Log Cabin Republicans President Gregory T. Angelo writes:
…the Republican Party passed the most anti-LGBT Platform in the Party’s 162-year history. Opposition to marriage equality, nonsense about bathrooms, an endorsement of the debunked psychological practice of “pray the gay away” — it’s all in there. … When given a chance to follow the lead of our presumptive presidential nominee and reach out to the LGBT community in the wake of the awful terrorist massacre in Orlando on the gay nightclub Pulse, the Platform Committee said NO.
The committee was stacked with social conservatives, a large number of whom were pledged to Ted Cruz. Nevertheless, LCR remains committed to “take back the Party,” and it will happen, but not this year. As Guy Benson tweets, “…that is where the party remains today, even as many GOP-leaning voters now favor SSM, especially among younger demos…”
The majority of the panel was made up of hard-line social conservatives such as Family Research Council President Tony Perkins. Perkins and other social conservatives on the panel had a strong enough majority to push through the bulk of the measures they sought.
But the Perkins wing was met with vocal opposition from Annie Dickerson, an adviser to billionaire GOP donor Paul Singer, who is a proponent of same-sex marriage and other issues championed by the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community.
Dickerson fumed as her socially liberal proposals went down and the socially conservative measures she opposed sailed through the subcommittee.
The Federalist argues that some of the reaction is exaggerated:
Others also reported that Republicans had scrubbed and stripped “LGBT language” from a plank dealing with Islamic terrorism, even though the GOP had stripped any mention of all individual groups, including Christians, Jews, and women. That certainly gives the news a different context.
Some reporters seem to be creating the impression (or maybe they believe) that conservatives are so homophobic they’re unwilling to accept the notion that radical Islam targets gays, even after Orlando. This is absurd and willfully misleading. Most conservatives have gone out of their way to point out that Islamism is genuinely and violently homophobic. It is often liberals who refuse to acknowledge that radical Islamic terrorism has a purpose and that it is what drove someone to specifically target a gay nightclub.
And let’s recall that there is much destructive nonsense of the leftist variety in the Democratic platform as well. Both parties now use these quadrennial declarations to placate their most ideologically hardcore activists, expecting (and hoping) that the general public won’t take much notice. That doesn’t excuse these expressions of extremism, it just explains what’s going on.
A final point. On another issue dealing with sexuality. the GOP platform takes aim at porn. David Boaz writes about the anti-porn plank:
A Republican National Convention platform committee has declared pornography “a public health crisis.” Committee members don’t seem to know what “public health” means.
I’ll just mention than while not all feminists see pornography as a threat to society, anti-porn feminists find themselves oddly aligned with religious right social conservatives on this matter—even though the increased availability of pornography tracks with declining statistics for violent rape.
More. The two-party system:
New York Times: Emerging Republican Platform Goes Far to the Right.
Washington Post: Democrats shift to the left in this past weekend’s platform fight.
Furthermore. Another Washington Post report, While Trump stays out of it, GOP platform tacks to the right on gay rights, has some interesting observations:
Chris Barron, a gay conservative strategist, said the platform is a document with few teeth. …
“Platform fights are like the fourth game of an NFL pre-season — the stars don’t play, the games don’t count, and if you win, it’s irrelevant,” said Barron….
“Every four years the nominees make it clear that they don’t speak for the platform,” he said. “They speak for themselves. We have the most pro-gay nominee of the Republican Party ever in Donald Trump, and that’s what matters.”
Maybe, or maybe a bit of “Who wanted to be invited to your party anyway.”
52 Comments for “GOP Platform Goes Back to the Past”
posted by Houndentenor on
Did any Republican candidate this year run as anything but a social conservative? Of course all those Cruz and Carson and even most of the Trump delegates are social conservatives? Is anyone still under the illusion that there is still a socially liberal wing of the GOP of any significant size or influence?
posted by TJ on
I think that the last time that the GOP platform pledged to wage national war on pornography – as defined by W.H.K. (who the heck knows) was in the 1980s.
I mean, what specifically do they plan to do about it, beyond what previous administrations (both parties) have done (i.e. in cases with minors or human trafficking)?
posted by Doug on
The LRC has been around since the late 1970’s and this year the GOP has the most anti-gay platform in 160+ years. Why anyone would be a member of such an ineffectual organization is beyond me. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and over again and expecting a different outcome. It ain’t going to happen.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Well, speaking of doing the same thing over and over again, it looks like LCR is using the 2016 Platform to raise money, if nothing else. From the Miami Herald:
I think I’ll keep my money in my wallet, personally.
posted by TJ on
I know few progressives who really want the Republican party to be in the hands of social conservatives and reactionaries.
The problem is that – with few exceptions – these are the people that run the GOP in terms of platform planks, nominations and fundraising.
With few exceptions, getting anywhere significant in Republican party politics, requires catering to social conservatives and reactionaries.
This is only going to change if social moderates and more libertarian type Republicans actually stand up to the social conservatives and reactionaries.
posted by Lori Heine on
When Gary Johnson deprives Trump of the election (which he very well might), let’s see what the Dead Elephant Party comes up with next.
Maybe their ticket in 2020 will be Sarah Palin and Kim Davis.
posted by Houndentenor on
I fully expect a round of, “he lost because he wasn’t conservative enough.”
posted by Kosh III on
Perhaps they’ll complain that they didn’t do enough to win the vote of Mexican rapists.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
When given a chance to follow the lead of our presumptive presidential nominee and reach out to the LGBT community in the wake of the awful terrorist massacre in Orlando on the gay nightclub Pulse, the Platform Committee said NO.
I’m not sure that is makes much difference. “Vote for us or ISIS will throw you off a building!” isn’t much of a rallying cry when the Republican Party essentially wants to grind us all back into the pre-Stonewall days. The argument depends on a false assumption — that gays and lesbians are as fear-driven as the Republican base. I have news for them: After all we have been through over the years since Stonewall, fighting for equality against strong opposition every step of the way, and having been slandered as disease-ridden child predators bound and determined to destroy the American Way of Life, we aren’t afraid of much anymore.
As for “the lead of our presumptive presidential nominee”, what has he done to “reach out to the LGBT community” except make the “Vote for us or ISIS will throw you off a building!” argument? I have yet to review the final draft of the 2016 Platform, but I don’t expect to see much meaningful daylight between the platform’s positions and those taken by The President Presumptive. Most candidates move toward the center after the nomination is secured. The President Presumptive has gone the other direction on LGBT issues, most recently endorsing North Carolina’s madness. Expect him to kiss up to Kim Davis next.
Nevertheless, LCR remains committed to “take back the Party,” and it will happen, but not this year. As Guy Benson tweets, “… that is where the party remains today, even as many GOP-leaning voters now favor SSM, especially among younger demos …”
Yeah, not this year. And not anytime soon if supposedly gay-supportive groups like LCR and individuals like David Singer follow past practice, making gay-supportive noises during the run-up and then turning around and supporting homo-negative candidates in the general election.
The party is not going to abandon its anti-gay positions unless and until a political cost is extracted. Its that simple.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
When Gary Johnson deprives Trump of the election (which he very well might), let’s see what the Dead Elephant Party comes up with next.
I think that this election is going to be a lot closer than most people seem to think. The President Presumptive is playing a dark game and striking deep chords among disaffected, frightened, white voters. I don’t think that he will pull it off, but I don’t underestimate him, either.
posted by JohnInCA on
I used to think he had pretty good odds, but I recently came over to the “he’s gonna lose” camp.
Why? Because nobody wins on the “Anybody but [Clinton/Bush/Obama]” train. It’s not enough to not be the other guy, you actually have to be for something.
And while Trump has a solid base that’s actually for him, there’s a huge swath of Republicans (and Republican-leaning independents) which aren’t for him, just against Clinton, and that kind of negative attitude just doesn’t turn out voters.
Clinton could, admittedly, face a similar problem. She’s not very popular either after all. But the magnitude of the intra-party opposition to Trump is leaps and bounds past the intra-party resistance to Clinton, so I wouldn’t count on it.
That said, I’m not gonna bet on either, and the only way to surprise me come November would be for Johnson to win. But I’m at the point where I think the odds are against Trump, rather then him having a fair shot.
posted by Jorge on
I think the odds on Trump have been fairly accurate. 1 in 4 seems about right to me.
The FBI director’s press conference on Hillary Clinton was bad for her. It undermines her competency argument by raising very basic questions about her judgment and character, the very qualities that she needs to convince the disaffected Sanders voters she has. (And for the record, the FBI’s findings have convinced me to break for Trump.) However, Clinton’s enemies are a little blinded by their animosity. Trump could miss his opportunity, and he certainly could drop the ball entirely. He has a very hard time ignoring red herrings.
posted by TJ on
Wow. You care more about emails – the content has largely shown to be dull – then making up a snake oil college scam?
posted by Doug on
Make no mistake, Donald Trump may be the Presumptive Nominee, but this GOP Platform has Ted Cruz, virulently anti-gay, fingerprints all over it.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
… the Republican Party passed the most anti-LGBT Platform in the Party’s 162-year history …
Oh dear, what’s to do? I know, let’s have a A-Team Comics Super-Heros! party starring Donald Trump, Milo Yiannopoulos and Pam Geller.
From the event presser:
Seriously? Right. Buy a comic-book space gun, and defeat ISIS with magical super powers! Maybe you can get them to laugh themselves to death.
posted by Jorge on
I’ll believe the third story I hear about this. This is… hmm, maybe the second.
The committee was stacked with social conservatives, a large number of whom were pledged to Ted Cruz.
…
Dickerson fumed as her socially liberal proposals went down and the socially conservative measures she opposed sailed through the subcommittee.
…
…the GOP had stripped any mention of all individual groups, including Christians, Jews, and women
Let’s not publicize all that, though. I’d like to see Ted Cruz succeed or fail rather than skate.
But now I have to wait until Trump is nominated before changing my registration. It’d look too unseemingly otherwise.
And let’s recall that there is much destructive nonsense in the Democratic platform as well.
The Republican Party is the party of No! Wait!, and the Democratic Party is the party of “Free Phone, Free Phone!“; I am very confused as to how the Republicans have such a worse reputation.
A Republican National Convention platform committee has declared pornography “a public health crisis.” Committee members don’t seem to know what “public health” means.
I’ve never heard good things about the way the pornography industry treats people. Wait, that’s not public health?
Religious people have a way of saying that a society that leaves out God inevitably slides toward decline and mortality, and I happen to agree. But I do not think we have reached the point where we have forgotten that we are part of a sickness.
Did any Republican candidate this year run as anything but a social conservative?
Yes. Most of them.
Rand Paul ran as a libertarian who’s less pure than Ron Paul.
Trump ran as a third wing. He thinks Planned Parenthood does good work, he’s never had anything to repent for, and gays, blacks, and women should vote for him because he’ll take ISIS’s oil and give it to them.
Lindsey Graham ran on a platform of unify on foreign policy now, divide on domestic policy after we win. George Pataki ran more on economic conservatism, Chris Christie on strong government, Karly Fiorina on good management plus foreign and economic policy.
Bush, Rubio, and Kasich tried not to make a big stink of their social conservatism but they kinda just wandered around aimlessly saying smart things.
posted by Houndentenor on
I’ll give you Graham and Pataki. Pataki actually singed NY state’s gay rights bill. I forgot he ran. Seems like most voters did too. All the rest are social conservatives. Kasich tried to split the difference saying he didn’t go to a friend’s gay wedding but went to the reception. Who was supposed to be impressed by that? No wonder he got so few votes.
posted by Jorge on
You’re moving the goalposts. Your question wasn’t were any of the candidates not social conservatives. Your question was if any of the candidates did not run as social conservatives.
I think you’d be hard-pressed to find many people in this country more socially conservative than Graham as well.
posted by Houndentenor on
Every one of the people I called out made statements during the campaign that were socially conservative. I didn’t move the goalpost. I just stated facts. Graham was so inconsequential that they had to round his polling up to get to <1%. They were just being nice because not one person polled said they were going to vote for him.
For some reason there are gay people who want to pretend that the GOP isn't vehemently anti-gay. The 2016 isn't a surprise. It's exactly what we all expected. I can hardly wait for Stephen to quislingsplain to us all that it's liberals' fault that social conservative now dominate the party.
posted by Jorge on
For some reason there are gay people who want to pretend that the GOP isn’t vehemently anti-gay.
The GOP isn’t vehemently anti-gay.
You should become a Republican and stand against the intrusion of the nanny state into areas it knows nothing about.
States are overreaching on so-called ex-gay therapy because of things that happened decades ago without taking into consideration whether or not there is an actual problem today. In so doing, it is likely they are creating new problems.
The federal government is not so much overreaching on anti-transgender discrimination as it is continuing a pattern of refusing to differentiate major harms from inconsequential harms. Instead, everything is absolute. You who have such moral clarity would undoubtedly do well in the two-front war that is defending the federal government when it is right for the wrong reasons.
Stand for the appointment of Supreme Court justices who will vote to pretend Obergefel is wrong but binding and uphold a strict constructionist view of the Constitution.
And say something constructive about the porn industry’s grip on society.
posted by Houndentenor on
You are actually saying the GOP isn’t anti-gay. Whatever.
Oh, and YOU never look at porn? Seriously?
posted by Tom Scharbach on
The two-party system …
Well, maybe this is the year in which self-described “libertarians” like the Koch brothers, Paul Singer and others will start supporting Libertarian candidates instead of continuing to throw good money after bad supporting social conservative Republican candidates.
I doubt it will happen, but it certainly wouldn’t hurt if more self-described “libertarians” put their money where their mouths are …
posted by Lori Heine on
I would certainly like that, too.
posted by Houndentenor on
If there were ever a year when the Libertarian party was going to poll over 5%, this is it.
posted by Kosh III on
“and the Democratic Party is the party of “Free Phone, Free Phone!“;
Ah yes, the phone program started by Reagan and expanded by Bush.
posted by Houndentenor on
Wow. I really thought that talking point had died years ago. Stephen must be very deep into far right wing media for that to seem remotely relevant.
posted by Jorge on
I’m not Stephen. And it’s obvious my point went well over your heads.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
And it’s obvious my point went well over your heads.
Or perhaps incomprehensible.
posted by Kosh III on
“radical Islamic terrorism has a purpose and that it is what drove someone to specifically target a gay nightclub.”
Once again this lie pops up. The CIA director testified to Congress that there was was NO credible evidence linking the murderer to ISIS or aQ or whatever. Hate and fear and maybe self-loathing drove him.
posted by Jorge on
I’ll say again what I said the last time. If the CIA director seriously thinks a person pledging allegiance to ISIS multiple times is not consistent with there being any credible evidence, either he does not know what credible evidence means, or he is holding back.
Let us be generous and assume he is holding back. That means there is no rebuttal that he is willing to share, and that means there is credible evidence. Next.
posted by Kosh III on
“Republican and stand against the intrusion of the nanny state into areas it knows nothing about.”
Like equality for gay people, reproductive freedom for women(and men), freedom from religious opinion in public spaces (10 Commandements) and many many more ways in which the Grand Old Posterior party has consistently labored to use the coercive power of the state to compel conformity to THEIR opinions.
Get a clue.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Chris Barron, a gay conservative strategist, said the platform is a document with few teeth.
“Platform fights are like the fourth game of an NFL pre-season — the stars don’t play, the games don’t count, and if you win, it’s irrelevant,” said Barron.
“Every four years the nominees make it clear that they don’t speak for the platform,” he said. “They speak for themselves”.
What the hell would you expect Barron (an ardent Trump supporter and sponsor of the “A-Team Comics Super-Heros!” space-gun party) to say with respect to the platform disaster? He’s trying to distance his candidate as much as he can from the platform’s positions on LGBT issues.
We’ll have to wait and see what the convention actually passes (moderates are vowing a floor fight on at least some issues) before we can accurately compare The President Presumptive’s positions with those of the platform as adopted, but on the key LGBT issues as currently reported, I don’t see a lot of daylight between TPP and the platform.
“We have the most pro-gay nominee of the Republican Party ever in Donald Trump, and that’s what matters.”
The sad part is that Barron is right. The President Presumptive is the “most pro-gay nominee of the Republican Party ever”. Unlike Bush, McCain and Romney, the party’s most recent nominees, TPP doesn’t support a federal anti-marriage amendment. And he’s remained silent (I think) on conversion therapy. But his other positions make it clear that being “most pro-gay nominee of the Republican Party ever” doesn’t equate, or come even close to being “pro-gay”, or even (to use Stephen’s favorite term) “gay-supportive”.
Maybe, or maybe a bit of “Who wanted to be invited to your party anyway.”
You got that right. Even if Chris Barron’s and Milo Yiannopoulos’s delusional assertions that The President Presumptive is “pro-gay” are dead on (and you’ve have to be equally delusional to believe that), TPP’s about-face on North Carolina’s moronic bathroom law should be enough to curdle homocon’s milk — when the social conservatives speak, TPP crumples.
At some point, it is time for gays and lesbians aligned with the Republican Party to say “Enough is enough.” It seems to me that we’ve reached that point, I think, no matter what Barron and Yiannopoulos might fantasize while flitting around with their space guns.
posted by Lori Heine on
Given who Annoying Orange just picked for VP, I think we know how credible Log Cabin is about his attitude toward LGBT Americans.
posted by Houndentenor on
It was clear by 92 that Log Cabin was not having any positive impact on the GOP. And then 2004. If neither of those conventions and platforms were convincing then there’s no hope for someone that deep in denial. Log Cabin has failed. I’m not sure it’s their fault. It was an impossible task. But it’s time to admit defeat and just say “we don’t care about gay rights and we are Republicans no matter how anti-gay the party becomes” because that’s what they are saying whether they realize it or not.
posted by Lori Heine on
The GOP is Lucy with the football. And Log Cabin is Charlie Brown.
posted by Houndentenor on
Milo is hosting an event at the RNC. Can you imagine the uproar if an event at the DNC were hosted by someone who admits using a lot of drugs and sleeping with prostitutes? The whole “family values” line from the right is such a joke now. Donald Trump is the nominee. Three wives, tons of affairs and a pending court case alleging he raped a 13 year old girl. How is it that people who claim to be for “family values” hate a super-traditional family like the Obamas and worship a sleaze like Donald Trump? Did they ever mean a word of it? Or is it just a weapon to beat up on other people while ignoring your side’s behavior?
posted by Jorge on
Like… reproductive freedom for women(and men)
No.
freedom from religious opinion in public spaces (10 Commandements)
No!
and many many more ways in which the Grand Old Posterior party has consistently labored to use the coercive power of the state to compel conformity to THEIR opinions.
I think it’s hard to top putting people out of business and into jail to force people to conform. Do we have that on the Republican side?
posted by Houndentenor on
Well considering that for years the GOP platform in Texas (while W was governor) called for ENFORCING the state’s sodomy laws, yes, the GOP does have that desire. It’s just that the courts kept striking them down.
And the only person jailed was in contempt of court. Do you think it’s okay to defy court orders? Or just the ones you disagree with?
posted by Jorge on
Yes, the court enforced a law.
The court should have found the law as applied to that situation unconstitutional. It did not. Instead it charged Davis with finding her own solution to the problem–proving that in fact, the law as applied to her situation… was constitutional.
posted by JohnInCA on
Nice rewrite!
‘course, in the original we see that Davis was offered quite a few compromises (including letting deputies sign marriage licenses, much like her own license was signed by a deputy rather then the clerk), but she not only refused to do her own job, she refused to let her employees do their jobs either.
But keep beating that drum! I’m sure you’ll convince someone! (Note: convincing people that are already convinced isn’t actually convincing anyone)
posted by Doug on
‘I think it’s hard to top putting people out of business and into jail to force people to conform. Do we have that on the Republican side?’
How about forbidding doctors from talking openly and honestly with their women patients concerning reproductive health. How about forcing women to look at sonograms of their unborn fetus. How about forbidding the mere mention of homosexuality in a classroom. How about forcing children learn about intelligent design crap. How about allowing domestic abusers to buy AK-47’s. I could go on and on.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
A quiet note: Kim Davis, Christian Martyr™, was jailed because she willfully refused to obey a lawful order of a United States District Court, and remained in contempt of court, and thus in custody, until she agreed to obey that order. It had nothing to do with Republicans or Democrats; she was jailed for contempt of court, by a court of competent jurisdiction, and she was jailed in accordance with law. Christians, no matter how exalted they may consider themselves in comparison to the rest of us, are not above the law.
posted by Jorge on
Martyrs, almost by definition, have risen above the law, Tom.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Martyrs, almost by definition, have risen above the law, Tom.
True enough, but if Kim Davis Christian Martyr™ is an authentic martyr, I own a bridge I can sell you. Right in your neighborhood. She’s a poppenjay, a charlatan, a disgrace to the memory of religious martyrs.
posted by Jorge on
How about forbidding doctors from talking openly and honestly with their women patients concerning reproductive health.
You could cite what happens when they don’t.
How about forcing women to look at sonograms of their unborn fetus.
No, that a good thing if you believe–and I firmly believe this–that most women who have abortions have them for reasons of convenience rather than for reasons of necessity. The harm to the few women who would be harmed because they are seeking abortions for reasons of necessity is outweighed by the value of confronting those women who are seeking abortions for reasons of convenience.
That is the whole problem with the language of “choice” and “freedom”, as if we’re talking about whether to buy chicken or steak at a supermarket or whether to vote for Trump or Clinton (it’s not without reason that the language has shifted to emphasize women’s health and bodies): it suggests that the two alternatives are equally acceptable ends to a virtuous undertaking, and removes the consequential nature of the decision whether or not to seek an abortion.
So, yes, forcing women to look at sonograms of their unborn fetus.
How about forbidding the mere mention of homosexuality in a classroom.
I’m not sure sex education belongs in kindergarten classrooms–and I don’t trust liberals not to blunder in this area.
How about forcing children learn about intelligent design crap.
We force children to learn a lot of crap, like that spermarche happens due to wet dreams. Why should I care about one more?
How about allowing domestic abusers to buy AK-47’s.
First things first, are they or are they not domestic abusers? How severe is the domestic abuse–both the crime itself and the pattern of behavior? Did the misdemeanor crime of domestic abuse occur due to: a single escalated incident unrelated to the classic pattern of jealous and controlling behavior; a mental or substance abuse disorder unrelated to the classic pattern…; or was it one of many incidents fitting the classical pattern such that there is a danger of lethal stalking behavior or retaliation after conviction? These are all important questions that were not asked in the 1980s, 1990s, or even the 2000s that are worth asking and that are worth weighing the risks on.
Second, AK-47s? Really?
posted by Jim Michaud on
You think it’s A-OK to force women to view sonograms of their fetus? What if some poor woman doesn’t want to? What would you want officials to do? Tape her eyes open? Point a gun at her? Jeez Jorge, it’s statements like that one that make me glad I’m pro-choice.
posted by Doug on
Jorge, you don’t have a problem with government using laws to force people to conform, it just has to be those laws you agree with. Pretty typical for a Republican.
posted by JohnInCA on
Actually, they’ve done studies on whether or not waiting period, looking at ultrasounds/sonograms/etc., harassing women on their way into the clinic, and other attempts to dissuade women from having abortions are actually effective.
Not surprisingly, most women who are trying to get an abortion have already spent considerable time thinking about the decision and aren’t persuaded by such cheap tactics. So really, you aren’t “saving” anyone, you’re just harassing women who typically are already having a pretty shitty day.
But y’know what? You keep telling yourself you’re the hero. Because that’s what heroes do, isn’t it? Harass women?
posted by TJ on
I once asked a pro-life friend of mine; if the right to life is sacred, how can the right to health be negotiable?
Some Pro-life people are more than willing to force every conceived child into this world – even if it means strapping the pregnant women into a hospital bed for 9months, but once that happens, they don’t want to know the kid.
Comedian George Carlin did a very good bit about this and I think it still stands.
posted by Fritz Keppler on
I guess that any definition of porn on the part of the platform committee will be narrow enough so as not to include any pictures taken of the candidate’s wife in her younger days.
posted by Doug on
It’s interesting to note that the South consumes the most pornography and is also home to the highest percentage of right wing christians.
posted by A Few Convention Reflections - IGF Culture Watch on
[…] on trade and immigration that prevent me from giving him my vote. . And the GOP platform, as previously discussed, is awful on LGBT […]