Fox’s Margaret Hoover on Prop 8 Decision

Timothy Kincaid

August 10th, 2010

One of the more interesting observations about Judge Walker’s decision overturning Proposition 8 is that outside of the Anti-Gay Industry, there has been very little objection from the Republican camp. (Seattle PI)

The Republican Party in 2004 used votes on gay and lesbian marriage in more than 20 states as a “wedge” issue to rouse the party faithful and turn out votes that reelected President Bush.

By contrast, GOP leaders appear to be following the maxim “Silence is Golden!” in reacting to a federal judge’s ruling against California’s Prop. 8, which banned same-sex marriage in America’s largest state.

Some radio and television commentators gave the decision some attention for a day, but political candidates, party officials, and pretty much everyone else appears to be hesitant to come out too strongly.

This is a reaction based, I believe, in a dawning recognition that anti-gay activism is a long-term losing strategy and may actually be harmful in the short term as well. As we can see from the phenomenally unsuccessful tour of the anti-gay National Organization for Marriage, there just is no public appetite for anti-gay rhetoric. And as recent public announcements have made clear, not only are the youth polling significantly pro-gay but also many Republican women have abandoned anti-gay positions.

One conservative who has not only left anti-gay rhetoric behind but has become an advocate for marriage equality is Fox commentator Margaret Hoover. She has now penned a commentary advising her fellow conservatives to think carefully about what accusations they fling about.

We conservatives have a well-founded narrative about judges and the courts. It is true that the federal bench is populated with liberals who view their role not as interpreting the law as it is written, but as policy makers empowered to sculpt social outcomes with which they agree.

The irony of this case is that Judge Walker is not a liberal activist judge but one whose career has proven him to be a tempered judge, true to the Reagan-Bush conservative jurisprudence that he was nominated to represent on the bench.

And she warns of the perils of putting anti-gay animus ahead of sound judicial reasoning.

The potential consequence that conservatives land on the wrong side of civil rights history again is the alienation of an entire generation of voters. With polling definitively indicating that Americans under age 30 overwhelmingly favor gay rights, with a majority supporting gay marriage according to the Pew Millennial Attitudes report published in February this year, there are multiple reasons for conservatives to think carefully before digging in their heels against gay marriage.

Ben Mathis

August 10th, 2010

Reagan-Bush conservative jurisprudence that he was nominated to represent on the bench.

Lol, why do you post this drivel? It’s becoming more and more clear that Timothy Kincaid is using his posts on this gay blog to further his far-right in everything but gay rights point of view. I come here for the information pertinent to gay rights, not to see constant pushing of right wing political ideologies with vague connections to gay rights if you really squint.

Timothy Kincaid

August 10th, 2010

Sorry, Ben.

This is not a “left wing political ideologies” blog with a gay twist. We try to cover gay news without consideration as to whether it will advance the goals of any particular party or ideology – other than equality.

If you only want to read about gay news from a leftist perspective, then maybe you just shouldn’t read anything that I write.

Jaft

August 10th, 2010

Let me first lay out – I’m a deadstuck liberal.

That said, to say this isn’t pertinent to our community highlights a very dangerous mindset. The above isn’t vaguely linked, it is directly linked. Whether people are against our rights, whether they’re moving towards our rights, and for what reason for either (politically Right, Left, or inbetween) are the utmost importance for us to know. It’s important for us to know how they’re justifying a shift to our support too, from a basic activist’s level.

In any case, those aren’t Tim’s words quoted, Ben, if it bothers you so much.

L. Junius Brutus

August 10th, 2010

I don’t see how posting the editorial of a conservative who is supporting gay rights is “pushing of right wing political ideologies”. It is something to be applauded. I also don’t see how an editorial supporting gay marriage has “vague connections to gay rights if you really squint”.

Not to make this a conservative-liberal thing, but it’s often “liberal issues” that are pushed, at the expense of gays and lesbians. Didn’t all major gay rights organizations, asking for the killer of Lawrence King to be charged as a juvenile – meaning that he would be free when he turns 21. Nice lesson to learn, kill your gay classmate, and gay organizations will trip over each other to ensure that you’re out of prison as soon as possible. Fortunately, the district attorney had more sense than these organizations, and balked.

Jason D

August 10th, 2010

Ridiculously Bleeding Heart Liberal here, and I have to agree with Jaft and Tim.

It’s rather dangerously myopic to narrow the focus of conservative coverage to our enemies. It’s wise to know who are enemies are, but also who’s on the fence, and who may be inadvertently(or even quietly) supporting us. Equality cannot, and will not be one with one strategy, one idea, or one political party.

Jim Burroway

August 10th, 2010

As the blog’s resident lefty, I would like to echo what Timothy said. And I applaud all conservatives who recognize that equality (and in particular, marriage) are conservative values as well as American values.

And by the way, it just so happens that the only reason Timothy posted on Margaret Hoover’s comment is because he beat me to it. I have it (or, more precisely, had it) marked on my to-do list, and I probably would have covered similar ground. I’m glad Timothy saw the piece also.

cd

August 10th, 2010

The great bulk of the reactionary dry political kindling and fuel involved in gay marriage burned up in 2004-05. There’s still some wet fuel left, burning slowly, but after five years it’s down to smoke and embers. Organizations like NOM aren’t even really about gay marriage anymore- it’s a pretext for rallying people to “Christian marriage” and the Religious Right vision of the world. I think there’ll be major political confrontation about that in the next couple of years in which gay marriage will be a major collateral object. But gay marriage on its own is getting to where partisan conservatives in a lot of places meet it with annoyance, yawns, and shrugs.

This year’s big Republican reactionary resentment push is about the twin evils of Latino immigration and social democracy. Those have their masses all fired up already- no need to throw in banning gay marriage even if it still had strong pull. The GOP problem isn’t really motivation at this point- it’s that they have a stagnant or declining available electorate. Your voters can be as fired up as they want, the arithmetic is that Republicans can’t win where they don’t have the number of warm bodies to win.

Jimmy

August 10th, 2010

Just want to point out that Hoover’s is not a principled change of heart, but a Republican electoral strategy. It’s lovely for once to have such strategy tilt away from the “Southern Strategy” and point towards our direction if ever so briefly, but let’s not kid ourselves. If gay rights were as unpopular with the millenials as they are with the idiot boomers, Hoover would advise her conservative love-children to lean hard against our community like they always have. Are they on the wrong side of civil rights history again? “Yeah guys, I mean just look at the polls – you know our barometer for right and wrong.”

Burr

August 10th, 2010

The way politics are run now, it’s better that pro-gay is perceived as a smart electoral strategy than a principled stance. Once they start embracing it as such they won’t turn back as the electorate certainly isn’t turning back.

Dove-Paige Anthony

August 10th, 2010

While it is wonderful that Prop 8 has been struck down, I have to reiterate that we CANNOT let our guard down or rest on our laurels with this victory. While there may not be much PUBLIC talk of prop 8 from the right there is plenty of quiet seething resentment over it that remains UNDER the SURFACE. I grew up in a severe christian right family, and I have heard the grumblings from the right on this. They are NOT done! So while we have this moment we absolutely MUST make full use of this momentum, to cement a legal firewall to prevent a return to the days of open bigotry in the law books. Acceptance, justice, and an end to bigotry will not come with the stroke of a pen, it will require retraining the public psyche. This is our challenge, and we have embarked on a truly meaningful endeavor, so we all have to work together on this. We can create a better world.

customartist

August 11th, 2010

“the federal bench is populated with liberals” – not so much thanks to Bush firing many liberal Judges.

“The potential consequence…alienation of an entire generation of voters.” – And herein lies the justification of Conservatives to back off of their righteous positions. Huh!

No matter what Republicans ever do, THEY are the very ones who have rallied against us, kept us from having rights, and being treated humanely. Never forget.

Jim Burroway

August 11th, 2010

“the federal bench is populated with liberals” – not so much thanks to Bush firing many liberal Judges.

Not true. Bush didn’t fire any judges. In fact, no president can. Federal judges can only be removed via impeachment in Congress, which almost never happens.

To day the federal bench is populated with liberals however is quite a stretch. The majority of the federal bench were appointed by Republican presidents. Remember, for the past 30 years, Democrats have only held the white house for 9.5 of them.

Wayne

August 11th, 2010

….it’s only FIX News’ attempt to be “fair and balanced”….

Timothy Kincaid

August 11th, 2010

To day the federal bench is populated with liberals however is quite a stretch. The majority of the federal bench were appointed by Republican presidents.

Well how did you think those liberal activist judges got there?

;-)

cd

August 11th, 2010

To day the federal bench is populated with liberals however is quite a stretch. The majority of the federal bench were appointed by Republican presidents. Remember, for the past 30 years, Democrats have only held the white house for 9.5 of them.

Well, there is a well known phenomenon that judges who aren’t locked into reactionary assumptions and ideology about the world tend to become in effect recognizably liberal. They come to realize their job is not to reinforce a Divine aka political Order. It’s to find the most equitable resolution between two parties, at least one of which is immature or in denial. It’s about being/becoming mature as judge, turning into a sort of glorified parent who wants the best for her children on the merits and rejects being parasitic on them.

TinaC

August 11th, 2010

While I’m glad she’s supporting gays’ right to marriage & telling her fellow conservatives to think twice….

I’m sorry that she culminates her piece w/ an appeal for conservatives desire to save their own butts, and not:

– ending the harm done to gays and their families

– ending 2nd Class Citizenship of gays in the US

– taking one more step towards “Liberty and Justice for All”

L. Junius Brutus

August 11th, 2010

When you are speaking to conservatives, you’ve got to appeal to them. Peter LaBarbara argues that opposing the existence of gay people is good politics. Does he do it because that’s a reason for him? No, he thinks that it may be a reason for others to do it. In a similar manner, I think that Margaret Hoover is simply using this as a subsidiary argument for why conservatives should not oppose gay rights – in order to defuse the arguments of people who think that opposition to them is necessary for winning elections.

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)
(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.