Considering that Orson Scott Card actually suggested that people take up arms against the government in response to the allowance of gay marriage (http://laist.com/2008/08/01/orson_scott_card_scifi_writer_will.php), I hardly think he qualifies as a “Democrat” like the article says. I’m all for retaining the right to revolution, but invoking it over a couple dudes wanting to get married in California is a bit much.
I love Card’s books, they’re absolutely fantastic. But his politics are kinda off the wall.
I’m talking modern mainstream Democrats, not Democrats in the time of Southern segregationists. Both parties have undergone radical changes–Democrats have gotten far more liberal and progressive, while Republicans have gone from more libertarian “small-government” conservatives to neoconservatives. I’m just talking about the parties as they stand in 2008.
As far as Obama, I certainly don’t agree with him on everything, but even his nuttier proposals are not quite as nutty as calling for a violent revolution if California decides that two men can get married.
When someone supports no Democratic policies and no Democratic politicians, and has been an enthusiastic supporter of Republican politicians and policies for at least 8 years if not longer, why would he still want to call himself a “Democrat”?
I asked myself that, and I thought: what Card gets out of publicly identifying as a Democrat, is the attention of Republicans who think “hey, a Democrat supports us!” – it’s a strategic move to gain readership. He’s a pro writer, after all.