Slog

News & Arts

Line Out

Music & the City
at Night

« The Rats of Tehran | The Good Architecture of Seattle »

Thursday, February 28, 2013

Gay Marriage / Politics / LGBTQITSLFA Prominent Is As Prominent Does

Posted by Dan Savage on Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 8:08 AM

Andrew swooned, but Charles Pierce isn't the least bit impressed by the pro-equality amicus brief that has now been signed more than one hundred "prominent Republicans," as every news report describes them. Among the signers: Jon Huntsman, Christine Todd Whitman, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, Meg Whitman, William Weld, David A. Stockman, and James B. Comey. Says Pierce:

Seriously, is there one person on that list of serious influence in the Republican party, and it's not Huntsman, god knows, who is a person of serious influence only in the Republican party that exists in the heads of the people in various green rooms. Bill Weld, god love him, has been out of public life since 1996 and Jane Swift wasn't a "well-known" Republican in Massachusetts even when she was governor. Christine Todd Whitman is an influential Republican? Since when? You might as well be talking about William Seward.

...

But the coverage of the brief is more interesting than the brief itself because it is another item in the continuing attempt by the elite political media to find a sane Republican party out there somewhere, struggling to be born. Jon Huntsman changes his mind on marriage equality! Chris Christie is Not Invited to CPAC! (Of course, a real sign of Republican reform would be if influential Republicans en masse decided to reject invitations to share the podium with the likes of Allen West.) The Very Fact Of Marco Rubio! The ringworm in the whole business is to be found deep in the bowels of the Times story, right after they summon up the shade of Jane Swift.

"...suggests that once Republicans are out of public life they feel freer to speak out against the party's official platform, which calls for amending the Constitution to define marriage as "the union of one man and one woman."

No duh, as the kidz say. You can support marriage equality as a Republican as long as you're not presently running for office as a Republican, which rather mitigates against your being able to change the nature of a political party, the putative job of which is to elect people to office in order to carry out certain policies.

Go read the whole thing.

FacebookShare

Comments (21) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment

LOL!! One of the reasons Chris Christie doesn't worry me in 2016...he'll be eaten ALIVE by the GOP during the primaries.

Posted by Last of the Time Lords on February 28, 2013 at 8:12 AM

Some Congress Democrats Split With Obama on Gay Marriage

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-05-11…

Posted by Supreme Ruler Of The Universe

on February 28, 2013 at 8:20 AM

Republicans are still upset with William Seward for serving under Andrew Johnson? Man can they hold a grudge.

Posted by Texans on February 28, 2013 at 8:22 AM

dan, as a prominent gay washington celebrity, what are your thoughts and feelings about this shadowy organization known as the: washington restaurant association.

should i trust these guys?

Posted by tim koch on February 28, 2013 at 8:31 AM

You can support marriage equality as a Republican as long as you're not presently running for office as a Republican, which rather mitigates against your being able to change the nature of a political party, the putative job of which is to elect people to office in order to carry out certain policies.

I think he has that wrong. The political PARTY is not just its elected officials currently in office. It IS the former officials, as well as the various functionaries and ordinary member and precinct chairpeople. As far as a party goes, these people do have prominence within theirs, and their actions are certainly stirring debate within it.

It would doubtless be more substantial if current leading officeholders (e.g., Boehner, McConnell, or Perry) were on board with this, as that would indicate that the GOP was ready to do the right thing right now. But their party has surrendered a lot of control to the bigots over the decades, which is why bigotry is in their platform and why no office holder is willing to risk taking this position publicly. But that doesn't mean that this amicus brief is insignificant, either to the Supreme Court or for what it says about the GOP.

Posted by Matt from Denver on February 28, 2013 at 8:32 AM

But, but! Clint Eastwood signed it.

Reading the comments over at breitbart makes me want to punch so many faces. Here's one beautiful example that sums up the bigotry AND the sexism:

Commenter 1: No rational human thinks it is normal for one man to screw another man and call it marriage.

Commenter 2: But two babes making out is super hot right bro?

Commenter 3: Depends on the babes.

Posted by Pick1 on February 28, 2013 at 8:53 AM

I made a similar comment about the Andrew posting a few days ago. Who cares when it is all out-of-power Republicans? They have almost zero influence or ability to create policy.

I'll be impressed when the people holding the GOP purse-strings sign on. Till then, same shit, different day.

Posted by debug on February 28, 2013 at 9:18 AM

There are only 2 people that I make a point of reading every day. Charlie and Dan. I am so fed up with Republican family, friends, acquaintances who claim not to be racists or homophobes, yet they continue to call themselves Repubs. Sorry, Matt (5) but organizations are what they do and what they officially stand for, not what individual members claim to believe. R's give their money and their votes to a Party that very loudly and proudly hates gays and blacks and browns. Their actions prove it every day. How does anyone of the least bit of integrity continue to call themselves a Repub while claiming not to support what the movers and shakers in the Party are doing? I call them cowards who are embarrassed to admit their true feelings. You can't belong to the Klan while protesting that you aren't a racist, you just happen to enjoy the company of racists.

Charlie got it spot on in this piece. The Republicans who signed this are trying to look better than they are and every right wing Justice on the Court knows it too. Where were these enlightened Repubs during their convention? I didn't see any of them challenging their Party's platform then.

Posted by kwodell on February 28, 2013 at 10:03 AM

Ileana Ros-Lehtinen counts as a pretty influential Republican (in office) Congresswoman. (I have her position on the issues like Honduras, but that is another story.)

Posted by LML on February 28, 2013 at 11:13 AM

Are you fucking kidding me Dan? You post and epic rant about what am asshole I am for calling your boy Sullivan bad names but never addressed the main point of my comment, namely that this brief was signed by NO currently elected Republicans because Republicans are basically pieces of shit and they wouldn't risk anything with the electorate. And now you post this piece likes it news to us? Yeah, some of us got it a couple of days ago but thanks anyway. Too bad you didn't!

Posted by SoapMacTavish on February 28, 2013 at 11:20 AM

@10 - Where is this rant of which you speak of? I'm curious as I must have missed it. Link, please.

Posted by madscntst on February 28, 2013 at 11:25 AM

It's in the comments on original thread about Sullivan's response to this brief from Tuesday. Post title is The Right to Choose Your Next-of-Kin. Not sure how to do a link, I'm old and stupid when it comes to the internets:)

Posted by SoapMacTavish on February 28, 2013 at 11:30 AM

Well, there is the whole "why not take yes for an answer?" thing that Dan is fond of.

Sure, this list of signers is largely bereft of current office-holders. And a cynic might conclude that they're posturing, that they aren't risking anything since they won't have to face a wrathful Republican electorate, and so forth.

Still, I think Sullivan's graciousness and optimism was more fitting than Pierce's cynicism. The arch of history is on the side of marriage equality, and everyone who wants to position him/herself on the right side of that debate should be welcomed.

"You didn't risk enough. You were a late-comer. You aren't prominent enough. The Republican platform still sucks. Most Republicans are still on the wrong side." Isn't that what Pierce is saying, in essence?

Sneering at allies is poor form.

Posted by Functional Atheist on February 28, 2013 at 11:34 AM

While it is true that the immediate impact of the brief (and its Republican signatures) on current policy is incredibly minimal, it is still a very significant and welcome sign that there is meaningful change around the corner. Even just 5 years ago, this would have been impossible.

Posted by pb1230 on February 28, 2013 at 11:44 AM

@12 - Found it, thank you. Interesting read. I sometimes find the comments section more informative than the original article.

Posted by madscntst on February 28, 2013 at 12:27 PM

@13 Is this your first awareness of Republicans? Their support of anything is about as solid as a fart inna hot skillet, as me old granny used to say. Here today and gone tomorrow. Plus they deny they ever supported such a thing in the first place. Allies are made of stronger stuff than you can find among that group of GOPers. You give them too much credit.

Posted by kwodell on February 28, 2013 at 3:01 PM

I'll take hopeful signs where I can find 'em.

Posted by OutInBumF on February 28, 2013 at 3:58 PM

@13 Clearly, an amicus brief is not nothing, but the problem is that a significant portion of the press is giving the Republican Party undeserved credit on the backs of these has-beens and never-wases.

You're basically telling us to ease up on KKK apologists who think that Clayton Bigsby is some sort of sign of the strides we've made towards equality.

Posted by Hey Calvin! It's a fine line between fries and shakes! on February 28, 2013 at 4:00 PM

@6, Maybe I'm being too nice here, but commentor 2 may have been being sarcastic in order to point out the ridiculousness of 1's comment.

Posted by Write or Wrong on February 28, 2013 at 9:01 PM

@19 oh, he was, but commenter 3 came in to really seal the deal.

Posted by Pick1 on March 1, 2013 at 3:29 PM

"Looking to earn extra cash online?
When you take a break , go and click some advertises and make some tasks, i use clixsens for 1 hour a day, and I earn about 100 dolars in first week.After you create an acount , invite some friends to join this.you will earn comission from their earnings.
The address is :
http://www.clixsense.com/?5244493
We will talk more on the site.You can ask me for help there.
Payments Via Check, Payza, PayPal and Liberty Reserve
PS: IT IS NOT A VIRUS"

Posted by Christian87 on March 28, 2013 at 5:37 AM