Worth noting, from the Washington Times:
Maryland Sen. Allan H. Kittleman has spent seven years honing his reputation as a fiscal conservative and Republican leader in the General Assembly, but he made waves this year by standing apart from party colleagues on one of the state’s most controversial social issues—same-sex marriage.
The Howard Republican was the only one of 55 Republican state legislators who spoke out in favor of a gay-marriage bill that passed the Senate but died in the House because of seemingly unanimous Republican opposition and resistance from nearly one-third of Democrats.
As in New York, the eventual passage of marriage equality will take at least a few Republicans. Too much deference by LGBT political organizations to the Democratic Party doesn’t help get us there.
27 Comments for “Taking a Stand in Maryland”
posted by esurience on
Mr. Miller,
How come you haven’t commented on CPAC kicking out GOProud? GOProud seems to show as much deference as possible to the GOP, rather than gay rights issues, and they still got kicked out of CPAC.
So what exactly should the strategy be? If GOProud is unwelcome in conservative circles, how the hell can you blame HRC and other organizations like that for not bothering to try?
The Republican party has a cancer inside of it which can only be excised by well-meaning Republicans from the inside. It’s not gonna get removed from outside. The only pressure we outsiders can apply is to try and defeat Republicans, thus hastening the change from within.
posted by jared on
CPAC is not the Republican party; it’s the far right of the party. To point to CPAC as if it were the GOP is not helpful.
GoProud made history by being a CPAC sponsor last year, and there was a big backlash. It won’t be invited back this year, but it’s lobbying for a spot the year after, or the year after that. Progress is not linear. If every setback was taken as permanent defeat, we’d be nowhere.
esurience seems to support making the gay rights movement an arm of the Democratic party. I would not be surprised to learn he’s a party operative. His strategy serves the interest of the party; it doesn’t serve the long-term interests of gay people, who need to build inroads in the GOP, even though nobody is saying that will be easy.
posted by Jimmy on
“CPAC is not the Republican party; it’s the far right of the party.”
It is also the part of the party that has the most influence in the primaries which will produce the 2012 GOP nominee. All the likely suspects support a bigoted amendment to the constitution.
Gay people already know what their long-term interests are, and who is more likely to share those interests. Mainstream LGBT are aligned with Democrats because they are center left and agree on many of the party platforms, and many of the issues facing Americans. I’d be happy to say I was an operative if I were. You should be an operative in the GOP and do the work you want others to do for you.
posted by Doug on
You appear to be an ideologically driven and angry as the Taliban. Time to lighten up a bit.
posted by Jorge on
On reflection, he also didn’t cover Ann Coutler becoming a member of GOProud’s advisory board. You haven’t nailed it yet, esurience.
posted by aj on
And that’s a bad thing because…
Oh, we don’t like her. She’s just one of the most influential conservatives in the country. Drat that GOProud for getting her support. But aren’t we also condemning conservatives who don’t support GOProud? Oh, I see, whether they support GOProud or don’t support GOProud, we attack them either way.
posted by Jimmy on
They deserve each other.
posted by Jorge on
And that’s a bad thing because…
Because it completely derails esurience’s complaint that Mr. Miller is not covering GAY NEWS.
posted by BobN on
The only thing GOProud got was her support for their adoration of her.
posted by Houndentenor on
There’s a blueprint for this from the recent NY victory.
1) GOP donors who are are socially progressive need to speak out to the voters on the fence.
2) Gay and Lesbian people, especially those in relationships who wish to marry immediately, need to make their case to their state representatives. Sometimes a personal approach is best. I have listened to interviews with a lesbian from Buffalo who could be a model for how to do this.
3) Rather that criticize the gay rights groups for being too focused on Democrats, certainly GOProud an LCR could take up this cause.
posted by BobN on
Speaking of taking a stand, I read recently that Karger was blocked from the FoxNews Republican debate because he didn’t meet their criteria. Leaving aside how Fox applied its rules or misapplied them, I was surprised to see that Karger got so little support in telephone and online polls. He hovered around 1%. Now, if you’re gay and GOP, why in the heck would you not pick him in a poll? Sure, he may be too “liberal” for you on fiscal matters or something, but Jesus Christ, it’s just a freaking poll! At this stage in the game, that “vote” means very little in the tussle for GOP nominee, but that “vote” for Karger could be game-changer for the GOP’s approach to gay rights. Imagine an openly gay challenger on stage with Bachmann and Santorum, etc.
Yet Karger can’t even get a third of the gay GOP poll responders to stand up for themselves.
Sad, pathetically sad.
posted by Mary on
You raise a good point,, but wouldn’t gay GOPers supporting the “gay candidate” effectively,…how to say this without using an offensive term…”ghettoize” them in the party? I think the strategy you’re advocating would probably cause hostility and negate whatever progress gays could make in becoming acceptable to other Republicans. Republicans already have an image of gay people as putting their sexual identity above all else in life (even if this image is a false one.) Wouldn’t supporting someone who has no chance to win but is “one of their own” only confirm the stereotype? It might be different if there was a candidate who was well-know and relatively popular but considered hard to nominate due to his gayness. I think what would be needed for gays to make progress in the Republican party would be for more Republicans to become socially liberal. Then gay rights within the party would progress naturally over time.
posted by BobN on
As I said, it’s just a poll. If Karger got 2% instead of 1%, no one would know why. There’d be no basis for that “backlash” you’re talking about.
But I have to wonder, how do you think gay Dems got Dem politicians to get on board? At some point, you’ve to to start supporting the candidates who support you. It’s not Karger’s fault that he’s the only GOP candidate who supports gay people.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Generally, it’s because gays and lesbians a) are amazingly good at keeping themselves on the plantation, b) spectacular at attacking and trying to destroy anyone who leaves the plantation, and c) come at virtually no cost.
I mean, seriously. Where else could one find a minority group as willing to beclown themselves as gays and lesbians are? Gays and lesbians like BobN are shrieking that anyone who opposes gay-sex marriage wants to murder all gays and lesbians one minute, then endorsing and supporting FMA supporters as pro-gay and gay-friendly the next. Reverend Al and Jesse Jackson are jealous of how easily manipulated gays and lesbians are.
posted by BobN on
I mean, seriously. Where else could one find a minority group as willing to beclown themselves as gays and lesbians are?
Yeah, ND, between the two of us, I’m the one with the enormous red shoes. Beclown, indeed.
Though I think you’ve demonstrated why Karger can’t even get on the debate stage. GOP gays, like yourself, are so intent on proving your allegiance to the social conservatives that you can’t summon up the courage to be pro-gay in a freakin’ anonymous poll.
[You may disregard that last paragraph. I was doing a bit of role-switching. Thought I’d give your schtick a go. Not satisfying at all. Can’t imagine why it’s all you do.]
posted by Jorge on
I’ve never even heard of him.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Speaking of taking a stand, I read recently that Karger was blocked from the FoxNews Republican debate because he didn’t meet their criteria.
Mainly the one requiring you to actually be a Republican.
Now we know, BobN, you and your fellow gay-sex liberals scream and cry and whine and insist that we must, MUST pick gays and lesbians in every case and not worry about their credentials or what they believe; if people in fact judge on character rather than on sexual orientation, you and your fellow gay-sex liberals call them homophobes.
But if one actually enters the world of homophobia and judges Karger based on his character, what becomes obvious is that he is an Obama Party puppet through and through — racist, heterophobic, anti-business, anti-religious, and owned and operated by the Gill Foundation.
If Republicans wanted those characteristics, they would be Obama Party members. Since they don’t, why would you expect them to support Karger? That would be making a judgment based on sexual orientation rather than on character.
posted by BobN on
Mainly the one requiring you to actually be a Republican.
In what way is he not a Republican? He’s enough of one that I’ll would never vote for him. Surely that’s enough for you to at least refrain from insulting him.
posted by Houndentenor on
Silly BobN, everyone knows that if you are for gay rights of any kind that automatically makes you a RINO.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
As in New York, the eventual passage of marriage equality will take at least a few Republicans. Too much deference by LGBT political organizations to the Democratic Party doesn’t help get us there.
Granted. But, similarly, deference by conservative gays and lesbians to anti-equality politicians in the Republican Party moves us in the wrong direction. It is a bit much for conservative gays and lesbians to complain about “LGBT political organizations” while supporting politicians who signed the NOM pledge.
posted by Houndentenor on
What it takes is for socially progressive Republican voters and donors to speak directly to the representatives who are on the fence. I don’t see a lot of it. Maybe it’s happening out of view (which is fine) but what I hear online is a lot of blaming the gay groups for being too allied with the Democrats as if they are welcome in Republican circles. GOProud and LCR should be more than capable of swinging a handful of Republicans in these matters. The margin is usually close enough that less than half a dozen will do. Stop blaming and do what your organization claims it’s there to do.
posted by BobN on
You’d think, that in response to the NOM pledge, there’d be a GOProud pledge — besides swearing eternal devotion to Ms. Coulter.
posted by Jorge on
Hmm……
We’ll see if that holds up on a case-by-case basis. So far I’m not concerned.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
We’ll see if that holds up on a case-by-case basis. So far I’m not concerned.
I’m not sure what the “that” refers to Jorge, but I take Republican anti-equality pledges seriously, and I think you should, too, given the history of anti-marriage amendments and anti-equality legislation spearheaded by Republican politicians in response to the social conservative base over the last decade.
Among other things, the pledge commits the candidates who signed it to: (1) support the FMA; (2) defend DOMA; (3) overturn DC’s existing marriage law; and (4) appoint a presidential commission to “investigate harassment of traditional marriage supporters”.
Which part of the pledge aren’t you concerned about?
Conservative gays and lesbians have been trying to “ride the tiger” for years now. It hasn’t been working out. Its time to consider getting off the tiger and start fighting for equality.
posted by Jorge on
I’m not sure what the “that” refers to Jorge
It refers to your statements that “deference by conservative gays and lesbians to anti-equality politicians in the Republican Party moves us in the wrong direction” and “It is a bit much for conservative gays and lesbians to complain about “LGBT political organizations” while supporting politicians who signed the NOM pledge.”
For example, George W. Bush merits support conservative gays. Though perhaps not deference: the non-endorsement by the Log Cabin Republicans was well-deserved.
Which part of the pledge aren’t you concerned about?
I support legal recognition of gay marriage, but don’t care all that much what politicans think about it. Uh, let’s see, I think the point for me was looking at an aggragate of how supportive or hostile politicians are toward gays, perhaps even gay rights.
Conservative gays and lesbians have been trying to “ride the tiger” for years now.
I object to your characterization of the Republican party and its social conservative base as a tiger and to conservative gays and lesbians’ interaction with them as trying to ride anything.
An opposition is an opposition. Neutrality is neutrality.
posted by BobN on
For example, George W. Bush merits support conservative gays. Though perhaps not deference: the non-endorsement by the Log Cabin Republicans was well-deserved.
For taking two weeks to decide whether to extend or reverse Clinton’s workplace protections for gay federal workers in the executive branch? Wow. Low bar. LOW BAR, even for Bush.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Tom: Conservative gays and lesbians have been trying to “ride the tiger” for years now.
Jorge: I object to your characterization of the Republican party and its social conservative base as a tiger and to conservative gays and lesbians’ interaction with them as trying to ride anything.
Oh, nonsense, Jorge. “Ride the tiger” is an allusion to a Jack Kennedy’s 1961 inaugural address, itself a twist on the old proverb: “To those new states whom we welcome to the ranks of the free, we pledge our word that one form of colonial control shall not have passed away merely to be replaced by a far more iron tyranny. We shall not always expect to find them supporting our view. But we shall always hope to find them strongly supporting their own freedom — and to remember that, in the past, those who foolishly sought power by riding the back of the tiger ended up inside.”
It was a warning to the developing nations about the dangers of replacing colonial oppression with home-grown oppression.
I’d say” ride the tiger” is apt. Republican politicians exploited social conservative animus toward gays and lesbians for short-term political gain during the last decade and a half, and now find themselves trapped inside the belly of the beast, with a field of candidates who are espousing an increasingly radical, out-of-touch social conservative agenda while the rest of the county changes around them.
An opposition is an opposition. Neutrality is neutrality.
If you are suggesting that the Republican Party’s politics of the last decade and a half have been “neutral” with respect to gays and lesbians, I’d suggest you look more closely.