Box Turtle Bulletin

Iowa’s anti-gay marriage bill is dead for another year

In a publicity stunt (send money) Republicans in the Iowa legislature tried to pull from committee legislation that would begin the process of changing the state constitution to ban gay marriage. As expected, the Democrat controlled House and Senate both said, “no thanks, dead in that committee is fine with me.”

However, we should be appreciative of the Republicans. After all, this effort revealed two Democrats who hate equality so much that they were willing to defy party loyalty and vote to pull the bills from committee. They are Senator Tom Hancock and Representative Dolores Mertz.

Gay Iowans, and indeed all Iowans who believe that each citizen is entitled to equal treatment under the law, are invited to find and support primary opponents for these two legislators.

Iowans couldn’t care less about gay marriage

When the Iowa Supreme Court determined that denying state services based on sexual orientation was unconstitutional and that the State of Iowa must provide marriage equality, you could almost slice the glee of the Iowa Republican Party. Finally, there was an issue which they could use to perhaps increase their influence and maybe even win a few elections. So they because the “no gay marriage” party.

Last year they made several attempts at getting an anti-gay marriage constitutional amendment up for a legislative vote and were unsuccessful. They chortled that Democrats would be sorry come election time.

But as it has turned out, running opposed to gay marriage has not proven to be a winning strategy. To their surprise, Iowans couldn’t care less about stopping gay folk from marrying. Literally.

The Des Moines Register conducted a poll of Iowans asking, “The state Legislature can address large and small issues during the course of the session. For the following issues, please tell me if you think the issue does or does not deserve the Legislature’s limited time.” Banning gay marriage did not make the cut; only 36% thought it was worth the time discussing.

Not only was it not deemed worthy of legislative time, of the six issues that Iowans were questioned about, addressing gay marriage concerned them the least. Iowans were more concerned about payday loans and puppy mills than they were about whether same-sex couples married.

This lack of interest appears to be reflected in a change in strategy in the campaigns of Republicans running for the party’s nomination for governor. Just a brief while ago they were all running to see who could be more extreme and reactionary.

Bob Vander Plaats pledged to halt such weddings with an executive order (an authority the governor does not wield) while Chris Rants declared that he’d veto every bill that reached his desk until the legislature voted on a constitutional amendment to ban marriage equality. Most of them supported calling for a constitutional convention so they wouldn’t have to wait for two sessions and a popular vote.

Only former governor Terry Branstad, also an opponent of gay marriage, chose not to run as a raving loon. Branstad took a more nuanced approach and expressed recognition of the difficulties that gay couples face when denied certain rights.

But that has changed. The race now appears to be between Branstad and Vander Plaats, and the latter has now discovered a different campaign strategy. (Register)

I\’ve talked to Vander Plaats from time to time, but hadn\’t really seen him out on the stump since last fall. His speeches used to give prime attention to conservative issues and gay marriage. This time, he focused entirely on job creation, state spending and education. Nobody even asked about the social issues.

I mentioned to him afterward that was a significant change from last summer, when he told me in an interview that he thought the election would hinge on two issues: gay marriage and the state smoking ban.

“Did I say that?” he asked. Yes, I told him.

“Campaigns always evolve, no doubt about it,” he said. (He didn\’t mention the smoking ban at all today.)

Yes, there is no doubt that campaigns evolve, especially when the voters care less about your pet issue than they do about monitoring dog breeders.

Sen. Hatch “clarifies” that he meant the opposite of what he said about DADT

Senator Hatch (Mormon – UT), is now uncomfortable with having told Andrea Mitchell that he had an open mind on Don’t Ask Don’t Tell. Perhaps his church informed him that his position was in opposition to changing the policy or perhaps the Republican Party clarified for him exactly what he thinks, but whatever the reason, Senator Hatch wishes the public to know that his vote will be in opposition to the change irrespective of the requests of the Pentagon, the position of the Commander in Chief, the findings of the study, or the wishes of the populace.

His church’s paper, the Deseret News, helped set the record straight.

“It’s deeply regrettable that liberal groups are misconstruing my position on ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ for activist purposes. I certainly do not support repealing this policy,” Hatch’s statement on Thursday said.

I guess little ol’ “liberal” me must have misconstrued his position when I posted the video and typed out this words verbatim. I suppose I should have realized that he meant exactly the opposite of what he said. Sen. Orrin Hatch is not “at least open to the idea” of being “willing to vote for the change.”

Or, to put it in politician-speak:

“What I said was that I want to see Adm. Mullen’s report. This is a controversial issue with inflamed passions on both sides,” Hatch said.

“Over the years, the views of the military officers and experts, whom I respect, have said that repealing ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ would make life for our troops more difficult — especially as our armed forces wage a global war on terrorism,” Hatch said.

He added, “I always try to be fair and stand by what’s right and that is why I look forward to reviewing the admiral’s report.”

Somehow “I look forward to reviewing” seems a bit disingenuous when coupled with “I do not support” and “experts, whom I trust”. One gets the sense that the ‘review’ will be a search for items to criticize rather than an impassioned desire to do what is right and correct.

I’m uncertain whether this is an indication that the Republican Party wishes to present a unified front in opposition to the change. But if that is the case, it will only serve to further entrench the party as recalcitrant, obstructionist, and hopelessly in servitude to a tiny fraction of socially ultra-conservative activists.

Polls have shown that a majority of the public, a majority of Republicans and a majority of conservatives all favor doing away with Don’t Ask Don’t Tell. But it seems that Sen. Orrin Hatch no longer dances to the tune of conservative Republicans; he now only dances when the subset of social extremists play.

Sadly for Senator Hatch, it must be increasingly difficult to look in the mirror and say, “I just plain do not believe in prejudice of any kind” or “I just want to do what is right”.

Eleven Republican legislators reveal that they oppose equality more than they oppose big government

One of the much-touted principles of the Republican Party is that government which is closer to the people is preferable to big centralized Federal government. For some Republican legislators that is just rhetoric to be ignored when big government better suits their personal agenda.

Nine Republican Senators and two Republican House Members have signed as co-sponsors to a bill to override the near-unanimous decision of the elected representatives of the District of Columbia to allow for marriage equality in that municipality. Although local elected officials and local election boards and local judges agree that this is a local decision and that it is not appropriate for the rights of some citizens to be up for majority veto, these Senators and Representatives believe that Federal intervention is the answer.

The 9 Senate co-sponsors are Senators

Robert Bennett (UT) – Mormon
Sam Brownback (KS) – Catholic
Jim Bunning (KY) – Catholic
John Cornyn (TX) – Church of Christ (Restoration Movement)
Mike Enzi (WY) – Presbyterian
James Inhofe (OK) – Presbyterian
Pat Roberts (KS) – Methodist
David Vitter (LA) – Catholic
Roger Wicker (MS) – Southern Baptist

The 2 House co-sponsors are Representatives

Jason Chaffetz (UT) – Mormon
Jim Jordan (OH) – Grace Bible Church (independent)

This bill is going nowhere. It will not be brought up for a vote in either the House or the Senate. So the only reason to sign on is to publicly identify with the idea of forcing the city to do what the they want by use of the full power of the Federal government. These eleven Republicans do not really believe in what the Party claims to believe about local v. centralized power.

Conservatives are quick to claim that moderates who verge from the party platform on an issue or two are RINOs (Republicans in Name Only). I wonder if they will use the same term for these Republicans who have flipped the bird to one of the central tenets of the Party.

The Republican response doesn’t address Don’t Ask Don’t Tell

With each State of the Union address, the party not occupying the White House issues its response. And while a President may lay out his intentions, the response can often clarify which plans will flow smoothly and which will face fierce resistance.

This year the Republican response was presented by Bob McDonnell, the newly elected Governor of Virginia. And in a speech that in some ways reflected his campaign, McDonnell avoided social issues and focused on jobs, the role of government, and taxes and regulations. Most importantly, he said nothing in response to the President’s promise to “work with Congress and our military to finally repeal the law that denies gay Americans the right to serve the country they love because of who they are.”

This does not mean that the Party avoided all response to the issue of gays in the Military. John McCain, the 2008 party nominee, responded with a statement:

“In his State of the Union address, President Obama asked Congress to repeal the ‘Don\’t Ask, Don\’t Tell\’ policy. I am immensely proud of, and thankful for, every American who wears the uniform of our country, especially at a time of war, and I believe it would be a mistake to repeal the policy.

“This successful policy has been in effect for over fifteen years, and it is well understood and predominantly supported by our military at all levels. We have the best trained, best equipped, and most professional force in the history of our country, and the men and women in uniform are performing heroically in two wars. At a time when our Armed Forces are fighting and sacrificing on the battlefield, now is not the time to abandon the policy.”

However, it should be noted that this rebuttal is the McCain response, not the Republican response. If I’m evaluating this situation correctly, the Republican Party will be expending little capital this year in opposing the change in Military policy.

And it may be a stretch to read too much into this, but I think I am beginning to see a pattern emerge. It appears to me that anti-gay policies may be shifting from being Official Republican Positions to becoming the positions of Republicans. And this instance is not the only indication of a shift; here are a few other indications.

Recognizing a decline in emphasis on “values issues” within recent elections, some conservatives have been seeking to impose a litmus test on candidates which they would have to pass in order to receive support or funding from the Party. They sought to require that all Republican candidates agree with at least eight of ten key points, including “retention of the Defense of Marriage Act”. It was an effort to diminish moderates and other “RINOs” (Republicans In Name Only).

Although most Republicans could agree on many of the positions, party leadership strongly opposed the effort. Chairman Michael Steele said,

“Every community should have responsibility for deciding who best represents their values, their interests, their principles. I trust them to do that. It is not the business of the RNC,” Steele said. “Ronald Reagan would be ashamed if the party moved in that direction.”

Leaders recognize that purity tests would eliminate the Party’s ability to run candidates in more liberal parts of the country and pointed out that Massachusetts’ Scott Brown likely could not have passed the test. Yesterday, at the RNC’s winter meeting, the state party leaders voted unanimously to reject the proposed restriction.

Another indication that the Party may be allowing dissension on gay issues is the recent public support for gay marriage from John McCain’s wife and daughter. The senator took the opposite position, thus presenting an image that one can be a “good McCain” and, indeed, a “good Republican” and hold differing opinions on issues surrounding gay equality. Nor did party officials loudly condemn Cindy McCain; indeed, it seemed as if they wanted to avoid any discussion of the issue.

Reluctance to visibly oppose marriage equality can also be seen in the response to the District of Columbia’s decision to enact marriage equality. A mere handful of legislators (29) signed an amicus brief in support of having a referendum and visibility on the issue has been scarce. In an election year, the Republican Party has elected not to make gay marriage in the nation’s capital much of an issue at all.

Now, I do not expect that Republicans are now going to immediately become allies of our community. Nor do I have any hope for an outbreak of Republican support for marriage equality.

Also I think that the Dede Scozzafava situation has shown us that hardcore conservatives will not readily or happily accept much divergence from their anti-gay, anti-choice, anti-freedom agenda. They will fight the “big tent” ideology with the vast resources they can muster and will at times be successful.

But I do think that perhaps signals are being sent from Party leaders that individual Republican legislators are free to take positions in opposition to DADT or in favor of ENDA without facing official repercussions or Party sanctions. And, while this could all change at a moment’s notice, I hope that taken together, these signs indicate that the days of the Republican Party using the gay community as a convenient scapegoat for all of the nation’s ills are waning.

Cindy McCain supports gay marriage

The household of Republican Presidential Candidate John McCain is divided on the issue of marriage. During his campaign, McCain tried to avoid talking about gay issues as much as possible, but when cornered he spoke in opposition to marriage equality.

But after the campaign his daughter Meghan has become, in many ways, the face of young straight marriage equality supporters. And she has been a constant voice in the Republican Party seeking to change the position of the party on gay issues.

Now another member of McCain’s family has come out publicly in support of marriage, his wife Cindy. She and Meghan have joined the No H8 campaign.

There is no way that this decision was made without the full knowledge and approval of the Senator. What this means for gay rights in the Republican Party is as yet not fully known, but it is definitely a good sign.

Congressmen file amicus in support of DC’s anti-gays

Two Senators and 37 members of the House (all Republicans) have filed an amicus brief in support of anti-gay activists who are suing to put marriage equality to a vote in the District of Columbia.

Their official reason is some mumble-jumble about serving “as members of the ultimate legislative authority for the District of Columbia and the very body which delegated to the District its limited legislative power under home rule”. But their basic beef comes down to, “When we said that DC residents could make their own decisions, we didn’t mean that they could make choices that we don’t like!!”

Relatedly, last night I saw GOP Party Chairman Michael Steele, arguing on Fox that Democrats are taking away the ability of people to live their lives the way they want… and using DC’s marriage law as example. I’m paraphrasing, but it seemed like he was arguing that DC residents were losing individual freedom because they were not free to vote on what their neighbors could do. Truly, it was an example of someone totally confused about the idea of personal liberty and individual freedom.

The good news is that these congressmen are only a small percentage of the Senate and the House and are even a minority in their own party (twenty years ago you’d have nearly all of the members of both parties). This is not to say that other Republicans would necessarily support marriage equality, but perhaps that they didn’t feel the need to identify themselves with the extremist right-wing caucus of Republicans who never lose an opportunity to attack the rights, freedom, and equality of gay people.

In a way, they did us a favor. We now have a nice list of the most extreme of the extreme. And while I didn’t see any surprises on the list (perhaps our readers might), it’s nice to have a compilation of equality’s biggest opponents all in one place.

Senators:

James Inhofe (Okla.)
Roger Wicker (Miss.)

Representatives:

Minority Leader John Boehner (Ohio)
Minority Whip Eric Cantor (Va.)
Robert Aderholt (Ala.)
Todd Akin (Mo.)
Michele Bachmann (Minn.)
J. Gresham Barrett (S.C.)
Roscoe Bartlett (Md.)
Marsha Blackburn (Tenn.)
John Boozman (Ark.)
Jason Chaffetz (Utah)
John Fleming (La.)
J. Randy Forbes (Va.)
Virginia Foxx (N.C.)
Scott Garrett (N.J.)
Phil Gingrey (Ga.)
Louie Gohmert (Tex.)
Jeb Hensarling (Tex.)
Wally Herger (Calif.)
Walter Jones (N.C.)
Jim Jordan (Ohio)
Steve King (Iowa)
Jack Kingston (Ga.)
John Kline (Minn.)
Doug Lamborn (Colo.)
Robert Latta (Ohio)
Don Manzullo (Ill.)
Michael McCaul (Tex.)
Thaddeus McCotter (Mich.)
Patrick McHenry (N.C.)
Cathy McMorris Rodgers (Wash.)
Jeff Miller (Fla.)
Jerry Moran (Kan.)
Randy Neugebauer (Tex.)
Mike Pence (Ind.)
Joe Pitts (Pa.)
Mark Souder (Ind.)
Todd Tiahrt (Kan.)

Feel free to walk precincts, call volunteers, work get-out-the-vote, or contribute to the campaigns of their primary and general opponents as much as possible.

Illinois Republican Party disavows Martin

From the Chicago Sun-Times

Illinois Republican Party Chairman Patrick Brady blasted Martin and the ad, saying, “The Illinois Republican Party disavows the statements made today by Mr. Andrew Martin in his statewide radio advertisements. His statements today are consistent with his history of bizarre behavior and often times hate-filled speech which has no place in the Illinois Republican Party. Mr. Martin will no longer be recognized as a legitimate Republican candidate by the Illinois Republican Party.”

I am particularly pleased that the Party used language recognizing that Martin’s speech was hate-filled.

So far the ad has been condemned by at least one other opponent. The primary election is February 2.

As of December 14,

Among Republicans, Kirk had the support of 41 percent of likely voters. No one else in the GOP primary topped 3 percent, but 46 percent of voters were still undecided.

Anti-gay Republican congressmen oppose Uganda’s Kill Gays bill

Five Republican congressmen have sent a letter to President Museveni of Uganda asking him to oppose the proposed Anti-Homosexuality Bill: Chris Smith, Frank Wolf, Joe Pitts, Trent Franks and Anh “Joseph” Cao.

That’s good.

They also felt compelled to inform Museveni that they endorse the Manhattan Declaration, a document that defines “Christian” in terms of whether one is an anti-gay activist.

That’s not so good.

Frankly this smells less like concern for the plight of gay Ugandans and more like an opportunity to prove that they both love the sinner (“don’t penalize a single act of homosexual conduct with a life sentence”) and hate the sin (“but boy howdy to we endorse anti-gay declarations”).

Unlike others, this group found it necessary to temper their opposition to an evil bill with endorsements of discrimination, and refused to oppose the criminalization of homosexuality, something that even Rick Warren felt to be within his Christian conscience.

Further, they lied. The Manhattan Declaration was not, as they state, “signed by more than 140 leaders representing every branch of American Christianity.” Liberal and moderate branches were excluded. But, then again, I suspect that Pitts, Smith, Wolf, Franks, and Cao all believe that those who oppose the Manhattan Declaration aren’t really Christian anyway.

Click here to see BTB\’s complete coverage of recent anti-gay developments in Uganda.

Click here to read the letter sent to President Museveni.

What’s less “Republican”, making a sex tape or supporting marriage equality?

That’s the question that Meghan McCain, daughter of Sen. John McCain, has for the Republican Party.

Meghan has been feeling the ire of those within the Party who think that her ideological support for equality disqualifies her as a Republican. So she’s a bit pissed about the priorities of some of the stalwart conservatives who don’t like her but welcome Carrie Prejean with open arms.

After watching several of Prejean\’s media appearances this week, it was not her incredibly uncomfortable threat to walk out on Larry King that had me most unnerved; it was actually her appearance on Sean Hannity’s show. This was Prejean\’s first stop on her book publicity tour, and when the sex tape came up, he proceeded to ask her if she was “in love with her boyfriend at the time that she made [it].” I\’m sorry, why would being in love matter when it comes to filming yourself in a sexual context?

Meghan notes the hypocrisy of those who are quick to forgive you of anything if you are adequately anti-gay.

The problem I have with my fellow Republicans is why gay marriage is the trump card in any situation. It seems that as long as you are against gay marriage, any scandal in your life can be overlooked or overcome. When you are in favor of it, however—and I have been very vocal about my support—that position defines you.

Sometimes I wonder if I were against marriage equality, whether it would make it easier for some Republicans to accept my place within this party. I have to constantly remind people of my pro-life, pro-small government stance because the only view that seems to matter is the fact that I believe my gay friends should have the same right to one of our founding ideals—that all men are created equal with certain inalienable rights. I think if Republicans truly believe in keeping government out of our lives—that should include not dictating who one can marry.

Many believe that it was Carrie Prejean\’s anti-gay marriage views that cost her the Miss USA pageant earlier this year. My question is: When it comes to Republicans, is your position on gay marriage what determines your fate within the party?

Personally, I think the party needs to ask itself whether it wants to be a party that the Meghan McCains of the country can join or whether it wishes to only appeal to those with the perception, character, and intellect of Carrie Prejean.

Republicans Win Governors Races in Virginia and New Jersey

In what was a not-unexpected result, the governorship of Virginia and New Jersey have changed parties.

This is relevant to us in that Governor Corzine of NJ had been criticized for supporting marriage equality. However, the race was fairly close (unlike the Virginia race which was called within minutes of the polls closing) and it is unlikely that it can be translated as some referendum on marriage. It has long been rumored to be the intention of Corzine and the legislature to pass marriage equality during the lame duck session before Governor-Elect Christie is inaugurated.

Being Gay Grounds for Judicial Disqualification for Texas Republicans

Social conservatives will often tell you that they aren’t anti-gay, they just oppose the homosexual agenda. They don’t hate people, you see, just the sin they are committing.

Don’t believe them.

As an illustration, let’s look at what’s going on in Texas. There, Republicans are all up in arms about a judicial recommendation. (Dallas News)

Last month, Hutchison and fellow GOP Sen. John Cornyn endorsed two applicants for chief prosecutor in the Western District of Texas, which includes Austin, San Antonio and El Paso: Robert Pitman, a U.S. magistrate in Austin, and San Antonio criminal defense lawyer Michael McCrum.

Pitman is highly regarded in legal circles. In a recent bar poll, lawyers rated him the most competent judge in Travis County.

But Pitman is entirely unacceptable to socially conservative Republicans in Texas.

Tim Lambert, president of the Texas Home School Coalition, a former member of the Republican National Committee – and, like nearly all prominent social conservatives in Texas who have picked sides, a Perry supporter – called the recommendation “very unusual and disturbing.”

The “unusual and disturbing” thing? Pitman is gay.

That’s it. No scandal. No issue about qualification. No indication of judicial activism or unusual decisions. He’s just gay.

And in Texas, it may hurt Hutchinson’s campaign to replace Rick Perry as Governor. It has become a campaign issue.

Just to be clear, the sole motivation for conservative Texas Republicans opposing Pitman or criticizing Hutchinson’s endorsement of him is anti-gay bigotry. It is as simple as that.

Young Republican Tells Party “You Have to Change”

For your Friday reading pleasure, let me recommend this op-ed in the Minneapolis – St. Paul Star Tribune by Madeline Koch, a young Republican with some advice for the Party:

Even though I am a proud Republican, I am just as likely to be found backing up my political affiliation with how I think our party must adapt if there is any hope for survival.

Not surprisingly, we young voters will play a large role in the future of the Republican Party, but first our governing officials must listen to us.

And Madeline is very clear on where the party can start if it wants to reach younger Americans.

First: We want gay marriage. Though we may not all be willing to march in the Pride parades or even send fiery letters to our congressmen about it, most of us believe that gay couples deserve the right to be legally wed. I can guarantee you this: The issue of gay marriage is not going to go away, and unless you start shifting within the Republican Party, you will not gain our support.

I agree with Madeline. If the Party wants to survive it needs to change. Perhaps with more voices of young Republicans – or those in more liberal states – this message will start to take hold.

Hot Or Not?

According to New York Times columnist David Brooks, a certain unnamed Republican Senator just couldn’t help himself.

GOP Chair Steele Support Rights of States to Define Marriage

On CNN’s American Morning on Tuesday, anchor Kiran Chetry asked Michael Steele, chair of the Republican National Committee, about comments made by former Vice-President Dick Cheney in support of same-sex marriages.

CHETRY: He went on to say, you know, gay marriage is OK, as long as it’s up to the states — individual states to decide, not the federal government. It seems to go further than even President Obama who said he supports civil unions, not gay marriage.

What do you think of Cheney’s comments?

STEELE: Well, I think the vice president brings a very personal perspective to this issue and to the question of gay marriage and gay unions. And I think his comments are appropriate reflection of his family and a situation with his daughter.

You know? My view, personal view is, you know, marriage is between a man and a woman, very much in line with what the president has said. And I think that this battle should be appropriately worked out at the state level.

The states are the ones that are defining the question of marriage, and so they will be the ultimate arbiters, I think, of what constitutes marriage in a given state. So it is the appropriate reflection of the attitude and the culture of a particular community for that debate to take place. And I think the vice president has a legitimate point there.

While at first glance this may appear to a reiteration of the GOP position that “marriage is between a man and a woman”, a closer look show this to be a strong departure from previous Republican rhetoric.

1. Steele found the vice president’s comments “appropriate.”

2. Steele qualified his own opposition to marriage as being his “personal view” and claims it is the same as President Obama’s. This seems to hint at a reluctance to be perceived as anti-gay.

3. Steele thought it appropriate that “states are the ones that are defining the question of marriage.” He even seems to be suggesting that marriage equality in Maine, Vermont, and New Hampshire are a “reflection of the attitude and the culture of [their] particular community.”

4. Not only has Steele chosen not to comment on the decision by New Hampshire, neither has any prominent Senator or presumptive Presidential candidate.

It seems to me that if any prominant GOP leadership still believes that same-sex marriage will unquestionably lead to the downfall of society, they certainly are keeping it to themselves.