For the longest time, the Republican party relied upon the religious right to push it over the electoral finish line in presidential races. (See George W. Bush, 2004.) But the Supreme Court’s decision to let marriage equality sail along unchecked promises to unleash an epic battle within the GOP. If anything, the Court may have doomed the Republicans chances of winning back the White House in 2016.
Now it’s not like the GOP had a deep bench to begin with. It has no candidate of the stature of Hillary Clinton. Instead, it’s stuck with a bunch of retreads, like Mitt Romney and Jeb Bush, governors with no shortness of weaknesses, and senators whose ideas are either offensive or just plain crazy.
But now the party is on the brink of a civil war. And marriage equality is the GOP’s Fort Sumter.
One segment of the party knows that the GOP needs to get over itself and accept (if not embrace) marriage equality as a legal fact. This viewpoint is epitomized by Gov. Scott Walker of Wisconsin, who told reporters, “For us, it’s over” and who suggested that there was no point in trying to amend the U.S. Constitution to prohibit marriage equality. This from a man who supported a legal challenge to the state’s domestic partnership law.
How about we take this to the next level?
Our newsletter is like a refreshing cocktail (or mocktail) of LGBTQ+ entertainment and pop culture, served up with a side of eye-candy.
On the other side are the true believers, and they are making it abundantly clear that marriage equality is the hill they will die on and take the party with them if necessary. Ted Cruz is the loudest (and most obnoxious) among them, fueling the fires and his own presidential ambitions. “Unelected judges should not be imposing their policy preferences to subvert the considered judgments of democratically elected legislatures,” Cruz bellowed.
Cruz is not alone, though. Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, the down-home homophobe, is threatening to leave the Republican party altogether if it does not fight marriage equality with every fiber of its being.
“I am utterly exasperated with Republicans and the so-called leadership of the Republicans who have abdicated on this issue,” Huckleberry complained. “I’ll become an independent. I’ll start finding people that have guts to stand. I’m tired of this.”
The issue promises to play out in campaigns. The National Organization for Marriage is targeting Sen. Rob Portman of Ohio because of his support for marriage equality. (Portman came around after his son came out.)
NOM has the electoral firepower of a cap pistol these days. But the bigger issue is that the GOP stands a good chance of losing a chunk of what little base it has in national elections. And the frankly homophobic arguments of defenders of traditional marriage will further alienate the younger voters it needs to get if it’s ever to win back the White House.
The GOP is in no shape to come out victorious in this fight. It’s lost two presidential elections in a row, and it needs for the stars to align perfectly if it’s to ever to win in 2016. This fight guarantees the stars will not align, particularly if the Supreme Court decides it needs to revisit marriage equality in time to make it an issue in the 2016 election.
The Cruz/Huckabee/NOM wing of the party prizes ideological purity over reality, and they will force an ugly debate on the party. Losing doesn’t bother them. If anything, they see electoral defeat as proof positive that the party isn’t conservative enough.
Ultimately, the pragmatists will have to win out. In the meantime, though, Republicans are in for a bloody war.
Photo credit: Americanvision.org.
LarsEighner
The Republican party’s position is of its own making. Having the foresight that marriage equality was coming, in many states Republicans froze straight-privilege marriage into their state constitutions while they still had a super majority on the issue. Now in almost all those states people who passionately support marriage equality with people who may not like it but who really do not care much one way or the other are in the majority. Republicans have made it impossible for states to evolve, and those who nail the flag of straight privilege to mast look sillier and sillier to the mass of really-don’t-care voters.
Trippy
Bloody war? Couldn’t happen to a nicer party.
The weird irony is that the Rep “base” has no idea just how non-plussed most DC Republicans are to marriage equality. Obviously there are true believers (Cruz, Huckabee, Bachmann) but a growing majority don’t really care and some never did. Men like Rand Paul, Jeb, Christie, Walker and others are just playing to their base while holding their collective noses and hoping the press doesn’t really notice.
Last week was an historic week for marriage equality (thank you SCOTUS!) and as a result, marriage equality finally came to the south. Yet for the most part, all I heard around here were crickets. If they were truly against equality, the party leaders (along with Rush, Hannity, Beck on the radio) would have been acting like rabid dogs all week. With only a few exceptions, we heard very little from them. The only thing any of them have chosen to talk about is ebola and ISIS. Marriage got only a passing mention, if that.
I think the writing is on the wall, so to speak. Their silence tells us that yes, the base is in for a big shock next year when Rep presidential candidates avoid marriage chat. A ton of them are going to sit home in 2016. Hillary should start measuring for new drapes… she and Bill will be moving into a new house soon.
DarkZephyr
After all the Republicans have done to suppress, oppress, castigate and hurt us through legislation, lies and fear mongering, I am mighty curious to see how they will play it when marriage equality is national. They fought, attacked and hurt our families for decades. There is NO WAY they can pretend they are our friends.
@Trippy: Sounds like they will be returning to their old house.
tdx3fan
At the end of the day, voters always vote in their best self interests. That means that the Republicans actually stand to gain more votes if marriage equality is legalized. The fundies can make all the noise they want, but as long as the abortion issue is used as a way to garner their support they will stand with the Republicans.
The vast majority of centrists will stand with Republicans because Republicans offer a better deal in terms of taxes and actually governing (unless you think Obama has done anything for this nation other than mess it up… which puts you in the minority).
White gay men will start to vote Republican because when you have that level of disposable income and make 6 figure salaries you tend to vote for the people that do not want to raise your taxes in order to give handouts to welfare moms.
Also, this country has a very, very short memory and normally bases its vote on what the person in front of them is currently telling them instead of the past (period). Therefore, the next election will come down to some bleeding heart liberal who wants to raise taxes on the people that actually work for a living to give money over to those who do not, and without gay marriage on the table at all, a great deal of gay males will become Republican in the next election.
Trippy
@tdx3fan:
“[A] great deal of gay males will become Republican in the next election” might be a bit of a stretch, but I would agree with you on some level. The uber-rich gays (ie: Hollywood types) won’t vote their pocketbooks because they have talented accountants who know how to minimize their tax debt regardless of the current rates, but I could see SOME upper-middle class gays voting GOP if tax rates is a major issue in 2016. With that said, it’s probably too early to expect large numbers of gays and lesbians to vote GOP so soon after the marriage battles, which could still be very active in 2016. Your scenario makes more sense if applied to 2020 or 2024, but only if the Repub’s are running candidates without the stains of the marriage wars still on their clothing. I just don’t see LGBT voters EVER warming up to the likes of Ted Cruz.
Paul Nadolski
I hate to break it to you, but Hillary, who will be the Democratic nominee in 2016, has ZERO chance of being elected. Qualified though she may be, after the miserable failure of the Obama presidency, combined with the fact that this country will NOT elect a woman to the Presidency, basically guarantees a Republican President on January 20, 2017.
Trippy
@Paul Nadolski:
I respect your opinion and acknowledge that any woman would have a difficult time winning the presidency in 2016, but I said the same thing in 2008 about BHO, and the public proved me wrong (thank god, because just imagine what our world would be like today with Palin on the stage).
Ultimately, it won’t be about Hillary… it will be about the Republican alternative to Hillary. If they nominate Cruz or some other Bible-clutching loon, Hillary wins in a walk. If, however, they re-nominate Romney or go with someone from the Walker-Paul-JBush wing of the party, then Hillary will have a bigger challenge.
Dakotahgeo
@Trippy: I agree with you 100%! The GOTP has no one to run who will win 2016. @tdx3fan: You are truly living in Lala Land if you think the nation (outside of the brain-dead GOTPers) will go back to the days of GWBunnypants, Esq.! The next President (Hilary, obviously) will still be cleaning up the messes of 2000-2008, while trying and succeeding to pave a continuing path for our country’s future. Don’t forget, Cruz is a Canadian born citizen, thus, no Presidential gateway for him. What he can do as a Representative or Senator, he cannot do as a faux President! Read it and weep!
Dakotahgeo
@Dakotahgeo: *Hillary….
BJ McFrisky
It’s true, the GOP is imploding over gay marriage (I’m hoping they’ll simply pass it and move on), but have none of you paid attention to current polls? Virtually all political outlets predict that the GOP has a 94% chance of taking the house and senate this fall, which doesn’t bode well for liberal causes.
And as for Hillary’s 2016 chances? She’s a fat, old, conspiracy-minded hypocrite who avoids personal responsibility and the truth at every turn. Not to mention that her popularity is already on the wane as Liz Warren’s increases—a full 2 years before the election. Good luck with reversing that.
Good day.
tr6886
Are you gays idiot?
USSC has not ruled marriage, so why do you feel so passionate that USSC won’t rule against gays? If next president is GOP, he can easily tip the balance by electing one more scalia. What Christians need to do is to appeal one ruling to USSC to rule against gays. Don’t believe what I just say? You can go to conservative forum, and they have passionate that if next president is GOP, one more conservative judge will be sent to USSC so that both marriage and abortion will be overturned.
erikwm
@tr6886: You don’t understand our laws or speak English very well.
First, it’s SCOTUS — Supreme Court of the United States — not USSC.
Second, it’s a foregone conclusion that Anthony Kennedy, the swing vote on SCOTUS, will vote with the liberals on any gay case. He has never supported a legislative law that restricts the rights of gays and lesbians. He has written 3 historic gay rights decisions, including last year’s Windsor decision.
Third, you need to have legal standing to bring a civil case. That is, you need to prove harm. Those opposed to same-sex marriage can’t sue a state that has it in an attempt to overturn it. They’d have no standing in court. Once the bans are struck down, for those opposed to equality to get a case back to SCOTUS, they’d have to pass another law banning same-sex marriage. Considering how societal opinion has shifted, that would be difficult and unlikely to be embraced by the Republican Party.
Cam
@BJ McFrisky: said… “It’s true, the GOP is imploding over gay marriage (I’m hoping they’ll simply pass it and move on), but have none of you paid attention to current polls? Virtually all political outlets predict that the GOP has a 94% chance of taking the house and senate this fall, which doesn’t bode well for liberal causes.”
______________________
BJ, whenever I think that you are actually a true believer in what you say you do something to remind me that this is not the case.
The highest current number I have seen for the GOP taking the just the Senate is 57%.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/interactives/senate-forecast/
Additionally candidates that were once Shoe in’s such as Mitch McConnell are not behind, as he has been in the last 3 polls.
The ONLY place that has posted anything like the number you say (94%) is the Election Lab, and they have said that any virtually state where the GOP is ahead in the polls even if it is in the margin of error they GOP has been given a 99% chance of taking that state. For example, they said that South Dakota is 99% sure to elect the republican even though in the latest GOP poll the democrat was within the margin of error.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/harper-polling-south-dakota-senate-oct-13
So again, nice try.
CoachS
@tdx3fan: Thank you for making those comments. I am always bamboozled as to why members of the gay community blindly revert to Democrat candidates. (I am equally bamboozled as to why anyone blindly supports Republican candidates too). What really bothers me about the former, though, is that somehow I am “not gay enough” if I vote based on keeping my money and my freedoms. I don’t want to pay higher taxes, I don’t want a weakened military, I don’t want to give up my guns, I don’t want to support bloated government and I don’t want to genuflect at the altar of political correctness.
That said, I do not always vote Republican. I am a registered Independent and I study the candidates and their positions. I could not… and would not… vote for a guy like Ted Cruz. I cannot stand the ideological purists and find it laughable that any of them believe that the GOP’s recent losses are indicative of the Party not being “pure enough”. I support marriage equality groups (though I live in Massachusetts where we’ve had it since “the beginning”)and marriage equality candidates… but not at the expense of those other things. The fact that I am attracted to men is only a small part of who I am. Why should it be 100% of how I vote?
As for POTUS 2016 – I was unaware that the Clintons were the darlings of the gay community (doesn’t anyone remember the DODT debate). In 2012 I supported Jon Huntsman. I’d take him over Hillary any day.
BJ McFrisky
@Cam: Won’t read or respond to your comments, never will.
Cam
@BJ McFrisky:
Because you cannot. I pointed out your lie quite clearly. But at least now you are admitting that you cannot defend your positions rather than just trying to change the topic.
Interesting though how your comments always come down to defending anybody anti-gay.
Saint Law
@tdx3fan: “The vast majority of centrists”. I suppose when comparing yourself to an actual fascist you can kid yourself you’re a moderate. To the rest of us you appear as you are – a far right loon.
“white gay men…wah wah a wah…six figure incomes…a wah wah…single moms on welfare.”
Hmm. Tough call. A bunch of vain, whiney white financiers and ad executives or lone parents raising children?
Well, the latter has the virtue of contributing something to humanity. Who would miss the former were they not here parasitically sucking their host society’s resources, time and, of course, attention?
Saint Law
@CoachS: “The fact that I am attracted to men is only a small part of who I am.”
So you’re a conservative and under-endowed. What else is new?
DarkZephyr
@CoachS: ” The fact that I am attracted to men is only a small part of who I am.” So in other words, you are single? There is no way that anyone who is happily paired up with the love of their life would say something like that.
CoachS
@Saint Law: I would normally take your comment to be an attempt at humour but given your response to @tdx3fan above, I am assuming that it is simply a childish attack. You apparently believe that “centrist” is about a click to the right of Communist and that anyone who disagrees with you is “a loon”. Endowment comments should remain the purview of middle schoolers and those with no cogent retort. I will expect your upcoming “I know you are but what am I” missive with baited breath. Maybe you could just quiet down now and let the adults discuss politics. Mmmkay?
CoachS
@DarkZephyr: I’m confused. I do love someone. And BECAUSE of that I am quite certain that it is the opposite. You see, I don’t love him because I’m gay. I was created gay so that I COULD love him. I thank the universe for that opportunity every day… but I have not abdicated my other interests to dote on him. In fact, the reason I find him so loveable has nothing to do with his looks (or his endowment @Saint Law). To the contrary – it is our shared interests and goals that make me love him beyond love.
Desert Boy
Mitt Romney is not running. Ann Romney is in poor health and said yesterday there will be no third attempt to become president.
As for Jeb Bush, much of the country still have severe Bush-fatigue. The thought of another one in the White House is simply too much to swallow.
As for the passengers in the GOP Clown Car: Ted Cruz, Krispie Kreme, Randy Paul or yikes, even Mama Grifter, ah, no, no, no and no.
It looks like Hillary Clinton will be the Democratic nominee. I know most gays get all weak-kneed when her name comes up but, I am very troubled by her lack of judgement in voting for authorizing the Iraq war. She should’ve known better, like Ted Kennedy, Barack Obama, Patrick Leahy and Carl Levin. Her “YES” vote shows me a lack of character and poor judgement.
Cam
@CoachS:
Semantics. He is important in your life, and you are with him rather than a woman because you are gay.
CoachS
@Cam: No question… but the fact that we are gay is simply a part of that relationship too. I love him for all of the other reasons. The fact that he is also a man is tangential to the equation, so for the previous commenter to say that my homosexuality would become THE defining aspect of my being if I loved someone – well… in my case… that’s incorrect. I have no issue with others who make it their defining characteristic, but I’d like it if others would extend the same courtesy to me.
Harley
I would have to say that as long as the Republican Party has a choke collar on, being held by sky monster worshipers, they will never enter the 20th century, much less the 21st. World history demonstrated what it was like to have religion for government. It was called the Dark Ages. Stonings, witch burnings, inquisitions, etc. As far as taxes, regardless if one is dem or repub, middle class will always pay more than their far share. Tax cuts go to the super wealthy and is centered around capital gains, not salaries. Mitt Romney paid an effective tax rate of 9% on his capital gains and then squirreled away millions in Swiss bank accounts to avoid paying taxes. Is that really someone we need as president?
SteveDenver
Phuckabee, Phuckleberry, PHUCK-EM-ALL
It would be wonderful if gays and our “issues” were the demise of the GOP.
DarkZephyr
@CoachS: “You see, I don’t love him because I’m gay. I was created gay so that I COULD love him.”
So if you weren’t gay you couldn’t love him? I rest my case. Being gay is NOT just a teeny tiny part of who we are. All of your other words about politics and other interests is gratuitous to our dialogue. I have had nothing to say about those things (and I never said a word about “abdicating” your other interests). My one issue with your post is your assertion that being gay is just a tiny little insignificant blip in the grand scheme of who we are. Its not. A gay man can acknowledge the *fact* that being gay is not insignificant to who we are and still have more than one political goal, more than one type of interest. No abdication necessary. for my part, I happen to be pro-life. I have not “abdicated” this position by recognizing what a significant role being gay plays in my makeup as a human person.
I will ignore the religious implications behind your words about being “created gay”, as religion is irrelevant to me.
DarkZephyr
@CoachS: Never said it would be come “THE defining aspect of your being”.
MarionPaige
Two things:
1. The legalization of Gay Marriage in states since George Bush rode Gay marriage to the White House have all been (as far as I can tell) by judicial action, not by public opinion. Other than these “my pro gay marriage poll is bigger than your pro gay marriage poll bullshit” there is absolutely nothing to show that there has been any shift whatsoever in public opinion on gay marriage. THE PROOF OF THIS is California. Public opinion in California (generally regarded as one of the (if not the) most liberal states) against gay marriage did not suddenly shift because of the Prop 8 lawsuit.
2. Whether or not she is or is not a candidate, George Bush’s election still serves as a warning to Democrats of how WILDING GAY MARRIAGE FAGs can help get a Republican elected president. And, Giuliani in New York is proof that Clinton is not just going to sit around on her ass waiting for a bunch of tired ass White Queens to try to get attention for themselves in another presidential election.
When it was clear that Clinton would run against Giuliani for Senate in New York, The Press was foaming at the mouth over the expected knock down drag out fight to come. WITHIN DAYS of Clinton setting foot in New York City there was a book about Giuliani’s convict father, him marrying his fucking cousin and all the other shit about Giuliani that the New York Press covered up during his eight years as Mayor.
The simple fact is that THERE IS A QUESTION MARK as to whether gay marriage can help or hurt the GOP. And, The Democrats on probably on alert that Gay Marriage can only hurt them (note: that The Federal Circuit is KNOWN to be packed with Republican appointed judges and it has been the Federal Circuit ruling for gay marriage – for some unknown reason).
The bottom line is that Gay Marriage Fuckwads would do best to find a nice little bunker to ride out the next election in because both the Republican Party and The Democratic Party have no reason to BE KIND to them. A Weapon that you can’t control is hardly a weapon of choice. PREDICTION: in one way or another Both The Democrats and The Republicans will see to it that a handfull of whilding White Queens won’t be a factor in the next presidential election
Trippy
@MarionPaige:
Uhm…. HUH?
james_in_cambridge
Forget gay marriage; the demographic changes in this country alone will decimate the GOP. Which is why the left is singing up every Hispanic they can in Texas and throughout the South. The reason the GOP is so desperate to win this year and in ’16 is because they know the clock is counting down on their existence as a national Party. At least they’ll always have Utah!
Cam
@MarionPaige: said… ” The legalization of Gay Marriage in states since George Bush rode Gay marriage to the White House have all been (as far as I can tell) by judicial action, not by public opinion.”
________________
As far as you can tell? Really? That’s funny because a simple 5 second Google search would have showed you that multiple states legalized marriage by legislative action or by popular vote. DC, New York, DC, Vermont, New Hampshire, Washington, etc… So I guess “As far as you can tell” really means “You’re going to lie here and hope nobody bothers to call you on it.”
Why is it that the typical anti-gay trolls come on here, lie and think that nobody will ever call them on it?
CoachS
@DarkZephyr: Sorry it took me a bit to respond. Work gets in the way of a good dialogue sometimes.
Actually the converse is true – were S a woman, with all of the requisite lady parts, I have a feeling that I would love him… err… her, just as much.
The words about politics are actually at the root of this conversation. They are far from gratuitous, though you are not necessarily the one saying that I have to abdicate my other positions. It WAS a post about the demise of the GOP and the rise of HRC (is there a coincidence in those initials? I smell a teaparty conspiracy). Many on here do vilify me for ever voting Republican, however.
As you allude to, there is not a “liberal” rider on the “gay gene” (though I am not a science guy). We are all free thinkers and can separate the two on any issue we want. What I am saying is that my being gay is not a determining factor in anything in my life (other than who I sleep with). I’m one of those guys who is looking for normalcy rather than tolerance. The fact that I go to dinner and the movies and sporting events with a guy who I also may want to sleep with doesn’t change anyone else’s lives – so they get no opinion.
As for “created” – You can take it however you want… but I didn’t really mean it in the religious sense. I meant it more in the scientific “melding of egg and sperm” sense. There was an original “creation” whether you believe it came from the magical heavens above or the long odds of the primordial ooze.