I tend to agree with Walter Olson’s support for Justice Kennedy’s decision in Town of Greece v. Galloway, on allowing ministers to give sectarian prayers when ceremonially opening town council meetings. But whether one accepts Justice Kennedy’s reasoning or not, I think it’s positive that he’s seen as independent enough to side with the court’s conservatives in opposition to the liberal bloc, and not just on business issues. It makes his past and future decisions in support of gay legal equality all the more influential.
That’s to say, from a broad perspective it’s good that gay equality isn’t seen only as an issue that big-government progressives support.
On a separate matter somewhat related, the week saw another nasty little homophobic attack on openly gay GOP congressional candidate Carl DeMaio by progressive gay activists that backfired, tripping up DeMaio’s Democratic opponent. Apparently John Aravosis of AmericaBlog doesn’t like gay Republicans who are in the closet, and really hates gay Republicans who are not in the closet.
Democratic homophobic insinuations against DeMaio are nothing new, again demonstrating that Gay Republicans Who Might Win Drive LGBT Democrats Berserk.
More. And they just keep coming. Contra HRC’s Fred Sainz’s partisan assertion otherwise, “To say that Carl DeMaio was anything but 100% on board with the campaign to defeat Prop 8 is an outright lie,” says Arlon Staggs, former Steering Committee member of HRC’s San Diego Chapter.
Furthermore. The Washington Blade looks at gay Democrats critical of the Victory Fund’s endorsement of Richard Tisei, an openly gay Republican running for Congress in Massachusetts. Tisei, unlike DeMaio, met all the Victory Fund’s litmus tests, both stated (opposed to any restrictions on abortion) and unstated (not provoking the ire of government employee unions by favoring public pension reforms). The critics’ beef, ultimately, is over the Victory Fund being even the least bit nonpartisan rather than what HRC has become, a Democratic party fundraising auxiliary.
35 Comments for “Conservatives for Gay Equality Is a Good Thing”
posted by Tom Scharbach on
On a separate matter somewhat related, the week saw another nasty little homophobic attack on openly gay GOP congressional candidate Carl DeMaio by progressive gay activists that backfired, tripping up DeMaio’s Democratic opponent. Apparently John Aravosis of AmericaBlog doesn’t like gay Republicans who are in the closet, and really hates gay Republicans who are not in the closet.
The Peters campaign made a real boneheaded mistake posting that article.
The most basic principle of Campaign 101 is don’t give your opponent ammunition unless the benefit outweighs the risk. Although the Aravosis post was accurate in most details and revealing (DeMaio got down and dirty on Nathan Fletcher in the mayoral race, which is something I didn’t know), Peters gained nothing by putting the post on his campaign website, and he handed DeMaio’s campaign the ability to attack him on LGBT issues.
Stupid.
I decided to take a close look (from the perspective of a campaign manager) at the DeMaio/Peters campaign a few weeks ago, when the polling showed DeMaio pulling ahead.
From that perspective, I have to say that whoever is running DeMaio’s campaign is doing a superb job. The strategy of running DeMaio as a hand-holding gay Republican on a platform of “social issues aren’t important” and “look how much the gays hate me …” is brilliant, and the campaign has been playing Fox News and other Republican outlets on the “look how much gays hate me …” meme like a fiddle.
The campaign strategy allows DeMaio to run both to the “DeMaio will make a difference just by being gay …” Republicans and to the social conservative Republicans, all in one simple stroke. He doesn’t even have to talk out of both sides of his mouth. All he has to do is hold hands with his partner (thrilling “make a difference” Republicans without actually offering anything concrete), stay unmarried for the campaign’s duration (sending the tacit message that he “respects traditional marriage” despite his words of support for marriage equality), repeat over and over that he does not consider “social issues” important (disarming social conservative fears that he will rock the boat), and identify “the gays” as the enemy by claiming they hate him (givng social conservatives an affirmative reason to vote for him). As a campaign straddle, the strategy is near perfect pitch. Now, with this boneheaded move on the part of the Peters’ campaign, DeMaio will get to make a stink about Peters’ insensitivity to the LGBT community without any cost to him.
Talk about having your cake and eating it, too. The DeMaio campaign is run by somebody with lots of campaign smarts. I mean that sincerely.
DeMaio had raised close to $2 million in campaign contributions the last time I looked, and he can expect to double or triple that by November (the serious money comes in July/August). With expected levels of outside expenditures in a targeted district, I would not be surprised to see $10 million spent on DeMaio’s campaign before this is all over. That’s real money in mid-level media market. DeMaio is going to have the bucks to saturation bomb in October, and that will be the difference if the polls get tight.
I have no doubt that DeMaio will bury the NOM candidate on June 3, and if the Peters campaign doesn’t get all hell of a lot smarter very soon, Peters is going down in November.
posted by Jorge on
“Notably, all four liberal justices endorsed the Court’s earlier ruling in Marsh v. Chambers approving Nebraska’s use of prayer before legislative sessions.”
Okay, that makes me feel a little better. You know one of the things I love about reading Supreme Court opinions is they give these nice upstanding history lessons.
From the majority: “The relevant constraint derives from its place at the opening of legislative sessions, where it is meant to lend gravity to the occasion and reflect values long part of the Nation’s heritage. Prayer that is solemn and respectful in tone, that invites lawmakers to reflect upon shared ideals and common ends before they embark on the fractious business of governing, serves that legitimate function.”
From Kennedy’s opinion (in saying there is no religious coercion): “Nothing in the record suggests that members of the public are dissuaded from leaving the meeting room during the prayer, arriving late, or even, as happened here, making a later protest…. Should nonbelievers choose to exit the room during a prayer they find distasteful, their absence will not stand out as disrespectful or even noteworthy. And should they remain, their quiet acquiescence will not, in light of our traditions, be interpreted as an agreement with the words or ideas expressed.”
Let me tell you, that’s the best and most feel-good explanation I’ve ever heard for ceremonial prayer at places (where it’s really not appropriate). Gravity. Values of the heritage. Common end. As adults your absence or blank stares shall not be disrespectful or even noteworthy, and have no effect on the business at hand. My goodness, I’m going to start enjoying these ham-fisted prayers now.
And although I’m not sure I approach this from the same direction, Mr. Miller, I could go on and on and on about why the ability to make private decisions about the sanctity of one’s private relationship and family, which Justice Kennedy recognized as a constitutional right in Lawrence v. Texas, is so important. In keeping with this country’s traditions, albeit more recent ones. I begin to appreciate Justice Stevens’s flag-burning dissent even more now (Stevens being the dissenting Justice from Bowers v. Hardwick whose reasoning was adopted in Lawrence).
There is just something right about taking something good and saying, we have this form that we use, but there is something greater about it that belongs to everyone. Everything that is ours belongs to you and everything that is yours belongs to us.
Okay, that’s enough idealism. Shame Christianity’s mucked it up with gays.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
The Peters campaign made a real boneheaded mistake posting that article.
The most basic principle of Campaign 101 is don’t give your opponent ammunition unless the benefit outweighs the risk. Although the Aravosis post was accurate in most factual details and revealing (DeMaio got down and dirty on Nathan Fletcher in the mayoral race, which is something I didn’t know), the Peters campaign gained nothing by putting the post on his campaign website, and he handed DeMaio’s campaign the ability to attack him on LGBT issues.
Stupid.
I decided to take a close look (from the perspective of a campaign manager) at the DeMaio campaign a few weeks ago, when the polling showed DeMaio pulling ahead.
From that perspective, I have to say that the strategy of running DeMaio as a hand-holding gay Republican on a platform of “social issues aren’t important” and “look how much the gays hate me …” is brilliant, and the campaign has been playing the conservative media and blogs like a fiddle on the “look how much gays hate me …” meme.
The campaign strategy allows DeMaio to run both to the “DeMaio will make a difference just by being gay …” Republicans and to the social conservative Republicans, all in one simple stroke. He doesn’t even have to talk out of both sides of his mouth. All he has to do is hold hands with his partner (thrilling “make a difference” Republicans without actually offering anything concrete), stay unmarried for the campaign’s duration (sending the tacit message that he “respects traditional marriage” despite his words of support for marriage equality), repeat over and over that he does not consider “social issues” important (disarming social conservative fears that he will rock the boat), and identify “the gays” as the enemy by claiming they hate him (resonating with conservative Christian victimization fantasies). The strategy is near perfect pitch for neutralizing potential opposition from the social conservative base. Now, with this boneheaded move on the part of the Peters’ campaign, DeMaio will get to make a stink about Peters’ insensitivity to the LGBT community without any cost to him.
Talk about having your cake and eating it, too. The DeMaio campaign is run by somebody with lots of campaign smarts. I mean that sincerely. By contrast, Peters’ campaign is, well, not. To say the least.
posted by Houndentenor on
No. What Jon Aravosis doesn’t like is candidates who are anti-gay, especially if they ARE gay. DeMaio is an anti-gay candidate. There’s no getting around that. What’s the point of electing gay people to Congress who will vote against our interests?
posted by Mike in Houston on
Question: “What’s the point of electing gay people to Congress who will vote against our interests?”
Answer: Gays should always vote for gays regardless — that is unless you’re a progressive even moderate Democrat.
Shorter: IOKIYAR (from the Book of Stephen)
Glad I could clear that up.
posted by Jorge on
Remind me why this guy is anti-gay again?
Now I’m hearing that he was against Prop 8. That seems pretty black-and-white in my book.
posted by Houndentenor on
Where are you hearing that?
posted by Tom Jefferson III on
1. The title of this thread is actually, basically, accurate. It is a good thing when gay rights wins the support of folks on the left, right and center. It is how things get done in the real world of politics, and I not met too many who would disagree with this.
2. I really don’t care too much about having someone give a prayer before a city council meeting. More concerned what the council actually does with itself. Although I see this lending itself to all sorts of problems with discrimination claims down the road.
3. I do not actually live in the district in question, and frankly I get a bit leery of blindly believing what ‘supporters of candidate A’ claim to be the facts about ‘supporters of candidate B’. Most of the people I speak with who actually live in the district Carl DeMaio is seeking to represent, generally do not especially like or trust him too much. They are not all “big government progressives”.
–AmericaBlog doesn’t like gay Republicans….
He does not seem to particularly like those gay (or straight) people who are anti-gay, especially they are in a position where their beliefs actually can influence public policy.
posted by Houndentenor on
I don’t care about this public prayer issue. Let’s ignore the fact that Jesus tells his followers to pray in private and calls the people who make a show of praying in public hypocrites. I’m mostly wondering how the religious right Evangelicals are going to react when a Muslim, Sikh or Wiccan comes up on the rotation for leading the prayer.
posted by Don on
I look forward to DeMaio retiring from politics. Not because I care about him, personally. Heck I wish him luck in his career.
I’m just looking forward to the incessant posts about him being attacked by liberal gays going away for a while.
Remember that old joke about Giuliani? Mr. “A noun, a verb and 9/11.” DeMaio posts are starting to hit that level of predictability. A noun, a verb and lefty gays are trying to destroy DeMaio.
No new information really. Just hints of nefarious plots. How we got from a post about a supreme court opinion to DeMaio is beyond me.
If he wins, maybe we’ll just get one triumphant post and then hardly hear about the guy? I’d almost write a check to his campaign if Stephen would promise that.
posted by Mike in Houston on
I’m sure Stephen probably didn’t want to see this on the endorsements page of the San Diego City Beat:
“DeMaio, on the other hand, is rivaled only by county Supervisor Bill Horn as the worst San Diego-area politician in at least the last 15 years and probably a lot longer.
DeMaio is just the most hideous kind of political opportunist. Sure, most politicians do it to an extent, but DeMaio is opportunism and crazed ambition on steroid-boosted steroids. It’s been quite a show to watch him transform his narrative right before our eyes to this “new generation” Republican who’s so gosh-darn proud of his homosexuality. Believe us, were he running in a more conservative district, he wouldn’t be singing that tune. There’s a reason LGBT groups don’t support him—because he’s only pro-LGBT when it serves his needs.
Part of us wouldn’t mind seeing him go to Washington, D.C., and get buried among 435 members, but knowing him, he’d be running the place within a year. And that’s not good for anyone. We beg you on our hands and knees to vote for Scott Peters in the 52nd.”
http://www.sdcitybeat.com/sandiego/article-12986-our-june-3-primary-election-endorsements.html
posted by AG on
Three paragraphs and not a single argument why DeMaio is so hideous. Revealing?
posted by Lori Heine on
Not being familiar with San Diego politics, all I can say is that in my experience, “Mary” is not used as a derogatory term. It seems to function sort of like calling someone “girlfriend.” In other words, as a rather tart term of affection.
Did Peters mean it in a derogatory way? I know sarcasm and irony do not work well in political communications, but I doubt it. He probably meant to convey something along the lines of “you claim to be such a standard-bearer for the community, but you and I both know you’re not.”
Demaio’s base is likely so homophobic that it sees any mention of — gasp! — the mere fact that he is gay as derogatory. Thus would “Mary” be seen as an insult. It almost certainly would be one in no other light.
posted by Jorge on
I would have taken it as a shorthand for “Aunt Mary.”
posted by Houndentenor on
It’s very old. I doubt most gay people under 40 have ever heard anyone call another gay person Mary. (It’s not something I’ve ever heard straight people use as a pejorative.) When I first came out (and went to bars a lot) it was “sister” or “girl” or (the drag queen favorite at the time “Miss Thang”) which led some of my friends to come up with the all-encompassing “Sister Mary Girl Thang”. That was funny for about the entire summer (probably about the year Jorge was born LOL). It’s not a pejorative. It never was. But here we are once again with the people who never object when a right-winger says something openly hostile to gay rights or gay people and even defend them crying foul over a perceived slight. Using rules they don’t think should exist anyway.
posted by Houndentenor on
As the NFL draft begins, a right-wing lobbyist is promising that Christians will boycott any team that drafts Michael Sams. (He’s gay.) So are the people who complained about gays complaining about Eich going to denounce this?
http://www.christianpost.com/news/nfl-team-that-drafts-openly-gay-player-michael-sam-will-face-boycott-says-d-c-lobbyist-seeking-to-ban-gays-from-league-119382/
posted by Mike in Houston on
To quote (again) from Joe Jervis:
posted by Kosh III on
“all I can say is that in my experience, “Mary” is not used as a derogatory term. It seems to function sort of like calling someone “girlfriend.”
Folks still call one another “Mary?” Haven’t heard that in quite a while and yes, it’s just a term of endearment not an insult.
posted by Lori Heine on
The last time I heard somebody use it, he was quoting “Will and Grace.”
I think he was trying to sound like Jack. He didn’t particularly succeed.
posted by Mike in Houston on
In the mean time, next week (Wednesday) is the day for the Houston Equal Rights Ordinance vote in Council…
Uncivil doesn’t even begin to describe the language and tactics of the anti-equality crowd… but I guess in Stephen’s world, I should stay quiet so as not to hurt any of the bigots feelings… but if I hear one my time about “men in dresses being predators in women’s bathrooms”, I may lose it.
One of the other arguments is the “these are all federally protected” (except for teh gays, so who cares), so why do we need a local ordinance… I heard that over and over from a tea-party nut sitting next to me in chambers Tuesday. I finally asked why she preferred having an Obama bureaucrat get into local business all of a sudden… finally shut her up.
This could be a razor thin win, razor thin loss or overwhelming win… it’s that much in flux.
posted by Houndentenor on
Good luck. It’s so insulting to sit and listen to this demeaning talk. The things people have said in front of me. And I have also had to open anti-gay rants at various jobs sent in to rail against the company’s nondiscrimination policy. There are some truly heinous people out there. I can’t imagine making denying others equal rights my central focus. What is wrong with people like that? All of them. The racists, the sexists, and anti-gay bigots? What makes people so full of hate that this is how they see the world?
posted by Carl on
I’m surprised I haven’t seen any petitions or upset here over HGTV not going forward with that show by the big social conservative activists.
posted by Houndentenor on
And once again the right wingers are claiming this is because of the “homofascists” even though the story didn’t break on a gay blog or website and the show was pulled before the gay bloggers even knew about it. Somehow we did that? Wow. What magical powers we have able to cancel tv shows before we’ve ever heard of them! if only we’d use our powers for good!
posted by Jorge on
On that one I’m stepping aside.
If it were just about their opposition to gay marriage the cancellation would bother me. But the article I read included a quote in whch they said something like “homosexuals are attacking America.”
That doesn’t pass my respect test and frankly I consider it a bit of a slur. I’ll forgive missteps or woefully out of touch statements and I’ll even be patient with people who say they’re attacking the “agenda”. However unless I hear something acknowledging me as an equal interest they are not worth my time. There are distinctions, Carl, and the country isn’t blind to them.
posted by Jorge on
*Yawn.* And now I get this article by the Christian Science Monitor (one of my favorite odd man out sites by the way)telling me the brothers feel they’ve been misrepresented by Right Wing Watch, “I love homosexuals, I love Islam” and the statement seems to have been an attack on the “homosexual agenda” (oops), the network was aware of their remarks and they were going to have a gay couple on the show, they don’t blame the network but feel the network has been bullied.
Okay, I guess thank you very much for the sob story. Now prove it.
(The proof is that the company allegedly didn’t give a public reason for the cancellation.)
*Shrug.* Okay, I guess thank you very much for the sob story. I would like to punish them by glaring at them. I’ll give a gift of salt water which I will ask them to drink, return their love by sharing my love of irritableness in hopes they grace me with their favor again.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
What fascinates me is that DeMaio has become “the” gay Republican candidate for Congress in 2014. Two other gay Republicans — Richard Tsei and Dan Innies — are running for Congres this year. Neither is getting the level of support from Republican media outlets and blogs that DeMaio enjoys. Both are mostly ignored and neither is enjoying the influx of right-wing campaign contributions that DeMaio is attracting.
Comparing and contrasting the campaign themes of the three is interesting, and perhaps the key to unlocking the puzzle of differential support from gay Republicans.
While all three are downplaying the importance of “social issues” relative to economic issues, both Innis and Tsei are taking the position that the Republican Party should support marriage equality and are speaking out about it. DeMaio is neither taking that position nor speaking out. Instead, DeMaio seems to be running a strategy designed to perpetuate social conservative attitudes rather than change them. Both Innis and Tsei are actively seeking LGBT support. Both sought and received an endorsement from the Victory Fund. DeMaio, in contrast, did not apply for a Victory Fund endorsement and then did a jujitsu move, complaining that the Victory Fund’s failure to endorse him was evidence that “the gays” are working to sabotage his campaign. Innis and Tsei are welcoming gays and lesbians as supporters, but neither seems surprised that gays and lesbians, like anyone else, . DeMaio is using gays and lesbians as a foil to gain social conservative support.
I could go on, but the picture is clear enough from what I’ve said. I don’t understand, given the differences, why DeMaio, of the three, is the chosen one. Perhaps it is nothing more than that DeMaio is running against the weakest of the incumbent Democrats, and therefore has the best chance to win. But DeMaio seems like a bad bargain for the Republican Party, if changing the Republican Party is the goal.
posted by Tom Jefferson III on
About the HGTV cancelled — I am tempted to say ‘aborted’ — reality TV series.
The show would have starred two brothers. family (through their father) is somewhat well-known among the far-right, mainly for their “old time religion” theatrics and generally being the next in line for Fred Phelps brand of protesting (with the willingness to get arrested now and again) .
At least one of the brothers was certainly following in his fathers footsteps. Their is quite a bit of interesting video and research about it on the right wing watch blog.
I am somewhat mix feelings/indifferent to it — I like HGTV, but not really big on reality TV or giving a voice to crazy people. On the other hand, I doubt that his beliefs would come up to much in their reality TV series.
HGTV programming almost NEVER deals with anything remotely controversial.
posted by Tom Jefferson III on
I just wanted to highlight this point again (it was a very good one)
Both Innis and Tsei are actively seeking LGBT support. Both sought and received an endorsement from the Victory Fund. DeMaio, in contrast, did not apply for a Victory Fund endorsement and then did a jujitsu move, complaining that the Victory Fund’s failure to endorse him was evidence that “the gays” are working to sabotage his campaign. – See more at: https://igfculturewatch.com/2014/05/07/conservatives-for-gay-equality-is-a-good-thing/comment-page-1/#comment-206817
posted by Houndentenor on
DeMaio seems an odd choice to be the poster child for gay conservatives. You’d think they’d pick someone more likeable and actuall pro-gay. How are gay Republicans going to change the GOP to be more gay-inclusive if they themselves aren’t even going to fight for gay rights? How exactly is that supposed to work?
posted by Lori Heine on
The truth is that conservatives have no interest in fighting for gay rights. They want to take gay rights off the table as an issue, and they see tokenism as the way to do it.
This has been their strategy time after time after time, on issue after issue. The one truly remarkable feature of conservative politics is that the more they change, the more they stay the same.
Some libertarians have always known this and warned people like me about it early on. Others have been slow to learn it. For still others, hope springs eternal. But if you’ve still got conservatives trying to argue that African-Americans were happier under slavery — fifty years after the onset of the Civil Rights movement — then you can see how much evolving these people really do.
There’s a reason so many people on the political Right refuse to believe in evolution. When they look in their mirrors, they see no evidence of it.
posted by Jorge on
The truth is that conservatives have no interest in fighting for gay rights. They want to take gay rights off the table as an issue, and they see tokenism as the way to do it.
That’s not a bad way to do it. You get the best of both worlds: conservatives for gay rights, and gays becoming mainstream power. Anyone who thinks “tokens” don’t know how to keep the country’s eye on the prize hasn’t been paying more than superficial attention to them
posted by Don on
The Gays Against Gay Rights Caucus will share meeting space with the Hispanic Caucus for Self Deportation at the Rayburn Building. They’re holding a space open for them.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
An Arkansas state court ruled that the state’s anti-marriage amendment was unconstitutional under the Federal constitution today. Wright v. Arkansas will probably be directly appealed to the Arkansas Supreme Court, and then from there to SCOTUS.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
The Washington Blade looks at gay Democrats critical of the Victory Fund’s endorsement of Richard Tisei, an openly gay Republican running for Congress in Massachusetts.
The only hint of criticism of the Victory Fund that I can find in the article you cite is this:
It doesn’t sound like much to get excited about, at least to me.
We have seen this in past election cycles, in Democratic primaries. Mark Pocan and Kelda Helen Roys ran against each other in the Democratic primary for Tammy Baldwin’s old seat (2nd CD, Wisconsin), and a number of Kelda’s supporters made the same observation after Mark received the Victory Fund’s endorsement.
We’ll see more of it in the future, I imagine. It seems to me that it goes with the territory — the Victory Fund’s purpose is to support gay and lesbian “champions” running for office, and as we move foward, more and more gays and lesbians will be running against straight candidates with strong pro-equality records.
The rest of the article addresses a fundraiser for Tierney, and names a number of gay/lesbian Democratic congressmen who are supporting him. It is hardly news that Democrats support Democrats. I look forward to the day when every candidate in an election is a strong pro-equality supporter, and I can vote on other issues. Don’t you?
The critics’ beef, ultimately, is over the Victory Fund being in the least bit nonpartisan rather than what HRC has become, a Democratic party fundraising auxiliary.
To my mind, that is stretching the facts more than a bit.
posted by Shadow Chaser on
Before Mr. Miller gets too excited about the GOP’s new found affection for LGBT voters, I would like to remind everyone that last week two incumbent legislators in Indiana lost their race for re-nomination to the State House because they voted to postpone an anti-marriage referendum until next year.
In my home state, Pennsylvania, there are two races that I will keep close attention in next week’s GOP primaries. The first race is in rural Huntingdon County, where Michael Fleck, one of only two out gay Republican state legislators in the U.S., is up against County Treasurer Richard Irvin, a social conservative. If Flecks wins, it would send strong signal to rural legislators of both parties that supporting marriage equality isn’t a career killer.
The second race is in southwestern Butler County (fast growing suburbs northwest of Pittsburgh) where the legislature’s leading homophobe, Daryl Metcalfe, is in a race with school board member Gordon Marburger. The Marburgers own a dairy and have been in Butler since 1832. A lot of Butler County residents despise Metcalfe, but just couldn’t vote for a Democrat in the general election. Maybe the only was to get Metcalfe out of office would be for him to lose his primary.
Let the election fun and games begin