Gay Patriot Header Image

GOProud, Log Cabin deliver stern warnings to Mitt Romney

What Log Cabin Executive Director R. Clarke Cooper giveth in one release on Thursday, with his strong statement on Obama’s fundraising pitch to the gay community, he taketh (partially) away in another that very day with a threatening language  directed against his own party’s presidential nominee:

Marriage equality has captured the nation’s attention, and the response to President Obama’s announcement is evidence of the tide turning in favor of equality for all. . . .

Governor Mitt Romney’s statement in opposition to not just marriage but civil unions jeopardizes his ability to win moderates, women and younger voters, especially as a large majority of Americans favor some form of relationship recognition for their LGBT friends and neighbors.

Equality for all?  What’s that mean?  It’s certainly not a conservative slogan, but one more familiar to a Mr. W. Smith.

Clarke is right to criticize Romney for his “opposition to not just marriage but civil unions”, but his tone is counterproductive.  Moderates, women and younger voters won’t vote against him because of his stand on gay marriage.  They will, however, vote against him if he makes that stand central to his campaign.  They’re not going to decide their vote exclusively on gay marriage.  He would have served himself (and the cause of his organization) better had he merely expressed disappointment with Romney’s position.

Clarke is not the only non-left gay leader to offer intemperate remarks about Romney this week.  Our pal JimmyLaSalvia, Executive Director and Co-Founder of GOProud, “With his speech at Falwell’s Liberty University, it is clear that Governor Romney’s message to Goldwater conservatives is: drop dead.”  Earlier today, Governor Romney delivered the commencement address there.

While we would rather the Republican nominee not have to make a courtesy call at Jerry Falwell U (as have all Republican candidates “in recent years“), Romney’s speech hardly amounted to a repudiation of Goldwater’s small government ideals.  Indeed, his talk barely touched upon government’s role in society, save to remind the graduating students that “Religious liberty is the first freedom in our Constitution“. He focused instead on the importance of family and faith.

And he did say, what we already know him to believe, “Marriage is a relationship between one man and one woman.” He offered nothing new on social issues — and didn’t attack gay people or advocate policies anathema to libertarians.

An interesting irony is all this is that the Log Cabin release in question is far less intemperate than the GOProud one; we’ve come to expect the opposite.

To be sure, both executive directors have a point.  It’s just that their language is not that of allies, but of critics.  That said, both groups should cheer this report from CBSNews indicating that Romney. . .

. . . does not intend to use President Obama’s flip flop of same-sex marriage against him in the campaign.Obama, who opposed same-sex marriage when he ran for president in 2008, said this week he now supports it. Romney said, “I think the issue of marriage and gay marriage is a very tender and sensitive topic. People come out in different places on this. The president has changed course in regards to this topic. I think that’s his right to do that. I have a different view than he does. I believe marriage is a relationship between a man and a woman, but I just don’t think that this becomes a hot political issue dividing our nation.”

He’s right to a point; I would just change the tense of his concluding clause above, from the present to the conditional, that gay marriage shouldn’t be a hot political issue diving our nation.

Simply put, Mitt Romney won’t win those moderate and young voters if he makes gay marriage a central issue in his campaign.

Share

25 Comments

  1. So when GOProud and LCR criticize Barack Obama for coming out in support of same-sex marriage, you join in whole-heartedly talking about him “Trying to sell the Brooklyn Bridge to his gay supporters”. Then when they rightly criticize Mitt Romney for repeatedly restating his opposition to same-sex marriage, you’re immediately going “What the hell is this? Back into line dammit!” (even throwing in a Nineteen Eighty-Four reference for good measure).

    You are such an incredible partisan. There’s not even any consideration of individual issues, there’s just Party Unity, which is to be maintained at all costs. Evan is right to say this is counter-productive, gay Democrats don’t get concessions by leaping to maintain unity within the party at all costs, they become the squeaky wheel, as every special interest group that gets anywhere does. Proving you will always be the attack dog against the Democrat, defender for the Republican, and squelcher of intra-party dissent will never get you anywhere, it will just demonstrate you can be used by the party and will ask for nothing in return.

    Comment by Serenity — May 12, 2012 @ 6:52 pm - May 12, 2012

  2. I like how Romney has handled this so far. He seems to be staying on focus. And, while I can’t be certain, I would think most independents and moderates don’t even have gay marriage on their minds. It shouldn’t be an issue right now, and for most people, it isn’t.

    As for GOProud and the Log Cabin Republicans, I am looking forward to their obsolescence. It seems to me that conservative organizations that are based on an “identity” or some characteristic that should be irrelevant inevitably drift to the left (in some ways). I can see how they might still have utility, given what gay conservatives face (for example, isolation and hatred from the left).

    Comment by Rattlesnake — May 12, 2012 @ 7:02 pm - May 12, 2012

  3. Projection, Stupidity.

    The reason you’re attacking Dan is because he ruins your screeching insistence that your sexual orientation requires you to be a blind and irrational Obama Party partisan bigot.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 12, 2012 @ 7:06 pm - May 12, 2012

  4. “Serenity” seems not to be very serene… as does the Dallas commentor.

    Gay Marriage is already happening in America; but it’s a more divisive topic than abortion. We have a choice between Obama and Romney. Period. Make your choice. Work to get your choice elected.

    But do it in the open. Don’t pretend to be what you’re not. Neither party is going to make “gay marriage” a plank. Efforts to do so mark you as an agent provocateur.

    Comment by Those weren't bran muffins, Brainiac... — May 12, 2012 @ 9:36 pm - May 12, 2012

  5. More like AIDS Patriot.

    Comment by Sirkowski — May 12, 2012 @ 10:03 pm - May 12, 2012

  6. “Equality for all? What’s that mean? It’s certainly not a conservative slogan, but one more familiar to a Mr. W. Smith.”

    You nailed him Dan! That idea comes from some old musty book – wasn’t it the Communist Manifesto or something like that? I remember, it went something like…”all men are created equal”.

    Stamp that sh** out!

    Comment by ChrisB — May 12, 2012 @ 11:10 pm - May 12, 2012

  7. Yes, ChrisB, but note the Declaration says we are created equal whereas the slogan “equality for all,” a play on “liberty and justice for all” suggests that the social goal is promoting equality. And when you use the state to achieve equality, you end up limiting liberty and, in many cases, destroying prosperity.

    As I’ve said on numerous occasions, the government should eliminate laws which discriminate against certain groups, but shouldn’t try to craft legislation to make those folks equal.

    That’s what the framers didn’t make equality the goal and why in that august document you cite, Mr. Jefferson, noting the equality of our natural station, found that the rights with which the Creator (not the government) endowed us included life and liberty, but not equality.

    Equality is not a right. Liberty is.

    Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — May 12, 2012 @ 11:38 pm - May 12, 2012

  8. Let me try that again… this time without the typos…

    Marriage never appears in the Constitution. However “pursuit of happiness” appears in the Declaration of Independence. Why shouldn’t gay couples be able to pursue their own wedded bliss (happiness)?

    Comment by Andrew Ian Dodge — May 13, 2012 @ 12:35 am - May 13, 2012

  9. new on site, some good read. it is refreshing. thank you.

    Comment by larry landis — May 13, 2012 @ 1:08 am - May 13, 2012

  10. “…the government should eliminate laws which discriminate against certain groups, but shouldn’t try to craft legislation to make those folks equal.” Then why do you keep pushing “relationship recognition”, Dan? Isn’t that “craft[ing] legislation to make [a certain group] equal?

    Comment by Seane-Anna — May 13, 2012 @ 2:08 am - May 13, 2012

  11. “It seems to me that conservative organizations that are based on an “identity” or some characteristic that should be irrelevant inevitably drift to the left (in some ways).” Exactly, Rattlesnake. And we see that in Log Cabin Republicans, GOProud, and Dan, all of whom are already on the left with regards to their “identity”, no matter how much they deny it.

    Comment by Seane-Anna — May 13, 2012 @ 2:12 am - May 13, 2012

  12. Why shouldn’t gay couples be able to pursue their own wedded bliss (happiness)?

    If a gay couple wants to for a committed, exclusive, permanent relationship with one another, no one is stopping them. If they want to hold a ceremony of some kind in honor of the occasion, no one is stopping them.

    Comment by V the K — May 13, 2012 @ 10:06 am - May 13, 2012

  13. Hmmmm…if Romney thinks gay marriage isn’t all that big of a topic, how come he followed up on his restatement of opposition by saying he supports amending the US Constitution to make sure gays can’t have the same marriage rights as heterosexuals? Doesn’t amending the constitution for something that “…I just don’t think that this becomes a hot political issue dividing our nation” a bit of overkill?

    And why have the Gay Patriot bloggers failed to note Romney’s new position on this, not just in this post but in EVERY Romney-fluffing post since he said it? Seems to me like it’s a not-unimportant detail.

    Comment by JennOfArk — May 13, 2012 @ 10:39 am - May 13, 2012

  14. Yes, ChrisB, but note the Declaration says we are created equal whereas the slogan “equality for all,” a play on “liberty and justice for all” suggests that the social goal is promoting equality. And when you use the state to achieve equality, you end up limiting liberty and, in many cases, destroying prosperity.

    I love the irony here, with “liberty and justice for all” clearly lifted directly from the Pledge of Allegiance. It’s ironic because the pledge was written by a socialist Christian minister by the same of Francis Bellamy, who considered also placing ‘equality’ in the famous quote you used but decided against it due to the prejudice of others on the committee he was on against women and blacks at the time. Had that not been an issue, you would likely be pledging equality for all right now.

    Comment by Serenity — May 13, 2012 @ 11:36 am - May 13, 2012

  15. Every week where the lead topic is marriage or bullying, it only shows President Obama’s inability to run on his record.

    There will be 4+ hours of debates in the fall; marriage will take up 3 minutes.

    Comment by Geena — May 13, 2012 @ 12:20 pm - May 13, 2012

  16. Had that not been an issue, you would likely be pledging equality for all right now.

    And what exactly does “equality” mean? Does it mean equality of opportunity/equal treatment under the law, equality of outcome, or something else?

    Comment by Rattlesnake — May 13, 2012 @ 2:57 pm - May 13, 2012

  17. I am gay, and not for gay marriage. I also know of others who think similarly. Why do some strangers (or is that strange people?) conclude that it must be that “I hate myself?”, or that I approve of being treated like a “second class” citizen? That’s a bit presumptuous in my book.

    Comment by nomobama — May 13, 2012 @ 3:13 pm - May 13, 2012

  18. And we see that in Log Cabin Republicans, GOProud, and Dan, all of whom are already on the left with regards to their “identity”, no matter how much they deny it.

    Seane-Anna, I wouldn’t read this blog if I thought Dan was a leftist. I don’t agree with him on everything, but I believe he is a genuine conservative, your repeated assertions to the contrary notwithstanding.

    Comment by Rattlesnake — May 13, 2012 @ 3:19 pm - May 13, 2012

  19. A leaked memo from a top GOP pollster is telling Republicans that they had better support same-sex marriage or else face the consequences. Jan van Lohuizen, who was George W. Bush’s pollster for the 2004 presidential election, says in a leaked memo that not only is same-sex marriage being embraced by the general public and there’s no stopping it, but that they should support same-sex marriage equality because it is a conservative ideal:

    As people who promote personal responsibility, family values, commitment and stability, and emphasize freedom and limited government we have to recognize that freedom means freedom for everyone. This includes the freedom to decide how you live and to enter into relationships of your choosing, the freedom to live without excessive interference of the regulatory force of government.

    Andrew Sullivan writes:

    The last paragraph [above] is, to my mind, the most remarkable. It’s advising Republican candidates to emphasize the conservative nature of gay marriage, to say how it encourages personal responsibility, commitment, stability and family values. It uses Dick Cheney’s formula (which was for a couple of years, the motto of this blog) that “freedom means freedom for everyone.” And it uses David Cameron’s argument that you can be for gay marriage because you are a conservative.

    And the walls came tumbling down.

    Comment by writerjerome — May 13, 2012 @ 4:40 pm - May 13, 2012

  20. How’s Andrew Sullivan doing on that Trig Palin parentage investigation?

    Comment by V the K — May 13, 2012 @ 5:10 pm - May 13, 2012

  21. BTW, Jerome, if the American public is so hot, wet, and ready for gay marriage… why does it lose every time it’s put to a vote?

    Comment by V the K — May 13, 2012 @ 5:11 pm - May 13, 2012

  22. Good question V the K. I do not believe the anti-gay marriage people are all haters by any means. Many are what I will refer to as traditionalists who simply support how marriage has been defined throughout time. Gays cannot force their new definition of marriage down other’s throats.

    Comment by nomobama — May 13, 2012 @ 5:36 pm - May 13, 2012

  23. I’ve often wondered if what the American people often vote against is the voice of the gay political agenda; The disrespect of religious institutions, blaming religion when a teen commits suicide, the attempt to bring GLBT into the school curriculum.

    Maybe the American people are saying to the gay political: When you tell us where it stops we are more open to the discussion.

    Comment by Geena — May 13, 2012 @ 5:40 pm - May 13, 2012

  24. And what exactly does “equality” mean? Does it mean equality of opportunity/equal treatment under the law, equality of outcome, or something else?

    I’d go with the first definition, but your main point here is well taken. ‘Equality’ is an ambiguous term with many meanings, Dan’s leaping to conclusions and taking the LCR release as an endorsement of socialist-style equality of outcome was very premature. He should’ve considered what was meant by the comment before criticizing it.

    The last paragraph [above] is, to my mind, the most remarkable. It’s advising Republican candidates to emphasize the conservative nature of gay marriage, to say how it encourages personal responsibility, commitment, stability and family values. It uses Dick Cheney’s formula (which was for a couple of years, the motto of this blog) that “freedom means freedom for everyone.” And it uses David Cameron’s argument that you can be for gay marriage because you are a conservative.

    And the walls came tumbling down.

    Indeed. The greatest and most complete political victory possible is to see your former opponents adopting one of your positions as their own, not just as a few crossing sides to supporting it using your reasons, but finding their own distinct reasons to get behind your position while remaining opponents otherwise. That is the ultimate sign that the battle is over and you have won.

    Comment by Serenity — May 13, 2012 @ 7:03 pm - May 13, 2012

  25. In my fairly large circle of gay conservative friends (there are many of us in the midwest) none of us are at all interested in being able to marry each other….Most of us have obtained any legal protection we need in our relationships by other means that are quite easily available….There are also many financial protections for a couple that they would not have if legally married…..There were/are many advantages to having a standard gay relationship without the government meddling….Leave things alone ! Sounds to me like a bunch of whiny little children that received trophies for showing up and never played because they didnt want to put any effort into being extraordinary. Enjoy life to the best of your ability without government interference. I do admit it would be fun watching all the divorces after one of the partners having a “hissy-fit” which are so common among the gay kids today….These kids will be breaking all divorce records intentionally and will make Elizabeth Taylor look like a nun….Without financial stability all these little social distractions mean absolutely nothing……Romney’s got my vote…without question !

    Comment by mrb419 — May 14, 2012 @ 8:00 am - May 14, 2012

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.