IGF CultureWatch

The magnitude of the challenge Mitt Romney faces on marriage can be seen, not in the looniest of gay marriage opponents, or the most depraved, (though as I argued, he is now stuck with these folks).  No, the hard part will be dealing with the Maggie Gallaghers.

Gallagher has become a master of disguising her disapproval of homosexuality in general — so good she even seems to have convinced herself she’s fair minded.

But look at her defense of marriage, either in its condensed version, or for the brave hearts, its fuller explanation in an argument with John Corvino.  Her bottom line is that marriage is a key “governing idea” that cannot be changed without inevitable erosion of its core.  That core idea, again and again and again, is the importance of a mother and a father to children.  That’s a limited idea, and a pretty uninformed view of government, law and society, but it’s one Gallagher is committed to and not afraid to man the battlements on.

Romney, however, kicked the props out from under her yesterday when he said that same-sex couples have a “right” (his exact word) to adopt children, as they did in Massachusetts under his governorship.  It wasn’t long before he had to shake the Etch-a-Sketch and try to argue that he doesn’t believe gay adoption is actually a right; he was just acknowledging the reality in 49 states.

But if 49 states (Florida is the exception) allow same-sex couples (some of them legally married) to adopt children, then what governing idea is Gallagher talking about preserving?

That is the hole in the heart of Gallagher’s argument and it is the flaw that is eroding the anti-equality side every day.  Nobody has to deny the importance of marriage for children to also accept that children need and must have some kind of responsible parenting, whether it is the ideal or something less.  No one has ever argued that if children can’t have ideal parents, they shouldn’t have any.  That’s such a ridiculous notion that even Gallagher won’t take it up.  But if we believe (and our laws support) children having less than ideal parents, than isn’t that our “governing idea?”

People who believe in absolutist arguments (we can’t ever change the governing idea of marriage as between a man and a woman) run the risk of focusing so firmly on the heavens that they trip on the sidewalk.  What’s happening today isn’t that people are rejecting the importance of marriage for children, they are just accepting that many good things are not perfect things.

More than that, they are understanding that homosexuals are not made of stone.  Whether they have children or not, same-sex couples see childless heterosexual couples, including those who have raised children that no longer live with them, and make the perfectly reasonable claim that the relationship of marriage extends beyond a contract to have and raise children.

As heterosexuals stop to think about that, they see and even feel its fundamental truth.  They are not rejecting their own ideas about marriage, they are simply embracing homosexuals into the real world they know, as imperfect equals.  They see that Gallagher’s governing idea has never been a mandate for them, and if the law accepts their departures from the archetype, why shouldn’t it make room for homosexuals as well?

That is the bottom line that this GOP memo reminds the party of.

Gallagher can’t let go of her dogmas and verities, but she’s not running for public office; she has the luxury to be as philosophical as she likes.  In contrast, Romney is running for President, not Prefect of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith.  As a whole, Americans are realists, and while there will always be some room for moral authoritarians, that’s not a style that has served American leaders well.

Obama hip-checked Romney into the absolutists, and as the adoption episode shows, Romney is going to have a hell of a time getting back on his feet.   Whatever political instincts he has toward fairness cannot survive the melodramatic abstractions of the religious fervor he has to manage among his base.

An important perspective on the repeal of “don’t ask, don’t tell,” by a former aide to Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine). Writes Matthew Gagnon:

I saw up close the White House and its Democratic allies actively trying to stop, for political purposes, the very legislation they are now taking undue credit for. Instead, a lone Republican senator from Maine was the one actually taking a phenomenal personal and political risk and ultimately proved to be the real engine behind the repeal.

It’s a reminder of the importance of achieving at least some GOP support for gay equality.

More. Via Politico, The pro-gay marriage Bush alumni: “…for an administration with a reputation for social conservatism, it’s worth looking at the number of alumni who come out in favor of same-sex marriage — and urged the rest of their party to follow suit.”

There is a very real possiblity that within the decade the GOP could be turned around, if there is a will to make the effort. But too many Democrats are just fine with an anti-gay GOP (as demonstrated by their attacks on Ric Grenell and other gay Republicans working for change within the party), as it serves their partisan interests. And too many LGBT activists have fallen into that trap.

Without doubt, the Washington Post‘s report of the young Mitt Romney as a prep school bully and gay-basher is harrowing:

Romeny … spotted something he thought did not belong at a school where the boys wore ties and carried briefcases. John Lauber, a soft-spoken new student one year behind Romney, was perpetually teased for his nonconformity and presumed homosexuality. Now he was walking around the all-boys school with bleached-blond hair that draped over one eye, and Romney wasn’t having it.

A few days later [found] Romney marching out of his own room ahead of a prep school posse shouting about their plan to cut Lauber’s hair. Friedemann followed them to a nearby room where they came upon Lauber, tackled him and pinned him to the ground. As Lauber, his eyes filling with tears, screamed for help, Romney repeatedly clipped his hair with a pair of scissors.

The incident was recalled similarly by five students, who gave their accounts independently of one another. … “It happened very quickly, and to this day it troubles me,” said Buford, the school’s wrestling champion, who said he joined Romney in restraining Lauber. Buford subsequently apologized to Lauber, who was “terrified,” he said. “What a senseless, stupid, idiotic thing to do.”

The incident reportedly haunted Lauber, who died of liver cancer several years ago. It troubled the other perpetrators as well, the Post reports, but Romney—the instigator and scissor-wielder—claims no memory of the attack, which begs credulity, although he apologized for unspecified “pranks” that went too far. Romney also claimed that homosexuality “wasn’t something we all discussed or considered. So that’s simply just not accurate.” Which also rings false.

The account is reverberating around the Huffington Post and the left-liberal blogosphere, got picked up by a few other news outlets but hasn’t broken out more widely. It comes on the heels Romney’s failure to stand by his openly gay foreign policy spokesman, Ric Grenell, who resigned under attack by the religious right (not helped by parallel attacks on Grenell by the “progressive” left, let me add), and Romney’s reiterating his support for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage in every state. Whether this has any traction beyond those already in the Democrats’ camp will be telling.

More. The truth, the truth, what is the truth? Breitbart has a round up of conservative blogosphere responses charging media distortion and double standards. The latter I believe.

Still more. Obama mocked and shoved a plump girl as his friends yelled taunts. [Added] But at least Obama remembers, and tells it, himself. And a big difference, as our commenters note, is that he regrets it.

Further thoughts. My guess is that the reports of this incident won’t change anyone’s mind. Those opposed to Romney will have fresh reason to reject him; those in his camp will dimiss the story as overblown and distorted. But I’m fairly certain that Romney will receive a far smaller portion of the gay vote that did John McCain (who strongly opposed the federal marriage amendemnt and, at that time, said he was open to ending ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’). Not that I think Romney’s campaign cares very much about getting the 27% of the self-identified gay vote that McCain garnered according to CNN (the total self-identified gay vote was just 4 percent of all votes cast).

Good. David Boaz takes a look at Obama’s evolution, devolution and re-evolution and concludes “Nevertheless, he’s in the right place now.” For politicians, let us not forget, it’s all politics. Sorry, but it is.

Having an equivocal position on marriage equality from the leader of the party gay people fund and devote thousands of volunteer hours to support is not acceptable in 2012. Obama has finally come to terms with that.

Now, onward the fight. It will take both parties supporting legal equality for gay citizens in order to ensure our rights are respected and protected. It’s often pointed out that GOP candidates backed by Tea Party groups combine fiscal conservatism with an anti-gay social agenda, including support for a constitutional amendment that would federalize marriage and impose one definition from Washington on the states. But there is no inherent, immutable reason why those favoring constitutional restraints on government in all other areas should support government intrusion into the most intimate of personal relationships. Many Western European conservative leaders have come to realize this. In the U.S., libertarians have long supported personal liberty that encompasses freedom from government with regard to confiscatory taxation and over-regulation, along with expanded civil liberties and equal rights under the law without discrimination.

The fact that today’s Republican party staunchly opposes gay equality should signal that this is where our efforts should be focused.

Log Cabin Republican David Lampo writes in the Washington Post:

The resignation of Richard Grenell, the recently appointed and openly gay foreign policy spokesman for Mitt Romney’s presidential campaign, was as sudden as it was shocking. It was also yet another disturbing sign that the Romney campaign is still in pander mode when it comes to the anti-gay right. …

…the Romney campaign seems to have caved in to [the American Family Association’s Bryan Fischer] and his followers. Though Grenell was not fired, and after his departure Romney and campaign staffers have spoken highly of him, there was no strong public defense while he was under attack. This fits in well with Romney’s history of pandering to the religious right. …

On May 12, Romney is set to deliver the commencement address at Liberty University, the religious-right stronghold founded by the late Jerry Falwell. He can either continue to pander to those whose primary goal is to construct an American theocracy, or he can use the address to fashion his own Sister Souljah moment and make clear the distinction between private religious values and the time-honored principle of separation of church and state.

Don’t bet the ranch that Romney will show any spine.

More. No surprise here. Via the New York Times: “Mitt Romney used his address Liberty University on Saturday to offer a forceful defense of faith, family and shared Judeo-Christian values, and strongly reaffirmed his stance that marriage should be between only a man and a woman.”

Furthermore. No spine whatsoever.

updated May 9, 2012

Did Vice President Joe Biden endorse marriage equality on “Meet the Press”? He said, “I am absolutely comfortable with the fact that men marrying men, women marrying women and heterosexual men and women marrying one another are entitled to the same exact rights, all the civil rights, all the civil liberties.”

Progressive activists immediately hailed this breakthrough, but presidential campaign advisor David Axlerod was soon walking Biden’s comments back, saying the veep did not endorse full equality, or didn’t mean to. Axlerod tweeted that Biden’s statement “that all married couples should have exactly the same legal rights” is “precisely” the position taken by President Obama all along.

So Obama and Biden are for equal rights for all. But not for marriage equality. Depending on whose votes they’re seeking, and what time of day it is. (Caveat: I’ll beat my Democrat commenters to the punch: “Yea, but Republicans are worse.”)

More. To those party loyalists who replied that the campaign isn’t walking anything back (hey, even NPR acknowledged as much in its report), commenter “another steve” points out:

Axlerod said Biden and Obama are on the same page; Obama supports rights but not giving gays the institution of marriage. Biden seemed to say he supports marriage in full, but if he and Obama are in synch, as Axlerod claims, then he doesn’t. Or does Obama now support marriage equality – but Axlerod said Obama’s position remains what it has been. So just who is sending a confused message here?

More still. James Kirchick writes in the New York Daily News on Joe Biden, Barack Obama and the value of strategic ambiguity in the gay marriage debate:

Ultimately, it doesn’t really matter where the President or the Vice President stand on marriage equality. Marriage is a state issue, or, at least, should be, were it not for the fact that the Defense of Marriage Act remains law — and were it not for the fact that some Republicans want to write discrimination into the Constitution via a Federal Marriage Amendment.

But Libertarian Party presidential nominee Gary Johnson explains why “Gay marriage is not a trick question, and we shouldn’t be getting trick answers from the President of the United States.”

The Wall Street Journal reports:

Rep. Nan Hayworth has spent much of her first term in Congress alongside her boisterous, tea-party-backed fellow Republican freshmen, fighting earmarks and trying to slash government spending. But the 52-year-old ophthalmologist from Mount Kisco, N.Y., is tip-toeing down a lonely road largely untrodden by other Republicans on a sensitive social issue: gay rights. Ms. Hayworth, who has a 21-year-old gay son, joined the congressional LGBT Equality Caucus in November, making her one of three Republicans in the largely Democratic group. She’s one of six Republicans backing a bill to give the health benefits that same-sex partners receive the same tax treatment as those that straight couples receive.

And this:

Democrats are trying to tie her to Mr. Romney, the presumptive GOP presidential nominee. “Congresswoman Hayworth has chosen a presidential candidate who would reinstate ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,'” said Josh Schwerin, a spokesman for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.

Which, despite Romney’s other, real flaws on gay equality issues, is a big cheap partisan lie that some Democrats keep repeating.

From a Charlotte News & Observer op-ed: “Perhaps the most surprising development in the fight over Amendment One is that so many leading North Carolina conservatives oppose it. … Should the measure be defeated by the voters on May 8, conservatives will have played a major role in its demise.” And this:

Then there’s the outright restriction of individual rights. Only a month after the U.S. Supreme Court heard powerful arguments against the health insurance mandate as unconstitutional, it rings hollow to many conservatives to insist that the heavy hand of the state come down against people who want to commit themselves to sharing a life. Put simply, if there is a liberty interest in choosing to buy health insurance, isn’t there a liberty interest in choosing to marry?

updated May 5, 2012

Social conservatives and left-wing “progressives” can unite and cheer that together they have derailed Romney’s appointment of Richard Grenell as his foreign policy adviser/spokesman. Grenell is openly gay and an advocate of marriage equality, as previously noted. They’re celebrating at ThinkProgress and at the American Family Association. Shame on both, but especially on the partisan leftists who posture as our allies but prefer their Republicans anti-gay (hey, it serves the interests of the Democratic party, and that’s what matters above all, right).

More. Yes, Grenell’s resignation was mainly due to attacks by social conservatives, triggered by his support for marriage equality. But the fact that the left-liberal ThinkProgress and Huffington Post, among others (i.e., our progressive “allies”) were also gunning for him makes their attacks all the more despicable.

And no, I’m not impressed that ThinkProgress, having viciously skewered Grenell as sexist and a misogynist over tweets showing insufficient political correctness, has the gall to castigate the religious right for scuttling his appointment.

Furthermore. Log Cabin Executive Director R. Clarke Cooper writes:

The gay community, despite the hatred it greeted Ric with when his appointment was announced, has lost as well. … Liberal commentator Jonathan Capehart went so far as to say “Richard Grenell chose power over principle” and to accuse him of being a hypocrite for being a gay conservative working within the party.

And yet, now that his detractors have gotten what they wished for, some LGBT Americans are realizing the danger of the message that has been sent. Half of this country routinely votes Republican, and every recent advance for our liberty, from marriage in New York to the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” has required significant Republican support.

The left, after beating the right to the punch with the initial attacks on Grenell, pulled back when it became clear that the right was going to finish him off. But I have no doubt that if Grenell had survived the right’s onslaught, the left would have been back on the attack.

More still. Richmond Times-Dispatch columnist A. Barton Hinkle writes of a gay Republican friend:

In the wake of the Grenell affair, the friend writes, “I’m starting to wonder if—despite that fact that I agree with the [Republican] party on most issues, including being strongly pro-life—the GOP just doesn’t want people like me.” He will not vote for Romney now. But “I won’t vote for Obama, so for the first time in my life I won’t vote for president. There is no one for me to support.”