Join 3,514 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


GOP Pollster to GOP Leadership: Enough With the Gay Bashing!
May 12, 2012 12:55 PM   Subscribe

Andrew Sullivan's Daily Beast reports that Jan van Lohuizen, "highly respected Republican pollster", has advised his fellow conservatives to embrace GLBT civil rights. The text of the memo is reproduced in full at the link.
posted by Ipsifendus (65 comments total) 13 users marked this as a favorite

 
If the GOP endorsed gay marriage I would I had woken up in a parallel universe, where you can eat all the pasta and burritos you want.
posted by uraniumwilly at 12:59 PM on May 12, 2012 [5 favorites]


I am very interested to see how this plays out--one can only deny reality for so long, and the reality is that more Americans than not finally see this as the civil rights issue it is.

(n.b.: Sullivan's blog is part of the Daily Beast, but the Daily Beast is not "Andrew Sullivan's")
posted by LooseFilter at 1:00 PM on May 12, 2012 [2 favorites]


It is delicious irony that the Republicans' favorite wedge issue might end up mostly being a wedge between the Republicans themselves.
posted by briank at 1:00 PM on May 12, 2012 [33 favorites]


Oops! I would KNOW I had woken up... silly mind types faster than my fingers.
posted by uraniumwilly at 1:00 PM on May 12, 2012


E.J. Dionne took time on All Things Considered this week to praise David Brooks for being an early conservative commentator to advocate for gay marriage as being fundamental to the conservative worldview. I found the moment entirely genuine and kind of touching, and it raised Brooks in my estimation a bit.
posted by hippybear at 1:01 PM on May 12, 2012 [3 favorites]


What will it do to the Republican governing platform if they endorse GLBT civil rights? I do not think it will make a spit of difference what the Republicans stand for or how they vote in Congress.
posted by parmanparman at 1:01 PM on May 12, 2012 [1 favorite]


What once made them strong now makes them weak. Demographically, the GOP is now on the wrong side of this wedge issue - but can't possibly change its stance without alienating the religious right.

They're screwed.
posted by kgasmart at 1:03 PM on May 12, 2012 [14 favorites]


the Daily Beast is not "Andrew Sullivan's"

Pretty sure the Daily Beast is Tina Brown's. (And her integration of it with Newsweek has bumped up the previously-rapidly declining quality of that magazine by many hundreds of percent.)
posted by hippybear at 1:05 PM on May 12, 2012 [1 favorite]


gay marriage as being fundamental to the conservative worldview.

Only for those who believe in limited government and letting people do what they want. That's a small and increasingly marginalized minority in the Republican party.

Most of the modern "conservative" movement seems to be about pushing what they define as Christianity on the world, by force whenever necessary. Nevermind that Christ himself would be horrified by what they're doing.
posted by Malor at 1:05 PM on May 12, 2012 [10 favorites]


Nevermind that Christ himself would be horrified by what they're doing.

When has that ever stopped a True Believer?
posted by LooseFilter at 1:07 PM on May 12, 2012 [7 favorites]


I'm sure they'll treat this with the same discretion and care they treated Hispanics with after Bush realized how important the Hispanic vote was going to be in the coming years.
posted by Ghostride The Whip at 1:08 PM on May 12, 2012 [32 favorites]


If the elected GOP officials adopt this in the next year or two, it might be a problem. But they won't, not while they're being driven by the older and more conservative voters. Maybe in 2016, although it's far more likely that if Mitt loses they'll just assume they weren't being conservative enough.
posted by zombieflanders at 1:09 PM on May 12, 2012 [3 favorites]


(n.b.: Sullivan's blog is part of the Daily Beast, but the Daily Beast is not "Andrew Sullivan's")

Argh. Apologies for this, I don't follow Sullivan on a regular basis.
posted by Ipsifendus at 1:09 PM on May 12, 2012


Sensible Republicans -- all three of them -- know that in ten and twenty years, when all of this is passe, the outspoken anti-gay hate speech that is so rampant these days will be used to beat them and their party over the head with.
posted by Fnarf at 1:12 PM on May 12, 2012 [5 favorites]


gay marriage as being fundamental to the conservative worldview.

Only for those who believe in limited government and letting people do what they want. That's a small and increasingly marginalized minority in the Republican party.


The argument which Brooks has been laying out was that gay marriage was part of the conservative value system of strengthening families and encouraging monogamy and committed units devoted to living life together and possibly raising children.
posted by hippybear at 1:13 PM on May 12, 2012 [4 favorites]


And the pollster's conclusion is clear: if the GOP keeps up its current rhetoric and positions on gays and lesbians, it is in danger of marginalizing itself to irrelevance or worse.

It is obvious that the Republicans are on the wrong side of history as it were on the issue of homosexual marriage, but measured against the success of discriminatory "marriage" acts on a state level it would seem history is not quite here yet. It is premature to measure the effect of "current" Republican rhetoric against what are perhaps longer term trends. In more than a few places, discrimination still has a majority. The pity is that civil rights for a not-small segment of the American population remains up for a vote and Obama's recent reticence to stand up for homosexuals on the pure and simple basis of civil rights doesn't offer much hope for change.

But yeah, tell me how the GOP doesn't get it.
posted by three blind mice at 1:14 PM on May 12, 2012 [1 favorite]


It's like watching the Berlin Wall come down. First a crack, then a small breach, then the first person gets through without being shot, then another and another, pretty soon everyone is hammering on the wall and the trickle becomes a flood.

My wife's daughter and her partner of two years are planning their wedding. When my wife first learned of her daughter's orientation 5 or 6 years ago, she wasn't disappointed, she was worried that it would be hard for her daughter to be public with her relationships and would have to hide it. I've seen that change a lot in the last few years, thankfully. Her and her partner are openly living together as a couple, they are accepted by their neighbors, friends and family. My step daughter and her partner are as much family as my step son and his wife. Now we're just waiting for grandchildren.
posted by Grumpy old geek at 1:22 PM on May 12, 2012 [16 favorites]


Sensible Republicans -- all three of them -- know that in ten and twenty years, when all of this is passe, the outspoken anti-gay hate speech that is so rampant these days will be used to beat them and their party over the head with.

Only if someone, you know, actually has the stones to do that, and there's no Democrat in sight with that much courage.

Strom Thurmond served as a Senator for forty-eight years AFTER making this speech:

I wanna tell you, ladies and gentlemen, that there's not enough troops in the army to force the Southern people to break down segregation and admit the Nigra race into our theaters, into our swimming pools, into our homes, and into our churches.
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 1:23 PM on May 12, 2012 [15 favorites]


The argument which Brooks has been laying out was that gay marriage was part of the conservative value system of strengthening families and encouraging monogamy and committed units devoted to living life together and possibly raising children.

This is why i am profoundly against gay marriage, and why i refuse to believe gay marriage is a progressive act.
posted by PinkMoose at 1:26 PM on May 12, 2012 [4 favorites]


...but the trends show that all age groups are rethinking their position.

I would be curious to see his data on this because my impression is that the long term change in opinion has pretty closely matched the rate of population turnover of 1-2%. We've just now crossed over the 50% threshold of support but we still need to wait for more intolerant people to die off.
posted by euphorb at 1:28 PM on May 12, 2012 [2 favorites]


Hey, I don't care if people get married or not, gay or straight. I think people should have the option if they want.

I do also see that a lot of the "we are a unique people who have things to teach the greater society" mindset which was present in the gay community when I first came out 20-odd years ago is vanishing as assimilation takes place. I feel this is definitely a loss on some level, but have no idea what to do about it.

I'm all for the equal rights and stuff. I'm just kind of sad to see much of what I felt had value about the gay subculture also disappearing as equality becomes reality.
posted by hippybear at 1:30 PM on May 12, 2012 [8 favorites]


Sensible Republicans -- all three of them -- know that in ten and twenty years, when all of this is passe, the outspoken anti-gay hate speech that is so rampant these days will be used to beat them and their party over the head with.

You don't need to beat them over the head with it. Minds are changing on the issue of gay marriage not because of the fiery rhetoric of those who support it - but, as noted in the memo, “As more people have become aware of friends and family members who are gay, attitudes have begun to shift at an accelerated pace. This is not about a generational shift in attitudes, this is about people changing their thinking as they recognize their friends and family members who are gay or lesbian.”

That's a steady erosion, whether or not some Democratic politician is standing up there saying, "You're trying to rob these Americans of their rights!"
posted by kgasmart at 1:31 PM on May 12, 2012


This is why i am profoundly against gay marriage, and why i refuse to believe gay marriage is a progressive act.

Most GLBT people in the United States are just as bourgeois as their hetero age and class cohorts, so this is a battle that you are going to lose.
posted by atrazine at 1:40 PM on May 12, 2012 [12 favorites]


We can start tonight. I had plans but I can reschedule.
posted by Edogy at 1:40 PM on May 12, 2012 [1 favorite]


So, he's advised the Republicans, basically, "lie about your convictions in the pursuit of power?"
posted by tyllwin at 1:43 PM on May 12, 2012 [6 favorites]


If straight people are tomorrow granted the right to fuck corpses and marry their coffee mugs, then yes, gay people should be allowed to do that too.
posted by spicynuts at 1:44 PM on May 12, 2012


GOP Pollster to GOP Leadership: You Might Want to Stop Acting like Republicans
posted by Flunkie at 1:56 PM on May 12, 2012 [8 favorites]


Sensible Republicans -- all three of them -- know that in ten and twenty years, when all of this is passe, the outspoken anti-gay hate speech that is so rampant these days will be used to beat them and their party over the head with.

As I've mentioned previously, this is one reason why I'm thrilled that practically everything a politician says in public is now recorded and more-or-less on the permanent record. I've now been alive long enough, and have seen enough, to know how all this is going to play out. Back in the 80s, it was "Queers are incapable of forming relationships and are driven by their mental illness to have endless sex with hundreds or even thousands of people." When students at my university started pushing for an official non-discrimination policy, the conservative alternative "newspaper" editorialized (and I'm quoting here, which I can do from memory two decades later because it pissed me off so much) "What's next, fist fucking on the floor of the state legislature?" Then Colorado passed an amendment to ban non-discrimination against homosexuals.

That kind of crap has largely gone away. It got replaced with "Okay, the gays can have relationships but they never last very long." Then it was "Sure they can have stable relationships, but they're not real and don't deserve legal protection." Then it became "Okay, people in committed relationships should have some legal protections, call them domestic partnerships or something, but they're NOT MARRIAGES, okay? Because of.... REASONS. Or something."

Equality, at least in a legal sense, is going to happen and there's nothing a bunch of backwards thinking conservatives can do about it. They know it too, and that's why you're seeing so much frantic ranting and amendment passing. They had a very narrow window, historically, in which stuff like this would pass a popular vote. That window is probably about to close and may have, in fact, just closed. All they've done, though, is delay the inevitable.

As for quiet, under-the-radar discrimination... well, that's going to take a lot longer, I suspect.
posted by LastOfHisKind at 1:57 PM on May 12, 2012 [18 favorites]


Goof for Obama, but it wouldn't be the first time he (and the nation) got burned by him trying to do the right thing.

An inevitable trend does not an upcoming election make. Currently about 31 of 50 states have prohibitions of some kind or another on gay marriage. Even if the overall numbers in support of marriage equality are above 50%, it may yet shave points off of Obama's support in some states.

If Obama loses, and marriage equality is seen as partly to blame, there's a risk of retrenchment (or worse) in political support. (My guess is that even a loss is unlikely to have any major, long term negative impact on the current trend of acceptance, but a guess isn't a guarantee). Recall that George H.W. Bush's "no new taxes" pledge not only contributed to his loss (along with the economy), but also seems to have contributed to the GOP permanent aversion to raising taxes of any kind for any reason.

We should be careful not to count our chickens before they've hatched, something which today's Democrats seem especially prone to doing, e.g. massive turnout for 2008 led to a 'yay, we've won' attitude that quickly became frustrated by Republicans, leading to disillusionment and light Democratic turnout in 2010... and things went from "worse" to "Heeeeere's Johnny" crazy on the GOP side.

If you like Obama's position change, donate money today and try to get involved tomorrow. Because there's a lot more at stake, and there's now a steeper hill to climb, now that Obama is no longer sitting on the fence. And this memo isn't likely to have any impact on Republicans this election cycle.
posted by Davenhill at 2:03 PM on May 12, 2012 [5 favorites]


If you like Obama's position change, donate money today and try to get involved tomorrow.

Yes, one level it was quite a bold and deft political move.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 2:12 PM on May 12, 2012


Don't forget Shep Smith on Fox News: "the president of the United States, now in the 21st century" among other comments.

My reaction.
posted by Talez at 2:13 PM on May 12, 2012


We have to stop the orgiers!
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 2:18 PM on May 12, 2012 [4 favorites]


It might not be good to bash gays for the GOP but the gay marriage announcement from Obama
is liklehy to cost him votes among indies
posted by Postroad at 2:24 PM on May 12, 2012 [1 favorite]


is liklehy to cost him votes among indies

Also probably likely to gain him some votes from people who champion common sense over commonly held beliefs.
posted by jsavimbi at 2:29 PM on May 12, 2012 [2 favorites]


The GOP is kinda fucked on this in the medium term. Seriously. Embrace marriage equality and they risk a Southern Split, with a possible 3rd ultra conservative party. Or they toe the current line and keep bleeding increasing support on this issue.

Personally, I think the 3rd party is their best option in the long run. They will lose a lot of short term elections and perhaps a cycle or two of presidential races, but a fiscal conservative party would eventually draw plenty of "conservative" democrats over time which will allow the Democrats as-a-whole to move leftward a bit.

Mind you I think the GOP as a party is as likely to embrace gay rights as my rabbit is to run and win the presidency
posted by edgeways at 2:30 PM on May 12, 2012 [1 favorite]


The Gay Old Party
posted by telstar at 2:34 PM on May 12, 2012


Rand Paul speaking from prepared remarks in Iowa: "Call me cynical, but I wasn't sure [Obama's] views on marriage could get any gayer!"

Congratulations Kentuckians, one of your United States Senators is a thirteen-year-old child.
posted by East Manitoba Regional Junior Kabaddi Champion '94 at 2:36 PM on May 12, 2012 [12 favorites]


Nex GOP memo: Are We the Baddies?
posted by GenjiandProust at 2:37 PM on May 12, 2012 [25 favorites]


hippybear: "E.J. Dionne took time on All Things Considered this week to praise David Brooks for being an early conservative commentator to advocate for gay marriage as being fundamental to the conservative worldview."

As early as 2003:
The conservative course is not to banish gay people from making such commitments. It is to expect that they make such commitments. We shouldn't just allow gay marriage. We should insist on gay marriage. We should regard it as scandalous that two people could claim to love each other and not want to sanctify their love with marriage and fidelity.
posted by Apropos of Something at 2:38 PM on May 12, 2012 [4 favorites]


I am reminded of the Tom Lehrer line about Werner Von Braun: "A man whose allegiance is ruled by expedience."
posted by Sing Or Swim at 2:47 PM on May 12, 2012 [2 favorites]


Argh. Apologies for this, I don't follow Sullivan on a regular basis.

You may remember when his blog was called "The Daily Dish" (now just "The Dish"); confusion may be expected when one "Daily X" joins another.

Demographically, the GOP is now on the wrong side of this wedge issue - but can't possibly change its stance without alienating the religious right.

Rest assured, if they think support for gay rights is necessary for election in the general, they'll give the religious right the same lip service they used to on abortion. And the religious right will have to go stuff it.
posted by dhartung at 3:03 PM on May 12, 2012


[Hey folks, that jokey-or-not line about marrying dogs was deleted a while ago, and I've deleted a bunch of late responses to it. Please do move on from it if you can. ]
posted by restless_nomad at 3:06 PM on May 12, 2012 [1 favorite]


We have to stop the orgiers!
The hilarious thing in that video is the guy behind her visibly WTFing throughout the whole thing.
The argument which Brooks has been laying out was that gay marriage was part of the conservative value system of strengthening families and encouraging monogamy and committed units devoted to living life together and possibly raising children.
Yeah, what's interesting is that gay marriage was initially promoted by people like Andrew Sullivan, who were conservative and wanted to see gay people accepted into 'mainstream' society as an addition to traditional society. Initially (according to him, anyway) this was seen as kind of outlandish, something that would never happen and the goal should be to get rid of marriage as being a legacy of patriarchal societies
Also probably likely to gain him some votes from people who champion common sense over commonly held beliefs.


Who, obviously, would have voted for him anyway. That's the argument that the "he has to be moderate to get the independent voter!!" crowd would probably say, except they won't say it now because Obama actually has done the thing they said he could never do.

The difference is this is going to motivate his "base" by being more progressive without pissing off the major donors and campaign contributors he relies on. In fact, this will actually help him with many of the high dollar donors who are concerned about gay rights. Obviously there are gay and straight people among all income strata, where as an issue like (serious) banking reform that might negatively impact wallstreet, or major attempts to re-progressiveize the tax structure would cost him campaign donations
The over-simplified, constitutional cheat code when reading marriage laws is to reject adjectives describing accidents of birth, e.g. race, religion, gender/sexual orientation. Thus two people can get married regardless of their respective race, religion, gender, i.e. the equality required by constitution simply reduces it to 'a person can marry a person', no adjectives.
If gay marriage bans were unconstitutional, they would have been rejected by the US Supreme court by now. Maybe over time they will be, but I think a lot of people tend to ascribe to ascribe great things the US constitution things that aren't really in it.
posted by delmoi at 3:11 PM on May 12, 2012


Drat!

As a 50+ straight guy I've been quite proud of being way out ahead on acceptance, well, pretty much forever.

Now that acceptance is going mainstream, I'm going to have to find some other obvious inequality to be all unexpectedly forward-thinking about.

Also, shameless link to my cartoon on the subject.
posted by mmrtnt at 3:33 PM on May 12, 2012


I disagree. The GOP moving to accept SSM will cost it nothing in lost votes. Those "lost votes" from harder core conservatives? Welcome to how actual liberals feel in the Democratic party. They'll vote for the party candidate anyway... simply because they figure the other guy will always be worse. The older GOP voters will eventually die out, and the younger generation, including the younger GOP are more in tune with SSM anyway, so it's not like they'll squawk that the GOP now accepts SSM. We might discuss how energized voters will be, but frankly, SSM is not the only issue, and they can get the right-wing nutters plenty hot under the collar about a Democratic candidate, no matter what - as they say, if you want to beat a dog, you'll always find a stick.

My prediction is that it will become a non-issue, like so many others. The Democrats might get a bit of benefit for a few decades from the LGBT vote, because they'll remember who it was that fought for them, but I'm not even sure of how strong that will be - see Log Cabin... plenty of gay Republicans out there, and once the GOP has moved away from bat-shit insane positions on LGBT issues, you'll be amazed at how much the LGBT community will split their vote just like the general populace among Reps and Dems. It is, after all, the fate of the Democratic party to fight for various constituencies, and once those achieve their goals, proceed to vote Republican. Notable and heartening exception: the black vote... though hardly surprising considering the raw bigotry still so prevalent in the GOP and regularly appealed to (Southern Strategy!).

This is good news for the LGBT community, but really that's about the extent of the good news - which, ultimately is good enough for me. Anything more, like hoping it'll be a wedge against the Reps or whatever, is just dreaming pleasant dreams - as I see it.
posted by VikingSword at 3:42 PM on May 12, 2012 [1 favorite]


Yeah. If it was Andrew Sullivan's, it'd be "The Daily Bear".
posted by notyou at 3:44 PM on May 12, 2012 [2 favorites]


If gay marriage bans were unconstitutional, they would have been rejected by the US Supreme court by now. Maybe over time they will be, but I think a lot of people tend to ascribe to ascribe great things the US constitution things that aren't really in it.

John Bingham is rolling in his grave right now.
posted by Talez at 3:52 PM on May 12, 2012


If gay marriage bans were unconstitutional, they would have been rejected by the US Supreme court by now.

What cases have come before the Supreme Court for them to even make a ruling on the constitutionality of state bans on gay marriage? I think the Prop 8 challenge which is obviously heading that direction but hasn't gotten there yet is the first one, but I'd love to hear about others if they have existed.
posted by hippybear at 4:05 PM on May 12, 2012 [1 favorite]


If gay marriage bans were unconstitutional, they would have been rejected by the US Supreme court by now. Maybe over time they will be, but I think a lot of people tend to ascribe to ascribe great things the US constitution things that aren't really in it.
The US Supreme Court would have to review such a case, first. As far as I'm aware they have studiously chosen to avoid the issue despite conflicts among state and federal courts.

As far as ascribing things to the constitution that aren't in it, the people most guilty of that are people who are advocating discrimination.

The basic principles of equality are clear enough in the constitution, and the above 'cheat' emphasizes the Constitution's general preference to ignore labels based on accidents of birth and instead prefers to have laws apply in the broadest possible terms, i.e. to "people". That could lead you to interpreting a marriage law as being between not "man and wife" but "person and person", but in absolutely no way could get you to "person and turtle", per O'Reilly.

(Aside: most people, including many politicians, incorrectly speak of their rights of citizens. But the bill of rights doesn't grant rights to "citizens" but rather prohibits the government from doing certain things, and guarantees certain rights/protections to people.

Certainly the Constitution is open to interpretation, and there's no guaranteeing how the SCOTUS will rule if and when it takes up such a case. But even on the issue of marriage equality, a decision would likely not turn not on the principles of equality themselves, but rather some ancillary question, e.g. whether there is a compelling state interest to ignore the principle of equality.

Cf. Jim Crow laws were generally upheld not by rejecting constitutional principles of equality but by carving out exceptions (e.g. private businesses could discriminate) or by creating a phony illusion of equality under "separate but equal", or by just passing on such socially volatile issues altogether. (like now?)
posted by Davenhill at 4:39 PM on May 12, 2012 [2 favorites]


If gay marriage bans were unconstitutional, they would have been rejected by the US Supreme court by now.

SCOTUS has neither upheld nor struck down gay marriage bans, because no relevant case has yet come before them.
posted by scody at 5:49 PM on May 12, 2012


We have to stop the orgiers!

Meet Jane Svoboda. She is a 52-year-old woman diagnosed with schizophrenia Svoboda lives at an assisted-living facility in Lincoln and is listed as a protected person, according to Journal Star. Her brother, Patrick Svoboda, is her conservator because she is incompetent, the documents say.
posted by dirigibleman at 6:40 PM on May 12, 2012 [3 favorites]


Sure, someone smart in their ranks will tell them the truth about their risking marginalization... and the party will ignore it, and pay the price.

It's all part of the GOP war on __________, really. Don't worry, though. When you finally wrest something approaching equality from their wrinkled, grasping, liver-spotted hands, they'll eventually claim to have been on your side all along. Maybe they'll cite their dedicated efforts to allow all men, gay and straight, a wide stance in public bathrooms.

Gee... and who would've thought that the GOP could get any gayer.
posted by markkraft at 6:50 PM on May 12, 2012


I love the confused nature of that ink, markkraft. The title of the page says Ron Paul, the headline says Rand Paul.

Of course, Rand Paul has the gayest hairpiece this side of Queer Eye For The Straight Guy.
posted by hippybear at 6:53 PM on May 12, 2012


(and by "gayest" I mean "curliest and fun-loving and full of joy", of course)
posted by hippybear at 6:53 PM on May 12, 2012


"And the walls came tumbling down."

... according to Sullivan's blog. Yeahrite. Something tells me that this pollster will soon be excommunicated from the GOP in-crowd, like so many other real conservatives have been.

To paraphrase John Gilmore:
"The Net GOP interprets censorship reality as damage and routes around it."
posted by markkraft at 7:04 PM on May 12, 2012 [1 favorite]


(and by "gayest" I mean "curliest and fun-loving and full of joy", of course)

Otherwise known as the Lex.
posted by gjc at 7:28 PM on May 12, 2012 [2 favorites]


This is the managerial wing of the party talking to itself. The diehard bible-thumpers, the ignorant and narrow-minded reactionary wing (the loud ones) won't have it. Not for a moment.
posted by longsleeves at 8:02 PM on May 12, 2012


The diehard bible-thumpers, the ignorant and narrow-minded reactionary wing (the loud ones) won't have it. Not for a moment.

But that's really the point isn't it? Every thing the Republicans do that puts them on the wrong side of progress is catering to this group. What more and more Republicans seem to be trying to get their party to see is that it is nothing short of a path to ruin. Once the GOP feels they have a stronger chance at electoral success by leaving this group behind, they will be on the fringe so fast you won't know what happened.

Also, can I just say how much I'm loving seeing the Republicans on the wrong side of wedge issues for a change, and I think Obama is playing them like two-dollar banjos. It's good sport for a liberal.
posted by dry white toast at 8:16 PM on May 12, 2012


I think Obama is playing them like two-dollar banjos

There's something about this phrase which leaves a bad taste in my mouth, no matter how much I agree with the author's point.
posted by hippybear at 8:19 PM on May 12, 2012


"Once the GOP feels they have a stronger chance at electoral success by leaving this group behind, they will be..."

Ostracized?
Democrats?!

(If you haven't noticed yet...)
posted by markkraft at 8:52 PM on May 12, 2012


Sensible Republicans -- all three of them -- know that in ten and twenty years, when all of this is passe, the outspoken anti-gay hate speech that is so rampant these days will be used to beat them and their party over the head with.
posted by Fnarf at 4:12 PM on May 12 [1 favorite +] [!]


They'll just say the Democrats were the ones opposing gay marriage. Sort of like how they say Republicans fought for the 1964 civil rights act against the evil Democrats, even though they ran Barry Goldwater for President on a platform of repealing it.
posted by stavrogin at 9:14 PM on May 12, 2012 [3 favorites]


They'll just say the Democrats were the ones opposing gay marriage.

Ooooh, can I try?

"Of course, what held back gay rights for so many years was not the freedom- and marriage-loving right, but the insistence on the left that (1) the state provided and demanded privileges for workers outside of their freely-entered employment contracts, forcing everyone to define their relationship in accordance with the dictates of the bureaucrats and (2) that the state taxed fairly-earned estates on death of the earner, throwing gay wives and husbands onto the street when their breadwinner died.

Without such left-wing meddling in private affairs and taxes gay people could have got on and married without needing some piece of paper from the overweening state.

See! It's all the fault of the left! We were pro-gay-marriage all along!"

You read it here first...
posted by alasdair at 4:55 AM on May 13, 2012


To stand on the wrong side of history, yelling "stop!"
posted by gauche at 6:05 AM on May 13, 2012 [1 favorite]


I find it interesting that the GOP is deathly afraid of anything in any level of Government that smacks of "central planning" or, well, "planning" of any sort really (because freedom!), but they just lap it up when it comes to running the party. They love structure, and authority, and marching orders and they fall into it in lock-step, at least when it largely coincides with their own self-interests.

Just so long as it doesn't benefit wider society, I guess.

Also - "these are our core principles and values, but if you don't like them, we've got others …"
posted by kcds at 7:21 AM on May 13, 2012


So, they are contemplating whether or not to stop clubbing me around the head with a Bible for being gay. I guess I should feel grateful or something...
posted by tommorris at 11:40 PM on May 13, 2012


« Older Canadian food chain Swiss Chalet decided to buy an...  |  What's it like to live in one ... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments