Added. During the GOP presidential debate, Ohio Gov. John Kasich earned applause for, basically, saying same-sex marriage is the law and we should love our gay kids. Reports Business Insider:
The crowd in Cleveland gave Kasich a loud round of applause. The overwhelming cheering was a noticeable contrast from just four years ago during another GOP primary debate…in which a crowd booed a gay soldier.
On the other hand, there’s Rick Santorum. But he’s fading away.
——————-
The Washington Blade reports that:
The Republican National Committee has nixed a pair of controversial anti-gay resolutions that were proposed for consideration during its summer meeting ahead of the first GOP 2016 presidential debate. … The first resolution, proposed by Dave Agema, urged schools with gay-inclusive sex education curricula to “also include the harmful physical aspects of the lifestyle.” Another measure, sponsored by Ross Little of Louisiana, sought to defy the U.S. Supreme Court marriage decision by urging Congress to pass legislation stripping federal courts of the ability to hear marriage cases and returning the issue to the states.
The Blade also noted:
Had the measures been adopted at the Cleveland gathering, it would have been the first official act of the Republican Party on marriage after the U.S. Supreme Court decision on gay nuptials and likely invoked consternation among LGBT advocates as the Republican Party seeks a more inclusive image.
Agema, the Blade reports, is:
the same RNC member who has repeatedly landed in hot water for making anti-gay, racist and anti-Muslim posts on Facebook. Republican National Committee Chair Reince Preibus and former Michigan Republican Party Chair Bobby Schostok have called on Agema to step down and the RNC has censured him, but no explicit mechanism exists to expel him from the RNC and he has remained in his post.
During recent presidential elections, the Republican platform has called for amending the U.S. Constitution to deny same-sex couples the right to marry. It remains to be seen if the GOP platform will again, post-Obergefell, call for restricting marriage equality. But the rejection of these resolutions by the RNC seems a good sign.
28 Comments for “Glimmers of Change for the GOP”
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Both resolutions were born of the extreme, close to nutcase, wing of the party. If either had passed, it would have evidence that the Republican Party had been taken over by extremists.
The party platform, on the other hand, represents the party’s mainstream. in 2012, at the behest of conservative Christians, the mainstream ratified the strongest anti-equality language in platform history. I expect that the party will dial back in 2016, because the 2012 language, post-Obergefell, is out of touch with the American mainstream.
The question is how and how far the party will dial back. My guess is that the 2016 platform will endorse traditional marriage and call for a so-called “religious exemption” for anyone who doesn’t want to recognize Obergefell as the law of the land, but be silent on anti-marriage federal constitutional amendments.
posted by Houndentenor on
Republicans hoping for a post-Teavangelical future for the party will be trying hard to push back against resolutions worse than the 2012 one. I don’t much expect any progress until at least 2020 and probably not until 2024. Younger Republicans, at least according to polling, have very different views on a variety of important issues and at some point they will be in positions of power to moderate the extremists in the party who have had been in charge for some time now.
posted by Lori Heine on
That seems the likeliest possibility to me, too.
posted by Lori Heine on
This commenting system leaves much to be desired. I was trying to comment on Tom S’s remark. The system this blog uses is like Forrest Gump’s box of chocolates: we’re never sure what we’re going to get.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
The question is how and how far the party will dial back. My guess is that the 2016 platform will endorse traditional marriage and call for a so-called “religious exemption” for anyone who doesn’t want to recognize Obergefell as the law of the land, but be silent on anti-marriage federal constitutional amendments.
I think that we now have a very clear indication that the Republican Party will make a call for a so-called “religious exemption” the centerpiece of the 2016 platform. The RNC passed the following resolution:
Stephen and other “libertarians” who have been characterizing “progressive LGBT’s” as akin to Robspierre and worse will no doubt be heartened to note this clause: “Whereas, Many on the Left exhibit an intensifying hatred and intolerance for gay marriage dissenters;“. The Republicans appear to be — finally — coming around to a “libertarian” point of view.
posted by Doug on
Any minor changes in the GOP platform are just window dressing designed to fog the underlying extreme dislike the GOP has for the LGBT community. To think otherwise is to be naive.
posted by Jorge on
The overwhelming cheering was a noticeable contrast from just four years ago during another GOP primary debate…in which a crowd booed a gay soldier.
It’s disputed whether the crowd was booing the gay soldier. Witnesses say they were booing someone in the audience for a reason that was inaudible to the camera.
You cannot tell me so much has changed in the last four years that the crowd of a Republican debate would change from booing a gay soldier to breaking into loud applause over gay children. If that is what anyone wishes to say, I would love to know their reasoning.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
You cannot tell me so much has changed in the last four years that the crowd of a Republican debate would change from booing a gay soldier to breaking into loud applause over gay children. If that is what anyone wishes to say, I would love to know their reasoning.
Like you, I don’t think that things have changed much among social conservative Republicans since 2012, and I think that the “Boy, Howdy, the Republicans are coming around …” meme is naive. I think that something else is at work, and find the line of reasoning from Amanda Marcotte interesting:
My guess is that the “religious freedom” nonsense has run its course, because the business base of the Republican Party stands in opposition. But that hasn’t stopped Republicans from trying to find a way out from under the onus of having run a long, nasty fight against marriage equality, because getting out from under is politically necessary in order to win the 2016 general election. Kasich seems to be trying out a new path to get out from under, without taking the step that Ron Portman took a couple of years ago.
posted by Jorge on
However, you will find plenty of “law and order” posturing in defense of police who kill black civilians or in defense of cracking down hard on modern day civil rights protests in places like Ferguson, Missouri.
Well, in their defense, they’re right.
posted by Tom Jefferson 3rd on
It was nice to have a GOP presidential primary candidate (in a major debate, sorry Fred Karger) who said something nice about gay rights and gay kids.
I am not sure if the candidate who said it, has a shot at the nomination or if his comments were more then just window dressing.
It has been entertaining to watch Donald Trump. He is living proof of how money can make somone a front runner
posted by JohnInCA on
I heard (unverified) that Kasich brought a contingent of supporters with him that cheered at everything he said. Having no interest in watching/listening to the debates I won’t verify whether that’s true, but if it is, it seems likely that the reason for the cheer isn’t *what* was said, but *who* said it.
Anyone that listened to the whole thing that can verify/debunk this theory?
posted by Tom Scharbach on
During the GOP presidential debate, Ohio Gov. John Kasich earned applause for, basically, saying same-sex marriage is the law and we should love our gay kids.
I hate to sound like Grumpy Cat, but I have a hard time buying into the idea that the current “moderate” Republican memes (“I will continue to love my children, no matter what they do.” and “I did/would attend a friend/relative’s wedding.”) should give me the warm cuddlies.
I’m watching two issues closely:
(1) Supreme Court – Is the candidate likely to appoint justices who will roll back or overrule Obergefell? Are we likely to get another Roberts or Alito when Kennedy and Ginsburg step down? Obviously, given the level of support for marriage equality, code words are going to be important. So I’ll be looking at what a candidate has said about a federal constitutional right to marriage equality, what the candidate has said about Obergefell, what the candidate has said about state’s rights, and (in particular) watching for buzz words like “constitutional conservative”. I’ll also be looking for statements that suggest that the candidate would appoint justices like Roberts, Alito or Scalia.
(2) Executive Orders — Is the candidate like to limit, roll back or rescind the numerous Executive Orders issued by the Obama administration that advanced equality in the face of legislative hostility? As is the case with the Supreme Court, code words are going to be important in predicting what the candidate will do as President.
It is a given that none of the Republican candidates will be inclined or able to advance “equal means equal” as President, at least during the first term. But any of the Republican candidates, if elected, will be in a position to inflict great harm on the gains we have made, so slowly and so painfully, over the last several decades.
posted by Houndentenor on
About Kasich, I think his answer last night probably dooms him in 2016. It’s not like he’s anywhere near the top of the heap this year anyway. But I do think it was a smart move going forward. For or eight years from now that tide may have turned even among GOP primary voters and he’ll be one of the few candidates with anything resembling a good record on gay rights. (Overall his record is not that good, but his comments were a step in the right direction.)
posted by JohnInCA on
While “you’re not beating on me as much today as you did yesterday” is a good thing, when I have the option of chilling with people who aren’t beating me *at all*, I don’t think it’s something I’ll celebrate.
posted by Lori Heine on
I had an illuminating conversation with a conservative, Fox-watching friend just last night. It was depressing and a bit frightening, but it shows what we’re up against.
She said that “that Huckabee” sounded pretty good to her, and that Ben Carson sounded very wise. I’m afraid I didn’t handle it very well. I blew up, and told her she was thinking like a sheeple and letting Fox news do her thinking for her. I recommended that she Google “Ben Carson,” “gays” and “prison” and tell me how wise she thinks he is after she reads about that.
She won’t. She’ll go watch Fox again for more wisdom.
What can we do about people like this? I told her those nice people at Fox don’t do her thinking for her because they want to do her a favor and make her busy days easier. That they do it because they want to tell her what to think. I got a boilerplate, programmed response. Outrage! — because by disagreeing with her, I was infringing on her freedom of speech.
This is a very nice lady, who considers herself gay-supportive. But she illustrates the way conservatives think. They are not, generally speaking, evil people, but they are intellectually lazy and self-absorbed. I try to challenge them on this when I can, and I think we all should–when we can stand to. But the suggestion, often repeated on this blog in one way or another, that “the gay left” is causing these people to think like this is wrongheaded.
posted by Doug on
For a party that used to proclaim allegiance to ‘personal responsibility’, the GOP wants to blame others and make up conspiracy theories for their problems and who better to point a finger at than the ‘left’.
posted by Jorge on
I recommended that she Google “Ben Carson,” “gays” and “prison” and tell me how wise she thinks he is after she reads about that.
1. You should take your own advice. Carson walked back that one.
2. I don’t consider the fact that you blew up to be a barometer of anything other than the identity of the poster.
posted by Lori Heine on
Jorge:
(1) I did tell her that Carson walked the statement back. Which doesn’t change the fact that anybody smart enough to be a brain surgeon surely knew better than to make it in the first place. He simply thought, like most sociopathic politicians, that enough people in his base were stupid enough to believe what he said.
(2) Given the number of asinine remarks you’ve made on this site, I will merely suggest that your criticism of me would mean more coming from somebody else.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
For what it is worth, I’ve had conversations with a half dozen conservative Christian friends since the debate. All of mentioned Doctor Carson, talking about his intelligence and decency. He seems to have made quite an impression in the debate. All of them dissed Governor Bush. Most spoke favorably of Governor Walker, although that is to be expected in Wisconsin. None of them mentioned Governor Huckabee.
posted by Stuart on
This is everything those patrons at Stonewall could have hoped for–marriage, military service, church leadership–and now, acceptance by Republicans.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
… and now, acceptance by Republicans …
Stuart, I wonder.
True enough, many/most Republicans — like most everyone else in the country these days — are willing and able to act like adults around gays and lesbians on a person-to-person basis. Few flinch now when I mention my husband in a routine conversation, and I’m experiencing fewer and few of the mindless dissing about gays and lesbians that used to be routine. I get fewer complaints about being too openly/overtly gay from conservatives than I used to. It has been a few years since I’ve been threatened or yelled at by strangers. The last attempt to “run me out of town” (that is, open complaints about my taking part in civic and volunteer organizations because I was gay) was in 2007, and I got a lot of calls from people I didn’t expect to hear from expressing outrage at the attempt and support.
In other words, Republicans — like most everyone else in the country these days — are learning to live with the fact that we exist and are now a visible and more or less routine part of daily life (at least when they are sober and on their good behavior), and support gays and lesbians that they personally know. Republicans are learning to live with us around, and are increasingly keeping their private thoughts about us private, just as they have learned to do about racial and religious minorities. And all of that is a positive thing, something that I hope will grow and flourish over time.
But, as far as I can tell, person-to-person acceptance hasn’t translated into political support for “equal means equal”, or even lessened opposition to “equal means equal”. Although the rhetoric has toned down even from the worst of Republican presidential candidates (Carson, Huckabee, Jindal, Santorum, et al), all of the Republican candidates are insistent upon their “support for traditional marriage”, and all (whether or not the candidates accept Obergefell as “the law of the land”) are signalling in code (e.g. “marriage is a matter that should be left up to the states”) and deploying dog whistles (“religious liberty”) to leave no doubt as to their continued opposition to “equal means equal”. Not one could be described as a supporter of “equal means equal”, at least not with a straight face. The 2016 Republican platform is, almost certainly, going to signal continued opposition to “equal means equal”, although, like most observers, I expect that the language will be less explicit than the language of 2012 platform. And we will see a continuance of anti-equality legislative proposals coming from Republicans.
I think (as I’ve said in other threads) that we are entering a new phase of resistance to “equal means equal”, a phase that is somewhat similar to the post-Brown phase of the Civil Rights movement, in which (as Atwood pointed out in the article I cited above) “nigger, nigger” morphed into “stuff like, uh, forced busing, states’ rights, and all that stuff”“, and eventually into opposition to affirmative action and voting rights laws.
I don’t think that we’ll hear, going forward, much rhetoric of the style of a decade and a half ago, when Republican politicians used fear and loathing about gays and lesbians, and marriage equality in particular, to drive a political wedge for short-term political gain. Even John Kasich, who has a strong and unbending record of opposition to “equal means equal”, both in Congress and as Governor of Ohio, is now passing his continued opposition to marriage equality off as “old fashioned”, a personal quirk like Uncle Joe’s farting at the Thanksgiving table.
But although the ground has shifted, the political game has not. The laws currently being proposed aren’t about criminalizing sodomy, but about supporting “religious liberty”, aren’t about banning gays and lesbians from employment as police officers or firemen or teachers or soldiers or civil servants, but about rescinding non-discrimination laws and ordinances and/or carving out special exemptions for conservatives who refuse to recognize Obergefell as “the law of the land”. We are no longer fighting the Briggs Initiative, but instead fighting “don’t say gay” laws and efforts to require public schools to teach about the dangers of “the homosexual lifestyle” in sex education classes. And so on. Another place, another time. New lyrics, same song.
This is everything those patrons at Stonewall could have hoped for …
I’m old enough to have been an adult when the “Stonewall riot” came down, but I was serving in the Army and a long ways away, physically and psychologically, from the streets of New York.
So I don’t know what was going through the minds of “those patrons at Stonewall”, or what they hoped for. My guess, though, based on what I experienced of life then and what I’ve heard from many other men my age who also lived through the anti-gay darkness of the 1950’s and 1960’s, that “those patrons at Stonewall” had just reached the end of their rope, snapped, and were joined over the next few days by thousands of others who had it with the levels of oppression that then existed.
I suppose that there may have been a few gays and lesbians in those times that envisioned a path from police raids to marriage equality”, but “few” is the operative word. Most of us just wanted the monkey off our backs — an end to police raids and harassment, an end to kids getting kicked out of college and adults getting kicked out jobs, and so on.
I don’t know about others, but I didn’t imagine “equal means equal” as a possibilty in those days – getting rid of the sodomy laws (then existing in 49 of the 50 states in those days, Illinois being the sole exception) and having a future that wasn’t under constant threat of exposure was about as far as I could think ahead back then. And I think that is true of almost everyone my age.
But had “those patrons at Stonewall” been able to look forward and envision a future for gays and lesbians, I suspect that “equal means equal” would have been cornerstone and keystone of the vision. I think that it would be interesting to ask “those patrons at Stonewall” (however many are left, now) for their thoughts on the matter. While I suspect that almost all of them would say that we are farther ahead that any of them then thought we would ever be, I’m not sanguine that any of them would say that where we are now is “everything [they] could have hoped for”.
posted by Dale of the Desert on
Let’s see, this “very nice lady, who considers herself gay-supportive,” and is acknowleged by Lori as her friend, says something to Lori about having found Carson wise. So Lori, by her own admission, “didn’t handle it very well,” and “blew up,” proceeding to insult her friend who is a very nice lady. Lori then becomes offended that her friend who is a very nice lady became outraged.
Now it sounds to me like this friend who was a very nice lady became outraged not because Lori “disagreed with her,” but because Lori insulted and demeaned her and did not act like a friend or very nice lady toward her friend and very nice lady. But then I wasn’t there, so I don’t know. I just have to interpret Lori’s own description of what happened in light if how Lori often reacts toward people on this site who disagree with her.
I’m not a psychiatrist, so I can’t really conclude anything about behavior patterns that resemble Borderline Personality Disorder, other than to observe that there is a certain resemblance. What I can conclude with a little more confidence is that Lori didn’t achieve much that day with her friend who is a very nice lady. Too bad. Our best opportunities at persuasion are usually with friends who are very nice.
posted by Lori Heine on
Wow, Dale. By all means, insult and demean those with mental health issues with more bigoted, nut-shaming remarks. That’ll keep those out there with Borderline Personality Disorder in line. Go get ’em, you great big “progressive,” you.
What a hypocrite.
I will not recount any of the conversation, because it would do no good. Reasoning with you would probably be a fruitless exercise. You were NOT there, and therefore haven’t a clue what happened.
But of course, you surely always deal with everyone else in your life with perfect wisdom. And when you don’t, well…you’re a “progressive,” so you must always be right.
posted by Lori Heine on
Friends don’t let friends become sheeple. If I’d believed my friend to be unworthy of persuasion, then (A) I would not have bothered reacting angrily to what she said, because (B) she would never have been my friend in the first place.
She has a libertarian streak, and she has a statist streak. As do many people. I knew that, and was attempting to channel her inner libertarian–circumventing her inner statist. Because of whatever programming she’s getting these days on Fox, she’s more resistant to reason and has more boilerplate, bumper-sticker quotes in her repertoire.
Only sheeple react in operatic outrage when a fragment of a conversation (between people they don’t even know) is relayed. Having been motivated by animus because they don’t like things one of them has said. That’s petty, but of course I must consider the source.
posted by Tom Jefferson 3rd on
The GOP establishment is very keen to make window dressing publicity stunts like this.
Is it sign of progress, or just a cheap publicity stunt targated at “moderate, swing voters”….time will tell.
Donald Trump is trying to be a Patrick Buchann – anti establishment right wing, populist.. or he is just totally, crazy.
posted by Lori Heine on
I think he intends to run as an independent candidate, once the Jeb Establishment Machine gets going and pushes him out of running for the GOP.
posted by Mike in Houston on
There’s window dressing and then there’s this faction… which I believe the GOP is more beholden to than ever…
https://youtu.be/dqJ1MBaxvA0
posted by Tom Jefferson 3rd on
I would not be surprised if Donald Trump runs as a third party or Independent candidate…
Patrick Buchanan did just that with the Reform Party ticket. This would be like, 2000? I hear that it caused lots of drama within the Reform party itself.