The AP reports, Gay Marriage: Awkward Issue for Some GOP Hopefuls:
“They see the polling — more and more Republicans are supporting gay marriage,” said David Welch, a former research director for the Republican National Committee. “It puts them in an awkward position with the younger members of the party and also with independents whose votes you need to win.”
Yes, it does. And it’s not going to get any easier (as evidenced by Gov. Rick Perry’s Texas two-step flip-flop, discussed by Jon in the previous post). Eventually, the cost of placating the hardcore socially reactionary base will outweigh the advantages of appealing to libertarian-minded young voters and independents.
Below is a hopeful sign, despite the frenzied demonization of Tea Party activists by the hardcore, spendaholic left:
Sal Russo, a strategist for the Tea Party Express, said the movement’s followers are primarily concerned about the size and cost of government and have diverse views about social issues.
“We have libertarians who support same-sex marriage, and Christian activists who adamantly oppose it,” he said.
34 Comments for “How Awkward”
posted by Jorge on
Not being straight, I don’t really understand how any modern presidential candidate, (least of all a Republican) can be caught flatfooted on the issue.
Take a principled position, say it, smile, and shut up. That’s the way of the world.
posted by Tom on
Perry’s position is no different than Bachmann’s.
When he’s talking 10th Amendment, he takes a “principled stand” 100% for it. When he’s talking “equal means equal”, he takes a “principled stand” 100% against it. When the two “principled stands” collide, he throws both the 10th Amendment and logical consistency under the bus.
Neither is stupid; both know where the votes are in the Republican primaries. “Faggot, faggot” trumps “states rights”.
posted by Jorge on
That’s interesting. I’ve never even heard of a Republican presidential candidate in my lifetime even remotely endorsing the word “faggot” (I’m sure there have been), much less one being nominated. Am I’m counting Bob Dole.
Are you trying to make me not take you seriously? You’re succeeding!
posted by Houndentenor on
Bob Dole didn’t have to use the pejorative. He had his staff solicit a donation from Log Cabin Republicans and then very publicly returned it. That message was loud and clear.
posted by Jorge on
And I’m counting Bob Dole.
posted by Tom on
In the context I use it, “faggot, faggot” is shorthand, as is “equal means equal”.
“Equal means equal” is shorthand for the principle that each and every American citizen should be treated equally under the law, that each and every citizen should bear the risks and enjoy the benefits of citizenship on an equal footing, and that the government, at all levels, should discriminate (in the legal, not emotional, sense) between citizens if and only if the government has a clear and compelling reason to discriminate, the discrimination as limited as possible, and the discrimination essential to the common welfare.
Similarly, “faggot, faggot” is shorthand for a cynical strategy developed and deployed by the Republican Party to heighten and exploit cultural fear surrounding gays and lesbians — and in particular marriage equality — for short-term political gain. The “faggot, faggot”strategy characterizes gays and lesbians as mentally ill, dangerous, powerful and power-seeking, attempting to destroy the underpinnings of family and society. The Republican Party joined hands with the FRC, AFA, WFA and a host of other religious conservative and social conservative groups to exploit culture fears about gays and lesbians in a blatant attempt to scare voters into voting against Democrats.
If don’t have enough evidence in your memory bank to see what I’m talking about, look to the battles over the anti-marriage amendments, or, for that matter, the careers of Michele Bachmann and Rick Santorum, but you will find a mountain of evidence of the strategy just about anywhere you look in the “culture wars” fights over gay and lesbian issues during the last decade.
The “faggot, faggot” strategy is the stepchild of the Republican Party’s “Southern Strategy” developed in the 1970’s, when the Republican Party exploited fears of racial integration and busing to energize white voters so that Republican politicians could (as Ken Mehlman put it in a later time) “benefit politically from racial polarization.”
The “faggot, faggot” strategy is, like the “Southern Strategy” a bargain with the political devil. The Republican Party is now caught in its own bear trap, and cannot seem to escape, despite the “hopeful signs” that Stephen keeps bringing to our attention. The “faggot, faggot” strategy has become so entrenched in Republican political culture that a relative moderate on gay and lesbian issues — say, someone like George Bush I or George Bush II — wouldn’t stand a chance in the Republican presidential primary process.
posted by Jorge on
You are trying to change the subject. We are not talking about Republican party strategy and ideology on gay rights. We are talking about your accusation that the Republican party has a political strategy that plays up the words “faggot, faggot.”
I have never even heard of a Republican presidential candidate in my lifetime even remotely endorsing the word “faggot”. You have thrown Rick Santorum and Michelle Bachman out there, two candidates who have never even remotely endorsed the anti-gay f-bomb or in any way slurred the personal character and fundamental human and citizenship rights of gays and lesbians (I am less certain about Bachman than Santorum). What you’re really doing is transforming people’s politics into imaginary personal judgments and slurs about the character of gays
I openly question how any clear-thinking person (and I use the term narrowly) can make a connection between Republican party ideology and strategy and a false accusation that they encourage the use and promotion of the anti-gay f-bomb or other language that diminishes the human character and American citizenship rights of gays and lesbians.
And you will prove me wrong, instantly, without any question that what you’re saying is fact and not opinion, or you will back off.
posted by Jorge on
“Fundamental human citizenship rights”? That kind of assumption needs a definition.
I mean the right to vote and politically or legally advocate for gay rights causes.
posted by Jimmy on
I knew from the first instance of Tom’s usage what he meant, and it was not what you suggest he meant, and has meant all along. Go find a statement of his that suggests he accuses the Republican Party of literally playing up the word “faggot”. He is saying that it might as well do such a thing based on its policies. It would be more honest.
posted by BobN on
Jorge, you’re being childish. You’ve never heard a GOP presidential candidate endorse the word “faggot”. Does that mean you can recall one using the word but not recommending it for everyone?
Personally, I’d rather assholes like Santorum call me a faggot than suggest that my life with my partner is like fucking dogs. And, just to be clear, in regard to the former senator, I do endorse the word “asshole”.
posted by Houndentenor on
Of course they aren’t stupid enough to use the word “faggot”. But are you denying that they have exploited homophobia to win votes?
posted by Tom on
But are you denying that they have exploited homophobia to win votes?
Of course he’s denying it, at least implicitly.
It is the 2012 version of the strategy — go silent, deny and work the homophobes behind the scenes. If you are stuck having to address the issue, describe it as an “ideology” and, if you can keep a straight face, toss in the word “principled” someplace along the line.
I don’t think that it is going to pull the wool over too many eyes.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
It’s funny to watch Tom Scharbach, who is a staffer for the Obama Party and whose position and power are dependent on him blindly and unquestioningly supporting Obama Party members and bashing Republicans, try to project his views onto others.
Of course, it’s understandable why he does; he’s surrounded with gays like Houndentenor and Jimmy who have such a degree of cognitive dissonance that they can attack Republicans for supposedly pandering to homophobes to get elected while they defend Obama Party members pandering to homophobes to get elected.
All this thread is about is how the Obama Party uses plantation gays like Houndentenor and Jimmy and their overseers like Tom to keep the gays safely locked up on the plantation, not ever questioning Massa, and teaching them that everyone not on the plantation wants to kill them.
posted by Tom on
You are trying to change the subject. We are not talking about Republican party strategy and ideology on gay rights. We are talking about your accusation that the Republican party has a political strategy that plays up the words “faggot, faggot.”
This is silly, Jorge. I’ve been using “faggot, faggot” as shorthand on this list consistently for at least five years, in the context described, referring to a cynical political strategy of resisting any and all movement in the direction of “equal means equal”. I have also used “massive resistance” to describe that strategy.
Nobody who pays the slightest attention to the context of the many posts where I’ve used the shorthand could possibly think that I was suggesting that Republican politicians use the word “faggot”.
For the record, I have not heard a Republican politician use the word “faggot” in public. I’ve heard just about everything else, though.
posted by Doug on
Several years ago Dick Armey called Barney Frank a faggot I believe.
posted by Tom on
I stand corrected, Doug. If I remember right it was “Barney Fag”, which was both middle-school and, given the source, funny.
But that’s not my concern. My concern is the relentless, decade-long use of gays and lesbians as political cannon fodder by the Republican Party, and the context in which I use the shorthand “faggot, faggot” to describe that strategy.
Jorge will find a couple of instances of my use of the shorthand in the comments to this post from 2006, among many others over the years.
The more things change, the more things stay the same.
posted by Jorge on
Then there shall be a last time for everything. I will not let you tar people with the anti-gay f-slur so blithely and carelessly–or maliciously, as the case might well be–unchallenged. Enough is enough.
It is not being silly or childish. It is about what is right and what is wrong.
posted by Jimmy on
“It is about what is right and what is wrong.”
You are three shades of wrong, and way past late.
posted by Tom on
Stephen, as an earlier post of yours pointed out, polls show no significant difference between Tea Party adherents and social conservatives on the issue of same-sex marriage — about 1%. The DADT vote — the Tea Party members of the House voted right along with the social conservatives — suggests that the slight difference in Tea Party polling numbers isn’t enough to make a difference when it comes to legislation. Sal Russo is doing the happy talk walk — “political strategist” spin — but there isn’t anything behind it. The Tea Party isn’t changing things.
posted by pgbach on
Tom, you hit the nail right on the head. In fact, there is some polling that suggests the Tea Party is actually a little bit worse than “social conservatives.”
posted by Tim on
I have been hearing the same wishful thinking from gay conservatives for decades. “Here’s a hopeful sign!” always means you’ve found one, maybe a handful, of Republican lawmakers who claim other issues are more important than LGBT and reproductive rights. Polling trends are great, but it will be another generation at least before the GOP embraces LGBT equality. Polling numbers still don’t translate into enough votes or money for the Party to give a damn in the near term. Face it, gay conservatives: You have no Party. The GOP will remain a haven for unconstructed racists, misogynists and homophobes as long as they provide an avenue to power.
posted by Tim on
Sorry, “unreconstructed.” 🙂
posted by Tom on
Tim, “unconstructed” works just fine when describing racists, misogynists and homophobes.
posted by BobN on
Below is a hopeful sign
An unlinked hopeful sign, I have to note. How odd. After all, the quote comes from a widely published AP article in which GOP strategists suggest that GOP candidates “soft-pedal” their opposition to gay rights in order to avoid annoying their more, dare I use the term, progressive supporters. That way, they can get into office and then let the mask drop.
I can see why Mr. Soft Pedal himself would fail to include that bit.
posted by Jorge on
By the way, what was the date of that article?
posted by Wilberforce on
The better term would be ‘moderate supporters.’ Not trying to be hypercritical. I’m just nostalgic for the days when there was such an animal.
posted by Wilberforce on
Even worse, the GOP elite still use us as a wedge issue, giving massive face time to homophobs everywhere on cable news, with no one to challenge their falsehoods. So long as this is the case, any ‘hopeful sign’ will be more contrived than real.
posted by Tom on
I agree that the Republican Party is locked in for this election cycle at a minimum.
A quick perusal of state Republican Party platforms suggests to me that the following positions are mainstream within the Republican Party at this point:
(1) Support for federal constitutional amendment denying same-sex couples the right to marry.
(2) Support for DOMA, Section 2.
(3) Support for DOMA, Section 3.
(4) Support for state constitutional amendment denying same-sex couples the right to marry.
(5) Support for state constitutional amendment denying same-sex couples the right to enter into marriage-equivalent civil unions or domestic partnerships.
(6) Support for disqualification of gays and lesbians from military service and/or support reinstatement of DADT.
(7) Opposition to including sexual orientation in existing federal non-discrimination laws.
(8) Opposition to including sexual orientation in existing state non-discrimination laws.
(9) Opposition to adoption by gays and lesbians.
(10) Opposition to granting child custody and unsupervised visitation to gays and lesbians in a divorce.
(11) Opposition to any legal recognition of same-sex relationships (e.g. hospital visitation, end-of-life, inheritance, burial).
(12) Opposition to employer recognition of same-sex relationships (e.g. employee benefits).
I recognize that party platforms are shaped by party activists, and generally push the envelope, so I would discount this a bit.
But not much — many of the dirty dozen are espoused by the Republican Party’s current presidential contenders, and all have been the subject of legislation pushed by Republican politicians, with varying degrees of success, at the state and federal level in the last few years.
posted by Houndentenor on
Ummm, I don’t know anyone named Tom (that I can think of) and I certainly don’t surround any such person.
I do wonder why ND30 hates other gay people so much. Did his liberal boyfriend dump him? Is he bitter working in HR?
And why does it seem that every gay Republican lives in the most liberal city they can find? I can’t blame them for not wanting to live in homophobic places like Mississippi and Utah, but it’s awfully hypocritical for them to enjoy the rights gained by the very people they spend so much time vilifying.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
And also, it’s interesting, when you consider what Houndentenor and his fellow liberals endorse and support being done to people in their “liberal cities”.
I guess their “rights” extend to being able to rob you, beat you up, and take your money. After all, Obama Party puppets like Houndentenor support and endorse wealth redistribution; this is just a more direct version of it.
Moreover, it’s entertaining that you attack me for the fact that my partner didn’t want to move, so I chose to do so. Fortunately, he’s starting to get sick of the fact that the only people this “liberal” city punishes are those who follow the law, not those who break it, and the fact that you and your fellow welfare gays, Houndentenor, are demanding more and more payments for worse and worse downtown and civic conditions.
posted by Houndentenor on
More ad hominem attacks. For once I’m not going to address them one at a time since none of them are based on anything but ND30’s perverse reality of Gay = communist or whatever it is. I don’t really speak crazy so the logic escapes me.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
I find it interesting that Houndentenor interprets any criticism of or disagreement with another gay and lesbian person to be “hatred”.
But then again, that’s typical of victim gays like Houndentenor; unless they get their way in everything, they scream “homophobe”.
posted by Houndentenor on
You mean like how you consider any criticism of the Catholic church to be religious bigotry?
Yes, you are a homophobe. You argue against gay rights while being gay. Self-loathing is common in all groups. I sometimes meet racist African-Americans (meaning racist against other African Americans), women who are sexist, etc. It’s not all that uncommon.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
You mean like how you consider any criticism of the Catholic church to be religious bigotry?
Nope. I consider irrational criticism, such as yours, to be antireligious bigotry.
You, on the other hand, consider ANY criticism of gay and lesbian people to be “homophobia”. For instance. in the other thread, you stated that criticizing gays and lesbians who sexually molest children is “homophobic”.
Yes, you are a homophobe. You argue against gay rights while being gay. Self-loathing is common in all groups. I sometimes meet racist African-Americans (meaning racist against other African Americans), women who are sexist, etc. It’s not all that uncommon.
Such as the “right” to sexually harass your coworkers that “real gays” like yourself demand, Houndentenor?
The problem here, at least in your mind, is that I don’t buy your theory that being gay gives you special privileges — and your attempt to codify those into law. I consider your belief that you should get special treatment based on your minority status and that you shouldn’t be subject to any consequences for your behavior to be patently UNequal.
It’s no surprise you attack me. I represent a threat to your gravy train and your attempt to get freebies based on your minority status instead of on your own work and productivity. You and your fellow gays fail when judged by character, so your only hope is to force others to judge you solely by “skin color”. Gays who actually stand up for OTHER people instead of just automatically agreeing make your life very difficult — and your Obama plantation massas don’t like independent thought, so naturally you don’t.