Why do the right keep doing bills like this, why is the new Repubican Congress making its first bills social issues instead of the promised 'totally about jobs'?
One reason: because it gets them votes they desperately need, to get power for their real agenda of economic concentration and exploitation.
If we had a sub-culture of people who wanted legal nudity, or a national Ayn Rand holiday, or saying high heels are immoral, we'd see the same types push those.
It's really simple, there are experts who design political messages, who poll and say 'what will people vote for'. If the answer comes up, 'well, Democrats oppose you for your economic agenda, obviously you aren't going to change that, but fundamentalists are craving people who will push their agenda', then you get that.
And of course, to get those votes, you don't want it to cost you with the larger public, so you have Eric Cantor out saying for the nation 'everything Republican do will be for jobs' which is the issue pollsters say will determine the next election - so you say are trying to do that - even while you have a conflict of interest that a good economy will help re-elect Obama, so maybe you pursue policies that will hurt the economy for most while helping the rich, under the guise of supporting foolish polices you CLAIM will help the people - like 'trickle down economics', where liberals might scream you're wrong, but you already knew that, it was the plan, you just needed something to SAY you are trying to help the people for votes. And then you do a lot of fundamentalist or other pandering things that members can use in their specific campaigns.
As long as the people who push these bills can get votes by saying 'we tried, so vote for us not those gay-loving liberals', they not only have no real reason to care they don't pass, it's probably better for them that they don't - so they can keep re-using the issue election after election, and don't create injustices that are rallying cries for the people who oppose injustice.
Because it's not about the issues - the gay haters are pawns to milk for votes by pandering to bigotry, the gays are pawns to take rights from to get votes - it's just about getting the votes to get power to pursue economic exploitation agenda, i.e., to give more to the rich.
(As I've said, there are two main types of Dems - progressives who do try to do the right thing on such issues, and power-chasing Dems who 'compromise', trying to get the votes of people turned off by some of the right's behavior, but still in bed with the powerful when it helps them, I might call them 'phony Democrats', people who might pick their party based on which is best for them to get elected.)
So while many Iowans might views these Republicans as 'crazies', it's all just part of the way they get elected, pandering to the groups who don't care or understand about the real agenda they have of the economic exploitation, serving the rich as their real agenda. And it works quite a lot.
It didn't used to; before Reagan, there wasn't really a political 'religious right' nor a Republican pandering to them - and between that, and the south not being pandered to on race and recruited to the Republican party, and without the right-wing media infrastructure like propaganda things tanks and Fox news, Democrats won a lot more elections. Now, Republican are more effective in politics with those things. They can lie about war, cause economic crisis, and still get elected.
Sadly, in part this is how Democracy is partly supposed to work - while they do a lot of manipulation, the bottom line is that if we have a lot of people who are misguided, don't care about and can't be bothered to learn the economic issues, who will trade their vote for pandering on fundamentalist issues, then they deserve the bad government.
A real danger is that people come to not really support Democracy at all - the 'why bother to vote, doesn't matter who gets elected' crowd - and that's the real victory for the wealthy, to finally rid themselves of 'the people' who need all this expensive pandering. It's not too feasible to do that anytime soon, but at some point, it becomes possible, despite the US thinking it's immune to what so many countries have happen. But there's no need to attack democracy, when it can be corrupted.
Could the public withstand the sort of techniques used in other countries to block democracy - when the business class shut down the Venezuelan economy for months trying to pressure the public to get rid of the President, when a Pinochet makes it known anyone who pushes for democracy will get tortured, 'disappeared'? I don't think so, and luckily it seems unlikely - but in part because people freely give these classes what they want.
If we held an election for who would run Treasury, and Goldman Sachs was one candidate, would the public really elect them? Of course not, but they tolerate it.
It's driven the country to financial ruin - but the reaction won't be one that helps, it'll be one designed by the same interests, who ensures the public pays the price.
It's build an America even better for the rich, one in which the public has less wealth, and is cheaper labor - thanks in part to the people who vote for these Republicans, who pander to fundamentalists and get the votes. Our forum here is filled with people duped by the same thing, even if not many back the fundamentalist agenda, they support the same people for misguided reasons.
In short, the corrupt have gotten better at politics, and are winning. The faction who could help, the progressives, have a hard fight against the corrupt wealth.
So, let's just fix it? Hardly, with the unlimited corporate donations now a 'constituional right', thanks to the corrupt Justices the right appointed.
While you're at it why don't you try the old "we didn't get our message out" BS 
Facebook
Twitter