The Washington Post reports on still small but none the less important gay inroads within the conservative world, while the New York Times looks at the CPAC flap.
Wishful thinking or green shoots?
Taking Notice
ADVERTISEMENT
The Washington Post reports on still small but none the less important gay inroads within the conservative world, while the New York Times looks at the CPAC flap.
Wishful thinking or green shoots?
12 Comments for “Taking Notice”
posted by Tom on
Wishful thinking or green shoots?
I don’t think that there is any question about whether the country is changing. It is. Little by slowly, two steps forward and one step back, “equal means equal” has made great gains. At present we have largely gained equal treatment in the civilian and government workplace, we have gained a mandate for equal treatment in the military, and a good measure of societal acceptance.
At present, same-sex civil marriage is legal in five states and the District of Columbia. An additional three states recognize same-sex civil marriages contracted in other states. Three states — Maryland, New York and Rhode Island — are on the threshold of expanding civil marriage to include gay and lesbian couples. A number of other states make provisions for civil unions or limited partnerships, and that trend is continuing — Illinois’ civil unions law is being signed today, and Hawaii is almost certain to have civil unions by the end of the year, now that Republican Governor Linda Lingle is out of office and cannot unilaterally block civil unions, as she did last year. We are winning the key lawsuits, and critical cases, most notably on DOMA, are moving toward SCOTUS.
We are winning over the American people. If recent polling is accurate, a narrow majority of Americans (52% – 46%) now believe that gays and lesbians should have the right to marry under civil law and also believe that the federal government should recognize same-sex civil law marriages contracted in states where permitted. It will not be too many more years before the narrow majority becomes a strong majority, and one by one, the anti-marriage amendments enacted in the last decade will begin to fall.
So I think that the march toward “equal means equal” is going to continue and will succeed, no matter what the Republican Party does or doesn’t do over the next decade.
I do believe that the Republican Party will be dragged along in the long run, despite fierce opposition from the social conservatives in its base, as public opinion increasingly comes over to “equal means equal”.
I think that the Post and Times articles reflect the first signs that the Republican Party is finding its “faggot, faggot” stance untenable. But I do not think we are yet seeing any change in the Republican Party’s resistance to “equal means equal” or seeing an endorsement by the Republican Party of GOProud’s “conservative” gay-rights agenda.
In short, I don’t think we have any reason to believe that change is going to come quickly to the Republican Party.
And I’m not at all confident that the Republican Party will shake off the hold of social conservatives in time to keep pace with the rest of the country. I think that it is as likely as not that the Republican Party will continue to resist “equal means equal” despite strong public opinion to the contrary, as it resisted DADT repeal despite overwhelming national support for repeal, including 74% support among rank-and-file Republicans.
But lets unpack this and take an on-the-ground look.
I see no sign at all that the Republican Party is stopping efforts to resist “equal means equal”. Republican legislators as we speak are (1) opposing same-sex marriage initiatives in Maryland, New York and Rhode Island, (2) working to repeal existing same-sex marriage laws in New Hampshire, Iowa and the District of Columbia, (3) opposing civil unions and domestic partnerships in Hawaii and Minnesota, (4) working to repeal existing domestic partnerships in Wisconsin, and (5) working to ban same-sex marriage by constitutional amendment in Wyoming. On the federal level, if there is any reason to believe that a significant number of Republican legislators will drop opposition to DOMA repeal or drop support for the FMA, I am not aware of it.
So I don’t see any sign that the Republican Party is abandoning massive resistance at present.
Next, let’s look at GOProud’s “conservative” gay-rights agenda:
I might be naive, but I don’t see much in the agenda that enhances “equal means equal”, nothing that removes the differential treatment of gays and lesbians imposed by current law in the United States. I don’t see any support for DOMA repeal or marriage equality, for example. In fact, with the single exception of opposition to the FMA (and perhaps “standing strong against foreign regimes that refuse to recognize the basic human rights of gays and lesbians …”), I don’t see anything in the GOProud agenda that isn’t already on the Republican agenda or which would offend social conservatives.
So let’s look next at the “green shoots” articles you cite in your post and see what we find.
Let’s look first at the Washington Post article. The article cites five indications of “The GOP’s quiet evolution on gay rights”:
With the exception of the Republican votes for DADT repeal (which were critical, to be sure, even if the votes of a small, courageous minority willing to buck party leadership at a time when 74% of Republicans supported repeal, and it would be a reasonable expectation that most Republicans would favor repeal), none have anything to do with legislation, pro or con. All signal that GOProud and other, unspecified “gay groups”, are no longer anathema within Republican circles. It is a good thing, to be sure — we went through that in the Democratic Party in the 1970’s and early 1980’s, but in light of the extremely cautious nature of GOProud’s agenda, is that really a serious harbinger of change? In the long run, probably. In the short run, almost certainly not.
So let’s look next at the New York Times article. The article mentions some of the same indications mentioned by the Washington Post, but adds a bit:
Oh, really? Tim Pawlenty and Rick Santorum may “have steered clear of the dispute” but Pawlenty just told us that he would work to reinstate DADT if elected and Santorum is, well, continuing to be Santorum. Michele Bachmann led the “anti-marriage” movement in Minnesota and there is no sign that she’s turned a new leaf. Palin? DeMint? No change in attitude on their part, I’m afraid. Do you have any indication that any other Republican presidential hopeful is coming around to support “equal means equal”? I don’t have any.
So, wishful thinking or green shoots?
I guess that depends on what you are looking for from the Republican Party. If you are looking for the Republican Party, in the long run, to bow to public opinion and abandon “faggot, faggot”, then you are seeing “green shoots”. If, on the other hand, you are looking for the Republican Party to get into the fight on the side of “equal means equal” in any material way during the next several election cycles, then, in my opinion anyway, you are engaging in “wishful thinking”.
I think that the real question is not whether we are seeing “green shoots” or “wishful thinking”, but instead whether the Republican Party will join in the right for “equal means equal” until after the war has already been won.
I hope I’m wrong. I hope, now that the Republican Party’s wall of massive resistance has begun to crack by allowing GOProud and other “gay groups” to support the party openly, that the wall will fall as swiftly as the Berlin Wall fell. I hope that what we are seeing are signs that the Republican Party is coming to its senses and changing course. I hope that we will see the Republican Party aggressively advance “equal means equal” on political issues that are traditionally conservative issues. I hope that we can look to the Republican Party for leadership, and if not that then strong support, on Section 3 repeal this year or next. I hope that we can look to the Republican Party to resist efforts to federalize marriage law through constitutional amendment. I hope that we will see Republican elected officials and office-seekers pick up the torch carried by Barry Goldwater and other constitutional conservatives in years long past and embrace the principle of “equal means equal” as an essential element of conservative values.
But hope as I might, I am also a realist.
I am faced with the fact that the Republican Party is standing in the door with respect to state legislative efforts to advance “equal means equal” in every state where advances are possible this year, and is actively engaged in working to turn back advances already made in other states.
I am aware, as Stephen pointed out in “Tea Party Folks: Friends or Foes?” that Tea Party adherents are just “a smidgen more supportive” than other elements of the Republican base, and no more than that.
And I am aware, having worked for change within the Democratic Party in Wisconsin, how how hard the battle is likely to be for the men and women working to change the Republican Party.
So I can hope, but I would be a fool, I think, to have any expectations that flowers are about to bloom in the Republican Party come Spring — this Spring or for many Springs to come.
I’d be happy to be proved wrong, Stephen. And don’t get me wrong — I am glad to see the “green shoots”, because I agree with you that it is important to obtain conservative support for “equal means equal” in order to solidify and sustain equality under the law.
But I live in the real world, and I’m not a Washington insider, looking at every nuance and wiggle of who says what and who gets invited to this party or that. I don’t read tea leaves because I don’t have time.
I spent yesterday afternoon on a series of phone calls working with representatives of gay and lesbian groups from around Wisconsin trying to figure out strategies for blocking the Republican push to repeal Wisconsin’s Domestic Partner Act.
I would like to see the day when I don’t have to spend my time trying to figure out ways to block the Republican Party’s resistance to “equal means equal”. I would like to see the day when I could work with Republicans to advance “equal means equal”.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
I’d be happy to be proved wrong, Stephen. And don’t get me wrong — I am glad to see the “green shoots”, because I agree with you that it is important to obtain conservative support for “equal means equal” in order to solidify and sustain equality under the law.
Which is why you endorse and support statements like this from “Equality Matters”.
Traditional conservatives and the Tea Party movement are united only in their contempt for equal rights for all Americans and a desire to return America to a 19th century idyll. Equality Matters will not allow these latter-day ‘clerics’ to gain serious recognition by the media nor influence the policies that affect the lives of every American
The reason your “Act” is going down, Tom, is because no one thinks that antireligious bigots and hatemongers like yourself who discriminate on the basis of religious belief and political affiliation should have any form of government sanction or reward for anything. You and your fellow bigots scream that tea party participants, conservatives, and Republicans are Nazis who ordered the shooting of Gabrielle Giffords and demand that Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck be put in prison; this is what you get for it.
posted by Doug on
NDT does it make you feel more like a man to call people names?
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Nope. But calling out bigots and hatemongers like Tom certainly does.
posted by BobN on
Tom beats both the Post and the Times!
posted by Tom on
Jack Hunter has an interesting perspective on the CPAC flap in the Charleston City Paper.
posted by Jimmy on
Mr. Hunter’s piece is interesting. W. knew who he was talking to when he used the word “crusade”. It was quite purposeful and it worked.
I’ll be interested in what goes down at the Value Voters Summit this fall.
posted by Tom on
Speaking of “green shoots”, Senator Allan Kittleman of Maryland has issued a statement indicating that he will vote for “equal means equal” in Maryland when the question of same-sex marriage comes up for a vote.
I want to particularly point out the final three paragraphs of Senator Kittleman’s statement on the matter:
Senator Kittleman resigned as Maryland’s Republican Senate minority leader earlier this month after announcing he would introduce a marriage-equivalent civil unions bill:
The civil unions bill gained no traction, and Senator Kittlement had to make a decision about voting for or against marriage equality.
Senator Kittleman’s decision to vote on religiously-neutral grounds will upset religious conservatives in the Republican base. His explicit discussion of the role of his theology in voting for or against legislation, and his decision to vote contrary to what his conservative Christian church teaches, will be particularly upsetting to the “Christian nation” advocates. A few on the farthest fringe may even go so far as to brand Senator Kittleman as “antireligious”, for all I know, because he rejected the notion of government as theocracy. Senator Kittleman can expect blowback, and it sounds like he’s prepared for it.
But Kittleman’s analysis (“our government is not a theocracy”) is historically and constitutionally correct. Same-sex marriage, whatever its pros and cons, should be decided on religiously-neutral grounds, not on the basis of what “God wants …” or doesn’t. I wish that there were more Republican politicians like him.
Senator Kittleman comes by his strong concern for civil rights and civil liberty honestly, by the way. His father, Bob Kittleman, was a Republican member of the Maryland legislature for over twenty years. In the 1950’s and 1960’s, working to build a Republican presence in then-Dixiecrat Maryland, the elder Kittleman joined the NAACP and became a driving force for desegregation. In a day when social conservatives chime the mantra that “gay is not a civil right”, voices like Senator Kittleman’s are particularly important.
posted by Amicus on
Happy gays have gotten some amount of influence within the Democratic Party. But, even now, it’s hard to say they have political power.
Within the conservative coalition, it’s hard to see how gays can achieve similar political influence. If it happens, it does seem as though it will be through a libertarian resurgence, driven by expediency at the polls (not a principled re-alignment), i.e. an electorate turned off by the emphasis on “gay” as a social issue.
But, the politics of appeasement that has kept the coalition together doesn’t seem likely to end.
Why?
Independents and GOP regulars simply don’t rate “gay issues” high enough to make a difference at the polls, do they? Thus, without pressure, the status quo within the coalition will likely continue, despite flag pole planting of GOProud or the symbolic presence of other conservative, gay groups.
This is a sad prognosis, because liberalism is arguably too weak in America to get the job done and the other avenue to change may well be blocked by a hostile or overly cautious/behind-the-curve Supreme Court.
posted by Mark on
Who on EARTH said a Constitutional Amendment “would be an unprecidented power grab by the federal government”
That is the GOOFIEST thing I have ever read. That’s like saying your right to vote is “an unprecidented” power grab by those running for offfice.
Are you DAFT?
A Constitutional Amendment has to pass 3/4 of the states! It is the exact OPPOSITE of a “federal power grab”. Yes, Amendments have all passed Congress first — FIRST — but then they must pass 3/4 of the states.
STATES – – 3/4 of — get the picture? 3/4 of the STATES must ratify it. Ring a bell? Perhaps you heard of history class? Maybe you took a government course somewhere, or an old timer told you about ERA amendment, that fell one STATE short of 3/4.
Don’t you worry your pretty little head about any Constitutional Amendment being a power grab by FEDS. An amendment is an action by the STATES. In fact, the states don’t really need Congress to pass it first, the STATES can do it themselves.
SO if you are just so in love with this “let the states decide” — that is what a Constitutional Amendment wouuld be all about. No matter what it is!
That’s like saying your right to vote is a power grab by elected officials.
Do you know how Amendments get passed? Any clue? Clearly whoever wrote that “a Constitutional Amenment is an unprecidented power grab by the federal government” has no clue. Just no clue whatever.
A Constitutional Amendment REQUIREDS that 3/4 of the states agree to it — AFTER it passed Congress by 2/3 in each chamber. That is how all 27 Amendments have passed.
So if by some fluke, 3/4 of the STATES approved some issue on gay rights — for or against — how is that a power grab by the federal government?
In fact, its just the OPPOSITE. This is the very heart of state’s rights. STATES must change the constitution, by 3/4 vote! No Amendment can legally pass UNTIL 3/4 of the states vote for it.
There is another way — but even there, 3/4 of the states must AGREE.
There is an astonishing lack of knowledge out there.
Maybe the writer meant that federal LAWS can be power grabs – sure they can. Maybe he meant Court decisions can be power grabs by the federal government. Sure they can.
But the ONE thing on this earth that can NOT possibly be a power grab by the federal governement, is a process that MUST be approved by 3/4 of the states. Not 1/2, not 2/3 — but requires 3/4.
So find a different boogie man to hate. Constitutional Amendment process can not possibly be considered by any rational person to be a federal power grab.
posted by Tom on
Mark, for the record, the characterization of the FMA as an “unprecedented power grab” is GOProud’s, not mine.
The rhetoric may be overblown, but GOProud has a point, and, in my opinion anyway, if GOProud is daft, it is daft for other reasons.
The FMA would shift the definition of civil marriage from the states to the federal government, increasing federal power over the lives of our citizens yet again.
Maybe creeping federalization is inevitable, but I think that our founders were wise to set up a constitutional republic of states, reserving all but enumerated powers to the federal government. The founders designed our nation as a republic to keep power decentralized, and, in general, gave the federal government only those powers that the states could not, individually, exercise. The founders did so because of a long history of abuse of power by government and the struggle of a people to free themselves of government tyranny, going back to the Magna Carta.
I don’t know that the definition of civil marriage, in and of itself, creates any immediate danger to the balance of power between state and federal, but the centralization of power in the hands of the federal government is a bit like Chinese water torture — every drop adds up.
I agree with GOProud that the definition of civil marriage should not be federalized. I gather you don’t.
posted by BobN on
There is an astonishing lack of knowledge out there.
Indeed. The term “power grab” in this instance refers to the fact that marriage has always been a state issue. For the federal Congress to impose federal law about marriage on the states is a “power grab” in that sense. That the states then have to acquiesce to the grab and make of it a sort of “power give” doesn’t make use of the term that outrageous.