From The Atlantic, Republicans Are Driving the Momentum for Gay Marriage: “From politicians and donors to the party rank and file, a change of heart in the GOP is a major factor in the issue’s increasing public acceptance.”
The headline might overstate things a bit, but there is a definite change in the grassroots. As I’ve said before, the party is no longer monotone on the issue (unlike the carping of LGBT Democrats who might have nothing to get them up in the morning if not their hatred of all things Republican).
Speaking of which, the level of Democratic mendacity in the party’s attacks on openly gay GOP congressional candidate Carl DeMaio is reaching new heights, which is hopefully a sign of desperation. I’ve written about DeMaio often before, most recently in Gay Republicans Who Might Win Drive LGBT Democrats Berserk.
13 Comments for “Coming Round”
posted by Houndentenor on
“(unlikely the carping of LGBT Democrats who might have nothing to get them up in the morning if not their hatred of all things Republican)”
LOL. It must be opposite day. That’s it. I have yet to meet a gay Republican who had any political view other than hating liberals.
I’m happy to play nice with pro-gay Republicans. It’s just that there are so few of them and not a one within miles of where I live. Obviously we have Republican allies. Just look at who voted to repeal DADT.
posted by Doug on
Stephen, your constant refrain about liberals/progressive hatred of all things Republican borders on pathological, and it’s not pretty. You should seek help. Liberals/progressives are NOT the reason that the Republican Party is anti-gay. What have you ever done in your party to advance the cause? Besides to blame everything on liberals/progressives.
posted by Lori Heine on
The GOP is anti-gay because it’s ruined itself morally, pandering to social conservatives. When you lie down with dogs, you get up with fleas. Or, to quote another old saying, the devil demands his due.
Sure there are people in the Republican Party trying to change this, just as there are in the churches. But every time headway is made, the spoiled brats throw tantrums and make threats.
Gay liberals didn’t cause this. Democrats didn’t cause it. It is the result of decades of decisions made by the Republicans themselves.
What is necessary is growing the balls (or the eggs, as the case may be) to stand up to bullies and do the right thing. The right thing and the Right-Wing thing lead in two very different directions.
posted by jerrelt on
Hmmmmm….perhaps the republicans are driving the momentum for same sex marriage….but only in some opposite bizarro world. Such a comment strikes me as being self delusional.
posted by Kosh III on
Where are these pro-gay Republicans?
They sure the frak are not anywhere in the GOP strongholds.
Here both Senators are adamantly opposed to equality.
Here the Governor and Legislature spend much time finding and passsing new laws to make it even worse for gay citizens.
Once again, get out of your blue state liberal enclave and come down here and lobby the GOP. I’ll even visit you in the hospital when they beat the crap out of you.
posted by Houndentenor on
Same here. Down to the lowest level office. Every person running here in the GOP primary earlier this month was trying to outdo the others by stooping to new levels of ridiculous extremism. This isn’t some invention of Democrats. I know Democrats. We aren’t nearly that clever or coordinated. (I wish, but we’re not.) I love how all the gay right-wingers live in liberal enclaves and enjoy the benefits that liberals earned for them. I’d love for them to spend some time in Mississippi or Alabama as an out gay person and see what the real Republican base is really like.
One other thing. I don’t know much about this guy in San Diego that Stephen keeps talking about. I do know that it’s dangerous to comment on local politics without knowing the indigenous terrain. I haven’t heard a single thing about him that would cause me to support him except that he’s gay. If that’s all it takes where was the gay conservative support for Barney Frank and Tammie Baldwin. Oh, right. They disagree with Frank and Baldwin on just about everything. So again, why should Democrats and/or liberals support a gay Republican candidate for mayor?
posted by Jorge on
As I’ve said before, the party is no longer monotone on the issue
As I have said before, but guess who is? (SPOILERS!)
***
(unlikely the carping of LGBT Democrats who might have nothing to get them up in the morning if not their hatred of all things Republican).
LOL. It must be opposite day. That’s it. I have yet to meet a gay Republican who had any political view other than hating liberals.
Hey, that’s not very nice (although I’m not a Republican anymore). I think liberals are great, in the right dosage and so long as someone’s around with soap in case too much vitriol comes out of their mouths. Telling people “No, you need to take a bath” is not an exercise in hatred, especially since there’s no almost no way to force the issue.
Once again, get out of your blue state liberal enclave and come down here and lobby the GOP. I’ll even visit you in the hospital when they beat the crap out of you.
If it is all the same to you, I’d rather stay in my blue state traditional enclave and have you visit me in the morgue when some apolitical goon strikes me dead.
posted by Don on
Down here in Miami there have been some real inroads for gay equality in the Republican party. Nix that. Cuban-Americans, which are defacto Republicans. it’s a really weird twist of things. Cubans vote republican like African Americans vote democrat. Still, gay rights has made major inroads with this demographic. They did it by appealing to an Hispanic/Catholic mindset.
I think Cubans may be unique in this regard. They’re republicans, but they’re also Hispanic. Yes, there are Hispanic republicans. but not many. and I can’t think of another nationality that is so obviously tilted toward Republicans.
At the same time, they have an inside/outside experience with Team R. They love that they’re Republican, but they also know they are extremely anti-immigrant, and most importantly, they know WHY they are anti-immigrant. Add in the wet/dry foot policy + communism and you have a weird mix that actually makes them acceptable to Republicans with nativist instincts.
So, we found frame it as a liberal/conservative argument, you lose Cubans. Because they play for the conservative “team” and go with whatever that “team” says. But if you couch an issue without party signifiers, they actually listen and are persuadable. Both sides respond this way to arguments. Everyone is more open minded if they have no idea how their “team” frames the issue.
I don’t like Carl DeMaio because he is against full equality. I like Richard Tisei because he is for full equality. Both are gay republicans. What surprises me is that DeMaio is still trying to say he’s not for equality at this late stage. Hell, Jerry Sanders (straight, republican) came out for full marriage equality while mayor of San Deigo. Surely this can’t be that hard for Carl.
And surely, Stephen, this particular set of facts in San Diego might color gay voters’ perceptions of DeMaio more than “he’s a republican.”
posted by Tom Jefferson III on
In Minnesota — the GOP is basically the ‘lady of the evening’ or ‘pimp’ to the far-right-wing cultural reactionaries (mixed in with some odd conspiracy theorists and Ayn Rand fans).
Time and time again I have heard straight and gay Republicans tell me horror stories about trying to get involved with their party — as a voter or candidate — and basically being told to get out/go away .
Yes, their are some exemptions (and they should be applauded) — but this idea that it is somehow the fault of Democrats or liberals that the GOP is anti-gay is just not what I have seen and heard about from actual pro-equality Republicans. I hear a similar story from socially liberal/libertarian Republican folks in North Dakota and South Dakota.
Minnesota has a fairly strong ‘centrist’ party called the Independence Party. They tend to be socially moderate/liberal and fiscally conservative. ….That party could end up becoming the main opposition to the State DFL.
posted by Tom Jefferson III on
Granted, Minnesota has a long history of active third parties — so it may not be typically. The Farmer Labor party joined with the Democratic Party back in the 1940s. It is possible that the Independence Party could join with the GOP or become the main opposition.
Part of the problem is that their is a fairly large part of Minnesota with — almost — nothing that resembles an organized gay community.
For example, gay pride in Twin Cities or Duluth (for example) often has booths set up for both major parties.
Yet, when you get into Western Minnesota and parts of Central Minnesota the gay community — regardless of their personal politics — is still largely ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’.
When you look at West Central Minnesota the gay groups that exist are VERY low key (with zero budget and little resources or skills), and you basically get — electorally — very right-wing Tea Party/Old-Time-Religion, Republicans and a few moderate-conservative Democrats. Period.
This makes statewide organizing difficult and even more so if you are trying to work within the electoral process that exists.
The GOP here is not anti-gay because of anything to do with the DFL or the INP or anything like that.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
As Stephen pointed out, the Atlantic article “might overstate things a bit” (for a more tempered analysis see Salon’s “Republicans driving LGBT progress?! The Atlantic loses its mind“) but the fact is that we are beginning to see change within the Republican Party as Republicans’ attitudes toward gays and lesbians change along with the rest of the country. That’s a good thing, long overdue, but still good.
posted by Tom Jefferson III on
The young — straight and gay — Republicans that I know who support equality are still being told to ‘take a walk’ if express interest in getting involved in the party as a ‘equal means equal’ candidate.
I would think that would be a sign of grassroots change in the GOP, but (at least from what I hear) the leadership does not want to change the GOP opposition to gay rights, it just wants to learn how to say it with a friendly, wink and a nod.
I am not say that — maybe — it is not different elsewhere. I am not saying that having two sane major parties would be a bad thing.
I just don’t see much of this ‘GOP-leading-the-way-for-equality’ progress happening in the (especially red state) Midwest.
posted by Lori Heine on
It is absolutely laughable that the GOP is “leading the way” right now on LGBT equality when they try to put over a hoax like the one they played in Arizona.
In Arizona, it is already legal for anybody to discriminate against gay people — either as couples or singly — for ANY reason they choose. That includes everything from “sincerely held religious belief” to not liking how we part our hair.
SB1062 would actually have narrowed the scope of freedom that those wishing to discriminate against us would have. So what was really going on here?
Could it be that the social right is trying to craft a larger meme — one that portrays all Christians as anti-gay and all gays as anti-Christian? Something they are in an absolutely peachy position to do, now that 1062 was defeated by “all those anti-Christian gay bullies?”
Either Arizona’s legislators are incompetent political quacks, who propose laws without even bothering to check and see what the body of laws already on the books happen to be, or they are liars, pushing a dishonest meme. You take your pick.