Is there a place for social conservatives in the Democratic Party?

[Benjamin Frank 2.0]

If you’re against gay marriage, you’re either stupid or evil.

Is that a purity test?

I’m against gay marriage because of my religious beliefs. But I’m not advocating for repealing Hodges

I interpreted this as you wanting to repeal it. I don't agree obviously but a moral objection to ssm while not wanting to take any action legally isn't as bad.

Still not understanding your opposition to legal weed. Seems like a no brainer, only way I can respect such a view is if you are also lobbying to make the far more dangerous alcohol illegal as well.

Heh, some people believe that legal weed results in no brains.

[Benjamin Frank 2.0]

If you’re against gay marriage, you’re either stupid or evil.

Is that a purity test?

I’m against gay marriage because of my religious beliefs. But I’m not advocating for repealing Hodges

I interpreted this as you wanting to repeal it. I don't agree obviously but a moral objection to ssm while not wanting to take any action legally isn't as bad.

Still not understanding your opposition to legal weed. Seems like a no brainer, only way I can respect such a view is if you are also lobbying to make the far more dangerous alcohol illegal as well.

I don’t think we should lock people up for weed. But I don’t think we should allow its sale or decriminalized drug dealers.

Why? I see no good from weed. Stoners smell. And it’s psychologically addicting. People are better off without it.

And alcohol literally kills people daily from poisoning. Drunk drivers kill people daily. When has weed killed anyone?

Why are you not out there protesting a far, far more dangerous substance that can be picked up at any corner store?

Could you please source that.

I can see a handful of people who sadly every year die as a result of alcohol poisoning over many years but certainly if you are arguing that the alcohol situation presently is like wood alcohol during prohibition I have no knowledge on that.

People who drink themselves to death over many years are referred to, or were referred to as 'slow suicides.' I don't think prohibition did anything to reduce 'slow suicide.' Those are the result of things that are well beyond any short term policy fixes.

[Benjamin Frank 2.0]

I don’t think we should lock people up for weed. But I don’t think we should allow its sale or decriminalized drug dealers.

These two statements contradict each other.

Not necessarily. a criminal justice path could include simply taking the marijuana from dealers or it could also include community service or severe fines for convicted dealers but not jail time.

[President Johnson]

I honestly don't understand opposition to same-sex marriage. Shouldn't it be widely accepted that people can love whoever they want, as long as relationships are consensual? Gay marriage doesn't take anything from anyone, men and women can still marry obviously. So nobody is being taken something, but others are given something. According to polls even a small majority Republican voters (not office holders) support SSM.

[Ferguson97]

I'm mostly ok with post-op trans women using the restroom of their choice

How do you know who is and isn’t post-op? Genital inspections?

[Progressive Pessimist]

They won't and shouldn't be pandered to, but if they are going tobprioritize the future of our republic, they are more than welcome. That's the issue of our time and really ought to unite all of us.

[Fuzzy Bear]

There are plenty of racial/ethnic minorities in the Democratic coalition who are even more socially conservative than you.  Of course there is a place for you, just as there is for them. 

The Democratic Party will gladly take your vote and accept your help in campaigns if you're a social conservative, but they will not allow you to be a nominee for any office (saving in a race where you would be a sacrificial lamb).  Social conservatives have just about zero influence in the Democratic Party.  I say this as a Registered Democrat until 1995, and a person who voted for more Democrats than Republicans between 1996 and 2018, but as I went on, there were very few Democrats on the ballot, even in Florida, that were even somewhat pro-life or anti-illegal immigration. 

Today, there is NO meaningful faction in the Democratic Party that supports the Hyde Amendment, advocates restraint in presenting sexualized topics to even 2nd graders, present a "Pride" agenda (as opposed to simple tolerance that doesn't require endorsing the un-Biblical).  Even Bob Casey has backtracked on his pro-life position.

One has a better chance of being a social conservative in the GOP even if you have moderate views on economics.  That's a fluid assessment, but it's the way I see things now.

[I Will Not Be Wrong]

John Bel Edwards was just a governor a few months ago, I hope we have more like him in the future. I doubt it though. He was an awesome governor.

[Arizona Iced Tea]

It's honestly sad how the Dems have shifted left so much on social issues. I feel like on social issues they have become obnoxiously extreme instead of more reserved like in the Obama era. For example, I would consider myself pro choice because I support abortions for down syndrome and other disabilities, and contraceptives, but the Dems have no longer promoted that safe, legal, and rare doctorine and the party literally wants to promote all-you-care to abort legislation funded by taxpayers. The party is explicitly pro abortion now instead of pro choice.

Then there is the LGBTQ stuff which is somehow even worse than their abortion stance. Completely anti-parental choice and there is legislation out there that wants to use CPS to take away kids from parents who don't fully affirm their gender. Then there is teaching kids LGBTQ stuff in the classroom and making equivalencies to it being similar to "straight culture" which is ridiculous. I'm not even against kids getting gender surgery if their parents approve it, but people on the left will still call me transphobic!

Throw in DEI, CRT, etc and you will realize why the party has become incredibly insufferable in recent years.

[wnwnwn]

It's honestly sad how the Dems have shifted left so much on social issues. I feel like on social issues they have become obnoxiously extreme instead of more reserved like in the Obama era. For example, I would consider myself pro choice because I support abortions for down syndrome and other disabilities, and contraceptives, but the Dems have no longer promoted that safe, legal, and rare doctorine and the party literally wants to promote all-you-care to abort legislation funded by taxpayers. The party is explicitly pro abortion now instead of pro choice.

Then there is the LGBTQ stuff which is somehow even worse than their abortion stance. Completely anti-parental choice and there is legislation out there that wants to use CPS to take away kids from parents who don't fully affirm their gender. Then there is teaching kids LGBTQ stuff in the classroom and making equivalencies to it being similar to "straight culture" which is ridiculous. I'm not even against kids getting gender surgery if their parents approve it, but people on the left will still call me transphobic!

Throw in DEI, CRT, etc and you will realize why the party has become incredibly insufferable in recent years.

I don't think DEI is that toxic, mostly the implemention of it.
On abortion, I think that dems want to maximize their female vote, especially as most moderate males should care more about other issues.

In general, I think that dems should try to focus on fight federal level social conservative proposals while pushing more state level referendums on social issues. It seems to be working on abortion and weed at least.

Out of abortion, voting rights and anti discrimination measures, I think that democrats should focus on economic issues and sometimes have new Sister Souljah moments.
Anyway, issues like housing and homelessness in blue states are also hurting the party image, and those are not culture war stuff...

I think that some people would be OK with all cultural progressivism if the white population in the USA somehow was guaranteed to be +60%.

[MarkD]

I don't think DEI is that toxic, mostly the implemention of it.
 On abortion, I think that dems want to maximize their female vote, especially as most moderate males should care more about other issues.

In general, I think that dems should try to focus on fight federal level social conservative proposals while pushing more state level referendums on social issues. It seems to be working on abortion and weed at least.

Do you mean like the referendums on same-sex marriage in a majority of the states around 16-26 years ago? That was the Republicans pushing for those referendums, because they always won the vote on them, adopting amendments to state constitutions to ban recognition of same-sex marriage (which didn't really change any laws, but gave the people a temporary feeling of assurance that their views were going to be respected by the state courts). The left hated those referendums and were glad when the SCOTUS overruled tens of millions of voters.

To answer the OP, I agree with Fuzzy that the Democrats are not going to be the slightest bit comfortable with conservative social issue voters trying to get elected to office, but they'll be glad to just have such voters as a minority within the rank-and-file voters every November of even-numbered years. To me, the disgusting thing about the left is that they think "social issues" should not be up for decision by elected politicians and/or voters, but should be controlled, instead, by federal courts -- led by the SCOTUS -- that invoke dis, dat, and anudder ting in the Constitution.

[Fuzzy Bear]

John Bel Edwards was just a governor a few months ago, I hope we have more like him in the future. I doubt it though. He was an awesome governor.

Note that John Bel Edwards was never considered as a VP candidate, nor is he ever mentioned as a possible Presidential candidate. 

Edwards could likely carry Louisiana as a Presidential candidate.  Louisiana is a state that has never had a candidate on the national ticket, and there would be some pride in his candidacy.  He's a Catholic, and (I believe) a Cajun Catholic, and it was the Cajun vote that made Louisiana a Presidentially Democratic state in 1992 and 1996 and the best Dukakis state in the South in 1988.  His position on social issues rules him out, however. 

[Electric Circus]

One typical response to this question is to point to non-white social conservatives, but as other forms of demographic polarization become more important, this holds true across those dimension as well.

I'm thinking most about education. There are a lot of older, white, college-educated voters who would be comfortable voting for a McCain or a Romney even now, but who have become an important piece of the Democratic coalition over the past decade because they did not radicalize in parallel with the rest of the GOP.

[Ferguson97]

Then there is teaching kids LGBTQ stuff in the classroom and making equivalencies to it being similar to "straight culture" which is ridiculous.

Elaborate.

[TDAS04]

John Bel Edwards was just a governor a few months ago, I hope we have more like him in the future. I doubt it though. He was an awesome governor.

Edwards could likely carry Louisiana as a Presidential candidate. Louisiana is a state that has never had a candidate on the national ticket, and there would be some pride in his candidacy.  He's a Catholic, and (I believe) a Cajun Catholic, and it was the Cajun vote that made Louisiana a Presidentially Democratic state in 1992 and 1996 and the best Dukakis state in the South in 1988.  His position on social issues rules him out, however. 

I doubt it. JBE only narrowly won re-election as Governor.

[AlterEgo]

One has a better chance of being a social conservative in the GOP even if you have moderate views on economics.  That's a fluid assessment, but it's the way I see things now.

If you're talking about getting elected as a politician: probably.

If you're talking about what party to be a member of as a voter: you'd have to completely give up the idea of any of your economic ideas ever being implemented, which would be a shame, because that's the arena that government should be making an impact in over social issues, which, by and large, should fall to personal choice.

[HisGrace]

Well I think your abortion and gay marriage positions are more or less a non starter for them. For opposite reasons, SSM is a pretty settled issue and then abortion is one of the key dividing wedge issues. Marijuana is probably going to reach that level too, you're just on the losing side of that one.

Now on some of the other ones you have a point. "Rioting is bad" should not be a political issue and even if you disagree saying minors shouldn't get sex changes and that sports should be sex segregated are not bigoted positions to take. If the Dems are going to turn those into litmus test issues they're going to lose a lot of people for no reason.

[Arizona Iced Tea]

Then there is teaching kids LGBTQ stuff in the classroom and making equivalencies to it being similar to "straight culture" which is ridiculous.

Elaborate.

Gay marriage and trans stuff should not be promoted to the youth. And Dems usually respond with whataboutism with "what about straight marriage or cis people" and act like it's the same.

[AlterEgo]

Then there is teaching kids LGBTQ stuff in the classroom and making equivalencies to it being similar to "straight culture" which is ridiculous.

Elaborate.

Gay marriage and trans stuff should not be promoted to the youth. And Dems usually respond with whataboutism with "what about straight marriage or cis people" and act like it's the same.

But gay and trans people do exist. So is the solution just pretending they don't exist?

[7,052,770]

Then there is teaching kids LGBTQ stuff in the classroom and making equivalencies to it being similar to "straight culture" which is ridiculous.

Elaborate.

Gay marriage and trans stuff should not be promoted to the youth. And Dems usually respond with whataboutism with "what about straight marriage or cis people" and act like it's the same.

There's no such thing as "promoting" a sexual orientation or gender identity. You are whatever you are, whether or not someone tries to tell you otherwise. After all, almost everyone is raised as straight/cis by default and LGBT people exist anyway.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Yes, if you mean you support illegal wiretaps and endless wars.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Then there is teaching kids LGBTQ stuff in the classroom and making equivalencies to it being similar to "straight culture" which is ridiculous.

Elaborate.

Gay marriage and trans stuff should not be promoted to the youth. And Dems usually respond with whataboutism with "what about straight marriage or cis people" and act like it's the same.

There's no such thing as "promoting" a sexual orientation or gender identity. You are whatever you are, whether or not someone tries to tell you otherwise. After all, almost everyone is raised as straight/cis by default and LGBT people exist anyone.

The italicized quote is an assertion by Harry.  It is not a scientifically proven fact, and winning an poll by a 99-1 margin on Atlas won't change that fact.

[Ferguson97]

Then there is teaching kids LGBTQ stuff in the classroom and making equivalencies to it being similar to "straight culture" which is ridiculous.

Elaborate.

Gay marriage and trans stuff should not be promoted to the youth. And Dems usually respond with whataboutism with "what about straight marriage or cis people" and act like it's the same.

Why isn't it the same?

[jojoju1998]

Hot Take : A vast number of Democrats are far more socially conservative than people think. They are the immigrants. Yes those evil immigrants. But because of the Republican Party's racialist rhetoric, they don't see a reason to jump ship... yet.

[Horus]

Then there is teaching kids LGBTQ stuff in the classroom and making equivalencies to it being similar to "straight culture" which is ridiculous.

Elaborate.

Gay marriage and trans stuff should not be promoted to the youth. And Dems usually respond with whataboutism with "what about straight marriage or cis people" and act like it's the same.

How would you propose "not promoting" SSM? If a teacher has a picture of his husband or her wife on their desk, should they be forced to remove it? What are your tangibles here?

Gay people exist, many are married, and probably 99% of kids middle school age and up already know this.