The Republican dilemma: pandering to social conservatives to win primaries in Iowa and the South means alienating younger voters and centrists who are fiscally conservative, socially tolerant, especially on marriage equality. Those voters could be won over by the GOP in a general election, if not permanently offended by pandering to religious rightists.
Rand Paul has pushed himself over that cliff, to his detriment, by saying that same-sex marriage “offends myself and a lot of people,” and suggesting (if, I think, not quite stating) that gay people be denied an equal right to marry under the law, while in some future libertarian age—when the government has no role in marriage whatsoever—everyone could enter into relationship contracts as they desire, to be sanctified by religious ceremony (by willing clergy) if they wish. But until then…
We’ll see if the more moderate positions on marriage taken by Jeb Bush and Scott Walker hold. Obviously, they too have been against marriage equality. However, noting that people have strong feelings on both sides but “it’s the law now, let’s move on” might navigate that thicket, if they can stick to it.
More. Ted Cruz’s animus in Iowa makes Rand Paul seem positively gay friendly.
Furthermore. At reason.com, Scott Shackford argues that Paul is getting a raw deal and was actually offering a nuanced position. “He said the idea of gay marriage ‘offends’ him and some others, so you can guess which part of his response ended up in headlines.” Well, yes.
In fairness, an Oklahoma bill that would take the state out of the marriage licensing business but (if the Supreme Court does the right thing) still recognize same-sex marriages may give a clearer idea of what Paul is suggesting. Shackford writes:
While it is true that the legislation is a direct response to the federal courts striking down Oklahoma’s ban on same-sex marriage recognition and the likelihood that the Supreme Court will uphold those rulings this summer, [state Rep. Todd Russ] said his legislation is intended to take the state out of the fight, not to perpetuate the conflict. He said Oklahomans likely wouldn’t even notice a difference in the legal status of their relationships under his bill.
“I’m not picking a fight with them,” Russ said in reference to opposition to the legislation. “I’m not their judge. I didn’t go there.”
Update. via Scott Shackford at reason.com: Rand Paul Reaches Out to Evangelicals over ‘Moral Crisis’ Connected to Gay Marriage. Sadly, he’s shifting to the right, ever to the right, on the freedom to marry and other issues. Some see a panic response to low poll numbers and to Ted Cruz’s hyperactive lobbying of evangelicals. Others argue that Paul is still telling the pastors that while he shares their views about the “moral crisis” that includes same-sex marriage, they shouldn’t look to Washington for solutions (and instead, they should hold tent revivals, etc., as part of a new religious Great Awakening).
18 Comments for “Gaining Iowa and Losing the (Real) Libertarians”
posted by Tom Scharbach on
For the time being, anyway, both Governor Walker and Governor Bush are sticking to variations of the establishment formula:
Whether or not the formula will work with the 55-60% of Americans who support marriage equality at this point (specifically including the independents and young “libertarians” that the party hopes to attract) in the general election, or mollify the Republican primary-voting base (which remains strongly anti-equality) during the candidate selection primaries, time will tell.
The formula isn’t the end of the world. It beats the last election cycle, when Mitt Romney supported a federal amendment banning marriage equality nationwide, as do the “base-captive” candidates (Caron, Cruz, Jindal, Santorum) this time around. If nothing else, it recognizes that marriage equality will soon be a fact on the ground, however distasteful it might be.
I don’t have a feel for Governor Bush, but I’ll bet dimes to donuts that Governor Walker will change his position and pander.
The Wisconsin press follows Governor Walker’s adventures in the presidential show-a-rama closely, and his rightward shift on other social issues has been well reported.
For example, during the 2014 election, Governor Walker ran campaign ads that showcased legislation he signed that leaves “the final decision to a woman and her doctor” on abortion. In Iowa, he went silent on that legislation, proudly touted his support for the “personhood” amendment and proclaimed that he passed “pro-life legislation” and “defunded Planned Parenthood” in Wisconsin.)
Walker’s been talking a lot lately about his support for “traditional marriage”, too, despite his shoulder shrug (“For us, its over in Wisconsin.”) during the 2014 general election, and he’s been saying that for him, “the issue is not settled and we’re going to continue to fight for those values that are important to voters”.
I don’t know quite how he’ll reformulate, but I’m betting that he will.
posted by Doug on
I think Bush is going to have to ‘pander’ to the right to prove he is conservative enough given that the GOP base is already split about 50/50 on support for him. The logical item to ‘pander’ with is same sex marriage. Doubt he has the guts to not do that.
posted by Lori Heine on
Being a political candidate in a major Tweedledee-or-Tweedledum party seems to induce brain-rotting fungus. These would-be presidential contenders think all the voters are stupid enough to simply understand that, well, you know, that’s politics. They’ve gotta do what they’ve gotta do to win the primary by fooling their (of course idiotic) base.
This could be halted by refusing to vote for people who think they’re stupid. Instead, all too many play the game.
I will not be voting for Rand Paul in the general election, even if he wins the primary. I don’t care what personally offends him. Having to listen to that sort of crap personally offends me. As a libertarian, I believe that it should matter a hell of a lot more what my personal opinions are than what his are.
“This personally offends me” is the sort of talk one expects to hear from somebody running to be emperor or king. Screw that. And enough of Rand Paul.
posted by clayton on
Bush will dell us out in a heartbeat if he thinks he will win that way–just as his brother did in 04. Hen’s dog whistle about “protecting religious liberty” in the face of a favorable SCOTUS decision shows us that.
posted by A.J. on
Bush went to CPAC and stood firm in his support for a pathway to legalization for immigrants and the federal common core standards for curriculum, both hated by conservative activists. He has deliberately moved on gay marriage, from strong opposition to (as Stephen notes) more or less “let’s move on.” I don’t see him going back the other way.
Bush may feel entitled to the nomination (as Hillary also does), but that may allow him a certain freedom not to pander to the hard right the way the others are.
posted by Houndentenor on
I can think of few qualities in a candidate more off-putting than entitlement. I think both Bush and Clinton are in for some big surprises on their way to their respective alleged coronations. Remember that at this point in 2007 the presumptive nominees were Giuliani and Clinton.
posted by DCBuck on
I pray you are right. What a choice! Yet another incompetent Bush or the completely amoral, thoroughly corrupt and incompetent Hildebeast. If this isn’t the signal that both parties are completely out of ideas and intellectually bankrupt, I don’t know what it’ll take.
posted by Jorge on
My goodness I thought gay marriage wasn’t going to be an election year issue this time. Do you think maybe some Republican-leaning poltergeists are trying to get the candidates to act zany so the Supreme Court can decide “waaaait a minute, this ain’t over yet!”?
I don’t have a feel for Governor Bush, but I’ll bet dimes to donuts that Governor Walker will change his position and pander.
I think you’re probably right about Walker.
I’m gonna go out on a limb and say that Bush isn’t ambitious enough to pander. He will stick with his position, refuse to defend it, and set his soft power against the tea party rage. He won’t fight on this issue even if his election depends on it. He’ll accept the risk that he will lose quietly for the good of the party, and allow the party to radicalize. This is without the benefit of ever listening to him, but when have you ever heard the word charisma applied to Jeb Bush?
posted by Houndentenor on
I’ll admit to scoffing at the idea of a GOP coming around on gay rights in 2016, but even a cynic like me secretly hopes to be wrong sometimes. In fact one of the nice things about being skeptical is that I am often pleasantly surprised when people turn out not to be as horrible as I thought they were going to be. I do think that eventually the GOP is going to back away from gay rights as an issue. Maybe 2020. Definitely but 2024. But the religious right will be doubling down in 2016, even if they lose before SCOTUS.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
I think you’re probably right about Walker.
I’m sure that I am. We are used to Governor Walker in Wisconsin, and he is willing to say whatever he needs to say to up his standing in the polls. He’s been doing it for years. The last few weeks, though, have been stunning. In addition to changing his tune on abortion, he’s reversed course on immigration, ethanol subsidies, wind energy, and right-to-work. It is just a matter of time until he panders on marriage.
Governor Walker also has a “Perry problem”, which is to say that he is as dumb as box of rocks. He’s fine when he’s scripted, but when he has to think on his feet at all, he says dumb things because he can’t think quickly or strategically. His handlers are obviously telling him not to talk about anything that isn’t scripted, which is why he “punted” over and over again in that news conference in England a few weeks back. That didn’t work out so well for him, but believe me, if he had answered the questions, it would have been worse.
The left has been noting both problems for years, but now the Republican base is noticing, if recent commentaries in The Iowa Republican (“Walker is making Romney look like a model of consistency.”) and Red State (“… you may conclude that Walker is a flip flopper …”) are any indication. My guess is that he’ll crumple relatively early under the spotlight.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
At reason.com, Scott Shackford argues that Paul is getting a raw deal and was actually offering a nuanced position. “He said the idea of gay marriage ‘offends’ him and some others, so you can guess which part of his response ended up in headlines.” Well, yes.
Oh, bosh. Shackford is spinning for all he is worth. Rand Paul did not say that the idea of state-sanctioned marriage offends him. He said that he idea of same-sex marriage offends him. Listen to the clip.
Ted Cruz’s animus in Iowa makes Rand Paul seem positively gay friendly.
Everything is relative, I guess. Paul has a long record of stated opposition to marriage equality, so “seem” is the operative word in your statement.
In fairness, an Oklahoma bill that would take the state out of the marriage licensing business but (if the Supreme Court does the right thing) still recognize same-sex marriages may give a clearer idea of what Paul is suggesting.
The Oklahoma bill eliminates the need for a marriage license in order to marry in the state, as you point out, and that’s all it does. Otherwise, the bill does not affect marriage law in Oklahoma.
It certainly does not get the state “out of the marriage business”.
State law continues to “define marriage”, continues to determine which officiants (judges, retired judges, clergy, and in the case of religions that do not have clergy, persons who are authorized by the practices of that religion to perform marriages) are authorized to perform marriages, delineates the rights and responsibilities of marriage, determines the conditions under which divorce/dissolution is available and regulates the process/results of divorce/dissolution, requires state recognition (in the form of a filed “Certificate of Marriage”) in order for a marriage to be recognized at state law, continues to appoint clergy as agents of the state government, and so on.
After the bill is passed by the Senate (it has passed the Assembly) and signed into law, Oklahoma will continue to be up to its neck in the “marriage business”.
The bill seems far afield from Paul’s position that civil law marriage should be eliminated altogether, replaced by private contract.
posted by Aubrey Haltom on
Tom, I have a question for you. Here’s the section of the bill detailing who would be authorized by the state to perform formal marriage ceremonies:
“marriages must be contracted by a formal ceremony performed
or solemnized in the presence of at least two adult, competent
persons as witnesses, by a judge or retired judge of any court in
this state, or an ordained or authorized preacher or minister of the
Gospel, priest or other ecclesiastical dignitary of any denomination
who has been duly ordained or authorized by the church to which he
or she belongs to preach the Gospel, or a rabbi and who is at least
eighteen (18) years of age.”
By definition, the “Gospel” refers to the Christian tradition. The inclusion of the “rabbi” would seem to indicate that Jews are included as well.
But isn’t the language of this bill exclusive to those in the Judeo-Christian tradition, at least as far as any “formal marriage ceremony”?
The only other avenues to formal ceremonies would be via judges, or common-law filing.
Am I reading these sections incorrectly? Or is this just another fundamentalist-driven bill that will be overturned at some point?
posted by Tom Scharbach on
The bill itself doesn’t change existing law about who can perform marriages. The existing law is couched in language that reflects and eariler time, and it would have been helpful if the bill updated the language, but it did not.
Existing law, unmodified by the bill, determines the officials who are authorized by the state, acting as agents of the state, to conduct marriages:
Needless to say, the archaic language of existing law (presumably written at a time when only Christians and Jews existed in the state, is a mess. A couple can be married by a judge or retired judge, a Christian minister or priest, a rabbi, or, in some cases, by “the persons and in the manner prescribed by and practiced in any such society, church, or assembly”. I assume that Muslims fall under that exception, as do Unitarian/Universalists, Wiccans and whomever, but what happens if someone belongs to a non-Christian religion that “ordains” religious leaders? Strictly interpreted, no one can be married by an “ordained” religious practitioner of a non-Christian religion other than Judaism.
The law is reasonably typical of state laws denominating who can and who cannot perform marriages, and, by requiring registration, making such persons agents of the state. It is a good example of why civil marriage should not be entangled with religious marriage. Any sensible re-write of the existing law would modernize the “who can perform” language to reflect the growing diversity of religious life in America, but, of course, that would open its own can of worms.
There is no question in my mind that “this is just another fundamentalist-driven bill”, introduced to make a point. The author claims that the bill is intended to eliminate conflict occasioned by the conflict of same-sex marriage and “religious freedom”, but all it does is kick the can up from county clerks to the judges, who will be faced with the same problem. So it doesn’t to a damn thing to resolve the “religious freedom” issue.
posted by A.G. on
I basically agree, but the judges role is voluntary on their part, while county clerks have been required to perform civil ceremonies (this is also the issue in Alabama). I don’t support caving on major points of equality, but I don’t oppose compromising around the edges if it can allow the religious right a fig leaf to claim they got something. For that reason, I’m fine with the Utah anti-discrimination measure that provides most of what we’d want in nondiscrimination provisions versus holding firm against religious exemptions and not getting anything.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
I don’t know what to think about the Oklahoma bill.
It started out (as initially proposed, the bill removed “judges and retired judges” from the list of state-authorized officiants) as a legislative scheme to create two classes of marriage — religious marriage, which was recorded by filing a “Certificate of Marriage”, and non-religious marriage, which was recorded by filing an “Affidavit of Common Law Marriage”.
Knowing the legal and cultural history of common-law marriage (shack up for enough years, and you are treated as “married” even though you haven’t elected to make it legal), the bill would have created a two-tier system of marriage in the state, with religious marriage being accorded preferential treatment.
The scheme of removing judges and retired judges from the list of authorized officiants feel apart when the bill’s Republican sponsors realized that the religious preference scheme wouldn’t stand a chance under constitutional scrutiny, and judges and retired judges were added back as authorized officiants.
Now, as drafted, the bill just creates confusion, to no particular purpose. The two-tier marriage schema continues to exist, although it isn’t clear who would be in the “”Affidavit of Common Law Marriage” tier, now that judges and retired judges have been returned to “authorized officiant” status. The law continues to give at least the appearance of religious preference to Christians (i.e. “ministers of the Gospel”) and resolves none of the problems that exist under the archaic scheme of the original statute. The law provides a scheme under which Quakers, Baha’is, and Mormons can enter into religious marriage, but it isn’t clear whether that scheme applies to Muslims, Hindus, or Buddhists or other non-enumerated religious groups. The deficiencies go on and on.
As far as I am concerned the law in Oklahoma is a fricking mess, and the bill compounds the problem.
posted by Tom Jefferson III on
Much of the libertarian right has a long love-in relationship with Ron Paul and this seems to be continued on with jr. The libertarian left has always been skeptical, but they lack the backing of well-heeled corporatist-propertarians.
Yet, even within the libertarian right, Ron Paul was never a libertarian and his son ain’t either. They were given a pass by the libertarian right because of corporatist and propertarian interests have largely bank rolled any ‘libertarian’ movement that the general public was even vaguely aware of.
Now as far as the more serious GOP presidential hopefuls, I do not expect Bush or Walker to endorse marriage equality and should they win they will do all they can to push back the sand glass.
posted by Houndentenor on
Paul was not “taken out of context”. He said what he said and the context doesn’t give us any insight to “nuances”. Instead he (and his supporters) are mad that he was quoted verbatim.
posted by Jorge on
This really has been an astounding year when it comes to stupidity within the GOP.