Politics & Public Opinion

Ireland: Economic Liberalization Yields Gay Equality

by on

James Peron, writing at the Huffington Post, explains The Seismic Shift in Irish Values, and One Reason It Happened. He writes:

Historically, the more market-oriented the economy, the more the well-being of LGBT people increases. Politicized markets require political power, something sexual minorities rarely have, but depoliticized economies only need an entrepreneur willing to cater to a minority. …

It was the Financial Times that noted the role of material wealth on social liberalism. They wrote, “Ireland’s apparent willingness to embrace gay marriage is therefore as much a product of the Celtic Tiger years as it is a reflection of the decline of the Church’s influence.” With rising prosperity, Irish voters started embracing socially liberal reforms, matching the economically liberal reforms of a few years earlier: deregulation and more individual choice.

Peron comments, “Similar seismic shifts in cultural values occurred in other nations following periods of economic boom. The relative prosperity of the 1950s in America gave way to the social turbulence of the ’60s, which saw the culmination of not only the civil rights movement but the movements for women’s liberation and, of course, gay liberation.”

He concludes:

With the rise of individualism, it becomes harder and harder to damn those “not like us.” There is no “us” anymore, just many individuals, each with different values and priorities. Depoliticized markets ought to terrify [social] conservatives, for in them social change is born.

I’d add that in the U.S., the term “liberalism” has been co-opted by advocates of statist social engineering, but in much of the world “liberalism” still connotes opposition to economic regulation. Perhaps one reason for America’s polarization between the statist left and the social right—both opposed to individual freedom from government—is the Orwellian corruption of our political language.

More. Tweeted British Prime Minister David Cameron, head of Britain’s Conservative Party: “Congratulations to the people of Ireland, after voting for same-sex marriage, making clear you are equal if you are straight or gay.”

20 Comments

Gallup Says….

by on

As of this month, 60% of Americans now support same-sex marriage, up from 55% last year, and the highest Gallup has found on the question since it was first asked in 1996.

Regarding political affiliation, the breakdown is Democrats at 76% support, independents at 64% and Republicans at 37%. However:

Those who are opposed to gay marriage are a good deal more likely to say that a candidate’s stance on the issue can make or break whether that candidate receives their vote (37%) than those who are supportive of gay marriage (21%). And both are more likely to say the issue is a defining factor than they have been in the past.

On both ends of the political spectrum, this could make same-sex marriage a more salient issue in the 2016 election than it has been previously. While pro-gay marriage voters are more likely to hold a political candidate’s feet to the fire than in the past, there is an even larger bloc of anti-gay marriage voters who could reject a candidate for espousing marriage equality.

Gallup concludes:

While an anti-same-sex marriage position should not present a challenge for GOP candidates in the primary, it could be more challenging in a general election setting given majority support among all Americans.

I’d add that GOP presidential candidates who talk adamantly about marriage being a 2,000 institution that apparently has never changed and must not be altered by the judiciary (some would allow by popular vote) are going for the base, and in all likelihood never going to be president.

But they’ll carry the hardcore religious right vote.

6 Comments

The Iowa Factor?

by on

Jeb Bush, facing campaign headwinds, takes a somewhat stronger stance against same-sex marriage (although the New York Times may be overstating what is essentially a change in tone).

All the GOP contenders are competing to the right in the primaries (and particularly in the first-in-the-nation Iowa caucuses, dominated by the religious right). But it will haunt the eventual nominee in the general election, and even goes against the shifting views of GOP voters overall.

21 Comments

Victory Ahead; Shadows Loom

by on

Matt Welch writes at the libertarian magazine/website reason.com:

Gay people and gay rights activists should be among the first to recognize the critical link between open-mindedness and ending discrimination. It’s difficult to fathom in this historic year of 2015, when the Supreme Court may be on the verge of legalizing gay marriage nationwide, but gay rights advocates were almost hopelessly outnumbered in living memory. For decades, just about the only glimmer of hope came not from courtrooms but in the arena of public debate. …

But as the longtime minority view [on gay marriage] tips into what is looking like a permanent majority . . . Too many activists are now emboldened by their newfound political power to compel obedience and hound heretics rather than continue their incredibly successful long-term efforts at persuasion.

Driving the Kleins [owners of Sweet Cakes by Melissa bakery] into bankruptcy seems an odd tactic for changing their minds. Unless the goal is no longer about opening hearts, but rather enforcing new social norms by making examples out of nonconformers. …

But openness is also a condition of mind and a habit of discourse. Abandoning it in the face of victory will create as yet unimagined self-inflicted defeats. If we want to keep “open-minded” as a compliment, we need to make sure we don’t replace one set of intolerant laws with another. And we had better nurture a culture that appreciates the opportunity to debate, rather than driving disfavored opinion into the closet.

This blogsite pays so much attention to the issue of government action/lawsuits/mob threats against small businesses that don’t wish to provide services to same-sex weddings, based on the owner’s traditional religious beliefs, because it may be a bellwether of the next great civil rights struggle in our country—the right to dissent from the majoritarian view of the progressive state, and the corresponding right to be left alone and not to be coerced, by threat of punishment, into activity that violates religious conscience.

The magazine Welch now edits, he points out, “was editorializing in favor of gay marriage as early as 1974,” so this is not an issue of gay rights opponents suddenly discovering liberal (in the traditional sense) values. It is, instead, a matter of being consistent in defense of classical liberal values.

As the Cato Institute’s David Boaz tells The Federalist:

… mainstream libertarians have been generally supportive of gay marriage and the right of private individuals not to be required to participate in ceremonies that offend them. Cato has filed amicus briefs in gay marriage cases, also filed an amicus brief in the Elaine photography case out in New Mexico, and also in the Hobby Lobby case. I don’t know if there’s been a case in Indiana that would be relevant. People at Cato have defended the right of private individuals—and even reasonable large businesses like Hobby Lobby—to not support policies or participate in ceremonies that are offensive to them. It seems to me that libertarians have defended liberty on both sides on those particular issues.

More. We’ve seen it all before: Pagans persecute Christians, then Christians gain control over the state and persecute pagans; Catholics persecute Protestants, then Protestants gain control and persecute Catholics; the old guard persecutes the revolutionaries, then the revolutionaries gain control and persecute the old guard. When will they ever learn?

7 Comments

2015 Isn’t 2012, and Bush Isn’t Romney

by on

The conservative Washington Times reports Jeb Bush misfires with evangelicals over gay marriage supporters in inner circle:

Rich Bott, whose religious radio network of 100 stations stretches from California to Tennessee … said it’s “hard to imagine evangelicals being excited about a Bush candidacy if he has well-known advocates of homosexual marriage leading his campaign.”

Mr. Bush is on record as opposing same-sex marriage but hired David Kochel to run his campaign organization when it becomes official. He also hired Tim Miller [who is openly gay] to be the communications director of the campaign when it gets underway, presumably later this spring.

Mr. Kochel and Mr. Miller publicly advocate same-sex marriage, arguing that it should be guaranteed under the Constitution.

Evangelical social conservatives successfully pressed Mitt Romney to drop his openly gay foreign policy spokesman Richard Grenell in 2012, and that made Romney look weak. I think Bush will stand up to them, and be the stronger for it.

More. Sage words from Barry Goldwater.

Furthermore. Bush strives for balance in his May 9th commencement address at Liberty University:

Jeb Bush delivered a forceful defense of religious freedom from a secular government during a speech at an evangelical university on Saturday, deploring the rise of “coercive federal power” under President Obama that he said was seeking to impose progressive dogma on the country’s faithful.

But in an intriguing omission at a school known for its long-time opposition to same-sex unions, Mr. Bush did not mention the raging debate over the legalization of gay marriage, or express his opposition to it, even as he touched on the environment, sex trafficking and abortion.

39 Comments

Counterculture

by on

Sure to drive LGBT progressives to new heights of frenzy, A Fox News Contributor on Being Gay, the GOP, and Religious Liberty (via BuzzFeed). Media Matters, save us!

Guy Benson’s new book, co-authored with fellow Fox contributor Mary Katharine Ham, is End of Discussion: How the Left’s Outrage Industry Shuts Down Debate, Manipulates Voters, and Makes America Less Free (and Fun). As BuzzFeed puts it:

The book will be published as the debate over religious liberty protections continues to dominate the presidential conversation around gay issues, something that Benson and Ham are aware of and tackle in the book. (The chapter of the book in which Benson comes out is titled, “Bake Me a Cake, Bigots.”)

Many conservatives have argued there must be a legal process for exemption from laws on the basis of religious belief. For his part, Benson argued that exact space between existence and participation is what has helped accelerate acceptance for marriages. The idea that same-sex couples’ marriages wouldn’t affect straight couples’ marriages was “a very effective argument that won over a lot of people,” he said.

“I’m for civil marriage, I’m for nondiscrimination laws — but I think there should be broad carve-outs for religious organizations, in particular, and narrow carve-outs for closely held businesses that serve the wedding industry,” he said.

Defending freedom of conscience and the right not to be compelled to act in ways that violate religious faith, once liberal values, now signal that you’re a reactionary.

More. Benson is interviewed by Megyn Kelly, here, and says:

I just want to acknowledge quickly that I recognize that I am so fortunate to live in a country and an era where we can be having this exact conversation on national television, and I recognize that a lot of that is due to the fact that I’m standing on the shoulders of people who worked very hard for a very long time, who probably don’t share my political persuasions. …

But I think when that crosses some threshold into punishing and purging dissenters and trying to exact punishments on people for not agreeing, that is not what we should be about in this country. I think we’re better than that in this country.

As to the charge that he’s just a Fox News lackey, during the 2012 Romney campaign Benson took social conservatives to task for opposing Romney’s appointment of an openly gay man, Richard Grenell, to be his spokesman on national security and foreign policy issues (Grenell, alas, resigned shortly afterward when Romney failed to stand up for him.).

41 Comments

Marriage Amendment Is Wrong, Defending Religious Freedom Isn’t

by on

In the wake of the Supreme Court hearing oral arguments on same-sex marriage, Gov. Scott Walker, who seemed for a while to have accepted marriage equality in Wisconsin as the law so let’s move on, shifted ground and joined Ted Cruz in endorsing a constitutional amendment that would stop federal judges from finding a constitutional right to same-sex marriage.

“My hope is that the U.S. Supreme Court will [not rule in favor of same-sex marriage],” Walker said. “If they don’t, the only other viable option out there is to support a constitutional amendment which I would [support] believing not just in marriage being defined as one man, one woman, but I also believe in states rights. I believe that is an issue that appropriately belongs in the states.”

Endorsing amending the U.S. Constitution to stop marriage equality will put Walker beyond the political pale for center-right, libertarian-leaning Republicans and independents, without whom no Republican can win the general election. It’s not just morally wrong, it’s bad politics.

Progressives, however, are also expressing opprobrium toward Jeb Bush for noting concern that same-sex marriage might lead to forcing conservative clergy to perform same-sex marriages. Bush’s fear, dismissed flippantly by his critics, would have less credence if they hadn’t already been justified by a highly publicized instance of liberal officials trying to do this in the name of anti-discrimination (arguing that if ordained clergy run a wedding chapel instead of a church, they are subordinate to the state). That case fell apart, but not for want of trying.

And there was also this exchange during last week’s Supreme Court oral arguments, in which U.S. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli suggested that a private, religiously affiliated college could lose it’s tax-exempt status for not supporting same-sex marriage:

JUSTICE ALITO: Well,in the Bob Jones case, the Court held that a college was not entitled to tax¬exempt status if it opposed interracial marriage or interracial dating. So would the same apply to a university or a college if it opposed same-sex marriage?

GENERALVERRILLI: You know, I — I don’t think I can answer that question without knowing more specifics, but it’s certainly going to be an issue. I — I don’t deny that. I don’t deny that, Justice Alito. It is — it is going to be an issue.

As the Washington Blade reported, Bush also alluded to the cases of religiously conservative florists, caterers, and bakers being prosecuted for declining to provide services to same-sex weddings:

for Bush, finding “common ground” between opponents of same-sex marriage and gay and lesbian people seeking to marry is key. I think a country as open and big and tolerant and as this country ought to be able to find common ground on both of those fronts,” Bush said.

But the zealots of left and right won’t have any part of that.

More. From our comments, “Mary” writes, pertinently:

In all fairness, if 10 years ago someone had said that equal rights for gays would lead to a photographer being sued for not wanting to photograph a lesbian commitment ceremony wouldn’t you have called this a scare tactic? And when people argued that bakers, florists, and reception hall owners would have to cater to gay weddings or be sued for discrimination because “equal means equal” wasn’t it said that no one would be forced to have anything to do with gay weddings if they didn’t want to?

So why should we assume that tax exemption would never be removed from churches that don’t marry gay couples? Although I support SSM now, I do believe we need specific laws to protect religious freedom.

Indeed. And Hubert Humphrey famously said “I’ll eat my hat if this [the Civil Rights Act] leads to racial quotas.” One can today argue the merits of affirmative action race-based preferences and quotas, but they certainly did come about (with hard quotas, at least, subsequently scaled back by Supreme Court rulings).

24 Comments

Out with the Old Intolerance, In with the New

by on

Some want equality before the law and social inclusion. Others, who feign wanting the same, actually have darker aims and see an opportunity to pursue these by confusing their authoritarian agenda with the cresting fight for liberty.

As Mark Lee writes in the Washington Blade:

The news on the gay civil rights and marriage equality fronts has been nothing short of stupendous of late. Except for the attitudes and behavior of some LGBT people, including many community activists.

Inclination toward ideological hegemony and political retribution of the sort that would make Chairman Mao proud is substitute for an appropriate sense of communal celebration and circumspect congeniality. It seems we’ve become so accustomed to anxiety and alienation that gays don’t know how to be happy. …

Two instances in the past week are clear illustrations.

When generation-spanning Olympian and reality show star Bruce Jenner indicated he’s a conservative Republican, when discussing being transgender in a national television interview, the denunciations and condemnations were swift. Taunts that he’s “self-loathing” or a “traitor” and “despicable” for his political beliefs were emblematic of a lack of tolerance for divergence of thought.

The news that two prominent gay hoteliers, owners of multiple businesses and most of the gay venues on Fire Island, had invited Ted Cruz to a small meet-and-greet to primarily discuss non-gay issues sparked rapid-fire pillory. Lost in the outcry was the fundraising event they had recently hosted for 900 contributors to Hillary Clinton’s campaign. Calls for a boycott of their enterprises ensued and they were reduced to issuing an “apology” to avoid continued harassment….

Why do we remain tolerant of an abhorrent petty mob mentality demanding “groupthink” and pouncing on nonconformists? For all the chatter about a need for “safe spaces” it’s time we create such for one another.

[Added: Subsequently, Reisner revealed:

“In the interest of transparency, I gave Senator Cruz a $2,700 cheque to show my support for his work on behalf of Israel,” Reisner said in a statement [to the New York Times]. “When I realized his donation could be misconstrued as supporting his anti-gay marriage agenda, I asked for the money back. Senator Cruz’s office gave the money back, and I have no intention of giving any money to any politicians who aren’t in support of LGBT issues.”]

More. Via Reason, this cartoon nicely captures the Jenner controversy.

Perhaps a better example to make the point, the Supreme Court arguments, as noted in a Wall Street Journal op-ed, came just four days afer:

in Oregon, an administrative-law judge proposed a $135,000 fine against Aaron and Melissa Klein, proprietors of the Sweet Cakes bakery in Gresham, for the “emotional distress” suffered by a lesbian couple for whom the Kleins, citing their Christian belief that marriage is between a man and a woman, had declined to bake a wedding cake in 2013.

Some have come to think anything that purports to advance “LGBT rights” and that brands itself as “progressive” is by necessity of the light and is thus to be supported without question—especially when the target is religious conservatives and/or Republicans, who themselves can’t possibly have rights worth defending.

Liberal tolerance. Drive them out of business, subject them to penurious fines, and then block their attempts to raise money for their legal defense.

And while you’re at it, attack an unrelated bakery with the same-sounding name:

Though the Smiths are across the country from Sweet Cakes by Melissa, run by husband-and-wife team Melissa and Aaron Klein, their bakery’s strong presence on Twitter has caused it to be the target of “really awful, hateful tweets,” Emily Smith said Thursday.

“People are calling us bigots and say we should rot in hell and are tweeting Bible quotes to us [on Twitter],” said Emily Smith.

26 Comments

Transgressors, Beware

by on

Hotel-owning NYC gay business partners Mati Weiderpass and Ian Reisner face an LGBT boycott for meeting with Ted Cruz, primarily to discuss American relations with Israel.

Reisner and Weiderpass said that they disagreed with Cruz on gay marriage and that his appearance at a get-together they hosted “was a step in the right direction toward him having a better understanding” of what they believed.

But the inquisitors smell blood, and they will not be put off.

David Weigel writes, “The irony is that the gay backlash to Cruz’s hosts might engender sympathy with gay marriage opponents,” which has certainly been true of other recent LGBT boycotts (which, unlike the action against Weiderpass and Reisner, at least targeted actual gay marriage opponents, albeit small vendors who rightfully come across as the victims of a bullying mob).

More. And not the mob alone, but authoritarians with state power. Destroying their businesses wasn’t enough, apparently.

I think many have felt cowed into not criticizing progressive LGBT affronts to tolerance and liberty for fear of sowing disunity in the fight for marriage (libertarians, for the most part, are the ones speaking out for both the right to marriage and the right to religious dissent).

I fear that if anything might deter Justice Kennedy from joining with the liberals to find a constitutional right to wed, it’s the unveiling of the authoritarianism driving LGBT progressives as they strive to enforce their vision of ideological and behavioral conformity.

If the court rules the right way in June, I hope more will feel emboldened to speak out in favor of tolerance and mutual respect, even if it means standing up to the mob and its political allies.

Furthermore. Cruz has also taken heat from the religious right over the meeting, showing that zealots on both left and right see any kind of dialog with “the enemy” as anathema.

Final word Reisner offers self-criticism and pledges to toe the correct party line. Note: despite some sloppy misreporting (and malicious misblogging), this meeting was not a fundraiser for Cruz. Should gay people not be allowed to meet conservatives and talk about issues that might unite or divide them? Well, I think we’ve learned the answer.

It’s not only about marriage, of course. You’d better uphold the whole progressive agenda, OR ELSE. From the Daily Beast:

“It’s not a coincidence that Cruz is anti-gay and also anti-social-safety net, anti-reproductive justice, and anti-affirmative action. What extremely fortunate white gay men like Reisner and Weiderpass don’t understand is that it’s all one big package: the classism, the religious conservatism, the social conservatism—these all go together.”

And after the freedom to marriage is secured (hopefully soon), expect that the ongoing morphing of the LGBT rights movement into a full-blown brigade of the progressive left to accelerate.

Real final word. James Kirchick writes, Ted Cruz’s Gay Hosts Shouldn’t Apologize:

So what if two rich gay hoteliers invited Ted Cruz to chat with them at their home? That’s the kind of bridge building we need more of, not less.

And this:

If Obama can meet with the likes of Raul Castro, who heads a regime that threw gay men into concentration camps where they were worked to death, why can’t a couple of gay businessmen have dinner with a politician who opposes same-sex marriage?

Indeed.

Final update, for real Apology revoked.

Added: Subsequently, Reisner revealed:

“In the interest of transparency, I gave Senator Cruz a $2,700 cheque to show my support for his work on behalf of Israel,” Reisner said in a statement [to the New York Times]. “When I realized his donation could be misconstrued as supporting his anti-gay marriage agenda, I asked for the money back. Senator Cruz’s office gave the money back, and I have no intention of giving any money to any politicians who aren’t in support of LGBT issues.”

30 Comments

Post-Marriage Forecast

by on

The New York Times looks at the likely aftermath of a June Supreme Court ruling that there is a constitutional right to same-sex marriage:

Still, once the Supreme Court speaks, in a decision widely expected to make same-sex marriage a national right, the opponents’ anger and energies are likely to focus on a more limited issue, what they call protections for conservative religious officials or vendors who want to avoid involvement in same-sex weddings.

Gerald N. Rosenberg, a political scientist and legal scholar at the University of Chicago, said his former predictions of a wider, lasting backlash to marriage rulings had been overtaken by the “sea change in public opinion.”

Such “opt out” proposals may produce political heat, as recently seen in Indiana and Arkansas, where the governors, under pressure from businesses, felt compelled to weaken so-called religious freedom bills. But they will not impede the ability of gay couples to marry, Mr. Rosenberg said.

And this:

Yet whatever resistance strategies are adopted, many legal and political experts who have studied the impact of divisive Supreme Court rulings in the past, and the trajectory of the same-sex marriage movement, say they do not expect a lasting, powerful backlash of the kind that followed decisions on school desegregation and abortion.

Instead, the experience in states where same-sex marriage has already been legalized suggests that public opposition is likely to wither over time.

“As more couples marry, more people will know people who are married,” said Michael J. Klarman, a legal historian at the Harvard Law School and author of a 2012 book on earlier same-sex marriage rulings. “And those who oppose it will find out that the sky doesn’t fall.”

Assuming that the Supreme Court rules the right way, I think that’s correct. Same-sex marriage is not abortion; it is not the taking of life. There will not be mass mobilizations to pass Ted Cruz’s constitutional amendment.

But the debate over whether independent vendors with religious views opposed to participating in same-sex weddings should be forced by the state to do so (at the behest of angry authoritarians) will continue, and it will be ugly. Think witch hunts.

Confusing the matter is a related but different issue: whether civil servants should be able to opt out, and here I think the answer has to be no. There is a key difference between private, self-employed citizens who don’t want to provide creative services to same-sex weddings, and servants of the state.

While some of my friends on the left seem to think everyone is essentially (or should be) treated as a servant of the state, that’s actually not the American way, and shouldn’t be.

But, on the other hand, if government officials can’t perform their duty to treat all citizens equally, citing their own religious convictions, then they should step aside. Separation of church and state is also the American way.

9 Comments