New Hampshire Isn’t Iowa, Thankfully

More (added Tue. night). Whatever you might think of Mitt Romney and Ron Paul, they’re not the blathering anti-gay bigots that Santorum is, and almost as bad, Gingrich and Perry. So the fact that Santorum, Gingrich, and Perry brought up the rear in New Hampshire is welcome news.

And I’d be very happy if the prime challenger to Romney turned out to be a libertarian-minded opponent of the anti-gay federal marriage amendment who refused to sign Maggie Gallagher’s odious anti-gay marriage pledge, and who defends letting openly gay servicemembers serve their country (yes, Ron Paul). He also understands, unlike Gingrich et al, that businesses in a competitive economy must sometimes be restructured (and yes, downsized) to remain profitable and avoid bankruptcy.

Regardless of Paul’s particular strengths and flaws, the best thing that could happen to the GOP (and the nation) would be the emergence of a strong and permanent libertarian wing to counter the pernicioius dominance of intrusive-government social conservatives.

(Original post)

The view from the Log Cabin Republicans:

“Final pre-primary polls out of New Hampshire show strong support for Jon Huntsman, Ron Paul and Mitt Romney. It is not a coincidence that these are also the candidates who demonstrated respect as elected officials for LGBT Americans and focused on economic rather than social issues,” said R. Clarke Cooper, Log Cabin Republicans Executive Director. “Governor Romney, despite his opposition to marriage, continues to stand by his support for nondiscrimination and said in Sunday’s debate that he would stand for ‘increasing gay rights.’ Congressman Paul has a long libertarian record that includes voting for the end of ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ and consistently opposing the Federal Marriage Amendment. Governor Jon Huntsman is rising quickly in the polls as voters respond to his pragmatic, commonsense conservative message, including his unapologetic support of civil unions.

Even candidates like Senator Rick Santorum are learning that his past antigay language is not going to keep him in the top-tier, while Gingrich and Perry, who have doubled-down on divisive rhetoric, are floundering. In the state which proudly proclaims, ‘live free or die,’ the path to victory is support for freedom for all.”

During Sunday’s debate in New Hampshire, Romney, who opposes marriage equality, tried to soften his image a bit (as Amanda Terkel relates at the Huffington Post), saying: “I oppose same-sex marriage and that has been my view,” but adding, “If people are looking for someone who will discriminate against gays or will in any way try and suggest that people — that have different sexual orientation don’t have full rights in this country, they won’t find that in me.”

He’s both for and against discriminating against gays.

Santorum, who uses much strongly language in opposing marriage equality (he says the “country will fall” as a result of same-sex marriage and that gays adopting children with cause societal “dysfunction”) nevertheless said, “I would be a voice in speaking out for making sure that every person in America, gay or straight, is treated with respect and dignity and has the equality of opportunity.”

Glad he cleared that up.

16 Comments for “New Hampshire Isn’t Iowa, Thankfully”

  1. posted by Tom Scharbach on

    I think LCR is fawning a bit ahead of the facts, Stephen.

    Were I them, I would be careful about getting too carried away with “respect and dignity” pledges from any of the Republican candidates, in light of their stated positions on LGBT issues:

    (1) Romney, Santorum, Perry and Gingrich have pledged support for the FMA. Huntsman has not taken a position, as far as I know. Paul opposes the FMA.
    (2) Romney, Santorum, Perry and Gingrich oppose marriage equality, marriage-equivalent civil unions, and domestic partnerships nationwide. Huntsman opposes marriage equality nationwide, but supports marriage-equivalent civil unions and domestic partnerships. Paul’s position isn’t entirely clear; it appears that he supports “free association” of same-sex couples so long as legal recognition is not involved.
    (3) Romney, Santorum, Perry, Huntsman and Gingrich oppose granting citizenship to married spouses of gay and lesbian Americans. Paul supports granting citizenship to married spouses of gay and lesbian Americans.
    (4) Romney, Santorum, Perry, Huntsman and Gingrich opposes DOMA repeal. Paul appears to support Section 2 of DoMA and his position on Section 3 is unclear.
    (5) Paul, Santorum, Perry, Huntsman and Gingrich oppose adoption by gays and lesbians. Romney has been ambiguous about whether he supports adoption by gays and lesbians.
    (6) Romney, Paul, Santorum, Perry, Huntsman and Gingrich oppose workplace equality legislation, both in government and in the private sector.
    (7) Romney and Huntsman have been ambiguous about whether they would reinstate DADT. Paul would not reinstate DADT. Santorum, Perry and Gingrich would reinstate DADT.
    (8) Romney, Paul, Santorum, Perry, Huntsman and Gingrich oppose extending pay and benefits equality to spouses and family of married service personnel.
    (9) Romney, Santorum, Perry and Gingrich have pledged to appoint “original intent” federal judges. Paul and Huntsman have not so pledged.
    (10) Romney has been ambiguous about whether he would remove federal court jurisdiction over “culture war” cases like the DOMA challenges and LCR’s DADT challenge. Huntsman has not taken a position, as far as I know. Paul sponsored bills in 2004 and 2005 to remove federal jurisdiction over DOMA, but otherwise hasn’t taken a position. Santorum and Perry would remove federal court jurisdiction over “culture war” cases. Gingrich would removed federal court jurisdiction over any constitutional challenge to a law passed by Congress and signed by the President.

    Looking at a local New Hampshire issue, Romney and Perry have endorsed the repeal of marriage equality bill that Republicans will introduce in New Hampshire next week. The others, as far as I know, have not spoken on this issue. The repeal bill is expected to pass handily in the Republican-controlled legislature, but Governor Lynch has promised to veto the bill. Good for Governor Lynch.

    The simple fact is this: It is almost certain that the Republican nominee, whoever he is, will support the FMA, oppose federal and state recognition of same-sex couples, oppose adoption by gays and lesbians, undermine equal service, appoint “original intent” judges primed to reverse the “privacy” cases from Griswold to Lawrence, and support efforts to limit the federal courts in constitutional cases.

    As an aside, Romney showed yet again what a slippery, unprincipled man he is in the debate on Saturday night, in his answer to the link between the “right of privacy” and contraception. Staunchly opposing the “right of privacy” line of cases, Romney claimed to be unaware that Griswold, the seminal case in the line, involved a state ban on contraceptives. I went to the University of Chicago law school, so I can’t vouch for the quality of legal teaching at Harvard, but I find it incredulous that a Harvard Law School graduate who claims to know enough about the “right of privacy” cases to have considered and to oppose the Supreme Court’s line of precedent would be unaware of Griswold, the case which every other case in the line cites.

    Gingrich has one thing right — Romney is full of pious baloney. Romney was as slippery as a greased pig, trying to win some points with social conservatives by making the right noises about Roe and Lawrence without tipping voters to the implications of his position. I’m glad Stephanopoulos pinned him on it.

  2. posted by Houndentenor on

    It sounds like all three are saying they would sign a bill adding gays to ENDA. Is that what they mean? Has anyone asked that question?

    • posted by Tom Scharbach on

      Mitt Romney is on record opposing ENDA since 2006. He earlier supported it, but changed his mind when he decided to run for President. LCR letter, 2006; Russert interview, 2007.

      Ron Paul has a consistent record of opposing ENDA.

      I don’t know Huntsman’s views.

      • posted by Houndentenor on

        So they really ARE for discrimination against gay people. Gotcha.

    • posted by BobN on

      Their intent is to sound good and be bad.

      • posted by Houndentenor on

        In other words, the latest version of “I’m for equal rights, not for special rights” while opposing equal rights.

  3. posted by Houndentenor on

    This is a tangent so I apologize in advance, but in anti-Roe arguments I often hear conservatives complain about the “right to privacy” argument on which that’s based. I wonder if they’ve stopped to consider what the consequences would be of overturning Griswald, not just in terms of access to contraceptives (I can’t imagine any state would ban them now) but in terms of what it would mean in an information age if our assumption that private information about financial and medical matters disappeared.

    • posted by Jorge on

      but in terms of what it would mean in an information age if our assumption that private information about financial and medical matters disappeared.

      You of course are talking about from government intrusion. HIPAA for example protects medical information from private parties. And from the government with some limits, too.

      But there isn’t a constitutional right to privacy for medical and financial information. For heaven’s sake, according to the O’Reilly Factor yesterday, Mitt Romney has his money in the Cayman Islands because US banks disclose information to private organizations. They do disclose to the government. The right to privacy as identified by Roe and Griswold is much more about the marital bedroom and issues of family planning, the deeply personal stuff. Nowhere in the constitution or even in the American legal tradition is there an expansive right to have your personal business secret from the government.

  4. posted by TomJeffersonIII on

    Well, maybe they are not opposed to privacy, as long as it is for them and their cultural-political allies. ;0)

  5. posted by Tom Scharbach on

    And I’d be very happy if the prime challenger to Romney turned out to be a libertarian-minded opponent of the anti-gay federal marriage amendment who refused to sign Maggie Gallagher’s odious anti-gay marriage pledge, and who defends letting openly gay servicemembers serve their country (yes, Ron Paul).

    Whoa, Nellie. As much as I don’t like Romney’s lack of principles, we ought to be wary of Paul’s principles.

    Paul is a champion of the We the People Act — he’s introduced it in several legislative sessions, most recently this session — which, in Paul’s own words, does this: “The Act forbids federal courts, including the Supreme Court, from adjudicating cases concerning State laws and polices relating to religious liberties or “privacy,” including cases involving sexual practices, sexual orientation or reproduction. The We the People Act also protects the traditional definition of marriage from judicial activism by ensuring the Supreme Court cannot abuse the equal protection clause to redefine marriage. In order to hold Federal judges accountable for abusing their powers, the act also provides that a judge who violates the act’s limitations on judicial power shall either be impeached by Congress or removed by the President, according to rules established by the Congress.

    In the words of the Act itself:

    The Supreme Court of the United States and each Federal court–
    (1) shall not adjudicate–
    (A) any claim involving the laws, regulations, or policies of any State or unit of local government relating to the free exercise or establishment of religion;
    (B) any claim based upon the right of privacy, including any such claim related to any issue of sexual practices, orientation, or reproduction; or
    (C) any claim based upon equal protection of the laws to the extent such claim is based upon the right to marry without regard to sex or sexual orientation; and
    (2) shall not rely on any judicial decision involving any issue referred to in paragraph (1).

    I know that may seem innocuous, and may, perhaps, even desireable, to “states rights” libertarian-leaners, but the Act would effectively gut our ability to bring any constitutional challenges to state laws affecting LGBT issues. The effect upon our struggle would be devastating.

    When Paul talks so loftily about “liberty”, what he means is that he objects to the federal government stomping all over us. He supports the rights of states to stomp us right back into the 1950’s.

    Stephen, the old adage of “be careful what you wish for” comes to mind. Paul is no champion of liberty.

    • posted by Houndentenor on

      I don’t think there’s much chance of Ron Paul getting nominated much less winning a general election.

      • posted by Tom Scharbach on

        So? President-Elect Romney has been silent on the issue, and it is popular among the social conservatives like the Traditional Values Coalition, which has been lobbying for the bill for the better part of a decade. Who knows whether he’ll cave on this issue, too, when Maggie jerks his leash? In any event, the “We the People Act” is dangerous, and Ron Paul should be called out on it.

        • posted by Houndentenor on

          Which Romney is running again? He’s had so many positions on so many issues none of us can say with any certainly what he’d be for or against as president.

  6. posted by spaniel on

    Houndentenor–you wrote that you can’t imagine a state banning contraceptives, but the proposed “Personhood Amendment” in Mississippi came close to doing just that. It defined personhood as taking place at the moment of fertilization. The birth control pill (like the IUD) does not prevent fertilization; instead it prevents implantation. Granted, the amendment failed in Mississippi, but it could theoretically pass somewhere else, and pro-life activists are going to do all they can to make sure it does.

    As for conservatives who insist that there is no right to privacy in the constitution–what do they think the fourth amendment is all about? By prohibiting unwarranted search and seizure, the amendment is implying (if not stating) that what people own and what they do in their homes is not the government’s concern, and that if the government wants to intrude, it had better have a damn good reason for doing so. If that amendment isn’t talking about privacy, then what is it talking about?

    • posted by Houndentenor on

      But the amendment in Mississippi failed and the birth control issue is the main reason why. Yes, I can imagine people proposing bills to ban contraceptives. People propose all kinds of things that never pass (most don’t even get out of committee or ever come up for a vote). What I can’t imagine is a state where a majority want to give up access to birth control.

  7. posted by TomjeffersonIII on

    Yeah, Congressman Paul basically has this idea that the 14th Amendment does not exist or does not mean what it plainly means. This is why he is frankly much more in common with say, the Constitution Party, as opposed to the Libertarian Party. Yet, he still gets to pretend to be a libertarian without anyone raising their hand and say, “um, no you are not.”

    One of the reasons that Constitution Party ‘paleo-conservatives’ want to ignore or abolish the 14th Amendment is because it give the Federal government the duty to limit State authority to ensure some minimum standards for things like equal protection and due process (privacy rights being among them).

Comments are closed.