Quote:
I was just going to say. Didn't the Massachusetts thing happen before SF? And Vermont before them?



Actually, I think that perception here is more relevant than fact. Although Massachusetts is perceived in the breadbasket of America as a center of "Liberals," San Francisco is always thought of as Gay World Headquarters. Actually, even among the more broad-minded, since the 70's (or earlier), San Francisco has been a bit of a mecca for gay people who want to live in a society that won't just tolerate, but will embrace, their behavior and lifestyle. Granted, as tolerance has grown in recent decades, particularly around many other "gay enclaves" in this country, the view of San Francisco as the only gay paradise has become rather dated.(*)

However, in the minds of a surprising number of people in mid-America, the phrase "he lives in San Francisco" equals "he is gay." So while "liberal senator from Massachusetts" makes a good all-around anti-liberal punching bag, you really need a target from San Francisco to personify "the gay agenda."
You can imagine the Seinfeld-esque reference to be extended to something like, "you know he seemed like such a nice boy but, you know, mid-30's, neat, single, lives in San Francisco...."

A surprising number of tourists are a bit surprised, on first visiting San Francisco, that the rainbow flags, public displays of affection, and various other trappings of "gay San Francisco" are for the most part concentrated in a single neighborhood and that most San Francisco dwellers are in fact straight.


(*) I am not gay, and would not presume to speak for "all gay people" even if I were. So a lot of my perception of the "mecca" issue comes from a PBS program I saw where they interviewed various gay people from Alabama, Kansas, etc. who said it was always their dream to move to San Francisco, and they finally had. Probably a biased sample, though, since I think they only interviewed people who had moved to San Francisco, and not the millions who hadn't.