With so much happening so fast on the marriage front (see below), it’s time to start a new post rather than continually adding to the previous one.
So let’s take a moment to note something truly momentous: According to the latest from Gallup, same-sex marriage now enjoys 55% overall support in the U.S., and a whopping 78% support among under-30s. And even 42% among those 65+.
Among party lines:
Democrats (74%) are far more likely to support gay marriage as Republicans are (30%), while independents (58%) are more in line with the national average. Though Republicans still lag behind in their support of same-sex marriage, they have nearly doubled their support for it since Gallup began polling on the question in 1996.
The GOP is where the work most needs to be continued, which means (progressive partisans, cover year eyes!) working to elect openly gay and gay-supportive Republicans. These three openly gay GOP congressional candidates would make a great contribution to that cause.
[Added: DeMaio’s campaign office vandalized; power cords cut and liquids poured into the computers. Very nice.]
More. Pennsylvania’s GOP Governor Tom Corbett announced he won’t appeal the district court ruling (which effectively brings marriage equality to the keystone state), joining GOP governors Christie (N.J.), Martinez (N.M.) and Sandoval (Nev.) and earning praise from the American Unity Fund, a PAC dedicated to making a conservative case for “the cause of freedom for gay and lesbian Americans.”
Furthermore. Via ThinkProgress: Pennsylvania Just Legalized Same Sex Marriage and Rick Santorum Has Nothing to Say:
But some Republican strategists suggest that Santorum’s choice to remain silent is indicative of the GOP’s decision to de-emphasize its rhetorical opposition to gay rights in an effort to attract younger and more moderate voters.
“The push for same-sex marriage nationally is moving much faster than many in the Republican Party, including Rick Santorum, ever thought it would,” Republican strategist Ford O’Connell told ThinkProgress. “And now the GOP is trying to internally rectify the changing landscape because their position hurts them primarily with voters under 40; those same voters they need in the tent if they want to win the White House in 2016.”
46 Comments for “Marriage-Go-Round”
posted by Jorge on
which means (progressive partisans, cover year eyes!) working to elect openly gay and gay-supportive Republicans.
Of course different people define that differently. I think we got this far on the strength of a few liberal Republicans, yet as we lost ground on that score (witness the Giuliani campaign’s terrific implosion in 2008), mainstream Republicans softened, retreating almost everywhere except for one place, marriage state-by-state.
Most people would not agree with my definition of a gay-supportive Republican. Indeed, the mainstream media has begun to define people who are opposed to legalized same sex marriage as “anti-gay”, without any other information or evidence. I do not approve.
Still, along those lines, another option is to vanquish the Republican party as a political force. The pro-gay Republicans would leave the party to vote for other people.
Thus, continued success/progress does not require any agreement on method. The extrordinary progress on marriage is an example of anything can happen if we all put our minds to it (although personally I’d call it prayer).
The things that do depend on method are the side-things that turn out to be more important in the end. I often express concerns that the wrong methods will cause the backlash to stop the gay rights movement early. This site and others cite concerns about eroding civil liberties and standards of civility. The ease of transition determines social unrest, which is literally bargaining straight reputations against gay lives. I am sure some of my fellows can better explain the costs of caution.
I still think the current disagreements serve all purposes well enough, though I’ve no intention of giving up much, if any ground.
posted by Lori Heine on
I don’t think very many of the commenters here have a problem with the concept of working with gay-supportive Republicans. They aren’t likely to feel they need to cover their ears at such a suggestion.
Openly gay Republicans who work against equality are another matter entirely.
What does not seem to ever have been worked out, on the GOP side of the ledger, is what to do with LGBT people of faith. The cartoonishly simple (and just plain erroneous) portrayal of LGBT issues as ALL Christians being presumed straight and anti-gay and ALL gays as presumed nonreligious and anti-Christian is, apparently, becoming an accepted shibboleth for Republicans.
I keep hammering on this because gay Republicans and gay conservatives keep ignoring it. Since the 2012 elections, there very much appears to have been a conscious push to present equality as antithetical to traditional, Judeo-Christian faith. Right-of-center LGBT’s have largely fallen silent — even though many of them are people of faith.
Were I to align myself with the political Right, I would be expected to give nod to a lie. To, in effect, make a deal with the devil. For this reason, more than any other, I am distancing myself from even the libertarian Right. I won’t do it. Not for the sake of other people’s political expediency, or for any other purpose.
It’s basically asking me to sell my soul. No decent political party or coalition would expect such a thing.
posted by craig123 on
And just who are you labeling as “Openly gay Republicans who work against equality”? Carl DeMaio, based on HRC’s bald-faced lies? I mean, that’s quite an accusation — please defend it or retract it, or is it that you have no sense of decency, at long last?
posted by Houndentenor on
I just googled “Demaio anti-gay” and got an amazing number of hits. Most of them do not support your assertion. I’ll assume you aren’t too lazy to google for yourself. Finding a single source that has a different point of view is hardly evidence. Especially considering that anyone can post something online. DeMaio is not a supporter of gay rights and much of his backing comes from strongly anti-gay sources. That hardly sounds like someone I’d want to support. Not only do I agree with him about virtually everything, I can’t even count on his vote on gay issues? Why one earth would someone like me support such a person. Just because he’s gay? Like all the gay Republicans supported Tammy Baldwin? This has become an over-extended bad joke.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
The GOP is where the work most needs to be continued, which means (progressive partisans, cover year eyes!) working to elect openly gay and gay-supportive Republicans.
So work at it. God knows the work needs doing, and it is about time that conservative gays and lesbians started working to change their party, instead of complaining that “progressive partisans” aren’t doing it for them. Gays and lesbians in the Democratic Party worked hard for thirty years to turn our party, and we did it. You can too.
posted by Houndentenor on
It seems rather obvious to everyone but people like Stephen that the best people to talk to the Republicans on the fence about gay rights are other Republicans. Ted Olson’s arguments should provide ample talking points. As there are two national gay conservative organizations (LCR and GOProud) that would seem to be the structure with which to do this. I’m happy to talk to Republicans but all the ones I know think I’m a commie pinko liberal and don’t listen to anything I have to say. They might listen to a gay conservative. (Okay some wouldn’t but they aren’t going to be swayed anyway.)
posted by Jorge on
If a pro-gay rights Republican converts an anti-gay rights Republican, he gets converted to a Republican.
I’m sure the same thing can happen if it’s a pro-gay rights Democrat speaking, if they talk long enough. These pro-gay rights Republicans had to come from somewhere, right?
I’m happy to talk to Republicans but all the ones I know think I’m a commie pinko liberal and don’t listen to anything I have to say.
You see? Good results. They think you’re something that doesn’t begin with the letter “F”. (Yeah, I know the type.)
posted by Tom Scharbach on
As a side note to the topic of whether “progressive partisans” are doing enough to turn the Republican Party to suit conservative gays and lesbians:
(1) A lawsuit was filed in Montana yesterday challenging the state’s anti-marriage amendment. At this point, the Dakotas are the only states with anti-marriage amendments not yet under challenge, and a challenge is expected to be filed in South Dakota shortly.
(2) In Wisconsin, the Walker administration filed a brief in Wolf v. Walker that is, well, strange. The brief asserts only that the lawsuit should be dismissed because marriage equality has not been recognized by the U.S. Supreme Court or any court in the 7th Circuit. The brief did not argue that it has an interest in preserving marriage discrimination. I don’t know whether the state’s brief was shaped the way it is because no plausible religiously-neutral arguments remain standing or because the Governor is in a tough reelection fight and doesn’t want to alienate the 59% of Wisconsites who want our anti-marriage amendment repealed, but it is interesting. The case goes to trial in August.
(3) 45% of Americans now live in marriage equality states. 70% of Americans live in either (a) marriage equality states or (b) states in which marriage equality decisions have been handed down and are under appeal.
Little by slowly, we move forward toward equality.
posted by Mark on
Given Stephen’s concerns with the fate of openly gay Republicans, I’m very surprised to see him not comment on the fate of Penn.’s first out member of the state legislature, Mike Fleck.
Fleck appears to have been defeated in the Republican primary–after safely winning nomination and election for years when he was closeted–almost entirely because he publicly stated he was gay (http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2014/05/state_rep_mike_fleck_republica.html). He lost to a write-in candidate, no less.
Since even Stephen can’t find a way to blame Fleck’s loss on liberals, progressives, etc., it doesn’t seem as if he cares very much about Fleck’s fate.
posted by Houndentenor on
Instead he goes on and on about anti-gay gay Republican DeMaio.
posted by craig123 on
Houndentenor, you join Lori Heine and the HRC mcarthyites. Please provide evidence of your accusation or retract it, or is it that you , too, have no sense of decency, at long last? I suspect the latter.
posted by Lori Heine on
Craig 123, you’ve got a fat lot of nerve questioning anybody else’s decency.
You people from the Gay Patriot swarm attack people’s dead relatives, issue veiled physical threats and slander anyone who disagrees with you.
You have no decency whatsoever. You don’t even know what decency is.
posted by craig123 on
Lori Heine, first you (and Houndentenor) slander Carl DeMaoi, and when you’re called on it you slander me. That’s your pattern. No evidence, lying accusations, then slandering those who call you on it. Again, please present your evidence of Carl being anti-gay, or retract your smear. Can you do that?
posted by Houndentenor on
So a truth you don’t like is slander now, is it?
I stand by my assessment of DeMaio. I didn’t know much about him until Stephen started touting him. The more I read the less I like. It doesn’t sound like much of anyone likes him, including other conservatives. Please show me his pro-gay record to disprove me. A lot of ranting doesn’t impress or intimidate me.
posted by craig123 on
Please show me his pro-gay record to disprove me.
What chutzpah! You make an accusation that DeMaoi is anti-gay, and then say it’s my job to disprove your unfounded accusation. Do you even realize how obnoxious that is?
Well, for starters, here: http://sdgln.com/news/2014/05/06/hrc-fred-sainz-scrambles-his-facts-carl-demaio-and-prop-8#sthash.4d2K8kxr.FhB6EuIq.dpbs
But it’s your place to show evidence for your ugly slander (not that anyone excepts minimum fairness and decency from you).
posted by Jorge on
It’s slightly better practice to make the argument yourself rather than letting links and fuzzy memories do the work for you.
As you judge others by fuzzy memories, so shall I judge you by your silent use of links. Because you, craig123, have engaged in lazy debate that does not meet my standards for intelligent discussion, I declare you the next Ann Coulter. I am not interested in your reasoning or disposition or the fact that you may have more important things to do. You have chosen to put your mood for informality above the convenience of your fellows here.
Lori Heine and Houndentenor are not your friends, and they are not obligated to favor you with the kind of discussion or attentiveness that you might prefer when you would like it, especially when you insult them without provocation. Here’s a hint: insult the ideology rather than the person.
I would ask you a question, but I want to move on to my next Friday night activity.
posted by craig123 on
I accuse Houndentenor of abusing puppies. It’s his responsibility to marshal evidence disproving me, or else I win. Nay nay nay.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Stephen’s almost single-minded devotion to DeMaio (he comes back to DeMaio over and over, and barely mentions Dan Innes or Richard Tisei), puzzles me, particularly when Innes and Tisei (Stephen, cover year eyes!) are using the bully pulpit to talk to Republicans about the need to turn the party on equality issues.
If I were a Republican gay or lesbian, I’d be supporting the latter two rather than trumpeting DeMaio, who hasn’t, and isn’t likely to do anything to change the party if elected.
To each his own, I guess.
posted by Aubrey Haltom on
I live in the Boston-area, and I just saw a TV ad for Richard Tisei. The TV spot was paid for by the US Chamber of Commerce – and NEVER mentioned that Tisei was a Republican.
Instead, the ad called Tisei an “independent” – and rather than attack the ACA (aka Obamacare), the ad mentioned some of the ways Tisei supported ‘fixing’ the law. (Including limits on medical malpractice judgements. ?)
Obviously Tisei is running in a Democratic state. But Massachusetts has never been opposed to electing a Republican. As long as that Republican was what would now be termed a ‘moderate’. Or, what contemporary Republicans would probably call a “RINO” – because there’s not much of a place for these moderate folks in the current national Republican Party politics.
I don’t know why Miller uses DeMaio as the standard-bearer for the ‘progressive support for gay Republicans’ whine. Perhaps it’s because DeMaio has consistently stressed that he will not allow ‘civil equality’ to affect his decisions if/when he gets to Congress.
i.e., if DeMaio is elected – he will support whatever the Republican House leadership tells him to support. And apparently,DeMaio would support even anti-equality legislation from the Republican Party – if one ‘reads between the lines’ in DeMaio’s pledge.
Tisei, on the other hand, has said he will stand up for civil equality, etc… – and fight the national Party’s leadership on the issues of civil equality, etc…
posted by Houndentenor on
I find that odd as well. I’d think that Tisei would be a much better champion to rally around.
posted by craig123 on
DeMaio would support even anti-equality legislation from the Republican Party – if one ‘reads between the lines’ in DeMaio’s pledge.
This is just more partisan character assassination. I’m glad that DeMaio is both gay and a conservative (unlike Tisei, who I support but who is a mushy moderate).
I’d think that Tisei would be a much better champion to rally around.
You would, because he’s not a conservative. But then, why should we listen to houndentenor, who abuses puppies (and has yet to present evidence that he doesn’t).
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Houndentenor: I’d think that Tisei would be a much better champion to rally around.
Craig123: You would, because he’s not a conservative.
This exchange demonstrates the problem faced by the modern, post-moderate Republican Party with respect to turning the party on gay and lesbian issues by electing “openly gay and gay-supportive Republicans”.
The party has three openly gay Republican candidates this year.
Two, Dan Innes and Richard Tisei, are taking the position that the Republican Party should support marriage equality and are speaking out about it. One, Carl DeMaio, is not speaking out about it and has indicated that he will not.
Two, Dan Innes and Richard Tisei, sought and were given endorsements from the Victory Fund. One, Carl DeMaio, did not seek 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.
Two, Dan Innes and Richard Tisei, are welcoming gays and lesbians as supporters, but neither seems surprised that gays and lesbians, like anyone else, have a wide variety of views on other issues and vote accordingly. One, DeMaio is using gays and lesbians as a foil to gain social conservative support, arguing, by implication, that since “the gays” can’t stand him, giving social conservatives a reason, a common enemy, to justify support for him.
Two, Dan Innes and Richard Tisei, have long records of supporting “equal means equal”. One, Carl DeMaio, does not.
So who would you expect Republican gays and lesbians to support most strongly if the objective is to turn the Republican Party around on gay and lesbian issues? Dan Innes and Richard Tisei.
Not so, though. Neither Innes nor Tisei is getting the level of support from Republican media outlets and blogs that DeMaio enjoys. Both are mostly ignored within those circles and neither is enjoying the influx of right-wing campaign contributions that DeMaio is attracting.
Why is that? I haven’t followed the ins and outs of the campaigns enough to be sure, but it seems (as Craig123’s comment would indicate) that both Innes and Tisei show moderate tendencies on at least some Republican litmus issues, and are, as a result, unacceptable to pro-equality conservatives. DeMaio, apparently, has met all the other litmus tests, so he has become the annointed one, despite his lackluster, at best, record on “equal means equal” and his unwillingness to speak out on gay and lesbian issues within the party.
If that is were we are in terms of “openly gay and gay supportive Republicans”, God help us.
posted by Houndentenor on
It should be self-evident that I, a center-left Democrat, would have more in common with a center-right Republican than someone who meets your criteria for a true conservative. Since I would not support DeMaio if he were straight, I can’t imagine why I would support him knowing that he is gay. Tisei has some interesting views. I’m not sure I’d vote for him either but it would depend on who he was running against. As I said he would be easily preferable to any of the far right anti-gay Republicans who ran in the primary in my Congressional District. No Democrat won so for another two years I will be represented by someone who fights against any rights for the many gay people in our district (which includes a women’s university well known for a large lesbian population).
posted by Jorge on
I keep hammering on this because gay Republicans and gay conservatives keep ignoring it. Since the 2012 elections, there very much appears to have been a conscious push to present equality as antithetical to traditional, Judeo-Christian faith. Right-of-center LGBT’s have largely fallen silent — even though many of them are people of faith.
Most gays (Ls, Bs, Ts) who are religious probably don’t align with the party that’s pushy on religion, and most gay conservatives don’t align with the part of the Republican party that’s pushy on religion. And for good reason. This issue is bigger than the GLBT community. Most of the country shies away from talking about religion publicly, and quite a few people want all of pubilc discourse to be secularized, all because of those people who have poisoned the conversation about religion. That’s the part that I think needs to be talked about more. But when it comes to marriage, that is one issue in which religion is not the enemy but the necessary ally. This is highly unusual.
Whenever I’m doing something activist and I talk about my motivations, my religion usually comes up eventually. When I went to the most recent march on Washington there was a student researcher who actually asked me directly how my religion impacted my motivation to attend. Wooooow! That one hit me like a ton of bricks.
posted by Houndentenor on
If you mean elect pro-gay Republicans in lieu of anti-gay Republicans, you have my full support. Please send some of those my way. The GOP primary earlier this year was a race to see who could be the most anti-gay. If you mean replace pro-gay Democrats with so-so Republicans then I’m not in favor of that. We could pass some pro-gay legislation if we didn’t have a Republican majority in the House right now. Electing a pro-gay Congressman who votes to keep an anti-gay Speaker does nothing for gay people.
posted by Don on
I think the problem is more rooted in “team” politics. While the parties serve to create winning coalitions to advance general agendas that people MOSTLY agree with, I think it has become much more rigid in the last 25 years. Not just equality. And not just on the right.
Take abortion, climate, taxes, or guns. People take a much more reflexive response to the issue than they would have in the past. Dismantling this “all or nothing ‘team’ approach to issues” is the real issue.
I know for a fact that there are many conservative leaders in the state legislature who are secretly for marriage equality here in Florida. They may be “coming out” sooner rather than later.
We don’t need everyone to support marriage equality. There may be principled religious belief behind opposition as Jorge notes. And that doesn’t automatically make someone anti-gay.
What we do need to do is quit making issues so rigid according to party. I know liberals who are reflexively anti-gun and support absurd legislation that would not achieve a single thing they want. And I know conservatives who refuse to talk about environmental issues, ones they might actually support.
I think that goes to the heart of Lori’s point. Gay = atheist. It doesn’t. And Christian = anti-gay. Not hardly. People are more complex and nuanced than that.
But these litmus tests and rigid partisanship is hurting our nation. At least that’s my take.
posted by Lori Heine on
For a great, big, point-blank face-full of how insanely partisan the gay Right has become, just look at Gay Patriot. If you can stand it.
It was when I asserted that they needed to come to terms with the issue Don describes above that the GP swarm went nuts. My deceased mother was called a streetwalker. People were ominously reminded where I live — and that I use my real name (go get her!). My church was verbally vandalized. It was absolutely insane.
The endless repetition of the assertion that the gay left is evil, evil, evil goes on in the articles here. In a thankfully-much-milder and more civilized form, but displaying the same cognitive dissonance. And transparently betraying the same agenda.
Water must be carried for Team Red. It’s becoming silly, degrading, irrational and — yes — painfully obvious. Yet on it goes.
posted by Jorge on
5:22PM: “Two upstate New York Radio hosts were fired today for disagreeing with the City of Rochester’s decision to pay for elective genital mutilation surgery.”
Wow! That’s some serious trans cannibalism, even for me. What are these guys, street hookers in plaids?
Ray referred to someone seeking gender reassignment surgery as “a nut job.” Beck equated the issue to having the city pay for breast enhancement or liposuction for a mentally ill woman.
Sounds like a firable enough offense, though I find it distasteful in the time of Howard Stern and Rush Limbaugh.
No comments yet.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
“The push for same-sex marriage nationally is moving much faster than many in the Republican Party, including Rick Santorum, ever thought it would,” Republican strategist Ford O’Connell told ThinkProgress. “And now the GOP is trying to internally rectify the changing landscape because their position hurts them primarily with voters under 40; those same voters they need in the tent if they want to win the White House in 2016.”
That’s the short and long of it.
Public acceptance of equality moved very quickly once we got to a critical mass, and the path forward in the courts is likely to wrap it up by June 2016. That’s huge.
The dam broke (or perhaps the house of cards fell down) much more quickly that I thought it would, and Republicans aren’t alone in being taken by surprise at the speed which with we are moving forward. I’m surprised, and everybody I know who has been working on this for years and years is as surprised as I am.
Because of the work that gays and lesbians did within the Democratic Party over the last three decades, the Democratic Party is positioned well for the change. Not so the Republican Party.
How the Republican Party (and in particular the 2016 nominee) responds to the expected SCOTUS decision will determine the future of the party for many years. We’ve discussed the options open to the Republican Party in other threads, and I won’t retread.
But the speed with which this is moving, and the critical importance of the Republican response in 2016 to the future of the party, makes it even more important for conservative gays and lesbians to stop with the pity party about “progressive partisans” and do some serious work in the Republican Party.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Pennsylvania’s GOP Governor Tom Corbett announced he won’t appeal the district court ruling (which effectively brings marriage equality to the keystone state), joining GOP governors Christie (N.J.), Martinez (N.M.) and Sandoval (Nev.) …
When the handwriting on the wall is written in 2-foot letters, politicians with even a minimum of low animal cunning pay attention.
But not always …
Our Republican Attorney General, J.B. Van Hollen, conceded in a television interview of the weekend that the state doesn’t have a snowball’s chance of prevailing in its fight against two lawsuits brought in federal court to overturn Wisconsin’s anti-marriage amendment, but insisted that it is constitutional duty to defend the amendment to the last ditch. His position has many of us ROTFL in light of Van Hollen’s refusal to defend our very limited Domestic Partnership Act.
posted by Lori Heine on
Craig 123, if you don’t want people to think you’re unhinged, you might want to try not acting like it.
First of all, what I said about Carl DeMaio (whose name I can at least spell correctly) was that he is a social conservative. Now, I don’t agree with social conservatives, and I don’t particularly like them. But if you think it’s a “slander” to call someone a social conservative, that says more about you than it does about me or anyone else.
That hyperventilating crap goes up on Gay Patriot to big cheers. Here, among adults, it tends to be viewed with mild contempt.
Nobody cares how angry you are. Get over yourself.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
The expected lawsuit in South Dakota was filed today. With Montana’s filing yesterday, that leaves only North Dakota with no challenge.
posted by Tom Jefferson on
Their was a mayor of a North Dakota town, who recently expressed support for gay marriage.
It is possible that in North Dakota focus is being put into getting something on the ballot.
posted by Jorge on
But some Republican strategists suggest that Santorum’s choice to remain silent is indicative of the GOP’s decision to de-emphasize its rhetorical opposition to gay rights in an effort to attract younger and more moderate voters.
You see? Some Catholics do listen to the Pope.
I’m sure he’s going to say something about it in his junk mail. He’s pretty regular about saying it indirectly when he wants the money. Although I haven’t really been paying much attention to what he’s been saying lately.
If he’s smart, he’ll say nothing about these lower-level federal cases cases where we learned that “Regnerus is an academic whore” and wait until the Appeals court cases to say there is no constitutional right at play. But if he does that, he is abandoning his commitment to the reasoning that same sex marriages are actually harmful to society.
After all, the reason he ran for president was not to oppose same-sex marriage. Nor was that the most distinguishing feature of his ideology. He has an agenda for all aspects of the Republican party.
posted by Houndentenor on
I guess silence is preferable to the idiocy that Santorum usually spews but it’s hardly an indication that he’s changed his position on anything.
posted by Tom Jefferson III on
–The GOP is where the work most needs to be continued,
Actually, the work needs to be continued in both major parties. It is not an ‘either or’ proposition. While the Democratic Party and most rank and file party members are more likely to support marriage equality, that does not mean that work in the party is no longer relevant to gay rights.
Getting legislation passed is typically more complicated then whether or not ‘x’ number of Democrats or Republicans — nationally — favor (in this case) marriage equality.
We do not really have national elections in the United States, and their are certainly States or Districts where you tend to get a race between a moderate ‘Blue Dog’ Democrat versus a right-wing Republican….or possible two major candidates that generally have little interest in gay rights.
—which means (progressive partisans, cover year eyes!) working to elect openly gay and gay-supportive Republicans.
Well, it would be nice — helpful even — if the Republicans (gay, straight or bisexual) actually support marriage equality.
I think we are running into a few situations where some of the openly gay Republicans running for federal office are seen as being less then interest in supporting gay rights.
It is also interesting when polls include an ‘Independent’ designation. Mainly because, it is not always clear what someone means by that. Sometimes ‘Independent’ is short hand for members of a third party, sometimes it short hand for being ‘centrist’ and sometimes it is short hand for being socially liberal/fiscally conservative.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Two side notes:
(1) A Fox News article, “http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/05/23/majority-judges-behind-gay-marriage-rulings-were-democrat-appointed/“, which examines the way in which “the opinions of Democrat-appointed judges who single-handedly struck down state-approved bans” around the country. Not word in the article would suggest that there are constitutional issues at stake. Oddly, unlike Stephen, Fox News seems to be taking a somewhat dim view of the role of Republican-appointed judges.
(2) In Wisconsin, Governor Walker, who imagines himself presidential timber, is avoiding comment on the marriage equality issue:
Interesting times, watching the party that brought us anti-marriage amendments trying to find a response path to the house of cards coming down around their ears.
posted by Jorge on
Not word in the article would suggest that there are constitutional issues at stake.
Not an opinion that’s unique to Fox News. This is the second time I’ve heard of the view that it’s a mistake to think that just because you have the correct legal reasoning, you will win the case. The media in general has long been and continues to be obsessed with the Supreme Court’s 5-4 decisions. Now we’re starting to see an analysis of lower court judges’ party affiliations. This is something that has been going on here for quite some time and I suspect elswhere in the blogosphere, so give Fox News credit for picking up the pulse of the country rather late. It bodes ill for the credibility of a future Supreme Court case.
(Well, well, looks like I get to put some credit in my belief in social change over legal change for a… for once. Fortunately, social change is happening.)
For that matter, I would be interested to know the party affiliation of those judges who took to trolling Justice Scalia when they wrote decisions mandating legal recognition of same-sex marriages.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Now we’re starting to see an analysis of lower court judges’ party affiliations. This is something that has been going on here for quite some time and I suspect elswhere in the blogosphere, so give Fox News credit for picking up the pulse of the country rather late. It bodes ill for the credibility of a future Supreme Court case.
Yes, it does. The constitutional issues are serious, and the decisions coming down are being treated like a political ping pong game by far too many people.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
For that matter, I would be interested to know the party affiliation of those judges who took to trolling Justice Scalia when they wrote decisions mandating legal recognition of same-sex marriages.
The “trolling” meme is media nonsense, another example of uniformed media ping pong. The judges are quoting and following the logic of Justice Scalia’s dissents in Lawrence and Windsor in order to explain their reasoning in extending Windsor’s logic from DOMA to marriage equality.
In his Lawrence dissent, Justice Scalia correctly and forcefully pointed out that if moral approbation was not a permissible rationale for laws criminalizing sodomy, then moral approbation was not a permissible rationale for sustaining marriage discrimination. Justice Scalia argued that without moral approbation, marriage discrimination laws were “on shaky ground”. As the religiously-neutral rationales for marriage discrimination have been demolished bit by bit under the cold light of cross-examination, lower court judges are pointing out that Justice Scalia’s argument was prescient.
The Windsor dissent is more complicated, so I’ll link to an article that explains the issue reasonably clearly instead of working through the issue on IGF.
Justice Scalia is an “originalist”. I don’t agree with that theory of constitutional interpretation. But he taught at the University of Chicago Law School, one of the best in the nation, and he is as smart as the dickens. His dissents outline the legal direction and implications of Lawrence and Windsor clearly and forthrightly, which is why the lower court judges are quoting his dissents.
While we are thinking about the Law School, let me give a shout out to Mark Aaronchick, one of my classmates of 1973. Mark, who is straight, took on the fight in Pennsylvania as a public service, and won the case hands down. He and the other lawyers who have sacrificed time and money to fight for equality on our behalf deserve our thanks.
posted by Doug on
“Interesting times, watching the party that brought us anti-marriage amendments trying to find a response path to the house of cards coming down around their ears.”
I can guarantee you that if there is a bunch of GOPer’s are elected you will wake up the next morning to find many many anti-gay laws passed just as they are doing with abortion. Their attitude has NOT changed they are just doing anything that will get them elected.
posted by Jorge on
I can guarantee you that if there is a bunch of GOPer’s are elected …
That’s already been tested.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
I can guarantee you that if there is a bunch of GOPer’s are elected you will wake up the next morning to find many many anti-gay laws passed just as they are doing with abortion. Their attitude has NOT changed they are just doing anything that will get them elected.
I have no doubt at all — as I’ve said before — that as the house of cards comes tumbling down under constitutional scrutiny, we will enter the “massive resistance” phase of the struggle for equality, when anti-equality forces work to erode “equal means equal”. In fact, we are already in the stage.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Two additional side notes illuminating the “continuing battle for the soul of the Republican Party”:
(1) Julaine Appling, Wisconsin’s distaff edition of Tony Perkins, gave this description of our recent state convention in the Wisconsin Family Council’s weekly radio commentary:
LCR’s efforts to turn the Republican Party in Wisconsin are a good thing in my view. Julaine, obviously, has a different take.
(2) Tony Perkins, meanwhile, claimed credit on the Janet Medford show for the “voluntary withdrawal” of Las Vegas as a venue for the 2016 Republican convention and then went on to send out this in the FRC’s “daily message” to members:
I suspect that Perkins, as usual, is full of wind (the Las Vegas explanation is more plausible), but he and other social conservatives did fight hard to remove Las Vegas as a potential convention site after the state’s party removed a “traditional marriage” plank from the state platform.
posted by Doug on
“The GOP is where the work most needs to be continued. . . . ”
Meanwhile over on Faux News, psychologist, and I use that term loosely in her case, Robi Ludwick, is proclaiming that the drive by shooter who killed at least 8 people in California yesterday ‘might be fighting homosexual impulses’.
Yes Stephen, the GOP is where the work needs to be continued. And boy have you got a lot of work to do.
posted by Tom Jefferson III on
I doubt that Santorum’s policy positions have changed in terms of gay rights. He may have changed his tactics or maybe the media has gotten tired of giving him quite so much attention.
Based on what I have seed, Rick Santorum certainly presented himself as the one and only truly ‘socially conservative Christian’ candidate in the 2004 GOP Presidential Primary.
Maybe, he really hoped that his theatrical attacks on gay rights would get him onto the GOP ticket or maybe he was just looking for some national visibility to help further his career.