I wasn't particularly impressed with this article. The conclusions seem like tautology: "conservatives want order, structure, and closure", etc. Attempts at quantification are feeble: "more than 90 percent of college students can identify where their political beliefs fit on a scale running from the “left” (liberal) to the “right” (conservative), and that their affiliations strongly influence how they vote in elections." This information has only recently been learned, we are told, courtesy of the "latest research."

At least the takeaway was amusing. He speaks of "a more tolerant society", but really the proposal seem to be: forgo actual dialogue and debate ("beating your head against the wall") in favor of just doing battle at the ballot box.

This "science" coverage comes to you courtesy of Imaginova, "the premier destination for the intellectually curious."

The Imaginova Network of advertiser-supported content web sites, led by LiveScience and Space.com, delivers original, engaging and entertaining editorial and multimedia content to a community of millions of engaged, curious and well-informed users. Imaginova markets innovative science products and high-tech gadgets directly to our community primarily via our eCommerce sites and catalog mailings.

Wacky stories sell telescopes!

Science and Nature this is not.

The researcher here is John Jost, an associate professor of Psychology at NYU. He describes his work:

The first goal is to understand how and why people provide cognitive and ideological support for the status quo, even when their support appears to conflict with personal and group interests. The second is to analyze the social and psychological consequences of supporting the status quo, especially for members of disadvantaged groups. Finally, I am interested in the underlying cognitive and motivational differences between liberals and conservatives.

An NYT article from February touches on this subject:

Mr. Jost did his own research on the red-blue divide. Using the Internet he and his collaborators gave personality tests to hundreds of thousands of Americans. He found states with people who scored high on “openness” were significantly more likely to have voted for the Democratic candidate in the past three elections, even after adjustments were made for income, ethnicity and population density. States that scored high on “conscientiousness” went Republican in the past three elections.

Instead, or as follow-up, check out the paper on genetics and ideology. (It's unclear why LiveScience has decided this is suddenly news. That study is from 2005. Blogs and the AP covered it 1-2 years ago. I suppose it's because the work pops up in discussions at conferences.)

But the intuition here feels thin:

To illustrate, he asked the audience at a recent lecture how many openly gay Floridians voted for George Bush in 2004.

The crowd guessed 5 or 10 percent.

Alford told them that one quarter of the group voted for Bush, a man opposed to gay marriage and perceived as less accepting of homosexuality than Kerry.

"I find it very difficult to reconcile that without believing there's a genetic basis for ideology."

Apparently no one bothered to ask what fraction of openly gay Floridians actually care about gay marriage, or whether George Bush personally "accepts" them for who they are.

This might strike some people as offensive, but ... in the US, the gay marriage issue is about energizing the Evangelical Christian base. Consider whether gay "marriage" is a top-of-platform issue in democracies with no appreciable bloc of Evangelical Christian voters.

Here's coverage from Nashville's own Baptist Press:

When French voters rejected Socialist Segolene Royal during the presidential election May 6, they also rejected a candidate who had vowed to introduce a bill that would legalize "gay marriage."

Conservative Nicolas Sarkozy of the Union for a Popular Movement party defeated Royal in a runoff, 53-47 percent. Although "gay marriage" wasn't a major issue in the campaign, it was an issue Royal broached last year in an interview with the homosexual publication Tetu.

"Opening up marriage to same-sex couples is needed in the name of equality, visibility and respect," Royal was quoted as saying. She also said, "It is essential that everybody has equal rights and dignities and the chance to express themselves freely."

In the interview she also supported adoption by same-sex couples, something that currently is illegal in France.

"Whether the parents are homosexual or heterosexual, adoption is above all a family project," she was quoted as saying. "From the moment a same-sex couple is recognised as a family, this family has the right to conceive of family projects."

Sarkozy opposes "gay marriage" and homosexual adoption.

At the time of Royal's comments, French Family Minister Philippe Bas backed the natural, traditional model of parenting.

Did they expect him to oppose it?

France24 provides a fuller (yet more concise) explanation:

Royal says she will legalise gay marriage and adoption. Sarkozy is against this, supporting the current system of civil unions.

RE: Political Preference Is Half Genetic - Yahoo! News