan and Iran — tout de suite – instead of watching in a hotel with your family as others die for you on 1st-Amendment-protected TV.

This isn’t about free speech, this is about responsibility. These people’s irresponsible actions have caused more death and destruction worldwide than any free speech should in 2012. Shame on those who insult Islam — because we get put at risk every time they do.

Democrats are hitting back hard with a new attack ad, drawing attention to the statements of Rep. Todd Akin and others, who have sought unprecedented restrictions on abortion, making no exceptions for rape or incest:

The “all abortions should be illegal” camp comprises a minority of Americans — the anti-abortion camp has never equaled more than 23 percent of the country – but this has not deterred social conservatives from proceeding full speed ahead with their totalitarian agenda of stripping millions of American women of the say as to what to do with their own bodies.  The abortion discussion only adds to the general Republican assault on women’s health care and “equal work for equal pay” for women.

Why is this happening?  What is driving the GOP assault on women’s rights?

Blogger David Atkins gives one hypothesis for what is driving all this legislation and gynophobic vitriol:

These are people who hate women because they see women as temptresses leading good men astray. These are people who don’t respect women because they see women as little more than baby-carrying vessels.

And at bottom they’re people are deeply, deeply afraid of sex and sexuality…we’re dealing with deeply repressed people who worry that all social order will collapse without keeping strict taboos on sexual behavior….

Those sorts of views are pathetic and archaic in the 21st century, whether they’re in Saudi Arabia or rural Missouri.

Now we have a sheriff in New Hampshire who just barely stopped short of calling for murder of abortion providers. While I may not agree with David Atkins’ assessment, there simply must be some driving force to have so many people so hell bent on keeping down hundreds of millions of Americans — our mothers, sisters, and grandmothers.

My article regarding Chick-Fil-A in the Huffington Post definitely made some ripples in the social networks.  A few hundred shares and comments later, people were alternately praising and critiquing my point of view — something I love to hear. Sparking debate is more important to me than being followed by a choir of “yes” people.

A few commenters on Huffington Post decided to call me to task for my perceived “insensitivity”:

It is really surprising to encounter the tone deafness of such gay activists and advocates. They seem dead set on supplying their own fantasies for others stances, ideas and positions rather than hear all of what people are saying….They will not understand that others are free to hold their own perspectives about the issues that concern them.

To this I respond with cold logic – saying that “X group of people deserves X right” whereas “group Z does not deserve X right” is simply not a point of view that is embraced in America, not legally and not culturally (post-the gains and struggles of civil rights).  It simply is not valid – not under the 14th Amendment, and not in the court of public opinion.  Why should I accept such blatant double standards and bigotry inequality here?

The response I would receive got me livid.

Because many Americans do not see the validity of relationships codified into marriage between two members of the same gender. The discomfort is elemental…

There is no common sense acknowledgment of the major societal paradigm shift these changes entail, which constitute social upheaval for some. …It is also nonsensical to expect persons who do not understand these relationships to endorse their codification into law and support their equivalence to traditional marriage.

While I support marriage equality, I do not support the demonization of those do not, or the high handed rheteroric of people with the same human frailties of those with different views.

Besides the hetero privilege that this post smacks of (I didn’t even include the “scarcity of ’shrewd’ that he said LGBT activists suffer from), this article belies one major question: why should we, as LGBT Americans, as allies, as forward-thinking citizens, care?

When the Supreme Court, through Brown v. Board of Education, desegregated schools in 1957, they did so against the will of a very angry white populace.  The brave adolescent pioneers, the “Little Rock Nine”, went to school under armed guard among taunts and spit of an angry mob determined not to change their status quo.  They were given no option but to suck it up and deal with it — all of the laws attempting to “slow” integration would be thrown out, and the South would be integrated, whether the white communities liked it or not.

This is the attitude we must take as activists.  I don’t give a damn about the “monumental paradigm shift” that my oppressor is going through, why should I? It is laughable that I should be expected to respect the “sensitivities” of people who are actively advocating my second-class status.  It is unconscionable to me that I should be called upon to “be shrewd” when I can’t even expect to keep my job in all 50 states, much less get married.

Nor do I expect to be popularly supported — civil rights gains have historically come from the courts, and almost never from the ballot box. I wouldn’t expect the masses to “understand” or advocate for rights they may oppose.  But I am not going to attempt to “understand” a point of view that would deny me my rights any more than I would try to “understand” a real estate agent trying to explain why I was “bad for the neighborhood”.  The “No Homo Day at Chick-Fil-A” mindset is a mentality — hetero, good; gay? shut up! — which simply does not belong in American social discourse in 2012 (about any minority group), and must be battled at every front.

I will not respect the mindset of the person who refuses to see me as equal to himself.

When Chick-Fil-A’s Dan Cathy told the Baptist Press “guilty as charged” when asked if his company opposed marriage equality, he probably didn’t expect the firestorm that would ensue. Chick-Fil-A has donated millions to the most virulent anti-gay organizations for years, and Dan Cathy even founded the Marriage & Family Foundation. But this time, his statements would go viral, would trend on Twitter for days and become front-page news worldwide. Mayors nationwide would say “we don’t want Chick-Fil-A” in their cities (LA’s mayor called on Chick-Fil-A to “reconsider” their position).

Predictably, Mike Huckabee made the battle cry on his talk show, calling for “National Chick-Fil-A Appreciation Day” on August 1, adding to an additional call by the National Organization for Marriage for an “Eat at Chick-Fil-A Day” on July 25. Emboldened by their cursory Biblical knowledge, this was to be expected. That’s not what saddens me.

What’s saddening and disheartening was the 672,000-plus attendees on the Facebook Event page and the “frenzied” “record-setting” sales. What’s maddening is when gay “celebrities” like Antoine Dodson participate in said Appreciation Day and have the sheer Stockholm syndrome to say that gay people “have gone from being bullied” to bullies. What’s disorienting is “I’m Gay and I Support Chick-Fil-A“. What’s infuriating is when pundits like Ann Coulter use Chick-Fil-A Day as “proof” to negate all that LGBT marriage equality organizations have fought for.

I stand with Equality Illinois in supporting the boycott of Chick-Fil-A, as well as their ouster from malls and campuses, but not just because I’m a gay man pissed off at his second-class status.  I stand against Chick-Fil-A because it represents the worst elements of this nation.  Chick-Fil-A Day brought out the worst in America.  The “#straightpride” hashtag shows – for many of the people in those “lines down the block” at America’s Chick-Fil-A’s, this was not about any verse from Leviticus or Romans. This was about celebrating, as one girl’s father put it on Facebook, “no homo  day” at Chick-Fil-A.

August 1 was the holiday for all those angry that their bigoted voices are being drowned out by progressive calls for equality. Chick-Fil-A was the mouthpiece for all those who long for the days LGBT Americans have nightmares of – the days of sodomy laws, Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, and institutionalized closets with no escape. Mike Huckabee became the mouthpiece for all those for whom the phrase “civil rights for gays” evokes tears.  And how any gay person — regardless of solidarity with the workers — could give his money to a company that donates organizations that work to invalidate his own family is beyond me.

Bigotry in America is not a valid point of view we should feel behooved to “respect”.  We used to marginalize our hate-filled fringe elements in America, not jump to their defense. Framing this as a “freedom of speech” issue is disingenuous — Americans know that people who believe in racial inequality have 1st Amendment Rights, yet Americans would never expect them to exercise those rights in public. Bigotry simply does not need a voice in America. American values dictate that we keep it out of our malls (looking at you, too, Urban Outfitters) and campuses — using democracy (even mayors are elected leaders) and the free market — as much as we can.

The outrage against Chick-Fil-A shows that many of us live in an America were there really is “liberty and justice for all”, where full equality for all Americans is on the horizon. Unfortunately, the rest of America couldn’t give a cluck about equality.

Alabama recently enacted “Arizona-style” immigration legislation designed to be the harshest in the nation, giving police the authority to stop and detain any person who they suspect of being in the state illegally.  Undocumented immigrants are barred from receiving any public benefits, including the most basic necessities.  Public schools will also be allowed to ascertain immigration status before admitting pupils. The bill also places a penalty on all lawful residents of the state who have any helpful contact with undocumented residents:

“Alabama’s new law will require schools, businesses, and landlords to verify the immigration status of their students, employees and tenants, respectively,” Caroline May writes. “Police will be allowed to detain people on suspicion of being in the country illegally and it will be unlawful to give a ride to an undocumented immigrant.”

The bill is scheduled to take effect on September 1st, and is already drawing fire from the ACLU and Southern Poverty Law Center, who have vowed to challenge the law in court, saying that the “unconstitutional” law will “perpetuate bigotry” and “set back years of civil rights progress in the state and have devastating economic consequences.”  The Roman Catholic, Lutheran and Methodist churches, among others, have all voiced opposition to the new law.

And of course, as Paragould, AR’s Miguel Perez notes, this legislation is not far from the bigotry at its core, and brings the proverbial “Bigotry title” back to the Deep South, again:

Just when we thought no other state could beat Arizona as the champion of hatred, xenophobia and immigrant-bashing legislation, the Deep South reclaimed its title as the all-time champion of discrimination.  Imagine how the bigots in Georgia and Alabama must have felt when they saw bigots in Arizona grabbing all the headlines. They had to do something to prove they still can discriminate better than anyone…
With the re-emergence of institutionalized bigotry in the Deep South, a new civil rights movement also is beginning to emerge. And as African-Americans prevailed in the 1960s, today’s immigrants also will overcome this new wave of racism in America.

And may they overcome.  For all of our sakes.  Que no existan las diferencias entre nosotros…Americanos.

Poor social conservatives.

I can’t imagine what it must be like to live one’s entire life with a clear hold on the societal status quo, clearly seeing one’s will reflected in every forum, clearly belonging to and securing the rights of the group in power — only to have one’s proverbial rug swept from under them with a seemingly neverending barrage of life-changing legislation.

Today, the battleground is New York, and the battle lines have been drawn over same-sex marriage.  Of course, debates like this bring out the usual suspects (the Family Research Council’s call to prayer, The American Family Association’s Bryan Fischer, National Organization for Marriage buying ad time on TV, et al.), but it seems like same-sex marriage brings the right-wing out of the woodwork like no other issue.

To wit, now we have David Tyree, former NY Giants Super Bowl star, coming out saying that same-sex marriage will lead to “anarchy”:

Tyree spoke this past Tuesday at New York City’s City Hall at a meeting of Christian clergy united to voice their opposition to same-sex marriage.  Opponents of same-sex marriage in Albany said they felt “frustrated” that State Senate Republicans were not as willing to meet with them as they were with supporters of marriage equality.  The sole Jewish clergymember cited by the NY Times in Albany, Rabbi Noson S. Leiter, executive director of Monsey, NY-based Torah Jews for Decency, was quoted as saying an oft-repeated Tea Party-style slogan: “ultra-liberal senators should understand that the government should have no right to impose a counter-biblical definition of marriage, family and gender.”

Anyone familiar with my work knows that I am committed to Judaism.  The Talmud does teach against same-sex marriage in Chullin 92a, saying that the nations of the world have the Divine merit of never having written a ketubah (marriage contract) for two males.  My opinion about this is that while the Talmud does proscribe same-sex marriage contracts, that which our governments perform today may not fall into the category of “marriage contract” to which the Talmud refers.  The libertarian approach — that government should remove itself from private relationships entirely, sanctioning no marriages and only performing “civil unions” — would also work well here.  In other words, it is entirely possible to achieve compliance with the words of the Talmud while achieving marriage equality under American law.

If we are to have an equal protection clause in our Constitution ensuring equal rights for all American citizens, it is going to be increasingly hard for social conservatives to emerge successful in America’s courts.  As Focus on the Family already recognized, social conservatives have basically lost this battle in their cultural war already.

Finally, we social progressives seem to be winning in the opinion polls.

A new poll released by CNN yesterday shows a shift in the mind of the voting public — for the first time since CNN began asking the question in 1993, the percentage of voters who say that government should promote “traditional values” has fallen below 50% (full PDF of the poll results here). 50% said that government should not promote any type of particular values, while 46% said that government should promote traditional values.

This is the lowest number in these 18 years — and down from an all time high of 59% in October 2001.  Not surprisingly, 60% of Republicans said the government should promote traditional values.  But the number of independent voters — those swing votes needed for any national candidate — wanting to hear traditional values coming from DC dropped 12 points since last year.  Economic issues like jobs and seniors’ Medicare are simply beginning to take the front seat in the mind of the American voter.

CNN notes — rightfully so — that this is far from the end of the “values voter”.  We are far from having a social mandate: we are still unable to tell the powerful, socially conservative far Right where to go and how to get there.  However, this shows cultural tides are shifting. Quick.

The “values” crowd went from a 16 point advantage in 2008 to a 4 point deficit now.  Twenty points. Three short years.  Who would have thought even a decade ago that we would see numbers like 70% of youth (18-34) — and 61% of men aged 18-49, an almost 1/3 jump in a year’s time — supporting same-sex marriage in 2011? A majority of voters supporting same-sex unions — in TEXAS?

Regardless of one’s faith, I believe that any voter who says that “I want to see my traditional values coming from Washington, DC in the form of legislation” is only asking for heartbreak at best and lawsuits at worst.  Is Congress the group of people these voters truly believe are equipped to make moral decisions on behalf of their families?

How do the same people who clamor for the government to get out of their lives simultaneously clamor for anti-abortion, anti-woman, anti-LGBT, and anti-marriage legislation?  Would they really like to see a law passed about same-sex marriage rather than simply teaching their own children their values – and letting other people live their lives in peace? Is this not antithetical to the entire “small government” doctrine of DC infringing as little as possible on the lives of citizens?

Our Constitution holds freedom of (or freedom from) religion to be sacrosanct.  In America, one simply can not attempt to codify their religious doctrine into U.S. Law except in the area of religious accommodations (e.g., kosher laws, sharia-compliant banking, etc).  This principle is invoked against Muslims continuously — the Christian Right would do well to heed their own advice. And let us not forget, many people of faith in America hold “progressive values” to be as close to their faiths as the “social conservatives” do.

We’re not out of the woods yet, but the Radical Christianist agenda is not sustainable.  As voices of unity and equality begin to win out more and more over those of hatred, bigotry and inequality, these numbers will only continue to shift.