There’s always a lot of good stuff on The Next Right about rebuilding the GOP. I met two of the site’s primary bloggers, Patrick Ruffini and Jon Henke, in St. Paul last September and was impressed both with their knowledge of politics and their appreciation of new technologies. I do hope RNC Chairman Michael Steele–or one of his top aides–checks their blog on a regular basis.
Ruffini had a good piece yesterday on the GOP potential to win back Silicon Valley. Jon Henke takes some leftists to task for misrepresenting the tea party protests.
But, the piece of greatest particular interest to this blog was Kristen Soltis’s post on Young Voters, the GOP, and Gay Marriage. She runs through the demographics showing that a majority of voters age 18-34 favor gay marriage in contrast to their elders and offers:
This is not to further imply that a change in position on gay marriage would mean droves of young voters signing up for the GOP. A number of other factors have to come into play, not the least of which is how important gay marriage is relative to other important political issues in the minds of these voters. . . .
Yet whether the Republican Party amends its actual policy stance on gay marriage or whether it simply makes efforts be more tolerant and inclusive of homosexuals generally, the Republican Party cannot ignore the vast differences in public opinion between young and old voters on the issue. This difference certainly presents a serious challenge to the party’s long-term ability to swell its ranks among young voters.
I don’t think the GOP need be pro-gay marriage to win the youth vote. I do think it needs offer a vision of choice and opportunity to contrast the Democrats’ preference for government solutions and one-size-fits-all approaches.
That said, I think the best path for the party would be take a more neutral stand on gay marriage and favor a state-by-state approach, consistent with the federalist principles which once undergirded the GOP.
Given the libertarian leanings of young people, they represent the greatest potential source of “flippable” Obama voters. And the numbers show that it won’t help the GOP to make ours the party opposing gay marriage.
Fred Thomson took a federalist view on gay marriage and he was taken to task by Dobson. However, my reaction to Thomson’s view on marriage was the most conservative response. Every state is going to have to decide for themselves.
I don’t see a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage ever passing the 38 state requirement for ratification. Each state has a different process and many are very involved!
I’m not a gay republican, but I am a gay independent and I have to disagree with you on gay marriage. I don’t believe it should be state by state because we ALL fall under one Constitution.
I agree with Meghan McCain when she said, ” I believe that people who fall in love should have the option to get married. Lest we forget, our founding document, the Declaration of Independence, grants the same rights to everyone in this country—’All men are created equal.’ If you think certain rights should not apply to certain people, then you are saying those people are not equal. People may always have a difference of opinion on certain lifestyles, but championing a position that wants to treat people unequally isn’t just un-Republican. At its fundamental core, it’s un-American.”
There should be a national push for gay marriage instead of pouring funds into individual states one at a time. With all the help Obama received from the glbt community he should be pushed to get this passed.
You make it sounds like gay marriage is a losing issue when its not. I’m not so sure young people are in favor of gay marriage as much as it seems like gay bashing (when its not).
Traditional marriage is supported, but it was forced to be compared with gay marriage. It is an unnecessary comparison and it made the situation of comparing apples with oranges into equals. What is the equal? The “right” and hardly anything else.
Ruffini’s a gay conservative, right.
Meant to stick a question mark on that sentence.
To answer your question, “Yes”. Young kids are taught in schools that it is better to be homosexual than heterosexual, and that if you don’t believe that gay marriage should be equal (nay-better) than traditional marriage, you are the same as the Nazi’s. So if the GOP adopted ‘may marriage neutrality’, it would help the GOP with younger voters.
A lot to the discussion of gay marriage misses the key point: One can be for equal rights for gays without favoring same-sex marriage. Marriage is a cultural and historical institution. If state and federal laws were reformed to provide loving same-sex couples fully equal benefits and guarantees under the law, that would fulfill requirements of equal protection. But that still would not satisfy the progressive gay rights activists, because their program is social revolution not social acceptance.
Thanks for the post.
I Agree with AS13 — I firmly believe that a national thrust is the appropriate way of getting the rights associated with marriage. I’ve always said that I don’t care what they call it, but I just want the same rights as every other couple gets. After 25 years, I think we deserve it!
My ultra-conservative friends are exactly that — friends.
My ultra-conservative church is full of my friends.
Both my parish and my friends know, accept and like my partner.
I’ve also said all along that it will eventually pass because it is unconstitutional for it NOT to pass!
I certainly hope that NOTHING helps the GOP with ANY voters.
Be conservative if you want to on fiscal issues.
But, to be a Republican is just sickening in light of the Bush pro-torture policy and the near 30-year history of the GOP using the GLBT community as a punching bag.
What are you people thinking???
Find or create whatever party you want to. But, if you’re a Republican, you’re my enemy now and forever.
“I think the best path for the party would be take a more neutral stand on gay marriage and favor a state-by-state approach, consistent with the federalist principles which once undergirded the GOP.”
You are correct my friend. See my take on it at my blog, http://www.saberpoint.blogspot.com.
As I tend to be more on the “individualist” side of the political spectrum, as opposed to the “collectivist” end of the scale, I agree with most reasonable people that this an “equality” issue. If one does believe in the freedom of choice, free will and equality of all, then there is no rational reason to block gay civil unions, allowing individuals the freedom to choose their partners and be protected by the same legal/contractual rights afforded to hetereosexual couples.
The point of reference needs to the upholding of equal rights for everyone, while deciding on a base line standard of what are human rights.
The waters get murky with the loaded term “marriage”. There are many people who sincerely interpet their faith to be prohibitive against gay marriage. IMO, individuals do not have the right to infringe on their beliefs/right and “force” churches to accept or sanctify gay marriage unions. Many churches already do so, and that is okay. Many do not, and are upset that they feel that their religious freedooms are being infringed.
Perhaps I don’t understand the issue well. Is civil union/contact concept of marriage, not acceptable as a “solution”, or is it necessary to try and impose one set of beliefs (marriage equality) on another group (freedom of religious expression?). Is a legally enforceable, legally recognized civil union acceptable to the activists on this issue, or is the issue the right to church-recognized marriage? To be perfectly honest, I’m starting to get confused with all the rhetoric. I married someone of a different culture and faith, and we were married by a justice of the peace in a civil union because the baggage that came along with the alternatives was just too overwhelming. I don’t feel any less “married” than my friends who had the pull-out-the-stops dramatic show weddings in a church.
I agree that the fault lines are generational. We’re in our early forties and support the rights of the gay community to be treated with the same dignity, respect and opportunities…including “marriage”… as everyone else.
For our kids, it’s a non-issue. They don’t even understand why it’s controversial.
Our parents….a definite no, although we have had many sincere discussions with them to try and understand what they find threatening about allowing gays to have the same opportunities to build stable and legally recognized unions as everyone else.
The same fault lines exist within the “gays in the military” meme. I read with some disappointment that a group of retired generals and flag officers are ginning up their outrage over the idea that “don’t ask, don’t tell” might be revisited.
As I said, we’re in our early forties. Most of these men are older and from another generation. They probably weren’t too comfortable with women in the military too, if they were completely honest.
I’m married to someone in the active duty forces who also has had the opportunity to command. His attitude is that the armed services should have a makeup that reflects our nation, and since gays are part of that fabric, they should be allowed to serve. Professionalism, patriotism and love of country are not concepts that are tied to one’s sexual orientation.
He knows full well that he has gays that served in his command and that he has served with gays. So do most of his peers. Their attitude seems to be that they are only concerned with someone’s professionalism, not their sexual orientation. Inappropriate “fraternization” does create friction within units and can impact on mission readiness, but that would be the case whether the inappropriate behavior was between members of the opposite sex or the same sex. This whole notion that people won’t be able to behave professionally carrying out their duties “because they’re gay” is beyond ridiculous.
Oh, I forgot to answer the question you posed in your blog —
as someone who supports the notion of individualism I support the state-by-state approach, because it most closely matches my beliefs for minimalist federal intervention.
Conservatives need to de-couple themselves from the extremism of some of their religious factions. The conservative movement is supposed to stand for upholding the concepts of the rights of the individual, liberty, sound economic money policy….etc…. not on divisive social issues.
Oh PLEEEEASE. can we stop with the “Republicans would get elected if they only embrace gay marriage” crap.
As if gay marriage was even on anyone’s MIND this election.
The article you link to shows a small majority of Democrats think gay sex is WRONG, yet they manage to vote for Democrats anyway.
The truth is, gay marriage has NOTHING to do with Republican losses. An unpopular war and an unpopular president do.
I really have had it up to my f*cking eyeballs with people inserting their pet issues as the reasons Republicans lost when the issues were made very clear.
Young kids are taught in schools that it is better to be homosexual than heterosexual, and that if you don’t believe that gay marriage should be equal (nay-better) than traditional marriage, you are the same as the Nazi’s
Schools would never dare utter such things. I wouldn’t want ’em to. Homosexuality is too interesting to give to the heteros.
AE offers: “Oh PLEEEEASE. can we stop with the “Republicans would get elected if they only embrace gay marriage†crap. As if gay marriage was even on anyone’s MIND this election.”
I think Dan was saying nothing of the sort, AE. His reference was to the GOP adopting a neutral federal position on gay marriage –as opposed to the 15-20 yr running battle by soc-cons inside the GOP to demonize gays and gay rights and, most especially gay marriage or marriage equality. It’s not an embrace… in fact, it’s getting some distance from gay marriage as a socially divisive issue.
I think that position, as well as many others expressed here, is (are) worthy of considerable consideration by Steele & GOP leaders et al –and despite what you MAY think, gay marriage was indeed on the minds of most political advisors and a majority of voters in 2008, 2004, 2000 and even heading back to the dark days of the Moral Majority litmus tests for GOPers when those soc-con groups first broached gay marriage as one of the central issues in the Culture War against religion and decency and -well- God only knows what.
It’s why Obama, informed by tons of polling by ScreaminHowieDean’s pols, took the unusual Democrat position of being in favor of traditional marriage… and to most voters, McCain’s position was nearly without difference (even though it was). Obama’s position from a Party that, for years, has approved ever single change in the divorce laws to aid ending marriages rather than improving and shoring-up traditional marriage… who have undercut the traditional American family in nearly every way possible from welfare support to parental rights.
Did the WOT trump gay marriage? Sure. Did the economic mess and fear mongering by Democrats about a 2d “Great Depression” trump gay marriage? Sure. Did the Dems GOTV effort succeed? Sure. Was Bush a drag on the GOP ticket in the minds of independents? Sure.
Was part of the latter a factor of Bush’s leverage of the gay marriage issue as a spearpoint in the culture wars? Yeah and I would add it was undoubtedly a big factor on voters’ minds. Or did you already forget California? Arizona? Florida? or the other 11 states preceeding them in earlier elections?
Gay marriage was on the minds of CA, FLA and AZ voters… and likely on the minds of many other voters who came to the polls because there was enough nuance in the candidate’s positions to warrant differential support.
It’s why GOP leaders like Ken Blackwell were able to argue last spring that to be on the wrong side of gay marriage would kill a presidential candidate’s viability… and even people like Sarah Palin were quick to express a veiled, if vague, reference to same-sex contractual rights in her public statements about traditional marriage.
As a real GOP activist, I can tell you that my Party taunts another ruinous electoral future if it thinks gay rights can be pushed aside and the SO/SO practices of the past will suffice.
Dan, I think it’s an interesting idea and it would make a difference, but not with the voters. Voters tend not to vote on issues like same-sex marriage unless you’re either (a) gay or (b) a fundamentalist. They vote more on pocket book issues and character. Where I do think it will make a difference, however, is in the quality and breadth of candidates the GOP is able to run. One of my complaints about both parties right now is that they are applying litmus tests to their candidates. Democrats did it with Lieberman, and many in the party had fits when Gillibrand was nominated to replace Clinton (because Gillibrand is pro-gun ownership). Republicans have, I think, done much the same with their candidates such that you have to be anti-gay marriage (or “pro-marriage”, depending on how you spin it), pro-life, and so on. As a consequence, both parties are becoming parties of a smaller tent. That’s the problem, and it’s my concern as the party says it needs to move further to the right on social issues. Not true, I think. Offer a broader tent on social issues, and return to the core fundamentals of fiscal conservativism and small government, and I think the GOP will be putting up better candidates and attracting more voters.
MM,
I was criticizing the article Dan is talking about — I should have made that more clear.
And yes, it is widely accepted that Obama’s victory and Republicans loss was due in large part to the youth vote, so it is implicit in the article when it argues that Republicans are losing the youth vote because of gay marriage that we in turn lost the election because of gay marriage.
Which is silly. The polls don’t reflect it. They ask people what the most important issues are to them, and gay marriage simply doesn’t even register. I even looked up the polls again when i wrote that to be sure I was right.
But Dan,
I apologize, I blew my top at the article and it read like I was blowing my top at you. I shouldn’t have blown my top to begin with, and I should have made it clear it was directed at the article.
But in truth, I really have had it up to my eyeballs with people trying to use the election to push phony agendas that have nothing to do with why we lost. Moreover, it is all part and parcel of the ‘de-emphasize’ social -conservatism argument which would be a disaster for conservatives and the Republican party.
We lost the election because people were unhappy with the war and the economy and our witless representatives allowed Democrats to wrongly define those problems as Republican’s fault.
Until we regain people’s confidence with the economy, national security, health care, and the major issues they care about, and make people see that conservative policy is the best answer for those issues….all the other pet projects are not only superfluous distraction, but a detrimental waste of time and resources.