Skip to comments.Is the GOP Caving in on Same-Sex Marriage?
Posted on 04/03/2012 7:28:59 AM PDT by xzins
As the nation faces a crucial election in a little over six months, the Republican Party appears to be caving in on a social issue that many conservatives consider of major import: same-sex marriage. What the GOP felt strongly enough about some 16 years ago to lead the fight for passage of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), many members are beginning to consider an issue open to compromise. Not only do many Republican House and Senate members consider gay marriage a dead issue, according to Politico.com, but Republican leadership has evolved to the point that it has quietly worked behind the scenes to kill amendments that reaffirm opposition to same-sex unions, the politics website reported.
The change, of course, has nothing to do with personal convictions, but much to do with political expediency, as party functionaries fine-tune their agenda to attract a demographic that has been conditioned to tolerate and even embrace homosexuality as normal. While the GOP certainly cannot match the Democrats in their fawning attitudes toward the gay lobby, there has nonetheless been an evolution in the political approach and an acknowledgment of a cultural shift in the country, Politicos Jake Sherman and Anna Palmer write. Same-sex relationships are more prominent and accepted. There are more gay public figures including politicians and its likely that many Washington Republicans have gay friends and coworkers. Just as important theres also a libertarian streak of acceptance on peoples sexuality coursing through the House Republican Conference.
All of that adds up to an increasing number of conservative politicians jettisoning concern over the nations moral slide of which tolerance for homosexuality is a symptom in favor of a more pragmatic approach to their political positions. Representative Allen West (R-Fla.) demonstrated this evolving GOP mindset when he said, as quoted by Politico: I personally have deep convictions about my children having a financially stable country that they can live in. I want my daughters to have the opportunities that I had, and thats what concerns me. Thats what keeps me up awake at night, not worrying about whos sleeping with who.
Even lawmakers who are committed to protecting traditional marriage concede that the fight for family values is much more challenging than it used to be. Representative Dan Burton (R-Ind.), who sponsored the Marriage Protection Act of 2011, said that while he thinks defending traditional marriage is tied to the stability of the nation as a whole, the attention of many voters is presently fixated on the economy and getting America moving in a positive direction economically. I dont know that peoples opinions have changed that much, he told Politico, but what I think has happened is that people realize the dire straits this country has been in and they think we better deal with that before we get back to the social issues.
Representative Jack Kingston (R-Ga.) noted that things have changed drastically since 1994, when President Bill Clinton introduced the Dont Ask, Dont Tell compromise for homosexuals serving in the military. Its been realized that back in 94, you could jump up on the House floor and pound your chest about [gay issues], and secure a good voter intensity, which you cant do anymore, Kingston told Politico.
It is clear that GOP strategists are beginning to switch their focus to a younger voter demographic. According to recent polls, 31 percent of self-identified Republicans now say they support same-sex marriage. But among 18-34-year-olds overall, that number jumps to nearly 70 percent.
One candidate who may be the beneficiary of such a sea change is GOP presidential frontrunner Mitt Romney. While happy to capitalize on his moral Mormon roots, in reality the former Massachusetts Governor has always been about compromise, and the issue of homosexuality offers a prime example.
As reported by CNSNews.com, when Romney first ran for political office in 1994, challenging Ted Kennedy for his U.S. Senate seat, he set his sights on one of Kennedys most faithful constituencies, Massachusetts gay community. When a reporter for Bostons Bay Windows homosexual newspaper asked the Republican candidate why gays should support him when Ted had always been a dependable pro-homosexual politician, Romney complimented the Democratic stalwart on that record, but suggested that he would do better, and that homosexuals could use a good lobbyist in the Republican Party.
Theres something to be said for having a Republican who supports civil rights in this broader context, including sexual orientation, Romney told the homosexual newspaper. When Ted Kennedy speaks on gay rights, hes seen as an extremist. When Mitt Romney speaks on gay rights, hes seen as a centrist and a moderate. Its a little like if Eugene McCarthy was arguing in favor of recognizing China, people would have called him a nut. But when Richard Nixon does it, it becomes reasonable. When Ted says it, its extreme; when I say it, its mainstream.
Romney added, I think the gay community needs more support from the Republican party and I would be a voice in the Republican party to foster anti-discrimination efforts.
Such a voice out of Romneys mainstream past makes him sound like just the man for the Republican Partys new, updated image. It should also prompt true conservatives to pray fervently against his election in November.
I understand your desire to have a list of charges against Romney so that you might better understand those of us who reject him. Additionally, I’ve suggested that his liberalism extends all the way to national socialist tendencies.
First, his support of abortion and of the destruction of the natural family is enough of an indictment without anything additional. I will reject Palin if she runs with a pro-abortionist. I will reject any pro-abortionist.
Is government enabled corporatism socialism? Yes. It is. Is Romney a practitioner? Yes, he has been. The government has both provided him means and underwritten his losses. Has he intentionally relied on that relationship as part of his planning? In my opinion, I think it’s fairly clear.
As you know, my main hope was that we would have a president who would humble himself and lead on his knees before God. Perry had a record of doing just that. He was my guy, but alas, it was not to be.
I've never seen Obama humble himself and pray. And I don't know who Mormons pray "to."
On the other hand, I've never wasted my vote on a third party or simply stayed home because I didn't like the choices. So I'll be praying a lot before casting a vote in the general election this year.
Voting for a 3rd party that truly is working to become a national level conservative party would not be a wasted vote.
As with the building of anything, it starts small and grows large. As with the Kingdom of God. It begins the tiniest of seeds and grows to a plant so large birds find shelter in its branches.
From small beginnings.
As I was thinking about this earlier this morning, it struck me that it doesn't fit Romney. I voted for McCain the last time, and the best that could be said about him was that he was "fair". He wasn't perfect, and he wasn't good.
In the case of Romney, the proper expression would be: "The fair is the enemy of the bad." Willing to vote for someone who is only fair, I have had to reject Romney as being bad. He instituted $50 abortions and gay marriage licenses in Massachusetts. By no means is he good or even fair.
"The fair is the enemy of the bad?" And Romney is the "fair" in this proposition? Who notwithstanding he does not measure up to our requirements and expectations being only "fair" would still be the "enemy of the bad?"
I don't know whether I understand your logic here, dear brother in Christ.
But what I am fairly confident about is this: You have drawn a line in the sand. And not only will you not step over it; but you will not allow your opponent to step over it, either. You pledge your life, your fortune, your sacred honor to this end.
You are defending Life and Truth. And will take no prisoners....
You are needful on the American battlefield, as a warrior of God's Truth.
You are a soldier in/for/of Christ. I am so grateful to you, and respect and honor you for your commitment to our Lord.
If we continue to disagree, maybe that has something to do with different points of view and/or, perhaps, different callings.
In any case, thank you so very much, dear brother in Christ, for your testimony, your "voice," and for your inspiring spiritual strength!
Two observations: (1) I really don't see that Republicans in general are "changing to a liberal platform." The Tea Party a huge part of their historic "natural" base simply won't allow it. (2) There may be no electoral "next time," in which a "real" [read: somebody's idea of "perfect"] conservative can be elected.
I really do believe that our principal duty as voters is to "put out the fire" in Washington. Otherwise, I truly believe that we can kiss the America we know and love which has nurtured us as free persons under a rule of law, itself constructed to provide equal justice for all Americans goodbye.
I want to live, to stand and fight another day to maintain this constitutional system of republican government which, for all its imperfection, has delivered the highest standards of liberty and prosperity as compared to any other system of state organization known to mankind.
And that means: Obama must go. That is, again, "Job One" for me....
You seem to expect that there will be a "next time." Personally I don't think so.
Four more years of Obama, and our country will no longer be recognizable as what she has been for the past 200+ years. We will have a "brave new world" as envisioned by Obama, along the lines if his ideological concept of a thoroughgoingly, globally "depeleted America" as necessary to the emergence of a New World Order the newly fashioned, entirely man-made utopian "paradise," the journey into which compels free citizens to put slave collars on their own necks, "with their own consent"....
I dunno. I think I'll just go and read the Preamble of the federal Constitution one more time....
Thank you so much for writing, JediJones!
I am sorry to say I do doubt the honesty of many men that are called good at home, that have given themselves up to serve a party. I am no man's man. I bark at no man's bid. I will never come and go, and fetch and carry, at the whistle of the great man in the white house, no matter who he is. And if this petty, un-patriotic scuffling for men, and forgetting principles, goes on, it will be the overthrow of this one happy nation, and the blood and toil of our ancestors will have been expended in vain. An Account of Col. Crockett's Tour to the North and Down East : In the Year of Our Lord One Thousand Eight Hundred and Thirty-four (1835), p. 172
McCain was an example of "the fair", Sister. So, in the expression "The perfect is the enemy of the good", the common interpretation of it is that one never finds perfection. I rewrote and toned down the adage to "the fair is the enemy of the bad." In the post, I'd said McCain was merely fair and that Romney is worse than that. Therefore, in my rewritten version, "the fair" is a known quantity rather than an unreachable ideal.
Romney would be "the bad".
So why do you keep on looking for it? You obviously have a standard of "perfection" in mind when you tell me that Romney is not only not "fair," but positively evil (i.e., "bad").
The Preamble of the United States Constitution declares:
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."I have no evidence that Romney is opposed to such a principled declaration. But I am very, very sure that Obama is opposed to it.
And so please do forgive me if I believe, on the basis of the evidence I have, that Romney, in an electoral contest against Obama, is the "lesser evil" here.
I am not even speaking in terms of "political party" here. I am speaking in the Name of the same Truth you worship, in defense of which you indicate you would lay down your life....
BTW, I do not believe it is at all possible for human beings to achieve "perfection" in anything, all by themselves. "Perfection" does not happen in Nature; but only in Nature's "Beyond": In God's Truth....
Which is insufficiently well-understood by most mortals....
Thanks so much for writing dear brother in Christ.
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
Oh, my Sister in Christ, do you not see that Romney is in direct opposition to this preamble?
He is the author of the $50 abortion that does not "secure the blessing of liberty to ourselves and our posterity..", but instead murders the posterity so that they never see these blessings.
And at the same time, he was loudly declaring his support of traditional marriage; I believe he even spoke at some kind of pro-traditional marriage rally. When challenged, he argued that his "hands were tied" -- the court had spoken (most of the court had likely been appointed by MA Republicans as the GOP had held the governorship so long; oddly, I seem to recall that the professed Lesbian on the court dissented, on the grounds that the MA constitution left marriage to the legislature and it was properly left to the voters).
As the Indians used to say in 50s Westerns (with much justification), "White man speak with forked tongue!"
I will never vote for Romney, and I will actively work for the defeat of both Romney and Obama.
I believe Bain venture capital focus was early on, and it moved more and more to private equity (LBOs); I've read that fully one quarter of Bain's LBOs left the companies bankrupt -- though Bain made a bundle on management fees, etc.
See The Romney Fiscal Record: the 800 lb gorilla in the room that everyone ignores, especially Soul of the South's post #25:
Mitt Romney was supposedly a management genius working with private equity at Bain. Lets be clear as to what private equity really is as opposed to venture capital which funds new business startups.
Private equity is all about realizing inordinate returns on a small highly leveraged capital investment by the partnership. It is predatory management. Once a firm is acquired, it is loaded up with debt, productive assets are sold or leased back to the company at higher than market rates, it is loaded up with management fees and its headcount is slashed. The partners extract their cash quickly so if the firm then dies they are covered. This is not about building investing in people or productive assets to create more customers. It is about extracting as much value as possible out of the goodwill and brand equity of the firm.
The private equity partners are financial manipulators, not operating managers. They load the company with management fees but are not usually involved in the day to day management of the company. Their mission is to make sure they are extracting as much cash as possible from the company and setting the bar higher and higher for management. Expecting Romneys management experience to benefit the government is like expecting Timothy Geithners banking experience to benefit the budget process for the US government. Actually, Romney has more in common with Geithner than he does with truly successful operating managers and company builders.
I seem to recall that when Mitt was governor here (yes, I'm from MA, God help me!), he was a big fan of "public-private partnership." He dithers some about which level of gov't should rule (fed, state, local), but I never once heard him come out on the side of personal liberty or leaving business owners free to run their own businesses. He is a thorough-going statist.