David Lampo writes in an op-ed in The Hill:
In short, there is not a shred of evidence that the Republican sweep was motivated in any significant way by the recent court decisions that have made same-sex marriage legal in 33 states and the District of Columbia. The response to these developments on the part of most voters, including Republicans, has been a collective yawn.
And in those blue states where Republican candidates won unexpectedly, it was their support for gay rights that made them acceptable to enough Democrat voters to win their races.
Another political sign: Republican Congressman replacing Michele Bachmann names gay marriage supporter his chief-of-staff . (The post is from a conservative, anti-gay-marriage website, which obviously disapproves.)
14 Comments for “Changing Times”
posted by Mark Peterson on
I’d say there’s a pretty big difference between Charlie Baker, a genuine supporter of gay rights; and Rauner, who told tea party groups that he favored vetoing Illinois’ marriage equality bill.
As for Gardner and Ernst, the message seems to be that fanatically anti-gay candidates can win in purple states as long as they don’t talk about their anti-gay beliefs in the campaign, even as their Democratic opponents point out those beliefs to make sure voters knew about them anyway–showing again that the Autopsy argument that gay rights are a “gateway” issue has, sadly, been disproved.
posted by Jorge on
“The Republican sweep offers clear lessons for 2016”
Okay, that means I should be able to tell what those lessons are.
1) Don’t Overstep Your Mandate
Think the Republicans will listen to that one (they’re still having some trouble with the Tea Party types). Mitch McConnell didn’t have a Read My Lips moment about shutting down the government for nothing. Or do people think it’s not about Obamacare but the economy? Maybe the correct lesson is
2) If You Break It, You Own It
Well, people think the economy is sluggish, but it’s the same deal. And either way, it is in both parties’ political self-interest to perform political ju-jitsu on the other by convincing the public the other party is in charge, and breaking things. Now let’s add in something about Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker, who won re-election.
3) If You Fix It, You Rock!
So what is the Hill saying these clear lessons are?
But the bottom line about what the Republican wave might mean for 2016 is this: anti-gay themes, including vocal opposition to gay marriage, were almost completely absent from Republican campaigns, even those of the most conservative winners.
I guess that means the prevailing view is that the gay rights movement rocks instead of the gay rights movement is throwing rocks. This could still change.
Also, here’s a moving story from Sports Illustrated
–She was not a good mother. Let us say that.
That was… brutal.
There is an expression, that it is better to have loved and lost than to have never loved at all. I will say that on her behalf.
posted by Jorge on
You know, if some people can say that it is important to “choose life”, I think something needs to be said for choosing family, too.
Really, now. She was a enough of a mother to house a 16 year old who probably had serious problems in her home. I don’t want to hear the double-edge of that, even here. Everything that the gay community has endured is still far less than what Eve passed on to her descendants. Knowing that is enough to live on in any struggle.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
The message of the Lampo article seems to be this: Social conservatives remained silent about their positions on LGBT issues during the election, and voters did not take those positions into consideration when voting. Don’t bang the drum, and nobody who might be bothered by the sound will notice.
But what, exactly, does that mean? All politicians with a minimum amount of low animal cunning understand that you don’t win elections by calling attention to unpopular positions you hold. You go silent on your negatives, and hope that the opposition doesn’t call attention to them.
The so-called “libertarian” wing of the Republican coalition is making much of the fact that Republican social conservatives won this year despite the fact that opposition to marriage equality has become a negative for them. Two theories, somewhat related, are being touted to explain this fact:
The two theories each have elements of truth in them, and work in tandem. I don’t doubt that the two, taken together, explain the election results — we now have a Congress that is significantly more socially conservative than the previous Congress, and we now have a Republican Party with a greater percentage of hard-core social conservatives in elected office than we had before the election, despite the fact that the country as a whole, and the Republican demographic in particular, have both shifted toward “equal means equal”.
I suspect that the winning formula found by Republicans this election cycle is a good thing for the Republican Party, because it will allow the Republican coalition of social conservative Republicans and so-called “libertarian” Republicans to remain intact for the 2016 election cycle.
Fears that young “socially liberal” conservatives might abandon the party because of the party’s positions on social issues are assuaged (it no longer makes much, if any, difference that the views of “socially liberal” young conservatives are in opposition to the party’s positions, because “socially liberal” conservatives don’t/won’t insist on seeing the party and its candidates reflect “socially liberal” views), and the “battle for the soul of the Republican Party”, so prominent a year ago, can be papered over for the sake of party unity.
Lampo argues that these factors “point the way to how Republicans can once again be competitive in presidential contests”, and he may be right. But I wonder. Success depends on the “silence” continuing through 2016, and that depends, in large part, on restraint by social conservatives. If social conservatives follow past practice and use elected office to push for social conservative legislation (e.g. the so-called “religious freedom” laws being pushed in about 18 states right now), the thing could backfire.
We’ll have to see.
But of one thing I am certain: The decision (or more accurately, decisions, since many decisions, at many points, were made by many people, acting more or less independently, that led to the end result) to seek “equal means equal” through the courts and the Constitution was the right decision. We have inserted the Constitution between social conservatives and “equal means equal”, and that will prevent social conservatives, whether or not dominate in Congress and whether or not in control of the Republican Party, from reversing our core gains.
And for that, oddly, we have the social conservatives themselves to thank — if social conservatives had not blocked the Republican Party from a natural evolution toward “equal means equal”, and if social conservatives had not delivered for the Bush/Rove/Mehlman “Jorge, Jorge” strategy in 2004 by inserting state-level anti-marriage constitutional amendments as a block in the road to a political path to “equal means equal”, we might not have turned to the courts and the Constitution.
And if that had happened, we might now be in a position where continuation of the Republican coalition of social conservatives and so-called “libertarians” would be a real threat to the progress we’ve toward marriage equality.
posted by Jorge on
But of one thing I am certain: The decision (or more accurately, decisions, since many decisions, at many points, were made by many people, acting more or less independently, that led to the end result) to seek “equal means equal” through the courts and the Constitution was the right decision. We have inserted the Constitution between social conservatives and “equal means equal”, and that will prevent social conservatives, whether or not dominate in Congress and whether or not in control of the Republican Party, from reversing our core gains.
I think the decision to artificially insert the Constitution and the courts through a legitimate social policy controversy dangerously risks the credibility of the courts and the legitimacy of the Constitution. Just because a toaster doesn’t break when you strike it with a sledgehammer doesn’t mean it’s the right thing to do.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
… the decision to artificially insert the Constitution and the courts …
The Constitution cannot be “artificially inserted” into a controversy. Either constitutional protections are applicable or they are not.
If they are, the Constitution is not inserted “artificially”. If they aren’t, the Constitution can’t be “inserted”.
The courts are the means provided in the Constitution to sort that out.
posted by Don on
I think there is an obvious element that seems to be overlooked. Here in Florida, we do not yet have marriage equality. But every single political operative has repeated the same thing: you will have it very soon. Vote for whomever you want, it will not affect the outcome in the slightest. Social conservatives know this. Liberal young Republicans know this. Hard core social liberals know this.
In our battle, I have called a number of key figures to come out publicly for marriage equality. The answer every single time has been “well, I could, but there would be no point. it’s going to happen anyway.” And all of them have pointed out that there’s is no reason to go on record and ruffle anyone’s feathers by being gloating winners. Just sit back and let it happen.
Now, if for some reason it gets derailed, I’m sure there will be a reason to rally. But it became a non-issue in the governor’s race and the attorney general’s race. What would have happened if either democrat had won? we would have had marriage equality on inauguration day. The appeals would have been dropped. End of story.
Now that Bondi and Scott won? We will have marriage equality either January 6 or some time this spring/summer, depending on how far the appeals go.
Given the near-absolute likelihood of success, why would anyone vote/donate/oppose or what have you any candidate on the issue of marriage equality? As Tom points out federally, there is nothing Congress could actually do to stop the Juggernaut. Oh, sure, they could try. but doing so would absolutely wake the sleeping giant of opposition.
Maggie Gallagher was right months ago: this is over. Equality may have other debates, but marriage is a done deal except for the mopping-up. And given that, why would Republicans pour salt in the wounds of their Soc Cons? We lost! And you were wrong to ever fight this because what you want is clearly unconstitutional? No way is anyone going to say that.
We’re just going to stoke the fires of resentment of “activist judges” and other generic, meritless complaints to keep the base interested.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Maggie Gallagher was right months ago: this is over. Equality may have other debates, but marriage is a done deal except for the mopping-up. And given that, why would Republicans pour salt in the wounds of their Soc Cons? We lost! And you were wrong to ever fight this because what you want is clearly unconstitutional? No way is anyone going to say that.
Nor would they have any reason to say that at this point. The marriage equality battle has worked out brilliantly for Republicans.
When Republicans could use fear and loathing about you and I to rally the base and gain short-term advantage, Republicans did just that.
Now that the American people have been won over to “equal means equal” and marriage equality is in sight, the Republican coalition of social conservatives and so-called “libertarians” can remain intact, without incurring any consequences for remaining the anti-equality party, because nobody gives a shit what they think about gays and lesbians.
I’m a little bit stunned, but Stephen and other “pro-equality” conservatives, by steadfastly refusing to take the fight to social conservatives within the Republican Party, got to have their cake and eat it, too.
posted by Mike in Houston on
“The marriage equality battle has worked out brilliantly for Republicans.”
Actually, Tom, I would say that it’s working out brilliantly for anti-gay Republicans (you know, the majority of the GOP) — because with marriage equality becoming reality, they can rile up the base with non-troversies around so-called “religious liberty”… wrapping themselves in the mantle of victimhood and martyrs to evil progressives who are using the “power of the state to force” poor Christian bakers to serve their customers.
They can shrug their shoulders about gay marriage but still get to eat their swastatika cakes.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Actually, Tom, I would say that it’s working out brilliantly for anti-gay Republicans (you know, the majority of the GOP) — because with marriage equality becoming reality, they can rile up the base with non-troversies around so-called “religious liberty”… wrapping themselves in the mantle of victimhood and martyrs to evil progressives who are using the “power of the state to force” poor Christian bakers to serve their customers.
That’s true enough, and we’ll see a lot of it in the coming years. No question about it.
Stephen has been pounding the “Progressive LGBT=Robespierre” drum for months and months, now, and we’ll see a lot more of it in coming months and years. I think that the so-called “religious freedom” exemptions are proposed now in about 18 states, and each will be a battle, with the religious right wigging out about “putting Christians into boxcars” and the so-called “libertarians” wigging out about how evil we all are, quashing liberty, freedom, corn, salt and the American Way.
It is the next phase of the battle, but as Don reminds us, it is mopping up. For all the lumps we’ll be taking at the hands of “pro-equality” conservatives like Stephen over the next few years, we won the marriage equality war while he and his sat on the sidelines, carping.
I’m just glad that we went though the courts.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
quick update on South Carolina and Florida:
4th Circuit
SOUTH CAROLINA – The 4th Circuit denied South Carolina’s motion for an extension of the District Court stay, which expires on Thursday. South Carolina will now file an emergency motion for a stay with the Supreme Court. Chief Justice Roberts is the emergency motions judge for the Circuit. As is the case with the earlier emergency motions for a stay, we may see a temporary stay pending briefing, and then a decision by the full Court. I would expect the Supreme Court to deny the stay toward the end of the week or early next week, which means that marriages can then commence in South Carolina, raising the number of equality states to 34.
11th Circuit
FLORIDA – Florida filed its appeal with the 4th Circuit this afternoon. AG Bondi also filed a motion seeking an indefinite stay (the District Court stay expires on January 5) pending resolution of the marriage issue, apparently by the Supreme Court. Here’s an excerpt from the motion:
Fascinating.
posted by Shadow Chaser on
Some political observers said that the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals decision to uphold a lower court decision striking down Virginia ban on marriage might have hurt the re-election chances of outgoing U.S. Senator Kay Hagan (D-North Carolina)
Virginia and North Carolina are a part of the Fourth Circuit, so the decision to strike down Virginia’s ban on gay marriage also struck down North Carolina’s ban. North Carolina voters approved a state constitutional amendment banning marriage in 2012 by almost a 3-2 margin. Only seven counties in North Carolina voted to oppose the anti-gay marriage amendment — Buncombe (Asheville), Mecklenburg (Charlotte), the four counties of the Raleigh/Durham/Chapel Hill Research Triangle and Wasauga (sorry about the spelling, the home of Appalachian State University). Analysts believe that those who supported the ban on gay marriage in North Carolina took their anger out on Kay Hagan.
i don’t think Sen.-elect Thom Tillis will be a friend of the LGBT community. The ghost of Jessie Helms haunts both North Carolina voters as well as gays and lesbians everywhere.
Yes, Senator Hagan came late to supporting the repeal of DOMA. But she always walked a fine to keep the support of liberals yet not alienating moderates. It is to her credit that she kept the race in North Carolina as close as she did considering the blizzard of money that was against her,
posted by Shadow Chaser on
Did anyone notice that the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals waited until after the election to uphold gay marriage bans in Michigan and Kentucky?
posted by Tom Jefferson III on
I would agree that “the times, they are a-changing” even for the Republican Party.
I also think that members of the Republican Party, and the political right in general, will probably keep milking opposition to gay rights for as long as they can…even when they know it is pretty much a done deal.