Gay troops and veterans are challenging the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in a federal lawsuit. The federal law prohibits the U.S. government from providing numerous benefits to the spouses of gay troops, including health insurance coverage, surviving spouse benefits and the financial stipend for off-base housing. Pentagon policy also prevents gay couples from being allowed to live in on-base military family housing, which gay couples can do in Great Britain and Australia.
This seems like a savvy suit that hits the right cultural buttons, so I hope it goes somewhere.
Marriage equity, of course, remains a political fault line in America, with religious conservatives placing a stranglehold on GOP candidates who know (or should know) that support for a constitutional amendment to outlaw same-sex marriage throughout the U.S. hurts them with independents and socially moderate Republicans. But for the religious right, it’s a litmus test.
Witness the ordeal of Herman Cain. Last week the Washington Blade reported that Cain remarked on “Meet the Press” that “I wouldn’t seek a constitutional ban for same sex marriage, but I am pro-traditional marriage,” and that “Pressed by host David Gregory on whether states should decide the issue for themselves, Cain replied, ‘They would make up their own minds, yes.’”
The Blade also noted that “Earlier this month, Cain told the Huffington Post’s Sam Stein he has no problems with openly gay people serving in the military and wouldn’t seek to reinstate ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ if elected president.”
But just one week after the Blade ran that story, it reported that, after sharp criticism from the right, Cain indicated to the conservative Christian Broadcasting Network that he’d support the amendment because of efforts to undo the Defense of Marriage Act. “I think marriage should be protected at the federal level also,” Cain now said. “I used to believe that it could be just handled by the states…”—apparently just a week earlier.
5 Comments for “Cain Crumbles Along Marriage Equality Fault Line”
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Marriage equity, of course, remains a political fault line in America, with religious conservatives placing a stranglehold on GOP candidates who know (or should know) that support for a constitutional amendment to outlaw same-sex marriage throughout the U.S. hurts them with independents and socially moderate Republicans. But for the religious right, it’s a litmus test.
Watching Cain’s flip-flop is like watching Groundhog Day.
I’m sorry to see Cain brought low, the most recent victim. I’ve never thought that Cain had a chance of winning the nomination, but I like him. He reminds me of Harold Washington, a big, confident, smart, funny and extremely likeable man. He’s a natural.
posted by Houndentenor on
If Cain were serious about running for president he’d have campaign staff in NH and Iowa. He doesn’t. He’s upped his speaking fee and hawks his book every chance he gets. This is a PR opportunity, not a real campaign. That’s not a criticism of Cain, btw. He’s doing a great job of promoting himself and his story. This is a huge win for him as he has greatly expanded his national profile and he should easily land a tv gig from all this. But I don’t think for a second this is real presidential bid.
posted by Jorge on
I never liked him. On the economy and some other issues he may be trustworthy and credible, but there’s something wrong with a presidential candidate who flat out says he’d be uncomfortable appointing Muslims.
I suppose that’s not much of a flip flop. Goodness, it’s really disturbing how few of the Republican candidates regularly take principled stands instead of lowbrow cheap shots and meanderings–and which ones are the ones who don’t.
posted by BobN on
Cain didn’t flip or flop. The problem is that no one bothered to investigate what he meant when he said he was OK with states doing it.
I knew he meant no federal rights. And I knew that he would oppose any attempt to get federal rights. Those efforts are well underway and he knew it. And I knew that would result in support for a federal amendment to “protect” the other states. His statements are sins of omission. Now he has clarified how meaningless his previous comments were.
We are now witnessing another failure to ask him what and why. WHY does an amendment need to ban SSM and civil unions? WHY can’t the feds recognize SSM in SSM states?
No one will ask and he won’t have to answer. If I’m wrong and someone does ask, the answer will be “it’s unworkable”. Count on it.
posted by TomJeffersonIII on
I think [for what it is worth] Cain is probably just trying to build up his career as an professional author and lecture circuit speaker. I thought the same thing about Sarah Palin and never person impressed me all that much (agreed or disagreed with something that they might have said).