This first-person column from Minnesota makes as good a case as any about the profound change in attitude toward gay people by a majority of heterosexuals over the past two decades.
With Rhode Island, Delaware, and very soon Minnesota joining the states that recognize gay marriage— all since the Supreme Court heard arguments to scrap enshrined federal discrimination under the Clinton-era Defense of Marriage Act—what’s amazing is how little controversy is being generated. And yet the GOP remains supplicant to an ever-smaller and increasingly disdained minority of bigots. That can’t last, and it won’t.
Until even just a few years ago, you could say these people were just ignorant, or were understandably cautious about major societal change. But that argument no longer holds water (sorry, Mona Charen). Gay marriage provides legal equality and promotes stability and mutual care, as gay families take their place in society. Nowhere does it have the fearsome repercussions that conservatives feared. Instead, it has undercut the radical sexual liberationists who did want the gay movement to be a front in the struggle against bourgeois normality.
That gay people for the most part remain, politically, chained at the hip to the left-liberal party of bigger government and regulatory strangulation is to a great extent the result of the conservative party’s intransigence. But just as few expected the Soviet Union to come tumbling down so quickly, I think the GOP could soon undergo a sea change that isn’t apparent right now but might be just around an historic corner.
31 Comments for “Changing Times”
posted by Tom Scharbach on
I think the GOP could soon undergo a sea change that isn’t apparent right now but could be just around an historic corner.
We’ll see, I guess. I’m less sanguine.
I agree that the GOP can’t stay on its current path, and I think that the 2012 Republican Platform, proudly authored by Tony Perkins and confirmed by the convention, was the high water mark of influence for the anti-marriage forces in this country.
I can’t say I feel sorry for Republicans, should they now have to pay a political price for their actions. Republicans made the choice to get in bed with the hard-core Christian conservatives in the 1980’s and 1990’s, built their 2004-2010 strategy around leveraging anti-gay bias to achieve short-term political gain, and reaped the benefits of that strategy. It was a Faustian bargain, pure and simple, and nobody in the Republican Party tried to stop the bargain from being made. Republicans sold out. So if Republicans now pay a price, the price is repayment for ill-gotten gains.
But there is more to be said. Even if the house of cards comes tumbling down within the Republican Party, it will take a decade to undo the harm that Republicans did to gays and lesbians and to the country.
After Minnesota, Illinois, New Jersey and California are won — which I expect to happen this year — anti-marriage amendments stand in the way of equality in all but four (Indiana, New Mexico, Pennsylvania and Wyoming) of the remaining states. The task of repealing those amendments will not be quick or easy.
In Wisconsin, for example, the Republican Party is likely to control both the Senate and the Assembly through the 2020 redistricting. It will take an affirmative vote of both houses in two consecutive legislative sessions to put repeal of our ant-marriage amendment to the people. If the Wisconsin Republican Party changed it’s stripes this year(which no one expects), and a majority of Republican legislators voted to put the question before the people (which no one expects), the question could not come before the people until 2016. Realistically, we don’t expect to get a vote of the people until 2020-2024.
I don’t think, to be blunt, that you have any idea how hard it is going to be to turn the Republican Party. A significant number of Republican state legislators — a majority in many states — are themselves hard-core social conservatives. To turn the party, you are going to have to replace them, state by state, election by election. Most of the hard core social conservatives are entrenched in “safe” districts, with the advantages of incumbency. How many election cycles do you think that is going to take for Republicans to toss them? It won’t happen overnight, and that’s for sure.
Frankly, while I welcome a change in the Republican Party, my view is that it is almost irrelevant at this point. We will pick up a few more states over the next five years (Colorado, the Dakotas, Montana, New Mexico, Nevada, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Oregon, and Wyoming, and maybe Indiana, Michigan and Ohio) but the rest of the anti-marriage amendments will be wiped out, if they are wiped out any time soon, by SCOTUS.
posted by Kosh III on
Well said.
posted by Jorge on
I can’t tell which of you is right…
posted by Mark on
If anything, I think Tom is far too optimistic.
The PA gerrymander was even more ruthless than the WI one; Republicans will control both houses of the PA legislature through 2020, and the state doesn’t have an initiative process. It’s inconceivable that the Republican leadership of the PA legislature will allow a gay marriage bill to come to a vote. In NM, the state’s strongly anti-gay Republican governor looks like a shoo-in for re-election, meaning that a certain veto will be in place until at least 2018. And even Nevada is a potential problem: like WI, to amend its constitution requires two straight legislative sessions and then a referendum. Dems control the state Senate 11-10; if they lose just one seat in the pending midterm election, the amendment won’t be voted on in 2015, which will start the clock over again–meaning the referendum won’t be able to get to the people until 2020 at the earliest.
Colorado and Oregon look like near-certainties, but after MN and IL I fear only Hawaii looks doable in the near future. Even MN, which was “bipartisan” because four of the 61 Republicans voted for marriage (as opposed to 71 of 73 Democrats), is in many ways a discouraging example for bipartisanship. More than 20 House Republicans came from districts where a majority voted against the anti-gay marriage amendment in 2012–yet only 3 of these Republicans voted for gay marriage last week. So much for the mantra of following the wishes of constituents.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
If anything, I think Tom is far too optimistic.
Reading over what I said, and thinking about it in light of what you said, you are probably right.
I looked back at a projection I made in 2009, based on Nate Silver’s analysis, and, unless something unexpected breaks loose, I should have said “We will pick up a few more states over the next ten years …” rather than five.
I am surprised by the speed at which Americans are coming to accept marriage equality, but the structural problem of undoing the anti-marriage amendments, state-by-state, are daunting.
The amendments were put in place as quickly as they were (it took about 8 years) because there was a confluence of (a) anti-gay bias and/or fear among voters, (b) a powerful political party committed to using the issue as a wedge for short-term political gain, and (c) a determined and skilled religious apparatus that brought out the anti-gay vote in high percentages. We’re changing (a), but we don’t have (b) and (c). The Democratic Party (if Wisconsin’s party is typical) has no stomach for a committed wedge effort against Republicans, and pro-equality Christians are largely silent, or so muted as to be ineffective as political organizers. So it is going to take more time to undo the amendments than it took to put them in place.
I think that my usually objective political head got turned somewhat by the speed with which we’ve made progress in the last year, and, reconsidering, I think that my 2009 projections were closer to reality.
I think that we should keep up a full-court press nationally, but focus primarily on (1) the courts, and (2) states within the Silver projection that have a ballot initiative process. If we can bring enough states along over the next 5-10 years to make the legal situation untenable nationally, SCOTUS will step in with a Loving-type decision.
posted by Houndentenor on
I live in deep red territory these days and not only do I not see any change in Republicans on gay issues I see them moving further to the right and becoming louder and angry than ever about these issues. Once again I suspect that Stephen is talking to a very different faction of the GOP than I am here in Texas.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
… and not only do I not see any change in Republicans on gay issues I see them moving further to the right and becoming louder and angry than ever about these issues …
I’ve noticed that in Wisconsin recently, too, although the step-up in ugly rhetoric seems to be mostly confined to the convicted (to use an Evangelical term, just for fun) religious social conservatives. The Priebus-Huckabee glasnost hasn’t made it into Wisconsin’s Republican Party, at any rate, if the speeches at the state convention a couple weeks ago are any indication.
Once again I suspect that Stephen is talking to a very different faction of the GOP than I am here in Texas.
Who knows from where Stephen is getting the “there’s a rainbow right over the next hill” happy talk. He might be right, but I don’t see it either.
It isn’t impossible, though. Just as the prospects of being hanged focus the mind, so may the prospects of becoming a regional party.
posted by Houndentenor on
I don’t know where Stephen lives. He seems to be hearing from what I call country club Republicans. Folks who want lower taxes and less regulations. They never much cared for that Jerry Falwell crowd except as “useful idiots”. If you live in a big city, these are likely the kind of Republicans you will meet. I don’t think they represent the base of the party any more, but then I’m surrounded by Republicans who think “Darwinism” is a religion that is sent by Satan to mislead people for the literal truth of the Bible. I wish I made this crap up. That’s the GOP where I am. Maybe they will shrink in influence inside the party. I don’t see it, but I could be wrong. I hope I am.
posted by Kosh III on
This is Tennessee.
It has been more nasty and evil because they know they time is running out. But much damage can be done before we can get rid of these vicious sobs.
Stephen clearly has no clue what it’s like outside of of the Beltway and his bubble.
I hope the SCOTUS strikes it all down but with Scalia/Thomas/Alito and other bigots I am not holding my breath.
posted by Lori Heine on
The GOP of the 21st Century is all about a victim mentality and identity politics. It is a grotesque caricature of every sin of which it’s ever accused its opponents. Those running their party are sick, sick people.
Are they ever going to change? I’m no longer sure I care. If they don’t, the libertarians will dismantle the GOP. I don’t hold those Republicans who would deal with bigots in high enough regard to care whether they see the light.
Get it or don’t get it, GOP. Wise up or die. It’s their choice, not anyone else’s.
posted by Jim Michaud on
What I find pretty galling about the GOP right now is their recent adoption of the victim card. It sounded pathetic coming from the left and doubly stupid coming from the right. Boo hoo, wah, wah, (sob) I’m a viiictimm -WAAAAH!!! All I can hope for is the GOP to lose one, maybe two more Presidential elections. Then they’ll see that they really are becoming a regional party and their survival instincts will kick in. It won’t matter squat what the soc cons think. When what’s-his-name threatened to bolt from the party if it included gays, I’ll bet more than a few party stalwarts were muttering under their breath: don’t let the door hit you in the ass, pal.
posted by Houndentenor on
I watched several hours of fox today at relatives’ houses (ugh) and I saw the preview of the GOP’s game plan for the next three years: All Benghazi all the time. It’s not going to work and they aren’t going to understand why. That and the occasional “boo hoo we aren’t allowed to discriminate against gays any more which means we’re being VICTIMIZED for being CHRISTIANS waaaaaaaah.”
posted by Houndentenor on
Excuse me if this turns out to be a hoax, but I just read that Michelle Bachmann has said that if gay marriage passes in Minnesota she is leaving the state. Thanks, Michelle. It’s sure to pass now because I feel confident that a supermajority of Minnesotans would love for you to move and then be from somewhere else.
posted by Mark on
The Minnesota senate just approved marriage equality. Despite a process in which advocates bent over backwards to accommodate Republican demands, and despite the districts of several GOP senators voting against the marriage amendment in 2012, a grand total of one Republican senator voted in favor of the bill. (The Dem caucus voted 36-3 yes.)
But I’m sure Stephen will tell us this 1-27 vote was somehow the Democrats’ fault.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
I watched the entire proceeding, start to finish.
Republicans offered two amendments.
The first was an attempt to effectively remove marriage from the state’s human rights law, so that any corporation or entity, or any person, in the state, including a government official, could refuse to participate in or recognize any marriage — interracial, inter-faith, remarriage after divorce, same-sex, whatever — on religious conscience grounds. The amendment failed.
The second was an attempt to remove the word “civil marriage” and change it back to “marriage”, on the grounds that recognizing that marriage was a matter of civil law rather than a status conferred by God and God alone, changed the definition of marriage in Minnesota. The amendment failed.
I then listened to hours of gnashing of teeth about the State of Minnesota was turning its back on religious freedom, about the untold and unknown horrors that marriage equality would open up in Minnesota, about the civil war that would erupt if the law passed, and a lot about “grandchildren” who would grow up in an empty, moral wasteland.
It was good theater, I guess, but it was beyond weird, a cross between Lake Woebegon Days and a 1-star horror flick about the giant mushroom that ate New Jersey.
The Republican who voted for marriage equality was, in contrast, coherent, laying out the Libertarian case for marriage equality. He noted, by the way, that he expected to lose his seat in the next election.
The vote illustrates the problem of “turning” the Republican Party. The Republican Senators who spoke to the bill were clearly strong, personally committed, social conservatives. Many choked up with emotion during their speeches. Stephen’s visions of “the rainbow over the next hill” isn’t going to changes these folks. Republicans will have to beat them in the primaries.
Anyway, it passed. On to Illinois.
posted by Mark on
Indeed.
My favorite was Sen. Nelson (from a district that opposed the anti-gay marriage amendment) who said she couldn’t vote for the bill because it didn’t allow adoption agencies that received taxpayer dollars to discriminate against married gays and lesbians.
That and the other Rochester senator who said the gay couple down the street kept a good lawn, and were great neighbors, and he hoped for an invitation to their wedding–before he decided to vote against the bill.
posted by Houndentenor on
I have friends who lived in the Virginia DC suburbs during the Virginia marriage amendment campaign. Neighbors who had been to their home for any number of parties and had always been friendly neighbors put up anti-marriage signs in their yard. Not only did that amendment ban marriage, but it banned all relationship recognition for gay characters. The neighbors couldn’t understand why this bothered them. Needless to say they moved soon after.
posted by Houndentenor on
Yes, it’s obviously a plot on the part of Democrats to force the Republicans to pose as anti-gay bigots. It’s not that they want to. It’s just that Democrats are so all-powerful that they can’t help themselves.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Stephen’s paranoia about Democrats aside, Houndentenor, all the legislative gains we have made to date have come through the efforts of gays and lesbians — coming out to family, friends neighbors and co-workers, making the case for equality, and working with voters, employers, legislators and public officials.
As the article Stephen cited noted:
The effort took root in the Democratic Party. It did not take root in the Republican Party. The reason for that is simple enough — “left/liberal” gays and lesbians aligned with the Democratic Party went to work in their party of choice and made it happen, while conservative gays joined into the Faustian bargain with social conservatives.
It did not have to happen that way.
In the dark days when Anita Bryant roamed the earth, Ronald Reagan, as a former Governor of California and presidential hopeful, played a critical role in fighting off the Briggs Initiative. Jerry Ford and Jimmy Carter joined hands to fight the initiative. LCR was formed to serve as a focal point for Republican opposition. The Briggs Initiative was killed, in the end, by a coalition of the fair-minded, a diverse coalition of “left/liberals” and conservatives.
The Republican Party could have moved forward toward equality from that point, little by slowly, along a parallel path with the Democratic Party. It didn’t, because party leaders invited the hard-core social conservatives into the Republican coalition, and over the course of a decade, the social conservatives took over the party.
Even with the social conservatives on the inside, however, the result — what we see today in the Republican Party — wasn’t inevitable. Pat Buchanan’s “Culture Wars” 1992 convention speech was a howl of frustration at the Republican establishment, embodied by President George H.W. Bush. A coalition of the fair-minded could have formed in the Republican Party to fight off the excesses of the social conservative movement, but it didn’t happen.
What happened was just the opposite. Conservative gays and lesbians — Ken Mehlman, who implemented the Bush/Rove wedge strategy is typical — traded principle for power, and the voices of the fair-minded (LCR, moderate Republicans and so on) were crushed and marginalized as the Republican Party leadership ruthlessly used gays and lesbians as cannon fodder for political gain.
What we have now is a Republican Party that is dominated by social conservative true-believers, and those social conservatives control the Republican primary process. The reason that Brandon Petersen, the sole voice of Republican reason in yesterday’s Senate debate, noted during his remarks that he is likely to lose his seat in the next election cycle is because its true. Petersen represents a district that voted for the anti-marriage amendment, and the social conservatives are going to take him down.
Petersen put principle before power. As Mark pointed out, he stands in marked contrast to his Republican counterparts from districts that voted against the anti-marriage amendment.
If Republicans are going to throw off the social conservative yoke, it will take a lot more than Beltway wishful thinking. It will take hard work and courage.
posted by Don on
thanks. I knew most all of that. but i’d forgotten. and I wasn’t even around for it. born in 1970.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Nowhere does it have the fearsome repercussions that conservatives feared. Instead, it has undercut the radical sexual liberationists who did want the gay movement to be a front in the struggle against bourgeois normality.
As an aside from someone old enough to have a perspective on the fight for equality, I want to note that the “radical sexual liberationists”, as loud and as clamorous as they might have been, never represented the majority of gays and lesbians, any more than their straight counterparts spoke for the majority of straights.
It was what John Rechy called the “quiet ones” — the ordinary queer folk living ordinary lives — who formed the majority, and it is the “quiet ones” who won over the American people in the end.
By noting this, I do not denigrate the important role played by the loud and clamorous, particularly in the early days of the struggle.
The “quiet ones” was a phrase coined by Rechy to reflect the frustration of “radical sexual liberationists” at a time when gays and lesbians were trying to keep the cops from bashing our heads in gay bars. Rechy’s character asked, pointedly and correctly, “Where are the quiet ones? When will they join the fight?” much as those of us on the “left/liberal” side of the political spectrum have been asking for the last decade, “Where are the conservative gays and lesbians? When will they join the fight?”
We need to remember our own history. Stonewall should not be sanitized. It was a street fight led by a bunch of pissed-off drag queens. Harvey Milk was a “radical sexual liberationist”. We would not be where we are if the “radical sexual liberationists” Stephen is still fighting against hadn’t started the brawl and led the fight in the early days.
posted by kosh iii on
“Many choked up with emotion during their speeches.”
BS. This variety of religionists(I refuse to call them genuine Christians) can tear up at the drop of a hat. Anyone ever see Jimmy Swaggart do it? Or Jim and Tammy Fay Bakker? Or just walk into a fundamentalist/evangelical church and see it any Sunday. “I missed the traffic light–boohooo booohoo.”
posted by Tom Scharbach on
The most recent Gallup poll on marriage equality suggests that the Republican Party’s structural problem continues unabated.
Among Democrats, support for marriage equality moved from 33% in 1996 to 56% in 2010, and now stands at 69%. Among Independents, a similar pattern is evident — 32%, 49% and 59% respectively. In contrast, earlier gains in support among Republicans has flattened out — support jumped from16% in 1996 to 28% in 2010, but now stands at 26%.
The Republican stagnation may reflect a refusal of pro-equality conservatives to self-identify as Republicans as much as anything, but it does suggest that the Republican primary process will continue to be dominated by social conservative voters for the next few election cycles.
To me, this doesn’t suggest that a “sea change” is imminent. But perhaps it is just the darkness before dawn, as Stephen suggests.
Another interesting poll result is that despite the trend toward marriage equality, most Americans don’t think that it is happening. That’s fascinating.
posted by Don on
Forgive me, Stephen, if I attribute beliefs to you that you do not hold, but I think this sea change he refers to is the relentless pummeling so cons are taking right now. It is literally 2004 in reverse. It is constant, it is brutal, and they look horrible. They have their own party members saying “this is wrong” and “i’m taking a conscience vote even if it ends my political career”
I did not foresee this many legislatures taking up the issue this year? did anyone else? I pay attention didn’t see these bills popping up everywhere until they did.
Despite the opposition remaining, the fringe country club republicans are standing up and saying no and putting more and more of the party on notice that they think this is morally wrong to do to gay people.
I think this is the rainbow over the hill he’s talking about. Not a voluntary thing, mind you. But just the relentless pummeling to the point that it will soon lose its fundraising edge. Heck, even the Mormons have gotten out of the game.
Maybe we should start a pool to guess who will be the last pol standing at the Capitol steps shouting “segregation today, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever!” (no money of course)
posted by Jim Michaud on
Yes, it DOES seem like 2004 in reverse. Boy, does it feel good. One reason that I think this is panning out this way is that opponents haven’t changed their strategy. I mean they’re STILL using the old “society will fall into chaos” routine. Massachusetts has had marriage equality for 9 years (as of this Friday) now. Where’s the disruptions? During their down time, they obviously haven’t thought up new arguments, honed their courtroom skills or in any way tried to persuade people to their side. No wonder the Mormons bailed. No backup strategy was pondered in case our side would start seizing the day. For once, I’m grateful for their short sightedness and stupidity. Eventually, their only audience will be Southerners (mostly), church goers of the fundy kind and other assorted folks with less than a high school education and more fingers than teeth.
posted by Houndentenor on
I don’t know of ANYONE who thought public attitudes would or even could change this quickly. As I see one state legislature after another approve full marriage equality I’m more stunned than pleased. I’m definitely happy but I’m so surprised. Imagine how stunned the religious right is. Just 9 years ago gay marriage was a can’t lose fundraising and get-out-the-vote proposition for the GOP. Now it seems to be a loser for them. *snicker* Pardon me my moment of Schadenfreude. I’ve been waiting a LONG time for this.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Despite the opposition remaining, the fringe country club republicans are standing up and saying no and putting more and more of the party on notice that they think this is morally wrong to do to gay people.
I hope so. I’m not seeing evidence of that in our county Republican Party or in the three surrounding counties, either. But I hope so.
For me the question will be answered in the 2014 Republican primaries? Will Senator Glenn Grothman or Representative Joel Kleefisch, among the most vocally anti-gay in Wisconsin, face a challenge? Or Kleefisch’s wife, our Lieutenant Governor, who makes Michele Bachmann look like a moderate? She’s so bad that Democrats organize prayer breakfasts to pray for Governor Walker’s health and well being.
I hope that the rainbow over the hill materializes. But I suspect that the country club Republicans who are saying “enough is enough” will do what they have always done, and hold their noses and give them a pass to keep the seats safe.
posted by kosh iii on
I’m with you Tom. It sure isn’t happening here in Tennessee. Our two “moderate” Senators are still quite happy to keep us as “special” inferior second-class citizens. Not a peep of protest from them or other alleged “moderate” Republicans while our Tea Party Fascists in the Legislature pushed vicious, nasty bills in the past few years.
posted by bryan on
i’m not holding my breath, and there’s no way i could even vote for a republican knowing what’s in their platform. i would vote for christie, as i think he’s doing a great job, but i can’t vote for him because he treats me and my family as second class citizens.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Chris Christie is is, if not the sole remaining impediment to marriage equality in New Jersey, certainly the largest single reason why New Jersey might not move to marriage equality this year. He’s a toad.
posted by TomJeffersonIII on
I was born/raised in rural, West Central Minnesota where the Republican Party was pushing for the Constitutional ban and the DFL was opposing it. This is important because this is a very, very, very, populist-socially conservative part of the State.
I really cannot see the GOP in this part of the State ‘evolving’ anytime soon. They are already gearing up to make ‘gay marriage’ a wedge issue in the next campaign.
Yes, the DFL is this part of the State often prefers to ignore the issue of gay rights, but they have made progress.
DFL Candidates opposed the anti-gay ballot measure and their really seemed to be a growing sense that ‘equal ought mean equal’ among the rural Democrats in my area. Its not perfect, but better its better then the only viable alternative.
The GOP leadership is very anti-gay in West-Central Minnesota, for them it is either motivated by sincere religious convictions or, a way to get working class and lower middle class populist-farmer-labor folk to vote for the GOP.