Sen. Portman’s dramatic reversal. Now all we need is 40 more Republican senators’ sons to come out.
In other news, CPAC may have banned GOProud, but its clear which way the wind is blowing.
More. Jennifer Rubin writes: “the question is not whether the GOP comes to terms with gay marriage, but when and how many elections it will lose along the way.” Indeed.
Furthermore. Via Michael Barone: Support for same-sex marriage crosses party lines. Or at least it now could, if there were a will to engage with libertarian conservatives rather than to just raise money for Democrats.
Still more. Again, via Jennifer Rubin:
Thirty years after Ronald Reagan was president, Republicans are still running on a tripartite alliance of social, fiscal and foreign policy conservatives. Alas, such candidates run on a myth; that coalition has splintered and what will replace it is far from clear. . . .
One approach would be to become the reform party on entitlements, education, health care, employee unions and even the Pentagon while being agnostic on social issues. Or the party could go fully libertarian leaving hawks and social conservatives adrift but gaining urban and suburban professionals and social liberals. Another formula would be to embrace pro-life, pro-immigration, strong-on-defense conservatives with a Tory welfare state that loses business conservatives but takes on working class and minority voters.
This battle must be engaged. Too bad the largest LGBT lobbies are cocooned up with their Democratic party commanders, working to keep the GOP as anti-gay as possible (e.g., HRC’s backing Democrats running against openly gay and gay-supportive Republicans).
24 Comments for “Family Matters”
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Research has shown for years that the single most important thing we can do to bring equality is to come out to our family, friends, neighbors and co-workers. This is a classic example.
Thanks to Senator Portman, who used his son’s coming out as an opportunity for reflection and growth instead of doubling down on his social conservative convictions as so many do, and thanks to his son, Will Portman, who had the courage to come out and spur Senator Portman on his journey toward change of heart.
posted by Houndentenor on
Actually, we don’t need all the GOP Senators’ sons to come out. Just enough to form a majority with the Democrats (minus a few who might vote against gay rights). I’m not naive enough to expect a majority of Republicans to move forward on equal rights for all. I just hope for enough to pass long overdue legislation like ENDA.
posted by Don on
wow. it’s not Portman that makes me say “wow.” Although that helps. For me it is the sheer number of the commentariat that are saying things like “we can’t survive treating latinos this way” and “we can’t survive treating gays this way” and on and on.
now the base hasn’t come along for the ride. not by a long shot. but if someone like Portman can say he’s for full gay marriage and not be annihilated (even before his next election), then things are changing.
I wonder if this is the route conservatism is going to make toward change. with all the talk about grass roots needing to take the lead but having to face the juggernaut of evangelicals, i’m wondering if the party elites can pave the way by repeatedly telling the base, you can’t keep this crap going. maybe it will actually provide more cover for guys like Portman to say “i’ve changed my mind”
and i’m thinking jeb has got to be regretting his double down on nativism by now. and if not, i hope his hispanic wife reaches over and smacks the devil out of him tonight.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
I wonder if this is the route conservatism is going to make toward change. with all the talk about grass roots needing to take the lead but having to face the juggernaut of evangelicals, i’m wondering if the party elites can pave the way by repeatedly telling the base, you can’t keep this crap going.
Well, as the saying goes, you can’t eat the chicken unless you catch the chicken. The elite don’t get voters to the polls in Republican primaries. The commentators don’t ID pro-equality conservatives and make sure that they vote for pro-equality candidates. And saying “You can’t keep this shit up …” might help, but it isn’t going to slow down the political machine running out of the evangelical churches.
At least that’s my view.
The Advocate has an interesting commentary about Senator Portman and the journey that he has been on for the last couple of years since Will came out:
And friends? And neighbors? And co-workers? And political allies?
Coming out to our family, friends, neighbors and co-workers forces them to face reality and consider the consequences of their attitudes and actions with respect to equality. It changes minds and hearts in many cases, sometimes quickly, sometimes slowly.
Our fight for equality has been won, and always will be won from the ground up, one gay at a time. The reason that young voters, including young conservatives, are significantly more supportive of equality is that they have gay and lesbian friends.
That’s why I believe that prospects for success in the fight to change the Republican Party ultimately depends upon pro-equality conservatives becoming active in the party at county, state and federal levels. That is particularly true outside the urban population centers, in smaller, rural areas where personal relationships still exist and still matter, and gays and lesbians tend to be quieter about it.
Unless and until pro-equality conservatives within the Republican Party can turn “He’s gay …” from a hushed-voice out-of-the-side-of-the-mouth pronouncement about a potential embarrassment into a simple, unremarkable statement of a fact, the “myths” — read “lies” — about gays and lesbians will continue to hold sway Republican thinking.
And organization counts, because it means that people who are politically active are forced to deal with equality issues on a more-or-less daily basis.
The single most important change agent in equality politics in Wisconsin was, oddly, the Republican-sponsored push for an anti-marriage amendment. Ours is a “nuclear option” amendment that bans both marriage equality and marriage equivalency.
The fight over the amendment in 2006 brought “the quiet ones” out of the woodwork all over Wisconsin, and many of them, particularly in rural counties where “Don’t scare the horses …” had been the rule until then, became involved in Democratic politics in at the county level.
We’ve changed “Don’t scare the horses …” At this point, six years later:
(1) We have a a gay/lesbian or a straight ally (usually a parent or sibling of a gay or lesbian) on the executive committee of most of our county parties, on the state platform committee, on the DNC as one of Wisconsin’s four representatives, and on the national platform committee.
(2) Members of our Caucus volunteer in state legislative campaigns, and often play key roles in those campaigns, win or lose.
(3) We fielded six openly LGBT candidates ran in the 2012 general election as Democratic candidates for the Assembly. That’s an unprecedented number, and every one of them opened eyes in their districts. We’ve got others coming up through town boards, county boards and other local offices. Each of them lets voters see a gay or lesbian in a position of responsibility, acting responsibly.
Because so many of us are active in party affairs, it is almost impossible to be involved in the DPW at this point and not be working closely with a member of our Caucus on something or other. It is almost impossible for anyone active in the DPW to not have to confront a living, breathing counter-example to the lies spewed by NOM, the FRC, the AFA and the like.
That’s made a difference, because it keeps equality issues on the front burner, rather than on the back burner, and puts a face and a name on equality. People think differently about equality when they are sitting across the table from someone who is gay or lesbian.
posted by Doug on
I’m afraid that I cannot be as gushing in my praise of Senator Portman. Yes it is good that he has come around to supporting marriage equality. Unfortunately he ‘came around’ because he had a gun to his head. He could come around or probably lose is son and tear apart his family.
This is my bitch against conservatives like Senator Portman. The are anti-gay until a son or daughter comes out. They are anti-abortion until their daughter, girlfriend or mistress gets knocked up. They are anti-stem cell until mom or dad gets Alzheimer’s. They are so dogmatic in their belief system they cannot empathize with another human being.
posted by Houndentenor on
Agreed. I’ve noticed from my facebook feed that for the most part my gay friends are happy to hear Portman’s announcement. Most of them are around my age and we all remember when we couldn’t even get progressives to come out for gay marriage much less conservatives. But for the most part my straight ally friends are appalled that Portman obviously lacks the empathy to understand this situation when it’s someone else’s son and can only see the light on this issue when it’s in his own family. The lack of empathy is truly appalling but sadly typical of what remains in the GOP these days. “If it doesn’t help me personally, I’m against it!!!” That’s no way to run a civil society.
posted by clayton on
In 1977, Anita Bryant said that she would rather her child be dead than homosexual. Thousands of LGBT kids are either kicked out of their homes or sent to conversion camps every year, just because they aren’t straight. John Boehner went on record THIS WEEK and said he couldn’t imagine changing his mind on gay marriage, even if one of his kids came out. And you’re criticizing Portman? For doing the right thing?
posted by Doug on
That is my point exactly. John Boehner doesn’t really know what he would do until it actually happens to him. I wasn’t criticizing Portman, I just want’s gushing praise on him. He did the right thing, but it wasn’t voluntary.
posted by Clayton on
“He did the right thing, but it wasn’t voluntary.”
Sorry, Doug. We still disagree. Portman’s evolution was completely voluntary. He could have disowned his son, as many parents of LGBT kids do. He could have sent his kid to a conversion program, as many parents of LGBT kids do. He could have said, “I love you, but I still believe marriage is between a man and a woman,” as John Boehner has said he would do. He could have privately supported his son, but passively gone along with his party, as Dick Cheney has done–and continues to do (Dick Cheney’s signature is consipicuously missing from the list of Republicans who filed an amicus asking the Supreme Court to overturn DOMA, even though his daughter, Mary is one of the signatories).
Having a gay child was not voluntary, but having been presented with a gay child, Portman has evolved in admirable ways, and he has done it voluntarily.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Senator Portman has been on a journey during the last couple of years he share with many parents and family members of gays and lesbians over the years. For many – particularly those Portman’s age or older who grew up in a culture of entrenched hostility to homosexuality — it is not an easy journey.
Portman came out in the right place, unlike many others.
He could have broken off relationships with his son. He could have entered into an uneasy “I love you but I don’t want to know about it …” truce with his son. He could have clung to his anti-equality political positions ( “I love you, but blah, blah, blah …”). He could have made a decision to privately support equality but keep quiet about it for political expediency, insisting on family privacy.
Portman could have ended up in any of those destinations. Many do. Portman didn’t. He came out in the right place, went public despite the political risk, and we can count him as a supporter going forward. I say good for him.
Did he have a “gun to his head”? Sure. When a gay or lesbian comes out, parents, family, friends, neighbors and co-workers have to face reality and consider the consequences of their attitudes and actions with respect to equality. They don’t have a choice.
Would he have made the journey if Will hadn’t come out? Probably not. That’s the way of the world. People cling to what they “know”, even when it is dead-ass wrong, until something shakes them loose and makes them start thinking.
The important thing is that Portman made the journey and came out in the right place, unlike many others in similar circumstances.
It is a sure bet that among the hundreds of Republicans in Congress, that there are more than a handful in similar circumstances who have had the “gun put to their head” and haven’t ended up anywhere close to the right place. And the number of Republicans in political office who have gay and lesbian staffers but who haven’t made the journey at all is astounding. I think that you and Houndentenor are correct in observing that the lack of empathy is a defining characteristic of social conservatism.
I don’t think that Portman deserves “gushing” praise, but I do think that he deserves our empathy, and, to the extent that he supports equality in the future, our support.
I also think, though, that Portman should, like Clinton has, acknowledge that he did a lot of damage to equality over the years, and, like Clinton should, say “I’m sorry.”
Otherwise he just ends up just another Cheney.
posted by TomJeffersonIII on
Ah, another historical trend and possible opportunity turned into a bravado piss### match between gay Republicans and gay Democrats. Nice, that. (rolls eyes).
Yes, its great that a father and Midwestern Republican public figure managed to grow as a human being after his son came out to him.
Not all parents do that and (frankly) not all Republicans would be eager to do so as well. I think I recall reading somewhere (maybe, in a book by Randy Shilits) what when Mary Cheney came out to her Congressman Dad, he was perfectly OK with it, but was not going to go against his “constituency” (read: I am still going to oppose gay rights).
I am not a Republican (I am not 100% opposed to voting for a Republican or a third party candidate, I just have seen too many in my area worth voting for). but I am insulted by the idea that somehow I am opposed to an organization seriously working with ‘conservative-libertarian’ (how’s that for a silly term?) in order to produce a Republican Party and Republicans more supportive of equality.
Yes, the Human Rights Campaign is probably not the best tool to help the GOP get over its gay bashing and actually come about to, “equal should actually mean equal”. Its trendy among parts of the left and right to bash the HRC (not without some merit), but the organization was never designed to do EVERYTHING that needs to happen. Gay Republicans cannot sit back, complain and just wait for the HRC to save the day. Yes, the HRC leadership tends to have a center-left-neoliberal- philosophy, which is not the same thing as ‘conservative-libertarian’. The polarizing of the two major parties (more then anything else) has probably made it harder for the HRC to gain much “street cred”, because the number of reasonable centrist politicians (with any real clout) has been declining.
Yet, their is nothing stop someone from creating another gay rights organization that is more ‘bi’ or ‘tri’ when it comes to party politics. Their is also not much stopping gay Republicans from actually doing what needs to be done, what gay Democrats spend decades doing, in order to fix their party.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Furthermore. Via Michael Barone: Support for same-sex marriage crosses party lines. Or at least it now could, if there were a will to engage with libertarian conservatives rather than to just raise money for Democrats.
Stephen, for God’s sake, why don’t some of you pro-equality conservatives start to “engage with libertarian conservatives”? Why should those of us in the Democratic Party have to do that for you?
You could start with Rand Paul and see if you can “evolve” him from his “traditonalist” views on marriage equality. After all, he is supposed to be the leader of the “libertarian” wing of the Republican Party, isn’t he?
God helps those who help themselves.
posted by Houndentenor on
And again with the crybaby routine. If gay Republicans want progress withing the GOP on gay issues then why don’t they talk to gay people. Doesn’t it make sense that a gay conservative would make a better argument to conservatives than a liberal? No one wants the GOP to be anti-gay except the GOP and the religious right that love using gays to raise money and the politicians who used anti-gay bigotry to get elected. It’s not liberals and Democrats that did that. Republicans did that. This is one big conspiracy theory that exists only in your head, Stephen, and it’s PATHETIC that you keep repeating it at some point (almost always an “update”) in every post. Give it a rest! Go talk to the GOP leadership and conservatives. Oh, that’s right, they won’t even let the gay Republicans as a group attend the events. So what makes you think they will listen to HRC or liberal gay groups? It’s absurd and moronic. You aren’t stupid, so what’s with this meme you have going on of blaming the right wing anti-gay hate-fest on liberals? Really? What’s this really about?
posted by french62 on
Thank you Houndentenor, very well put. Stephen is consistently “preaching to the choir” when it comes to homosexual equality. Perpetually blame those lefties for the lack of progress within the Republican Party. Honestly, I can not understand anyone who affiliates himself with a political organization that is so socially retarded when it comes to recognizing gay civil rights. Bizarre readily comes to mind. But hey, freedom of association is our birthright.
posted by Houndentenor on
It’s not like anyone on the left has done anything to prevent LCR from talking to Republicans about gay issues. They couldn’t if they wanted to. It’s certainly not any liberal’s fault that LCR and GOProud were banned from CPAC. And for that matter it’s not as if any of the gains we have made for gay rights are thanks to HRC. That’s the most ineffective lobbying group ever. Not a single piece of legislation has ever passed due to their efforts. So that can’t be it. As for supporting Democrats over Republicans, find a me a Republican who is actually better than the Democrat in a race and then there’s a complaint if gays still support the less pro-gay Democrat. I can’t think of a single case where that has happened. I’m not bound to support a Republican just because they show up late to the party. Get on board or get left behind.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
I have never been able to understand out what Stephen wants from Democrats or left/liberal LGBT lobbying/PAC groups like HRC.
Here’s what I’ve been able to pick out:
(1) Democrats and left/liberal lobbying/PAC groups should drop support for Democratic candidates with proven, 100% pro-equality records, like Elizabeth Warren, whenever the Republicans run a pro-equality supporter, even a half-baked supporter like Scott Brown, and support the Republican.
(2) Democrats and left/liberal lobbying/PAC groups should drop support for Democratic candidates with proven, 100% pro-equality records, like John Tierney, when the Republicans run an openly gay candidate, like Richard Tisei, and support the Republican.
The purpose behind this strategy is, apparently, some sort of affirmative-action program for conservatives designed to strengthen the pro-equality wing of the Republican Party.
The importance of Democrats and left/liberal lobbying/PAC groups getting involved in Stephen’s affirmative action plan for Republicans is so compelling in Stephen’s mind, apparently, that he even complained the Democrats and the HRC supported Tammy Baldwin, openly lesbian and 100% pro-equality, over supposed Republican “moderate” Tommy Thompson, who, believe me, never uttered a pro-equality position in his entire political career. What that was supposed to accomplish for us I can’t imagine.
And now, in this post, he seems to suggest that Democrats and left/liberals should weigh in on internal Republican politics, in the battle between “social, fiscal and foreign policy conservatives” within the Republican Party. How, exactly, we are supposed to do that is beyond me, and why any Republican would want us to do so is obscure, at best.
Underlying all of this seems to be a conviction (he keeps saying it over and over, so he must think it) that Democrats run and left/liberal lobbying/PAC groups support pro-equality Democrats “to keep the GOP as anti-gay as possible”. That borders on paranoia and is, factually, just plain nuts.
So I don’t get it. Maybe Stephen’s thinking will become clearer over time.
posted by Houndentenor on
Given the pathetic track record of the Human Rights Campaign, I don’t know why anyone should care whether they talk to Republicans or not. They don’t seem to know how to do anything except throw lavish parties to congratulate themselves for their incompetence. Someone the HRC has become inflated into an all-powerful gay rights lobby that could have the right wing singing Kumbahyah while holding hands with the far left on the gay rights issue if only they wanted to. HRC couldn’t even get ENDA passed through a Congress with Democratic majorities. What hope do they have of convincing Republicans to support gay marriage. It’s absurd.
And yes, once again the homocons want us all to champion any gay Republican who runs while demonizing any elected official who calls himself or herself a Democrat. Double-standards are what this is all about. Again I ask Stephen to point out one race where the Republican was better on gay rights than the Democrat. Surely there’s been one. Somewhere. Anywhere. I’m waiting.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
This battle must be engaged. Too bad the largest LGBT lobbies are cocooned up with their Democratic party commanders, working to keep the GOP as anti-gay as possible (e.g., HRC’s backing Democrats running against openly gay and gay-supportive Republicans).
The battle should be engaged in the Republican Party, by Republicans. That’s where the fight is, and where the battle needs to be fought.
Do you really want Democrats weighing in on the outcome of an intra-party battle between “social, fiscal and foreign policy conservatives” within the Republican Party?
The idea that Democrats should enter into intra-party Republican politics has the flavor of “Let’s you and him go fight …” The work has to be done within the Republican Party, and, ipso facto, the work has to be done by Republicans.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
I notice that the new WP poll suggests that Republican acceptance of marriage equality is beginning to grow along with the rest of the country, now standing at 34%. The percentage had been holding around 25% for several years.
That is a big shift, relatively, echoing the large shift in opinion among Democrats and Independents that occurred a year ago.
It looks like the Republican equality train is finally warming up to leave the station.
posted by Doug on
The train may be warming up but ‘leaving the station’. I don’t think so. 34% is not a groundswell and it will be a long time before a majority of the GOP supports marriage equality. The country has moved on with marriage support at 58%. Time to go forward and the leave the GOP to rot in their cesspool of bigotry.
posted by Jorge on
Hmm…….
A question deserves an answer. Reading that CNN article, I think Senator Portman was put in the relatively easy position of supporting a conservative concept–the “love and stability of marriage”. Not all gay young adults will have fathers who can so easily visualize an honorable expectation of their gay child. I am sure there is a double standard in this.
What this has to do with civil marriage is obviously something that took him two years to figure out, so I’m not going to give my usual refrain.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
What this has to do with civil marriage is obviously something that took him two years to figure out, so I’m not going to give my usual refrain.
I don’t know what your “usual refrain” might be, but I don’t think that two years is an extraordinary amount of time for a parent with strong social conservative convictions to come to acceptance, do a 180 on his/her views about marriage equality, and go public. I’ve seen a lot of parents go through the process.
posted by Houndentenor on
Some further thoughts…
Yesterday Hilary Clinton finally came out in favor of same sex marriage on the say day a new poll showed that 58% of Americans now favor marriage equality. That’s hardly leadership. I’m happy that both Portman and Clinton have finally decided to support equal rights for gay people but waiting until the public has already moved on an issue before announcing your support is neither brave nor any kind of leadership. I welcome both politicians into the tent, but I’m not about to throw either of them a parade for saying something they could have done several years ago. Both delayed because of politics. I am impressed neither by Clinton’s speech (lovely words but they ring hollow when she wouldn’t even answer the question just a few years ago) or Portman’s stance of only understanding a human rights issue when it directly impacts his family.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
I welcome both politicians into the tent, but I’m not about to throw either of them a parade for saying something they could have done several years ago. Both delayed because of politics.
A gentle reminder that we don’t know the details of Senator Portman’s journey.
Many strong social conservatives have had a rough time coming to accept the reality that a child is gay, and dealing with that reality in terms of having to think through and ultimately abandon long-held belief systems and long-held positions. Many don’t make it.
You could well be right and Portman’s political motivations (I don’t know much about him, so I don’t know), but I’ve seen a number of parents go through the process over the years, and Portman’s description of his journey sounds authentic to me.