The Cato Institute’s David Boaz argues that the GOP’s gay marriage silence speaks louder than words:
Republican candidates and their advisers know that opposition to same-sex marriage remains strong in their base, but that more than two-thirds of young voters support it. Campaigning against gay marriage is a good way to make the Democratic advantage among young people permanent.
Sometimes social change happens when people announce a change of heart. Sometimes you know it’s happening when one side tries to change the subject. That sound you don’t hear right now, of major Republican candidates making gay marriage a key issue in their campaigns? That’s the sound of social change happening.
A counter argument might point out that Ted Cruz introduced legislation to establish a constitutional amendment shielding states that define marriage as between one woman and one man from legal action, and Scott Walker indicated he would support the amendment if the Supreme Court rules in favor of marriage equality. Also, there’s no doubt about the opposition to same-sex marriage by Mike Huckabee and Rick Santorum.
But that may be missing the forest for the trees. Given the likelihood of a Supreme Court decision in favor of marriage equality, the fact that the GOP leading contenders have not made the campaign against same-sex marriage central to their efforts is a sign of progress.
One point that should be addressed in the debate over whether the GOP is actually changing is the meme repeated by the LGBT left that voicing support for religious liberty is nothing but code for anti-gay discrimination. For instance, the Washington Blade reports as evidence, in their view, that Bush is “doubling down on opposition to anti-gay marriage” the following:
“This conscience should also be respected in people of faith who want to take a stand for traditional marriage,” Bush said [at the Faith & Freedom Coalition conference in D.C.]. “In a country like ours, we should recognize the power of a man and a woman loving their children with all their heart and soul as a good thing, as something that is positive and helpful for children to live a successful life.”
The phrase “traditional marriage” is often used by conservatives and especially by Bush to mean opposition to same-sex marriage.
And yet….
Bush didn’t articulate any policy measure by which he would seek to oppose same-sex marriage. He hasn’t yet spoken this campaign cycle on whether he’d back a U.S. constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage — an idea that GOP hopefuls Ted Cruz, Bobby Jindal and Scott Walker have endorsed.
Hardly seemed like “doubling down”; more like tossing the religious right a bone.
Elsewhere the Blade informs us:
Bush didn’t mention LGBT issues during his [campaign annoucement] speech per se, but criticized Clinton for what he said was her failure to stand up for religious freedom, which many observers read as code for anti-LGBT discrimination.
“These have been rough years for religious charities and their right of conscience, and the leading Democratic candidate basically hinted at more trouble to come,” Bush said. “Secretary Clinton insists that when the progressive agenda encounters religious beliefs to their contrary, those beliefs quote, ‘have to be changed.’ That’s what she said. That’s what she said, and I guess we should at least thank her for the warning.”
If you believe that the future of LGBT Americans lies in ensuring no religious exemptions from anti-discrimination law for religiously affiliated charities and schools, and that independent small vendors with religious-conscience objections must be forced to rectify their thinking by accepting gigs celebrating same-sex weddings or else suffer exorbitant fines and be driven out of business by the state, then I suppose religious freedom would be something you would favor stamping out.
More. John Ward writes, perceptively, at Yahoo! Politics:
Bush has done the most work, by far, of any 2016 Republican presidential candidate to lay out an intellectual framework from which to argue that a compromise can be reached between the LGBT community and religious conservatives. “I think we’re a big enough country and a tolerant enough country to allow for both to exist. I don’t believe we should discriminate against people,” Bush said in New Hampshire. “But I certainly don’t think we should push aside the big and caring hearts that people — when they act on their faith — to be able to make a difference in the lives of people.” …
On the question of gay marriage, Bush has said he personally believes marriage is between a man and a woman and that he does not think gay marriage is a constitutional right. But … Bush’s communications director is openly gay, and some of his closest aides are supporters of gay marriage.
For these and other reasons, Christian conservatives have so far tended to be lukewarm about Bush. But if he continues to make a robust defense of their point of view in the debate over religious freedom, that could change, especially if other Republicans steer clear of the issue except when it’s the focus of controversy and they’re put on the spot.
The religious right is pulling back to a defensive position around freedom of conscience for religious conservatives. The progressive left feels it’s now occupying the commanding heights and is rejecting what were recently seen as common-sense compromises (i.e., religious exemptions from anti-discrimination laws).
40 Comments for “GOP Shows Signs of Change and Resistance”
posted by Lori Heine on
This blog sounds one note…la-la-la…over and over again.
It will be absolutely nifty if the GOP stops its insane crusade against LGBT Americans. But it will change absolutely nothing else about the party or its platform.
They are a bunch of warmongering, police state-worshipping freaks. They have turned American corporations into welfare queens. That their politicians are so morally bankrupt they would also destroy the lives of gay and trans people is not a fact that changes if they learn how to do a better job of hiding it.
posted by Josh on
If you’re so contemptuous of this blog, why do you come here and comment repeatedly? I am so tired of commenters who are nothing but smugly disdainful of the blogs they haunt. Hey Lori, where’s you blog so we can come and snark all over it?
posted by Houndentenor on
And I’m tired of people who have no substantive comments to make simply attacking the person for saying something they don’t like. If there’s some flaw in her facts or reasoning, by all means point those out. Otherwise, it just shows that you’re mad that someone is stating the obvious.
posted by Lori Heine on
Josh, if you can sum up every comment I’ve ever made on this blog on the basis of one comment or even a few, than you reveal yourself as an ignoramus.
Go sit in your team’s corner and shake your little pom-poms. Rah-rah.
posted by craig123 on
Josh, if you’re new to this site you may not know that there is a claque of five or so commenters who feel compelled to disagree with everything, EVERYTHING, Stephen writes. I don’t know if they are earning their Media Matters points or just need to condemn all deviations from the correct ideological line, but they are relentless. Any fan of this site avoids the comments, or just periodically scans them to see if someone new has posted — and to warn them that this is hostile territory to those who appreciate Stephen’s views.
posted by Jimmy on
I’ve been reading IGF since it had other voices contributing to it, and it was more of a forum then, with more diverse opinions represented. I was amused by the notion that a gay, regressive, supply-side, Americans for Prosperity-type of Republican was going to ‘forge a gay mainstream’.
I just check in to see if he is still trying to roll that rock up the hill.
posted by Ricport on
Josh, as a semi-frequent commenter here, I’d like to say that if you read some of her other posts, Lori is actually one of the very, very few commenters left here who isn’t shilling, stepping and fetching for the Dem masters, and is actually willing to see and acknowledge that hypocrisy, slaving for their special interests, and general failure is not limited to the GOP. Given that most on here are fully supportive of the DADT- and DOMA-supporting, wait-till-the-polls-say-it’s-OK “that woman,” I’m supportive of anyone who brings a fresh perspective to this or any other forum.
posted by Houndentenor on
I’m trying to find a silver lining in the insanity that is the current GOP and I think Stephen may have found it. DOMA passed with overwhelming support from House and Senate Democrats and was signed by a Democratic President. Then, just before changing on the issue in 2004 and 2008 Democrats clearly did not want to talk about the issue (and in Kerry’s case, bungled it when he did). So this may well be progress. It’s not enough, just as the Democratic leadership’s silence in 2004 and 2008 was not enough. (One speech to an African American audience in California might have made a significant difference in defeating Prop 8.) So perhaps there is some movement. There’s just one problem with that strategy (if it even is one) and it’s that the Democrats do not have to get past a religious right voter base to win primaries. Until they change their minds on this issue, Republicans are stuck and they know it. So are Evangelicals changing? The younger ones are, but the leadership? No.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
One point that should be addressed in the debate over whether the GOP is actually changing is the meme repeated by the LGBT left that voicing support for religious liberty is nothing but code for anti-gay discrimination.
It seems to me that when the rhetoric about “religious liberty” is focused solely on enacting laws sanctioning discrimination against same-sex marriage, that speaks for itself. If any of the proponents of “religious liberty” are talking about the need to protect religious objection to interracial marriages, inter-denominational marriages, inter-religious marriages and/or remarriage after divorce, I hope that IGF will let us know.
But that may be missing the forest for the trees. Given the likelihood of a Supreme Court decision in favor of marriage equality, the fact that the GOP leading contenders have not made the campaign against same-sex marriage central to their efforts is a sign of progress.
It is a sign that the “leading contenders” (Bush, Walker, Rubio) have a minimal amount of political cunning. I guess that’s progress, but real progress will come when “leading contenders” start supporting equal treatment under the law for gays and lesbians.
posted by Lori Heine on
The debate on religious liberty is broadening. Some of the points Tom has brought up here are beginning to be discussed. The people who originally brought up the subject of religious freedom–solely as a reaction against same-sex marriage–don’t like it. It has become a real conversation, and they can’t stuff the genie back into the bottle.
posted by Jorge on
Whether or not the gay censorship movement succeeds in its quest to convince America that “religious tolerance” is code for “anti-gay” depends on those who are saying the words “religious tolerance.”
Jeb Bush is running for the presidency of the United States. That means he’s going to have to start acting as if he cares about the best interests of gay Americans, young progressives, and others whose ideology is opposed to that of the Republican party and its religious conservative base. Because gay marriage is increasingly becoming to be seen as synonymous with the issue that defines whether you care about gay people, Jeb Bush and the other Republican candidates will have to break their silence on this issue. If they do not wish to be seen as bigots, then they must give proof to that lie. Write their own history in their own name.
Mitt Romney knew that well enough to win the Republican primary, but not well enough to win the presidency. It was not possible to manipulate his positions into saying that Mitt Romney was anti-gay or anti-woman. Anti-poor, anti-illegal immigrant, anti-anyone who’s not going to vote for him, he wrote that book himself.
posted by Mike in Houston on
“Gay censorship movement”? Really?
No one on the left is equating “religious tolerance” with being “anti-gay”… the public understands the anti-LGBT animus behind the latest Christian Victimhood™ — because these so-called “religious liberty” purveyor’s extreme histrionics are on full display.
In case you haven’t noticed, no one is being “censored” or “silenced” on the “religious right” – you can’t turn around without another tantrum from the usual suspects – if they’re not comparing themselves to Rosa Parks and MLK in calls for civil disobedience in the face of marriage equality, they’re saying that transgender acceptance is the root cause of the Charleston terrorist attack.
Here’s the reality: folks on the religious right are merely reaping social opprobrium that they’re not used to. Yes, it’s got to be uncomfortable when your increasingly extreme rhetoric and actions against LGBT people no longer come with the free pass, but the country has largely moved on… it’s only reactionary politicians (primarily in the GOP / Tea-Party) that have yet to join the evolution.
posted by Houndentenor on
Yes, haven’t you seen the press conferences where people complain about being silenced?
posted by Jorge on
“Gay censorship movement”? Really?
Yes. Really.
I could argue again that wedding photographers and wedding cakes have become battlefields of censorship, but I’ll probably need a fresh example to be convincing.
There was also that bit where Wheaties made a statement in praise of “Bruce” that they had to retract, under media questioning, and change it to “Bruce and Cristie.” Excuse me, Bruce and Caitlyn. But arguing that there’s a campaign to silence people who think transgender people are mentally ill would require too much of me.
It’ll show up, though.
the public understands the anti-LGBT animus behind the latest Christian Victimhood™ — because these so-called “religious liberty” purveyor’s extreme histrionics are on full display.
I find that hard to believe.
Both that the public sees through it, and that the public doesn’t sympathize.
So could you flag me down and point out for me the next time the general public sees through what you’re talking about?
posted by JohnInCA on
Well, if you don’t find polling data on what “the public” thinks persuasive, I’m not sure what anyone could present that you would find persuasive.
And yes, to talk about a trend you really do need more then anecdotes. And frankly a handful of cases over ten years (and last time I checked I could literally can count them on two hands) doesn’t support much of a trend line.
posted by Doug on
One could not fathom what Romney’s positions were on much of anything, except the 47%, because he was on both sides of almost every issue.
posted by Lori Heine on
“Whether or not the gay censorship movement succeeds in its quest to convince America that ‘religious tolerance’ is code for ‘anti-gay’ depends on those who are saying the words ‘religious tolerance.’”
Jorge, bless your heart, sometimes I’m not sure what color the sky is in your world.
For religious conservatives, “religious tolerance” IS code for “anti-gay.” They have revealed this too clearly for it to be mistaken.
All people of faith who disagree with them–hell, all people who disagree with them, even those of no faith–need to stand up and continue to insist on being part of the conversation. For you to slander that insistence as “the gay censorship movement” is nothing but toadyism.
Who are you trying to please–those who can’t stand you, do nothing but lie about you, and won’t even listen to you, no matter what you say?
posted by Jorge on
Jorge, bless your heart, sometimes I’m not sure what color the sky is in your world.
And also with you… wait, wrong religion.
I don’t suppose you have the code’s answer key anywhere around here?
For you to slander that insistence as “the gay censorship movement” is nothing but toadyism.
Who are you trying to please–those who can’t stand you, do nothing but lie about you, and won’t even listen to you, no matter what you say?
I’ll tell you just as soon as you provide some evidence to expose “religious liberty” as a code for bigotry.
Code, Lori. Not cover. That’s an important difference.
(But wait, if I ask for “some evidence,” and she provides an example where it’s just a cover, it’s still fulfilling “some evidence.”)
Then the best way to start is with someone who is known first and primarily as talking about “religious liberty.”
posted by Lori Heine on
Jorge, you use the same sort of hyperbolic rhetoric as the social right, then you protest in doe-eyed innocence when anyone calls you on it.
Code and cover are very much the same thing. They are ordinarily used, in politics, for the same purpose. Please explain your parsing, because it isn’t making sense.
The social right has taken an important topic, religious liberty, and attempted to appropriate it for a particular purpose. I believe their purpose is a nefarious one. Call it cover or call it code, this is what I mean by what I say.
For you to imply that anyone who disagrees with how the social right is using the concept of religious freedom must automatically be anti-freedom or in favor of censorship is ludicrous.
At first I was willing to give them the benefit of the doubt. Not so much because I trusted them, but because I wanted to wait and see whether they could be trusted. I wasn’t altogether surprised at the direction they took it, but I still wanted to wait and see.
I think that by this time, anyone with eyes to see and ears to hear has learned what the social right really plans on making out of “religious liberty.”
The trouble for them is that we HAVE really begun talking about it. Tom S. has provided some powerful arguments in favor of broadening the conversation. Many who disagree with the social right are indeed broadening the conversation.
Babbling about censorship, at this point, just makes you look silly.
posted by Jorge on
Jorge, you use the same sort of hyperbolic rhetoric as the social right, then you protest in doe-eyed innocence when anyone calls you on it.
There’s a reason for that: I’m not impressed by the gay censorship movement, or its many siblings.
I mean, duh, right?
I don’t think they’re clever, and I don’t think they’re righteous. They’re not worth my loyalty, and they don’t command my personal code.
Code and cover are very much the same thing. They are ordinarily used, in politics, for the same purpose. Please explain your parsing, because it isn’t making sense.
Code is a transformation of overt displays of (let’s say) bigotry into covert displays of bigotry that appear innocuous. Cover is the use of separate innocuous things to distract one’s attention from overt displays of bigotry. Code is always deliberate because it involves a causal action. Cover, because it involves an association between two separate things, could mean one of many different things–it’s not known where the causal direction is, if one even exists.
The social right has taken an important topic, religious liberty, and attempted to appropriate it for a particular purpose.
I don’t believe you.
I believe it is more likely the libertarian right is controlling the religious conservative right than the other way around. Control may be too strong a word. In order to survive politically, the religious right must convert.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
The religious right is pulling back to a defensive position around freedom of conscience for religious conservatives.
Hogwash. The idea that the religious right is going to be satisfied with an exemption to non-discrimination laws is as much a pipe dream as was the “civil unions compromise” that Blankenhorn and Rauch proposed in 2009.
Do you read what the religious right has been saying of late? Politician after politician, religious leader after religious leader, spokesman after spokesman has been vowing active resistance to the upcoming Supreme Court decision. A lot of it is downright hysterical, I’ll grant you, but none of it (even the more rational) stops with “freedom of conscience for religious conservatives”.
The progressive left feels it’s now occupying the commanding heights and is rejecting what were recently seen as common-sense compromises (i.e., religious exemptions from anti-discrimination laws).
I have no idea what the “progressive left” feels (and Stephen probably doesn’t either), but I do know what I think, and I’ve been clear about it for months on IGF.
So long as the “common-sense compromise” is religion-neutral (covers personal conscience, religious or non-religious in origin), issue-neutral (e.g. if the scope of the exemption covers objection to marriage, then covers all marriages found objectionable, such as same-sex marriage, inter-racial marriage, inter-denominational marriage, inter-religion marriage and remarriage after divorce), and class neutral (i.e. covers all classes protected by anti-discrimination laws), then, as far as I am concerned, the “common sense compromise” meets the “equal means equal” test, and is acceptable to me.
Also acceptable is a “deminimis exemption”, common in public accommodations laws, that exempts small, family-owned and operated businesses from compliance from public accommodations laws across the board.
I think, in either case, that requiring a non-compliance business owner to post public notice of the nature and scope of the claimed exemption, is good public policy.
The problem is that no one is proposing anything close to any of this. What is being proposed, in a variety of ways (exempting public officials from issuing licenses or performing marriages, public accommodations laws exemptions, restricting solemnization to clergy, and on and on across the country) is government sanction of special discrimination against gays and lesbians, and gays and lesbians alone.
If I sound angry about the whitewashing of special discrimination under the rubric of “religious freedom”, and the trivialization/abuse of religious freedom itself by doing so, it is because I am angry.
The entire modern struggle for “LGBT rights” has been a fifty year long fight to eliminate special discrimination against gays and lesbians — discrimination in law, discrimination in police action and law enforcement, discrimination in employment, discrimination in housing, discrimination in the military, and discrimination in marriage. We are nowhere near the end of that struggle, as Michelangelo Signorile, in his book “It’s Not Over“, so clearly points out. The last thing on earth we should be doing at this point is accepting a “common sense compromise” that sanctions continued special discrimination against gays and lesbians under the guise of “religious freedom”, while leaving everyone else unaffected and untouched.
And, as any thoughtful person who belongs to a minority religion is this country can point out with numerous examples, religious freedom is not something that can be taken for granted, but must be vigilantly guarded and fought for — not trivialized to effect a political compromise for short-term political gain to a party with a long history of animus toward gays and lesbians. The abuse of religious freedom in this manner is disgusting and dangerous.
I read the “religious freedom” articles written by gay conservatives aligned with the Republican Party, typically written under the rubric of libertarianism, and I am stunned by the unwillingness of the writers to embrace the principle of “equal means equal” with respect to exemptions from non-discrimination laws. It is all and always about gays and lesbians and same-sex marriage. It is never, never about inter-racial marriage, or inter-denominational marriage, or inter-religious marriage, or remarriage after divorce.
I don’t know what in the hell is going on in the heads of homocons, but I wonder if Richard J. Rosenthal (a sometime contributor to IGF) is spot on when he writes:
posted by Houndentenor on
The “left” in America is a few academics who write in some journal that no one reads except for conservatives looking to strawman everyone who isn’t a far right loon.
posted by Mike in Houston on
I’m not a lawyer, but have 15 years experience in LGBT workplace equality advocacy as the head of Out & Equal Houston — and more recently, working to enact the Houston Equal Rights Ordinance.
Here is what the reality of “common-sense” compromise (aka “tolerance” or “accommodation” of religion in the workplace… as borne out by legal precedent (and hopefully the html table code will work):
Reasonable / Allowed Accommodations
Not allowed (not religion neutral)
Allowing breaks for prayers as long as safety systems or other operations are not affected.
Prohibiting breaks for prayers not impacting safety or other operations. (e.g., allowing smoke breaks but not for other purposes)
If space is available, providing a space for prayer / contemplation
Restricting use of that space to certain religious observances (e.g., Christian-only chapel)
Employees can display small religious symbols in their office or cubicle (e.g., crucifix)
Display of religious materials that target, threaten, demean or denigrate others thereby creating a hostile work environment.
Employees’ religious dress is allowed as long as safety or operations are negatively affected. (e.g., Mormon undergarments allowed except when it compromises safety equipment)
Not allowing religious dress (e.g., wearing a hijab, yarmulke, etc.) that has no effect on work performance or safety.
Having a Bible or Koran on your desk or in your office bookcase.
Displaying your Bible or posting religious texts that create a hostile work environment. (e.g., Levitical quotes)
Loss of opportunity or performance ratings for turning down a work assignment because of actual or perceived discrimination (e.g., an LGBT person being offered a work assignment in a country that jails and/or kills you for being gay).
Turning down a work assignment because of your religious beliefs (e.g., not working with a gay co-worker because you “disagree with their ‘lifestyle’”.)
Inviting co-workers to secular or religious services.
Proselytizing or posting invitations to events that create a hostile work environment. (e.g., preaching in the break room or sending out emails publicizing an anti-marriage equality rally)
Asking about community involvement as part of a potential employee’s qualifications for a job (e.g., organization or public speaking skills)
Asking about a potential employee’s religious affiliation as a qualification for employment.
Now I realize that these probably seem unreasonable intrusions into the privileges of certain cisgender white evangelicals — certainly Stephen seems to think so — but this the reality on the ground… regardless of the puffery or hyperventilation by most on the right.
posted by Mike in Houston on
So the html didn’t work, but the first line is what is allowed or accommodated in employment matters… the second would be what isn’t allowed by employers or employees.
They’re religion neutral and do not touch on beliefs — only behavior.
posted by Rick Rosendall on
Thanks for the mention. Please note my name is spelled Rosendall.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Sorry about that. Dick Rosenthal is a good friend, and my brain just auto-typed. By the way, I couldn’t post the link to Richard’s article because of IGF’s spam filter (only one link per comment) so here it is for those interested.
posted by Dale of the Desert on
If Stephen is correct in his assessment that the GOP is shifting to a position more open to compromise, whether through change-of-heart or simply reconnoitering the battlefield, who or what does he think can be credited with bringing about the shift? Have GOP candidates had a miraculous Burning Bush enlightenment, or have they been moved to shift by the continuing political and social efforts of others? If the latter, then what specific role has Stephen personally played in bringing about the change?
posted by Lori Heine on
Okay, Jorge, I’ll take your word that there’s a difference between “cover” and “code.” We can get 10,000 angels on the head of a pin, but not 10,001.
The libertarian right is probably not controlling the social right. It is probably convincing anyone who isn’t absolutely nuts that the social right has once again come dangerously close to going over the edge.
The religious right is being whittled down, because some of its number care about surviving politically, and some have a pathological attachment to bad religion. The former will become less socially conservative. The latter will double down and fight ’til the edge sucks them over.
posted by JohnInCA on
For the various “religous liberty” ideas tossed about recently to be a “compromise”, don’t they have to give something as well as take?
The Utah non-discrimination law? That was a compromise. It extended protections where they didn’t previously exist, but enshrined protections for certain categories. That is a compromise.
The Indiana and Louisiana RFRAs? They enshrined protections for religion but offered no new protections. That is not a compromise.
The various measures by Texas, Alabama, and South Carolina? They’re closer to Indiana/Louisiana example then the Utah one.
All of which is to say… I’m impressed when *actual* compromise is reached. But these are few and far between. And touting other laws, positions and policies that are *not* compromises as “compromises” just because the right doesn’t get *everything* they want? And then using that as cover for still anti-gay Republicans? That’s nothing to cheer about.
posted by Jorge on
I think “both sides get something” is an oversimplified way to look at compromise. Sometimes compromise means one side gets something, but not everything it wants, while the other side gets some of its territory respected. Both sides get something on their principles, not tangible stuff. So your comparison doesn’t really tell me much.
posted by Jorge on
To put it another way, “compromise” does not mean, when people put their hands out saying “gimmie, gimmie, gimmie”, giving them a quarter instead of a dollar. That encourages brinksmanship for the sake of it. You should try to give everyone some of what they want or need. Sometimes that means you decide not to take their money away. Sometimes that means you actually do take money away, but less than you were originally going to. Governing is about meeting the interests of all the people.
posted by JohnInCA on
You’re quibbling over distinctions that, while elsewhere relevant, are irrelevant in this context.
Or are you seriously trying to argue that any of the examples I gave as “not a compromise” actually *are* compromises?
posted by Jorge on
You’re quibbling over distinctions that, while elsewhere relevant, are irrelevant in this context.
No, I think that’s you.
posted by Tom Jefferson III on
I am sorry but what exactly is this recently proposed “common-sense compromises” that Stephen is so excited about. The only one that springs to mind was what happened in Utah, and I believe that the main “religious exemption” in that case was limited to non-profits.
I am just not seeing “common-sense compromises” flowing from the lips of people who are still opposed to marriage equality and are still opposed to civil rights protections for LGBT people.
BTW, does anyone know what Jeb Bush record on LGBT rights has been? Wasn’t he like, oh, I don’t know, the Governor of some state?
posted by Tom Scharbach on
HRC tracks the Republican candidates’ record and statements on LGBT issues. Governor Bush’s record is mixed.
posted by Ricport on
Please. The minute the HRC embraced the DADT- and DOMA-supporting, “wait till the polls say it’s OK to support gay marriage” “that woman,” is the nanosecond I lost any nanoparticle of respect I had for them. Gay Dems supporting “that woman” are no different than the ones throwing dinners for Ted Cruz.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Either the summaries on each candidate are factually correct, or not. Because the statements are attributed, the accuracy of the statements can be checked. That is all that is relevant.
posted by Ricport on
“Either the summaries on each candidate are factually correct, or not.”
The same could be said for the long anti-gay record of “that woman,” yet you’ll obediently ignore it and trot into the polls and slavishly vote for her. That is also very relevant.
posted by Jim Michaud on
Okay, I’ll go out on a limb here and make my SCOTUS prediction. It will be handed down tomorrow, 6-3 our favor. Decisions are usually handed down on Mondays or Thursdays. A positive ruling would logically come before Pride weekend (so couples could get married this weekend). Kagan, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, Kennedy & Roberts YES and Alito, Thomas and Scalia NO.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
My guess is that the Obergefell decision will be issued on Monday. I suspect that the Court will issue Arizona and Michgan v. EPA (and perhaps Johnson) tomorrow, and the remaining opinions (Obergefell, Glossip and perhaps Johnson on Monday.
With respect to Obergefell, here are my predictions:
If the Court decides in favor of marriage equality, marriage equality will play out reasonably quickly, in effect nationwide by the end of July. The Court will reverse the 6th Circuit decision, and marriages should come quite quickly to the four states (Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, Tennessee) directly affected by the decision. Non-equality states in the 5th (Louisiana, Mississippi, Texas), the 8th (Arkansas, the Dakotas, Missouri and Nebraska) and the 11th Circuits (Alabama, Georgia) will likely require additional orders from the lower courts to effectuate the Supreme Court’s ruling, and that could take a few weeks.
I’m curious about how the Republican candidates will handle the decision.