I am as conflicted as most lesbians and gay men about Ken Mehlman’s coming out. I am always glad to see more openly homosexual members of the Republican Party, and Mehlman, as a former party chair and George W. Bush’s campaign manager in 2004, has more than a passing presence among party regulars. I hope his newfound self-awareness can move more members of his party in a better direction on gay equality.
But it’s every bit as true that he presided over a party that did real damage to gay equality. He says he was not aware of his own sexual orientation during the time the party he was helping to lead was exploiting the religious right’s fears and misunderstandings about homosexuality in order to get more of them to the polls to vote for candidates who proudly claimed the flag of their heterosexuality under the rubric of a vague morality. I’ve never met Mehlman and can’t prove he is wrong about himself, and I am content to accept his statement at face value.
On the other hand, that’s not much of an excuse. It presupposes that the only Republicans who might have opposed the GOP’s anti-gay tactics were homosexuals with an interest in protecting their own rights. But every reader of this site knows heterosexual Republicans who both opposed the GOP’s strategy and spoke up against it. What Mehlman saw going on in his party was wrong whether you’re straight, gay or (as the kids say) questioning.
Mehlman has now dedicated himself to fighting for marriage equality, and I say welcome to the battlefield. But we should all acknowledge that it is Mehlman and his party that set the stage. We have to deal with all those new state laws, urged on his watch, prohibiting same-sex marriage and (in many states) even civil unions.
But they’re not just laws; most of them are constitutional amendments. The GOP, under Mehlman and Karl Rove and George W. Bush, worked behind the scenes with state leaders, not just to pass laws prohibiting gays from marrying one another, but to elevate that rule to a principle of governance, on the same footing as due process of law, checks and balances, personal liberty and probable cause to search your home and seize your possessions.
At the very moment when the tide of anti-gay prejudice was beginning to turn, Mehlman and his party convinced voters to freeze the polls in place in state constitutions. The state-by-state strategy so many gay leaders were supporting was short-circuited. That was a successful political tactic, and it is the legacy of the GOP of that time.
Neither Mehlman nor even his party is solely responsible for the outcome, but Mehlman will be joining us in sorting out a mess that (whatever else can be said of it) is not attributable to the Democratic Party. Seeing the inevitable cultural change coming, and seeing short-term political advantage, Mehlman’s GOP made sure that legal change would be doubly hard to accomplish using normal democratic means down the road.
I am glad Mehlman is now on the side of equality. But the Catholic in me can’t help thinking that for his penance, he should be assigned a leading role in countering the false and misleading claims by offended voters that gays are misusing the court system by invoking the superior federal constitutional right to equal protection of the laws.
37 Comments for “Ken Mehlman Reaps What He’s Sown”
posted by BobN on
There’s no freaking way on earth that Ken Mehlman will EVER reap what he has sown, not unless this country falls victim to a fascist coup and he gets rounded up like the rest of us.
He’ll never lose his house because his partnership isn’t recognized due to a state constitutional amendment. He’ll never be denied the right to adopt a child he has cared for for years due to a state constitutional amendment.
Maybe he’ll fall in love with a military man and know the hell of DADT for a few months before DEMOCRATS repeal it. Or maybe he’ll fall for a foreigner and he’ll have to sell his fabulous NY loft and buy an equally fabulous loft in London so they can live together. Oh, the humanity….
posted by BobN on
But the Catholic in me can’t help thinking that for his penance…
The Catholic in me recognizes that he’s nowhere near coming to terms with his sin, so penance would be a bit premature at this point.
posted by David Link on
Points well taken, BobN.
posted by Nick on
Republican support of all those state constitutional amendments and DOMA was directly related and in response to the attempts of those in favor of SSM to obtain SSM through the courts – rather than through elections.
posted by Bobby on
Why doesn’t he fight for the second amendment? Why doesn’t he fight against the ground zero Mosque? The last thing we need is another gay fighting for gay marriage!
You came out? Great! Now show the country that gays have other things on their minds! Seriously, thank God Tammy Bruce exists, she’s one of the few people giving gays a good name.
posted by esurience on
Well, Bobby, by your reasoning he should only fight for 2nd amendment rights if he doesn’t personally own a gun.
Why does the NRA fight for 2nd amendment rights? Don’t these gun-owning people have anything else on their minds?! It’s unseemly! They should leave the fight to people who *don’t* own guns, that would make more sense.
posted by Debrah on
BobN–
I’m not Catholic and don’t pretend to know all the requirements for the penance stage; however, since Mehlman is Jewish—which I had not previously known—perhaps you should check out his obligations there.
It’s worth noting that I had never paid much attention to Mehlman in the past.
He’d show up on various political talk shows and I found him to be almost nondescript.
I assumed that he was a very conservative, clinically religious Protestant type…..and that was that.
The best thing to come out of this is that GWB will be exonerated of so much bashing by the gay community.
Some of the strongest opponents of the gay agenda seem to be gays!
Lastly, my senses tell me that you might be just a tad envious of Mehlman’s 4 million dollar Manhattan ultra-gay pad.
Don’t you think he’s earned it?
The big bucks were made by working for and promoting lots of issues that were not aligned with his private life.
Some might call that “selling out” and some might call that “ambition” and “being smart”.
In any case, Mehlman will have a posh pad in which to entertain his twinks!
I knew David Link’s post would be much more strident toward Mehlman and I think that IGF could raise lots of bucks if someone—(perhaps Throbert!)—would organize a debate to have Link kick Mehlman’s azz.
Wouldn’t that be fun?
Some might pay big bucks to attend such an event.
:>)
posted by Throbert McGee on
You can always hope, BobN.
posted by Throbert McGee on
Meanwhile, over at GayPatriot, former Washington Times editor and all-around arch-conservative Robert Stacy McCain (no relation to the Senator from AZ) drops by to leave an interesting comment:
Obviously, one rebuttal to R.S. McCain is that while Mehlman is, indeed, already futtbucking his former conservative constituents on the same-sex marriage issue, he’s hasn’t YET done so on adoption or DADT.
And even if he “turns” on absolutely everything gay-related, that doesn’t mean he’ll necessarily betray conservatives on (for example) abortion, or defense spending.
posted by BobN on
Deborah,
I’ve known Mehlman is Jewish for a long time. Whatever his religious obligations are, he doesn’t have enough time on earth to atone for his transgressions.
As for Dubya, I’m not grasping how Mehlman’s (unbelievable, by the way) claim that he didn’t personally further the anti-gay agenda exonerates Bush in any way. If anything, it makes his role worse. For what’s it’s worth, the BEST thing Mehlman could do to atone would be a detailed exposé of the anti-gay manipulations of the Bush White House.
The big bucks were made by working for and promoting lots of issues that were not aligned with his private life.
“Selling out” doesn’t begin to describe how he made his fortune, and the issues he promoted weren’t just not aligned with his private life, they were not aligned with the good of the country.
And lastly, any sane person would envy a $4 loft in Chelsea.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Neither Mehlman nor even his party is solely responsible for the outcome, but Mehlman will be joining us in sorting out a mess that (whatever else can be said of it) is not attributable to the Democratic Party.
BWAHAHAHAHA!
Did you miss something, Link?
Drawn into a Missouri debate over same-sex marriage, Sen. John F. Kerry said in an interview published Friday that he would have voted for the gay marriage ban that was passed overwhelmingly this week by state voters.
The Democratic presidential nominee, who spent parts of two days stumping across Missouri, told The Kansas City Star the ballot measure was the same as one his home state of Massachusetts passed a few years ago. Kerry supported that measure.
In a separate interview, with Kansas City’s NBC affiliate, Kerry reiterated that he and his running mate, Sen. John Edwards, of North Carolina, are opposed to gay marriage, though they favor civil unions.
“We support non-discrimination against our fellow Americans,” Kerry said. “We’ve always argued the states will be capable of taking care of this by themselves. Massachusetts and Missouri are proving they are capable of taking care of it by themselves. (That) I think bears out that we didn’t need a (federal) constitutional amendment in order to do what’s right.”
Oh, of course the Obama Party had nothing to do with anything. It was just their Presidential candidate and party leader endorsing and supporting them, no one important.
posted by dc on
The only good thing about this Mehlman business is that he wasn’t disgraced. He wasn’t a Mark Foley or a Larry Craig, so I guess we can be thankful. That said, he is an idiot. He didn’t know he was gay when he was helping Bush? Seriously? Ok, he just isn’t very self aware, I get it. But his decision to move to Chelsea is SUCH an “I’ve been in the closet for so long, I’m gonna move to the gayest place on earth” type decision. Common, I thought like that when I was in high school. But then again, maybe Chelsea is the only place a slow, rich, white Republican gay man could live. Thank god I don’t live there.
posted by Throbert McGee on
(Trying to post this again, because the first attempt got stuck in the moderation-web.)
Meanwhile, over at GayPatriot, former Washington Times editor and all-around arch-conservative Robert Stacy McCain (no relation to the Senator from AZ) drops by to leave an interesting comment:
Obviously, one rebuttal to R.S. McCain is that while Mehlman is, indeed, already futtbucking his former conservative constituents on the same-sex marriage issue, he’s hasn’t YET done so on adoption or DADT.
And even if he “turns” on absolutely everything gay-related, that doesn’t mean he’ll necessarily betray conservatives on (for example) abortion, or defense spending.
posted by Throbert McGee on
Hmmm — apparently one price of not having that anti-spambot feature where we had to re-type a string of letters and numbers is that you can only have one URL link per comment — two links, and your comment will be “held for moderation.”
Just as a heads up for everyone.
posted by Throbert McGee on
Hmmm, I wonder if this worksposted by Throbert McGee on
Or this?
posted by Jorge on
I don’t agree with everything in this post, but the reasoning is sound. Whether or not you identify as gay should not be relevant to your politics.
I simply do not think blaming a political elite for a popular groundswell against gay marriage is in tune with reality. The Republican party, maybe, but not the guys you mentioned.
Still, we all have to live our own sin. Other people can’t live it for us. It is obvious Mr. Mehlman feels a deep sense of failure and regret. We all should for our failures, and since Mehlman was such a high and mighty person, that means he missed a few chances. These past few months have taught me that what I once thought were vast unchangable laws of darkness against gays and other minority communities are not set in stone. Things can change, dramatically, for better or for worse. It is not useless or merely good karma to go against it.
posted by Dennis Sanders on
David,
While the Catholic in your doesn’t think Mehlman has done enough penance, the Protestant in me believes that we should offer grace and forgiveness to someone who repents. Yes, he did bad things that have hurt us, but we also need to be willing to remember the past but do so forgiving those who have hurt us.
posted by Lymis on
“I simply do not think blaming a political elite for a popular groundswell against gay marriage is in tune with reality. The Republican party, maybe, but not the guys you mentioned.”
No, but when you kick the snowball off the top of the mountain, you have to take some responsibility for the resulting avalanche that buried the village in the valley.
“Everybody else was doing it too” didn’t fly as an excuse when I was in kindergarten, but we’re supposed to accept it from the former chair of one of our major political parties?
He sure as hell IS responsible for what he did, and to the degree (which I will agree we can never quantify) that it wouldn’t have happened without what he did, or if he had stood up against it, he sure is responsible for participating in the results.
posted by Bobby on
” Well, Bobby, by your reasoning he should only fight for 2nd amendment rights if he doesn’t personally own a gun.”
—I didn’t say ONLY, I only meant he should fight for something else OTHER than gay rights. I fight for many issues, although I admit that I don’t really fight for gay rights, I did in the past, I was a volunteer at one organization that fought against anti-gay bullying in school, but I gave that up long ago.
” Why does the NRA fight for 2nd amendment rights?
Don’t these gun-owning people have anything else on their minds?! It’s unseemly! They should leave the fight to people who *don’t* own guns, that would make more sense.”
—-Actually, they did join the ACLU in their lawsuit against campaign finance reform which placed limits on the first amendment, limits that our Imam-in-chief defended when he insulted our justices during his SOTU address.
Either way, Mehlman is acting like a little bitch. If he wasn’t a liberal before why must he become a liberal now? Is he planning to write a book? Get a job at MSNBC? A column on The Huffington Post?
Is he really coming out or cashing-in?
posted by Jorge on
No, but when you kick the snowball off the top of the mountain,
I cannot agree with your characterization. I think the oppostion came from the ground up.
By my memory, it was the rank and file of the conservative right that was dissatisfied with President Bush during much of his presidency. That placed him under a lot of pressure to support the Federal Marriage Amendment. It may have taken a state Supreme Court decision to finally persuade him to side with them, but that is not what gave him the idea. And there was quite some time before when the decision came out and Bush came out in support of the Federal Marriage Amendment. The sentiment, the opposition was out there. People wanted it. You guys are trying to rewrite history on the issue by making the backlash against marriage a political and Republican thing, but it was a conservative thing.
posted by David in Houston on
To put it simply, Ken Mehlman is nothing more than a sociopath in gay sheep’s clothing. Here’s the dictionary definition to refresh everyone’s memory:
sociopath: a person, as a psychopathic personality, whose behavior is antisocial and who lacks a sense of moral responsibility or social conscience.
You don’t need to be openly-gay to know that supporting an anti-gay political platform is morally wrong. Anyone that would willingly throw millions of gay Americans under the bus, just so they could keep their job, has NO social conscience. The fact that he’s trying to excuse his actions because he wasn’t “in touch with himself” is beyond repugnant and is completely disingenuous. What he did was wholly un-Amercian, and unforgivable.
By the way, he is still giving thousands of dollars to anti-gay politicians. So, yeah, I’m sticking with my ‘sociopath’ label.
posted by BobN on
You guys are trying to rewrite history on the issue by making the backlash against marriage a political and Republican thing, but it was a conservative thing.
Nonsense. You are ignoring the weekly conference calls between the very top of the White House, the GOP, and America’s “conservative” religious leaders. The coordination came from the top. The rhetoric was planned and deployed in lockstep. You don’t want to believe that the people you voted for would be so craven, but it’s true.
posted by Willj on
“The big bucks were made by working for and promoting lots of issues that were not aligned with his private life.”
Ah…he was just practicing the oldest profession.
posted by Debrah on
“…… I’m sticking with my ‘sociopath’ label.”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I wouldn’t go that far; however, I find it difficult to believe that an Ivy league-educated man living in the latter part of the 20th century and early 21st century found it impossible to be open about his homosexuality except for purely personal and self-serving reasons.
There is no way that Mehlman just recently discovered he is gay.
Consequently, he made innumerable conscious decisions to avoid being labeled “gay”.
Whatever he says now cannot eclipse that fact.
That said, his sexual orientation is his own business.
Except that the particular career choices he made produced a game-changer in the way his motives are assessed.
(As a side bar: He’s very nondescript and unattractive . So who cares?)
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
You don’t need to be openly-gay to know that supporting an anti-gay political platform is morally wrong. Anyone that would willingly throw millions of gay Americans under the bus, just so they could keep their job, has NO social conscience.
Unless, of course, they’re an Obama Party politician, as I pointed out above and will point out again.
So say that Hilary Rosen is a sociopath. Say that Andrew Tobias is a sociopath. And say that every gay and lesbian person who worked for John Kerry or voted for John Kerry, among other examples, is a sociopath.
posted by BobN on
That said, his sexual orientation is his own business.
In NYC, sure. In places where he influenced the politics, hardly.
He’s very nondescript and unattractive.
He appeals to my weakness for nerdy Jewish guys. Schwooon…
posted by Throbert McGee on
Much like a tuxedo, a $4-million flat in Chelsea flatters practically anybody.
As Capt. Jean-Luc Picard elaborates (@ the 1:40 mark):
”To see the apartment!”
(Obviously, The Dakota is in a category by itself, but still.)
posted by Bobby on
“You don’t need to be openly-gay to know that supporting an anti-gay political platform is morally wrong.”
—Really? And what happens when it’s your job to support x, y and z platform. What happens when candidate Joe wants to advocate issues you don’t agree with? What about all the gays that work for Obama and cover for him when he decides to oppose same-sex marriage? How are they any different from Mehlman?
Should we refer to Arianna Huffington as a sociopath because she went from being conservative to progressive after divorcing a husband that cheated on her with men? I don’t think so. I think people in politics simply know how to cash in. Mehlman got tired of being in the closet and now he wants a new career, that is all.
posted by Jorge on
sociopath: a person, as a psychopathic personality, whose behavior is antisocial and who lacks a sense of moral responsibility or social conscience.
Was it malice, ignorance, or illiteracy that caused you to gloss over the part of the tale where Mr. Mehlman expressed regret for his actions (social conscience) and inactions and wants to fight for gay marriage (sense of moral responsibility).
Being someone who has read case studies of sociopaths and knows the definition of a personality disorder, tell me where you see a pervasive pattern of throwing people under the bus in order to get ahead. Show me where you see someone trying to create a willing victim. Remember: Ken Mehlman only realized he was gay recently, and attempted to influence the party from behinds the scenes. You need to show me the same pattern of behavior existed decades ago and that his altruistic actions were all part of some grand manipulative scheme.
Nonsense. You are ignoring the weekly conference calls between the very top of the White House, the GOP, and America’s “conservative” religious leaders. The coordination came from the top. The rhetoric was planned and deployed in lockstep.
You’re making it sound like the health care bill. You are ignoring the fact that the people wanted it.
Could you give me a link that talks about the conference calls in which the topic of gay marriage in the 2006 elections came up and which makes it clear it was not a grass roots movement?
You don’t want to believe that the people you voted for would be so craven, but it’s true.
And how do you know I am not so callous myself?
posted by Jorge on
Sorry. I mean the 2004 elections, too.
posted by Debrah on
“He appeals to my weakness for nerdy Jewish guys. Schwooon…”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Ha!
Yeah, right.
“Much like a tuxedo, a $4-million flat in Chelsea flatters practically anybody.”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Oh yes, Throbert.
No romance without finance!
posted by BobN on
Yeah, right.
Why would I lie? It’s not like I’m particularly thrilled that I think he’s cute.
posted by Benjamin Kafka on
More than once I have had a 2×4 upside my head when those I thought were my colleagues turn out to be single issue liberals and they start reveling their racist/antis emetic/sexist/homophobic remarks. As a Jew I’m ashamed of them as well as Mehlman.
I can also say, I swoon over geeky intellectuals too, but minimally, they must be liberal with radical trimmings.
BK
posted by David in Houston on
Jorge, you seem to be under the false impression that I believe anything that Ken Mehlman has said. Why should I? I have no reason to believe that he just now discovered that he’s gay. That info has been public knowledge for years. That makes him a liar. As with most gay Republicans, he put his sexual orientation on the back-burner while he focused on his career. He also could have quit his job (in protest, or due to his high moral standards, or that it was simply the right thing to do) instead of going along with the vehemently anti-gay Bush campaigns. He didn’t. Even though he knew millions of gay Americans would be harmed by his participation. There is also proof that he has recently been giving thousands of dollars to anti-gay politicians. Who coerced him to do that? For someone that supposedly has no ill-will toward gay people, he sure has a funny way of showing it.
If you want to be a sap and believe his sad tale of woe, be my guest. I prefer to remain cynical… with good reason.
posted by Jorge on
Jorge, you seem to be under the false impression that I believe anything that Ken Mehlman has said.
Malice, then. Thank you, that’s all I need to know.
Your speculations of closeted self-hatred behavior all have one thing in common: they are only about gay people. I asked if you could tell me of a pervasive pattern of sociopathic behavior. You fail to realize that if Ken Mehlman truly has no conscience, it should be easy to demonstrate that in many situations having nothing to do with gay people. So it still seems reasonable to me to presume that Mr. Mehlman is sincere. If you still want to believe your cynicism makes sense, please invent a better reason.
I will say this plainly: the fact that Ken Mehlman is a Republican and has worked at the highest levels of the Republican Party in no way, shape, or form implicates his sincerity or his character. Neither does the fact that he is gay or when he learned it have any relevance. Those of you who do not agree will have to suffer the consequences of attacking Ken Mehlman to no effect on his life or reputation.
posted by Dominick Antonucci on
I agree with poster ‘David in Houston’, as well as others, so not to repeat. I’ll just add that it’s really not believable nor OK that he claims to have not realized he was attracted to men. This business just has to stop. All gay guys and gals realize that they are gay at puberty. To pretend otherwise would be to suggest that straight people are ‘confused’ about whom their attracted to at that same stage of life. Funny how none of them exist, huh…”I thought I was gay until I was 32, then realized I was straight.”