The Atlantic has a big story on former Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman coming out and saying he wants to become an advocate for gay marriage. The Log Cabin Republicans issued this statement. But not everyone is so welcoming. Says blogger (and outer) Mike Rogers, “Ken Mehlman is horridly homophobic and no matter how orchestrated his coming out is, our community should hold him accountable for his past.”
Bush’s support during the Mehlman years for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage everywhere in the U.S. was unconscionable, and I suspect Mehlman went along with Karl Rove, rather than being the instigator. Hold him accountable if you like. Other issues Mehlman is being targeted with helping to oppose include a federal hate crimes statute that includes gays and transgenders (now passed and signed by Obama) and the Employee Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), which remains blocked in the Democrat-controlled Congress (despite enough GOP support to preclude a filibuster). There are plenty of principled gay libertarians who are against both these initiatives and they are not “anti-gay.”
If someone opposes legal equality, that is an issue. Failing to embrace the use of state power to supposedly make life better for gays is a debatable matter on which reasonable gay people can and will disagree. So on those initiatives, I’d cut Mehlman some slack.
If he now uses his influence to help change the GOP’s opposition to gay marriage, it would go a long way toward making amends.
More. John Aravosis blogs:
I hope someone at the DNC is starting to sweat. We now have the former head of the Republican party who is to the left of Barack Obama on gay marriage. There’s a virtual groundswell of senior Republicans coming out for marriage equality. It can’t be going unnoticed in the gay community. And while it doesn’t mean 70% of the gay vote will now go Republican instead of Democrat, it does mean that growing numbers of gays and lesbians will starting thinking of the GOP as a legitimate alternative to the Democratic party.
That’s a mite optimistic, but if the trend continues…. And it will be the only way to stop the Democrats from viewing gay voters as nothing more than a spigot for campaign dollars and volunteer labor.
18 Comments for “Better Late Than Never”
posted by esurience on
Adding employment and hate crime protections for gays and lesbians does not expand the power of the federal government. The government already has that power because there are already other groups (race, religion, sex) that are covered under employment discrimination and hate crimes laws.
There’s no principled reason for a libertarian to be against adding sexual orientation and gender identity to the list of groups already covered. And it wouldn’t be inconsistent to be against anti-discrimination laws in general, but FOR inclusion of sexual orientation and gender identity.
So yes, it really is just anti-gay to oppose including those things.
posted by mgh on
that’s the best you can do? his support of the federal marriage amendment.
whether successful as a strategy or not, it’s well established that the republican party in 2004 and 2006 used state constitutional amendments to drive their voters to the polls. this tactic causing real, lasting harm for temporal political gain. it’s beyond unconscionable.
mr. mehlman certainly has some atoning to do.
posted by Carl on
I don’t really expect anything from Ken Mehlman — gays and lesbians in politics almost always go along to get along, although I have to admit I am confused about whether he is saying that he didn’t realize he was gay until after he stopped working with the RNC. Anyway, I agree with mgh that it was more about some of the tactics used in 2004 and 2006 (which banned far more than gay marriage).
I’m glad Mehlman has found some peace and is accepted by his friends and family. But I look forward to the day when someone who is still involved in the RNC can come out.
I was probably most fascinated by this comment from Ed Gillespie:
”
But, Gillespie said, he does not envision the party platform changing anytime soon.
“There are a lot of Republicans who are gay, there are a lot of Republicans who support government sanction of gay marriage, a lot of Republicans who support abortion on demand, a lot of Republicans who support cap-and-trade provisions. They’re not single-issue voters.” Gillespie acknowledged that the party had been inhospitable to gays in the past, and said that he hopes Mehlman’s decision to come out leads the party to be “more respectful and civil in our discourse” when it comes to gays.”
Why exactly are being gay or wanting the government to legalize gay marriage being lumped in with “abortion on demand”? This is one of the least tolerant “tolerant” comments I can imagine.
posted by Jorge on
You all apparently missed the part of the story that says Mr. Mehlman came to the realization he is gay “fairly recently.” That’s pretty darn relevant to any legitimate reaction. If one needs to ask any questions or make any judgments at all, first thing one needs to know is when did he know he was gay? 2004 is not “fairly recently” in my book, but we’re talking about an old man here.
As for Bush’s support of the Federal Marriage Amendment being “unconscionable”, I think that is a rather intolerant statement to make about pro-Bush gays and I see no reason to abide by it.
posted by KipEsquire on
“I suspect Mehlman went along with Karl Rove, rather than being the instigator…”
The Nuremberg Defense? Really?
posted by Liberace on
“I suspect Mehlman went along with Karl Rove, rather than being the instigator…”
Karl Rove is another self-hating scumbag who used hatred of gays to win elections despite his father being an openly gay man, the fact of which Rove was well aware.
posted by Debrah on
I feel for Mehlman, although it’s difficult to believe that he’s just now coming to understand that he’s gay.
I’d say those clues would’ve kicked in by the early twenties……at the latest.
More correctly perhaps is that he has been able to publicly acknowledge that he’s gay “fairly recently”.
Everyone should have the freedom to keep their private lives, private; however, given his career choices, the two provide a collision course.
IMO, for many conservatives, it’s difficult to reconcile a man being “gay” and not also being some flaming, effeminate, loose-goose-Leftist.
But of course, that’s the stereotype that many gays give credence to by not embracing conservatives like Mehlman.
In that respect, it’s a positive for people like Mehlman to acknowledge their orientation.
What I detest are those liberal gays who support gay issues, yet make sure they are never labeled “gay” in print or include it in their bios.
That’s about as cowardly as one can get, but they are given a pass.
They’re “gay” with their friends, but are unwilling to buttress their arguments for gay rights with their own personal experiences.
That’s having it both ways…..conveniently.
Pure cowardice.
posted by another steve on
Adding employment and hate crime protections for gays and lesbians does not expand the power of the federal government.
So, if the federal government can sue you, fine you, and even put you in jail because they determine you discriminate in hiring and promotions against gay employees, that’s not expanding their power? And federalizing hate crimes so that a Washington-appointed prosecutor handles it, rather than the local D.A., and requiring federal standards for punishment, isn’t expanding the federal government’s power?
posted by BobN on
You all apparently missed the part of the story that says Mr. Mehlman came to the realization he is gay “fairly recently.”
Yeah, right. There were reports of him hitting on other men over a decade ago. I’m sure the truth will come out and we’ll be subjected to it in the press whether we like it or not.
Look, all that has happened is what he says has happened: he has quit politics. He’s a private citizen now, with a brand new $4M loft in the gay wonderland that is Manhattan. He wants to live large, have parties, date hot men, and do so openly. As a side business, he’ll continue to raise money and encourage support for the GOP.
Maybe, just maybe, in the course of his new life, he’ll actually come to terms with his role in recent American history and the impact his actions and his ideas have had. THEN we’ll hear a real apology. I’m not betting on it happening though.
posted by Carl on
“We now have the former head of the Republican party who is to the left of Barack Obama on gay marriage. There’s a virtual groundswell of senior Republicans coming out for marriage equality. It can’t be going unnoticed in the gay community.”
I notice that none of those “senior Republicans” are actually involved in the current Republican Party…
posted by bls on
2004 is not “fairly recently” in my book, but we’re talking about an old man here.
Mehlman was born in 1966, so he’s 44.
Kind of not really that old….
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
whether successful as a strategy or not, it’s well established that the republican party in 2004 and 2006 used state constitutional amendments to drive their voters to the polls.
Who cares, since the Obama Party endorsed and supported them?
Would you like a list of all the gay and lesbian organizations and individuals who supported John Kerry and chanted about how his support of state constitutional amendments was “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive”?
And while it doesn’t mean 70% of the gay vote will now go Republican instead of Democrat, it does mean that growing numbers of gays and lesbians will starting thinking of the GOP as a legitimate alternative to the Democratic party.
Please. The vast majority of gays and lesbians are whores like Aravosis who will do whatever the Obama Party tells them, and everyone knows it.
Aravosis already admitted that he’s a whore and a shill for Barack Obama and that he and his fellow site whores were doing Obama’s “dirty work” during the 2008 campaign. If they’re willing to soil themselves that much, why on earth would anyone believe that they would ever in their lives vote against or do anything less than support the Obama Party wholeheartedly?
posted by Jorge on
Yeah, right. There were reports of him hitting on other men over a decade ago. I’m sure the truth will come out and we’ll be subjected to it in the press whether we like it or not.
Actually Mehlman is the first gay Republican so far for whom the truth wasn’t outed by someone else. I highly doubt it.
And the Atlantic article states he wishes he had come to terms with his sexuality earlier. I find it suspicious–and rather tiring; perhaps you should be evaluated for a paranoid disorder and spare us the collateral damage–that you are unwilling to take someone at their word.
Look, all that has happened is what he says has happened: he has quit politics. He’s a private citizen now, with a brand new $4M loft in the gay wonderland that is Manhattan. He wants to live large, have parties, date hot men, and do so openly. As a side business, he’ll continue to raise money and encourage support for the GOP.
Wait a minute. Isn’t what he says he’s going to do on the side fighting for marriage equality?
Maybe, just maybe, in the course of his new life, he’ll actually come to terms with his role in recent American history and the impact his actions and his ideas have had. THEN we’ll hear a real apology. I’m not betting on it happening though.
Then what do you consider this: “What I do regret, and think a lot about, is that one of the things I talked a lot about in politics was how I tried to expand the party into neighborhoods where the message wasn’t always heard. I didn’t do this in the gay community at all.”
Fits in rather nicely with the default conclusion that he really did come to terms with his homosexuality rather recently. I don’t really want to get into this, but your thinking is full of holes.
We have a person who is looking with regret at things he did not do in the past, and who now wants to be an advocate for gay marriage. Tell me, if you will, why does he want to advocate for gay marriage? And should he do so, what does that say about his recognition that he shares responsibility for the anti-gay direction the Republican party has taken? [I don’t really believe either, so don’t take this as an actual concession on my part about Mehlman’s culpability or the Republican party being anti-gay.]
posted by BobN on
full of holes
What we have, Jorge, is someone gullible enough to believe everything written by his good friend at the Atlantic. Even the Advocate article was an exercise in shoddy journalism. And now, according to Mehlman, the past is the past and not up for examination, so no real journalism will be allowed.
As for your points, Mehlman was repeatedly outed by Rogers, the man mentioned in the Atlantic article, but the story never took hold because, well, Mehlman couldn’t be fucking other men and, you know, those queers will say anything to destroy their enemies. Also, Bill Maher outed him on national television on Larry King, but the network cut the segment, so hardly anyone saw it. After all, it couldn’t be true and, you know, those liberals, they’ll say anything…
And lastly, taking a politicians, a GOP politician, at his word? About sex? About homosexuality? And the GOP isn’t anti-gay!?!?!? WTF???? If anyone needs psychological evaluation.
posted by Jorge on
What we have, Jorge, is someone gullible enough to believe everything written by his good friend at the Atlantic.
Are you trying to say the author of the article is gullible about Ken Mehlman’s credibility?
Before I get to Ken Mehlman himself, is there some reason not to take the article at face value? This article has two sources: Ken Mehlman and the author. The author is one of the sources, BobN. Do you have any reason to doubt the author’s credibility? Don’t get me wrong, I’m not taking this article as gospel, either, but it has value as something with many direct quotes from the subject himself, and I haven’t seen anything that tears the article apart.
As for your points, Mehlman was repeatedly outed by Rogers, the man mentioned in the Atlantic article, but the story never took hold
I had a feeling I’d be learning that just from Rogers’ reaction, but it an idea worth testing. Fine. So he’s the first one who wasn’t outed for us to be subjected to a media circus whether we like it or not.
So the reason the liberal media doesn’t pay attention to outing is because it believes gays are bombthrowers and doesn’t believe Republicans are gay?
And lastly, taking a politicians, a GOP politician
He is not a politician.
at his word?
Yes.
About sex?
No. About himself and what he believes.
About homosexuality?
Yes, yes, yes, a thousand times yes. Can you submit any reason to suspend the presumption that this man is telling the truth? [Oi! Never mind! Never ask that about someone who just came out of the closet.]
And the GOP isn’t anti-gay
This is debatable, and I won’t accept any suggestion that it isn’t. The short answer is that you are conflating gay politics with being gay.
WTF???? If anyone needs psychological evaluation.
I suppose I should ask you to explain.
posted by BobN on
Jorge, we seem to be speaking different languages, so I’ll just say this:
No politician — and, yes, the national chairman of a political party is a politician — should be trusted to tell the truth, the whole truth, the difficult truth, in a “coming out” article penned by a good buddy. The buddy is likely disinclined to ask the tough questions, and there are tough questions to be asked. Unless Mehlman is successful in his bid to smoothly transition from persecutor to hero — and I most certainly hope he is not — we’ll get the backstory sometime down the road.
posted by Jorge on
No politician — and, yes, the national chairman of a political party is a politician — should be trusted to tell the truth, the whole truth, the difficult truth, in a “coming out” article penned by a good buddy.
Yeah, I’m not buying that. Each person, politician or not, should be judged on his or her own merits, based on the situation. Nor does an article written by a personal acquaintance reduce credibility to zero–you take an independent look at the situation.
In the absence of any specific or strong information, the response should be neutrality.
The buddy is likely disinclined to ask the tough questions, and there are tough questions to be asked.
So what? Because of the full disclosure, I can take that into account and judge the rest of the article on its merits, gaining much useful information to rebut your misinformation. Ken Mehlman has expressed remorse over his past actions and inactions. Ken Mehlman believes he had an opportunity to be of service to the gay community and the Republican party and failed to take it. Ken Mehlman does not want the freedom to live a lavish, open lifestyle as an openly gay man, he wants to fight for marriage equality. With weak evidence, I make weak statements and successfully rebut your weaker statements.
Unless Mehlman is successful in his bid to smoothly transition from persecutor to hero — and I most certainly hope he is not — we’ll get the backstory sometime down the road.
“Sometime down the road?” Didn’t you just tell me Mike Rogers has outed him?
Tell me, what other great backstories involving people that only Mike Rogers knew about about have surfaced down the road? If you know what’s good for you, you won’t try to answer this question the easy way.
posted by Bucky on
@jorge
You are a GOP shill and an utter idiot.
Mehlman has ben gay all his pathetic life. He didn’t just suddenly realize at the age of 44 that he was gay.
Please, how plausible is that? Have you ever met a man at middle age that “suddenly” realized he was gay?
No. Doesn’t happen.
Men know what makes their dick hard. You don’t like pussy one day and then wake up the next morning and suddenly think … DICK! … gotta get me some of that.
Kenny Boy followed the great Republican tradition of staying in the closet and hurting gay people to make lots and lots of money.
He is loathsome.
As are you.