The Shift

A trend is being recognized here:

National Journal, Republicans Are Openly Softening Their Tone on Same-Sex Marriage: “Social conservatives may not have raised the white flag on same-sex marriage yet, but their party’s leaders are in search of something of a compromise.”

BuzzFeed: No Sign Of Social Issues As Conservative Leaders Preach To Activists: “the prospective [GOP presidential] candidates’ reluctance to talk about these issues at an event that had been explicitly marketed as a 2016 preview does not bode well for the religious right’s agenda.”

The GOP leadership and presidential front-runners know that a generational shift within the party is coming—61% of young Republicans support same-sex marriage—and what that means.

More. From the Washington Post, continuing the theme: Republicans outside of Washington are dropping their opposition to gay marriage. Will the national party follow along?

32 Comments for “The Shift”

  1. posted by Tom Scharbach on

    The GOP leadership and presidential front-runners know what the generational shift in attitudes means.

    Let’s hope so.

    The Nevada Republican Party convention removed opposition to marriage equality from the 2014 Platform.

    I don’t expect the Republican Party to endorse marriage equality until after the 2016 election cycle, if then, but perhaps more state platforms will follow Nevada’s lead this year, and the national 2016 Republican Platform remove opposition to marriage equality, as well. It would be a start.

    The Republican Party has to distance itself, and fast, from extremist groups like the Family Research Council, which wreaked such havoc with the 2012 Republican Platform.

    I’ll be watching the 2014 Values Voter Summit this September closely. It is too much to ask potential 2016 Presidential nominees to shun the Summit, but I’ll be watching for a shift in attitude by potential nominees, as I am sure we all will.

    • posted by Houndentenor on

      Aren’t we putting the cart before the horse here? I still regularly hear Republicans at the state level bemoan that they aren’t allowed to enforce their states’ sodomy laws. We think they’ll put marriage equality on the party platform while still fighting against all gay rights laws? Really?

      • posted by Tom Scharbach on

        If I understand the Nevada situation correctly, what happened is this: The 2012 platform had strong “traditional marriage” language. The platform committee, after quite a bit of wrangling over a period of months, removed the language from the 2014 platform. At the convention, two different floor amendments were offered to reinsert “traditional marriage” language. Both, after a debate described in the press as “raucous”, failed.

        In a convention environment that means something. I don’t know how Nevada Republicans select their delegates, but in Wisconsin’s DPW, a delegate is appointed by the county party, and has to attend the regional convention, to be a state delegate. Convention delegates are the party faithful, the workers. It isn’t like a “summit” or CPAC, where you plunk down your $25 and walk in the door, giving a determined minority the ability to stack the deck.

        Maybe I’m making too much of this development. But my take on the Nevada platform comes from seven long years of work trying to get “We support marriage equality …” into the DPW platform, and eventually succeeding. I don’t know who it was, but I know that somebody worked long and hard to get “traditional marriage” out of the Nevada platform, and made it stick.

        Of course there are dissenting voices — loud voices — claiming that the Nevada Republican party pulled a Judas, and is finished as a political party. But the fight was fought, and won. That means something.

        • posted by Mark on

          Along the lines of state-level action, a grand total of 1 Republican legislator voted to repeal LA’s unconstitutional sodomy law; the measure to repeal overwhelmingly failed, thanks to GOP votes:
          http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2014/04/post_558.html

          • posted by Tom Scharbach on

            The Deep South is the Deep South — symbolic actions are of great importance.

            Alabama’s citizens have voted — twice now in recent years — to retain school segregation in the Alabama constitution, despite the fact that school segregation was ruled unconstitutional in 1954, and the Confederate “stars and bars” battle flag is vigorously defended as a symbol of freedom, over and over again.

            The Republican vote doesn’t bother me. What else would one expect? What bothers me is that 11 Democrats — John “Andy” Anders (D-Vidalia), James Armes (D-Leeville), Michael Danahay (D-Sulphur), Jerry Gisclair (D-Larose), Mickey Guillory (D-Eunice), Dorothy Sue Hill (D-Dry Creek), Robert Johnson (D-Marksville), Sam Jones (D-Franklin), Bernard LeBas (D-Ville Platte), Eugene Reynolds (D-Minden), and Harold Ritchie (D-Bogalusa) — voted with the Republicans.

            Democrats in Louisiana have work to do.

      • posted by clayton on

        In point of fact, the Louisiana legislature just refused to remove its unconstitutional anti -sodomy laws from the books.

        • posted by Tom Scharbach on

          No big deal, except as a bellweather.

          A lot of the anti-marriage amendments will remain embedded in state constitutions for a long time after they are ruled unconstitutional, too. Just to make the point.

  2. posted by Doug on

    The GOP may be softening their rhetoric on LGBT equality but they have not changed their beliefs. They just don’t want to scare off potential voters but I guarantee given a chance and with sufficient numbers they would pass all manner of anti-LGBT legislation. The softened rhetoric is nothing more than a Trojan Horse and anyone who falls for the softened rhetoric does so at their own peril.

  3. posted by JohnInCA on

    Call me a cynic, but I’ll hold off on the celebratory fireworks until words become actions.

    Then again, I’m pretty sure GOP party leaders are hoping the Supreme Court will settle LGBT issues† so they stop having to support legislation to appease their base.
    ________
    †Marriage, anti-discrimination policies, so-on.

  4. posted by Houndentenor on

    So when can we expect a change in voting patterns in Republican controlled legislatures or in the House of Representatives?

  5. posted by Lori Heine on

    There is nothing that means less, coming from a politician, than “tone.” Tone is only rhetoric. It must translate into action to be significant.

    This is, perhaps, related to the confusion conservatives labor under with regard to religious rhetoric. The biblical understanding of faith was that what people did revealed what they really believed. What they said, unless their actions matched their words, was meaningless.

    If their “religious freedom” means nothing more to them than the freedom to behave like jerks, they shouldn’t wonder that the younger generation fails to find their churches credible.

    • posted by Houndentenor on

      I was never part of the PC crowd. I remain skeptical of the “words have power” line of thinking. Yes, pejoratives can hurt and should be avoided. Yes, inspiring speeches can lead to action and are necessary to persuade people to do the right thing. But words are not a substitute for action. Toning down the rhetoric would be nice. It would help the closeted gay teens who hear hear their children shout Amen after an anti-gay tirade. But talk is also cheap, as the old cliche goes. Actions are what counts. I’m impressed by what people do much more so than what they say. Time 1,000,000 for politicians who seem to make promises easily in spite of no discernible intention to follow through.

    • posted by Jorge on

      There is nothing that means less, coming from a politician, than “tone.” Tone is only rhetoric. It must translate into action to be significant.

      I have the opposite opinion. Politicians will do anything to get elected. But they always have a way of tilting the scales. Sincerity is important, lest their assistance run dry when it is the most needed.

      • posted by Houndentenor on

        Since it is impossible to know for certain what any other person is really thinking, the only way to judge them is on their actions. What do I care if a politician is secretly homophobic but votes for gay rights anyway? What impact does that secret belief have on my life? None at all. Conversely the politicians who are privately fine with gay people but vote against gay rights consistently is not doing any good for gay people. I have heard stories for decades about Republicans who privately have no problem with gay people. Well bully for them. Why should I respect someone who claims to be my friend in private and then publicly acts in ways that are harmful to me. Such a person is not my friend. Actions have consequences. Thoughts not so much. I realize that puts me at odds with the “woo” crowd that think our thoughts alter reality. I see no evidence of any such effect. You know what affects reality? Actions.

        • posted by Jorge on

          Sorry, but I’d rather have to block a sword to the face than a knife in the back.

  6. posted by Tom Scharbach on

    JohnInCA: Then again, I’m pretty sure GOP party leaders are hoping the Supreme Court will settle LGBT issues† so they stop having to support legislation to appease their base.

    I don’t think that there is any question about it. News reports about the change in the Nevada Republican platform suggest that court rulings to date influenced the decision, or at least gave cover:

    Republicans who sat on the platform committee said they decided not to deal with social issues this year because the U.S. Supreme Court and lower courts have weighed in and it doesn’t make sense for the party of “personal freedom” to have the government or the political party get involved in people’s personal lives.

    “The issue was how can we back out of people’s personal lives,” said Dave Hockaday of Lyon County, who sat on the platform committee. “We need to focus on issues where we can have an impact.”

    It will be interesting to see what happens in other state platforms this year, particularly in marriage-equality states that tend to lean Democratic. Will Republicans in those states follow Nevada’s lead, or follow Massachusetts’ lead where the Republican platform doubled-down on its anti-marriage plank?

    The Supreme Court ruling is likely to come down in June 2016, right plunk in the middle of the 2016 Presidential campaign. It will be fascinating to watch the Presidential nominee try to finesse the decision, and questions that arise in the aftermath concerning (to quote Doug) “all manner of anti-LGBT legislation”.

  7. posted by Tom Scharbach on

    The GOP leadership and presidential front-runners know that a generational shift within the party is coming—61% of young Republicans support same-sex marriage—and what that means.

    Your subtle shift in wording (the original was “The GOP leadership and presidential front-runners know what the generational shift in attitudes means“) from the generational shift in society as a whole to the generational shift in the Republican Party raises a question for me to think about.

    It is clear to me that marriage equality is, in the minds of young Democrats, “the civil rights movement of our generation”. Do you suppose that is true of young Republicans as well?

    If so, the Republican Party’s change in position is going to have to be real and dramatic to hold on to younger Republicans. A grudging “let’s focus on important issues” silence on “equal means equal” won’t cut it.

  8. posted by Tom Scharbach on

    Reading Stephen’s first link, it looks like we are headed back to the days of “states rights”:

    The idea, seemingly, is to shift the argument against gay marriage from an ethical one to a constitutional one. It’s a win-win for Republicans caught between their conservative base and the more liberal young voters they are trying to convert. By arguing that states should be allowed to pass whatever laws they see fit, Republicans … can remain true to a constitutional conservative image without alienating either side too much.

    The conservative crowd may have been disappointed by this softened rhetoric.

    Maybe “states rights” is a win-win for this election cycle (it will certainly have appeal in the Deep South), but if the Supreme Court rules in June 2016, as seems likely, it isn’t going to stay a win-win.

    After the Supreme Court rules, Republican candidates are going to have to confront the question of whether or not to obey the ruling. The Republicans who are banging the “states rights” drum must have the low animal cunning to know this, and they will have to come up with a political position?

    Nullification? Secession?

    In Wisconsin, the Republican Party convention will be voting on a secession plank this year, just in case, I guess.

    I don’t truck with secession. I come from a family in which every generation has taken up arms to preserve the Constitution, starting with my great-grandfathers, who fought in Wisconsin or Minnesota regiments during the Civil War.

    I don’t truck with nullification, either. We are one country, with one Constitution, or we are not.

    The more I think about the “trend” in Republican thinking that Stephen points to, the less I like it.

    • posted by Houndentenor on

      I hate to be flip about this, because it’s not something I would wish for, but I’m certainly not going to endorse going to war to force Mississippi or Alabama to stay a part of the country. If they want to secede and live in the third world hell-holes their states would become without the billions in federal funds that flow into those states every year, then let them have it. I’m certainly not going to shed any blood to force them to take federal money they claim they don’t want. Let them go. I’m sick of secessionist talk. It’s all talk and almost always by people who gorge themselves regularly at the government trough.

      • posted by Kosh III on

        force Mississippi or Alabama to stay a part of the country. If they want to secede and live in the third world hell-holes their states would become”

        Those states are already a hell-hole in many spots, drive thru Meridian MS or Oneonta AL—welcome to Conservative Paradise.

        Good riddance I say, just let us keep Huntsville AL.

  9. posted by Kosh III on

    Huckabee is softening up? Really? Really?

    “he has said that homosexuality poses a “dangerous public health risk,” that it’s a sin comparable to lying and stealing, that it will lead to polygamy and bigamy, and that gay men are more likely to sexually abuse children.”

    http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2014/04/09/3424623/mike-huckabee-opposing-lgbt-equality-is-on-the-right-side-of-the-bible/

    Huckabee admits to treason when he puts the Biblical standard before the Constitutional standard.
    “this is the right side of the Bible, and unless God rewrites it, edits it, sends it down with his signature on it, it’s not my book to change.’ Folks, that’s why I stand where I stand.”

    I’d be happy to see the GOP support equality, fidelity to the Constitution and all that but here where the “conservatives” still celebrate the treason of the Confederacy while thumping a Book, there is NO softening and usually no doubling-down. Instead most are tripling-down on their words and deeds.

    • posted by Houndentenor on

      Yeah, I saw these stories. Huckabee is still operating under a pre-internet paradigm in which politicians and other public figures could get away with saying one thing to one group and the opposite to another. Youtube has pretty much put an end to that. Some politicians (not all of the Republican, btw) seem not to have gotten that tweet.

  10. posted by Lori Heine on

    Huckabee doesn’t adhere to the biblical standard on anything. He is an evil human being, to whom absolutely nothing is sacred. He will use, twist, hijack and defile even what other people consider holy simply to get whatever he wants.

    What he really wants is the same thing most of the fiends from hell who do this want. He wants money and power.

    LGBT Christians spend much of our time in the trail of people like Huckabee with a bucket of water and a mop. Our ministry must be cleaning up their mess. Because they spend so much time blaspheming against what they claim to believe and leave so much wreckage behind them, much of the “religious freedom” of Christians who see the harm being done must be devoted to this.

    Now the idiot children are rioting again. They’re breaking windows and throwing sh*t all over the place. We’d love to spend more time and resources (the little most of us have) on the homeless, the poor, the ill, the despairing and the forgotten. Instead, once again, we’re readying the mops, the brooms, the dustpans and the Mister Clean…

    • posted by Jorge on

      Huckabee doesn’t adhere to the biblical standard on anything. He is an evil human being, to whom absolutely nothing is sacred. He will use, twist, hijack and defile even what other people consider holy simply to get whatever he wants.

      What he really wants is the same thing most of the fiends from hell who do this want. He wants money and power.

      Yes, I mostly agree.

      I think Huckabee’s nice enough to people within his warped view of clannishness, but if you’re not “with him”, you’re against him, and he’ll do anything he can get away with.

      He’s my Republican party icon for the D&D alignment of Neutral Evil.

  11. posted by Mark on

    This is a potentially good thing–in the late 1990s and 2000s, Democrats basically stopped talking about gun control, because they were afraid of the political effects of their position, and as a result public support for gun control declined.

    What these two articles suggest is that Republicans might now be doing the same thing for marriage for same-sex couples–and with no one (but the Maggie Gallagher types) defending the anti-equality position in the public square, public opinion should continue to accelerate in one direction.

    Still, couldn’t help but notice that wholly absent from Stephen’s summary was that more than 90% of Republican senators and more than 98% of Republican House members oppose marriage equality. No indication many of them are changing their positions anytime soon.

    • posted by Tom Jefferson III on

      I doubt that anyone — even ‘partisan Democrats’ doubt that eventually BOTH Parties — driven by the younger generation — will eventually push each party to support secular gay marriage.

      I suspect that since the 1990s, the writing has been on the wall about this issue. Back then I suspect that polling data showed that younger Americans are simply not as homophobic as their parents/grandparents and as more and more people came out — including same sex couples — well, homophobia was no longer going to grab voters.

      However, the GOP remained largely hostile to gay rights in the 1990s – today. They knew that the tide was turning, but wanted to squeeze out as much easy votes (and money) from the – mostly older voters — as they can.

      This was a bad idea — long term — in the 1990s for the GOP and now its just become self-evidently bad, that party leaders are having to float a few comments about ‘the tone’.

      Obama winning both in 2008 and 2012 had a big impact in that direction. Mitt ran a very hardcore, anti-equality campaign and, had he won, the GOP probably would have mined that homophobia even longer.

      However, Mitt lost and so, the GOP is slowly having to deal with the fact that younger voters and even older ‘Independent’ voters are generally pretty ‘live and let live’ about such things and spreading fear about gay marriage or immigrants or Muslims among certain is not going to help the GOP — long-term.

      However, the immediate/short term is that most elected Republicans in the US Senate/House believe or feel that they must believe in whatever the ‘religious right’ says about gay marriage.

      Some of them may be true believers, but some of them also probably just don’t want to face a serious ‘Tea Party” challenger in the primary and really don’t really care one way or the other.

      Also — in many State level GOP organizations — especially in the South and Midwest, it is still pretty much impossible to support marriage equality and have much of a say in the workings of the party.

  12. posted by Kosh III on

    “more than 90% of Republican senators and more than 98% of Republican House members oppose marriage equality. ”

    And it can be veen higher in the State Legislatures and more intractable. When will the Aphabet Street elites recognize and deal with that?

  13. posted by Tom Jefferson III on

    The challenge with the GOP is what to do with the significant voting ‘religious right’ voting block that is still holding out for bringing back the criminal laws against gay people (and other ‘sins).

    The major goal of a major party (especially in a two-party system) is simple; win elections. This is worth reminding people about.

    These voters can be useful in doing that — even if some Republicans are not really true believers, but are willing to go along for the career — and they still tend to have a BIG role to play in primaries. So, what happens to them?

    Do they end up supporting a third party — say the American Independent or Constitution Party — which gains some local and regional traction?

  14. posted by Aubrey Haltom on

    I was happy to see the Nevada GOP ‘edit’ their social issues platform.

    But I’m not so sure we can start celebrating either. For every Nevada, there is (unfortunately) a Massachusetts, where the state GOP plank just took a decided step against equality. And no, there’s no “Deep South” excuse here. (I live in Boston.)

    You would think that the marriage issue was settled here in Mass. But not for the Massachusetts Republicans, apparently.

    Oh, and the Republicans opposed to equality here in New England are falling squarely back to the ‘marriage is a state issue’ argument. As a comment from a New Hampshire conservative blog noted – ‘absent a constitutional amendment for traditional marriage, advocating for the state’s right to determine marriage is the conservative position’.

    Query: if the Republicans gain full control of Congress (House and Senate) – will the Republican animosity towards ‘equal means equal’ lessen? or will it ramp up a notch as a deference to the religious/social cons who helped them retake both chambers?

    • posted by Tom Scharbach on

      You raise exactly the question we all have, Aubrey: Which way is the Republican Party going to turn at this point?

      Will it head down the road of “states rights”, nullification (as Kansas Republicans have done with respect to federal gun control, and Republicans in several states have threatened to do with respect to the ACA), an secession (as Wisconsin Republicans might do in the 2014 platform)? Or will the party head down the road of “one nation, one Constitution”, accepting “equal means equal”?

      At this point, it is a toss up. Nevada Republicans went one way, Massachusetts Republicans the other.

      I think that a lot is going to depend on how the 2016 Republican presidential nominee handles the Supreme Court decision that is like to come down in June 2016, right in the middle of the election cycle.

      If the nominee says “The Supreme Court has spoken. I accept marriage equality as the law of the land.” I think that the Republican Party will, reasonably quickly, settle down and accept marriage equality as a fact on the ground.

      If the nominee, on the other hand, is defiant, denounces the decision as an affront to states rights, or worse, pulls a Huckabee and denounces the decision as contrary to “God’s Law”, I think that the Republican Party will dig in its heels, fighting tooth and nail until the last possible battle has been fought and lost.

      Obviously, I hope for the former, not the latter.

  15. posted by Tom Scharbach on

    Young Conservatives for Freedom to Marry has begun an initiative to remove anti-equality language from the 2016 Republican national platform. I hope that they will be successful.

  16. posted by Kosh III on

    GOP poll defites tide on gay marriage

    http://www.politico.com/story/2014/04/gop-poll-gay-marriage-105886.html?hp=l2

    The poll was supposedly taken from the GOP base, not the Alphabet Street elites.

Comments are closed.