Box Turtle Bulletin

Box Turtle BulletinNews, analysis and fact-checking of anti-gay rhetoric
“Now you must raise your children up in a world where that union of man and box turtle is on the same legal footing as man and wife…”
This article can be found at:
Latest Posts

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]

Comments

POST COMMENT | COMMENT RSS 2.0

Ben in Atlanta
April 6th, 2012 | LINK

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 | LINK

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

Stefan
April 6th, 2012 | LINK

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 | LINK

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

Sam
April 6th, 2012 | LINK

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 | LINK

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 | LINK

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 | LINK

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 | LINK

“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 | LINK

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 | LINK

…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 | LINK

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 | LINK

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 | LINK

Good luck with being an one issue party.

Timothy Kincaid
April 7th, 2012 | LINK

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 | LINK

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 | LINK

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 | LINK

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 | LINK

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 | LINK

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 | LINK

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 | LINK

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

TRiG.

Hunter
April 8th, 2012 | LINK

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.