Tonight I attended the Log Cabin Republicans’ Annual Spirit of Lincoln dinner in Washington, D.C. Guests of honor I spotted at the reception or dinner included Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wisc.) and Sen. Pat Toomey (R-Pa.), along with openly gay congressional candidates Carl DeMaio (Calif) and Richard Tisei (Mass.) I chatted with tax activist Grover Norquist (always affable) and journalist friend James Kirchick. Texas Log Cabin folks at my table entertained with tales of battling against their hidebound state party.
Tom Wahl, Jr., the chairman of the Liberty Education Forum, spoke of working to change opposition to gay legal equality in the deep south and elsewhere, Republican to Republican—a campaign I believe will be more effective than a more highly publicized effort being undertaken by an LGBT progressive organization.
The first keynoter was supply-side economist Larry Kudlow, who talked about Reagan’s embrace of big-tent Republicanism, and why we need to make the case that unshackling American enterprise from excessive taxation and regulation is good for middle and working class Americans. He called for passage of the Employee Non-Discrimination Act (I wonder if he knows many leading LGBT activists are now against ENDA because of its exemption for religious organizations). Then Mary Cheney spoke movingly about the necessity for marriage equality, and why we will not have true equality for LGBT Americans until both parties are onboard, and signs that this is now happening thanks to the efforts of Log Cabin Republicans and others working within the GOP.
Giving credence to Cheney’s view, in the Washington Examiner Carmen Fowler LaBerge, who “advocates on social issues from a Christian conservative position” announced “I’ll probably get myself in trouble — but I’m going to do it anyway: I think there’s a growing consensus that the culture war on marriage has been lost.” Other articles have noted that “culture war” issues are now working in Democrats’ favor.
What can’t go on forever won’t, and the GOP’s opposition to full legal equality for gay people, including the freedom to marry, is one of those things.
28 Comments for “Dinner with Log Cabin Republicans”
posted by Tom Scharbach on
What can’t go on forever won’t, and the GOP’s opposition to full legal equality for gay people, including the freedom to marry, is one of those things.
That is certainly true, but “forever” is a long, long time.
The more important question — in a shorter time frame than “forever”, anyway — is when, how and under what circumstances the GOP will change. Will the party cease opposition to marriage equality in the 2016 election cycle? 2020? 2024? And will the party move beyond silence and actively accept, or even embrace, full legal equality for gays and lesbians?
The answer depends, in large part, on the reaction of the party’s 2016 presidential nominee to a SCOTUS decision mandating marriage equality, expected this term or next.
If the 2016 nominee takes a leadership role in turning the party, arguing that “The Supreme Court had spoken, marriage equality is the law of the land.”, then the party might change relatively quickly.
If the 2016 nominee instead fights the decision, using “religious freedom” as a call to arms much as Dixiecrats turned Republican used the “seg schools” to fight desegregation, change may well take a long, long time, and seem like forever.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Tom Wahl, Jr., the chairman of the Liberty Education Forum, spoke of working to change opposition to gay legal equality in the deep south and elsewhere, Republican to Republican—a campaign I believe will be more effective than a more highly publicized effort being undertaken by an LGBT progressive organization.
Both efforts, it seems to me, are worth pursuing, in the “deep south” and, particularly, “elsewhere”.
The “elsewhere” is important. Entrenched Republican opposition to “equal to equal” is not confined to the “deep south”.
Wisconsin, a “purple state” that elects its share of both Republicans and Democrats, is as good an example of “elsewhere”, I suppose, as any. And two Republican politicians — one an RNC “Young Gun” and the other a young Republican running for state assembly — illustrate the entrenched anti-equality attitudes that the Liberty Education Forum and HRC are battling in their efforts to “change opposition to gay legal equality”.
The RNC “Young Gun”, State Senator Glenn Grothman, the Republican candidate in the 6th Congressional District, has a long and storied record of anti-equality statements and legislative action. He was instrumental in pushing Wisconsin’s anti-marriage amendment through the legislature in 2005-2006, and recently criticized Governor Walker for allowing the state’s Office of Vital Statistics for processing same-sex marriages performed during “freedom [to marry] week”, the period between Judge Crabb’s pro-equality decision and the stary. He strongly favors “Don’t Say Gay” laws, and he is unstinting in his criticism of anything and everything that hints at support for equality. He recently appeared on a Voice of Christian Youth of America program and had this to say about State Department efforts to blunt anti-gay excesses in Uganda:
At the “young, dumb and full of cum” end of the Republican scale, we were treated this week to the withdrawal of the 19-year-old Republican, Jacob Dorsey, from the race for the State Assembly in Paul Ryan’s Janesville assembly district, after Dorsey was caught tweeting and YouTubing about “fags” and “niggers”. The sad part about the Dorsey saga is that it looked like he was going to get away with the “fags” tweet, uncovered earlier this week, and was brought down only after the “niggers” tweet was unearthed.
Grothman and Dorsey can be dismissed, I suppose, as outliers in the Republican march toward pro-equality. But not quite.
I hear strong anti-equality comments from local Republicans all the time in my area of rural Wisconsin, and our local Republican parties in Adams, Columbia, Juneau and Sauk counties have regressed into the hands of wingnuts to the point where my friends in the party, formerly officers and active members, have decamped because the local parties have become too extreme even for them, all long-time supporters of “traditional marriage”.
Grothman was annointed last week by the Republican National Committee to “Young Gun” status, a status which brings in the big bucks and makes his election a dead certainty in a solid-red Congressional district where the Republican — even a Republican like Grothman — is given a 75% or better chance of winning.
And while Dorsey may be an embarrassment to Republicans this week, it is only his stupidity in using the terms “fag” and “nigger” — and not his extreme views — that are causing the embarrassment. If he had demonstrated the sense that God gave grasshoppers and toned it down a little bit, he would be on the path to “Young Gun” status himself — his views are no different, really, that Glenn Grothman’s.
That’s the reality where I live, in rural Wisconsin.
I think that it is reality in much of what counts as Republican territory around the country, too. The Republican “base” is entrenched in anti-equality. And it is not just among Republican “old white men” that anti-equality is entrenched — while much is made of the fact that 40% of young Republicans now support marriage equality, the fact remains that 60% do not support marriage equality (a 20-point margin, a margin touted as a “landslide” when President Regan beat Vice President Mondale 58% to 42% in 1984).
While I salute the efforts of LCR, the Liberty Education Forum, other pro-equality Republicans and the HRC to try to change the reality, I think that change will be a long time coming.
posted by Tom Jefferson III on
[First off all; thank you for the unnamed volunteers that helped with the IGF]
1. I am pleased to see Republicans — gay and straight — having a meeting to talk about how they can — as Republicans — move their party forward. I am pleased to see that Mr. Miller actually attended this meeting. “armchair activists” have a real limited ability to create change within a party — be they Republican or Democrat.
2. I certainly welcome any serious effort to deal with homophobia anywhere — including the American South. I am not entirely sure that it will be an “EITHER OR” thing in terms of party politics. It will be something that Republicans and Democrats (gay and straight) will have to work on.
3. I suspect that many politicians know which way the proverbial wind is blowing. If homophobia sells, it will be used. If not, then probably not quite so much.
posted by Kosh III on
“That’s the reality where I live, in rural Wisconsin.”
That’s not the reality down here–it’s worse!
Ryan and Norquist attended; will they publicly and strongly show their pro-equality beliefs? or keep quiet because it upsets their bigoted base and if we get trampled in the process–too bad so sad.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Yeah, right.
Paul Ryan has a long, well-documented record of opposition to “equal means equal”. He was a strong and vocal supporter of Wisconsin’s anti-marriage amendment. He voted in favor of the Federal Marriage Amendment (2004 and 2006), voted in favor a bill to strip the federal courts of jurisdiction over marriage cases (2004), voted against DADT repeal in 2010, and so on. He has repeatedly spoken out against marriage equality, in years past and recently.
The one ray of hope I see for Ryan is that the year after he voted against DADT repeal, he essentially said “what’s done is done”:
Ryan might just be a Republican presidential candidate who will adopt a “The Court has spoken, marriage equality is the law of the land …” position in 2016. Might.
We can only hope.
posted by Houndentenor on
The religious exemption is not for religious organizations (churches, temples, mosques, etc.). Those groups are already exempt from non-discrimination laws. It is to prevent secular businesses from using their supposed religious beliefs to justify otherwise illegal discriminatory practices. Stating it the way you do feeds the right-wing lie that churches will be forced to comply with these laws without a specific exemption. That’s not only misleading; it’s an outright lie.
posted by Craig123 on
No, Houdentenor, you are absolutely wrong on the facts. ENDA’s religious exemption applies to (1) Houses of worship, parochial and similar religious schools, and missions; (2) A codification of the “ministerial exemption” exempting positions at religious organizations that involve the teaching or spreading religion, religious governance, or the supervision of individuals engaged in these activities; and (3) A provision allowing religious organizations, for classes of jobs, to require employees and applicants to conform to a declared set of significant religious tenets, including ones which would bar LGBT people from holding the position.
Do you do any research before spouting off?
http://www.civilrights.org/lgbt/enda/religious-exemption.html
posted by Houndentenor on
It extends beyond the actual places of worship and covers affiliated organizations receiving state and federal money.
posted by Craig123 on
Houndentenor: ” It is to prevent secular businesses from using their supposed religious beliefs to justify otherwise illegal discriminatory practices…[Miller’s post is] not only misleading; it’s an outright lie.”
I think an apology is in order.
posted by Houndentenor on
Between religious affiliations of businesses that are not necessarily (without that affiliation) religious and the Hobby Lobby decision (which was instantly expanded the day after it was issued, I stand by my concern for religious exemptions. There are entire regions in the midwest where almost all hospitals are affiliated with the Catholic Church. So don’t act like this only applies to churches because it does not. I will not apologize.
posted by Tom Jefferson 3rd on
Good point on the hospital.
Parts of the upper Midwest have communities where the only hospital is affiliated with the Catholic church.
Can they refuse to treat gay patients or refuse to hire a surgeon who is gay?
posted by Mike in Houston on
Dinner with LCR… Is that like ‘tea with Mussolini’?
posted by Houndentenor on
Not sure if you’ve actually seen that movie, but the comparison is apt. It’s about a group of women who think their social and political connections will keep them safe when the **** hits the fan. No spoilers but the whole thing is just watching just for the divafest that is the confrontation between Cher and Maggie Smith.
posted by Aubrey Haltom on
So Reagan promoted a “big tent Republicanism”? Too bad it didn’t include the lgbt community. The most glaring example was Reagan’s response to the AIDS epidemic – one of either indifference or outright hostility.
And where was this “big tent” in Reagan’s own White House?
“But the public scandal over the Reagan administration’s reaction to AIDS is complex and goes much deeper, far beyond the commander in chief’s refusal to speak out about the epidemic. Reagan understood that a great deal of his power resided in a broad base of born-again Christian Republican conservatives who embraced a deeply reactionary social agenda of which a virulent, demonizing homophobia was a central tenet. In the media, men such as Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell articulated these sentiments that portrayed gay people as diseased sinners and promoted the idea that AIDS was a punishment from God and that the gay rights movement had to be stopped. In the Republican Party, zealous right-wingers such as Rep. William Dannemeyer of California and Senator Jesse Helms of North Carolina hammered home this message. In the Reagan White House, people such as Secretary of Education William Bennett and Gary Bauer, Reagan’s domestic policy adviser, worked to enact it in the administration’s policies.”
I was in my 20s and 30s during Reagan’s ‘reign’. I remember the man’s indifference to our community. And the virulent hate his associates and staff held for us.
If Miller sees the Reagan White House as a model of “big tent Republicanism” – then we know there’s still a VERY long road to equality for the Republican Party to traverse.
posted by Aubrey Haltom on
The link to the article from which the previous quote was pulled:
http://forward.com/articles/7046/rewriting-the-script-on-reagan-why-the-president/
posted by Aubrey Haltom on
And finally – yes, Dick Cheney said “freedom means freedom for everybody” in 2000. He also vigorously supported the right of a state to discriminate against gays and lesbians.
Then, in 2004, both Dick and Mary Cheney supported the marriage-ban-amendments strategy as a way to win the presidency. (Mary even quickly references the amendments/bans without commenting on her role in it.)
I’m glad to see Mary Cheney standing up for marriage equality. But in her Log Cabin speech she talked about the difficulties and discrimination faced by legally married gay/lesbian couples – that geography determines whether we’re married or not, in the eyes of the state. She didn’t, however, address how she and her family helped support the Republican Party in assuring that patchwork equality.
posted by Jorge on
Then, in 2004, both Dick and Mary Cheney supported the marriage-ban-amendments strategy as a way to win the presidency. (Mary even quickly references the amendments/bans without commenting on her role in it.)
Wow, what a lie!
Even in the Vice Presidential Debate of 2004, Dick Cheney said his preference is that marriage should be decided by the states, but the president made a different policy decision for x and x reason. “Now, he sets policy for this administration, and I support the president.”
http://www.bpnews.net/19291
That’s support for the marriage ban amendments strategy as a way to win the presidency? Really? Are you for an alternate reality?
I am not even going to dignify your accusation against Mary Cheney with a response.
posted by Houndentenor on
Yes, he said that once when asked in a debate and was otherwise silent on the issue. That’s not exactly support. Meanwhile heinous anti-gay ballot initiatives were being used by Rove and company to turn out Evangelicals in the 2004 election. It worked. So don’t act like Cheney was an innocent bystander in this. He could have reduced the damage and he didn’t. Neither did Mary. Where were they during all that. It was horrible and mean-spirited and I have heard few apologies from anyone involved.
posted by Jorge on
Yes, he said that once when asked in a debate and was otherwise silent on the issue.
I am a little disturbed by your striking ignorance of recent history. His comments on same-sex marriage made national news, including on this website, over a month before the Vice Presidential debate. How many times have I cited this encounter here?
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/08/24/cheney.samesex/index.html
According to CNN.com, when asked a direct question on his own views of gay marriage, Dick Cheney answered,
“Lynne and I have a gay daughter, so it’s an issue that our family is very familiar with,” Cheney said as he began to explain his view.
“With respect to the question of relationships, my general view is that freedom means freedom for everybody,” said Cheney, who took the same stand during the 2000 presidential race.
“People ought to be free to enter into any kind of relationship they want to.”
Cheney then spoke specifically about marriage.
[Dick Cheney stated that the question of should there be any kind of legal recognition for such relationships is a different matter.]
“Historically, that’s been a relationship that’s been handled by the states,” Cheney said. “States have made the basic fundamental decision [as to] what constitutes a marriage.
“I made clear four years ago when this question came up in my debate with [Sen.] Joe Lieberman that my view was that that’s appropriately a matter for the states to decide and that’s how it ought best be handled.”
Cheney described Bush’s support for a constitutional amendment to restrict marriage to heterosexual couples as a response to a court decision in Massachusetts that opened the door to same-sex marriages.
But Cheney did not endorse Bush’s point of view, even as he detailed it.
“His perception was that the courts in effect were beginning to change without the people being involved, without their being part of the political process,” Cheney said.
But he said the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act “has not been successfully challenged in the court, and it may be sufficient to resolve the issue.”
The beginning of the article cites his closing: “At this point, my own preference is as I’ve stated,” Cheney said. “But the president makes basic policy for this administration, and he’s made it clear that he does in fact support a constitutional amendment on this issue.”
Your claim that Cheney could have reduced the damage but didn’t has no merit on the surface, except perhaps for this: By clarifying the issue, and making it clear there was a rational public interest reason why President Bush came to support a constitutional amendment, he may have made the posistion more credible both nationally and in those locales. Which is fine by me. I think Cheney’s position on the matter was exactly correct. But you know that already.
I would like to address your suggestion that the evil boogeyman Karl Rove used marriage as a wedge issue in the 2004 race. Two points.
One, the most important fact here is not Karl Rove’s campaign tactics. It is George W. Bush’s position.
Two, no matter how you try to twist the story of 2004 around, the most flagrantly egregious attempt to use gay-anything as a political wedge issue was when John Kerry, in response to a question in the third debate of whether each candidate believes homosexuality is a choice, said Mary Cheney is a lesbian, in an attempt to drive conservative voters away from Bush/Cheney. It backfired, costing him the election , and deservedly so. You want to talk about horrible and mean-spirited? No amount of amnesia or historical revision will ever erase the well-deserved hiding Lynne Cheney gave to John Kerry for his cheap and tawdry political trick.
I am aware that point two depends on point one. You do not have to remind me.
posted by Aubrey Haltom on
“You know, when I first started thinking about what I wanted to say here tonight, I decided to go back and look at what I wrote in 2005.
Back then, I said that I had no doubt that opposition to same sex marriage and support for the Federal Marriage Amendment helped many Republican candidates in the 2004 elections, and that it may continue to help them over the next few cycles…”
Mary Cheney – from the transcript to her speech at the LCR dinner.
Jorge, you are the only person I know of who won’t admit that the Republicans used the same sex marriage amendments/bans to drive out the vote in 2004. Most Republicans (including Tea Partiers) that I know not only recognize that fact, they celebrate it.
You assert that Kerry’s statement re: Mary Cheney was a political ploy oh his part – and cost him the election; but somehow the amendments/bans were not politically motivated acts by the Republicans that would bring out Republican voters in critical swing states. Hmmm…
Personally, I don’t think Kerry’s awkward and ill-advised comment re: Mary did much of anything to the 2004 election. The Cheneys reacted in horror – oh my god, this is a personal matter – as if someone had exposed a terrible family secret. That’s about as far as Kerry’s comment went, in terms of electoral impact.
On the other hand, were the Republicans (Rove and Mehlman) clueless that the amendments/bans would bring out @ 1 million new voters in the swing states for Bush in 2004 (as compared to 2000)? Or that in the nine states with amendments/bans on the ballot (including Ohio) that Bush won in 2004 – “moral values” tied for the top spot as the primary concern by voters (per the Associated Press exit polls)?
posted by Jorge on
Jorge, you are the only person I know of who won’t admit that the Republicans used the same sex marriage amendments/bans to drive out the vote in 2004.
I’m gonna be frank with you. This is a useless gesture on your part. You said that “both Dick and Mary Cheney supported the marriage-ban-amendments strategy as a way to win the presidency.” I challenged you on that with strong evidence regarding Dick Cheney. You offer no evidence or argument to support your assertion; in fact you didn’t acknowledge that part of my post at all. I have a slight problem with that.
Please answer that part of my post on the merits.
posted by Doug on
On the contrary, Jorge, it is you who lives in an alternate universe. A man, or woman, of conscience does not support a policy he/she does not believe in. The Cheney family could have had the guts to say they disagreed with the Bush policy.
Your allegiance to Bush has made you blind to reality.
posted by tom Jefferson 3rd on
VP Cheney said something to the effect of; well I disagree with the president on this issue, but it’s not a big issue for me and how dare u suggest that my openly gay daughter exists.
posted by Craig123 on
Where did he say that, or are we all just making up quotes now?
What Dick Cheney said was, “With the respect to the question of relationships, my general view is freedom means freedom for everyone. People ought to be free to enter into any kind of relationship they want to. “
posted by Doug on
I don’t think Cheney was referring to marriage equality.
posted by Houndentenor on
In 2000 Lynne Cheney lied on the Today show when asked about Mary being gay. Mary had been out since at least the early 90s when she was hired by Coors as a liaison to the gay community during widespread boycotts by gay bars of Coors products. And then in 2004 they tried to make John Kerry look like a monster for “outing” Mary in a debate as if it weren’t already a known fact or that it was anything the Cheneys should be embarrassed about. As recently as last year (or early this year) Mary’s sister came out against gay marriage to try to shore up anti-gay religious vote in Wyoming where she was planning to run for Senate. Let’s not act like the Cheneys have any kind of good record on gay rights. Oh Mary finally came out for marriage this year! Better late than never. Too bad she didn’t grow a conscience when her party was exploiting the issue in 2004.
posted by Houndentenor on
In 2000 Lynne Cheney lied on the Today show when asked about Mary being gay. Mary had been out since at least the early 90s when she was hired by Coors as a liaison to the gay community during widespread boycotts by gay bars of Coors products. And then in 2004 they tried to make John Kerry look like a monster for “outing” Mary in a debate as if it weren’t already a known fact or that it was anything the Cheneys should be embarrassed about. As recently as last year (or early this year) Mary’s sister came out against gay marriage to try to shore up anti-gay religious vote in Wyoming where she was planning to run for Senate. Let’s not act like the Cheneys have any kind of good record on gay rights. Oh Mary finally came out for marriage this year! Better late than never. Too bad she didn’t grow a conscience when her party was exploiting the issue in 2004.
posted by Jorge on
On the contrary, Jorge, it is you who lives in an alternate universe. A man, or woman, of conscience does not support a policy he/she does not believe in.
First of all, nobody, least of all Dick Cheney, ever said that Dick Cheney supported Bush’s policy. Cheney said, “I support the president.”
And that is where I fundamentally disagree with you. With the notable exception of the Vice Presidency, when your boss makes a decision, and you don’t believe in it, you still have to support that decision–not just your boss. Sure, you could resign in protest. But real men are confident enough to stay the course so they can continue to offer their best advice. Resigning or engaging in insubordination should be reserved only for truly egregious offenses.
Dick Cheney and Mary Cheney both decided to stay with the administration. The fact that many gay people would have not made that same decision may give them cause to point fingers, but only at the expense of me relishing their intellectual and moral infantilism. Tolerance, respect for other points of view, and respect for decisions of moral conscience are the lifeblood of the gay/lesbian/bisexual/transgender community. Reject them and we die.
The Cheney family could have had the guts to say they disagreed with the Bush policy.
This is not true, as I have just posted.
Your allegiance to Bush has made you blind to reality.
It is your “Bush derangement syndrome” that blinds you.