In the Wall Street Journal, it’s dueling op-eds by my friend Walter Olson (“An Amen for Albany“) vs. Maggie Gallagher (“New York’s GOP Let Down the Base“).
The struggle is not just between the left and the right. There’s a fight within the right as well. And since those who lean to the right of the political spectrum consistently represent more than half of the nation, it’s a fight that must be made and won.
New York’s Republican-controlled state Senate voted 32-29 late Friday night to bring gay marriage to New York.
As I blogged a few days ago, “What’s going on in the New York marriage struggle shows why winning over Republicans (even just a few!) matters greatly.”
Only a handful of GOP state senators voted for the bill, but the GOP majority leader allowed the vote to come to the floor. We’re still a ways away from the day when national congressional GOP leaders would allow something like DOMA repeal to receive an up or down vote in the GOP controlled House, but New York shows that with some effort, enough Republicans can be moved to advance gay equality in a real and substantive way.
More. The role played by rich Republicans, to the dismay of some. And no immediate response from the GOP presidential contenders, perhaps because of the complete absence of a “judicial tyranny” argument for conservatives. Now we can ask supposedly Tenth Amendment-style Republicans, “Do you think the federal government should overrule the governor and legislature of New York?”
Furthermore. Michele Bachmann speaks, and she’s gotten it exactly wrong. She supports Tenth amendment state rights to set the laws they want to set, and she supports using Congress to override state decisions that she doesn’t agree with. From Fox News:
the Minnesota congresswoman said it’s also up to the states to decide whether they permit same-sex marriage. … She added that it’s not a contradiction to pursue a federal constitutional amendment that would trump state law…
And 2+2=5.
More still.
Obama’s reluctance to come out for gay marriage seems hugely and willfully inconsistent with what we know about his progressive worldview. And it is odd that the first black president is letting Andrew Cuomo, who pushed through a gay-marriage bill in Albany on Friday night, go down in history as the leader on the front lines of the civil rights issue of our time.
But for the president, “the fierce urgency of now” applies only to getting checks from the gay community, not getting up to speed with all the Americans who think it’s time for gay marriage.
Yet more still Conservative columnist James Taranto writes in the Wall Street Journal:
the overwrought expressions of anger and despair from people who style themselves champions of traditional marriage have the feel of scapegoating. It isn’t the fault of gays that marriage is in dire straits.
And David Boaz calls Republicans to account on federalism and states rights.
Mark Steyn on free speech:
At 6:20, he describes investigations by Scotland Yard against a Muslim cleric for homophobia after the cleric denounced homosexuality, and a simultaneous investigation by Scotland Yard against a gay group for Islamaphobia after it accused Islam of being homophobic.
More about Steyn’s remarks here.
While his most egregious examples are from Britain, Canada and Australia, they serve as a cautionary tale. Despite the First Amendment, there are many ideologues on both the left and the right would like to stifle speech they view as “hurtful” or “offensive” here in the U.S.—which is why vigilant support for free speech remains so important.
In this video, MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell gives a long ode to the value of Ron Paul as the most important voice for marriage equality because he speaks to Republicans and conservatives (he chooses to take a positive view of Paul’s somewhat confusing language).
Also, from Politico: Newly declared GOP presidential candidate Jon Huntsman’s fundraising is targeting gay Republicans, based on his support for civil unions.
Yes, it’s still likely the GOP ticket will be Romney/Bachmann in 2012, but those who say there is no hope for changing the GOP are defeatists helping to perpetuate the status quo.
What’s going on in the New York marriage struggle shows why winning over Republicans (even just a few!) matters greatly. But those who run our leading LGBT political lobbies still seems to be firmly committed to a one-party strategy. Their identity politics is all bound up in being Democrats.
More. Lady Gaga isn’t helping.
George Will swoons over Texas Senate candidate Ted Cruz, a strong supporter of the Tenth Amendment (i.e., powers not granted to the federal government nor prohibited to the states by the Constitution are reserved, respectively, to the states or the people). Except, Will neglects to mention, when it comes to state marriage laws, where Cruz loses his federalist principles and (at the very least) vigorously supports the Defense of Marriage Act, barring federal recognition of state-sanctioned marriages.
Last night’s Republican debate had a long exchange on same-sex marriage and the “don’t ask, don’t tell” ban on gays serving openly in the military. The short of it: only Rep. Ron Paul and businessman Herman Cain said that they do not support a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage in all states, and that they would not reinstate “don’t ask, don’t tell.” Conservative Rep. Michelle Backmann seemed at first to say states should handle marriage issues but then backtracked and voiced support for the amendment – joining Romney, Pawlenty Gingrich and the others in violating the federalist, limited government principles they claim to uphold.
Let’s note that CNN didn’t invite former New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson to the debate, and that likely candidate Jon Huntsman, the former governor of Utah and former U.S. ambassador to China, has not yet declared and so was absent. Both oppose the constitutional amendment and wouldn’t reinstate DADT.
The GOP candidates last night made a number of strong points on the catastrophic deficit growth led by President Obama and congressional Democrats, and the perils of the Democrats’ blocking efforts at (and demagogic scare-mongering over) entitlement reform. But, with the exceptions noted, their fealty to using the government to enforce anti-gay discrimination makes them unacceptable. Here’s hoping Huntsman declares soon.
More. From Politico: Huntsman’s fundraising is targeting gay Republicans, based on his support for civil unions.
…an excuse to talk about you know who and his you know what. From the Wall Street Journal‘s James Taranto:
“Unlike homosexuality, heterosexuality is amenable to therapeutic remedies—or so Anthony Weiner and his fellow House Democrats would like us to believe.”
Read it here.
Comedian Tracy Morgan reportedly jokes, during a homophobic rant, that “if his son was gay…he would pull out a knife and stab that little [N word] to death.” His 30 Rock co-star, Tina Fey, defended him, saying it doesn’t “line up with the Tracy Morgan I know.” We’ll, you never know.
Morgan did apologize—after the anti-gay routine (reportedly not his first) triggered a backlash of bad publicity. GLAAD has invited him to meet families who have lost children to anti-gay violence, noting ”while we all love humor, this is no laughing matter.” True enough. But would a white comic not starring in a Republican-bashing sitcom beloved by liberals have gotten off this easily?
More. John McWhorter (who is black) writes on black homophobia:
Wise people like to point to the racism lying always “just underneath” our thin American skins. Well, an equally wise observation is that a certain especially acrid brand of homophobia lies “just underneath” in too many of America’s black men. …
Will there ever be no homophobia among black Americans? No—just like there will always be some among others. But no more black, wealthy comedians, suave actor-philanthropists, and megastar athletes tossing around epithets and remarks about gay people of the sort which, when aimed at black people, are considered demonstrations of backwardness and evil.
Richmond Times-Dispatch columnist A. Barton Hinkle opines:
Although the positions look hypocritical, they have a certain convenient logic: Gay-rights groups will support whatever they deem good for the cause of gay rights, and religious conservatives will oppose the same, and each will take whatever position on any other issue best serves that end at any given moment. There’s a lot of that going around.
Not sure his analogy quite works in this instance, but it’s true that double standards are frequently evident among many activists groups, on both sides of the spectrum. Just one example: feminist groups that sue all-male associations but have no problem with women-only entities (including health clubs, for instance).