Box Turtle Bulletin

You’ll Never Guess Who’s Behind The Federal Court Challenge To Prop 8

The Associated Press is reporting:

Two of the nation’s top litigators who opposed each other in the Bush v. election challenge in 2000 have joined forces to seek federal court intervention in California’s gay marriage controversy. Theodore B. Olson and David Boies have filed a U.S. District Court lawsuit on behalf of two gay men and two gay women, arguing that the California constitutional amendment eliminating the right of gay couples to marry violates the U.S. constitutional guarantee of equal protection and due process.

That’s right. Teaming up to fight Prop 8 in the Federal Courts are two lawyers, one of which fought hard to put President George W. Bush in the White House, and one who fought just as hard to try to keep him out. Theodore Olson went on to become Bush’s Solicitor General.

Olson may seem like an unlikely person to tackle a quixotic attempt to overturn Prop 8 in federal court (I don’t think it stands a whisper of a chance), but Olson seems committed. This is what he told the Washington Examiner:

“I personally think it is time that we as a nation get past distinguishing people on the basis of sexual orientation, and that a grave injustice is being done to people by making these distinctions,” Olson told me Tuesday night.  “I thought their cause was just.”

I asked Olson about the objections of conservatives who will argue that he is asking a court to overturn the legitimately-expressed will of the people of California.  “It is our position in this case that Proposition 8, as upheld by the California Supreme Court, denies federal constitutional rights under the equal protection and due process clauses of the constitution,” Olson said. “The constitution protects individuals’ basic rights that cannot be taken away by a vote.  If the people of California had voted to ban interracial marriage, it would have been the responsibility of the courts to say that they cannot do that under the constitution.  We believe that denying individuals in this category the right to lasting, loving relationships through marriage is a denial to them, on an impermissible basis, of the rights that the rest of us enjoy…I also personally believe that it is wrong for us to continue to deny rights to individuals on the basis of their sexual orientation.”

This is huge. Olson is as conserviative as they come. As John Aravosis at AmericaBlog points out, Olsen much more than a mere Bush White House operative (Warning: noisy ads at AmericaBlog):

He was a member of the board of the American Spectator, the magazine that investigated Bill Clinton in the early 90s, and got that entire ball of wax rolling. Olson was the guy who was so conservative that Harry Reid torpedoed Bush’s desire to make Olson Attorney General after Gonzales. Olson is so conservative that Bob Novak (aka Novakula) called him “highly esteemed.”

It just goes to show, you never know where our allies will come from next. It’s also the best example I can think of to remember that the hard work of dialog with those who oppose us is a worthy effort. And if there was ever reason to be optimistic about where we’re headed, this is another one. Olson joins John McCain’s chief strategist Steve Schmidt and McCain’s daughter Meghan as outspoken supporters for marriage equality.

(via Towleroad)

And all of this of course begs raises the question: where are Obama and the Democrats?

Steele’s OBVIOUSLY Stupid Argument Against Marriage

Michael Steele, the Chairman of the GOP, is trying to repackage the party’s social conservatism in a less abrasive wrap. He’s not wanting to give up opposition to gay marriage, for example, but come up with arguments that are not based on outright hostility, bigotry, and animus.

Republicans can reach a broader base by recasting gay marriage as an issue that could dent pocketbooks as small businesses spend more on health care and other benefits, GOP Chairman Michael Steele said Saturday.

Steele said that was just an example of how the party can retool its message to appeal to young voters and minorities without sacrificing core conservative principles. Steele said he used the argument weeks ago while chatting on a flight with a college student who described herself as fiscally conservative but socially liberal on issues like gay marriage.

“Now all of a sudden I’ve got someone who wasn’t a spouse before, that I had no responsibility for, who is now getting claimed as a spouse that I now have financial responsibility for,” Steele told Republicans at the state convention in traditionally conservative Georgia. “So how do I pay for that? Who pays for that? You just cost me money.”

To which any thinking person would say, “doesn’t heterosexual marriage also increase costs to small businesses?” Or is Steele suggesting that small businesses in states where marriage is already banned should save money by hiring gay people instead of straight people so they can avoid spousal costs?

OK, I’ll give Steele some points for trying to get the party away from outright bald-faced bigotry. But that’s just stupid.

The problem with anti-gay-marriage arguments that look for basis other than anti-gay animus is that they just don’t seem to hold up to even the most casual inspection.

RNC Responds to Maine Marriage Bill

At first it looked as though the Republican Party was going to walk away from the Maine marriage decision whistling and looking away as if they didn’t notice. But finally Chairman Michael Steele released the following statement:

Our party platform articulates our opposition to gay marriage and civil unions, positions shared by many Americans. I believe that marriage should be between one man and one woman and strongly disagree with Maine\’s decision to legalize gay marriage.

Steele spoke of what “the platform” articulates about “our opposition” rather than trying to suggest that opposition to both marriage and civil unions is the position of a majority of Republicans. Further he said that “many” rather than “most” Americans share the platform’s positions. As for his opinion, he limited it to marriage and didn’t discuss his personal beliefs on civil unions.

There is no suggestion that this is thwarting the will of the people or accusations of undue activism or calls for initiatives. There is no appeal to tradition, God, founding fathers, the fabric of society, or 5000 years of definition.

This two sentence statement appears not to have been broadly released nor was there a press conference. This suggests to me that the Republican leadership wants a low profile about same-sex marriages – especially those passed by a legislature – at this time. I would find it hard to craft a more tepid response.

Whether this is because of a change in perspective, polling data, some new found respect for states rights, or just plain political calculus, I welcome it. And I’m awfully glad that Michael Steele is the current head of the RNC rather than, say, Ken Blackwell.

Maine’s Senators, both of whom are Republican women who have been supportive of gay rights, both stated that they support the rights of the state to determine its own marriage laws. While neither fully came out and endorsed the bill, neither had anything negative to say about it either. This was also the reaction of the White House.

In fact, other than the usual ranting voices endorsing religious oppression, the objection to the actions taken in Maine, New Hampshire, and the District of Columbia have been muted to the extent they have been raised at all.

McCain Advisor Announces Support for Marriage

In September of last year we noted that Steve Schmidt, John McCain’s top campaign advisor, had sought to encourage Log Cabin Republicans (a gay Republican group) at the National Republican Convention.

Today he has made headlines by telling the Log Cabin annual national convention that he endorses gay marriage and will be encouraging Republican leaders to drop anti-gay positions.

It can be argued, although I disagree, that marriage should remain the legal union of a man and a woman because changing it to admit same sex unions would undermine the most basic institution of a well ordered society. It can be argued according to the creeds and convictions of religious belief, which I respect. But it cannot be argued that marriage between people of the same sex is un-American or threatens the rights of others. On the contrary, it seems to me that denying two consenting adults of the same sex the right to form a lawful union that is protected and respected by the state denies them two of the most basic natural rights affirmed in the preamble of our Declaration of Independence – liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That, I believe, gives the argument of same sex marriage proponents its moral force.

and

There is a sound conservative argument to be made for same sex marriage. I believe conservatives, more than liberals, insist that rights come with responsibilities. No other exercise of one\’s liberty comes with greater responsibilities than marriage. In a marriage, two people are completely responsible to and for each other. If you are not willing to accept and faithfully discharge those responsibilities, you shouldn\’t enter the state of matrimony, and it doesn\’t make a damn bit of difference if you\’re straight or gay. It is a responsibility like no other, which can and should make marriage an association between two human beings more fulfilling than any other.

For those who come from a conservative perspective, Schmidt’s speech is a joy to read.

Log Cabin’s convention this year is a bit of a McCainapalooza as in addition to Schmidt, the candidate’s wife Cindy and daughter Meghan will be hosting a reception for major donors tonight. Meghan McCain will also be headlining tomorrow night’s dinner.

Transcript of the entire speech below the break

Steele: Civil Unions Are “Crazy”

Right wing radio host Mike Gallagher asked Republican Party Chairman Michael Steele, “Is this a time when Republicans ought to consider some sort of alternative to redefining marriage and maybe in the road, down the road to civil unions. Do you favor civil unions?”

Steele’s response:

GOP Chairman Michael Steele

No, no no. What would we do that for? What are you, crazy? No.Why would we backslide on a core, founding value of this country? I mean this isn’t something that you just kind of like, “Oh well, today I feel, you know, loosey-goosey on marriage.”

Utah Governor Supports Gay Rights

Jon Huntsman, Jr., the Mormon Republican Governor of Utah, has come out in support of gay rights. (Salt Lake Tribune)

Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr., a spokeswoman said Monday, backs Equality Utah’s Common Ground Initiative, a legislative effort that would provide some rights to gay and transgender Utahns. Even more, the Republican governor favors civil unions.

ABC4

ABC 4 asked Huntsman, “You support civil unions?”

Gov. Jon Huntsman replied, “Well, its something I have given a lot of thought to and the answer is yes.”

“I believe in traditional marriage. I always have. But I also believe there’s more we can do in terms of enhancing those individual rights for others,” said Huntsman.

This is a rather unexpected turn of events. And one that caught many in Utah state politics off guard.

However, Jon Huntsman may be playing to a bigger audience than his neighbors. As a successful and popular governor, Huntsman is considered as a potential Republican Presidential nominee in 2012.

If this is part of Governor Huntsman’s strategy to craft his image for Nominee Huntsman, it tells us something interesting about what a conservative Republican in a conservative state predicts American attitudes towards gay couples will be in four years. But whatever his motivation, Huntsman’s support is very welcome.

Steele: Republican Party Needs to Reach Out to Gay Supporters

The new chairman of the Republican Party, Michael Steele, told Chris Wallace this morning that the party needs to reach out to supporters of abortion rights and gay rights:

WALLACE: You are one of the co-founders of something called the Republican Leadership Council…

STEELE: Yep.

WALLACE: … which supports candidates who favor abortion and gay rights.

STEELE: Yep.

WALLACE: Does the GOP need to do a better job of reaching out to people who hold those views?

STEELE: I think — I think that’s an important opportunity for us, absolutely, because within our party we do have those who have that view as well as outside.

And my partnership with Christy Todd Whitman was an effort to hopefully build a bridge between moderates and conservatives in the party. I’m a pro-life Roman Catholic conservative, always have been.

WALLACE: You also support a constitutional amendment against gay marriage.

STEELE: That’s right. And the reality of it is this, because I don’t think we should muck around with the Constitution. We can deal with that at the state level, OK? That’s my personal view.

[Ed: Steele may have misunderstood Wallace’s question. Steele supports anti-marriage amendments on the state level but has spoken against a federal marriage amendment – which seems to be what he is saying here.]

But the reality of it is the party has to recognize the diversity of opinion that’s out there. And we’re not going to get everyone to agree with the — Ronald Reagan said it best. If you agree with me 80 percent of the time, I think that’s good enough. I mean, I think we can move forward on that 80 percent.

So there are some 80-percent issues out there that we can work with those within our party and outside our party and create a new bridge and a new opportunity. That was my involvement with the RLC, and I’m very happy about that.

WALLACE: But just to press on this…

STEELE: Yep.

WALLACE: … if you believe — if someone believes in a woman’s right to choose, if someone believes in gay civil rights, where’s the 80 percent agreement with the Republican Party?

STEELE: It could be — it could be on our — on economics.

WALLACE: No, but I’m talking about on those issues.

STEELE: Well, you know, see — now, Chris, you’ve just defined — you’ve just defined the world in which there are issues. You’ve just narrowed — you’ve just narrowed my scope to two issues.

WALLACE: No, I’m just saying on those issues, is there 80 percent agreement?

STEELE: Well, if there — if that’s the 20 percent they disagree with us on, let’s work on the 80 percent where they agree with us. That’s my point.

I’m not going to allow anyone to define the issues for us and say, “Well, these are the only two issues that really matter.” There’s a whole range of issues out there in which we can address the American people and the American people can come to our table.

Michael Steele is not a supporter equality for gay citizens. But he is a supporter of those who are. And this is a very positive step for the party. Not because of what Steele believes, but because his election was a symbol of a desire to change and a willingness to place inclusion ahead of dogmatism.

Republican Party Resists Moving Further Anti-Gay

Most political pundits can take a glance at polling trends and predict that basing a party on conservative social policies is not a long-term winning strategy. But political parties, and those that direct them, don’t alway place logic, social change, or even the future viability of the party as a higher priority than entrenched ideology. And the Republican Party has been especially eager to hold firm to homophobic positions in the face of a decreasingly homophobic nation.

And today the Republican Party will make a decision about its future. It will choose a new leader and the choices represent either a sharp turn right, a stay the course, or a more moderate future social agenda.

None of the candidates can be considered advocates for gay equality. But one, Michael Steele, has illustrated an openness towards gay members and a common cause with some of those in the Party who are advocates for gay rights.

The voting isn’t over and the decision has not been made. However, reports are that the field has been narrowed to either the current chairman, Mike Duncan, or the more moderate selection, Steele (who appears to be in the lead). In either case, those who have build their identity on blatant and unabashed homophobia – including raging gay-hater Ken Blackwell – have now been eliminated. And that is a good thing for the gay community.

UPDATE:

Duncan has withdrawn his name. Steele is currently in the lead but does not have a majority.

UPDATE TWO: Michael Steele has won the chairmanship of the Republican Party. The former lieutenant governor of Maryland is also the Party’s first African-American to hold the position.

Steele has a difficult road ahead of him. He will be at the helm of a party that is shrinking in number, has control of no branch of government, and is fighting the perception of being old, white, and Southern. Steele will also oversee an inevitable fight between those who seek to keep the party the standard bearer for social conservatism and a permanent voice of dissent and those who seek to moderate social issues, reestablish fiscal principles and bring the Party into the 21st Century.

I wish Steele well and hope that he finds the wisdom to lead the party into an age of inclusion and away from sectarian dogma and social obstructionism. I hope he lives up to his opening comments:

“We’re going to say to friend and foe alike: We want you to be a part of us, we want you to with be with us, and for those who wish to obstruct, get ready to get knocked over”

Huckabee vs. Coulter: “I’m More Anti-Gay Than You”

This is what the far right has sunk to: who is more anti-gay?

Is it any wonder that nine out of ten nine-Evangelicals think Christianity is “too anti-homosexual” — and 80% of Christians of all stripes agree?

But this kind of debate is going on as a man who says out loud that being gay is a “compulsion” like kleptomania and likens gays to barnyard animals is running to head the Republican Party. At least he appears to be pulling ahead of Chip “Barack the Magic Negro” Saltsman for the time being. Meanwhile, the Log Cabin Republicans are in serious financial straits, which means that the one Republican voice for gay issues will be weaker in 2009.

The self-destruction of the Grand Old Party continues.

Ken Blackwell: “Homosexuality Is A Compulsion”

That’s what the former Ohio Secretary of State told Michelangelo Signorile during an interview at last September’s Republican National Convention:

MS: But you realize people were insulted when you compared [homosexuality] to arson and kleptomania. I would like you to explain that because, how does that get into this whole “choice” issue? I mean, kleptomania is a compulsion.

KB: Well, the fact is, you can choose to restrain that compulsion. And so I think in fact you don’t have to give in to the compulsion to be homosexual. I think that’s been proven in case after case after case…

…

KB: If in fact you would feel better for me to say to you that, one, I believe homosexuality is a compulsion that can be contained, repressed or changed, and that makes you feel better, then that is what I’m saying in the clearest of terms.

Blackwell is now in the running to become the Republican Party’s chairman with the blessing of fellow ardent anti-gay conservatives, including Focus On the Family’s James Dobson and the Family Research Council’s Tony Perkins. Ohio’s GOP all but collapsed in 2006 with Blackwell as the standard-bearer. He’s been largely absent from Ohio politics since then. They say “As goes Ohio, so goes the nation.” Republicans may discover that this saying applies to their party as well.

FRC, Focus Battle For Soul of the GOP

There is a battle going on right now for the soul of the Republican Party — at least for the chairmanship for the GOP. At least six contenders are in the race right now, including former Ohio Secretary of State Kenneth Blackwell, and former Mike Huckabee campaign manager Chip Saltsman, who are battling for the top spot in order to steer the party to a much harder social-conservative line. The other contenders include former Maryland Lt. Gov. Michael Steele, Michigan Republican Party Chairman Saul Anuzis, and current RNC Chairman Mike Duncan are vying for votes among the GOP’s more secular, fiscally-conservative members.

Saltsman has come under fire for having sent out a Christmas greeting to RNC members with a music CD containing a song called “Barack the Magic Negro.” That pretty much leaves Blackwell standing unscathed among social conservatives. So over the weekend, Focus On the Family and the Family Research Council have weighed in Blackwell as their favored candidate. Not too surprising, since Blackwell is already an FRC employee, serving as a “Senior Fellow for Family Empowerment,” whatever that means. But for good measure, he has also picked up James Dobson’s endorsement.

We know Blackwell for his heavy involvement in Ohio’s draconian anti-marriage amendment campaign, during which he compared gays and lesbians to “barnyard animals.”

McCain Campaign Accepts Log Cabin’s Endorsement

Yesterday at Log Cabin Republicans’ Big Tent Event, the McCain campaign accepted the gay group’s endorsement. Mike DuHaime, the National Political Director, spoke on behalf of the candidate and the campaign.

He told the crowd of 200 people, “On behalf of Senator McCain and the campaign, thank you for this endorsement. Sen. McCain is running an inclusive campaign and he’ll have an inclusive administration [as president].”

DuHaime also said that Sen. McCain will win this election because he is the “only one who has the ability to unite the entire party.” He went on to say that everyone supporting Sen. McCain must talk to others about why they’re voting for him. “This is so important in the gay and lesbian community,” said DuHaime.

As Ed Stoddard writing for Reuters noted,

The endorsement may boost McCain’s reputation as a maverick who reaches across partisan lines, but it may not go down well with his party’s conservative Christian base.

The campaign’s acceptance of endorsement, a first for Log Cabin, was also accompanied by unprecedented access to the convention. These steps, while not on par with the way in which the Democratic Party welcomed its gay delegates, are welcome and an indication of a growing acceptance of gay men and women in the fabric of the nation.

Republican Delegates Support Civil Unions

The New York Times has polled the delegates to the Republican and the Democrat national conventions and compared their positions with those of the voting members of their party. Invariably, on each issue (with one exception) the demographics broke down as follows (from most conservative to least):

Republican Delegates
Republican Voters
All Voters
Democratic Voters
Democratic Delegates

However, quite surprisingly there was one issue in which the Republican Delegates proved to be slightly less conservative than Republican voters at large: recognition for gay couples.

Republican voters support marriage with 11%, civil unions with 28%, and no recognition with 57%. Fewer delegates support marriage (4%), but many more support civil unions (43%). Astonishly, more Republican delegates support recognition of same sex couples (49%) than do not (46%).*

Sadly, while that survey is unexpected good news, it is not reflected in the platform of the Republican Party. Although civil unions are not mentioned by name, they seem implicit in the following language:

Because our children’s future is best preserved within the traditional understanding of marriage, we call for a constitutional amendment that fully protects marriage as a union of a man and a woman, so that judges cannot make other arrangements equivalent to it. In the absence of a national amendment, we support the right of the people of the various states to affirm traditional marriage through state initiatives. [emphasis mine]

The anti-gay languages continues for several more paragraphs and homophobic sentiment is reflected throughout the platform. It really is a nasty document.

Traditionally, the platform of the Republican Party has been turned over to the extreme right of the Party and mostly ignored by candidates and local party activists. In fact, in several instances the 2008 platform takes a position that is directly contrary to the stated position of the presidential candidate.

But if this survey is accurate, perhaps with time and with a growing national support for gay and lesbian Americans, there will come a day when concessions are not made to intolerance and the party platform of both parties will be neither shameful nor discriminatory.

* More than half of Democrats who expressed an opinion, both party and voters, support marriage.

(hat tip to reader Charles)

A Smart Protest

Too often issue politics becomes partisan. The problem morphs from a protest against the objectionable views of some Republicans or Democrats into a protest against their party registration.

And far too often activists within our community have fallen victim to such a mindset.

I understand why. It’s far easier to apply a label and assign enmity than it is to listen, consider, and reason why someone may differ with you on some issues. Besides if we pick a side we get to view ourselves as heroes and the “others” as the evil enemy.

It’s the exact same motivation that drives anti-gays.

But it isn’t particularly effective in winning debates or effecting change. And when the outcome is important, we don’t have the luxury of making enemies. We have to build our arguments around shared values, compelling evidence, and an appeal to decency rather than messages of enmity and war.

Which is why I am so very pleased with the approach that Fred Karger and Californians Against Hate took towards a fundraiser organized by the San Diego Republican Party Central Committee for the anti-gay marriage amendment, Proposition 8.

Surely it must have been tempting to stage a protest that would villianize the evil Republicans. And most assuredly some gay activists when planning such a protest would come bearing signs that said ‘Republicans are Haters’ or with a big red circle and a line through the letters GOP.

But Fred recognized that many Republicans in California are open to a message of inclusion and decency and an appeal to vote “No” can be received positively… if they have not already been made the enemy. So he took another approach.

He and his protest team presented signs that spoke of the amendment and of marriage, but not of party affiliation. And he presented those attending the event with a list of quotes from notable individuals who have spoken out against bigotry – all Republicans: Ronald Reagan, Gerald Ford, Barry Goldwater, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Congressman Clair Burgener, and San Diego Mayor Jerry Sanders.

When Karger spoke to San Diego 6 he emphasized that the amendment is not something that should be supported by rank and file Republicans but that rejecting discrimination and bigotry is a value that Republicans can proudly share.

“This is truly the fringe element of the Republican Party,” said Californians Against Hate Founder Fred Karger. “These people are out of step with the Republican Party.”

“We hope to inform those attending about the rich history and philosophies of so many Republican leaders who fought for equality and against discrimination and hate,” said Karger

This is, I believe, a very smart approach. It may not change the opinions of any attendees but it does establish that opposition to this amendment is welcome from all voters of any party.

Carl DeMaio Wins City Council Seat

Gay Republican Carl DeMaio won his election for San Diego District 5 outright and will not need to participate in a run-off election in November.

Ex-gay gadfly James Hartline did not place in the top three contenders for District 3. It seems that the good Christians of San Diego must have failed the test that Hartline thinks God set out for them.