FRC VP Warns of Third Party If GOP Embraces Marriage Equality

Jim Burroway

April 6th, 2012

A recent Politico article argues that same-sex marriage has become a “dead issue” among many Republicans. I beg to differ, myself, although Politico says that House Republican leadership has “quietly worked behind the scenes to kill amendments that reaffirm opposition to same-sex unions.” Family “Research” Council’s vice president Tom McClusky isn’t having it, telling the Janet Mefferd Show:

Mefferd: If the GOP continues to go in a direction where they will not get on the side of traditional marriage and be willing to fight for it, what do Christians do?

McClusky: I think you will—there are always threats of a third party—I think if something like that were to happen you would see a third party. It would be made up of more than just disgruntled conservative Republicans. On the marriage issue there’s African Americans who normally vote Democratic, there’s Hispanics, and the same on the life issue, and there are a lot of good Democrats like say in the state legislature of New York who fought against same-sex marriage and Maryland who tried to, I think what you see is a lot of people drifting from both parties into a third party or some sort of independent party that is more pro-life and pro-marriage.

McClusky also said that “Societies that try to do away with marriage, they crumble, they fall apart.” Well, then. It’s a good thing we’re trying to expand marriage and not do away with it.

[via Right Wing Watch]

Ben in Atlanta

April 6th, 2012

I’ve seen 5 political parties listed as major and over 30 listed as minor. We already seem to have more than 3. I’ve been third party for a while now. Some of us are already holding office.

Mark F.

April 6th, 2012

The U.S. does not have a system that is favorable to third parties.

Stefan

April 6th, 2012

I expect the closest thing that would happen should the GOP embrace gay marriage would be the Constitution party growing in size/influence a bit.

Ben In Oakland

April 6th, 2012

We can only hope that a third party is in the offing for the good of the country.

Sam

April 6th, 2012

I took some time to listen to her show (I’m quite surprised how much I could stomach from listening to her and Tom) and I couldn’t help but think of the two most recent cases where Republicans either helped enact gay marriage (New York Senate) or prevented it’s repeal (New Hampshire House). I mean if these aren’t good examples to them on how much the Republican party has moved on this issue, I don’t know what is.

If they run to a third party, fine by me. I’d rather deal with a secular conservative party (similar to the UK Tories) than a religious one. I could even find myself voting Republican which is something I thought only hell would have to freeze over for.

Jarred

April 6th, 2012

On the marriage issue there’s African Americans who normally vote Democratic, there’s Hispanics, and the same on the life issue

I’d say McClusky is really showing his tunnel vision on this one. He’s assuming that because being anti-gay and anti-abortion are the most important planks of any political platform, other people share that view.

The people he’s imagining a third party could woo weren’t wooed by the Republican party during the height of that party’s anti-gay and anti-abortion rhetoric. So either something about the Republican party is keeping them away or something about the Democratic party is enticing them to stay. So I don’t see how creating a third party whose primary appeal is being anti-abortion and anti-gay will appeal to them either. Such a party would have to do whatever it takes to make themselves more appealing than the Democratic party and possibly less unappealing than the Republican party.

And quite frankly, I don’t think people like McClusky are likely to do that.

Gene in L.A.

April 6th, 2012

The problem they’re facing is that not even all Christians agree with them. If they try to form a third party specifically or even primarily over “pro-life pro-marriage,” they’ll find themselves in very small company. But really, what is more pro-marriage than wanting to marry?

Nathaniel

April 6th, 2012

This statement is certainly full of false dichotomies. I am both pro-life and pro-choice. I think we can all clearly see how being for marriage equality is being “pro-marriage.” But even the racist statements implying that you can either be gay or black, but not both, or you can only be anti-abortion or hispanic, but not both, are creating false divides. Have they been reading from this script for so long that they don’t know how to change it up? I know the recently leaked memos weren’t FRC, but they sound like they got them too. And in spite of the cat being out of the bag, they keep dragging the bag anyway. In no way is anything McClusky said an attempt to bring people together. It is all meant to divide, to force people to choose sides on an imaginary line. The sooner we help people see the falseness of these dichotomies, the sooner we will have a saner populace.

Timothy Kincaid

April 6th, 2012

“I think if something like that were to happen you would see a third party.”

Yes. Please. PLEASE!!

Gene in L.A.

April 6th, 2012

Nathaniel, it’s not that they’re reading from a script; unfortunately, it’s that they believe what they’re saying. They believe so implicitly that all argument rolls off their back unattended. The Bible says it, and that makes it so.

Ryan

April 7th, 2012

…which is why the GOP Speaker is defending DOMA in court and why the GOP nominee donated to NOM and has pledged to push for an anti-equality constitutional amendment, and why no Republican majority has *ever * passed any gay rights legislation. I don’t think the FRC needs to worry about it

Gus

April 7th, 2012

What are they could to call themselves? CPA, the Christianist Party of America or DP, the Dominionists Party, PGP, the Prosperity Gospel Party, TP the Teavangelical Party? No,they will muddy the political waters with some variation of Conservative Party or States Rights Party, hiding the fact they are not conservative, but a religious party finally kicked out of the Republican Party for an un-Constitutional and un-American political philosophy. Then Barry Goldwater and Bill Buckley will smile.

Désirée

April 7th, 2012

the Christianist/Dominianist/Evangelicals leaving the Republicans to form their own whackop party Yes please! Leave the adults to deal with real issues!

Lord_Byron

April 7th, 2012

Good luck with being an one issue party.

Timothy Kincaid

April 7th, 2012

Ryan

“…and why no Republican majority has *ever * passed any gay rights legislation.”

Other, of course, than the New York Senate and the New Hampshire House just this year.

Which is why FRC is worried.

Timothy Kincaid

April 7th, 2012

Gus, let’s see: they want America to be a Christian nation, the are focused entirely on social issues, and they demand that we “let the people vote”.

Someone should recommend that they become the Christian Social Democrat Party and see how long they champion that idea before someone leads them to Wikipedia.

Hyhybt

April 7th, 2012

This could be fun. A third party based mainly on restricting marriage, if it became large enough to notice, would draw those who have that as their top priority away from both the Republicans and the Democrats, leaving behind in *both* of the parties big enough to get anything done only those who either don’t much care or are on our side.

Short of a Supreme Court ruling that no level of government may ban gay marriage, I can’t think of anything that would get the job done nationwide faster .

Ryan

April 7th, 2012

Timothy, the NH GOP declined to rescind marriage equality there, they didn’t pass it. Don’t get me wrong, its great. But its hardly the same thing. And 4 republicans voted for equality in NY; clearly not a majority. And those were in the liberal states. Nationally is far worse.

Timothy Kincaid

April 7th, 2012

Ryan,

It’s enough of a “same thing” for FRC to worry.

To you I say “Don’t worry.” You’ll have plenty of examples to illustrate how evil Republicans are and how angelic Democrats are. Things haven’t changed enough to impact your purposes.

But FRC needs to worry. They are reading the writing on the wall and it wasn’t painted there by Thomas Kinkade.

Ryan

April 7th, 2012

I’ve never claimed that Republicans are evil or Democrats are angels. I just think that twisting yourself up in knots to applaud the barest of bare feints towards the slightest bit of non-antipathy from an occasional Republican is a bit silly. They are what they are, and even if many of the smarter ones aren’t particularly anti-gay, they’re in no mood to alienate the ones who are.

JohnAGJ

April 7th, 2012

Hey if all the socons want to leave the GOP and form their own group, I wouldn’t mind one bit. Frankly I’m more Republican-leaning on other matters but I’m not supporting these folks one bit. So please, don’t the door hit your collective keisters on the way out.

Timothy (TRiG)

April 8th, 2012

And then you could start a campaign for PR-STV, which frankly you could do with.

TRiG.

Hunter

April 8th, 2012

Republicans who actually want to hold office are realizing that the anti-gay agenda is not going to pay off for them — the rest of the country has shifted its view.

FRC, on the other hand, along with NOM and the rest of the pack, seems intent on marginalizing itself.

More power to ’em. May they succeed beyond their wildest nightmares.

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

Jubal

Another Temporary Hiatus

Today's Agenda Is Brought To You By...

Today In History, 1971: Minnesota Couple Stake Claim To First American Same-Sex Marriage

Today's Agenda Is Brought To You By...

Today In History, 1954: "Perverts Vanish" From Miami

Born On This Day, 1907: Evelyn Hooker

Born On This Day, 1925: Fr. John J. McNeill

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.