How Should the GOP Address Gay Marriage?
Last wee, the folks from Pajamas Media asked me to write a piece on one of two topics, the recent statement by the Chairman of the Republican National Committee on reframing gay marriage as an economic issue and the determination of Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee to press the President’s Supreme Court nominee how he (or she) plans to adjudicate the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).
As I considered both articles, I realized they both addressed (in a certain manner) the dilemma facing the GOP as it seeks to rebuild–how to respond to gay marriage. Here’s how I began my exploration of the issue:
With the California Supreme Court set to issue its ruling today on the validity of Proposition 8, a voter-approved initiative to define marriage in the Golden State as the union of one man and one woman, gay marriage will once again dominate the headlines. This issue has proven nettlesome for both parties. President Obama has tried to soft pedal his opposition to same-sex marriage by professing his support for “equivalent rights” (whatever that means) for gay people. Meanwhile, Scott Schmidt, a former senior strategist to the McCain campaign has urged Republican candidates to “steer clear of divisive social issues” like gay marriage and abortion in order to become more electorally “viable.”
At the same time as Schmidt advises the GOP to avoid gay marriage, citizens across the country continue to vote in favor of initiatives like Prop 8 which block states from recognizing same-sex unions as marriages. Despite such popular opposition, courts in four states (Massachusetts, California, Connecticut and Iowa) have ruled that their jurisdictions must recognize same-sex marriages (with Prop 8 invalidating the California ruling). State legislatures in three states (Vermont, New Hampshire and Maine) have passed legislation recognizing same-sex marriages (with New Hampshire’s Democratic Governor John Lynch vetoing the bill, “asking the legislature to include language that would protect churches and other religious institutions from prosecution if, for example, they refuse to perform same-sex marriages.“)
With gay marriage remaining at the forefront of our national consciousness, the Republican Party, seeking to rebuild after losses in two successive national elections, struggles to address the issue without alienating young voters and socially liberal urban and suburbanites who share the GOP’s fiscal and national security principles, but are wary of backing socially conservative candidates.
Now that I’ve whet your appetite, click here to read the rest.
27 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Of course the GOP is gearing up for such a fight, foolish though it may be. They know what’s coming: a strong legal challenge to DOMA based upon the Full Faith & Credit Clause. The more states that legalize SSM, the stronger the argument in invoking this clause becomes. I give it about 10-15 years at the current pace.
Comment by John — May 26, 2009 @ 6:08 am - May 26, 2009
Constitutionally speaking, our government cannot ban gay marriage: The constitution states that there is FREEDOM OF RELIGION. If gays have a religion in which gays can marry, our government has no right to prevent such a thing. Even having marriage as a legal status is unconstitutional. The government should not accept one religion over another.
Comment by Patrick — May 26, 2009 @ 8:08 am - May 26, 2009
I support SSM on conservative grounds: two consenting adults entering into a contract of their own free will. Though it would be good to have national uniformity, such contracts are a state level issue.
And though I sometimes reject direct democratic actions as being the “2 wolves and a sheep” variety, I think this subject is properly acted on by democratic action. It’s social change that I hope to convince most people to embrace. And eventually the Vast majority of Americans.
It is sad that social change can feel so glacial but I think that the “fist in the air” types (“you must think like me or you’re a vile homophobe w/ latent homosexual tendencies”) only cause more resistance & backlash.
You guys here are doing more for the acceptance of SSM than thousands of perez hiltons Ever could.
dts
Comment by david t sanson — May 26, 2009 @ 8:14 am - May 26, 2009
Lets ask President McCain how well THAT strategy worked.
As for Steele, when he was first chosen to head the GOP, I did not know enough about him to form an opinion. Now I think he is not cut out for the job. He has some good ideas, and others, like this one, are real boners. (No, I haven’t used that word since Jr. High School, but it just seems appropriate)
I agree that it should not be up to the courts, but I don’t agree with you that the legislatures should have the last word either when the legislature approves gay marriage against the people’s wishes. Unlike you, I believe the law should reflect the people’s will.
Precisely the strategy that LOST the 2008 election. Republicans avoided social issues like the plague, talked only about fiscal conservatism, and LOST. It was John McCain’s LOSING strategy.
Young voters and urban voters may approve of gay marriage more than the general electorate, but they still dont give a rats ass about it. Poll after poll after poll shows that gay marriage is NOT a deciding issue for anyone but gays and Bible thumpers.
Social conservatism, on the other hand, UNLIKE John McCain WON — even in deep blue California.
What Republicans need to do instead of repeating failed strategies, is reach out to those dramatically growing demographics they are increasingly losing namely blacks, hispanics, asians etc (who by the way voted for prop 9 in overwhelming numbers) based on our shared socially conservative principles and use those shared values as a starting point to explain why our economic principles (which they generally DO NOT share) are in their best interests, and how Democrats have lied to them.
These are the demographics Republicans need to become a majority party again, yet you, McCain, his campaign managers, Frum and the rest keep demanding that we should ignore the one area that we share values with them.
Einstein’s definition of insanity: keep doing the same thing over and over again expecting different results. That is what you are proposing.
On gay marriage, what Republicans need to do is stand up for principle and ask the American people WHY the institution of marriage even exists for in the first place.
We should not even be considering gay marriage until we can decide why marriage is important to begin with.
Is it just another entitlement as gay leftists would have us believe? Or does it serve a purpose for society? And if so, do same sex relationships serve that purpose?
THAT is the argument Republicans need to be advancing. It is the only argument that puts what is good for the country and not perceived victimhood at the fore; and it is also the argument, that, sorry to say, drawn to its logical conclusion, disfavors gay marriage.
Comment by American Elephant — May 26, 2009 @ 8:28 am - May 26, 2009
Ugh, that should read “ask the American people what the institution of marriage even exists for in the first place” . Lots of sloppy half revisions in that one. sorry.
Comment by American Elephant — May 26, 2009 @ 8:37 am - May 26, 2009
Wedge issues have the potential to further a candidacy only so much. If social issues are what you really think 2008 was about or that if the GOP had only repeated 2004 by championing FMA in order to win the White House, this only shows just how out of touch Republicans really are. No, 2008 was about the economy, Iraq, “hopeychangeyness” and like it or not: George W. Bush. Before you whine about “fairness” or how the Dems/MSM smeared the Republicans: TFB. That’s politics and both sides are quite adept at doing this to the other. The MSM are paying for their bias at the moment, so relish the shadenfreude there.
Big problem with your idea here: it has been tried repeatedly and has failed repeatedly. A plurality or majority of these voters may pull the lever for initiatives like Prop 8, yet never seem to elect enough legislators or executives who follow their views on these matters. These are not matters which have swayed many elections that count, beyond a handful of seats or in close contests. Then we get to the dreaded “R”. Like it or not, the Dems have been successful in turning this into the scarlet letter for most minorities. By the time the GOP is successful in reversing this, SSM won’t be much of an issue any more because it will already be legalized in enough states to tip the scale.
Comment by John — May 26, 2009 @ 9:16 am - May 26, 2009
The GOP should state clearly and unequivocally that 1) the party supports federalism and 2) marriage should remain between one man and one woman, but that civil unions should be available to heterosexual and homosexual couples. To my knowledge, these are positions most Americans view favorably. Federalism in particular would draw stark contrast between ourselves and the Democratic Party (and considering the numbers of state initiatives and referenda, that makes us the more democratic of the two parties) whereas civil unions would underline personal freedom while protecting traditional status.
Comment by Ignatius — May 26, 2009 @ 9:19 am - May 26, 2009
Civil unions should not be available to heterosexual couples. That makes it “marriage lite”, something that does actually weaken the institution of marriage. The key justification of having civil unions for homosexual couples is that (or if) we’ve decided they can’t have marriage.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — May 26, 2009 @ 9:24 am - May 26, 2009
Agree with 6 & 7 on all counts.
Would also add, private businesses may offer benefits to any configuration they please, and are willing to pay for.
Comment by The Livewire — May 26, 2009 @ 10:05 am - May 26, 2009
let them marry. let them have their abortions. after about a generation there will be no more demonrats.
besides, GOD will take care of this problem. the gay activist will fall, the true gays that are really looking for love and peace with life will win and live their lives like the rest of us.
Comment by southernsue — May 26, 2009 @ 10:16 am - May 26, 2009
Um, McCain lost because he *didn’t* push fiscal conservatism in 2008. I’m sure you can dig up quotes where he paid lip service, just like Obama paid lip service. But remember McCain’s role in Bailout Mania? The Tea Parties are a response to the big-spending capitalism-destroyers of both parties, and the Tea Parties are all about fiscal conservatism. If the GOP wants to rebuild and recover, the GOP needs to tap into that.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — May 26, 2009 @ 10:17 am - May 26, 2009
The GOP is in disarray they are begining to realize that the socially conservative agenda they have been pushing for 8 years cannot be reconciled with their small government platform. Ironically, they should be in favor of this decision being made by the states but they are too busy trying to appeal to the ultra right which has hi-jacked and destroyed their party. But the disarry has an upside, more Republicans are coming out in favor of civil unions, including Jon Huntsman, the governor of….wait for it….UTAH! this has more details: http://www.newsy.com/videos/gop_soul_search
Comment by Rosa — May 26, 2009 @ 11:04 am - May 26, 2009
Republican lost the moral high ground on fiscal conservatism after the years in charge of WH & both houses of congress. As the minority party, they said all the right stuff and got my support. With Clinton in the WH, it seemed to provide enough tension to work. Then under W. . . . well, the whole “drunken sailor” thing. Now they say “fiscal conservative/smaller govt” and I say, “Right – had your chance – muffed it” Fool me once. . . . fool me. . . . we won’t get fooled again.
Comment by dts — May 26, 2009 @ 12:00 pm - May 26, 2009
# 13
Yep. The GOP has a long way to go before i trust them with my wallet again. And this whole “No New Taxes” pledge is not enough. There needs to be proof that they have the guts to cut everything on the table, including defense spending, in order to get fiscal policy back in line, to actually achieve a balanced budget. I know that most will disagree with me, but the focus on the culture wars and social policy is the distraction that led us astray from fiscal conservatism.
Comment by Sonicfrog — May 26, 2009 @ 12:10 pm - May 26, 2009
Yeah, I’m going to disagree, sonic
Social, Fisicial, Religious conservatism are not mutually exclusive.
Indeed, to me it is socially conservative to pull the government out of things. The feds have no place in regulating the behaviour of folks on the local level. Whether it be the if the FSF should be allowed or anti-sodomy laws. The states can (under the 10th ammendment and their own constitutions). Whether they should is a matter for them, and the people to decide.
In pulling out of issues in a limited government it shrinks government (fisical conservative) reduces the governments impact on social norms (social conservative) and allows people to worship and practice their beliefs as they see fit (which should be religious conservatism)
That’s what the ‘big tent’ needs to be. We unite on what we have in common, win those battles, then worry about the differences later.
Comment by The Livewire — May 26, 2009 @ 12:30 pm - May 26, 2009
Then found a new party. LOL
Actually, I agree. Bush had a chance to cut government, and instead he grew it. Of course he told us he was going to do exactly that – the “compassionate conservative” nonsense rhetoric – but I fault the GOP for going along with Bush on that, for selecting him at all, etc.
The eternal problem is: The Democrats are five times worse. Literally. Bush runs $100-400 billion deficits… Obama passes Porkulus and runs $1.8 trillion deficits. Given that devil’s choice, which would I rather have? It’s a no-brainer.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — May 26, 2009 @ 12:44 pm - May 26, 2009
Putting aside whether this should be left up to Federalism or as a civil right, this is not Federalism if you are advocating the national GOP take both positions above. If the national GOP holds to just #1, that’s fine and would be Federalism as long as the US Government recognized those SSM from States where they are legal. It should be the state GOPs that hold to #2 if you are going to call this Federalism, though I strongly disagree with the statement. Otherwise, you are doing no different than the libs in nationalizing the issue and you cannot legitimately hide behind the Federalism card.
Comment by John — May 26, 2009 @ 3:55 pm - May 26, 2009
John, the GOP exists at many levels and my comments weren’t limited to any one of them. A national party advocating a position decided at the state level is not inconsistent because they are not mutually exclusive nor necessarily inclusive, issue to issue.
Comment by Ignatius — May 26, 2009 @ 5:16 pm - May 26, 2009
Sorry John, you’re simply wrong.
President Bush and Republicans won dramatically in 2004, and the exit polls ALL showed one of the biggest reasons was “values voters”. This conclusion is so widely accepted that Democrats tried to reposition themselves as the party of “values” by promoting “global warming” as a values issue. They tried to convince churches to fight “global warming”. And its exactly the reason Barack Obama went to Saddleback.
EVERY election is in large part decided by values voters. People who are concerned not just with marriage, but with protecting life, gun rights, religious freedom, etc.
And yes, John McCain made the economy the CENTERPIECE of his campaign. He campaigned on cutting spending, cutting the corporate tax rate, encouraging competition and LOST decisively.
But he ALSO made ignoring social issues the centerpiece of his campaign. Its the first election in my lifetime in which abortion, gun rights, religious freedom and other social issues went almost unmentioned.
McCain won the white vote by 12 percentage points — yet still managed to lose the election because he ignored the social issues that are the only reason that a great many people, especially minorities, ever vote for Republicans.
Livewire is exactly right. Conservatism is what unites and grows the Republican party. Fiscal, social and foreign policy conservatism. A three legged stool, and John McCain, you, GPW, David Frum want to saw off one of the legs. John McCain DID saw off one of the legs. And he lost because of it.
History and the facts show it is YOUR idea that is the losing one, not mine.
Comment by American Elephant — May 26, 2009 @ 5:34 pm - May 26, 2009
Hey if you wish to repeat the 2004 campaign believing this is a viable template to victory, by all means go for it. Unless the economy is in the tank in 2012 (an unfortunate possibility since The One is clueless), don’t expect to get much traction from it.
Comment by John — May 26, 2009 @ 5:42 pm - May 26, 2009
Here my beef with the social conservatism thing – it ultimately crowds out the other tenants of conservatism. The social conservatives ditched fiscal conservative Gingich in favor of K Street architect Tom Delay. In politics, there is a hierarchy involved when pursuing policy – one group of issue will always take priority over another. Even Ronald Reagan ultimately chose national defense over fiscal conservatism while he was president. If responsible fiscal policy was the most important concern for him, he would have vetoed many of those pork filled budgets. But winning the cold war was more important, so he had to give in to some Democrat persuits in order to keep the money flowing.
When Newt actually tried to do what Reagan could or would not, stalling the budget because spending was too high, his fellow Republicans, strong social conservatives all, gave him the boot and took the reigns of the party. These social conservatives are the same people who heavily supported G W Bush’s candidacy in 2000, based in part on his strong born again Evangelical faith. More importantly, Bush won in 2004, despite the obvious – that he is not a fiscal conservative. And McCain? Save for Romney, he was much more fiscally conservative than the other Republican challengers, with a record in the Senate of voting “no” on a lot of wasteful spending. Yet he failed to get support from the core of the Republican party… because he wasn’t a social conservative. This snub by the SoCons gave us Barrack Obama.
My point is that the party, as it is constituted now, cares more about the social side of conservatism than than fiscal policy. The Tea Parties are a step in the right direction, but the support by many in the Republican party feels more like a rouse to gain more support so they can win elections again, vs an honest return to fiscally conservative principles. Republicans offer challengers to go against incumbents during elections based on spending issues, but if a Republican is pro-choice… watch out.
If the Republicans win again, I have no confidence that they would pursue fiscal responsibility with the same vigor they would the effort to keep marriage between a man and a woman.
Gotta go do more work.
Comment by sonicfrog — May 26, 2009 @ 7:21 pm - May 26, 2009
John,
I do wish to repeat the 2004 victory! AND the 2002 victory, AND the 2000 victory, AND all the other victories Republicans have enjoyed from 1980 to 2004. Which were all based on supporting conservatism across the board.
You, on the other hand, wish to keep repeating the 2006, 2008 losses.
No thanks.
Livewire,
I am just as opposed to dropping fiscal conservatism in favor of social conservatism, but no one is proposing that. Nor was it done. Republicans haven’t touched social issues since the 2004 election, and look where it got us.
Comment by American Elephant — May 26, 2009 @ 10:31 pm - May 26, 2009
Oops, that should be addressed to Sonic, not Livewire.
Comment by American Elephant — May 26, 2009 @ 10:31 pm - May 26, 2009
“are wary of backing socially conservative candidates.”
I disagree. It’s just that economic issues trumped social conservatism.
Social conservatives are not to blame from the loss of the elections in 2006 and 2008. Fiscal conservatism was lacking in policies in Congress and the Presidency.
“My point is that the party, as it is constituted now, cares more about the social side of conservatism than than fiscal policy.”
No it doesn’t. The current Republican Party is a mess because it doesn’t care much about sound fiscal policies (balanced budgets) when it was in charge, thus lost a lot of credibility. Getting the message out to voters mean they need a good leader who walked the walk.
Republicans are still credible with foreign policy. They haven’t wavered.
With social conservatives, I have to say Republicans are credible in meeting some policy objectives. But the truth is the Republicans can’t ignore them to win the next election. The big tent must include them. To whom else can they turn to? Not to social liberals who are very very vocal.
Republicans abandoned fiscal conservatism. Don’t abandon another reliable and winning plank.
Comment by Anon387823 — May 26, 2009 @ 10:33 pm - May 26, 2009
I am just as opposed to dropping fiscal conservatism in favor of social conservatism, but no one is proposing that. Nor was it done. Republicans haven’t touched social issues since the 2004 election, and look where it got us.
Are you nuts? They NEVER tried to tackle fiscal issues. Here’s the list of accomplishments, or attempted accomplishments during the entire Bush years. Keep in mind this agenda is mostly congressional in nature, and all socail based.
* Block federal aid to foreign aid groups, not due to budgetary concerns, but based on the group’’s stance on abortion views.
* Giving money to Faith -Based Community groups. Of course when Obama does the same for non-faith -based community groups, well, that’s outrageous!!!!!
* Partial Birth Abortion Act.
* Federal Marriage Amendment.
* Fought against states where voters approved such things as death with dignity (Oregon) and medical marijuana (California). So much for states rights.
* Banned use of Fed money for embryonic stem cell research, again, not based on monetary concerns, but on religious principles.
* Tried to pass flag burning constitutional amendment… several times.
* And my personal favorite – the Tom Delay led Veggi Girl fiasco. Congress couldn’t find the time to balance a budget, but could get their asses out of bed in the middle of the night to try and interfere with the personal family drama revolving around the brain dead Terri Schiavo. And why was that??? Because of the damned dominance of the right to lifers in congress, who used the Schiavo case as a proxy to fight against abortion.
The list ends with 2006, since that was when the Republicans were neutered by the Democratic victories in that election. I made this challenge to GP West and got no answer. Let’s see if you can fill in the blanks. Give me at least half as many Republican led proposals that tackled fiscal policy sanity during the same time frame. If you can come up with some real examples where they really tried to tackle fiscal issues, I might reconsider my position.
Comment by Sonicfrog — May 27, 2009 @ 2:19 am - May 27, 2009
Sonic
Republicans took control of both houses of congress in 1994 on a platform of mostly fiscal issues. You may recall it, it was named “the Contract With America”. They forced a balanced budget, eliminated the deficit and brought the country into a budget surplus in 2000.
I would also note that the budgets President Bush proposed were far more fiscally conservative than the budgets passed by congress, AND that even though they increased spending, Republican budgets were at least on track (according to the CBO) to eliminate the deficit and bring the budget back into surplus territory by 2010.
Happened as soon as Bush got into office in 2001.
Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives (OFBCI) was established by President George W. Bush through executive order[2] on January 29, 2001.
And no, the federal government has been giving money to such organizations for decades. What is outrageous (aside from the federal government being involved in the first place) is that until President Bush, religious groups were illegally discriminated against by the federal govt.
2003
Never passed congress. And was last a campaign issue in 2004.
2002
2001
2001, and FLAT WRONG. Bush did NOT “ban use of Federal money for embryonic stem cell research” he was the first president in the history of the United States to PROVIDE federal money for Embryonic Stem Cell research. EVER. Never before in our history has the federal government ever provided ANY money for ESR. NONE, ZERO, ZILCH! Bush was the first. But he limited such funding to existing lines.
And he did so based on ETHICS shared by religious and non-religious alike. Not to mention the fact that the entire reason ESC researchers were seeking federal funding is because their research up until then had been such an enormous FAILURE that they could no longer find any private funding.
Pffft! Sure, I will grant you that Republicans tried to pass such legislation many times, the latest in 2006 ….But I had to look it up cus like everyone else, I was completely unaware of it. And I cant remember the last time it was a campaign issue.
Yes, the Republicans in congress defended an American citizen’s right to live as recently as 2005. Damn them! Where do politicians get off trying to protect an American woman from being killed by the government against her will!
But when did Republicans ever campaign saying they were going to save Terry Schaivo?
My point was about elections. Republicans have not campaigned on social issues since the 2004 election, which also happens to be the last election they won.
Social conservatives care about social conservatism.
Blacks care about social conservatism. Hispanics care about social conservatism, Asians, Africans all care about social conservatism. Indeed, social conservatism is the ONLY reason many of those people ever vote Republican.
We lost votes among ALL those groups in 2006, and even MORE so in 2008.
Now people like Frum, McCains advisers, GPW, not to mention Democrats are suggesting the way to win is to repeat the exact same LOSING strategy!
Sorry, but the
Comment by American Elephant — May 28, 2009 @ 6:34 am - May 28, 2009
AE, that is the best defense I’ve come across. Now here is the rebuttal to that defense,.
You had Bill Frist getting up and saying she’s still with us because he could diagnose that from watching a video. That’s tantamount to getting a Doctor’s diagnosis over the internet. This is no more their business than it is to take over the boards of companies like Chrysler and GM. Yes Damn Them. But during this time, where was your “Damn Them” response to the reckless overspending by the Republicans. You still voted for the because you approved of their actions. The Schiavo case proves beyond a shadow of a doubt how much more important SoCon values are to the modern conservative than FisCon values are.
They didn’t. But that is the point – they didn’t have to. The Republicans, by default, were already known to share the SoCon values. When did they get together in the middle of the night to get the fiscal house in order?
Hooray – Yet another expensive government agency. No FisCon policy here, only SoCon.
On embrionic research:
I will admit I’m being nit picky here, but the fiscally response should have been “sorry, we’re in a deficit, we can’t afford to spend money on this right now”
On the Flag Burning Amendment:
It wasn’t a campaign issue, so why waste time tackling it when you could be doing more important stuff, like tackling energy dependency. Why, because it’s a SoCon issue.
So why didn’t he veto them??? Perhaps because they were getting what they wanted SoCon policy over FisCon policy.
AND that even though they increased spending, Republican budgets were at least on track (according to the CBO) to eliminate the deficit and bring the budget back into surplus territory by 2010.
Ten year projections are incredibly useless statistical tools when it comes to budgeting. And note, at the start of 2000, the ten year projection was a balanced budget as far as the eye could see. Not a year later the bar had been lowered to “yeah, we’ll get a balanced budget in ten years”.
And how long did that last AFTER 2000? What happened to the balanced budgets and the contract with America??
Thank you for proving my point. In your own words, you lost the elections, not because of the party’s clear lack of fiscal discipline, but because McCain was not Socially Conservative enough. And almost all the reasons you mention to justify the actions I list are SoCon answers. SoCon trumps FisCon. Until that priority changes, I will be very leary of voting for that party.
PS. How on earth could you have been unaware of the Flag Burning Amendment?
Comment by Sonicfrog — May 28, 2009 @ 11:36 am - May 28, 2009