Maryland's conservative GOP Gov. Robert Ehrlich backs a state amendment barring same-sex marriage. That's insupportable. But it's interesting to note that, in the run-up to the Nov. election, Ehrlich has fired an official for being anti-gay and appointed an out gay judge. These are being viewed (maybe cynically) as attempts to appeal to moderates. In any event, I think it shows how far we've progressed in general, even though marriage equality remains a formidable struggle.
Meanwhile, in California, Gov. Schwarzenegger (who vetoed a legislatively passed gay marriage bill) declared that:
A person should only be limited by his dreams and not by his background, and not by his heritage and not by his sexual orientation. . . .We are united in the values of love, tolerance, and understanding…working together we can create a better future for California where everybody matters and every family counts.
Once the general public moves just a bit more toward marriage acceptance, basically tolerant politicians such as Schwarzennegger and McCain (and perhaps even more conservative ones such as Ehrlich, and maybe even liberal Democrats like Kerry and Edwards) should follow along.
7 Comments for “Marriage Hurdle Obscures Much Progress.”
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Steve: \\\\\\”Once the general public moves just a bit more toward marriage acceptance, basically tolerant politicians such as … McCain … should follow along.\\\\\\”
Maybe, but I wouldn\\\\\\’t count on it.
All the polls show that a strong majority of Americans (anywhere from 65% to almost 80%, depending on the poll and the year) favor allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly. If McCain won\\\\\\’t move on DADT with those numbers, how much \\\\\\”movement\\\\\\” do you suppose McCain will need to drop his sponsorship for the Arizona ban on civil unions and marriage? 110%?
And Schwarzenegger? He talks the talk, I guess, but when push comes to shove, he wimps out on us, over and over again.
I don\\\\\\’t think that this is a straight line issue for Republicans, in the sense that we\\\\\\’ll be able to count on Republican support for gay issues when a majority of Americans come around. A strong majority of Americans have already come around on issues like ENDA, and yet few Republican politicians show any sign of cracking.
My guess is that so long as social conservatives control 30-40% of the Republican primary vote, few Republican politicians will cross them. The Republicans aren\\\\\\’t likely to \\\\\\”moderate\\\\\\” much until the \\\\\\”base\\\\\\” of the party changes.
posted by Carl on
The Maryland amendment would bar civil unions and domestic partnerships as well, would it not?
posted by Randy R. on
I believe that major politicians, those who are most congressmen and governors, don’t do anything, especially on gay issues, without consulting political advisors and consultants. The Log Cabin repulican leaders that I have talked to say that many republican leaders are sympathetic to our goals, but feel that they have to vote against us for various reasons. So yes, it’s quite possible that McCain, Arnold and Erhlich are sympathic to our causes even now, but they could never vote with us no matter how many regular Americans back us.
So it doesn’t matter how much longer we have to wait, or how much more support we get, these most of these will vote against us. It’s about who controls the donations to their campaigns and their primaries.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
Schwartzenegger makes me want to vomit. When it came time for him to do the right thing, he refused. Oh yes, he has lots of flowery rhetoric and announces that he just “loves the gays,” but when it’s politically suitable, he’ll knee them in the gonads without a second thought. What makes him so different from Hillary in that regard?
posted by Anthony on
Let’s remember that politics is all about numbers. Gays don’t possess the kind of numbers that warrant a lot of attention from Republicans OR Democrats at this point in time. The Dems believe that gays are theirs to keep regardless of what they do or say and the GOP has an internal struggle going on to figure out where to start from with regard to gays. Either way it’s a strong dose of reality that we as gay people ought to take seriously. I have said it before and I say it again – voting for or against candidates (or parties) based on gay-specific issues isn’t a wise thing to do, in my view. The expectation that leading politicos are going to champion gay rights per se is simply not feasible. When I decide who to vote for in a given election I do so based on several factors. When it comes to supporting a presidential candidate it comes down to three things: 1. Will they keep the nation safe and strong in its defense? 2. Will they act in the best interests of the majority of Americans (and not just me because I happen to be gay) and 3. Will they strive to keep government from spending too much money (yeah, I know – the Bushies haven’t done much in that regard). Again, that’s just the test I apply for myself. I’m sure other folks do completely different things in weighing their vote. For me voting Democratic is a vote for too many things I don’t support. Voting Republican means accepting certain realities that I am not happy with but seeing the big picture.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
Gays don’t possess the kind of numbers that warrant a lot of attention from Republicans OR Democrats at this point in time.
Au contraire. There’s $29 million in annual campaign financing just for national campaigns in 2004 which is gay-specific money.
And gays are a crucial swing vote in suburban and urban communities across the country.
The problem isn’t that we’re not big enough a constituency — it’s that we’re so closely affiliated with the old party leadership that we’re viewed as disposable. In other words, we’ll always vote for the Dems because the GOP will always be worse. Thus, GOPers are free to slam gays and Dems are free to treat us not-very-well.
Of course, if a large group of gay voters just stayed home, or voted Libertarian, it would shake the political world to its foundations. Democrats would be tossed out all over the place, and Republicans would start to lose their more libertarian voters who are fed up with their constant gay hatred.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
Voting Republican means accepting certain realities that I am not happy with but seeing the big picture.
I would also note the Republicans don’t meet your criteria:
Will they keep the nation safe and strong in its defense?
9/11 happened during a Republican administration and Congress. In addition, a key component of our safety and strength is the Constitution which the administration has treated largely like toilet paper. The disastrous war in Iraq has made Americans targets all over the world, and North Korea and Iran continue to threaten us — seeing our weakness in the wake of being pinned down in Iraq.
Will they act in the best interests of the majority of Americans (and not just me because I happen to be gay)
The “best interests of the majority of Americans” are not achieved by tearing down some unpopular minority. Rather, they’re guaranteed by preserving our constitutional order and ensuring a free market. The Republicans fail miserably on both of these points.
Will they strive to keep government from spending too much money
The Republican administration, House and Senate have grown the government faster than any other group in history. The government now spends (and borrows and taxes) more than any other US government in history. It’s grown in size faster than any other time (including the New Deal and Great Society), and federal employment has almost doubled since 2000. Long term taxes will go up due to heavy deficit spending, and the severe depreciation of the currency to pay off the debt represents a hidden “inflation tax” — your dollars are made to be worth less so they can spend more.
Looks like the GOP fails, rather miserably, on your core criteria. That doesn’t mean voting for the Democrats, but it does suggest that you demand someone earn your vote.