Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Are Republicans 'co-opting' gay rights?

Adam Serwer of the American Prospect is guest blogging on The Plum Line this week.

Pro-gay rights Republicans seem to be less of an oxymoron these days. Former Solicitor General Ted Olson is, along with Ted Boies, leading the fight in the courts against California's ban on same-sex marriage and schooling Fox News on what fundamental rights are. Former RNC Chair Ken Mehlman has come out and begun raising money for the pro-equality group Americans for Equal Rights. Conservative commentator Ann Coulter, who once called Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards a "faggot," is headlining a political convention for gay and lesbian conservatives, and Sen. John Cornyn, the chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, and Rep. Pete Sessions, the chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee, will be appearing alongside other GOP elected officials at a dinner hosted by the Log Cabin Republicans. Even Glenn Beck has said he doesn't think gay marriage is a "threat to the country."

Not all of these cases indicate an instance in which Republicans have embraced gay rights or even marriage equality -- Cornyn and Sessions for example, are merely attending the event -- but it's hard not to conclude, as Marc Ambinder writes, that "it's becoming less of a stigma for bigwigs to associate with gays in the Republican Party."

That, according to Sam Stein, has some Democrats worried. Stein quotes a "prominent Democratic consultant":

"I think they have been put in a tough place by these conservatives and they should be," the consultant said. "There are a whole group of people who are to the left of them on gay rights. And they are Republicans. It should make them feel uncomfortable."

It should be the goal of rights movements to work themselves out of a need for existing. The fastest way to do that is to get both parties competing for your favor. And the point of this movement is to secure LGBT rights, not to get Democrats elected. The latter is merely a means to the former.

That said, I don't think Republicans are on the verge of seriously competing for the votes of people for whom gay rights is their first priority.

Some of the developments I mentioned above were met with consternation and teeth gnashing from religious conservatives, and it's still not unusual to hear gay-baiting rhetoric from Republican politicians. In Delaware, Republican Senate candidate Mike Castle is facing a primary opponent who is lobbing unsubstantiated charges related to sexual orientation, and in Texas, Gov. Rick Perry recently declared, "We're creating more jobs than any other state in the nation.... Would you rather live in a state like this, or in a state where a man can marry a man?"

I couldn't explain to you what the logic of that statement is supposed to be. But the political logic is clear -- Republicans as a whole are still fairly hostile to the LGBT community. A recent poll showed that a majority of Americans say the Constitution should convey a right to same-sex marriage, but only a quarter of Republicans believe that the Constitution already does. Pro-gay rights Republicans may feel more comfortable being vocal these days, but they're still a minority. People tend to grade Republicans on a serious curve in these matters -- if someone isn't talking about gay rights in apocalyptic terms, that's seen as progress. And it is. But let's not get ahead of ourselves.

If Democrats are worried, they should be moving faster on repealing "don't ask, don't tell" and figuring out a way to rhetorically extract themselves from the "civil unions but not marriage" rhetorical compromise. At one point, they were trying to keep themselves from getting ahead of the polling on this issue; now they're in danger of falling behind it. Given that the divide over marriage equality is in large part an age issue, the window of opportunity for Democrats to glean some kind of political rewards out of supporting LGBT rights is closing. For the movement itself though, things are looking better and better.

By Adam Serwer  |  September 2, 2010; 9:20 AM ET
 
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: End-of-the-day links
Next: The (D)oomed Party

Comments

"That, according to Sam Stein, has some Democrats worried."

Sorry, but Sam Stein is an idiot.

A majority of Republicans are openly hostile to gay citizens and think of them as flawed individuals.

Look, I think it's noble some Republicans are now finally openly pushing back against the open hateful rhetoric and demeaning demagoguery on display from some of the leading voices on the right, but to be worried is ridiculous.

If anything Sam should be thankful because the day anyone in either party pushes back against any open bigotry and antiquated ways of thinking, it's a good thing.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | September 2, 2010 9:45 AM | Report abuse

Correction, whichever Democrats told Sam Stein they were worried are idiots.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | September 2, 2010 9:46 AM | Report abuse

Previously unrecognized platform position in the Gay Agenda..."Take over the modern conservative movement"

Posted by: bernielatham | September 2, 2010 9:46 AM | Report abuse

Every man is a flawed individual.

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 2, 2010 9:50 AM | Report abuse

So far as I can determine, FOX had mentioned Mehlman's announcement only twice and very briefly in off-peak time slots. Of course, it's exactly the wrong narrative for their audience.

Posted by: bernielatham | September 2, 2010 9:54 AM | Report abuse

Every man is a flawed individual.

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 2, 2010 9:50 AM

........................

Except Governor Jan Brewer; so said Quitter Palin.

Posted by: Liam-still | September 2, 2010 9:54 AM | Report abuse

There are a lot of TV talking heads saying that If the Iraq drawdown leads to increase sectarian violence, and possible civil war, then the USA will be forced to repeat "The Surge"

Why would we do that?

If we go back in, then we can never get out of there.

If, by now, the Iraqi leaders can not form a government, and decide instead to opt for civil war, then to hell with them. It is now their country, so let us get the hell out of there, and if they are determined not to form a peaceful civil society, there is nothing we can do about it.

Posted by: Liam-still | September 2, 2010 10:01 AM | Report abuse

Neither Brewer nor Palin are "men" (QUITTER Obama, however, is ; )

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 2, 2010 10:01 AM | Report abuse

It's a great development for LGBT rights and I do think some dems are a little weak kneed on the subject, but maybe times are changing. I think you're right Adam that in some respects it's a generational thing and acceptance will increase over time although it's not quick enough.

However, it looks like Focus on the Family isn't ready to give up on the fear and loathing quite yet.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Cushman's argument has two levels: first, she says anti-bullying efforts wrongly put the focus on the "characteristics of the victim" instead of the "wrong actions of the bullies." Second, she thinks that gay rights activists are using the whole issue to sneak their agenda into the nation's schools. She denounced the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN).

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Focus on the Family has tried to discredit GLSEN's efforts to make schools safe for all students since our founding in 1990. These most recent attempts show that, once again, Focus on the Family either doesn't know what it is talking about or simply don't care about addressing bullying, or both. The policies we support - which, by the way, include protections for bullying based on religion - have been shown by years of research to make a difference in young people's lives. That is why nearly 70 national education, youth service and civil and human rights organizations endorse the Safe Schools Improvement Act. In terms of LGBT youth, we certainly hope that Focus on the Family agrees that the current environment in which nearly 9 out of 10 LGBT students experience harassment each year in school is simply unacceptable. But we won't hold our breath.

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/08/focus_on_the_family_dont_let_gay_activists_hijack.php?ref=fpb

Posted by: lmsinca | September 2, 2010 10:01 AM | Report abuse

While Republicans aren't "co-opting" gay rights, a couple are making some noise. This begins to narrow the gap between the parties. If this progress continues, the nice words and empty promises will will be matched and the Democrats will have to actually do something in order to differentiate themselves from the Republicans. This is still a ways off, but I could see why Democrats should be worried.

One rhetorical strategy that Democrats use is to hold out the Republicans as some kind of bogeyman. If the Republicans start to match rhetoric, it the Democrats will lose that excuse for meaningful advances in LGBT rights.

Posted by: DCCharles | September 2, 2010 10:03 AM | Report abuse

Correction to my last sentence:

If the Republicans start to match rhetoric, the Democrats will lose an excuse for withholding meaningful advances in LGBT rights.

Posted by: DCCharles | September 2, 2010 10:06 AM | Report abuse

O/T (but important, I think):

Karl Rove claims in the Wall Street Journal that the Iraq War "deal[t] a brutal blow to al Qaeda."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703882304575465832623095078.html

That is how the GOP propaganda machine effectuates its War On Reality. Just keep saying something over and over no matter how untrue. I would like to see someone of note challenge this lie head-on. If we don't deal in reality we can't address our problems.

Posted by: wbgonne | September 2, 2010 10:07 AM | Report abuse

@Liam - Considering all of the lives and resources we have put into Iraq, it would seem to me a clear responsibility of the newly liberated nation that, when the US breaks out in civil war, the Iraqis will move in here to help restore order.

Posted by: bernielatham | September 2, 2010 10:10 AM | Report abuse

DCCharles:

Would a ROBERTS COURT decision invalidating all same-sex marriage be a "meaningful advance" or not?

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 2, 2010 10:11 AM | Report abuse

Neither Brewer nor Palin are "men" (QUITTER Obama, however, is ; )

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 2, 2010 10:01 AM

....................

Quitter Palin said that Jan Brewer has the biggest testicles that Palin has ever seen.

Makes one wonder how Palin discovered that. Is she in the closet?

Posted by: Liam-still | September 2, 2010 10:11 AM | Report abuse

"Texas, Gov. Rick Perry recently declared, 'We're creating more jobs than any other state in the nation.... Would you rather live in a state like this, or in a state where a man can marry a man?'"

Ha! I live in Texas and it is fairly well known that Gov. Rick "Goodhair" Perry is a "Friend of Dorothy."


Posted by: nisleib | September 2, 2010 10:12 AM | Report abuse

I'm a big fan of Scahill. His book on Blackwater was not merely illuminating (in a scary way) but well written and deeply researched.

Last night, I caught his appearance on Olbermann and I've never heard him speak so forcefully before. More of this please.
http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heather/olbermann-and-scahill-share-their-thanks-p

Posted by: bernielatham | September 2, 2010 10:14 AM | Report abuse

The correct name is David Bois.

Posted by: Maezeppa | September 2, 2010 10:14 AM | Report abuse

JakeD2: Would a ROBERTS COURT decision invalidating all same-sex marriage be a "meaningful advance" or not?

Jake,

Too bad you can't play scary music while I read that.

Posted by: DCCharles | September 2, 2010 10:15 AM | Report abuse

For those interested in learning more, check out:

gayconservative.org

(current post is about taxes and the size of government)

And . . .

www.gaypatriot.net

There's also . . .

conservativerainbow.blogspot.com

And the organizers of Homocon . . .

blog.goproud.org

Good stuff.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | September 2, 2010 10:17 AM | Report abuse

@wbgonne: "Karl Rove claims in the Wall Street Journal that the Iraq War "deal[t] a brutal blow to al Qaeda."

People are entitled to their opinions, even if not supported by the facts. That's not necessarily a War on Reality.

People can be wrong about stuff without being actively engaged in a War on Reality.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | September 2, 2010 10:21 AM | Report abuse


@Liam - Considering all of the lives and resources we have put into Iraq, it would seem to me a clear responsibility of the newly liberated nation that, when the US breaks out in civil war, the Iraqis will move in here to help restore order.

Posted by: bernielatham | September 2, 2010 10:10 AM |
...............

Bernie,

I am thinking back to when President Reagan housed hundreds of Marines in Barracks in Beirut Lebanon, to stop a civil war in that country. Of course, after that got those marines slaughtered, by a terrorist attack, he soon withdrew from Lebanon, and ran of to wag the dog in Grenada.

That was a glorious war, wasn't it? When are the veterans of the Grenada campaign going to get their own war memorial in Washington.

Reagan running from Beirut rewarded the terrorists, for their attack, and encouraged Bin Laden to use more of the same tactics against us.

Ronald Reagan also traded missiles for hostages with the terrorists puppet masters in Iran. Of course Reagan also sent Chemical Weapons to Saddam, to be used against Iran.


Posted by: Liam-still | September 2, 2010 10:22 AM | Report abuse

Senator Larry Craig(R) held Gay Rights Rallies at Airport Facilities, over the course of several years.

Posted by: Liam-still | September 2, 2010 10:25 AM | Report abuse

Kevin - If you say something that you know is factually inaccurate that isn't stating your opinion; that is lying. And if that lying is part of a much larger campaign of intentional false statements then the "War on Reality" is a fitting description.

Now maybe you are trying to say Rove just doesn't know what he is talking about, but I doubt that. I have many problems with Mr. Rove, but I have never considered him stupid.

Posted by: nisleib | September 2, 2010 10:26 AM | Report abuse

Liam-still:

No, she does have another close friend who is a lesbian though.

BTW: Barack HUSSEIN Obama has "quit" most everything he has done. He quit in Honolulu and Jakarta. He left Occidental College without a degree. He left his jobs" at the Business International Corporation, the New York Public Interest Research Group, the Developing Communities Project, Sidley Austin, Hopkins & Sutter, Davis, Miner, Barnhill & Galland, and the University of Chicago Law School, as well as his membership on the boards of directors of the Woods Fund of Chicago, the Joyce Foundation, and the Chicago Annenberg Challenge.

Most significantly, of course, he quit being an Illinois State Senator and ran for United States Senate in 2004, later refused to serve that full term and quit in December of 2008. That was much worse than a lowly Governor quitting but leaving her more effective Lt. Governor in charge. Hopefully, that addresses your slur about Palin being a "quitter".

DCCharles:

Too bad you can't answer my question to you.

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 2, 2010 10:27 AM | Report abuse

People can be wrong about stuff without being actively engaged in a War on Reality.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | September 2, 2010 10:21 AM
-----------------------------------------
True, people can just be wrong. But, when the facts are in evidence,

when the wrong person is exposed to the facts,

and when the wrong person keeps speaking a conclusion not supported by those facts, or any facts,

one has to question whether the wrong person has not decided to skirmish with reality.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | September 2, 2010 10:29 AM | Report abuse

I guess the Palin=Quitter label is beginning to hurt, eh.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | September 2, 2010 10:30 AM | Report abuse

@12BarBlues: "one has to question whether the wrong person has not decided to skirmish with reality."

Fair enough. Let me know how many on-the-fence Republicans and Independents change their vote when the "War with Reality" argument is made.

"Well, I was going to vote for Palin, but then someone told me the Republicans were conducting a War on Reality. Well, let me tell you, I like reality, and don't think we should be war with it. So I changed my mind and voted Nader."

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | September 2, 2010 10:31 AM | Report abuse

12BarBlues:

The FACTS in evidence are that GWB kept us safe for EIGHT YEARS after 2001 and Obama has allowed terrorist attacks on U.S. soil, especially with his change of focus.

Now, can we get back to the topic: "Are Republicans 'co-opting' gay rights?"

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 2, 2010 10:33 AM | Report abuse

Bernie, I caught Scahill last night as well, powerful and forthright. The Nation has a great staff IMO. I haven't read his book but will add it to my list, which gets longer every day.

Posted by: lmsinca | September 2, 2010 10:33 AM | Report abuse

@Kevin,

Excuse me. You are talking about whether a slogan "War on Reality" is a good campaign slogan?

I thought we were talking about the truth.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | September 2, 2010 10:34 AM | Report abuse

Most significantly, of course, he quit being an Illinois State Senator and ran for United States Senate in 2004, later refused to serve that full term and quit in December of 2008. That was much worse than a lowly Governor quitting but leaving her more effective Lt. Governor in charge. Hopefully, that addresses your slur about Palin being a "quitter".


Posted by: JakeD2 | September 2, 2010 10:27 AM |

.................

Palin Quit her job, because it become too hard for her. President Obama resigned his Senate Seat, after he was Elected PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF America, and became the leader of the free world.

Quitter Palin is the one who revealed that she knows that Jan Brewer has huge Testicles.

Deal with it, Short Bus Troll.

Posted by: Liam-still | September 2, 2010 10:36 AM | Report abuse

@Liam-still: "Kevin - If you say something that you know is factually inaccurate that isn't stating your opinion"

Well, certainly, but what if you state something that you don't know is factually inaccurate? And unless we can read minds, we're just assuming he knows it's inaccurate. We don't actually know that.

Don't be conducting your own little War with Reality, here. ;)

"I have many problems with Mr. Rove, but I have never considered him stupid."

Even relatively smart people can engage in wishful thinking about thing, especially their own record, and the results of their own initiatives. People often hold honestly held, if factually dubious, beliefs about themselves and their "side", even when intelligent.

Just a possibility. I don't know the man from Adam.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | September 2, 2010 10:37 AM | Report abuse

@12BarBlues: "Excuse me. You are talking about whether a slogan "War on Reality" is a good campaign slogan? I thought we were talking about the truth."

We can't talk about both?

I'm sorry, I missed that in the rule book.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | September 2, 2010 10:38 AM | Report abuse

Liam-still:

If Obama was not born in Hawaii, then he did NOT resign from the Senate to become President. Gov. Palin could have easily stayed in office as in ineffective, lame-duck, but took the high road instead. As I've pointed out, Obama has QUIT more things than Palin.

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 2, 2010 10:41 AM | Report abuse

Yeah, Mrs. Palin took the high road. The road that goes straight to the pot at the end of the rainbow.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | September 2, 2010 10:44 AM | Report abuse

Kevin - Just so we are clear; do you believe Rove honestly believes the things he is saying?

Posted by: nisleib | September 2, 2010 10:44 AM | Report abuse

he FACTS in evidence are that GWB kept us safe for EIGHT YEARS after 2001 and Obama has allowed terrorist attacks on U.S. soil, especially with his change of focus.

Now, can we get back to the topic: "Are Republicans 'co-opting' gay rights?"

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 2, 2010 10:33 AM
......................

Are you claming that those people who were killed by the Anthrax Terroist Attacks, were not Americans?

Are you claiming that those thosands of US soldiers, that were killed in Iraq, and the 100, 000 soldiers who suffered serious wounds were not Americans?

How the hell can you claim that Bush saved all Americans from terror attacks, after 9/11, when he got more Americans slaughtered in Iraq, than were killed on 9/11 mostly by Al-Qaeda, after 9/11.

No wonder you love Quitter Palin? Between the two of you, one could not find two synapses to rub together, to ignite a rational thought.

Posted by: Liam-still | September 2, 2010 10:45 AM | Report abuse

Kevin_Willis:

Isn't one of the accepted rules to STAY ON TOPIC? Would that discussion be more appropriate here:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2010/08/the_politics_of_taking_credit.html#comments

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 2, 2010 10:48 AM | Report abuse

12BarBlues or Liam-Still:

If either of you want to debate the current question "Are Republicans 'co-opting' gay rights?" please let me know. I will be more than happy to debate your preferred topics just as soon as Adam (or Greg) post a thread on them.

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 2, 2010 10:51 AM | Report abuse

According to Quitter Palin's Pet Short Bus Troll;

Quitter Palin became a lame duck, half way into her first term as Governor, and therefore had to quit. That is a novel explaination indeed. So every first term elected official in the land, becomes a lame duck, after half a first term, and therefore must quit at that point. I love it.

Should Quitter Palin run for President, she will now have to inform the voters, that she will become a lame duck, after two years, and will have to quit,again.

Palin For President: 2013-2015.

Such a catchy campaign slogan.

Palin for President.

She can give us a couple of years.

Posted by: Liam-still | September 2, 2010 10:51 AM | Report abuse

Liam - I'd go further and say if your metric for measuring how good a President did is how "safe" he kept us that Bush was the worst President ever. After all, September 11th happened under Bush and it was the worst terrorist attack in this countries history.

I don't believe that Bush had anything to do with 9/11, the truther stuff is kooky, in my opinion (frankly I doubt Bush was competent enough to pull such a conspiracy off.) But Bush sure should have done something when his terrorism advisor was running around with "his hair on fire" trying to warn Bush an attack was coming. And then the August 2001 PDB, which Bush dismissed as an exercise in CYA, should have really amped up the security. And it isn't like Logan Airport's security wasn't a laughing stock, 20/20 (or was it 60 Minutes) did several stories on Logan's lack of security before 9/11 took place.

Posted by: nisleib | September 2, 2010 10:55 AM | Report abuse

BTW, did Palin quit something?

Because, you know, I keep seeing "quitter" and "Palin" in the same sentence.

I think you mean Lock, Stock and Two Smokin' Barrels Palin. ;)

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | September 2, 2010 10:56 AM | Report abuse

Message To Quitter Palin.

Please stop comparing yourself to us.

We do not quit, after just two years on the job.

The Concerned Mama Grizzlies Of America.

Posted by: Liam-still | September 2, 2010 10:58 AM | Report abuse

nisleib:

I already answered that on the other thread.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2010/08/the_politics_of_taking_credit.html#comments

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 2, 2010 11:02 AM | Report abuse

I think you mean Lock, Stock and Two Smokin' Barrels Palin. ;)

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | September 2, 2010 10:56 AM |

....................


I do not know about those. She denied the claim that she had enlarged their bore size.

That was a fairly fun movie, from the former Mr. Madonna.

Posted by: Liam-still | September 2, 2010 11:03 AM | Report abuse

Everyone knows, conservatives, liberals and moderates, that Mrs. Palin's Achilles heel is the resignation of her governorship. The only people who are trying to parse it into something else live on this board. They are trying to convince themselves that she took some kind of high road or was forced by some mysterious Force to quit, a Force that does not seem to affect her true rivals--other Republicans who might want to run for President.

Perhaps, a more Realistic approach (since we seem to be talking about reality this morning) would be to acknowledge the weakness and counter it with her other strengths, whatever those might be.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | September 2, 2010 11:03 AM | Report abuse

"People can be wrong about stuff without being actively engaged in a War on Reality."

Of course they can, Kevin. But the opposite is equally true. And when one considers the incessant propagandizing by the Rovian GOP, the motive seems obvious.

BTW: This is yet another example of why Liberals must directly confront the GOP's War On Reality. The GOP's strategy is to fight against every possible foundation for enlightened governance, to disparage every inconvenient fact, to undermine science indiscriminately. They have been doing it for years with great success. They will only stop doing it when it stops working.

Posted by: wbgonne | September 2, 2010 11:03 AM | Report abuse

Jake - I wasn't talking to you, troll.

Posted by: nisleib | September 2, 2010 11:04 AM | Report abuse

@nisleib: "Kevin - Just so we are clear; do you believe Rove honestly believes the things he is saying?"

I dunno. My mind reading is very spotty, most days, even in close proximity. Might be. Might even be likely. But, I dunno.

Just considering alternative possibilities. It's a fun thought exercise, and I try to get other people to play. ;)

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | September 2, 2010 11:06 AM | Report abuse

Liam-still:

It's not a "novel explanation". That was THE REASON that she gave when she announced her resignation. For the last time (on this thread), Obama quit his job as U.S. Senator prior to his term being up. If he wasn't born in Hawaii, then (arguably) Palin's current job as a private citizen is much more important than Obama's.

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 2, 2010 11:06 AM | Report abuse

Jake, The Short Bus Troll, posted recently, that he had come over here to get Plumline shut down, and bragged about having killed another blog. He mentioned the name, Weigel?, if that might be a name some of you would recognize?

Posted by: Liam-still | September 2, 2010 11:08 AM | Report abuse

"Are Republicans 'co-opting' gay rights?"

No.

Perhaps the libertarian strain of conservatism is gaining ground in this populist trend we are seeing of late?

The GOP has stood for equal rights for all and special rights for none. It has always seemed to me that conservatives would quite naturally be in favor of equal rights for gay people. OTOH, conservatives, by their very nature, are slow to change. Growing up as a gay person, it never even occurred to me that I should or would have the right to marry another man. I'd like to get all of the rights that any other couple has without having to be married, but if that is the only way...

Posted by: sbj3 | September 2, 2010 11:09 AM | Report abuse

@JakeD2: I posed about gaypatriot, gayconservative.org, GOProud, conservative rainbow, and others. I believe one of the more prolific, and very right wing, posters over at Ace of Spades (Gabriel Malor) is gay.

Until someone else participates, that's about as On Topic as I'm going to get right now. Sufficed to say, there are lots of great, gay conservatives out there.

I didn't mention Tammy Bruce first time out. I love Tammy Bruce.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | September 2, 2010 11:10 AM | Report abuse


@nisleib: "Kevin - Just so we are clear; do you believe Rove honestly believes the things he is saying?"

I dunno. My mind reading is very spotty, most days, even in close proximity. Might be. Might even be likely. But, I dunno.

Just considering alternative possibilities. It's a fun thought exercise, and I try to get other people to play. ;)

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | September 2, 2010 11:06 AM
....................

It might be instructive to take into consideration the opinion of some one who knew him well: President George W. Bush.

He called Rove: "Turdblossom"

Posted by: Liam-still | September 2, 2010 11:13 AM | Report abuse

@sbj3: "Growing up as a gay person, it never even occurred to me that I should or would have the right to marry another man."

What about the right to enter some form of formally recognized social contract that entitled you to similar rights of partnership that accrue to married spouses in regards in insurance, inheritance, etc?

That seems reasonable to me. Although, frankly, having been married for 20 years, I think the folks agitating for gay marriage are like Mark Twain's vision of boys competing to whitewash Tom Sawyer's fence. ;)

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | September 2, 2010 11:17 AM | Report abuse

nisleib:

Nonetheless, I already answered your point about terrorists on the other thread, where such a discussion belongs.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2010/08/the_politics_of_taking_credit.html#comments

Others may be interested in my answer (and the fact that I will not resort to any personal attacks here ; )

Liam-still:

It is my First Amendment right to try and shut down "The Plum Line". Further, the WaPo actively "encourage[s] users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs". I'm not taking credit for Weigel shooting himself in the foot, as he did that all by his lonesome.

Kevin_Willis:

Thanks : )

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 2, 2010 11:17 AM | Report abuse

sbj3 - I feel for you.

I almost wish I was forbidden marriage; it would have saved me loads of money.

Seriously though, I doubt the GOP will be able to co-op gay rights. A big part of the Republican base is evangelicals that don’t approve of the gays.

I hope I’m wrong on this, I don’t think civil rights for ANY group should be a partisan issue.

Posted by: nisleib | September 2, 2010 11:18 AM | Report abuse

@nisleib: "Kevin - Just so we are clear; do you believe Rove honestly believes the things he is saying?"

I dunno. My mind reading is very spotty, most days, even in close proximity. Might be. Might even be likely. But, I dunno.

Just considering alternative possibilities. It's a fun thought exercise, and I try to get other people to play. ;)

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | September 2, 2010 11:06 AM | Report abuse

See? Everything is a matter of opinion. Climate change science. The Iraq War. There are no foundations upon which to build informed public policy because there are no facts, just opinions subject to endless debate.

Posted by: wbgonne | September 2, 2010 11:18 AM | Report abuse

OK. So she is the one who said it, when she quit as governor, so that means she could only give us two years, in office, in any future elected position.

Good to know. Palin for President: "I can give you a couple of years, only"

Posted by: Liam-still | September 2, 2010 11:18 AM | Report abuse

It is crazy to defend people who are factually wrong. Whatever their motivation, whether innate stupidity or purposeful misdirection, defense of their right to be wrong is silly. Let's defend the facts, proliferation of the facts, and absorption of the facts.


If we defend those who are wrong more than those who are right, we would still be defending the earth as the center of the universe crowd because "gosh, they meant well".

Posted by: 12BarBlues | September 2, 2010 11:20 AM | Report abuse

Liam-Still:

I would be more than happy to refute every one of your points about Gov. Palin on the following thread:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2010/09/grayson_hits_crist_for_palin_s.html

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 2, 2010 11:24 AM | Report abuse

Reps would lose three votes for every one gained by selling out on the homosexual agenda. It isn't reconcilable with conservatism.

Posted by: quarterback1 | September 2, 2010 11:25 AM | Report abuse

Liam-still:

It is my First Amendment right to try and shut down "The Plum Line". Further, the WaPo actively "encourage[s] users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs". I'm not taking credit for Weigel shooting himself in the foot, as he did that all by his lonesome.


Posted by: JakeD2 | September 2, 2010 11:17 AM |

...............

I knew that you were the Product Of Short Bus Troll School, but it is good to have you confirm it. You say that it is your first amendment right to try and take away Greg's first amendments rights? Quitter Palin could not have said it better than you just did.

Now you are walking back your claim, that you were instrumental in taking away "Weigel's first amendment rights"

Posted by: Liam-still | September 2, 2010 11:25 AM | Report abuse

Kevin says, "Although, frankly, having been married for 20 years, I think the folks agitating for gay marriage are like Mark Twain's vision of boys competing to whitewash Tom Sawyer's fence. ;)"

Now that I agree with! I'd like for them (and most everyone) to have the RIGHT to get married and the wisdom not to ;)

But really Kevin, I don't believe for a second that you think Rove is ignorant of the facts, I think you are being intellectually dishonest about that. I think you are also being intellectually dishonest about racism in the south as well. However, since I'm not a Scanner, I can't confirm that.

Posted by: nisleib | September 2, 2010 11:30 AM | Report abuse

Kevin, let me help you. Karl Rove is a known liar. See Libby, Lewis.

I don't get what's so hard about admitting what is a fact. In fact, I don't get lying period, and that is why I don't get Republicans. Generally speaking, their whole agenda is built on lies.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | September 2, 2010 11:30 AM | Report abuse

Kevin, let me help you. Karl Rove is a known liar. See Libby, Lewis.

I don't get what's so hard about admitting what is a fact. In fact, I don't get lying period, and that is why I don't get Republicans. Generally speaking, their whole agenda is built on lies.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | September 2, 2010 11:30 AM | Report abuse

Notice folks how The Short Bus Troll claims that he is trying to shut down Plumline.

That would explain why he keeps demanding that people should switch to other threads, to "debate" him.

Posted by: Liam-still | September 2, 2010 11:30 AM | Report abuse

12Bar

What happened to all your friends ??? They all left at the same time.


That is not a sign of co-ordinated activity?

Case made, case proven.

.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 2, 2010 11:32 AM | Report abuse

@kevin and nslieb: Very funny. I want all of the benefits and none of the responsibilities! I heard once that the minute you become married you are immediately subject to 3000 more laws than single persons. I don't want to get married. I don't need recognition of my relationship by anyone for "legitimacy."

What I *do* want - as kevin says, "are similar rights of partnership that accrue to married spouses." For instance, if I should die I think my partner of these many years should be entitled to social security survivor benefits - but he would not be. I want to get these rights without the requirement of "marriage."

And nslieb - I certainly appreciate your comments and agree that civil rights should not be a partisan issue.

Posted by: sbj3 | September 2, 2010 11:32 AM | Report abuse

Liam-still:

My bad for trying to keep threads on-topic. Not sure how an orderly debate would impact whether Mr. Sargent gets fired or not though. I also never claimed that I was instrumental in Mr. Weigel getting fired, and the GOVERNMENT did not take away Weigel's First Amendment rights in any event, so there's no violation -- in fact, another WaPo company SLATE.com hired Weigel right away -- I do think that you are confusing the term "First Amendment rights" (the WaPo is free to ban me or anyone else from posting here, but the government is not; hopefully, that addresses any misunderstand you have about my position).

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 2, 2010 11:35 AM | Report abuse

The truth of the matter is gay marriage has FAILED in every State on which it has been on the ballot.


For all the liberals touting majority rule, and how it justified Obama's health care reform in the thread yesterday - suddenly majority rule doesn't look so good to them.


___________

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 2, 2010 11:35 AM | Report abuse

sbj3:

You don't believe that Social Security is going insolvent fast enough?

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 2, 2010 11:37 AM | Report abuse

qb, I think you're right that conservatives would likely lose votes trying to pass or support legislation for equal rights for LGBT, of course I object to the GAY AGENDA comment but whatever. I wonder how many votes they'll lose trying to privatize and eventually eliminate SS and Medicare.

Digby has a photo up of protesters at Paul Ryan's town hall meeting yesterday.

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2010/09/senior-blowback.html

Posted by: lmsinca | September 2, 2010 11:40 AM | Report abuse

@Jake:

Look. I work and my partner doesn't. If I should die then he won't have an income. We've been together many, many years and have both contributed.

I agree that SS has some problems that must be dealt with - that's an entirely separate issue than what is fair.

Posted by: sbj3 | September 2, 2010 11:40 AM | Report abuse

SBJ3 - "I heard once that the minute you become married you are immediately subject to 3000 more laws than single persons."

Actually it is worse than that... Much worse.

"I don't need recognition of my relationship by anyone for 'legitimacy.'"

Too true, and wise beyond reasoning.

Posted by: nisleib | September 2, 2010 11:41 AM | Report abuse

SBJ,

Just because you never imagined that you might ever want to marry, of if you would never want to marry a gay partner, does not mean that the vast majority of the gay community should be denied the opportunity to be able to get married.

Once gay marriage is legal for all, no one is going to force you to get married. I promise you that you will still have the option to not get married. This old straight guy will defend your right to not get married. Hell, we have never forced Catholic Priests to get married, but we have allowed most straight men and women to get married if they wish to.

Gay marriage rights is not just about you, even though you think it is. You are not that important. Get over yourself, and stay unmarried. No one really cares if you do.

Posted by: Liam-still | September 2, 2010 11:42 AM | Report abuse

The politics of the gay issues right now is CLEAR


The gay groups thought that Obama was going to JAM through their entire agenda right away.


Through this year, it has become abundantly clear that the Republicans may take control of the House - maybe the Senate.


This has caused the gay groups to become even more demanding - they want Obama to RAM through their issues before the democrats end up losing control of the House on account of health care.


Those issues involve: gay marriage, gays in the military and benefits for domestic partners.


Obama put through an executive order on benefits for domestic partners - but it is UNCLEAR if that is UNCONSTITUTIONAL - it could be ruled to be an appropriation of money without Congressional approval.


The gay groups are believing that THEIR issues have been left to the end of Obama's far-left agenda - and agenda which has been halted - and may be stopped altogether with this year's elections.


So - Is Obama the real problem???


When Axelrod and Rahm talk about "the professional left" do they really mean "the gays?"

Hey - this is where we are - a great deal of tension because Obama has abandoned the gay agenda - along with bipartisanship, post-racial programs and transparency.


___________________________

THIS is the background - and why the gay Republicans have decided to make their move - the Log Cabin Republicans have always been there - but now they want to move forward.


You decide.

.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 2, 2010 11:43 AM | Report abuse

CNBC is reporting a rig explosion off the coast of LA. All 13 employees have been accounted for. The Coast Guard is sending in ships and helicopters to rescue the injured.

Posted by: lmsinca | September 2, 2010 11:48 AM | Report abuse

From CNN:

[Posted at 11:43 a.m.] U.S. Coast Guard Petty Officer Bill Colclough tells CNN that all 13 workers involved in the rig explosion are accounted for, but one person is injured.

Coast Choppers are on the way to the site 80 miles south of Vermilion Bay.

[Posted at 11:33 a.m.] An oil rig has exploded 80 miles off the coast of Louisiana, with 12 people overboard and one missing, the Coast Guard said Thursday morning.

Rescue attempts are underway for at least 12 people, Coast Guard spokesman John Edwards told CNN. 13 people were on board the rig total, Edwards said, noting 12 have been accounted for, but one person was missing.

The accident took place 80 miles off the coast of Louisiana on the Vermilion Oil rig 380, which is owned by Houston-based Mariner Energy.

The Coast Guard has multiple helicopters, an airplane and several Coast Guard cutters en route. It's unknown if there are any injuries.

Posted by: lmsinca | September 2, 2010 11:50 AM | Report abuse

OT - This is kinda funny, in a sad way.

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2010/09/as_weve_been_reporting_there.php?ref=fpblg

Posted by: nisleib | September 2, 2010 11:50 AM | Report abuse

Short Bus Troll,

It is really really vere nice of you to keep trying to get people to stay "On Topic", on the blog site, that you admit you are trying to get shut down.

People always love it; when The Fox tries to protect the chickens, from their selves.

Posted by: Liam-still | September 2, 2010 11:51 AM | Report abuse

lmsinca,

Have you seen any video of the rig? I sure hope it is not another pipe leak disaster.

Posted by: Liam-still | September 2, 2010 11:54 AM | Report abuse

Believe me - You don't want to get married.


You really don't.


The gays show they have extremely poor judgement in wanting to put through gay marriage.

.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 2, 2010 11:55 AM | Report abuse

Hey folks, just posted a new thread on the Dems electoral outlook for November.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2010/09/the_doomed_party.html

Posted by: Adam Serwer | September 2, 2010 11:56 AM | Report abuse

sbj3:

LOTS of people who paid their entire lives into Social Security end up dying "too soon" and no one collects a dime. Is that fair?

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 2, 2010 12:01 PM | Report abuse

Liam, not yet, but they're saying it's a non-production rig so maybe there won't be another leak. Info is sketchy still.

Posted by: lmsinca | September 2, 2010 12:03 PM | Report abuse

No Short Bus Troll.

Dying Too Young, is often considered to be somewhat of a disappointment.

Posted by: Liam-still | September 2, 2010 12:05 PM | Report abuse

@Jake: That doesn't make any sense - I'm talking about survivor benefits. (BTW - it's called "insurance" for a reason.)

Posted by: sbj3 | September 2, 2010 12:11 PM | Report abuse

AUDIO: Check OUT New Exclusive Intimate Interview with R. Clarke Cooper,
Executive Director, Log Cabin Republicans about Ken Mehlman coming OUT, LGBT Civil Rights & more. Check it OUT @
http://voices.outtakeonline.com/2010/09/gay-republican-r-clarke-cooper-speaks.html

Posted by: outtake10 | September 2, 2010 12:15 PM | Report abuse


If Republicans eventually don't co-opt gay rights they'll lose 10% of their politicians and as many or more of their staffs!

Posted by: kkrimmer | September 2, 2010 12:31 PM | Report abuse

sbj3:

I'm talking about SURVIVOR benefits too. Let's say a young, single executive has paid into Social Security $100,000 total but dies in a car accident -- that $100,000 stays with the government -- the rest of his estate goes to "next of kin".

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 2, 2010 12:32 PM | Report abuse

My hypothetical YUPPIE has no kids out of wedlock either and her mother / father have predeceased her. "Next of kin" = two sisters.

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 2, 2010 12:38 PM | Report abuse

I do not care whether you are a republican or a democrat to accept people as being gay is ok but when you say it is ok for the same sex to marry that is ridiculous and as long as we Christians in this country are voting we will not stand for our officials to legislate laws that are immoral and against GOD and nature . If you want to be a queer that is your business but I do not want to be forced to say you are married. All you are doing is living in sin.

Posted by: jerry110 | September 2, 2010 12:38 PM | Report abuse

@nisleib: I don't know Karl Rove from Adam. Given he works in politics, your assumptions are probably correct.

Re: racism in the modern south. There is some. More than the north? Has not been my experience, but my experience is anecdotal. Of course, I grew up in Memphis, which has had a 50% or greater African-American population for most of my life, so that probably skews my viewpoint. If basing my opinions on my personal experience makes me intellectually dishonest, then . . . well, there you go. I guess I am.

@Ethan2010: "I don't get what's so hard about admitting what is a fact."

You have to agree that it's actually a fact, and not self-congratulatory wishcraft masquerading as fact. ;)

"In fact, I don't get lying period, and that is why I don't get Republicans. Generally speaking, their whole agenda is built on lies."

Change "Republicans" to "Politicians", and I might almost agree with you. ;)

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | September 2, 2010 12:39 PM | Report abuse

@nisleib: "'I heard once that the minute you become married you are immediately subject to 3000 more laws than single persons.' --- Actually it is worse than that... Much worse."

And not just because of the laws. Heh!

I'm married. I'm glad I got married. Love my wife, and love my children, but the best thing about being a married parent of two daughters is that "whatever doesn't kill me makes me stronger".

As they say, marriage is an time-honored institution. And who wants to live in an institution?

Sort of like basic training. Beneficial to your character in many ways, but certainly not because it's any fun. It's like that second job that neither of you get paid for. :)

"Marriage" is also put upon a pedastal, with a ceremony, and pomp and circumstance, and new titles and sometimes name changes and cake and a honeymoon and . . . when it turns out you're both still the same old people, folks are often bitterly disappointed. Where's the rainbows and unicorns? Why aren't you doing everything I want you to do for me, all the time, and with a smile on your face? I want to rent and you want to buy a house. Why are you such a horrible person?

Only marriage could have taught me that the one thing worse than being a Nazi-themed serial killer was mixing up the plastic and ceramic plates when putting up the dishes. Or that when she's upset and yelling, you need to be calm and rationale and calm her down, and when you're upset and yelling, you need to f*** off, she doesn't need this sh**. ;)

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | September 2, 2010 12:48 PM | Report abuse

Serious? Co-opting? I didn't realize Democrats had exclusive right to what they see as "theirs." Oh and "I don't think Republicans are on the verge of seriously competing for the votes of people for whom gay rights is their first priority." is exactly why Dems are in so much trouble. I'm female and I am pro-choice but I would much rather fight within my newly adopted Republican home for that right than have to fight for everything else Dems have given up against the will of voters (health care for one).

Posted by: Lynne5 | September 2, 2010 12:50 PM | Report abuse

The FACTS in evidence are that GWB kept us safe for EIGHT YEARS after 2001 and Obama has allowed terrorist attacks on U.S. soil, especially with his change of focus.

Now, can we get back to the topic: "Are Republicans 'co-opting' gay rights?"

Posted by: JakeD2
-----------------------------------------
Yeah, Bush kept us safe alright. if you don't count 9-11, which happened, in part, because of his lazy incompetence.
Terrorist attacks during Obama's term? Surly you aren't referring to the guy who shot up Ft. Hood and the guy who tried to light his underwear on fire?

Posted by: cjbass55 | September 2, 2010 12:51 PM | Report abuse

@wbgonne: "See? Everything is a matter of opinion. Climate change science. The Iraq War. There are no foundations upon which to build informed public policy because there are no facts, just opinions subject to endless debate."

I'm very much a shades of gray guy. I liken nuance.

All this Black Hat, White Hat absolutism of you left-wing cowboys is a real turnoff. ;)

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | September 2, 2010 12:53 PM | Report abuse

Because we only have 2 parties, anyone who joins one is probably going to have to accept some unpleasant aspects of that party. I am a secular humanist, but I also support the idea of limited government, so sometimes I vote GOP even though their position on religion is disagreeable to me. I suspect the GOP appeals to the LGBT community and the reciprocal support revolve around this type of thing.

Posted by: allknowingguy | September 2, 2010 12:56 PM | Report abuse

@Jake: I don't understand you. If you want to argue about privatizing social security that's one thing. We're talking about another.

Posted by: sbj3 | September 2, 2010 12:56 PM | Report abuse

"The gay groups thought that Obama was going to JAM through their entire agenda right away."

Interesting choice of words.

Is there anything you'd like to tell us?

Posted by: mattintx | September 2, 2010 1:10 PM | Report abuse

Hey Sargent - do you proofread your columns? - the correct name is David Boies. Just another example of your shoddy work and an analysis that told us very little. Then again, WAPO is consistently sinking to new lows in quality and it doesn't surprise me that they pay for inferior product.

Posted by: fwillyhess | September 2, 2010 1:13 PM | Report abuse

Hey look, if you're pushing an issue because you think it's the right thing to do, then you don't really care who gets the credit as long as it gets done.

And if you're primary concern is getting the credit for it, well, I think that was your ONLY concern in the first place.

The Democrats don't care about gay Americans, they care about getting re-elected.

Posted by: ZZim | September 2, 2010 1:19 PM | Report abuse

While it is heartening that some republicons are coming out of the closet, they are hardly the party of civil rights, whether for minorities or gays or women or workers. They are what they have been since the 1870s - a whilly owned subsidiary of big business who rely on stirring up divisive issues and using race baiting and fear mongering to get just enough voters to the polls on false promises and casting ballots against their own interests and against the good of the nation.

Posted by: John1263 | September 2, 2010 1:21 PM | Report abuse

The evangelical shareholders of the republican party will never, ever put up with tolerance for gay people.

Anybody who doesn't know this is either fooling himself or just a fool.

Posted by: eezmamata | September 2, 2010 1:23 PM | Report abuse

I think that whichever way this passes would be a good thing because we have so many other issues to deal with within the marriage equality and gay rights scope.

A prime example is this couple that I saw on OURsceneTv that are dealing with immigration issues as well.


http://ourscenetv.com/posts/163/leaving-paradise-gay-parents-struggle-with-immigration-inequality

Posted by: chrisatlier | September 2, 2010 1:24 PM | Report abuse

The democrats flog the gay rights issue the same way the republicans flog the abortion issue.

Neither has the slightest interest in actually doing anything to resolve these issues, they need them to keep the True Believers frothing at the mouth.

But can you blame the party apparatchiks for using these issues in this manner? How about if we blame the fools who keep believing in them?

Yeah, that's right, you.

Posted by: eezmamata | September 2, 2010 1:26 PM | Report abuse

If you think karl rove does not know the FACTS about the Iraq war being the number one recruiting tool for qaeda for more than half a decade you are a real fool. The CIA and our intel community said as much in public reports while dumya was still polluting Pensylvania Ave. T u rd blossom, as dumya so affectionately called him, would certainly know that. He was well aware that the Department of State had to stop publising it's anual reports on international terrorism after it was caught trying to game the numbers to hide the FACT that the Iraq war had cause a tripling of terrorist incidents globally. having an opinion is fine - but if you know the contrary is true it is no longer an opinion, it is a lie.

Posted by: John1263 | September 2, 2010 1:27 PM | Report abuse

Every man is a flawed individual.

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 2, 2010 9:50 AM

........................

Except Governor Jan Brewer; so said Quitter Palin.
******************************
Jan Brewer is a transvestite? Well,I guess Brewer is a bit butch looking.

Posted by: mickle1 | September 2, 2010 1:32 PM | Report abuse

Since it is Republicans who attack gay rights, they might want to get their story straight.

Posted by: SarahBB | September 2, 2010 1:37 PM | Report abuse

The only political party that can do anything for the gay agenda is the republicans, because democrats are to afraid of the right wing voting public. So if were gay I would hitch my wagon to the republican party because they are the only party with enough balls to change the rules. Democrats have no back bone. All gay people have to do is pledge there allegiance to the republican party, and the republicans would re-write all the laws that exclude gay to include them. Democrats need to disband their party and let some new liberal party take the lead that have some balls. I vote Dem but I know DEM = Failure in politics. It just I don't have a liberal tea party to vote for.

Posted by: baddog123 | September 2, 2010 1:46 PM | Report abuse

sbj3 (I will try one last time):

I am not talking about privatization of Social Security. I am asking you a simple question about survivor benefits: "Why should your partner get your survivor benefits when the sister of my hypothetical YUPPIE above does not?"

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 2, 2010 1:49 PM | Report abuse

"Would a ROBERTS COURT decision invalidating all same-sex marriage be a "meaningful advance" or not?"
__________________________

That is not what the SCOTUS will find in Perry vs. Schartzenegger.

They will find that same sex marriage is not a constitutionally guaranteed civil right.

They will further find that the states continue to have the power to control or regulate who gets married within the bounds of the constitution.

Thus, in contrast to Judge Vaughan's ruling they will find that Prop. 8 does not violate the US constitution.

They may also state that same sex marriage may be an appropriate or even a desirable policy in certain state, but it is up to the states to decide how best to regulate or define marriage.

Posted by: captn_ahab | September 2, 2010 2:04 PM | Report abuse

That Ken Mehlman is gay is no surprise to anyone ... is it?

That Ann Coulter is suddenly cozying up to gay groups ... well, after all, he is gay too you know.

Posted by: eezmamata | September 2, 2010 2:07 PM | Report abuse

"Given that the divide over marriage equality is in large part an age issue, the window of opportunity for Democrats to glean some kind of political rewards out of supporting LGBT rights is closing. For the movement itself though, things are looking better and better."

--------------------------------

That is the most important part of the entire article. Equal rights for homosexuals is going to happen...it's inevitable and only a matter of time. The issue that politicians should be considering is whether or not they want to be on the right side of history. And their time to get off the fence is running out.

Posted by: js_edit | September 2, 2010 2:15 PM | Report abuse

Hey Sargent - do you proofread your columns? - the correct name is David Boies. Just another example of your shoddy work and an analysis that told us very little. Then again, WAPO is consistently sinking to new lows in quality and it doesn't surprise me that they pay for inferior product.

Posted by: fwillyhess | September 2, 2010 1:13 PM | Report abuse

----------------------------------------

Your complaint would have more merit if you actually read the article closely enough to discover who the author is.

Posted by: js_edit | September 2, 2010 2:17 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: mikefromArlington: "A majority of Republicans are openly hostile to gay citizens and think of them as flawed individuals."

I don't know any that are openly hostile (I'm sure they exist) but, I don know that most know that they aren't normal.

BTW, Obama is adamantly opposed to gay marriage. Isn't THAT a bigger problem for Dems than some Repubs paying lip service to gay rights?


Posted by: illogicbuster | September 2, 2010 2:27 PM | Report abuse

Since when does any rights issue belong to any certain party? Or any issue?

What a stupid assertion.

Posted by: r_leever | September 2, 2010 2:33 PM | Report abuse

A lot of americans believe that people of color, or of different religions, or of different cultures are deeply flawed people.

And they are hostile to them just for that reason.

Today, we are confronted with the same bigotry vs the LGBT community. It was only in 1968 (or 1969) that the supreme court finally granted the ability of people of different races to legally marry.

I don't really care on this issue. We have 2 ways to go here. Either we strip away from federal, state, and local laws every single preference given to married couple (in which case marriage is a purely religious choice and nothing to do with the law), OR all of those rights and privileges are available to everyone.

In America, this is the fundamental right of equal protection under the law.

All of you bigot's out there, the day you are ready to give up all of the protections in the law supporting marriage is the day you have the right to deny them to anyone else.

As far as Republican's embracing the LGBT community, I just do not see it. Their base consists of a lot of people that do not understand that our constitution applies to everyone, not just themselves.

Posted by: reussere | September 2, 2010 2:37 PM | Report abuse

If they're ready to play ball, I say take them up on it. If they balk, they look bad. If they don't, progress! It's win-win for the people who have supported civil rights all along.

Posted by: wd1214 | September 2, 2010 2:46 PM | Report abuse

Social Conservatives, that is, Evangelicals, STILL detest Gay people.

Let's watch how this plays out.

Posted by: vigor | September 2, 2010 2:53 PM | Report abuse

Amid high unemployment and a weak economy, employers have been shifting health care costs to workers, according to a study released Thursday.

Posted by: Phil5 | September 2, 2010 2:54 PM | Report abuse

I LOVE taking the emotion out of legal questions, so here we go:

Can two heterosexual men or women get married? Brother/sister? 3 people? (there are many legal benefits to doing so)

Yes, or no. IF, you dare answer...

Posted by: illogicbuster | September 2, 2010 3:00 PM | Report abuse

They are only pro gay rights when they come out, or are outed.

Posted by: daweeni | September 2, 2010 3:07 PM | Report abuse

The GOP should embrace some group besides their current base of angry old white people. They have driven off Blacks, Hispanic,Muslims and any other group that is expanding in America.

Posted by: kelly123 | September 2, 2010 3:08 PM | Report abuse

Who cares?

Posted by: qoph | September 2, 2010 3:12 PM | Report abuse

And thus, will the emotional argument go down in flames before the SCotUS...

Posted by: illogicbuster | September 2, 2010 3:18 PM | Report abuse

to those who say they want gay rights and then voted or worked for republicans:
no sympathy, none!
you choose to vote for the party that would line your pockets and now you would like the other party to carry your water.
no sympathy, none!

Posted by: michael5 | September 2, 2010 3:20 PM | Report abuse

They will find that same sex marriage is not a constitutionally guaranteed civil right.

They will further find that the states continue to have the power to control or regulate who gets married within the bounds of the constitution.

Thus, in contrast to Judge Vaughan's ruling they will find that Prop. 8 does not violate the US constitution.

They may also state that same sex marriage may be an appropriate or even a desirable policy in certain state, but it is up to the states to decide how best to regulate or define marriage.

Posted by: captn_ahab | September 2, 2010 2:04 PM
*****************************************
I also think they SCOTUS will roll this up with a case against DOMA coming up from somewhere in New England (MA?). They will decide that there is no Constitutional right to gay marriage but that the Fed. gov. must recognize marriage equally, thus invalidating DOMA.

Posted by: jk_newhard | September 2, 2010 3:31 PM | Report abuse

The GOP has always had the closet gay vote while the democrats have tended to have the openly gay vote except in the south where they have very few votes.

Posted by: agapn9 | September 2, 2010 3:34 PM | Report abuse

Republicans are now on record as hating so many people that they can afford not to hate someone if it's politically expedient. They've still got Democrats, Mexicans, children of immigrants ("terror babies"), non-Christians, scientists, foreigners, teachers, anyone with a college education, and of course blacks (especially if they're president). They're in no danger of losing the support of hate-mongers.

Posted by: DaveHarris | September 2, 2010 3:46 PM | Report abuse

The story has Ann Cooter's photo. Why? Is she making a "coming out" statement soon?

Posted by: kishorgala | September 2, 2010 3:47 PM | Report abuse

Regardless of whether Obama ever intended to 'jam' the gay agenda through, I find his mealy-mouthed approval of the DOMA concept to be disconcerting. The black "Christian" crowd have shown themselves to be quite antediluvian in their opionatin', and the fiery rhetoric from their pulpits frankly makes me sick a lot of the time, as does nearly all "Christian" cant.

Combining that with his fumbling of the economy (now while he goes over to save the Middle East--anybody believe Netanyahoo is going to budge a single inch on settlements?), I might just be happy to let him twist slowly in the wind in 2012 and not vote for anybody.

This is because I do have my limits of supporting banality and two-faced pandering, although of course I think the Republicans and Tea Baggers (interesting they named their movement after an obscure homosexual act made famous by John Waters in the movie Pecker) are extremely mendacious in their attempt to rewrite history of all kinds. Also, I have held my nose and voted for the soi-disant lesser of 2 evils since 1972 and am getting a little nauseated by the prevailing odor.

Posted by: lambcannon | September 2, 2010 3:51 PM | Report abuse

The Republican Party will become competent to advocate for gay rights when pigs can fly. Hypocrisy only stretches so far!

Posted by: bloommarko4 | September 2, 2010 3:59 PM | Report abuse

lmsinca,

What is your objection?

If there is no such agenda, then what is this discussion about?

Posted by: quarterback1 | September 2, 2010 4:06 PM | Report abuse

"Cozying up to"? No, Ms. Coulter is just cashing their checks.

Posted by: mattintx | September 2, 2010 4:07 PM | Report abuse

if it helps them get a vote, they will say anything

Posted by: kurtmasse | September 2, 2010 4:21 PM | Report abuse

Nothing is as it appears. The Koch brothers are giving millions to the Tea Party. They also support Gay organizations. Put two and two together. You have Republicans suddenly 'supporting' Gays. The Koch brothers hate Obama.

Posted by: jimsillan | September 2, 2010 4:26 PM | Report abuse

If Republicans are co-opting gay rights, the gays have a real problem. That's especially true when you see two Mormons--Mitt Romney and Glenn Beck--as major spokespersons (for Romney even a possible presidential candidate) of the GOP. The Mormons destroyed gay rights in California and would do so for the nation too.

Posted by: tinyjab40 | September 2, 2010 4:31 PM | Report abuse

@jake: "Why should your partner get your survivor benefits when the sister of my hypothetical YUPPIE above does not?"

Why shouldn't the sister get the benefits? Ask the feds - they've decided benefits go to surviving spouses or children.

I'm arguing that my 'spouse' should get the benefits. I'm not arguing that my brother should ... ?

Posted by: sbj3 | September 2, 2010 4:33 PM | Report abuse

Please. It only takes a quick peak at the comments from these Right Wingers to see how much they still seethe with hatred towards gays.

Posted by: jakemehoffer | September 2, 2010 4:43 PM | Report abuse

Overly facile analysis. Republicans still don't embrace minority civil rights and that battle was fought 50 years ago. You picked approximately 3 individuals out of 50 million and this makes a story? Try again.

www.thebeardedcrank.com

Posted by: thebeardedcrank | September 2, 2010 5:58 PM | Report abuse

Laws preventing relatives from marrying have sound scientific justification. In the end however, I believe all societies will move towards separating the civil/legal aspects of marriage from the religious ones.

There should be no legal context from which any 2 or 3 or more people could not enter a commitment contract with all of the flexibility and rules relating to any other type of legal contract. This is where all of the special benefits and assumed rules for visitations, automatic inheritance after death, etc. belong. What is to prevent any group from simply forming a contract to get the benefits? Well... by doing so you are agreeing to give others in the group implied power of attorney, the ability to turn off your respirator in the absence of a legal will, mutual inheritance, etc. I could easily see healthy families, their in-laws, parents, etc. forming a single legally binding commitment contract.

It will be interesting when adultery becomes a form of legal fraud and contract violation.

The religious aspects will be entirely out of the legal arena. Churches can impose any rules they desire to impose on their congregations, and the marriage vows will still mean what they always have.


There is no other mechanism to maintain the traditional cultural marriage values and also respect the constitutional rights of everyone.

As MLK says... "I have a dream..."

Posted by: reussere | September 2, 2010 6:02 PM | Report abuse

I thought most Republicans were gay?

Posted by: walker1 | September 2, 2010 7:02 PM | Report abuse

The Constitution does not "convey" rights. Everyone has individual rights by virtue of being human. The Constitution is an attempt to protect these rights by limiting the power and scope of government.

Marriage contracts are sealed by licensure in the various States. A good case can be made that two single adults wishing to enter into a marriage have a right to do so. And if a State grants special privileges and immunities to licensed marriages, then it can be argued that it should license all rightful marriages.

Posted by: jwbales | September 2, 2010 7:05 PM | Report abuse

Rick Perry is a perfect fit for Texas. It may be the only state where a man can shoot two fleeing burglars in the back after the cops told him to keep his stupid fat butt inside his house and still be considered a hero.

Posted by: st50taw | September 2, 2010 7:25 PM | Report abuse

"Texas, Gov. Rick Perry recently declared, 'We're creating more jobs than any other state in the nation.... Would you rather live in a state like this, or in a state where a man can marry a man?'"
--------
?? Why can't I have both?

Ha! I live in Texas and it is fairly well known that Gov. Rick "Goodhair" Perry is a "Friend of Dorothy."
----------
DO TELL!!! References, please! Dish it, girlfriend!

Posted by: bucinka8 | September 2, 2010 7:28 PM | Report abuse


Speaking of gays where is Greg Sargent this week?

Posted by: screwjob21 | September 2, 2010 7:38 PM | Report abuse

The Reich wing sewer rats will do , say and try literally anything as we have been seeing for a long time now , and why not ? Their supporters are cult members , brains are shut down , the switch is on off , the Republican party can get away with anything , the cult members will be remain faithful and are completely defenseless mentally .

Posted by: Koom | September 2, 2010 8:45 PM | Report abuse

jaked2 wrote: The FACTS in evidence are that GWB kept us safe for EIGHT YEARS after 2001 and Obama has allowed terrorist attacks on U.S. soil, especially with his change of focus.
=====================================
Or, you could say that GWB "allowed" almost 3000 Americans to be killed by terrorist attacks in his first year of office, while Obama allowed none.

Are you familiar with the word "sophistry?"

Posted by: carlaclaws | September 2, 2010 9:48 PM | Report abuse

Who cares who owns it? Let's get over the whole thing as some kind of political issue. It's a personal thing and we should accept it and move on.

Posted by: MadamDeb | September 2, 2010 10:14 PM | Report abuse

If you think about it, the libertarian wing of the Republican party (a la Cato institute) has never been opposed to gay rights. Yes, the religious right is opposed, but where I see things going is "live and let live."

What doesn't fly, is asking taxpayers to PAY for someone's decision to be gay, just as it does not seem right to me to ask a taxpayer opposed to abortions for religious reasons to have to pay for something he or she considers murder.

My hope is that the GOP will field strong candidates who want to aggressively streamline the size of our government , especially the bureaucracy, foster business growth and new jobs, and BACK OFF on the hot button social issues.

Posted by: tacheronb | September 2, 2010 10:17 PM | Report abuse

I really wish the conflation between gay rights and same-sex marriage would stop. Same sex marriage has nothing to do with gay rights. Contrary to Vaugh Walker's risible ruling that biological sex is no longer an essential element of marriage unless one actually believes men and women are fungible, then same sex couples are uniquely different from opposite sex couples. Yes, they should have the opportunity to set up a contractual relationship that would spell out obligations, duties and responsibilities, but it should be civil unions, not "marriage."

But of course, focusing on same-sex marriage as a "gay right" offers Leftists a perfect distraction from the consequences of their attempt to Transform America(tm) to a Euro Social Democracy.

Posted by: darleenclick | September 2, 2010 10:36 PM | Report abuse

My, how convenient two months before a midterm election. Of course, anyone who has been paying attention for the past 10+ years will certainly be confident in their knowledge of what Republicans REALLY think of the gay community.

But, hey, if it gets something done on moving this issue of equal rights and DADT forward, then the GOP's very sudden epiphany would not be a bad thing.

Their cynical pandering might result in something positive for a change.

Posted by: VAreader | September 2, 2010 10:36 PM | Report abuse

WE CAN TOERATE, without applsuding

Posted by: max232 | September 2, 2010 10:39 PM | Report abuse

Learned a new one today, the short bus troll about 10 times through the comments.

I think we are about to have a very serious cut down of the federal government, both from a basic financial stance and an ideological one.

Some states will have gay marriage, civil unions or a mix thereof. That's fine, that's what they and the people of those states want. Others will have medical or even? legalized marijuana. Same with abortions. Others will have none of the above. I don't see the precedent for sexual orientation rising to the level of strict scrutiny (the consitutional test) to determine that states that don't want gay marriage are in violation of the 14th amendment.

What's the problem with that? Let the ranting and raving holy rollers live in X state,let the peace and freedom gang live in Y state. Why must it all be exactly the same? Best of the evening to all in the discussion, none of you are short bus trolls, except the one who kept repeating it, kind of like 3rd grade.

Posted by: Gooddogs | September 2, 2010 10:39 PM | Report abuse

Live and let live, but you have no right to demand that society approve or sanction your immoral lifestyle.

Posted by: thebump | September 2, 2010 11:41 PM | Report abuse

What about right-wing "leftists" like Markos C. Alberto Moulitsas Zúñiga (MAMZ), who wrote this letter AGAINST ALL gay participation in the US Armed Forces?

http://truth-about-kos.blogspot.com/2007/09/why-is-mamzs-homophobic-1993-essays.html

With his Republican record, MAMZ should certainly have been included among the Republicans who are trying to become more gay friendly, even though the were adamantly opposed to gays before.

http://truth-about-kos.blogspot.com/2007/08/indictment-of-markos-ca-moulitsas-ziga.html

Posted by: socialist2 | September 3, 2010 12:19 AM | Report abuse

If I were a member of the LGBT community, I'd think twice about supporting the Republicans...They are not to be trusted!

I know Glenn Beck makes fun of people who thinks Republicans operate like the Nazis.
I happen to think they do...They courted the Religious Right to be elected / reelected, then pursued an agenda hostile to Christians at large.

In Nazi Germany after Hitler was elected, his first order of business was to terminate all of his homosexual supporters - particularly those in the Waffen SS. To quote Bob Dylan..."Those who doubt death's honesty must surely be lonely." In other words, don't think it can't happen to you.

Posted by: theseeker1952 | September 3, 2010 12:51 AM | Report abuse

@Francis, you insurance is very costly you can save money on your auto insurance by making few simple changes find how much you can save http://bit.ly/bUb5Ms

Posted by: aidenjose01 | September 3, 2010 2:36 AM | Report abuse

A few republicans who do not hold office, and are not running for office, have made some statements supporting equal rights for gay Americans. Of course everyone should have equal rights under the law, but that's not what is really happening here. To understand what is really happening, just count the Republican Senators who have co-sponsored the Respect for Marriage ACT. The number of Republican Senators who support the bill that would give fundamental equal rights to gay Americans is, you guessed it, ZERO.

What is really happening here is, the Republicans are baiting the Democrats. A few R's who do not hold office are trying to get the D's who do hold office to do something that the R's think would be unpopular, and thereby to lose votes in the coming elections. The R's who are actually running for office won't go anywhere near this issue.

Posted by: SteveHansen1 | September 3, 2010 7:44 AM | Report abuse

Post a Comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.




characters remaining

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company