Partisans Only

"Campaign Spot" blogger Jim Geraghty writes in "For Better or Worse, the NRA Grades Candidates on Only One Issue" that some conservatives are miffed that the National Rifle Association looks likely to endorse the re-election of Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.), the senate majority leader and co-instigator of the Obama-Pelosi-Reid mega-government agenda.

As commenters to IGF has pointed out, the NRA is a nonpartisan organization focused on one issue-second amendment rights-and it supports conservatives or liberals who concur with it, which is one reason it's been so successful.

There really is no gay rights group that's comparable. The big Washington LGBT lobbies-even the ones whose bylaws claim that they're nonpartisan (and who once-upon-a-time truly were)-now overwhelmingly define themselves as part of the "progressive" coalition. These groups haven't been shy about treating non-gay issues as part of formal or informal litmus tests for candidate approval (this has been true not just of the Human Rights Campaign but even groups such as the Victory Fund, which maintains a pro-abortion requirement that trips up openly gay, pro-life Republicans who might have benefited from its support).

The clearly partisan gay groups (Stonewall Democrats, Log Cabin Republicans, GOProud) have their own role, which is different. But it would be constructive to have even one major LGBT group that would endorse and fund liberals or conservatives, Democrats or Republicans, based just on whether they supported legal equality for gay people. You might even begin to see more conservative Republicans break away from their party's anti-gay party line, just as Harry Reid and several liberal Democrats have broken from their party's anti-gun rights stance.

24 Comments for “Partisans Only”

  1. posted by Grant on

    Stephen – I couldn’t agree more.

  2. posted by Mark on

    Excellent point.

    The best test for this was the NY-23 special election last year, when the Republicans nominated a supporter of marriage equality in both word and deed (Scozzafava) and the Democratic nominee (Owens)opposed equal marriage rights.

    This should have been a no-brainer–all gay and lesbian groups should have endorsed Scozzafava. Yet the HRC offered no opinion until the day before the election, and then (http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/1109/Gay_group_dives_into_NY23.html?showall) it endorsed Owens.

  3. posted by Carl on

    “This should have been a no-brainer–all gay and lesbian groups should have endorsed Scozzafava. ”

    Should a losing candidate be endorsed solely because they support gay marriage? Scozzafava was ultimately driven out of the race because she was not conservative enough. If anything, gay groups rallying around her would have made her even more likely to lose.

    As for comparing the NRA to GLBT groups, the big difference is that the right to bear arms is supported by a majority of the country and has been for hundreds of years.

    Not only is gay marriage not any kind of a majority support in most of the country, the places where a majority do support it tend not to be very passionate about the issue. Look at Massachusetts, where Scott Brown won. If you can win in Massachusetts, regularly painted as a liberal haven for generations, then you can win almost anywhere.

    Throwing money at the issue isn’t going to to matter because the parties have no real reason to make gay rights a priority. If anything the real danger is to stop our rights from being further rolled back.

  4. posted by William on

    This does sound like a good idea, and I could see it coming to pass soon, perhaps an outgrowth of the AFER, which was bipartisan, or at least crossed political divides with the symbolic presence of the heads of the Cato Institute and the Center for American Progress.

    But Carl does have a point that it won’t exactly help moderate conservatives or libertarians. I would have loved to have seen Tom Campbell get the GOP nomination, having been solidly critical of excessive government spending as a Congressman, and right-thinking on marriage equality. But he would probably have done worse against Fiorina in the primary with the endorsement of a national gay-rights organization.

  5. posted by Throbert McGee on

    But Carl does have a point that it won’t exactly help moderate conservatives or libertarians. I would have loved to have seen Tom Campbell get the GOP nomination, having been solidly critical of excessive government spending as a Congressman, and right-thinking on marriage equality.

    Whether you say it in English or in French, I’m not sure that being bien pensant ought to qualify as a virtue.

  6. posted by Throbert McGee on

    From the OP:

    But it would be constructive to have even one major LGBT group that would endorse and fund liberals or conservatives, Democrats or Republicans, based just on whether they supported legal equality for gay people.

    One problem I can anticipate here is that in practice, “legal (in)equality” may be one of those I know it when I see it things, like good pr0n.

    For example, suppose that in a state where there is currently no legal recognition for gay couples, a candidate supports the legislative establishment of “everything but marriage civil unions” yet opposes “same-sex marriage”. Should that candidate be counted as for “gay legal equality”, or against it?

    Or imagine a candidate who supports same-sex marriage, and also supports existing laws against race-based discrimination in employment — but opposes ENDA. Should a non-partisan gay group withhold its endorsement on the grounds that the politician wants gays to be “less than equal” in employment laws?

  7. posted by Tom on

    What social conservatives do not understand is that the government must not deny equal treatment under the law to any citizen.

    What, Tom? You said ANY citizen. No qualifiers. … Now, again, Tom said ANY citizen. No qualifiers.

    Pfffft.

    Statements like “all men are created equal …“, “Equal Justice Under the Law …“, “equal access to the law …“, “Lberty and Justice for all …“, “Equality before the law is a matter of right …“, and so on, are statements that both permit, and in context embed, rational distinctions and qualifications. You know that as well as I. If you don’t, you should.

  8. posted by Throbert McGee on

    Following up on my previous post: There’s also the difficulty of weighting the various issues that commonly fall under the “gay rights” umbrella. Is the non-existence of ENDA less onerous than the existence of laws against gay adoption, on the grounds that so many private companies already have voluntary policies against sexual-orientation discrimination? Or is the lack of ENDA a worse burden than anti-gay adoption laws, on the grounds that every gay person needs a job, but only a small fraction of gays wish to adopt children?

    One solution to this problem would be to avoid cumulative rankings for candidates, as well as overall endorsements of candidates — but simply to produce separate reports for each “gay rights issue” (one report for ENDA, one for DADT, one for gay adoption, etc.). This increases transparency and lets the end-user (i.e., the gay voter) decide which issues he considers deal-breakers and which he sees as less crucial.

  9. posted by Jorge on

    Should a losing candidate be endorsed solely because they support gay marriage? Scozzafava was ultimately driven out of the race because she was not conservative enough. If anything, gay groups rallying around her would have made her even more likely to lose.

    I’m pretty pragmatic myself, but let’s be clear that Stephen Miller calls HRC and other groups out accurately. They’ve made a decision that joining and swearing some measure of loyalty to the progressive/Democratic coalition is the best thing for gay rights advocacy.

    I think your comments suggest that gays can’t afford to have integrity. Maybe so. But if some of us can afford to be Republican or (GO)Proud, I think some of our groups can also afford to have integrity.

  10. posted by Brian Miller on

    In Hawaii today, a strong bipartisan majority sent a civil unions bill (not “marriage,” mind you, but civil unions — the halfway moderate lukewarm preference of “centrists”).

    Hawaii’s Republican governor vetoed it.

    As usual, gay Republicans were missing in action, spending more time calling for the resignation of their own African American chairman than flexing their supposed political muscle on an actual relevant-to-gays issue.

    Same as it ever was, alas.

    This is the latest of tens of thousands of examples of why nobody takes gay GOPers seriously.

  11. posted by Jimmy on

    I echo Brian Miller’s sentiments. I wonder, can Gov. Lingle’s veto be read as a tyrannical act in opposition to the will of the people?

  12. posted by North Dallas Thirty on

    I wonder, can Gov. Lingle’s veto be read as a tyrannical act in opposition to the will of the people?

    Nope.

    Mainly because the constitution of Hawai’i, as amended by plebiscite, is the guiding force in this discussion.

    Of course, for gay and lesbian liberals like Brian Miller and jimmy who hate and loathe the voters, this is a horrible thing. But then again, we should remember that they would gladly subvert democracy and established processes to establish special privileges for themselves based on their minority status.

  13. posted by BobN on

    as amended by plebiscite

    Yeah, the plebiscite that explicitly put the issue of marriage in the hands of the Legislature.

    But speaking of loathing, has anyone else noticed that ND’s comments have taken on a real anti-gay tinge. It’s like he’s gone ex-gay on us.

  14. posted by Jorge on

    Most people who wrote the Hawaii governor on the issue urged her to veto it. Either more people in the state are against it, or gay rights supporters don’t care about it that much.

    Still, it’s not very excusable.

    But speaking of loathing, has anyone else noticed that ND’s comments have taken on a real anti-gay tinge. It’s like he’s gone ex-gay on us.

    Seems more like he dropped a Devil’s advocate tone, but I’ve noticed a change, too.

  15. posted by Tom on

    Yeah, the plebiscite that explicitly put the issue of marriage in the hands of the Legislature.

    To be a bit more precise, the plebiscite granted the legislature power to reserve marriage to opposite-sex couples.

    Article I – Bill of Rights – Section 23 – Marriage. The legislature shall have the power to reserve marriage to opposite-sex couples. [Add HB 117 (1997) and election Nov 3, 1998]

    The Hawaii legislature subsequently passed a law prohibiting marriage for same-sex couples.

    Note that the Hawaii amendment did not define marriage as being between a man and a woman, as the later constitutional amendments of most other states do, nor does the Hawaii amendment remove the power of the legislature to extend marriage to same-sex couples if it chooses to do so.

    That is what is so funny, in a sad way, about Governor Lingle’s veto — it is yet another illustration of the adage “If the Republicans have the power to block same-sex marriage, equivalent civil unions, or even limited domestic partnerships, the Republicans will do so.

    Governor Lingle’s lame attempt to foist the matter on “the people” instead of the legislature is reminiscent of Governor Schwarzenegger’s wobbling around in California when the legislature twice enacted a law extending marriage to same-sex couples. The first time the legislature did it, Governor Schwarzenegger vetoed it because the people should decide; the second time the legislature did it, Governor Schwarzenegger vetoed it because the courts should decide.

    Earlier this year, Governor Tim Pawlenty vetoed Minnesota legislation creating very limited domestic partnership rights — essentially hospital visitation and end-of-life decisions — on the grounds that granting the limited rights to same-sex couples offended “traditional marriage”: “Marriage – defined as between a man and woman – should remain elevated in our society at a special level, as it traditionally has been. I oppose efforts to treat domestic relationships as the equivalent of traditional marriage. Accordingly, I am opposed to this bill.

    Governor Pawlenty’s line is essential that being taken by Republican politicians in Wisconsin this year. Last year, the Wisconsin enacted a domestic partnership law similar to that of Minnesota’s legislation — hospital visitation, end-of-life decisions, inheritance rights. Republican politicians in the state are vowing to repeal the law if elected this November.

    The Wisconsin threat to “traditional marriage”? The Wisconsin law requires domestic partners to register with the County Clerk, just as marriages are registered with the County Clerk, and that similarity threatens the underpinnings of the institution of marriage. Uh, sure.

    What is clear to me, and I assume to most gays and lesbians, is that we can count on the Republican Party to oppose, and will continue to oppose for the foreseeable future, any attempt to grant any legal status whatsoever to gay and lesbian couples.

    That’s hardly news.

    What is interesting, though, is that as the country moves forward on the issue, the Republican dilemma is becoming more and more reminiscent of a line out of Lewis Carroll’s “The Looking Glass”: “Why, sometimes I’ve believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast.

  16. posted by Carl on

    “I think your comments suggest that gays can’t afford to have integrity. Maybe so. But if some of us can afford to be Republican or (GO)Proud, I think some of our groups can also afford to have integrity.”

    Remember when LCR decided not to endorse President Bush in 2004, and ran an ad criticizing the Federal Marriage Amendment, even though surely they must have known this would send them further into the political wilderness? That might have been seen as having integrity, but it didn’t gain them anything, other than ridicule from all sides.

    It’s easier to have integrity and succeed if you already match the issues that make up the base of your party. The base would rather hear what makes them feel good, and if they don’t hear it, then you are likely to pay an electoral price. With the GOP base, that tends to mean a hard line against gay rights. I don’t see that changing anytime soon and I don’t know what gay groups on the left or the right would be able to do to change it.

  17. posted by Carl on

    Tom, you forgot about Rhode Island:

    http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/11/11/national/main5608892.shtml

    Gov. Don Carcieri vetoed legislation Tuesday that would give same-sex couples in Rhode Island the same right to plan the funerals of their late partners as married couples.

    The socially conservative Republican said the proposed protection represents a “disturbing trend” of the incremental erosion of heterosexual marriage. Rhode Island does not recognize same-sex marriage.

    “If the General Assembly believes it would like to address the issue of domestic partnership, it should place the issue on the ballot and let the people of the State of Rhode Island decide,” Carcieri said in a letter to lawmakers.

    So basically the GOP position on this matter is probably always going to be “let the people decide.” I guess that means it’s going to be up to changing public minds in a very lengthy and expensive process, and will have less and less to do with politicians.

  18. posted by Tom on

    Gov. Don Carcieri vetoed legislation … that would give same-sex couples in Rhode Island the same right to plan the funerals of their late partners as married couples.

    Right, and the Democrats, who held a veto-proof majority in the legislature, overrode the veto in January. So no harm no foul.

    But it does make the point: If there is a Republican with the power to throw an obstacle in the path of recognition of same-sex couples, the Republican can be counted on to do so, even if the effort is quixotic.

    The Republican Party is in a death-lock with social conservatives — it is impossible for any Republican opposed by social conservatives to survive the primary process — and cannot break free. And unless and until it does, we’ll see more of this nonsense.

  19. posted by Jimmy on

    Lingle just boosted her bona fides as potential VP candidate on the 2012 GOP ticket.

  20. posted by Carl on

    There is pretty much almost no chance Lingle would be picked as a VP candidate (her being divorced/single being the #1 reason, coming from a state she is unlikely to help carry being another). She is probably genuinely against civil unions, as most Republican politicians are.

    “Right, and the Democrats, who held a veto-proof majority in the legislature, overrode the veto in January. So no harm no foul.”

    Yes but that is an exception to the rule. A lot of states where governors veto this type of thing don’t have a strong enough majority to override vetoes of this kind.

    That’s one of the reasons this will be so difficult. The GOP profits off of discriminating against us and much of their party genuinely sees us as a threat, so it’s a win-win for them. And most of the public is too apathetic or too genuinely afraid of us to support us. That’s where the Republicans do well, because they can just keep narrowing the gap more and more, opposing anything and everything which seems supportive of gay rights, from funeral arrangements to ending DADT, and they know little will be said in terms of complaint. It’s no wonder that we’re seeing more and more state Republican parties try to revive and enforce sodomy laws.

  21. posted by Jimmy on

    carl –

    I made the VP comment before I knew she was divorced. The Hawaiian legislature can pass the measure in two successive sessions; it works the same as an override.

  22. posted by Jorge on

    Remember when LCR decided not to endorse President Bush in 2004, and ran an ad criticizing the Federal Marriage Amendment, even though surely they must have known this would send them further into the political wilderness? That might have been seen as having integrity, but it didn’t gain them anything, other than ridicule from all sides.

    I disagree. We saw Mayor Michael Bloomberg of New York strongly affirm the Log Cabin Republicans during the 2004 Republican National Convention, and he marched with them again in this year’s Gay Pride Parade. Moderate Republicans and independents respected and continue to respect their stance. Also let’s not forget the role of former NYC Mayor Rudy Giuliani in advancing a local domestic partnership law which benefited gay couples–and well he knew it. Moderate Republicans have lost a lot of power recently, and considering that Rocketfeller Republicans were already all but extinct, I think the Log Cabin Republicans are getting what they asked for. The question is, would they do it again? I am sure that the answer is yes.

    I think that “the base” is perfectly capable of performing intraparty warfare without creating a wholesale purge. The left wing of the Republican party fulfills a needed role even now by being a safe place for would-be progressives and by integrating progressive ideas that have merit to most people, civil unions among them. These challenges to “core conservative principles” help the party achieve a balance between modernization and conservatism. We saw President Bush give some affirmation to the idea of civil unions at the close of his term, and let’s not forget Cheney’s disagreement with the federal marriage amendment or his current mild support for overturning DADT. The moderate Republicans no longer hold much electoral power, but as long as they vote, as long as they are part of the intellectual elite (which they still are), then you will continue to see this kind of influence. And if conservatives get to strike back sometimes, well, turnabout is fair play.

  23. posted by North Dallas Thirty on

    But speaking of loathing, has anyone else noticed that ND’s comments have taken on a real anti-gay tinge. It’s like he’s gone ex-gay on us.

    Don’t worry, Bob. We’ve already seen how you try to attack and tear down anyone who doesn’t agree with you elsewhere, even if they are a major site contributor here.

    You’re just a bigot and a hatemonger. And frankly, with gays and lesbians like you as an example, Republicans have no interest. Unlike the Obama Party, Republicans judge on the content of character, and yours is frankly lacking.

  24. posted by North Dallas Thirty on

    Governor Lingle’s lame attempt to foist the matter on “the people” instead of the legislature is reminiscent of Governor Schwarzenegger’s wobbling around in California when the legislature twice enacted a law extending marriage to same-sex couples. The first time the legislature did it, Governor Schwarzenegger vetoed it because the people should decide; the second time the legislature did it, Governor Schwarzenegger vetoed it because the courts should decide.

    Except for the fact that, under California law, voter propositions are NOT subject to contradiction or change by the Legislature unless they specifically contain a clause allowing it.

    Gays and lesbians and their Obama Party enablers ran roughshod over the law and bragged about how they would ignore the voters and force gay-sex marriage on them “whether they liked it or not”.

    Voters responded accordingly.

    Even now we have gay and lesbian bigots like BobN screaming that gays and lesbians like Jonathan Rauch who acknowledge that failure are traitors to the cause and should be shoved to the back.

    You have to wonder why people like BobN and Tom are so terrified of voters. Maybe because, unlike Obama Party politicians, they can’t be easily purchased with money that gay-sex marriage supporters steal.

Comments are closed.