Although not quite a wind, at least yet. The New York Times reports:
Evoking Ronald Reagan and Barry Goldwater, a group of Western-state Republicans plans to enter the battle in favor of same-sex marriage on Tuesday, urging a federal appeals court to declare gay marriage bans in Utah and Oklahoma unconstitutional.
The most prominent of the approximately 20 signers of the brief are former Senator Alan K. Simpson of Wyoming, a longtime supporter of gay rights, and former Senator Nancy L. Kassebaum of Kansas, who said last year that she had reconsidered her former opposition to same-sex marriage. …
Last month, a New York Times/CBS News poll found a rapid shift in Republican attitudes nationwide. Forty percent of Republicans said same-sex marriage should be legal, up from 33 percent last May and only 24 percent in September 2012.
There’s a slow but steadily advancing change in attitude among Republicans, especially the rank and file. The strength of the religious right bloc continues to be the key break on a sea change. It’s the main force of reaction against sane social policies in the GOP, just as government employee unions are the main force of reaction against sane economic (and public education) policies in the Democratic party.
More. Overall, support for marriage equality hits another high. In the 33 states that prohibit same-sex marriage, 53 percent of those polled support allowing it. But 6 in 10 evangelical Protestants oppose same-sex marriage.
Furthermore. Chart: 11 years of opinion change.
54 Comments for “Breeze of Change”
posted by Clayton on
I was happy to see this story earlier today, just as I was happy to see John McCain, Mitt Romney, and Jan Brewer come out against the Arizona bill. The GOP is no longer the safe haven for anti -gay bigots it once was. Bi -partisan support for equality can only be good for all of us.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Bi-partisan support for equality can only be good for all of us.
I agree. I don’t care whether the support results from a change in heart (Portman) or pragmatic politics (Brewer), so long as the Republicans stop acting as a roadblock. We’ve spent much of the last decade fighting off the damage done by the Republican Party’s anti-equality politics, and we don’t need another decade.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
There’s a slow but steadily advancing change in attitude among Republicans, especially the rank and file.
The CBS/NYT poll is one among many in recent months showing a growing acceptance of marriage equality among self-identified Republicans.
The shift is not yet showing up in the positions taken by the party or by its elected officials, of course, but the shift is underway among the rank and file. The question is whether the party and its elected officials will accept reality quickly enough to keep the pro-equality rank and file.
The strength of the religious right bloc continues to be the key break on a sea change.
It is definitely a brake. Whether it will be a break remains to be seen.
If the Republican Party can attract moderates, social conservative resistance will be a brake.
If the Republican Party continues to filter out pro-equality candidates, social conservative intransigence may well lead to a break. The party cannot continue to throw away younger voters and moderate voters in droves, and hope to have a future as a national party. That was the point of the Priebus autopsy, and it is correct.
Time will tell.
The best thing that could happen to the Republican Party at this point is for the courts to legalize marriage equality relatively quickly, removing marriage equality as a voting issue for pro-equality Republicans. That will buy the party time to keep younger and moderate Republicans while it changes course.
posted by Doug on
Don’t get too excited by the courts ruling in favor of marriage equality removing a voting issue. The court did that for abortion in several decades ago and the the right wing is still passing unconstitutional restrictions.
We may be winning the war but there will be plenty of mopping up battles left to fight. Now is not the time to get complacent.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
We may be winning the war but there will be plenty of mopping up battles left to fight. Now is not the time to get complacent.
Everybody knows that we will spend a decade fighting off a “massive resistance” effort by social conservative driven Republicans. Social conservative dominance of the Republican Party won’t change for many election cycles, given the firm grip that social conservatives have on the primary process in the party.
But with marriage equality, we will have gained the cornerstone and keystone of “equal means equal”, and that won’t be reversed. Mopping up we will be doing, at great cost in wasted time and wasted money, but mopping up is mopping up.
Doug, I’ve been at this a long time. I can remember sitting in a law school classroom at the University of Chicago a year after Stonewall, learning that sodomy was not illegal in Illinois — the only state in the Union at that time in which that was true. I remember, very clearly, sitting there thinking about it while Norval Morris rattled on about “victimless crime”, thinking, “Safe!”. (Makes me think about how young I was back then, and naive.)
I’ve been in the fight, one way or another, since.
It has been a long road from “Safe!” to “Married!”, but we have worked hard and long, and “equal means equal” is within sight.
Like a lot of older people, I take the long view. I’m feeling satisfaction at a fight well fought, not complacency. A decade or two of mopping up is not the end of the world.
posted by Doug on
Tom, I’m not that far behind you. I was just graduating from college when Stonewall happened. LGBT rights have moved faster than I ever expected or dreamed. I just want the progress to continue. I have a gay nephew that is over 40 years my junior and he just got married a year ago. He pretty much took that for granted until I schooled him on the struggle.
I just wanted to remind folks that there is still a struggle to fight and we need to be vigilant.
posted by Houndentenor on
Can you blow a little of that wind down here to Texas? We just spent the last few months watching Republican primary contenders trying to out-bigot each other on a whole host of issues, not just gay rights. It was a revolting display. You may be right. This may be the future of the GOP but I see not a glimmer of it in my state.
posted by Lori Heine on
Take a visit out to Arizona! Sing at All Saints’ or St. Mary’s Episcopal, get a tan, take the Art Walk.
I also extend the invitation to Tom, and to whomever else might like to go.
That was my LGBT Chamber of Commerce moment for the day…
posted by Tom Scharbach on
G-d knows I could use a break from the snow and the Arctic Vortex this year. Today: “On and off snow showers this morning. Peeks of sunshine later. Cold. High 22F. Winds ENE at 10 to 15 mph. Low -3F.” Worse than the Walker administration, even. Yuk.
posted by Don on
You really don’t want me to give you a weather report from Miami.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
This may be the future of the GOP but I see not a glimmer of it in my state.
For one indicator of how anti-equality a state is, look to the FRC Vote Scorecard. FRC has helpfully highlighted the worst of the worst — 143 Representatives and 10 Senators with 100% “True Blue” anti-equality votes.
Texas is a real standout. Not only does Texas boast Louie Gohmert (Michael’s mother’s Congressman and my personal favorite for sheer moronism in the Republican Party), but 22 of the state’s 23 Republican Congressmen boast a 100% FRC score. You’ve got to love a state with an assaholic rate that high.
posted by Kosh III on
Tennessee Teafascists are right there with you. The two D Reps were at the bottom rank but the 7 R Reps were 100%
And Sens Lame-ar Alexander and Bob Dorker were right up there too.
posted by Kosh III on
“former Senator Nancy L. Kassebaum of Kansas”
How about her husband? Former TN Senator Howard Baker Jr, one of the last decent Republican office holders in the state.
—————–
“This may be the future of the GOP but I see not a glimmer of it in my state.”
Same here, the Legislature has spend all session focused on god, gays and guns, despite the fact that some rural counties have unemployment rates of up to 16%–in fact the highest rate is Scott County where Sens Baker and Kassenbaum live.
posted by Don on
THAT is precisely why they are focused on God, Gays, and Guns. They would have to pass a law or take government action to address the issue. Classic misdirection. Politicians all over the world have practiced it for centuries.
While social conservatives are the major aspect of the problem, there are structural problems to overcome as well that have left fiscal conservatives on the sidelines. How do you get government to not take action? Get it completely obsessed with something meaningless. No tax reform, no cutbacks to the military, no stimulus, no trade agreements. Nothing. They can’t sit idle. So they have to address imaginary problems. Get people whipped up about something that essentially spins the wheels.
LOOK busy.
There is an old adage: if Congress did nothing for a decade, that would be a good thing. Sure, repealing all the stuff they’ve done in the past would be good. But if you can’t get that, get them to do absolutely nothing new.
We have to realize that God Guns & Gays is just as much about that desire as it is about social conservatives’ agenda.
posted by Kosh III on
Well, after the Teafascists swept to power the Senate President said they would “focus like a laser on jobs” and hasn’t lifted a finger since.
That has become the mantra of sensible D’s and progressives–(such as there are here) who have repeated that over and over in a vain attempt to shame them into doing something. But of course the Grand Old Posterior has no shame.
But they did vote to allow guns in bars, restaurants and parks. They voided a Nashville gay-rights law, are pushing school vouchers and charter schools in wealthy white neighborhoods, and are now trying to abolish mandatory LUNCH breaks for employees. Yeah–gotta keep those serfs busy!
posted by Edward on
Did no one notice the questionable assertion by Mr. Miller that the Republican party’s religious right bloc is somehow balanced by the the Democrats’ subservience to public employee unions? The Bureau of Labor Statistics reports a mere 7.2 million public employees at all levels are union members. It is by no means the case that all of them are Democrats, not to mention that some of those unions are pretty weak. False equivalence, anyone? This is clearly a period in our history when one of the parties has been captured by its fringe, and while the Democrats are not immune to that, it isn’t their problem at the moment.
posted by Don on
It is a series of factors that are driving a narrative out of step with the American people, generally. And I fear it will be like electoral whiplash when it hits. Much like gay marriage is hurting the right. Unimaginable. And yet, here we are. Play a mean hand long enough and loud enough, people will hear you. And then they will vote against you.
It goes back to the legislatures circa 2000. Lines were re-drawn to maximize tiny majorities for republicans and whopping majorities for democrats because they controlled so many state houses and governor’s mansions. The process was repeated in 2010. That’s how you get a huge majority of republicans in the House of Reps while the overwhelming number of votes went to D congresscritters. Really, team D got like 1 million votes more and have control of what 40% of the House?
Here in Miami, South Beach has a republican representative. Do you know how gonzo that is? The place has the electoral makeup of Manhattan, but the way the lines were drawn, Ds only make up 47% of the district. Meanwhile, you have 85% democrat in my congressional district. It’s a minority district to make sure there is a black congresscritter.
This is what Obama was saying in a speech a week or so ago.
Had the Dems been smarter, we would have gay marriage for the last 15 years, abortions performed in every starbucks, a military Cindy Sheehan could drown in a bathtub, and a balanced budget. But it’s not a party that is so keen on playing to win. (cut me some slack, gang, it’s just hyperbole)
I don’t care about a democratic majority. But I want fiscal sanity, gay rights to be over and done with, and a little more sanity in our military. We don’t have any of that. A dwindling minority is holding onto the levers of power and the vast middle just thinks its politics as usual so who cares if it’s all pretty messed up?
When the logjam breaks, I don’t think we’ll recognize America anymore. It may be as radical a shift as the 1960s. True conservatives should, of all people, know that water will seek its own level. Sooner or later, all dams break.
posted by Jorge on
Did no one notice the questionable assertion by Mr. Miller that the Republican party’s religious right bloc is somehow balanced by the the Democrats’ subservience to public employee unions?
You are somewhat new to the site. Everyone noticed it.
I was about to make a snarky comment on it, but it looked like everyone else was really enjoying their discussion. Let’s see, now…
The Bureau of Labor Statistics reports a mere 7.2 million public employees at all levels are union members. It is by no means the case that all of them are Democrats
Hi! Oh, wait, no, I actually resigned my membership to keep them from giving my money to Democrats.
not to mention that some of those unions are pretty weak.
Mine isn’t, but the heyday is behind it. It is far more the equal to management (overall more positive than negative) than it is the political kingmaker and rabble-rouser (uniformly negative).
posted by Houndentenor on
In that case can we swap unions? Mine is pathetic. The only thing worse would be not having one. (I am allowed to work in both union and non-union houses so I know what I’m talking about.)
posted by Jorge on
Maybe. How good is your contract? And benefits?
I may not want any of my money going to help Barack Obama, but I pay good money to get good results in negotiations.
posted by craig123 on
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052970204707104578091030386721670
posted by Tom Scharbach on
More. Overall, support for marriage equality hits another high. In the 33 states that prohibit same-sex marriage, 53 percent of those polled support allowing it. But 6 in 10 evangelical Protestants oppose same-sex marriage.
And it is precisely the power of conservative Christians within the party that keeps (and probably will keep) the Republican Party shackled.
A case in point is Massachusetts, where Richard Tisei is seeking to unseat John Tierney.
Tisei’s failed run in 2012 is frequently cited on this list as an example of the way in which progressive gays and lesbians are a roadblock to progress within the Republican Party (“LGBT progressives also worked to defeat Richard Tisei in his previous run for Congress … As I’ve said before, openly gay and gay-supportive Republicans are LGBT progressives’ worst nightmare.” – “New Times, Old Times”, February 12)
Last week, Massachusetts Republicans passed a social conservative platform that supports “traditional marriage”:
The platform apparently represents a compromise between social conservative and more moderate Republicans:
Though tame in comparison to the 2012 national platform, the 2012 Massachusetts platform is out of step with Massachusetts voters (who support marriage equality in numbers significantly higher than the national average), and cannot help Republican candidates like Tisei, who supports marriage equality, in the general election.
It might even hurt.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
The “2012 Massachusetts platform” should read “2014 Massachusetts platform”. My bad.
posted by Aubrey Haltom on
Tom,
I can speak a little towards the remarkable move to a social conservatism by the Massachusetts Republican Party.
First, the move was fueled by the same people who comprise MassResistance – the group that originally fought SSM here in Mass in 2004. And were brought in to help with the ‘they’ll teach homosexuality to your kids’ ads in California during the Prop 8 vote.
Republicans are in dire straits in Massachusetts. No major statewide office held. All federal elected reps (US House, Senate) are Dems.
Though Mass has a history of electing moderate Republicans -think Mitt as gov ( before the presidential run took over his profile; even more so, think Mitt in the 90s Senate run against Kennedy), William Weld, Senator Ed Brooke, etc… All somewhat fiscal conservatives with moderate to actually liberal social policies (well, at least while they were in Massachusetts).
But these social conservatives took this moment to steer the state Republican Party platform into the social conservative territory.
It’s not just Tisei who must be angry. The Republican gubernatorial candidate is a pro-gay rights, pro-choice candidate who has worked hard to assure voters he won’t follow the national Republican Party lead on social matters.
In fact, the Dems in this state have used the national Republican Party platform as their strongest weapon – against the Republicans. I’m convinced Tisei lost the last election because the Dem in the race (tainted with family connections to mob gambling) was able to convince voters that a vote for a Republican was a vote for the Republican Party platform.
That assertion – to vote Republican means to support the Republican Party platform and agenda – was enough to scare several voters who would have supported Tisei into the Dems’ camp.
Republicans have a strong candidate in Tisei. They also have a strong gubernatorial candidate. Now this social conservative move will make that possibility much more problematic for these Republicans.
But I’m sure Stephen Miller will remind us, again, that any loss by a gay Republican is all the fault of those damn progressive gays…
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Republicans have a strong candidate in Tisei. They also have a strong gubernatorial candidate. Now this social conservative move will make that possibility much more problematic for these Republicans.
It is just a shame to see it. Massachusetts Republicans did not include a “traditional marriage” plank in the 2010 or 2012 state platform, but now have gone retrograde — for no purpose whatsoever this late in the marriage equality struggle. It isn’t as if Massachusetts is going to turn on marriage equality after a decade of positive experience with it.
I suspect that you are right about the effect on Republican prospects in 2014.
I can’t help but think that Massachusetts voters, already burned by Governor Romney’s sharp shift to the social conservative camp as he became a presidential hopeful, will be given pause by the 2014 platform, no matter how strongly Republican candidates disavow the platform. Nobody in their right mind trusts politicians to be men/women of principle rather than expediency in the first place, and Massachusetts’ history with moderate Republicans gone bad under social conservative pressure can’t be helpful.
I feel for moderate Republican candidates in Massachusetts. It is one thing to say “We Massachusetts Republicans are not like the national party …” It is quite another to say “I disavow our state party …”
On the other hand, in Wisconsin don’t have a single moderate Republican state office holder and/or candidate standing, now that Senator Dale Schultz has been forced out. At least you still have moderate Republicans in Massachusetts. It could be worse.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
As a side note to the breeze of change in the Republican Party, a lawsuit was filed in Wyoming yesterday.
A quick breakdown by federal Judicial Circuit (states where we have won at the District Court level are in bold; states where no litigation has yet been filed are not denoted):
1st CIRCUIT
Maine – Marriage Equality
Massachusetts – Marriage Equality
New Hampshire – Marriage Equality
Rhode Island – Marriage Equality
2nd CIRCUIT
Connecticut – Marriage Equality
New York – Marriage Equality
Vermont – Marriage Equality
3rd CIRCUIT
Deleware – Marriage Equality
New Jersey – Marriage Equality
Pennsylvania – Litigation
4th CIRCUIT
North Carolina – Litigation
South Carolina – Litigation
Virginia – Litigation
West Virginia – Litigation
5th CIRCUIT
Louisiana – Litigation
Mississippi – Litigation
Texas – Litigation
6th CIRCUIT
Kentucky – Litigation
Michigan – Litigation
Ohio – Litigation
Tennessee – Litigation
7th CIRCUIT
Iowa – Marriage Equality
Illinois – Marriage Equality
Wisconsin – Litigation
8th CIRCUIT
Arkansas – Litigation
Missouri – Litigation
Nebraska
North Dakota
South Dakota
9th CIRCUIT
California – Marriage Equality
Hawaii – Marriage Equality
Washington – Marriage Equality
Arizona – Litigation
Idaho – Litigation
Nevada – Litigation
Oregon – Litigation
Alaska
Montana
10th CIRCUIT
New Mexico – Marriage Equality
Colorado – Litigation
Kansas – Litigation
Oklahoma – Litigation
Utah – Litigation
Wyoming – Litigation
11th CIRCUIT
Alabama – Litigation
Florida – Litigation
Georgia
Little by slowly, as it is said.
posted by Don on
Great job, Tom. But here in Florida the battle is in state court, not federal court. A couple apparently just filed in federal court a different case (a few days ago) challenging their right to have an out-of-state marriage recognized in Florida. That is not part of our lawsuit in Miami-Dade County where all 6 couples are unmarried.
Maybe it’s just a distinction without a difference. But the legal track this will take will end at the Florida Supreme Court. No one has tried to remove the case to federal court yet and it doesn’t seem likely it will be.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Cases in several states have been filed in state court. I assume that the lawyers involved made a careful decision in each of the cases.
I’m tracking both kinds of cases by federal appellate district because it is the federal appellate level decisions that are most likely to be route by which the cases get to SCOTUS.
The reason I’m including state lawsuits is that decisions of “the court of last resort” in a state may be appealed directly to SCOTUS if a federal constitutional violation is asserted.
posted by Don on
ah, as I suspected, my distinction had no difference.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
I’m sure that the distinction makes a difference in terms of likelihood of success. I’m not familiar with the Florida considerations, but I’ll bet the farm that your lawyers thought it through carefully and have good reasons for bringing the action in state court rather than federal.
My only point is that the two lines of attack converge when it comes to SCOTUS involvement, so I treat the cases alike.
So how is it being a poster couple for gay liberation?
posted by Don on
Mostly it’s been fun. A little weird here in Florida. We’ve been doing the media circuit. Now the fundraising swing for EQFL. Appeared before Dade County Commission Committee urging them to pass a resolution to support our position. 100% support pledged.
I would say more, but I probably shouldn’t. Florida is a weird place in that the state is so huge and so divergent. It’s really hard to create a cohesive message and we have lots of little groups doing little things.
I will say this: I had a private dinner to meet the head of the SAVE Dade a month before we decided to join the lawsuit. Gave him a personal donation. Two months later, we were front page of the Miami Herald. He never even called. I’m a donor and he has my cell number. We offered to do what we could to help him in his new position. They’re actually acting like there isn’t a lawsuit going on because their name isn’t on it. And that’s the least surreal thing that has happened.
Gay politics are a mess here.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
[SAVE Dade is] actually acting like there isn’t a lawsuit going on because their name isn’t on it. And that’s the least surreal thing that has happened.
We have a similar situation in Wisconsin.
Fair Wisconsin, our statewide equality advocate, adopted a step-by-step strategy, insisting that the state needed a long education process before it was time for a lawsuit, which, of course, Fair Wisconsin, working with Lambda Legal, would bring in due course.
A lot of us warned them that events would overtake them, and it did. The ACLU filed a lawsuit on behalf of eight or so couples, and that’s where the battle will be fought and won.
Fair Wisconsin’s response to the lawsuit was to stress, yet again, the need for a long education process so that Wisconsinites would “accept” the decision. You won’t find a word about the lawsuit on the Fair Wisconsin website. If all you know about the fight for marriage equality in Wisconsin was what you’d learn there, you wouldn’t even know that there was a lawsuit that is likely to be decided in our favor within a month or two.
It doesn’t make sense to me.
posted by Tom Jefferson III on
(a) It is nice to see SOME wings of positive change within the GOP; it is still pretty rare and its only been recently that Republicans in any sort of position of authority/strong ‘street cred’ have actually come out in favor of equality.
(b) In Congressional and State races, much of it comes down to the sentiment or manufactured sentiment of likely voters. In a conservative leaning district, the situation is often a very anti-gay equality Republican and a Democrat who is not quite as vicious but feels like he needs to be anti-gay enough to get elected.
(c) Arizona is — on the whole a red state –, but has strong pockets of ‘blue-purple’; progressive and Independent thinking people. The City of Tucson (for example) is a blue-purple city. It has had a pretty active gay community since the 1970s and is a pretty interesting mix of vibrant/visible college students, hippies, long-haired artists, LGBT, Jews, native Indians, Hispanics.
In fact I was once told that one of the reasons Tucson tends to be more liberal then state, is because it had historically a fairly large Jewish population and they tend to vote as a class for the Democratic Party or Independents.
posted by Houndentenor on
A note about the addendum. 6 in 10 Evangelicals oppose gay marriage. I think that’s amazingly low considering how loudly Evangelical leaders rail on the issue. To hear them talk you’d think it would be a lot higher.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
The WP Stephen cited puts the number at 66%, a quibble, so its closer to 7 in 10 than 6 in 10. Sill, that’s an improvement over polls take n a year ago, when the number was often approaching 80% opposition.
I think that the noise is panic. I’ve seen quite a few articles recently indicating that Evangelical leadership knows that the game is over:
posted by Don on
Dan Savage has a funny, although searing response to the new counter-offer of civil unions as a compromise. It does put it all in perspective when considering how to be magnanimous about “winning.”
When we were dying of AIDS and being kicked out of our homes and hospitals when marriage would have saved us from vindictive relatives, there was no desire to compromise. There was no “hey, that ain’t right!” from Christians.
They spiked the ball and told us our pain and suffering was nothing like the torments that await us in hell. And those that avoided actually saying that silently let it all go on.
It really is hard not to want to storm into a bakery and make them bake the damn cake using jack-booted thugs when you remember how well we’ve been treated over the years.
It just reminds me again how much more Christian even the gay atheists are than the Christians themselves sometimes.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
It really is hard not to want to storm into a bakery and make them bake the damn cake using jack-booted thugs when you remember how well we’ve been treated over the years.
It’s hard not to respond with anger to church lady prigs like George Will, of all people, telling us not to be “poor winners”. I try to let it go, but where the hell was he when half our friends were dying in the 1980’s and the Reagan administration sat on its ass?
Stephen and the rest of the crowd seem to think that there is a progressive/liberal conspiracy underlying the handful of cases about photographers, bakers and florists, and that if only the right group/person would say the word, we’d all behave ourselves.
Fat chance. It is a lot more likely that the gays and lesbians who pushed the issue were pissed off, one too many times, and that’s the long and short of it.
posted by Doug on
Exactly Tom. I routinely alternate between trying to be reasonable and wanting to take to the streets to burn the damn place down. It’s easy for folks like George Will to say we should be gracious winners. . . they were not on the receiving end of the viciousness the LGBT community has lived through, and in many places still lives with. There are many times that I do not want to be gracious, I just want to shove it down their throats.
posted by Houndentenor on
We’ve won? Really? I must have slept through the passage of ENDA, the repeal of the rest of DOMA and gay marriage being legal in all 50 states.
posted by Jorge on
This apparent belief of Mr. Savage that everyone who opposes gay marriage is some kind of sadist is something that will only become more and more abberant over time as the battles of 20+ years ago gradually lose their relevance to current political issues.
Still, if I am going to dissent from Mr. Savage, it is only fair that he be given a direct answer from the Christian rightists (etc.) themselves. Most of the right, including the Christian right, claims to have no problem distancing itself from the most poisonous vices of yesteryear. It is not too much to ask that they answer to him, and that they throw their fellows–or themselves–under the bus or give a compelling reason why they should not do so.
posted by Doug on
It’s hard to argue that the Christian Right is distancing itself from the most poisonous vices of yesteryear when the expert witness in the Michigan Gay Marriage trail just testified that “gays are going to hell”, not to mention those wonderful folks at the Westboro Baptist Church.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Furthermore. Chart: 11 years of opinion change.
So how and when do you think that the Republican Party will catch the wave? I have to wonder when I hear CPAC denounced on RedState as being insufficiently conservative.
posted by Aubrey Haltom on
I spent the morning scrolling through Joe.My.God’s CPAC coverage: CPAC tweets, pics, speeches, etc…
I’d like to hear Miller address how gay Republicans are supposed to win elections when the marquee names in the Republican Party are still falling over themselves trying to be the most toxic re: lgbt issues.
If GOProud and Log Cabin aren’t welcome at CPAC as participants (not merely visitors) – in fact, they’re castigated even in absentia – how does Miller hold to his ‘gay progressives are the thorn-in-the-side of gay Republicans’ mantra?
posted by Lori Heine on
I used to buy into that argument, but I no longer find it credible, either.
Little epiphanies keep happening: Duck Dynasty, Arizona SB 1062…it’s no longer possible to believe anti-gay Republicans have any integrity whatsoever.
Even if they’re changing their hearts and minds, it is clearly ONLY because they want to win elections. They knew all along that the way they were treating us was dishonest and unjust — AND THEY DID IT ANYWAY. They have no character. No other conclusion is possible.
Time to stop blaming LGBT progressives. We need to hold conservatives accountable. Why GOProud or Log Cabin even want to bother with CPAC anymore is beyond me.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
CPAC seems to be doing a mind meld with the Values Voter Summit.
I suppose that this is all part of the “battle for the soul of the party”. For the next several election cycles, anyway, I wouldn’t bet a dime against the social conservatives in that battle.
posted by Houndentenor on
I’ll tell you how they do it. They do it by supporting the Republicans who vote for gay rights. There were three Republicans in the legislature who were Republican and voted against this heinous bill. Most likely some far right nutjob will run against them in their next election. That’s where the focus should be. If Republicans stick their necks out like that and then get defeated by some Teavangelical challenger, that sends a message that voting for equal rights get you fired. If I were a Republican I’d be out fundraising and otherwise supporting for such Republicans. There are some out there. They are a minority but they do exist.
posted by Jorge on
I’m too tired. What was that bill Orrin Hatch voted Yes on? ENDA, huh? He’s not even up for re-election this year. The other two Republican Senators they mention on the relevant committee are Lisa Murkowski and Mark Kirk. Wikipedia cites other Republicans who voted for cloiture as Kelly Ayotte, Susan Collins, Dean Heller, Rob Portman, and Pat Toomey.
The only one of those who is up for election this year is Susan Collins. I wonder why that name sounds so familiar to me? :\
Well, it’s hard for me to forget ArchCon Orrin Hatch, so I’ll get them all back later.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
If I were a Republican I’d be out fundraising and otherwise supporting for such Republicans. There are some out there. They are a minority but they do exist.
Republican candidates consistently get somewhere in the range of 25% of gay and lesbian votes. You can bet that gays and lesbians who vote Republican aren’t, for the most part, working for Walmart wages, and could have an impact if they wanted to do so.
The fact that GOProud purred when they got rolled over by CPAC suggests that something is really assbackwards among Republican gays and lesbians.
Contrast GOProud with the LGBT Democrats in Virginia. Virginia LGBT Democrats might get rolled, but not without a fight.
posted by Jorge on
There hasn’t been a national election since all that happened. You’ll probably see something of a change. Maybe 2%, like in 2004. Or does the 7% increase the Democratic candidate got count, too?
I do not expect there to be more of a swing than what Bush lost in between 2000 and 2004. Bush supported a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman (the nuances elude me at the moment). That was very significant as a practical matter, even with such a stark contrast between Bush and Kerry on foreign policy.
What do you cite now? CPAC shutting out GOProud. That’s negated by the Speaker of the House’s stand against a campaign to freeze out an openly gay Republican House candidate. The real difference between Republicans and Democrats now with regards to GLBTs is… well there are actually two. The big one is stateside gay marriage. But it’s blunted, not enhanced, by the other one: the backlash against the war on bakers. The powers that be have turned the backlash into something that appeals to right-of-center sensibilities.
Add that to Obama’s polarizing presidency and there’s really no way you can peel off more than a sliver of any group strong minded enough to be both openly gay (LBT) and Republican-leaning.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
There hasn’t been a national election since all that happened. You’ll probably see something of a change. Maybe 2%, like in 2004.
Jorge, I don’t know where you get your numbers (maybe the 2% was a typo), but the exit polls 2004-2012 show a relatively consistent picture. In 2004, 23% (not 2%) voted for President Bush.
What do you cite now? CPAC shutting out GOProud.
I cited it solely for the purpose of pointing out the different responses between Democratic LGBT’s and Republican LGBT’s when it comes to getting rolled. Democrats fight; Republicans don’t.
If you had to ask me for the single most important reason why Democratic gays and lesbians have turned out party, and Republican gays and lesbians haven’t, it would be that fact.
posted by Jorge on
Jorge, I don’t know where you get your numbers (maybe the 2% was a typo), but the exit polls 2004-2012 show a relatively consistent picture. In 2004, 23% (not 2%) voted for President Bush.
The 2% was a reference to the 2% change from the 25% who voted for Bush in 2000, though I seem to remember CNN and the other media outlet (I think Washington Post) that did exit polling on this question didn’t have the same information for either ’00 or ’04. The 7% was a reference to John Kerry getting 77% of the GLBT vote (or however they asked the question) compared to the 70% Al Gore got.
It is not difficult to come up with a reason for Bush to lose ground among the gay vote between 2000 and 2004, but it is also not difficult to come up with reasons for Bush to maintain party loyalty. The end result was that he didn’t lose very much of the gay vote. The political situation right now compares equally or better.
posted by craig123 on
If GOProud and Log Cabin aren’t welcome at CPAC as participants (not merely visitors) – in fact, they’re castigated even in absentia – how does Miller hold to his ‘gay progressives are the thorn-in-the-side of gay Republicans’ mantra?
Your logic is confusing. Since there are anti-gay Republicans (shocking!), why would that mean we should not support gay and gay-supportive Republicans? Clearly, you are not the least bit interested in changing the GOP – your vision is to keep it as anti-gay as possible.
Also, CPAC represents the rightwing of the GOP — it is not a GOP party event.
And in any event, CPAC was less anti-gay then in years past. See http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/mar/10/cpac-2014-despite-ben-carson-speech-gay-marriage-m/
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Indiana joined the ranks of states in which a federal lawsuit has been filed to obtain marriage equality earlier today. The suit seeks to overturn Indiana’s statutory ban on same-sex marriage and force the state to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other jurisdictions. I think that leaves Alaska, Georgia, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota and South Dakota as the only remaining states in which neither marriage equality is the law not the state’s anti-equality constitution unchallenged.
posted by Tom Jefferson III on
In North Dakota it will probably (eventually) come down to what the more conservative parents/grandparents want namely; how far are they willing to drive in order to see their kids/grand kids?
The first openly gay state legislator was elected in North Dakota only recently – and their ain’t no Log Cabin Republicans in this State (at least not organized) and the ND libertarians (that I have met) tend to sing the holy praise of Ayn Rand and Mr. Paul.