updated 10/20/12
As of middish October, the presidential and Senate-majority races remain too close to call, although there is wide consensus that the House should remain in GOP hands. If Obama wins and the Democrats retain the Senate, little will change with regard to LGBT issues—there will be supportive rhetoric, including advocacy for the repeal of the section of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) barring the federal government from extending benefits to same-sex couples—and perhaps some additional federal agency-controlled policies will be made friendlier to same-sex couples.
What if Romney wins and the GOP takes the Senate? The White House will voice its opposition to the Supreme Court overturning any part of DOMA, and federal agencies might seek some retrenchment on their policies that were helpful to gay couples. But Romney has indicated he won’t overturn the repeal of the military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” ban on openly gay servicememebers. And so the fight for gay legal equality will focus on federal and state courts, and state legislatures.
But there is reason to expect that the GOP will continue a slow evolution on gay issues, evidenced by the fact that opposition to same-sex marriage, while in the GOP party platform, has not been a rallying cry of the Romney campaign, as Politico noted in GOP steers clear of gay marriage issue.
And, as the Cato Institute’s David Boaz points out, there is increasing evidence that opposition to marriage equality isn’t going to be a winning issue for Republicans going forward. Recent polls shows that majorities of voters in red/blue swing states now say they back gay marriage, of which Boaz comments, “No wonder Romney isn’t talking about it.”
Like the Canadian and British conservative parties, eventually the GOP will recognize it can distinguish itself ideologically as the party that’s more fiscally conservative and pro-free-enterprise / economic growth, while maintaining opposition to the Democratic party’s support for taxpayer-funded abortion on demand up to delivery and the forcing of religiously affiliated employers to provide free contraceptives and abortifacient drugs to their female employees (i.e., the Democrats’ “war on women” big lie), while supporting marriage for all couples on traditionally conservative grounds (as the leadership of the British Conservative party is doing), or, initially at least, pull back and not take a strong position (as the Canadian Conservative party appears to be doing).
Of course, national and local LGBT lobbies refusing to endorse, or actively working to defeat, GOP candidates who would take the party in this direction isn’t helping (but then, it isn’t meant to).
More. Examples of the above: GOP House candidates Richard Tisei in Massachusetts and Nan Hayworth in New York, and Senate candidates Scott Brown in Massachusetts (who is being vigorously opposed by the once-nonpartisan Human Rights Campaign) and Linda McMahon in Connecticut.
Furthermore. Yes, I should also have mentioned Romney’s support for the anti-gay Federal Marriage Amendment—the position most likely to keep many gay Republicans from backing him. It’s indefensible, and a pullback from John McCain, even if he’s unlikely to push it (for reasons indicated above, plus his silence about it since securing the nomination). Moreover, even if the GOP takes control of the Senate, it would be far from having the necessary two-thirds majority to send such an amendment to the states. I’m not defending Romney, but these are facts as well.
Debate Update. Gay issues remain absent from the presidential debates, but the Washington Blade takes note that:
Mitt Romney brought up his belief in marriage as a means to reduce the culture of violence in response to a question about banning assault weapons, saying “we need moms and dads helping raise kids” and espousing “the benefit of having two parents in the home.” …
Romney never explicitly said he was excluding opposite-sex couples when touting the importance of a “two-parent family” as the correct way to raise children, but didn’t take the opportunity to say that marriage should be between one man, one woman.
More still. Paul Ryan says that reinstating Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell would be “a step in the wrong direction” and that “this issue is past us.”
Comments blogger and attorney Doug Mataconis, “Now that we’ve lived with repeal for a year, and it’s clear that, as predicted, there are no adverse consequences to letting gays and lesbians serve openly…the GOP wants to put this issue behind them and move on. Eventually, I predict, they’ll be doing the same thing with regard to same-sex marriage.”
It’s worth recalling that Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) is the unsung heroine of DADT repeal, exposing and confronting Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) as he was quietly sabotaging the repeal effort.
40 Comments for “So, What If?”
posted by Tom Scharbach on
You are ignoring the most critical fact relevant to the struggle for equality under the law: The next President will almost certainly appoint two, and possibly three, Supreme Court justices.
President Obama has made two appointments, so we have a good idea about the type of Justices he will appoint.
Governor Romney has no track record, but he identified Justices Scalia, Thomas, Alito and Roberts as the kind of Justices he would appoint, and pledged, in writing, to appoint “original intent” Justices if elected. I recognize that what President Romney has said and pledged may well not govern his actions, but I think that we should consider taking him at his word.
A Loving case will be decided by the Supreme Court, sooner or later, most likely in the 2022-2025 range. The next President’s appointments may well determine the outcome.
posted by Houndentenor on
Let’s look at this.
Bush got away with keeping the religious right at arm’s length most of the time. While it might seem to many liberals that W represented the far right of his party, the reality is that social conservatives were often frustrated with his lack of action on the marriage amendment and his compromise on stem cell research (to name two controversial issues). They had the White House and Congress and still couldn’t get their agenda passed. But there was no revolt against Bush because the religious right saw Bush as one of them.
That crowd does not feel that way about Romney. They are supporting him over the alternative but Fundamentalist Christians do not believe Mormons are true Christians. (Liberty University even teaches a class on why Mormons and many other groups are not true Christians). They don’t trust Romney and for that reason Romney is going to feel far more pressure from social conservatives to act on their agenda. Bush could brush them aside and know they’d still support him. Romney cannot make such an assumption.
Of course I could be wrong. Romney has taken multiple positions on so many issues it’s impossible to predict which one he was take on any given day. It is possible that he might not be that bad as president on gay issues. Or he might be horrible. Personally I’d rather not roll the dice. And as you point out, the SCOTUS appointments will be very important on our issues and a court stacked against us (see Scalia’s recent remarks on sodomy laws) could create problems for years to come.
I find it sad that the gay right’s strategy is to support people who are anti-gay and then hope they aren’t really as anti-gay as they say they are. I find that bizarre.
And finally (for the umpteenth time now) your sniping about HRC is ridiculous. HRC is irrelevant. They don’t deliver any votes with their endorsements and never have. It’s a pointless organization. They have nothing to show for years of work and millions of dollars spent. Your time would be better spent working with pro-gay legislators through LCR or gaining influence through the more libertarian and other non-social-conservative parts of the GOP. But really, HRC is a big waste of time. I have no idea why so many gay conservatives are so obsessed with it. None.
posted by Mark on
Scott Brown–a man who continues to oppose equal marriage rights (including even the repeal of DOMA Section 3) in a state where his gay and lesbian constituents have had the right to marry for nearly a decade–is your example of a Republican senator unfairly targeted by gay rights groups? Really?
posted by another steve on
From the Boston Spirit (an LGBT paper):
“Scott Brown believes gay marriage is settled law in Massachusetts and it’s time to move on to issues like jobs and the economy. He opposes a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and woman.”
posted by Mark on
Where in that carefully worded statement is an acknowledgement that Brown’s opposition to equal marriage rights (he voted against marriage in the state legislature) has changed? Saying something that you oppose is “settled law” doesn’t mean that you still don’t oppose it. It just means that you’ve acknowledged that the majority doesn’t support your position.
And, of course, Brown’s refusal to support efforts (legal or political) to overturn DOMA Sec. 3 means that his constituents’ marriages that he opposed in the state legislature still don’t have full equal rights.
Again: that’s the sort of Republican Stephen is outraged a gay rights group would oppose?
posted by Houndentenor on
If a Democrat had the same position and record they’d be all over him saying that he wasn’t that good on gay rights so why support him? Again, different standards for Democrats than they have for Republicans.
posted by Carl on
Scott Brown also wants Supreme Court justices who are similar to Scalia.
http://www.boston.com/politicalintelligence/2012/10/02/democrats-pile-scott-brown-after-names-antonin-scalia-first-list-model-justices/Qu39gBdsYDaTBfPGO4oSTK/story.html
The same Scalia who says outlawing sodomy is a no brainer.
http://www.businessinsider.com/scalia-says-homosexual-sodomy-was-criminal-2012-10
posted by Tom Scharbach on
But there is reason to expect that the GOP will continue a slow evolution on gay issues, evidenced by the fact that opposition to same-sex marriage, while in the GOP party platform, has not been a rallying cry of the Romney campaign, as Politico noted in GOP steers clear of gay marriage issue.
I thought about this while I was at a meeting. I think that the fact that Romney-Ryan have been somewhat muted on marriage equality is evidence of political cunning more than it is evidence of any “evolution” in their thinking on the issue.
Almost all politicians lay quiet on unpopular positions in close elections when the positions work against them. The marriage equality “wedge”, if anything, has turned against Republicans and they’ve gone quiet on us. That doesn’t mean they’ve “evolved”.
And, to be honest, Romney-Ryan has been muted but not mute. For example, here’s what Ryan had to say earlier this month:
That’s pretty clear, isn’t it?
posted by Houndentenor on
That’s hilarious since Romney’s grandfather had 12 wives.
And a question I’ve been wanting to ask for some time: Romney’s father ran for president (but didn’t get the nomination). He was born in Mexico. Wasn’t that an issue at the time?
posted by Tom Scharbach on
[Romney’s father] was born in Mexico. Wasn’t that an issue at the time?
No, it wasn’t. George Romney was born of parents who were American citizens. He was an American citizen. It was no more an issue than it was with John McCain, who was born in Panama.
posted by Houndentenor on
Oh, right. I forgot. Romney was white so his citizenship was never questioned.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
“It’s worth recalling that Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) is the unsung heroine of DADT repeal …”
Susan Collins has been a consistent supporter of equality, although she will not take a position on the Maine marriage equality initiative, which is disappointing.
But otherwise, she’s had a good record, voting for hate crimes legislation, sponsoring ENDA, voting against the FMA, sponsoring UAFA, and so on.
Oh, and Stephen, Collins has been consistently endorsed by the HRC over the years, most recently in 2008, her latest run for the Senate. As was Maine’s retiring Republican Senator, Olympia Snowe. Not to toss sand under your wheels or anything.
posted by dc on
Steve Miller. All of your posts say the SAME EXACT THING EVERY TIME. All Steve Miller does is repeat the same narrative over and over again. This site used to be interesting, but now it’s just plain boring. And so is the gay marriage “debate.” Intellectual stagnation seems to be the new American normal.
posted by another steve on
And yet you keep returning to a blog you find “boring” and “intellectually stagnant”?
And where is YOUR blog, with exciting and intellectually stimulating observations (all about how progressives are morally superior, and once those who are better than everyone else — like you and your set — maximize control over the all-inclusive state, how much better things will be!).
posted by Houndentenor on
Again with the strawman arguments. No one here said anything like what you posted.
posted by Priya on
To those who are enamored with the free makret approach to health care access I say why not go all the way then? Let me posit the following scenario: The year is 2010, in response to not very widespread complaints that some people in America might actually be getting something for nothing, Congress springs into action. At the end of a grueling session, and in a remarkable display of bipartisanship, they emerge with the Healthcare Ultimate Responsibility Law (HURL). The legislation rescinds the long existing federal mandate that hospitals provide free care to those in need, and dismantles Medicare. It also abolishes all private health insurance, as some policy holders have been consuming a disproportionate amount of medical care in excess of what their premiums would have covered. Prior to leaving for his weekly salon session / hunting trip, President Britt Momley signs the bill into law, pronouncing it “…the final solution to the free rider problem…” Vice President Johann Moneygrubber and Secretary of Wealth and Inhumane Disservices Don Clydesdale look on in awe. Finally, free makret forces will determine the delivery of health services. Anyone wishing to see a doctor will be required to have cash on the barrelhead. Everyone’s net worth can be immediately ascertained by reading the RFID chip embedded at the base of their necks. Fools desperate enough to show up on the steps of medical institutions seeking care with no means to pay are strapped to gurneys in five point restraints and promptly, but cheaply, euthanized. Since these freeloaders would obviously have no means to pay for burial services, their useful tissues and organs are harvested to provide spare parts for the paying customers and luminaries like Paris Hilton and former Vice President Dick Cheney. The remainder of the body is burned on the premises to provide heat for the hot tubs on the liposuction unit. Many panicked Americans seeking treatment flee to the Canadian and Mexican borders only to be turned back by immigration authorities. They die in droves, providing the few remaining U.S. medical schools with a steady stream of anatomical specimens. There is not much need for doctors, with such a limited patient pool, the U.S. actually becomes the world’s largest exporter of trained physicians, and the nursing shortage that loomed so large in the early part of the decade has been resolved overnight. Surplus cadavers are collected by companies BFI and Waste Management, Inc, who in true entrepreneurial spirit have expanded their recycling operations to include corpses. No sense in burying the wretches, that’s just a waste of prime real estate! Instead, bodies are trucked off to mass incinerators where they provide the fuel to run industry. At last, a cheap source of renewable energy. Yes, it’s a new day in America, and no one is on the public dole!
posted by Jorge on
What if Romney wins and the GOP takes the Senate? The White House will voice its opposition to the Supreme Court overturning any part of DOMA
It will also voice its support for the Federal Marriage Amendment.
But there is reason to expect that the GOP will continue a slow evolution on gay issues, evidenced by the fact that opposition to same-sex marriage, while in the GOP party platform, has not been a rallying cry of the Romney campaign, as Politico noted in GOP steers clear of gay marriage issue.
I think that’s a far cry from the evidence that was available in the 2000 campaign, for which you could cite the candidates themselves a little better. Maybe it was because homosexuality was asked about more then (I wouldn’t remember), perhaps I’m being unfair. But it seems to me that, at a minimum, there is less unity in the party on gay issues and the extent to which they were fair game than there was in 2000.
posted by Don on
I see no evidence that American conservatives will become more like their counterparts around the world. Religion exists in all those countries but not like we have here. The religious right is an exclusive creature here. Handfuls have tried to replicate it in England and elsewhere but to no avail. I see no movement on gay rights until the power of the religious right is diminished. I would says more than half of the republicans in washington would vote for full gay marriage in the morning if it were electorally beneficial to them. Few are actual religious nut jobs themselves. Want them to act like the Tories? Remove the massive reactionary religious coalition that the Tories don’t have to contend with. Easier said than done.
And I do believe that the religious nuts are doing the job themselves. The more they attack birth control pills, support transvaginal ultrasounds for “sluts” who want an abortion a week, and their anti-gay rhetoric gets weirder and weirder, their power wanes. I believe they can only kill themselves from the inside.
posted by Doug on
” it would be far from having the necessary two-thirds majority to send such an amendment to the states”
Yes Stephen it would be the Democratic Party that would keep your president, Romney, and your party, Republican, from making you a second class citizen.
I would be rolling on the floor laughing if I wasn’t sick to my stomach.
posted by Mark on
It’s worth noting, regarding Stephen’s coda, that Romney also has committed to creating a presidential commission to investigate alleged instances of harassment against opponents of marriage equality, and putting the right of DC gay and lesbian couples to wed up to a plebiscite. Neither of those initiatives would require the votes of the pro-gay Democrats that so vex Stephen, and therefore almost certainly would be adopted.
posted by Houndentenor on
About the addendum…that Romney is saying he’s for something he’s actually against, or vice versa (it’s so hard to keep track of Money Boo Boo’s latest flip-flops) is hardly an endorsement. And personally I think pandering to the anti-gay crowd when you don’t really mean it is no better than actually being part of that crowd.
posted by Carl on
Do you remember how we used to hear that President Bush had gay friends, did not discriminate, etc.?
I don’t think we ever hear this about Romney, or Paul Ryan. Why? I’m guessing it’s because even if they do feel this way (I have no idea if they do), no one wants to offend the social conservatives who dominate the party.
We are basically looking at 4-8 years of a president who is constantly afraid of the religious right and has spent considerable time and effort running his campaign for them. That means anything is on the table, including rights that we often take for granted now.
Yet we’re probably still going to keep circling back to “if we were nice/kind/polite/patient enough, Republicans would be our friends.”
posted by JohnInCA on
… is no one going to call Miller on the blatant abortion lie there? I mean, I know it’s kinda irrelevant to his point (“Vote Republican! They’ll probably be ineffective at fulfilling their promises!”) but it’s still pretty, y’know… blatantly untrue.
posted by another steve on
Obamacare provides funding for abortion — did you miss the big debate over that? The federal government funds Planned Parenthood, the nation’s largest abortion provider. The Democratic Party platform states the party is against any restriction on abortion. I could go on, but what’s the point.
posted by Houndentenor on
Actually, abortion is a small percentage of what Planned Parenthood does. If you are for reducing the number of abortions, then it makes sense for more women to have access to birth control and ob/gyn care. I know plenty of women who at one time or another went to PP because it was the only way they could afford to see a ob/gyn.
And NO the Democratic Platform is not for NO restrictions on abortion. There are plenty of restrictions on abortion (especially about how late in the pregnancy you can have one). That’s just a lie. Stop lying and distorting other people’s positions.
posted by another steve on
From the Platform:
“The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade and a woman’s right to make decisions regarding her pregnancy, including a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay. We oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right.”
posted by Tom Scharbach on
“The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade and a woman’s right to make decisions regarding her pregnancy, including a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay. We oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right.”
Exactly. Roe v. Wade allowed government to impose restrictions on abortion after viability. Roe’s progeny has allowed states to impose numerous restrictions. The “right to make decisions regarding her pregnancy” is not now and never has been unrestricted.
The Democratic Party platform states the party is against any restriction on abortion.
That is just plain wrong.
I could go on, but what’s the point.
If you start with a false premise, and then draw an unsupported conclusion, there is no point. And that’s where you are.
posted by Ralph on
Mike,Why this concentration on the reach out for the Black vote. If you ralely look at it the Republican Party can’t lay claim to the Jewish vote, the Hispanic vote, the Asian vote or the women’s vote. All of these “groups” vote more for democrats. The Civil Rights Act made corporations look at their hiring practices and make changes in policy. I would venture to say that these corporations are better off because of those changes in hiring practices and policies. Now I am not one to say the Republican party is all wrong in their policies but if the Republican party is to “reach out to all voters, regardless of race” then maybe it should ralely sit back and do a little self-examination and evaluation.Black in America Baby……..The revolution has been televised…..
posted by JohnInCA on
“taxpayer-funded abortion on demand up to delivery” has been solidly off the table for a long time. The cut-off federally is viability and no one is arguing against that. Saying that Democrats want such is, quite simply, a lie.
posted by Jorge on
(for reasons indicated above, plus his silence about it since securing the nomination).
Only because he hasn’t been asked about it. If he hadn’t been asked directly about his pro-gay rights run against Ted Kennedy in the ’90s, he would have never had said he’s for gay rights.
Which is absolute loopy madness. I should have been wasting my money on the guy who actually used to run on gay rights since we all knew he was going to win the primary. Instead the only person who said anything nice about gays on his own was the far-right cook of a google problem who had no chance of winning. Okay, rant over.
Romney almost never backs away from his positions no matter many times he flip-flops; the only time he ever has is that 47% comment.
I don’t find his position inexcusable, but I’d feel a lot better about it if he spoke more about activist judges and less about “Yes, I really support the FMA!” Naked pandering.
Moreover, even if the GOP takes control of the Senate, it would be far from having the necessary two-thirds majority to send such an amendment to the states. I’m not defending Romney, but these are facts as well.
That’s not really the point. This is:
Do you remember how we used to hear that President Bush had gay friends, did not discriminate, etc.?
We need all the help we can get, whereever we can get it, to make society more safe and livable (I respect that most people on this site disagree with me). We’re getting very little if any help from Romney.
posted by Doug on
Never backs away from his positions? Give me a break, that’s basically the definition of flip flopping, backing away from positions.
posted by Jorge on
Mitt Romney has a talent in debates where, whenever you attack him on his weaknesses, he embraces them and charges ahead proudly. Sometimes he even does this before he’s attacked. Even when you ask him about issues he’s reversed himself on, he never backs away from even his earlier positions. He defends them and explains why he changed his mind; somehow it bolsters his current position or attack, because in those moments he transcends being a cardboard ideologue and channels pragmatism. He’s even learned how to do this on Romneycare. I have never, ever seen him admit in a debate that he’s ever made a mistake on a position he’s taken–only on the 47% remark (and thanks to Obama that retreat didn’t happen during a debate).
posted by Tom Scharbach on
That’s not really the point. This is:
We need all the help we can get, wherever we can get it, to make society more safe and livable (I respect that most people on this site disagree with me). We’re getting very little if any help from Romney.
No, we are not getting any help from Romney-Ryan. What we are getting is somewhat sanitized pandering to, and support for, the anti-equality forces, who are in full-throat roar in Maine, Maryland, Minnesota and Washington.
If Romney-Ryan are elected, we’ll get no help at all. Ryan is a committed, hard-core social conservative, and whatever Romney might be, he isn’t likely to fight the anti-equality forces in the Republican Party.
What we will get is:
(1) an administration that “talks the talk” of anti-equality, mainstreaming anti-equality once again and emboldening anti-equality forces,
(2) an administration that is likely, if not entirely certain, to appease the anti-equality forces by cherry picking regulatory changes, rescinding the gains we’ve made through executive orders and regulatory changes during the Obama administration,
(3) appointment of two (replacements for Ginsberg and Scalia), and possibly three (replacement for Kennedy), SCOTUS Justices of the “original intent” school of judicial philosophy (read opposition to the “penumbra” and rollback of Lawrence and other “right to privacy” precedent), tipping the balance of SCOTUS toward anti-equality for the next 15-20 years (most Justices appointed are in their 50’s, and can be expected to serve that long), a critical period for us because a Loving-type case is likely to be decided between 2020 and 2025.
(4) a continuation of the myriad of legislation fostered by the Republican Party at state and local level during the Obama administration, chipping away at equality, and continued opposition by the Republican legislators to any movement toward equality in states where that is possible at present.
Stephen, for all his words, updates and furthermores, has yet to mention a very likely outcome of a Romney-Ryan administration: Tying the Republican Party to anti-equality for another four to eight years.
Romney-Ryan is not likely to challenge anti-equality forces in the Republican Party, either out of conviction (Ryan) or low animal cunning (Romney), and, accordingly, an important force for change in the Republican Party will be lifted during a Romney-Ryan administration.
Stephen blathers on endlessly about how miffed he is that “LGBT Democrats” find, run and strong pro-equality Democratic candidates and “national and local LGBT lobbies” have a distressing tendency to endorse 100% pro-equality Democrats with proven track records over half-a-loaf pro-equality Republicans.
Has Stephen even considered the fact that the “slow evolution” within the Republican Party that he loves to talk about will be effectively halted during a Romney-Ryan administration?
If so, he has managed to carefully conceal his concern to date.
posted by Carl on
The response you’re likely going to get is, “We shouldn’t be solving these problems in the courts anyway!” The funny thing is you only hear that when the court sides for equality.
This is an administration that would likely work hard to take us back to the ’40s or ’50s in our rights, and something tells me if I come here the main reaction will still be, “If HRC was nicer to Republicans they’d be our friends.”
posted by Don on
I know that I’m going to pay more in taxes because my husband I cannot file jointly [DOMA] than Romney will lower our taxes as individuals. I have yet to hear a single peep from conservative gays on how to counter that argument. My best shot for $ is 4 more years of Obama. And so are all these so-called low-tax republican gays.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Comments blogger and attorney Doug Mataconis, “Now that we’ve lived with repeal for a year, and it’s clear that, as predicted, there are no adverse consequences to letting gays and lesbians serve openly … the GOP wants to put this issue behind them and move on. Eventually, I predict, they’ll be doing the same thing with regard to same-sex marriage.”
Well, that’s probably about right. Within a few years after SCOTUS issues a Loving-type decision mandating marriage equality in all fifty states, and just about everyone has come to see that the world hasn’t come to an end, the GOP will “want to put this issue behind them and move on”.
posted by french62 on
Wow Stephen,
That’s plenty of contorting to justify a vote for Mitt Romney. I am sorry, but I just can’t see, nor understand, how any self-respecting homosexual can vote for any person who has expressed the antipathy towards gays and lesbians that Mr. Romney has repeatedly stated throughout the last few years. Sorry, but it’s plain creepy, and reeks of self-loathing. Just my opinion.
posted by Carl on
Looks like Bay Buchanan (and what a great fighter for gay rights she always was) has had to join the Romney contortion brigade because she said he didn’t support the Federal Marriage Amendment. She now makes sure we know he does. If you need any reminders that Romney will panic at the mere hint of anyone thinking he isn’t fighting hard against gay marriage, this is one.
Even more telling is that, as this article points out, Buchanan says hospital visitation rights are a “benefit.” So that means you are being rewarded if you aren’t barred from seeing your sick or dying partner, and that “benefit” is something that can and likely will be easily taken away.
http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/romney-hospital-visitation-for-gay-couples-are-benefits-not-rights/politics/2012/10/20/51681
posted by Francis on
Consideration of PBO’s or GMR’s appointees to the Supreme Court are critical to this conversation and will affect decisions for decades. I ‘m very surprised that Miller has not developed this in his article.
posted by TomjeffersonIII on
Mitt flip-flops soo many times on gay rights issues and reproductive rights issues that, frankly, putting much stock in what he says today or this particular second, is not a great idea.
Case in point; he wanted to be more supportive of gay rights then Ten Kennedy and then quickly changed his tune when he wanted to be taken seriously as a presidential nominee. He did not want to alienate the socially conservative voters within the GOP base, who frankly outnumber gay GOP-ers.
Now that public opposition to gay marriage is soften, he is simply avoiding the issue all together. Much like efforts to avoid his war on women, which was pretty darn real.
Beyond the fact that their are LGBT people who have benefited from the Obama health care reforms (that Mitt and Co want to kill) and LGBT voters will probably benefit from a Supreme Court that is not pushed further and further to the right (as Mitt and Co claim to want to do).
Of course, national and local LGBT lobbies refusing to endorse, or actively working to defeat, GOP candidates who would take the party in this direction isn’t helping (but then, it isn’t meant to).