Senator-Elect Scott Brown talks gay issues

Timothy Kincaid

January 31st, 2010

walters brownMassachusetts’ newly elected Senator, Scott Brown, spoke with Barbara Walters on ABC This Week and part of the conversation included his stance on issues of importance to the gay community.

On Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, the Military’s ban on service by openly gay men and women.

WALTERS: You have been a member of the National Guard for 30 years. You’ve talked about how important that service is.


WALTERS: You’re a Lieutenant-Colonel. On Wednesday the president announced that he wants to work with Congress to repeal don’t ask, don’t tell. What’s your view?

BROWN: I think it’s important, because as you know we’re fighting two wars right now. And the most — the first priority is to — is to — is to finish the job, and win those wars. I’d like to hear from the Generals in the field — in the field — the people that actually work with these soldiers to make sure that, you know, the social change is not going to disrupt our ability to finish the job and complete the wars.

WALTERS: But Senator, your own view.

BROWN: That’s my view.

WALTERS: So you can’t say whether you’re for or against it?

BROWN: No. I’m going to wait to speak to the generals on the ground.

I find this exchange both encouraging and troubling.

Obviously Scott Brown has an opinion and is just hedging his bets. And I am not happy that he is discussing the issue as a “social change” and see it in terms of “disrupting”. But it is also nice that the Republican whom the party is lauding as the face of a cultural change is not speaking against the repeal.

Also encouraging is that much of the information that we hear suggests that our problem is with the Pentagon, not with generals in the field. If Brown is sincere – and for now we should give him the benefit of the doubt – there is a good chance that if he does speak to field operations, he’ll hear that good troups are more valuable to the war effort than anti-gay policies. It all depends on whether the officers to whom he speaks have had to lose soldiers that they valued and did not want to let go.

But if Brown is simply looking for an excuse to take an anti-gay position, I’m certain that he can readily find “generals on the ground” who will agree with him. When reporting what you heard from “generals on the ground” (anonymously, of course), they can say anything that your imagination can contrive.

On marriage:

WALTERS: And gay marriage is legal in the state of Massachusetts. But the Republican party platform language calls for the overthrow of Roe v. Wade, and they want a federal ban on gay marriage. Are you out of step with your party, or do you think that the party has to broaden, and change its platform?

BROWN: Well I’ve always been a big tent person, you know? We need more people to come into our tent to express their views in a respectful and thoughtful manner.

And on the marriage issue that you brought up, it’s settled here in Massachusetts, but I believe that states should have the ability to determine their own destiny and the government should not be interfering with individual states’ rights on issues that they deal with on a daily basis.

Again, this seems to be language that can leave open a lot of options.

It would seem clear that Brown will not support a Federal Marriage Amendment. But if the Supreme Court overturns Proposition 8, will that be justification for him to vote for a federal amendment to reverse that decision?

And what does this mean for DOMA? Can one truly be “states’ rights” and not support having the federal government honor the marriages of states that provide marriage equality?

We know from his efforts in the Massachusetts legislature that he is not an advocate for marriage equality. But he’s had five years to see that the sky hasn’t fallen and that churches aren’t being shuttered and that his neighbors, liberal and conservative, have come to accept and support the change.

I think there is much to hope for from Scott Brown. We should not expect an ally or even a secure vote on any issues, but if we do not approach him as an enemy I think that it is possible that we will find that Scott Brown could be a crucial bi-partisan vote on some issues of concern to our community.

Frequent Flier

January 31st, 2010

It seems to me that Mr. Brown’s position on the DADT issue is similar to Pres. Obama’s. By similar I mean despite what Obama says, the president is letting the generals dictate to him (their boss) a ‘repeal’ that will apparently take years.


January 31st, 2010

I’d be skeptical. And that’s because the party discipline machine will stomp out any dissent from the ranks. And as a potential “star” on the national scale, you just wait until the far reaches of the right get ahold of these comments. They’ll be walked back promptly.

Fortunately, people have his record to compare his words to, and he is indeed a bit of a liberal R. However, as Ezra Klein deftly points out, Senators who are “liberal” you won’t ever know when it comes to party line politics. And the GOP, for better or worse, does a much better job of controlling that message than their D counterparts.

What I’d look for, rather, is a rift forming among the party line itself. Where the GOP in power refuses to pass the “purity test” the teabaggers demanded this past week but didn’t get. To me, this is the best hope that “big tent” politicians like Brown could actually flourish.

At least until he’s voted out of Mass in 2012.


January 31st, 2010

Oh, please. It’s clear some desire for a renewed GOP is coloring your judgement, Tim.

The “state’s rights” stance was the same McCain parroted during his presidential campaign. What happened when Prop 8 and Arizona’s amendment came out? He sponsored them. He also sponsored FMA and DOMA afterwards.

His answers are a clear ploy to try to continue to paint himself as a centrist. But when his campaign against Martha Coackley made calls saying she promoted the “same-sex marriage agenda”, it’s clear the guy is not on our side.

He’s another craven Republican trying to paint himself as a moderate; he is not.


January 31st, 2010

You’re not going to get straight answers from a guy with only 2 years in office. Of course his short term also means he probably won’t be stirring much trouble either.


January 31st, 2010

His votes will be dictated by what he thinks will get him elected. His personal views are probably of very little importance. Besides, I can’t imagine that he really cares one way or the other about fairness to gay people. He will do what he can to avoid votes on Don’t Ask Don’t Tell and the DOMA. He can probably do that by just staying quiet and letting the Democrat game play out. Democrats will probably find a way not to vote on Don’t Ask Don’t Tell this year without Brown’s help.

I sent a note to Senator Boxer, a liberal California senator who supports repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell. I told her that if she doesn’t work hard and publicly to force a vote on Don’t Ask Don’t Tell this year, I am not voting for her.

I am really sick and tired of liberal representatives and senators not forcing votes on these important issues and giving their anti-gay colleagues cover. I consider that approach aiding and abetting the anti-gay Democrats, and I think that pro-gay Demmocrats who play along with that game aren’t really pro-gay. So, why should I vote for them. In Boxer’s case, I think that she is going to need every vote she can get this time around.

Timothy Kincaid

January 31st, 2010


Kindly provide support for your claims.

1. When did McCain sponsor FMA?

2. When did Brown’s campaign make the calls you are claiming that it did?


January 31st, 2010


Which is the same sh!t. DOMA already serves the purpose of blocking recognition federally.

Not pushing the amendment at the resounding majority of the states where amendments are put on the ballot, they pass. Gay marriage is not something that’s happening nationwide.

2- My mistake, they didn’t make it themselves. They just didn’t rebuke the calls NOM made.

Chitown Kev

January 31st, 2010

Well, Brown definitely cannot get reelected by lurching further right than he already is. In order to get reelected, at least in 2012, he will probably have to lurch to the left a little bit.

I agree Timothy, I think that Brown’s willingness to vote on our side probably depends on the specific issue up for vote.

Besides, if a Kennedy runs for this seat in 2012 (and I think that might happen) Brown may be SOL anyway.

Timothy Kincaid

February 1st, 2010


Thank you for the links.

However, your first link is a misreporting of the facts.

It is, I agree, easy to have one’s judgment clouded by partisanship. But I hope that I did not let my hope for lessened hostility too strongly flavor my analysis.

Billy Glover

February 1st, 2010

This discussion is important, and at first glance Brown seems ok, and as someone said, he can ‘go” in 2012 if he’s no good. But I like that he is not a rightwinger as far as he has talked so far. And that he posed nude is good unless he has now gone far right to “make up’ for it.


February 1st, 2010

This is an actions-not-words / wait-and-see deal for me. As we’ve seen with Northeastern GOP candidates, their stances on social issues are somewhat “nuanced” on issues like this. This is certainly a signal that Brown is serious about trying to keep his seat in 2012. He’s trying to give the majority Dems nothing blatantly offensive once he’s faced with a more serious opponent than Coakley, or the current rage against out-of-touch pols dissipates.

There have been episodes in the past with Brown on gay issues, but I’m ready to wait and see. Gay allies in the Republican party, whether they come naturally or because they see political opportunity, are important… and positions evolve. Think Bill Weld. What we’re looking at here is not a potential “yes” vote on gay issues, but hopefully someone who will not work to fillibuster or who might even abstain, and that could be enough.


February 1st, 2010

The first link misreports the facts how?

Both say he rejected the FMA but promised he would vote for it if the SCOTUS struck down state bans.

What I said is that this is a disingenuous position on his part. So, he’s willing to federally impose a definition if SCOTUS overturns the limited definition in the majority of the states?

As it stands, FMA would take too much effort and political capital to just prevent– what, six states from marrying gays with no federal recognition?

Of course it’s easy for him to make that decision, when the other states ban gay marriage.

DOMA+state bans currently in existence basically means a very minute benefit from passing the FMA, as most of the country has marriage bans.


February 1st, 2010

It would seem clear that Brown will not support a Federal Marriage Amendment.

Eh, I don’t know about that. Far-righters are notorious for saying they do not support X when it means A, but changing their minds when X means B.

For example, I’m not convinced his statement should be read as a stand against FMA. He could means it more along the lines of: “I don’t think the Feds should be telling the states who can get married, if that means SSM bans are overturned in SCOTUS and we all have to acknowledge them queers.”


February 3rd, 2010

I wouldn’t peg any such hopes on Scott Brown, who now ‘represents’ my state.

He’s like the top level of the Republican Party is, here. I’m sure he personally and quietly has no problem with repealing DADT and legal gay marriage. But gay rights are just one of the many things that 99% of the time isn’t worth any sacrifice on their part- there’s no worthwhile benefit in it for them. And the reactionary lower class part of the Republican ‘base’- which the leaders have absolute contempt for in private but need the votes of- hates gay people and gay marriage. The top tier here is all business Republicans: they look at everything through the morally lazy lens of cost/benefit/risk analysis.

So I’m sure Brown will vote Republican party line on gay rights issues where his vote isn’t decisive. And I don’t see any opportunity of his vote being decisive. The handful of conservative Democrats in the Senate, principally Ben Nelson, obstruct repeals. There are 40-45 Democratic votes in the Senate against another FMA, and about 200 in the House, and since 2/3 is needed that’s not going to happen either.

As a country we seem to elect the Party out of power into control of the agenda (though not necessarily majorities) in Washington every midterm election. So I’d say we’re looking at four years of mostly Republican control of the agenda from the midterms this November to roughly those of 2014. I think that amounts to almost everything involving gay rights, good or bad, getting stalemated or obstructed.

The exception might be repeal of DADT, on which popular opinion is about 70/30 and the conservative half of the electorate is sufficiently split to permit small positive motion, in increments (despite loud whining).

Leave A Comment

All comments reflect the opinions of commenters only. They are not necessarily those of anyone associated with Box Turtle Bulletin. Comments are subject to our Comments Policy.

(Required, never shared)

PLEASE NOTE: All comments are subject to our Comments Policy.


Latest Posts

The Things You Learn from the Internet

"The Intel On This Wasn't 100 Percent"

From Fake News To Real Bullets: This Is The New Normal

NC Gov McCrory Throws In The Towel

Colorado Store Manager Verbally Attacks "Faggot That Voted For Hillary" In Front of 4-Year-Old Son

Associated Press Updates "Alt-Right" Usage Guide

A Challenge for Blue Bubble Democrats

Baptist Churches in Dallas, Austin Expelled Over LGBT-Affirming Stance

Featured Reports

What Are Little Boys Made Of?

In this original BTB Investigation, we unveil the tragic story of Kirk Murphy, a four-year-old boy who was treated for “cross-gender disturbance” in 1970 by a young grad student by the name of George Rekers. This story is a stark reminder that there are severe and damaging consequences when therapists try to ensure that boys will be boys.

Slouching Towards Kampala: Uganda’s Deadly Embrace of Hate

When we first reported on three American anti-gay activists traveling to Kampala for a three-day conference, we had no idea that it would be the first report of a long string of events leading to a proposal to institute the death penalty for LGBT people. But that is exactly what happened. In this report, we review our collection of more than 500 posts to tell the story of one nation’s embrace of hatred toward gay people. This report will be updated continuously as events continue to unfold. Check here for the latest updates.

Paul Cameron’s World

In 2005, the Southern Poverty Law Center wrote that “[Paul] Cameron’s ‘science’ echoes Nazi Germany.” What the SPLC didn”t know was Cameron doesn’t just “echo” Nazi Germany. He quoted extensively from one of the Final Solution’s architects. This puts his fascination with quarantines, mandatory tattoos, and extermination being a “plausible idea” in a whole new and deeply disturbing light.

From the Inside: Focus on the Family’s “Love Won Out”

On February 10, I attended an all-day “Love Won Out” ex-gay conference in Phoenix, put on by Focus on the Family and Exodus International. In this series of reports, I talk about what I learned there: the people who go to these conferences, the things that they hear, and what this all means for them, their families and for the rest of us.

Prologue: Why I Went To “Love Won Out”
Part 1: What’s Love Got To Do With It?
Part 2: Parents Struggle With “No Exceptions”
Part 3: A Whole New Dialect
Part 4: It Depends On How The Meaning of the Word "Change" Changes
Part 5: A Candid Explanation For "Change"

The Heterosexual Agenda: Exposing The Myths

At last, the truth can now be told.

Using the same research methods employed by most anti-gay political pressure groups, we examine the statistics and the case studies that dispel many of the myths about heterosexuality. Download your copy today!

And don‘t miss our companion report, How To Write An Anti-Gay Tract In Fifteen Easy Steps.

Testing The Premise: Are Gays A Threat To Our Children?

Anti-gay activists often charge that gay men and women pose a threat to children. In this report, we explore the supposed connection between homosexuality and child sexual abuse, the conclusions reached by the most knowledgeable professionals in the field, and how anti-gay activists continue to ignore their findings. This has tremendous consequences, not just for gay men and women, but more importantly for the safety of all our children.

Straight From The Source: What the “Dutch Study” Really Says About Gay Couples

Anti-gay activists often cite the “Dutch Study” to claim that gay unions last only about 1½ years and that the these men have an average of eight additional partners per year outside of their steady relationship. In this report, we will take you step by step into the study to see whether the claims are true.

The FRC’s Briefs Are Showing

Tony Perkins’ Family Research Council submitted an Amicus Brief to the Maryland Court of Appeals as that court prepared to consider the issue of gay marriage. We examine just one small section of that brief to reveal the junk science and fraudulent claims of the Family “Research” Council.

Daniel Fetty Doesn’t Count

Daniel FettyThe FBI’s annual Hate Crime Statistics aren’t as complete as they ought to be, and their report for 2004 was no exception. In fact, their most recent report has quite a few glaring holes. Holes big enough for Daniel Fetty to fall through.