The GOP presidential wannabes who pledged to fight to keep marriage between one man and one woman at the Iowa Faith & Freedom Coalition forum may have boxed themselves in a corner, should the Supreme Court find a constitutional right to same-sex marriage. Campaigning for a constitutional amendment will seem extreme to those outside the hardcore religious right.
But Cruz, Huckabee, Santorum and Jindal seemed to promise to lead an ongoing fight against marriage equality, come hell or high water.
Gov. Scott Walker said: “I still hold out hope that the Supreme Court will rule, as has been the tradition in the past, that the states are the places that get to define what marriage is. If for some reason they don’t … I believe it’s reasonable for the people of America to consider a constitutional amendment that would affirm the ability of states to do just that.”
Marco Rubio reiterated his opposition to same sex marriage, saying: “Marriage as an institution existed before even government itself,” and that “The institution of marriage as between one man and one woman existed even before our laws existed.” But he stopped short of saying how he’d respond if the Supreme Court rules in favor of marriage equality.
And Rand Paul, who has previously tried to appeal to the pastors by stressing his personal opposition to same-sex marriage, didn’t mention the issue at all in his 15-minute presentation, during which he made a powerful appeal to protect constitutional liberties. His libertarian supporters—who are distinct from many (not all) of the tea party people and often at odds with the religious right—didn’t like his unlibertarian marriage comments, and this could be a welcomed recalibration. (Paul also was one of 10 GOP senators who last week supported an LGBT-inclusive measure to protect homeless youth.)
Jeb Bush chose not to attend. That might not play well in the Iowa GOP caucuses, but could serve him best in a general election, should he win the nomination.
36 Comments for “Winning in Iowa Means Losing America”
posted by JohnInCA on
Am I the only one that finds the “marriage pre-dates government” argument weird? I mean, it’s not entirely wrong (depending on how you define marriage) but broadly speaking the main government role in marriage hasn’t been to define what *is* marriage, but to act as a *gatekeeper*.
That is to say… without a government to say otherwise, then there’s nothing stopping any two people (be they under age, too closely related, already married, the same sex, of different races, etc.) from marrying. So yeah, marriage pre-dates government. But stopping gay people from marrying each other? You don’t get that *until* government.
posted by Dale of the Desert on
Copulation, reproduction, and perhaps even commited coupling predate government, but marriage requires government. It does not require religion, which entered the game much later. Religion, however, has since claimed to own the orignal patent on the institution.
posted by Houndentenor on
For about half the history of Christianity there was no marriage “sacrament”. Couples married in front of churches but the church had nothing to do with it. It was a legal matter but of course once the church got involved they began to act like they’d invented it.
posted by JohnInCA on
Like I said, “depending on how you define marriage”.
I mean really, you can’t imagine people getting married in an anarchy? Hell, there have been plenty of times in human history where large areas didn’t have much formal government, but people still got married. Yeah, they didn’t have any government or religious backing behind them to enforce anything, but it still happened.
All that said, I like the sociological definition of marriage: “Marriage is a socially supported union involving two or more individuals in what is regarded as a stable, enduring arrangement based at least in part on a sexual bond of some kind”
posted by Jorge on
But stopping gay people from marrying each other? You don’t get that *until* government.
I think the Iraqi death squads rebut that claim.
posted by Tom Jefferson III on
Jorge
The situation in Iraq is not — technically — political anarchy. Although as a practical matter I am not really sure that anarchy could ever really exist for any length of time.
Eventually some sort of leadership would arise — democratic or otherwise.
The Iraqi government has pretty much endorsed the attacks on LGBT Iraqis because most of the politicians share these attitudes or most of the government does not want (or even thing it can) actually protect such an unpopular minority group.
posted by Houndentenor on
This is indeed a real dilemma for Republican candidates in 2016 and beyond. They can’t win primaries without taking far right positions on social issues and they probably can’t win the general if they do. The old days when candidates could swing right (or left, as the case may be) in the primaries and then back to the center for the general are over. Even events not covered by the media may have had someone there recording with their phone. I might feel some sympathy if they hadn’t intentionally created this mess that now plagues them.
posted by Ricport on
Ironically, a positive SCOTUS ruling could be one of the best things that could happen to many GOP candidates. That’s because they know the Talibangelicals are on the wrong side of the issue on this, and they just want it to go away. Once (hopefully) the positive ruling comes down, all they have to do is simply say that it’s now settled law, and mouth how they would push for a Constitutional amendment without ever doing anything substantive about it. In other words, they’ll just lie to the base to get their support ant campaign dollars… Just like ol’ Hildebeast (in another bit of irony).
posted by Houndentenor on
It’s naive to think the religious right is going to give up on this issue just because SCOTUS rules against them.
posted by Ricport on
I’m sure the Talibangelicals will keep the issue alive long enough to keep the checks coming in, the same way the Lib Dems do with their lost causes. That’s politics, folks!
posted by Lori Heine on
“Marriage predates government” is a typically loony social right declaration. It doesn’t make sense as logic, as history or as social theory. The soc-cons are really going off the rails now.
And this time, the pander may be a fatal mistake. I know it is in the eyes of libertarians. Even conservatives who fall into camps other than the social right–many of whom “blame” soc-con childishness for Barack Obama’s two terms–may no longer accept it.
posted by Houndentenor on
It’s frustrating enough that social conservatives keep repeating the same lies, but it’s more infuriating that they can say such things unchallenged on the “news” channels. It happens regularly.
posted by Ricport on
Hey Lori!
“’Marriage predates government’ is a typically loony social right declaration.”
But of all their arguments, this is arguably the one that would make most rational people say “who the hell cares?!?” One could argue that slavery predates government, but we’ve moderated our views since then. They have more credibility by saying we”re trying to “recruit” everyone into the “lifestyle” (although if I could recruit some MMA fighters, I just might 😉 ) than by rehashing this stupid and totally pointless “argument.”
posted by Lori Heine on
I was afraid the big “we’re being persecuted” campaign would have more of an effect than it has. But it seems that the majority of people in this country have more sense than I gave them credit for.
I think we can just about stick a fork in the social right’s dream of political dominance. It’s done.
If only someone would inform the GOP presidential candidates about that!
posted by Ricport on
“I was afraid the big “we’re being persecuted” campaign would have more of an effect than it has. But it seems that the majority of people in this country have more sense than I gave them credit for.”
While I am taking more of a “wait and see” attitude, I suspect you are right.
“I think we can just about stick a fork in the social right’s dream of political dominance. It’s done.”
Perhaps. But, the (unfortunately) older I get, the more I see that politics is cyclical. Most people said the same thing about the Lib Dems back in the 80s.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Jeb Bush chose not to attend. That might not play well in the Iowa GOP caucuses, but could serve him best in a general election, should he win the nomination.
Governor Bush can ignore the Iowa Faith and Freedom Summit because doesn’t need to win the Iowa caucuses to break out from the pack. The rest do, and are engaged in a political demolition derby to win the conservative Christian vote. Let them have at it.
And Rand Paul, who has previously tried to appeal to the pastors by stressing his personal opposition to same-sex marriage, didn’t mention the issue at all in his 15-minute presentation, during which he made a powerful appeal to protect constitutional liberties.
Of everybody on the planet, it would seem, except gays and lesbians. Don’t start down the “Rand Paul is a libertarian on culture war issues …” road unless you want to look like a damn fool down the road.
And speaking of damn fools, Ian Reisner issued this statement on Facebook Sunday:
How any politically aware person can be unaware of Senator Cruz’s statements on gay marriage at this point is beyond me. Naive rich or stupid rich, which?
Both politicians and the wealthy seem to think that they won’t get caught out when they say one thing and do another, that the old rules of parlor politics, where candidates and potential donors can hobnob in private, are over. As Houndentenor pointed out, cell phone cameras and social media have changed the rules.
posted by Houndentenor on
I used to work for CEOs. The rich often live in a bubble in which everyone goes to great lengths to avoid telling them anything they don’t want to hear. No, it didn’t occur to these guys that meeting with Cruz (where he raised money even if it wasn’t technically a “fundraiser”) would blow up in their faces. Gay people are right to shun them. It wasn’t like the meeting was with Portman or Collins. He’s trying to play naive at this point but it’s rather obvious that this was simply hubris.
posted by Ricport on
I grew up living near CEOs (am unfortunately the “poor sheep” of my family). What you say is very true when they are at the office, but in their neighborhood, I never met one who didn’t know what the hell was going on in the world, including politics. Yes, they have a bubble, but lots of others – including poor people – have bubbles, as well.
When I first heard about this story, it made me think of the film version of “The Birdcage,” when Robin Williams is asked if he ever reads the news, and replies by saying, “…the Star, the Arts & Leisure section of The NewYork Times…” I suspect this is more the case here.
If not, I could understand wanting to hold a dialog, but certainly not paying for it.
But it’s no more hypocritical than the gay libs who have thrown cash at the Clintons only to be stabbed in the back time and time again.
posted by Jorge on
How any politically aware person can be unaware of Senator Cruz’s statements on gay marriage at this point is beyond me. Naive rich or stupid rich, which?
I think the place he announced his candidacy is enough. What need have I to learn more, unless I were considering supporting him? Then I would impose some sort of test, and yes that involves looking up his positions on not just gay marriage but gay rights overall.
*Yawn.* So what does he have to say about gay rights?
http://www.hrc.org/2016RepublicanFacts/ted-cruz
“When A Mayor Of A City Chooses Twice To March In A Parade Celebrating Pride, That’s A Statement – And It’s Not A Statement I Agree With.”
Well that catches my attention, especially as New York, both city and state, have some parade politics of their own involving parades and gays. It’s relatively recent, too.
(Now I have to check to see if Rick Santorum ever said anything against gay pride parades. Doesn’t look like it.)
posted by Houndentenor on
Parades, schmarades. Santorum thinks the state should have the right to jail you for having gay sex! That’s not enough for you not to vote for him?
posted by Mike in Houston on
That’ll leave a mark… ahem.
posted by Jorge on
That was 12 years ago. Get over it.
Or do you think Hillary Clinton deserves our vote in spite of the fact that she “thinks” legal marriage is and should remain between a man and a woman?
posted by Tom Scharbach on
That was 12 years ago. Get over it.
A quiet factual note: Senator Santorum was denouncing Lawrence as recently as the 2012 election cycle. In Iowa, of course.
Dimes to donuts we are in for another round this election cycle. I’ve never understood your political attachment to the man.
posted by Jorge on
Very good, Tom.
I’ve never understood your political attachment to the man.
He’s a Bush neoconservative.
And he’s a Bush neoconservative in a party that’s been hijacked by the Tea Party and isolationists–though that observation is four years old.
posted by Jim Michaud on
I was really hoping that the GOP would have their “Sister Souljah moment” this time around. Doesn’t seem like it, with all the major players (except Bush) getting scabs on their knees from licking the soc cons’ boots. 2020 will be interesting. Marriage Equality nationwide will have been a fact on the ground for 5 years. How will it play? Will the soc cons STILL be kicking and screaming and demanding fealty from the candidates? Long after everyone else has moved on? Time will tell.
posted by Doug on
I’d like to know what other members of the LGBT community were at this little confab dinner just to learn how big the bubble of stupidity is in that rarified strata.
posted by Mark F. on
The whole issue will almost certainly be moot before Iowa, and these man know a Constitutional Amendment is not going to pass. Game (almost) over. Checkmate.
posted by Doug on
The candidates will certainly know that at Constitutional Amendment will not pass, but that won’t keep them from attacking the LGBT community at every opportunity just to pander to the stupid right wing masses. It’s going to be loud and shrill as they compete to out badmouth each other. More popcorn please as the independents head for the exits.
posted by Lori Heine on
Iowa is a strange place. It seems a little like Minnesota. Yes, there are plenty of conservatives, mostly of the social (meaning antisocial) sort. But there are also plenty of the sort of Hubert Humphrey/Paul Wellstone liberals that abound in my own family.
The latter must be the people to whom Democrats appeal. The old Scandinavian families, with floor-to-ceiling bookshelves, who send their kids to Harvard and listen raptly to every episode of A Prairie Home Companion.
I have no idea how those northern prairie states have remained so placid. How two such radically different types of people get along so well. The GOP candidates come through trying to out-hate and out-ignoramus each other. Then the Dems come in and woo my aunts and uncles.
The family farm is in Michele Bachmann’s district. I can barely believe that, because not a living soul to whom I’m related would ever vote for her. They were glad when she retired, but I miss being able to kid them about her.
Strange place. I suppose Tom S. understands the culture better than I would.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
I suspect that there are many reasons why the upper Midwest (Iowa, Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota, Wisconsin) is “placid”, but I would suggest that a lot of it has to do with ethnic origin (predominantly German and Norwegian) and a sense of “rootedness”, that is, population/religious/economic stability over time.
A large majority of the population are descendents of German and Norwegian immigrants who settled in the 1840’s to 1860’s and stayed through the generations. The population is mostly Catholic, Lutheran or Methodist, historically, and remains so (my county, for example, is 81% Catholic/Lutheran, 10% Methodist and 9% “Other”, if City-Data is to be believed, which is pretty typical, the main difference between counties being the proportion of Catholics and Lutherans), so we’ve been largely immune from the excitability and instability of evangelical Christianity. We’ve had little in-migration from other parts of the country over time, and until my generation, the economy was primarily structured on family farms, small businesses, and specialized manufacturing companies. As a result, we’ve not been affected by the “rust belt” problems that plague states like Michigan and Ohio, and we are not split into an urban-rural divide to the extent that Illinois is divided between “upstate” and “downstate”.
What that all amounts to is a sense of stability over time, or “rootedness” as I call it. And if you are “rooted”, storms pass over without pulling up the roots.
Our politics reflect that sense of long-term stability, in the sense that nobody gets too excited by the year-to-year ebb and flow of political fortune. Although we are subject to the increasing polarization that the rest of the country is suffering, most folks seem to believe that this is a temporary dislocation — think McCarthy era) — and that common sense will prevail in time. I’m not sure that we are right about that, but that’s what most people seem to think. We’ll see.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
For those interested, the Family Research Council has created a website documenting the stories of Christians martyred by the Robspierre-like reign of terror visited upon America by jackbooted gay/lesbian mobs. Right now, the number stands at 19, each with a photo and detailed story.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Formatting error, corrected:
For those interested, the Family Research Council has created a website documenting the stories of Christians martyred by the Robspierre-like reign of terror visited upon America by jackbooted gay/lesbian mobs. Right now, the number stands at 19, each with a photo and detailed story.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
As a side note, the Advocate has a map this morning showing the percentage of people supporting marriage equality, state-by-state, based on recent polling.
By my count, a majority of people in 35 of the 50 states support marriage equality. In several of the remaining 15 states, marriage equality has a plurality (e.g. Texas, 48% supporting, 43% opposing), if not a majority.
In contrast, 100% of the candidates running for the Republican nomination for President oppose marriage equality.
posted by Lori Heine on
What social conservatives have done to libertarians, in the Tea Party and on the Right in general, reminds me of those wildlife programs on PBS. Certain species of bird lay eggs in the nests of another type of bird. Then those eggs hatch, and the chicks are boisterous and obnoxious, and totally unable to coexist in the same nest with the chicks of the mother bird. So they shove the native chicks out and take over the whole nest.
That is a pretty good analogy to what has happened. But now the native birds are fighting back. We’re tired of finding social conservative crap all over our nest.
posted by Tom Jefferson III on
—We’re tired of finding social conservative crap all over our nest.
I hope that is indeed accurate.
posted by Tom Jefferson III on
The Minnesota 6th and 7th Congressional Districts cover (basically) the Western and Central parts of the State, where voters tend to have pretty conservative views on abortion, guns and what they see as faults of moral relativism/secularism.
The gay community in West Central Minnesota has a much more invisible and precarious social situation, compared to say Minneapolis/St Paul Metro Area or even Duluth.