A new lobbying effort to move the GOP to the middle on gay rights. Good luck. However, many gay libertarians don’t think the Employee Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) should be a litmus test, but rather equality under the law. And beware those unintended consequences (such as passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act being correlated with a lower percentage of handicapped Americans being hired).
Another sign of the times: Evangelical Leader Preaches Pullback From Politics, Culture Wars. No change in the Southern Baptists’ opposition to marriage equality but plans to soft-pedal it a bit, as we’ve seen from the Mormons and from Pope Francis.
More. Long-time readers know that I am, and remain, equivocal about ENDA. Yes, other minorities subject to various degrees of employment discrimination are protected by federal statute, and thus so should gays, is an understandable argument. Also, it would send a strong message that the federal government views anti-gay discrimination in the workplace as unacceptable. I get that. On the other hand, we’ve seen over the past decades a huge rise in frivolous lawsuits charging minority or gender-based discrimination with little or no reasonable evidence, which are nonetheless typically settled by employers because of the cost of litigation and “you never know what a jury might rule.”
In the case of those with disabilities (who, like gay and transgender employees would be under ENDA, are not subject to hiring and promotion preferences based on statistical analysis), the risk of opening the door to an employee’s discrimination suit is correlated with a drop in hiring, the opposite of the anticipated result. Also, there is scant evidence that discrimination against gays in the workplace is widespread.
I’d welcome an executive order or law saying government contractors must not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. And I wouldn’t lobby against ENDA; but I don’t see it as the priority activists have made it, either.
30 Comments for “Try, Try Again”
posted by Houndentenor on
We’re hearing talk from Catholics and Mormons (the two groups most responsible for Prop 8) that they are going to scale back on their fight against gay rights. We’ll see if that really happens or if they were just saying that. Since several anti-gay groups won’t reveal their funding sources we don’t really know if they’ve really backed down or just saying what they think the public wants to hear.
posted by Rick Sincere on
As a gay libertarian, I agree that emphasis on ENDA as a policy matter is wrong-headed. If, however, it gets conservatives and Republicans to start thinking seriously about gay equality — including the freedom to marry — then it may serve a pragmatically useful purpose.
posted by Jorge on
Armed with new polling data and talking points, organizers are coaching lawmakers and potential candidates on politically smart ways to talk about gay rights to reassure general-election voters while not alienating core conservatives.
That sounds a little squishy, even to me. Best if whatever rationale they gave sounded suspiciously like cookie-cutter Republican talking points.
One poll-tested sound bite being suggested to candidates references the Golden Rule — to “treat others as we’d like to be treated, including gay, lesbian and transgender Americans.” The line, according to a memo from a GOP polling firm hired to guide the campaign, wins support from 89 percent of Republican voters.
So be it. This is ENDA, after all. I hardly think either the argument or ENDA are invulnerable, especially combined. But does the electorate care?
Troy Stevenson, executive director of Garden State Equality, said his group has a closer relationship with Christie than it had with his Democratic predecessors. Like other activists, he sees the governor’s stance on marriage as an anomaly most likely attributable to calculations around his presidential ambitions.
“I honestly don’t see what is holding him back” from supporting same-sex marriage, Stevenson said, “except for potentially politics.”
Really? If you say so.
We’re hearing talk from Catholics and Mormons (the two groups most responsible for Prop 8) that they are going to scale back on their fight against gay rights
Going to? The Mormons reversed course outright on the Boy Scouts. As for the Catholic Church the only gay rights issue they’ve ever taken any significant stand on is marriage, and what I’ve heard on that suggests that the Church might indeed “scale back” its opposition, but it ain’t gonna change its position one inch. And I think it’s a little more likely it won’t scale back its opposition to gay marriage and will simply change its (silent) tune on other gay rights matters.
I was thinking of the Catholic Church in this topic, too.
Look, ENDA is what’s out there, and ENDA is at the end of a long list of anti-discrimination legislation that’s as American as apple pie, whether Republicans like it or not. At a minimum, Republicans should embrace the principles of anti-discrimination with the same fervor as either Ron Paul, John Ashcroft, or George W. Bush (I’ll take Chris Christie).
posted by Houndentenor on
At least Stephen is admitting that moving the GOP to a more moderate position on gay rights is a Sisyphean task. Most Americans (around 80% in polls) already think it’s illegal to discriminate against gay people in hiring. This should be a no-brainer. If conservatives want to make the argument that employers should be able to discriminate however they want in hiring and firing decisions, they should make that argument to the American people and repeal the nondiscrimination legislation. If not, that argument is bullshit and just a cover for enabling anti-gay bigotry.
posted by Doug on
Catholics and Mormons are not changing their belief or acceptance just couching their opposition in softer words. Beating someone to death or tickling someone to death. The result is the same. . . you are dead. The end result of these 2 groups is to deny the LGBT community equal rights.
posted by Houndentenor on
It’s none of my concern what Catholics or Mormons or leaders of any other religion I don’t believe in think about anything. It does matter to me when they are funding anti-gay legislation and ballot initiatives. If they are truly backing down from those (and given the lack of transparency in the funding of the anti-gay groups, we don’t actually know if they have or not) I’m happy to accept a truce.
posted by Jorge on
Most Americans (around 80% in polls) already think it’s illegal to discriminate against gay people in hiring.
Well, to be fair, most Americans probably live in places where it is.
What? They don’t? Well it was worth a try.
posted by Houndentenor on
Maybe you are willing to do the math to figure out whether more Americans live in the 21 states where you can’t discriminate against gay people in hiring, or the 29 states where you can.
http://jobs.aol.com/articles/2013/04/26/fired-gay-29-states/
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Wonk that I am, here are the numbers: 132,935,000 (45%) Americans live in states with workplace protection for gays and lesbians, 160,429,000 (55%) do not.
I’m sure that I’m not the only one who noticed the correlation between “red” states and states with no workplace protection.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Oh, and before I put the spreadsheet away, let me wonk away on a coincidence I noticed.
The percentages are about the same for “equal means equal”. 45% of Americans live in states with some sort of relationship recognition — 34% in marriage equality states, 9% in marriage-equivalent civil union states, and 2% in states (e.g. Wisconsin) with some, but limited, forms of recognition. 55% of Americans live in states with no recognition of same-sex relationships.
If we are successful in moving Hawaii, Illinois and New Mexico over to the marriage equality column this fall, we’ll be at 40% “equal means equal” on New Year’s Day.
A study in contrasts, as always. As we in nationally, I’m reminded that in Wisconsin our state Supreme Court heard arguments yesterday in a case to decide whether or not Wisconsin’s very limited Domextic Partnership Act (medical and end-of-life decisions, inheritance rights) violates our anti-marriage amendment because the DPA creates a relationship “substantially similar” to marriage.
The case is a joke, legally, because nobody argues that there is substantive similarity. The supposed similarity is in the “procedural” similarity — that is, DPA’s are formed by registering with the County Clerk. In most states, the anti-marriage side of the argument (which includes our esteemed Governor) would be laughed out of court, as they were at the trial and appellate levels.
But our Supreme Court is notably unpredictable because it is elected and has been a political hot button of late. The decision will be interesting in part because two of the conservative justices are closeted, one more than the other.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
“Armed with new polling data and talking points, organizers are coaching lawmakers and potential candidates on politically smart ways to talk about gay rights to reassure general-election voters while not alienating core conservatives.”
“A softer GOP approach, they argue, would boost the party’s chances with young voters, women and centrist independents, all of whom tend to be supportive of gay rights and have drifted away from the party.””
“One poll-tested sound bite being suggested to candidates references the Golden Rule — to “treat others as we’d like to be treated, including gay, lesbian and transgender Americans.” The line, according to a memo from a GOP polling firm hired to guide the campaign, wins support from 89 percent of Republican voters.”
In other words, have it both ways — sound “empathetic” to “attract young voters, women and centrist independents , all of whom tend to be supportive of gay rights” while maintaining anti-equality positions to avoid “alienating core conservatives”.
When I read the article a couple days ago, I just laughed in wonderment at the proposed poll-tested use of the Golden Rule.
The Golden Rule, like “Love the Sinner, Hate the Sin” and a half dozen other platitudes, is always a popular sound byte, but it seems to get lost in application, in the particulars. And that has always been the problem.
The point of the Golden Rule is not “empathetic messaging”. The point of the Golden Rule is changed behavior, as in “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”
A quick look at the next few paragraphs of the article demonstrates why the Singer/Mehlman strategy won’t work:
“Some pro-gay-rights Republicans point hopefully to New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie as a case study of a GOP pol who seems to be looking for a politically viable approach. The governor, expected to easily win re-election next month, is close to Singer, though aides to both men declined to discuss their private conversations about the issue.”
“Christie won praise from social conservatives last year for vetoing a same-sex-marriage bill. But he also routinely voices sympathy for gays; in a debate last week, for instance, he said that if one of his children came out, he would “grab them and hug them and tell them I love them.””
Uh, huh. The second half of the Christie quote seems to have gone missing in the WaPo article. “Grab them and hug them and tell them I love them …” all right, but also point out “that Dad believes that marriage is between one man and one woman.”
The Christie quote was right out of the Singer/Mehlman playbook, and it demonstrates vividly how and why the “kinder, softer messaging” approach is going to fall apart.
Imagine Christie talking with one of his kids — say Andrew, who is 20, or Sarah, who is 17 — and saying what he said he would say. I imagine that conversations like that go on all over the country when a kid comes out to a social conservative parent. The parent sends the kid a dual “Love the Sinner, Hate the Sin” style message: “I love you but I’m not changing my views about what is right and wrong. God made the rules. I didn’t. I just enforce them.”
But then look what happens to that conversation over time, a year or two or three, into the conversation. Parents change their views, as Rob Portman did, and the message becomes a variant of the Golden Rule: “I love you and I want you to have what your straight brothers and sisters have, to be treated just like they are treated.”
It is in that change of heart from “Love the Sinner, Hate the Sin” to the Golden Rule — or, more accurately, in the proposed lack of that change of heart — that the “kinder, softer messaging” approach falls apart. Republican politicians cannot preach the Golden Rule and take a pass on living it out.
On the other hand, perhaps another set of platitudes — “Take the body, the mind will follow …” and “A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step …” — are at work in the Singer/Mehlman approach. IF Singer/Melman are successful, and the messaging turns “softer, kinder”, eventually the party might, one baby step at a time, change. And that would be a welcome development.
One thing is dead certain: The Republican Party has to change.
posted by Jorge on
Republican politicians cannot preach the Golden Rule and take a pass on living it out.
Alan Keyes tried it, if I am not mistaken, and his family turned out fine. This idea that you can’t take a politically conservative position on gay marriage if you have gay family is a relatively new phenomenon. I’m going to go out on a limb and suggest that it is mainly dependent on the reality that, more and more, people find they can’t take a religiously conservative position on gay marriage if they have gay family. There is a tremendous cognitive dissonance between Biblical and religious teaching on homosexuality and reality that is impossible to ignore. Only if you make gay marriage about something else do people seem to maintain their political position even after great education and forethought [it is my humble opinion that not all religions encourage this equally well], as Bush did with regard to judicial activism, as Ann Coulter has relating to a sex act I will not mention, and as compassionless conservatives do with kindergarten sex education. For in truth, when gay marriage stands on its own, nothing happens.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
So how does the political position that “The government should recognize my marriage but deny yours …” square with “Do unto others as you would have others do unto you …”?
If Republican politicians are going to start messaging the Golden Rule (“treat others as we’d like to be treated, including gay, lesbian and transgender Americans …”) then they better have a credible answer to that question. If not, then they’d be better off keeping their mouths shut on the issue.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Alan Keyes tried it, if I am not mistaken, and his family turned out fine.
Oh, sure. I’ll grant you that Maya turned out fine — she’s an LGBT activist — but the situation she found herself in after she came out is all too common among gay/lesbian kids of conservative Christians.
Keyes cut off financial support to Maya and kicked her out of the apartment he was paying for. She had to depend on others for a place to live and funds to continue her education. In an interview with the Advocate, Maya said this:
posted by Jorge on
So how does the political position that “The government should recognize my marriage but deny yours …” square with “Do unto others as you would have others do unto you …”?
“Pull yourself up by your own bootstraps.” Many other traditionalist talking points apply.
Oh, sure. I’ll grant you that Maya turned out fine — she’s an LGBT activist — but the situation she found herself in after she came out is all too common among gay/lesbian kids of conservative Christians.
Then you understand my point? People’s and politicians’ responses are being dictated by their religious or spiritual beliefs, not their politics.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Oh, I understand your point. But the fact that Alan Keyes’ outrageous public denunciations of gays and lesbians and his disgusting treatment of his daughter stems from his religious beliefs do not make his private behavior less disgusting or his public positions more palatable. All it means is that there is little or no hope that men like Alan Keyes, Ken Cuccinelli, E.W. Jackson or Ted Cruz will ever change.
posted by Doug on
“Pull yourself up by your own bootstraps.” How does that statement apply to anything if you are not legally allowed to marry?
If you really believe that Alan Keyes family ‘turned out fine’, based on the above interview, you have a seriously misguided view of family. Throwing your child out is definitely not a family value.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Then you understand my point? People’s and politicians’ responses are being dictated by their religious or spiritual beliefs, not their politics.
That’s my point, Jorge, in the case of Chris Christie. Christie defied public opinion on marriage equality in New Jersey because of his private, personal, religious beliefs, not because he is pandering.
I think that the political problem for the Republican Party right now is twofold, as I’ve mentioned in another comment. First, the party’s primary base is dominated by hard-core social conservatives, which makes it very hard for Republican social moderates to get onto the general election ballot. Second, because that has been the case for quite a while, the Republican “bench” consists almost entirely of committed social conservatives.
Some (Christie, for example) may be less rabid that others (Cruz, for example) but there isn’t a single, viable social moderate among the likely contenders for the 2016 nomination that believes in “equal means equal”. I hope things will be different in 2020, but I’m not holding my breath.
posted by Jorge on
“Pull yourself up by your own bootstraps.” How does that statement apply to anything if you are not legally allowed to marry?
That question is not relevant. Since the 2003 Lawrence v. Texas, gays in every state are legally allowed to marry. Thus the conservative objection to special treatment.
You may not agree with how some people frame the issue of gay marriage. So, too, may a tree make a sound if it falls in an uninhabited forest. Such abstract considerations do not give you license to claim hypocrisy when the only standards people fall short of belong to no one but yourself.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Since the 2003 Lawrence v. Texas, gays in every state are legally allowed to marry.
Huh?
posted by Don on
I could care less about ENDA. When I was younger, it was a bigger deal. But the culture has changed in many places. And has been pointed out – most people are afraid to fire gay people because they think it is illegal. I think as time goes on, people who fire people for being gay will eventually find themselves looking for jobs. All without a law in place. The culture is changing that rapidly. And it’s baked in our national DNA that firing someone regardless of job performance is just plain wrong.
As for the shift in opposition to gay rights generally and the blueprint for said shift, this might work. Of course there will be a backlash. But how large and how long can be managed. Many will move in the new direction while a contingent will double down on the biblical inerrancy position.
Jorge has a point regarding this and is a good voice for articulating the thinking along these lines. That’s why I appreciate his more moderate argumentations. The argument against that position is quite simple, but not at all effective.
“Biblical inerrancy demands I oppose same sex relations of all kinds”
“well, I guess you better put that ham and cheese sandwich down then and help me sell my daughter into slavery”
Christianity is full of contradictions. Rubbing their noses in it is about as appealing to them as their attempts to force their moral codes upon us. My belief is that the religious language used to move them from Alan Keyes’ current position on gays to Mr. Keyes’ position on pork is going to take a few generations. Some will move on it now; others will fight it tooth and nail for 100 years or so.
posted by Jorge on
This is the first time I’ve ever been given the label moderate on the internet. I think I’m going to savor the moment.
Christianity is full of contradictions. Rubbing their noses in it is about as appealing to them as their attempts to force their moral codes upon us.
I once read someone try to reconcile a literal interpretation of the Book of Genesis with the fact it has two completely different and contradictory stories of creation.
I had to say nothing because it was a compassionate conservative response to a letter I wrote on gay marriage and it is important to me to keep my right flank intact. Actually, the rationale wasn’t half-bad when I thought about it.
posted by Lori Heine on
There are also, Jorge, a growing number of gay and lesbian folks who are conservative evangelical Christians, yet disagree with your assertion that the Bible condemns loving and committed same-sex relationships. No “cognitive dissonance” is involved here — they simply disagree with you. And they know the Bible at least as well as you do, if not better.
Christianity teems with contradictions. As does the real world. Some people will get used to this — even come to relish it. Others will be afraid of it. The choice is entirely up to each of us.
posted by Jorge on
I’ve never said, nor shall I ever say, that the Bible condemns loving and committed same-sex relationships.
But the Bible does condemn sex between two men, repeatedly, in terms that I find both dire and virtually immune to contextualizing (“that is an abomination”), and even when it is consensual. I am not familiar with the relevant portion that applies to women. (Recently I’ve learned of a possible context: If God’s commandments to the Israelites were not followed, he would punish them to a multiplier of 7 to the 4th power, until the land has made up for its lost sabbaths, “enjoying the rest that you would not let it have on the sabbaths when you lived there.” I interpret that to lead to an implication that the battle over whether gay marriage and gay relationships really are socially harmful is an important one whose result must be decisive. However I will not claim any sort of certainty, for the original commandment remains unrebutted.)
posted by Don on
“This is the first time I’ve ever been given the label moderate on the internet. I think I’m going to savor the moment.”
Jorge, I do enjoy your commentary, even if you aggravate the hell out of me occasionally. But then I’m sure I’ve annoyed others with my more strident statements.
the only reason I come back is that people challenge my viewpoints and get me to question why I think the way I do. I’ve moderated a bit on my positions as a result. thanks for that.
As have Tom, Lori and a bunch of others. She’s made me more aware of painting libertarianism too broadly. And I’ve taken Tom’s scolding of being too general in my assertions to heart as well. All the while enjoying the schadenfreude when he does it himself in the next topic thread. (smile)
posted by Jorge on
the only reason I come back is that people challenge my viewpoints and get me to question why I think the way I do I’ve moderated a bit on my positions as a result. thanks for that.
Oh. You’re welcome.
mmmph. No comment on some of the rest X|
The biggest gift this site gives me is ideas of things I should be looking at. The regulars are a very pragmatic group even within their ideologies.
posted by Mike in Houston on
One of the great ironies here is that the vast majority of Americans wrongly believe that LGBT people are already covered under existing federal employment non-discrimination law.
When told that it doesn’t, a huge majority (over 70%) support adding sexual orientation to the law — smaller numbers for gender identity.
(And in another ironic note, the EEOC has ruled that transgender persons are covered under Title IX provisions for non-discrimination based on gender.)
The question then becomes — similar to what one of the judges noted in the AZ marriage case yesterday — if the majority of Americans support adding sexual orientation and gender identity to our current non-discrimination laws, why hasn’t the legislature moved on this?
posted by Tom Scharbach on
The question then becomes — similar to what one of the judges noted in the AZ marriage case yesterday — if the majority of Americans support adding sexual orientation and gender identity to our current non-discrimination laws, why hasn’t the legislature moved on this?
The reason is quite simple.
As Nate Silver’s statistical analysis shows, anti-equality voters correlate to religious conservatism. As a number of you have pointed out, religiously-motivated anti-equality is resistant to change.
Religious conservatives have been effectively organized politically from within, and have a higher turnout percentage than the population at large, particularly in Republican primary elections. As a result, anti-equality voters have a disproportionate influence on Republican politiics beyond their numbers.
An unelected Republican politician who advocates “equal means equal” cannot make it through the Republican primary process in all but the “least red” districts.
An elected Republican politician cannot safely advocate or vote for “equal means equal” without risking a primary challenge, no matter how entrenched (witness Rob Portman), a challenge that is as likely to be successful as not even in “less red” districts.
With little to gain by voting pro-equality, and much to lose, Republican politicians have little, if any, motivation to vote pro-equality, no matter what the politician actually thinks is the right thing to do.
The situation is complicated by the fact that the Republican “bench” has been slowly but surely populated with believing anti-equality politicians over the last two decades. Few pro-equality Republican politicians are actually in office at this point, or in a position to make a viable (that is, have the name recognition, the donor base, and elective record) bid for statewide or federal office.
In a nutshell, that’s why the Republican Party is “stuck” on anti-equality, voting overwhelmingly against pro-equality legislation (witness DOMA repeal) even when the public supports the legislation by margins of 70-80%.
I don’t know how to get the party unstuck. I used to think I did, because those of us who worked for equality managed to do it in the Democratic Party.
Up until recently, I thought that the answer was simple enough — take a page from our thirty-year lesson book, and start working within the party from the ground up, at county, then state, then federal levels, laying the foundation and then cleaning out anti-equality politicians, eventually making “equal means equal” the normative position.
But I no longer am as sure that this makes sense within the Republican Party. The Republican Party, it seems to me, is particularly resistant to ground-up change, because of the nature of the anti-equality voters in the Republican Party. I think that we have to acknowledge the fact that religious conservatives, who have a strong influence in the party, are not going to change their views for a long time, if ever. It may be that Nate Silver is more right than I was, and that the Republican Party is going to have to wait on demographics to change.
That’s a shame, for a lot of reasons.
I do think, however, that we can work to change one thing — the propensity of pro-equality conservatives to support anti-equality Republican politicians. I was initially shocked, and then angered, when I learned about Ted Olson’s campaign contributions to Cuccinelli and Cruz, two of the most anti-equality politicians in the country. I’ve calmed down since, and will continue to financially support AFER, as I do the ACLU and Lamba Legal, regardless of how Ted Olson spends his money. But somebody — maybe Ken Mehlman or Richard Singer — ought to talk with him. Seriously and with no holds barred.
If we can crack that nut — pro-equality conservatives supporting the worst of anti-equality Republican politicians — then there is a chance that a Republican politician will be able to see a downside to voting anti-equality.
posted by Don on
Many are looking at the Cuccinelli/Christie races. Some believe Cuccinelli’s loss in reddish state Virginia and Christie’s win in deep-blue New Jersey and their requisite positions locally on social issues, will be a stark reminder to social conservatives that their agenda is dead with the public.
Not my theory, but it is one bouncing around out there. I’m not sure it works. But sometimes oversimplified arguments persuade large blocs of voters.
posted by Tom Jefferson III on
1. I believe that the Catholic Church took the position — decades ago — that criminal laws against homosexuality should be repealed. I been reading about the British efforts to change their law in 1950s-1960s. Although I don’t think they tried to get these other countries to get rid of these laws.
2. All Equal Opportunity laws are imperfect, but useful. If you are a victim of illegal discrimination, you may not always have the resources — financial or emotional — to take the case to court, especially if you are not readily “out” to the entire community. Every now and again some class action or major case does work its way through the halls of justice, which generally helps to keep other businesses in line. It is not a great check on the private sector, but its better then nothing at all. Sexual orientation and gender should be added — with the sort of exemptions I talked about earlier.
3. Christine is probably playing a game of presidential (or VP) politics. He wants to be on the ticket and will probably run for it next time around. He does not want to alienate the GOP primary voters who selectively quote from the Bible to attack gays, while eating shellfish. But he also wants to be seen as a ‘moderate’ candidate — hence his willingness to be seen with President Obama in 2012 –. so he does not challenge the court ruling allowing for gay marriage in his state, but grumbles about “activist” judges and expresses a desire to protect ‘family values’.