I was amazed but not amused by the use of the word “morality” when applied to the votes of Bush supporters on November 2 nd. A president who fabricates reasons for going to war, does not address real nuclear threats in North Korea, gives billions to the rich at the expense of the poor, condones violation of the Geneva Conventions, and ends up killing thousands as a result of his unnecessary and mismanaged war is hardly a paradigm of moral virtue.

“Morality” is a concept that starts with the notion that there can be a good and bad or a right and wrong. Notions of “morality,” however, have changed over time and are different in different countries and religions.

In 17th century America, for example, those European settlers who smoked were denounced by Puritan moralists for their unclean habit that wasted time and presented a fire hazard to the community. 19th century moralists denounced women who strove to vote and own property independent of men. 20th century moralists denounced interracial marriage in terms frighteningly similar to the terms being used to denounce gay marriage, and only the Supreme Court opinion in Loving versus Virginia in 1967 allowed courageous interracially married couples to get married in any one of the fifty states.

According to a nationwide CNN exit poll of more than 13,600 voters on November 2 nd, “morality” was the highest-ranking influencing factor at the polls. However, a non-partisan Pew Research Center post-election survey found that the relative importance of so-called “moral values” depends greatly on how the question is framed.

The Pew post-election survey found that when “moral values” was pitted against issues such as the war in Iraq and terrorism, a plurality (27%) cited “moral values” as most important to their vote. When a separate group of voters was asked to name, in their own words, the most important factor in their vote, however, significantly fewer (14%) mentioned “moral values.”

The way the media frames questions and interprets results can skew news headlines in one direction or the other. Rather than focusing on “morals,” for example, one could look at the same data and create headlines on November 3 rd that say that voters were denouncing the Iraq war. After all, the vote was split almost 50:50 between Bush and Kerry, and while only 27% of Bush voters cited moral values as their principal issue, 39% of people voting for Kerry did so because of concerns about the Iraq war.

Asian Pacific Americans have a lot to fear in the way gays and lesbians were demonized in this past election under the guise of “morality” voting. The demonization of gays and lesbians we are seeing today may flow from heartfelt wishes to have marriage be defined as being between a man and a woman. But why is that issue being raised now, when the Bible has far more admonitions against poverty than against homosexuals? And if Biblical literalism is going to be the law of the land, are we next going to see the return of polygamy and death sentences handed out to adulterers and rebellious children?

The Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 and similar racist laws directed against Asian Pacific Americans because we were heathens and supposedly less than human did not happen in a vacuum. Losses of jobs and pensions, cutbacks in civil liberties, and coverups of official governmental failures have happened before in American history, and all too often they were accompanied by the official demonization of Asian Pacific Americans or some other group as a way to deflect attention from other issues.

President Bush tried to have it both ways during the election by saying that he supported gays as individuals but did nothing to stop the haters in his party who pushed for anti-gay legislation in 11 states and an Amendment to the federal Constitution. This behavior, which some might label as flip-flopping, shows an opportunistic view of morality that contradicts what his handlers styled as strong, principled leadership.

Attempts to label intolerance and Christian patriarchal values (as opposed to Christian charity-focused values) as “morality” must be stopped by Asian Pacific Americans and all Americans who value the pluralistic, tolerant, secular society that is the strength of this nation. We who are Buddhist, Hindu, Sikh, Muslim, Baha’i, atheist, agnostic, and even Christians who read the Bible as a book of brotherhood and sisterhood with other faiths cannot remain silent as our views of morality are devalued.

As a first line of defense against intolerance, I have joined the Human Rights Campaign, a group that supports civil rights for gays, and have pledged to friends involved in gay rights issues that I will do all I can to make sure this tidal wave of intolerance is stopped. I urge every straight person who values diversity and tolerance in America to do the same.

Phil Tajitsu Nash is CEO of CampaignAdvantage.com and co-author of "Winning Campaigns Online."

###