A Human Rights Campaign (HRC) nightmare: As the Washington Blade reports, in an upstate New York congressional district a pro-gay-marriage Republican is running against an anti-gay-marriage Democrat. My prediction: no endorsement from the nation's largest LGBT rights group.
Of course, Democrats may say (should a gay-supportive Republican tip the partisan balance) that a GOP-led House wouldn't take up issues such as reforming the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA)...oh...never mind.
OK, there is some truth to that. But you simply can not get to gay legal equality with just one party, while half the nation supports a party that remains opposed, because it receives no gay support, because it remains opposed (play loop endlessly). Gay inroads must be made in the GOP, and races such as this one are important.
9 Comments for “Bizarro Universe?”
posted by TS on
Wow, how exciting! I will be following this. Although it seems likely to me that the two aren’t that far apart, both likely saying something like “I think gay marriage is/isn’t a good idea, but it’s not very important for me and I will not seek to address it as a policy issue, instead focusing on my usual Republican/Democrat thing.”
posted by BobN on
a party that remains opposed, because it receives no gay support, because it remains opposed (play loop endlessly)
Yeah, right. It’s our fault…
posted by jimmy on
“Gay inroads must be made in the GOP, and races such as this one are important.”
After 30+ years of Log Cabin Republicans’ efforts, how’s that working out?
posted by Casey on
Let’s see, Jimmy – we have Republicans like Scozzafava, where otherwise this race might only have anti-gay politicians in it? We have a slew of states where Republicans have recently made up the difference in either enacting pro-gay policies or preventing anti-gay ones, and in both cases those GOP folks gave Democrats bipartisan cover so they wouldn’t get thrown in the “crazy liberal” box? We have a top conservative lawyer who believes and argues the same conservative case for marriage equality that Log Cabin has been articulating for years, and is ready to do so in federal court this year, risking his standing within the conservative community? Even under a hostile GOP administration, we have a voice and direct representation on important issues like HIV/AIDS treatment funding? It’s not obvious, but it’s clear if you’re willing to look rather than just attack, that Log Cabin’s 30+ years of effort have mattered. But really, you don’t care about that. You just want the satisfaction of demeaning those evil Republicans, facts be damned. It’s an ugly way to be.
Oh, and as a bonus regarding that pro-marriage Republican in NY – if she’s elected, Rep. Boehner has made it quite clear that he wants her on the Armed Forces committee. Now, could that be helpful to us in anyway, having a pro-gay Republican over there? I wonder. http://www.wwnytv.com/news/local/59621262.html
posted by jimmy on
I think it’s great that a fair-minded republican gets elected in the northeast every now and then. Good luck to Scozzafava. I am imbued with confidence.
Of course, such an aberration will be as marginalized as the rest of the moderates within the GOP, which as a party, is shrinking and becoming even more conservative.
posted by Casey on
I give you a link in which the minority leader of the House steps up to affirmatively declare that he wants her on one of the most powerful committees in Congress, and you tell me she’s doomed to marginalization? Interesting interpretation, that.
posted by Jorge on
Considering that we got a fair slew of gay rights-aversive Democrats elected in 2008 not because we’re turning more progressive, but because Republicans were turning very weak, this Democrat/Republican thing on gays becomes weaker and weaker.
If the Senate Democrats can try to build a “bipartisan” coalition on health care with Olympia Snowe as its lone figurehead–and fail–then “mainstream” gay rights organizations can endorse pro-gay Republicans and try to build bipartisan coalitions in support of same sex marriage and other elusive goals.
Or they could choose not to endorse gay-friendly Republicans and continue to gradually lose credibility and influence to the independent/conservative wing of the gay intelligentia.
posted by Jorge on
I mean, they say (rightly or wrongly) that most of Ted Kennedy’s major legislative accomplishments were bipartisan. The child health insurance thing, No Child Left Behind, these and other bills all attracted a major Republican co-sponsor. Having a Republican, especially a credible Republican, who is able to exercise some leadership on a gay rights issue would go a long way toward passing some of the laws progressive gays want to get passed every year but never succeed at passing. Republicans would hammer out those bills into more pork, stronger conservative heft, or just confidence that they have a place at the table, and that would attract broader support for a major piece of legislation, and then it passes.
But no, the gay left can’t have that. If Republicans start voting for our side and all our bills pass they won’t be able to rake in the cash they “need” to raise bloody hell anymore.
posted by Sam on
“while half the nation supports a party that remains opposed, because it receives no gay support,”
I’m going to have to agree with earlier comments and call the above the line in your post complete battiness or willful ignorance.