A Platform Trapped in the Past

by Stephen Henry Miller on August 23, 2012

From the Log Cabin Republicans, on the GOP platform:

[Family Research Council head] Tony Perkins may be boasting today about having written an antigay marriage plank into the Republican Party platform, but it will be a hollow and short-lived victory,” said Log Cabin Republicans Executive Director R. Clarke Cooper. “The obsessive exclusion of gay couples, including military families, from the rights and responsibilities of marriage, combined with bizarre rhetoric about ‘hate campaigns’ and ‘the homosexual rights agenda’ are clear signs of desperation among social conservatives who know that public opinion is rapidly turning in favor of equality.

Unfortunately, what voters can’t see in this document is the significant debate within the Committee. We were pleased to see vigorous debate on amendments in support of civil unions and to delete language regarding DOMA. While these measures failed, the future direction of our party clearly trends toward inclusion. This may well be the last time a platform will cater to the likes of the Family Research Council on marriage, and the fact is, platforms rarely influence policy. Tony will never see his discrimination written into the United States Constitution.”

Let’s hope so.

8 Comments for “A Platform Trapped in the Past”

posted by esurience on August 23, 2012

Not the past. Actually the present and foreseeable future of the GOP.
posted by Tom Scharbach on August 23, 2012

… the fact is, platforms rarely influence policy …

Maybe so, but can you find a single plank of the platform that Romney-Ryan aren’t on board with?

Marriage and the Judiciary
A serious threat to our country’s constitutional order, perhaps even more dangerous than presidential malfeasance, is an activist judiciary, in which some judges usurp the powers reserved to other branches of government. A blatant example has been the court-ordered redefinition of marriage in several States. This is more than a matter of warring legal concepts and ideals. It is an assault on the foundations of our society, challenging the institution which, for thousands of years in virtually every civilization, has been entrusted with the rearing of children and the transmission of cultural values.

Defense of Marriage
That is why congressional Republicans took the lead in enacting the Defense of Marriage Act, affirming the right of States and the federal government not to recognize same-sex relationships licensed in other jurisdictions. An activist judiciary usurps the powers reserved to other branches of government and endangers the foundation of our country. We oppose the Administration’s open defiance of this constitutional principle — in its handling of immigration cases, in federal personnel benefits, in allowing a same-sex marriage at a military base, and in refusing to defend DOMA in the courts — makes a mockery of the President’s inaugural oath. We commend the United States House of Representatives and those State Attorneys General who have defended these laws when they have been attacked in the courts. We reaffirm our support for a constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman. We applaud the citizens of the majority of States which have enshrined in their constitutions the traditional concept of marriage, and we support the campaigns underway in several other states to do so.

Marriage
The institution of marriage is the foundation of civil society. Its success as an institution will determine our success as a nation. It has been proven by both experience and endless social science studies that marriage is best for children. Children raised in intact married families are more likely to attend college, are physically and emotionally healthier, are less likely to use drugs or alcohol, are less likely to engage in crime, and are less likely to get pregnant outside of marriage. The success of marriage directly impacts the economic wellbeing of individuals. Furthermore, the future of marriage affects freedom. The lack of family formation not only leads to more government costs, but also more government control over the lives of its citizens in all facets. We recognize and honor the courageous efforts of those who bear the many burdens of parenting alone, even as we believe that marriage, the union of one man and one woman must be upheld as the national standard, a goal to stand for, encourage, and promote through laws governing marriage. We embrace the principle that all Americans should be treated with respect and dignity.
- posted by Jorge on August 24, 2012
  
  We recognize and honor the courageous efforts of those who bear the many burdens of parenting alone
  
  There is only one way to interpret this line: as a mortal insult that reflects hypocritical political pandering.
  
  Why should we “recognize” and “honor” the “courage” of the very people whose moral weaknesses have contributed the most to the undermining of our civil society? Keep your pants on, put on a rubber, go to marriage counseling, put the toilet seat down yourself, stop looking at other women, stop apologizing for people who don’t really lve you, take some responsibility! And yet we are trying to blockade and ignore the efforts of those who, without any strong traditional suppport, are acting to reinforce civil society.
  
  This has far less to do with activist judges and much to do with whether or not we are holding people accountable for the results (fair or unfair, good or bad) of their choices. And these disparate actions are motivated by no principle more noble than naked political self-interest.
posted by esurience on August 23, 2012

To understand why it’s the foreseeable future of the GOP, take a look at one of their other positions: abortion.

The GOP opposes abortion in all cases, even when rape or incest is involved. This is a position supported by only 15% of the US population, and yet, it’s part of the GOP platform (and what they’ve actually been doing in state legislatures, and their own VP candidate co-sponsored a bill to ban abortion, even in cases of rape or incest, federally).

So yes, support for marriage equality is gaining. We’ve evenish to a slight-majority population-wide (depending on the poll), and have strong support among young people.

But if you think that’s enough to change the GOP’s position in the foreseeable future, you don’t know jack squat about how dogmatic and stubborn these malevolent beasts really are.

We might have to get the population to support marriage equality by something like 90% before the GOP actually drops language like this from their platform. And that won’t be happening for 100 years…
posted by Houndentenor on August 23, 2012

If wishes were horses….

In what possible scenario do you envision the religious right giving up the power they worked so hard to gain inside the GOP?
posted by JohnInCA on August 23, 2012

As always, I wish the LCR (and even GOProud) luck with their task of changing the Republicans, but they’ve been saying, as long as I’ve been listening, that the party is “getting better”.

And as long as I’ve been listening, the party, by it’s actions, has been getting worse.

So I’ll believe it when the pretty words turn into real action.
posted by Doug on August 24, 2012

LRC is right that Ryan strengthens the GOP ticket : More anti gay than ever.
posted by Tom Scharbach on August 24, 2012

Unfortunately, what voters can’t see in this document is the significant debate within the Committee. We were pleased to see vigorous debate on amendments in support of civil unions and to delete language regarding DOMA.

I guess we’ll have to take Clarke Cooke’s word for it, but other news reports suggest that the “debate” consisted of introduction of (1) a proposal that the government should get out of marriage and endorse civil unions for both straights and gays, and (2) language to the effect that the party should reject DOMA on the grounds that marriage is a state issue, followed immediately on by voice votes overwhelmingly rejecting the proposals.

The marriage proposal was libertarian-based (get the government out of marriage) and the DOMA proposal was states-rights-based (leave marriage to the states). It doesn’t sound like there was much in the way of debate about LGBT issues at all.

I don’t blame Clarke Cooke for trying to put a positive spin on the platform debate (after all, LCR’s remaining role in the 2012 Republican drama is to find a justification to endorse Romney-Ryan on September 20) but I think that Houndentenor’s characterization (“… if wishes were horses …“) is an accurate summary of Cooke’s comments.