Retrosexual politics--I'm not concerned about Concerned Women for America (POLL)

I've been familiar with Concerned Women for America for twenty years.  I don't remember whether they actually filed an amicus brief in Bowers v Hardwick, or just wanted to, but that is when I first heard of their existence.

In light of the big response to nyceve's great diary on the Contra-Conception article in the NYT Sunday magazine today, I'd like to explain why I don't think there is any reason to be afraid of CWA in particular, don't lose any sleep over "retrosexual" organizations like these, and believe that publicizing their agenda hurts them more than it hurts us.

Concerned Women for America is just one of many right-wing Christian organizations that is partnered with Roman Catholics, Mormons and Protestant fundamentalists over what they call "Biblical design of the family."  Their goals include:

* marriage between one man and one woman only, so no gay marriage (in spite of the biblical fundamentalists who correctly point out that polygamy is all over the Hebrew Scriptures and therefore once was the "Biblical design for the family");

* legally enforced prohibitions on all non-procreative sex:  abortion is bad.  contraception is bad.  non-traditional sex acts are bad regardless of who engages in them, so sodomy laws should also apply to the same acts engaged in by married couples.  if they thought they could get away with it they'd enforce biblical prohibitions on onanism (which includes coitus interruptus as well as masturbation), but even these guys have limits;

* state officials taking the decisions out of women's hands with respect to unwanted pregnancy and taking the decision out of the individual's hands with respect to end of life decisions including death with dignity and health care proxies;

* the subservience of females--first to their fathers and then to their husbands--including parental consent laws, abstinence only sex education via homeschooling, corporal punishment, virginity pledges, and making divorce either illegal or a lot harder to get (witness the "covenant marriage" movement--the same people who came up with the term "partial birth abortion" are now using phrases like "non-binding marriage" to create a distinction between current marriage practice and the harder to dissolve marriage they'd like to see enshrined in law).  

Evidently they feel they have the abortion issue won with Alito and Roberts on the SCt, so they are emboldened to go public with their opposition to contraception.  Some of us have been saying for years that they would go after Griswold after they got Roe and people told us we were being unnecessarily alarmist, so it is almost a relief to be vindicated on this point in a publication like the NYT Sunday magazine where a large group of progressives and moderates will get the message loud and clear.

Honestly, I think it is a stretch to think CWA and similar groups will get widespread approval to making contraception illegal.  But it is good to publicize the fact that they want to try, so that the people who have chosen to be allied with them will realize what they have signed on to when they promote and support the views of CWA.  And if they stepped up their opposition to divorce it might hurt them with some people who might not otherwise agree with the doctrinal underpinnings of their political agenda.

Why am I not worried about them?  Because the same angry white male demographic that fueled the Contract on America and the hate radio revolution will not want to go back to the days when every sex act carried the possibility of pregnancy, abortions were illegal and expensive, and divorces were almost impossible to get.  The last two generations of change on these issues have created a comfort level with certain aspects of sexual freedom.  That demo may be up in arms about gay sex, but anyone who threatens to take away their own carefree enjoyment of sex will not get their enthusiastic political and financial support.  Conservatives can't win elections without that demographic (and the women who love them, who are told how to vote by them), so I am pretty confident that even conservative politicians will ultimately turn their backs on CWA and what they represent.  As a result it will take a hell of a lot more than CWA and their ilk to turn back the clock on those aspects of sexual activity in our culture.

Basically, Concerned Women for America and similar organizations seek to codify into law (and in some cases, restore) some pretty extreme sexual teachings.  Let's recap:  They believe that sex acts that do not include the possibility of procreation are sinful.  They want to outlaw  all abortion, outlaw all contraception, and enforce sodomy laws even for sex between married couples.  They believe in the familial subservience of females--first to the authority of their fathers and then to the authority of their husbands.  These are not mainstream positions in the US anymore.  CWA and their allies would say that's the trouble with America--and that the change in attitude is liberalism's fault rather than liberalism's accomplishment.  Either way they are giving us the credit for the prevailing social view and making themselves look dangerously radical by comparison.

Bottom line: it probably helps us to have the more extreme positions of their agenda exposed since I suspect that ultimately these are winning wedge issues for our side rather than for their side.  Just watch and see how these retrosexual organizations, and more important, Repubilcan candidates, run away from and minimize (and hide) these positions during the 2006 elections.  It's almost to our advantage to keep publicizing their true agenda, since the majority of the electorate is almost certainly with us.  

What percentage of voters do you think would agree with CWA's view of acceptable sexual behavior?  Take the poll.