As Byron York writes in the Washington Examiner, “GOP Sees Opportunity in Dems’ Support of Gay Marriage“:
On Monday, Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., told the Washington Blade that the Democratic Party’s 15-member platform drafting committee has approved a plank supporting gay marriage for the party’s upcoming convention. … It didn’t take Republicans long to see opportunity in the Democrats’ decision. Shortly after the news came out, a spokesman for the National Republican Senatorial Committee sent a press email highlighting a recent Wall Street Journal article that listed some Democratic senators running for re-election who have publicly distanced themselves from President Obama’s support of gay marriage. Missouri’s Claire McCaskill, Pennsylvania’s Bob Casey, West Virginia’s Joe Manchin, Florida’s Bill Nelson — all have laid low on the issue. Now that will be harder to do.
Republicans were perfectly happy to watch Democrats raise the profile of gay marriage…
At some point, the culture shifts and parties can find themselves on the wrong side of history. That may not be true in 2012—we’ll see how this one plays out—but it will be in the not too far future.
Incidently, York mischaracterizes the Democrats’ likely position on the Defense of Marriage Act, stating they want to force recognition of “gay marriage everywhere, now.” In fact, the challenges to DOMA currently consists of repealing the section that bars the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages that are already recognized by individual states. This widespread misrepresentation is also certain to be ubiquitous on the right.
18 Comments for “Sure to Be Ugly”
posted by Tom Scharbach on
As Byron York writes in the Washington Examiner, “GOP Sees Opportunity in Dems’ Support of Gay Marriage”.
Well, what did you expect? The Republican Party has pounded the “faggot, faggot” drum as a wedge issue for over two decades, and nobody who isn’t deaf, dumb and blind is the least bit surprised to see them doing it again this election cycle.
At some point, the culture shifts and parties can find themselves on the wrong side of history. That may not be true in 2012—we’ll see how this one plays out—but it will be in the not too far future.
The Republicans are already on the wrong side of history on LGBT issues, and have been since the 1980’s.
Consider the 1980 Democratic Party platform:
The Republicans are still fighting to make sure that doesn’t happen — thirty years later.
posted by Jorge on
Well, what did you expect? The Republican Party has pounded the “faggot, faggot” drum as a wedge issue for over two decades
nobody… is the least bit surprised to see them doing it again this election cycle
That was a grostesquely misinformed and unsubstantiatable comment the first time you said or defended it (I am quite sure it was you. It is no less so today. I will not dignify it any further.
posted by Houndentenor on
Perhaps you need to actually read a few state GOP platforms.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Of course, since, as we see in Chicago, New York, Boston, and Philadelphia, the Obama Party clearly discriminates on the basis of religious belief and speech, no one seriously believes that.
Perhaps Obama Party paid staffer Tom Scharbach should explain why he and his Obama Party insist that denying business permits and licensing based on a business owner’s religious beliefs is acceptable, as they are doing in Chicago.
Perhaps Obama Party paid staffer Tom Scharbach should actually see what a real lawyer has to say.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Perhaps Obama Party paid staffer Tom Scharbach …
Ah, back again and back to the old lies again.
… should explain why he and his Obama Party insist that denying business permits and licensing based on a business owner’s religious beliefs is acceptable, as they are doing in Chicago.
And, since I didn’t comment on the Chik-fil-a dust up, you are once again attributing to me positions I haven’t taken, as you do with clock-like regularity.
Let’s go over this again, Dan: I speak for myself. So do others. If I said it, I said it. If someone else said it and I didn’t say it, I didn’t say it. It is that simple. It doesn’t get any simpler.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Silly Tom Scharbach.
I know full well that you would lose your job and your position if you criticized your Obama Party.
And that’s why you sit here and whine and cry and complain rather than stating the obvious, which is that your Obama Party’s addiction to antireligious bigotry just completely blew up in your face.
People now see what you want, Tom Scharbach. You and your fellow LGBT fascists are now completely out of the closet. You are using and you intend to further use the power of government and any position you hold as elected officials to discriminate against and punish people for their religious beliefs and their exercise of free speech.
If you were smart, you would immediately repudiate your bigoted Obama Party leaders and demonstrate that you do respect peoples’ rights to think, believe, and speak as they wish without governmental discrimination.
But unfortunately, you’re not smart. You’re an irrational, hateful bigot who is using the Obama Party and the government to carry out your revenge and envy fantasies against others.
posted by Houndentenor on
That hasn’t actually happened. Some politicians mouthed off. No actual business has been denied a permit and I’ll be surprised if that happens. And plenty of Democrats and gay people have already said that they don’t think it’s legal to deny a business permit (or whatever they need in a specific place) to Chick-Fil-A. They have a right to believe what they want and do whatever they want with the profits. People can decide for themselves which businesses to patronize based on any criteria they choose. And finally, most of those politicians have already walked back their comments. They were stupid comments and they were right to take them back. People in public life should think more before they speak.
posted by Doug on
And I wonder how many LGBT folks will still vote Republican.
posted by Houndentenor on
The same ones who always do. No amount of gay-bashing will make them vote against the GOP.
posted by Jimmy on
If you can hold your morning coffee down after doing so, take a glance at Gay Patriot. I don’t know how many will still vote GOP, but they sound like the ones that do: aggrieved, petty, and paranoid.
posted by DCBuck on
You might just be surprised. I didn’t vote for either Obama or McCain in the last election, as I grew tired of choosing the lesser of two bad candidates, and instead voted my conscience with a third-party candidate. I am not a single-issue voter focused on gay rights. If I was, Obama would have my vote, hands-down, for while he’s not perfect, he is light years better than Romney. Neither are many gay voters. But, as our nation continues to flounder in this lousy economy, all Obama offers is the same, failed economic ideas, more socialism, and a disastrous health care plan “cure” that’s far worse than the “disease.” Romney has the political and business experience that Obama sorely lacks, even after one term as President. And right now, I am more concerned about preventing our country from going down the economic drain than I am in gay marriage. I can only hope that Romney, if elected, will revert back to his Massachusetts days when it comes to gay rights.
posted by Mark F. on
How many gay Democrats were falling over themselves to re-elect Clinton after he signed DOMA and DADT? Pot meet kettle.
posted by John D on
I remember in 1996 that Tony Kushner (a reasonably left-wing gay man) wrote an essay for The Advocate in which he said he’d be voting for Clinton, even though he would have to hold his nose to do so. His opponent in that race was Bob Dole, who received and returned a $1,000 donation from the Log Cabin Republicans.
Or as Kate (no relation to the President) Clinton put it in another Advocate piece, “people ask me if I’m disappointed in the President. That’s like asking me if I’m disappointed in patriarchy.”
Personally, I wasn’t falling over myself to vote for Clinton. I did think that Bob Dole bad for Americans in general and especially bad for LGBT Americans. Yeah, I voted for Clinton, but not with any enthusiasm or pride.
posted by Houndentenor on
As bad as Clinton was on gay issues (DADT and DOMA) he was lightyears ahead of every president before him. He appointed openly gay people to his administration which no president had done before. He also pledged to sign ENDA. He wasn’t perfect. But he wasn’t a zero either. I’m still angry about DADT and DOMA and it’s the main reason I refused to support his wife for president since that pair had already proven they would throw us under the bus if necessary. But again, he was by far the best president for gay people we’d ever had. It sucks that someone could be better and still that crappy. That’s where gay rights were in the 90s. He was far better than Bob Done would have been. We have the same choice this year except Obama has been even better on gay issues than Clinton would ever have dared. This is what progress looks like. It’s messy and frustrating but eventually you get further along. And none of that progress could have been made with a Republican in the Oval Office.
posted by JohnInCA on
I’ll admit, back when I was a pre-teen I wasn’t too keen on politics. But my understanding was that, even then, it was still better to support the guy that was a mere 50% for you rather then the guy that was 100% against you.
posted by Doug on
As I recall DADT was forced on Clinton by the GOP. His original proposed position was to allow gays into the armed forces.
posted by Jorge on
I was too young to vote for Clinton, but I have always considered DADT to be an honest compromise policy.
Very few things are sweeter than to see the totality with which the military has embraced the repeal, distressing as it is for many of them, and the emergence of real people into semi-public social life. But I will save a small footnote for Clinton, who made it possible for gays to serve.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
The draft language in the DNC platform is:
I’m heartened that the platform draft uses the phrase “We support marriage equality …”, which echoes precisely the language used in the DPW platform. The language proposed by Freedom to Marry (language used, in a number of variations) in other state Democratic platforms, is not as clear, both linguistically and legally.