The anti-gay, marriage-restricting activists at the National Organization for Marriage, Family Research Council Action, and CitizenLink “will mount a concerted effort to urge voters to refuse to cast ballots” for Republican House candidates Carl DeMaio in California and Richard Tisei in Massachusetts and Republican Senate candidate Monica Wehby in Oregon, reports Buzzfeed, citing a letter sent to Republican congressional and campaign leaders last week.
As someonet tweeted me, these groups are now in effect campaigning for Democrats to win in these races.
Like some “progressive” LGBT activists, their worst nightmare is gay and pro-gay Republicans being elected.
19 Comments for “Anti-Gay Groups Favor Democrats to Pro-Gay Republicans”
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Like some “progressive” LGBT activists, their worst nightmare is gay and pro-gay Republicans being elected.
At least you have got it down to “some” progressives LGBT activists. I’d say “damn few” is closer to the truth, but well, when it comes to moving you toward reality, progress not perfection, as it is said.
We were speculating yesterday in another thread about whether you would make note of this issue, and whether you would find a way to spin it against progressives. The answer is “Yes” and “Yes”.
posted by Mike in Houston on
If Stephen had included ‘statist’, it would have been a trifecta.
posted by Aubrey Haltom on
I would love for Miller to actually cite the progressive lgbt activists that are so hellbent on keeping the GOP anti-gay.
I’ve never encountered one such lgbt activist. Really, I’ve never met a person who even hinted that they want to see the GOP stay anti-gay.
To a person, I can only think of people wanting the opposite.
Stephen Miller – citations please!
posted by Houndentenor on
You aren’t seriously equating gay groups with the FRC.
I do not support DeMaio because I don’t agree with him on the issues. I’d have the same opinion if he were straight, or a woman, or a member of a different ethnic group. Being gay is not reason enough to win my support. To imply that this puts me in league with FRC and other such groups is insane. As I’ve said many times if I had a pro-gay Republican (gay or straight) to vote for, I’d have voted in the GOP primary. Instead I didn’t vote in that primary because they were all going to the extreme to show how anti-gay they could be. That’s the GOP except in a few select urban areas.
You have failed to give us a single reason why we should support DeMaio except that he’s gay. And if that is reason enough then why didn’t you support Barney Frank and Tammy Baldwin?
posted by clayton on
If NOM wants to campaign against candidates solely because they’re gay, it’s fine with me. They’re just revealing themselves as bigots.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
I agree.
But I think that the picture is more complicated, for two reasons: (1) Monica Wehby is straight; and (2) NOM/FRC are not campaigning against other pro-equality Republicans (e.g. the American Unity PAC’s “priority” candidates), who would seem to pose at least as big a threat to NOM/FRC as do DeMaio, Tisei and Wehby.
Go figure. I have no idea what is going on with NOM/FRC, or the American Unity PAC, for that matter.
posted by Mike in Houston on
Is this really any different from the Tea Party nilhism?
FRC and NOM are desperate to show they are still politically relevant (e.g. keep the money rolling in)… when, they are, in fact turning their attention abroad as their base continues to shrink to just the rump of the GOP.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
The marriage fight itself is over, and religious conservatives know it. Even Michele Bachmann, who is almost as dense as Sarah Palin, knows it. She reportedly told old Michelangelo Signorile that same-sex marriage is “not an issue anymore,” and that it’s “boring” at the Values Voters conference last week.
The fight now is over the “religious freedom” to discriminate against gays and lesbians, and gays and lesbians alone. We’ll be hearing a lot about “religious freedom” over the next year or two, and then that ship will sail and sink, too.
posted by Jorge on
Even Michele Bachmann, who is almost as dense as Sarah Palin, knows it. She reportedly told old Michelangelo Signorile that same-sex marriage is “not an issue anymore,” and that it’s “boring” at the Values Voters conference last week.
I don’t know if her stubbornness extends much further than the economy (which is, of course, pretty far).
I also wouldn’t trust what someone would say across as vast a political and tactical gulf as that between Michelle Bachman and Michelangelo Signorile. Michelle Bachman wants to be on civil terms with gays as she considers running for president again. That’s nothing new for her, and it’ll be a little more important for the party overall in 2016 than it was in 2012.
She can say something so trivial so long as there is a chance that someone else will take the vanguard. She just needs to make sure she stands not too close, and not too far from it. There’s too much going on for me to tell much more from this one event alone.
posted by Doug on
Bachman has already recanted on this and explained that there is no change in her opinion of gay folks. So much for that. Bachman stands as much chance of being elected president as my dog which is to say NONE.
posted by Jorge on
Bachman has already recanted on this and explained that there is no change in her opinion of gay folks.
Gay folks, or gay rights, Doug? The baseline for her opinion of gay folks is that she personally supports conversion therapy but will not discuss it politically.
Like I said, she would be happy to cheerlead for the anti-rights right.
posted by Don on
I’m not that surprised by it all. Even the not-so-consistent application of the new take down. Their belief system is that we are mentally ill and by definition sinners. For them, this is legalizing pathology and criminal behavior. There really is no middle-ground for that.
It is precisely why they turned down civil unions before. You can’t negotiate with giving rights to what you believe is a mental illness.
And that is precisely why there was no negotiating with them or getting a “bigger tent.” Unfortunately, until they drop the idea of this being a sin worthy of punishment, they will have to go after DeMaio and the rest.
Which makes me think any attempt to appease them is closer to the Neville Chamberlain metaphor than any other that has been bandied about in the last few years. Only in that negotiating with these people is inherently in bad faith. There is no middle ground. So giving up any ground is simply that: giving it up.
I wish it were not so, but I just think they have to be defeated politically. Because their beliefs require all or nothing agreement, it’s going to have to be nothing for one side or the other.
posted by Jorge on
It is precisely why they turned down civil unions before. You can’t negotiate with giving rights to what you believe is a mental illness.
And that is precisely why there was no negotiating with them or getting a “bigger tent.” Unfortunately, until they drop the idea of this being a sin worthy of punishment, they will have to go after DeMaio and the rest.
…
I wish it were not so, but I just think they have to be defeated politically. Because their beliefs require all or nothing agreement, it’s going to have to be nothing for one side or the other.
I hope you’ll retain the hypocrisy argument in your political arsenal.
Rudy Giuliani’s 2008 campaign and Newt Gingrich’s 2012 campaign failed for reasons other than liberals (and it was only liberals) talking very loudly about their adulterous histories. And since you mention mental illness, the last Republican president probably has a substance abuse disorder, as was fairly well-known (although since he claims faith as his source of abstinence, I’d not pursue this comparison too far).
posted by Jorge on
Oh, right, my point: you can inflict enough damage to make homosexuality irrelevant without changing people’s basic beliefs about it.
posted by tom Jefferson 3rd on
IMHO Rudy Giuliani didn’t seem too interested in actually being the parties nominate for president.
He had a shot to run as a social liberal/moderate Republican candidate, and decided to run into the arms of the religious right.
Newt’s marriages….emphasis on the ‘s’ was only of interest, to me, because he played the “I’m the authentic, family values, conservative who will oppose gay marriage cause it’s not what the Bible” game.
The sheer hypocrisy involved in his position, was smellier then the average bit of campaign b.s.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
The Daily Beast published an interview with Brian Brown the other day that sums it up nicely:
That is exactly the position taken several months ago by Wisconsin Family Action when the group announced that it would withhold its endorsement, which means something in this state because the WFA has established a strong political action network in the so-called “Bible churches”, a network that ensures a high voting percentages among the hard-core.
I’ve said it many times in the past and I’ll say it again. Stephen and other pro-equality Republicans are going to have get off their hands, get to work and fight the social conservatives if the Republican Party is going to turn. It isn’t enough to whine about “progressive LGBT activists”. The “progressive LGBT activists” will always be with us, but they are not what is keeping the Republican Party in the dark ages on equality.
posted by Francis on
Well said, Scharbach. We need a repeat of the showdown between George Romney and Barry Goldwater (or as close to a repeat as the metaphor requires) if the GOP is to be saved from its own id.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
The post’s headline says it all in that respect: “Anti-Gay Groups Favor Democrats to Pro-Gay Republicans”.
President Reagan invited the so-called “Religious Right” into the party during the 1980’s, over the strong and repeated objection of constitutional conservatives like Barry Goldwater. The “business” and “libertarian” Republicans were largely silent.
For years, the “business” and “libertarian” Republicans played “ride the tiger” with religious, anti-gay conservatives, pandering to them on wedge issues like the anti-marriage amendments, in order to build a Republican majority. Little by slowly, the tiger ate the riders, taking control of the party and the party’s primary selection process. By 2012, the anti-gay, religious conservatives were so strong that Tony Perkins, who heads the FRC, one of the groups now turning on the party, authored the party’s national platform planks on “social issues”.
And now we see the results. The anti-gay, religious conservatives have no party loyalty. The anti-gay, religious conservatives are not at all interested in conservative policies or politics. The anti-gay, religious conservatives have no interest in a “big tent” party. The anti-gay, religious conservatives are interested in one, and only one, thing — preserving the Republican Party as “God’s Own Party”, a party shaped in their image. If they can’t have it, then they are willing, and possibly able, to destroy the party.
We can argue back and forth about who is at fault, but the simple fact is that it makes no difference. What makes a difference is what pro-equality Republicans do going forward.
It seems to me that a fight is inevitable, for the simple reason that the anti-gay, religious conservatives have no interest in a compromise.
posted by Tom Jefferson III on
Although, technically campaigning against candidate ‘A’ does not mean an endorsement of candidate ‘B’….or at least that is some of the ‘logic’ that the United States Supreme Court has used with regards to campaign finance regulations.
The National Organization at this point is probably driven largely by (a) how much money/attention can be still squeeze out of the issue and/or (b) die hard folks that would prefer to live in a little, ‘good old days’ theocracy.