Social conservatives, like so many voters this year, are disgusted with the two major-party presidential choices.
I am a SoCon, shorthand for social conservative. We SoCons often overlap with fiscal conservatives (FiCons). Together, we made up a majority of the GOP — or at least we did before Donald Trump commandeered the party during a wild 2016 primary season.
On March 1, Minnesota's GOP caucusgoers did their best to repel Donald the Pirate, giving him only 21 percent of the presidential preference vote. Minnesota's Republicans chose Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida, and a poll in this paper suggested that he could have beaten Hillary Clinton in Minnesota. Sigh.
Doing their part, our DFL friends did their best to fend off Clinton, giving Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont nearly 62 percent of their votes.
Though the national primary battle went to Trump and Clinton, our collective state results make me proud to be a Minnesotan.
Still, we are stuck with two very unpleasant choices on Nov. 8. So what am I going to do with my vote?
First, what is a social conservative? SoCons are a large but shrinking portion of the population. Since Gallup started polling self-identified social ideology in 1999, the percentage of respondents saying they are social conservatives has decreased from 39 percent to 31 percent, while the percentage identifying as social liberals has gone from 21 percent to 31 percent. A major cause of the shift has been the increased acceptance of same-sex marriage. Support rose from 35 percent in 1999 to 61 percent this year. It is no surprise that laws have changed, and we SoCons know that we have to adapt.
The SoCons that I know are committed to respectful tolerance of all our fellow citizens. The question is whether courts and cultural institutions will redefine respect for gay citizens and tolerance of gay marriage as requiring positive affirmation and public celebration. Major conflict could be on the way, since many Americans continue to believe (and to teach their children) that marriage is between a woman and a man and that children benefit most by having a mother and a father. Labeling those views as hate speech is ridiculous.