Rick Perry: "Obviously gay marriage is not fine with me."

By Michael J.W. Stickings

A-flipping and a-flopping goes Texas governor, right-wing evangelical theocrat, and possible contender for the 2012 GOP presidential nomination Rick Perry.

Is it okay for states to legalize same-sex marriage or not?

Apparently it was not so long ago, when he was pushing states' rights, but now, eyeing the White House and in need of support from the religious right, he's come out in support of federal action:

So much for states' rights.

Texas Governor Rick Perry (R), one of the country's most prominent defenders of the 10th Amendment, is making an exception when it comes to gay marriage. After initially telling reporters that it's "fine with me" if states like New York legalize same-sex unions through their own legislature, Perry is pulling a 180 and calling for a Federal Marriage Amendment.

Perry, who is flirting with a presidential bid, clarified his position to Family Research Council president Tony Perkins in an interview.

"I probably needed to add a few words after that 'it's fine with me' and that it's fine with me that a state is using their sovereign rights to decide an issue," he said. "Obviously gay marriage is not fine with me. My stance hasn't changed."

Well, no, it has. His personal stance may not have changed -- he's against same-sex marriage and, if it were up to him, there wouldn't be any -- but his political stance has -- he thinks there should be a federal ban that denies states the right to legalize it on their own.

As Joe explains: "This is just more evidence of how the dominionists are forcing the GOP presidential field to conform to their vision of a Christian theocracy." 

Good times.

(photo)

Michele Bachmann signs anti-gay, anti-porn pledge

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Michele Bachmann has risen to the #2 in the Republican presidential field, behind Mitt Romney. Can she actually win the nomination? Yes, particularly if it comes down to a one-on-one against Romney and she manages to secure both Tea Party and "social conservative support" from the grassroots base.

But the question is how she gets there.

While she's certainly crazy, in terms of advocating extremist positions on a wide variety of issues and advancing ridiculous conspiracy theories, the only way she can defeat Romney and whoever else might challenge seriously for the nomination (e.g., Rick Perry, who would eat into her support from social conservatives) is to appear to be not crazy, or at least much less crazy than she really is. This is why she's recently been in walk-back mode, distancing herself from her own views and assertions in order to present herself as a viable presidential possibility, that is, as sane.

But she can only walk back so much. She's still a Tea Party darling and, lest we forget, a rampaging social conservative, and while she needs to appear to be less crazy she also needs to continues to stress her right-wing bona fides in order not to lose her core support, particularly if someone like Perry gets in the race. And, of course, she is what she is. It's as simple as that. She can't run away from herself altogether.

And stress her bona fides she did:

Michele Bachmann became the first presidential candidate to sign a pledge, vowing to support a constitutional amendment that defines marriage between a man and a woman, and which calls for a ban on all pornography.

"The Marriage Vow – A Declaration of Dependence upon Marriage and Family," sponsored by the Family Leader, an Iowa-based conservative organization, equates same-sex marriage with bigamy and polygamy and calls on candidates to promise to be faithful to their spouses.

Etc., etc. In other words, right-wing evangelical theocracy, just the sort of thing you'd expect from her, along with her anti-government Tea Party views. There is undeniable inconsistency here, of course. How is it possible to combine theocracy with the sort of libertarianism that prevails among Teabaggers? Well, it doesn't matter, and it needn't make all any sense, not as she aggressively courts multiple Republican constituencies. She can talk about small government and the Tenth Amendment while also pushing for an activist, bigoted government regulating morality, a government that leaves our money alone while closely monitoring what we do in our bedrooms or in front of our computers or televisions. Maybe that makes some sort of distorted sense way out on the right. It probably does. Republicans are full of inconsistencies. Bachmann is hardly alone there.

But how would this sort of thing play out in a general election. Not well. While Bachmann may win much of the extremist GOP base, there's no way independents or even many establishment-minded Republicans would ever support her, and this ridiculous pledge just makes matters worse for her in that regard. Which is why she'll need to keep walking back and walking back so much of what she has stood for in the past. Who knows, she might even have to walk this back in the not-so-distant future. Anti-gay bigotry plays well in the GOP, after all, but are Americans really prepared to give up their porn?

**********

Oh, by the way, the pledge also states that black children were better off under slavery than they are now:

Slavery had a disastrous impact on African-American families, yet sadly a child born into slavery in 1860 was more likely to be raised by his mother and father in a two-parent household than was an African-American baby born after the election of the USA's first African-American President.

This is appallingly ignorant even by conservative standards.

But Bachmann signed the pledge, so she must believe it. One hopes that the media question her about it and refuse to let her brush it aside.

Michele Bachmann bobs and weaves on same-sex marriage, sort of

By Richard K. Barry

Though it makes me very uncomfortable to say this, I continue to be grudgingly impressed by Michele Bachmann. I have no doubt that she is a nut-job right-winger. I am certain that if she got anywhere near the presidency, she would be a disaster for the country, yet her comments on New York's decision to sanction same-sex marriage are interesting.

In essence, she played the state's rights card.

In an interview with Fox News Sunday host Chris Wallace, she said that despite her view that marriage should be between a man and a woman, she supports New York's right to institute marriage equality because under the 10th Amendment, the states have the right to do so.

BACHMANN: In New York state, they have passed the law at the legislative level, and, under the 10th Amendment, the states have the right to set the laws that they want to set.

WALLACE: So even though you oppose it, then it's ok from - your point of view - for New York to say that same-sex marriage is legal.

BACHMANN: That is up to the people of New York. I think that it's best to allow the people to decide this issue. I think it's best if there is an amendment on the ballot, where the people can weigh in.

WALLACE: But you would agree, if it's passed by the state legislature and signed by the governor then it's the state's position.

BACHMANN: It's state law. And the 10th Amendment reserves the right the states.

As ThinkProgress points out:

Bachmann's position is notable given the large number of politically active anti-LGBT activists and Republican lawmakers across the country that would likely let their opposition to equality trump their belief in state's rights. Bachmann later said, however, that she would prefer a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman, but that before such an amendment was enacted, the states should be free to do as they wish.

What makes this clever on Bachmann's part is that, while few are going to doubt her real intention, she attempts to moderate it just enough to appeal to those who may not be particularly energized by the issue one way or the other or who might not like the ugliness of the homophobia that invariably accompanies opposition to same-sex marriage.

It also enables her to maintain her true position, which appeals to her base, while allowing her to sidestep protracted culture war arguments that can only take her and her party off the message that 'it's about the economy, stupid."

I'm not saying it's going to work, but the fact that she is thinking in these terms makes her, or her advisors, a lot smarter than stubborn social conservatives who will never bust through a certain ceiling of national support.

Certainly this is less important in the nomination race than in the general election, but making a serious run at the nomination surely also means cobbling together a coalition of supporters from both the hard-right and the pragmatic right of the Republican Party and Bachmann is at least showing that she gets that.

And if she's still around for the general election, at either the top or bottom of the ticket (God help us), she's got a way to talk about a very important social conservative issue that may not completely alienate swing voters.

Yeah, she's sucking and blowing at the same time, but is there really going to be any other way to get the GOP presidential nomination or for a Republican to get to the White House?

(Cross-posted to Lippmann's Ghost.)

New York State Republicans show Obama the way on same-sex marriage

By Richard K. Barry

I'm certainly proud of my home state of New York today, which voted yesterday to legalize same-sex marriage 33 to 29. The measure was able to pass because four members of the Republican majority joined all but one Democrat in the Senate to support the measure.

Of note were comments made by Sen. Mark Grisanti, a GOP freshman from Buffalo, who had been undecided saying that he could not deny anyone basic human rights. He continued by saying that "I apologize to those I offend. But I believe you can be wiser today than yesterday. I believe this state needs to provide equal rights and protection for all its residents."

In changing his vote, GOP Sen. Stephen Saland said that "while I understand that my vote will disappoint many, I also know that my vote is a vote of conscience. I am doing the right thing to support marriage equality."

The legislation was signed last night at 11:55 p.m. by Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo, and will go into effect in 30 days, which means that same-sex couples will be able to marry in New York by late July.

Currently five states allow same-sex marriage: Vermont, Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Vermont, as well at the District of Columbia.

There would appear to be no greater indication of a sea change on the issue than that only two years ago the New York State Senate, then controlled by Democrats, easily rejected the measure but now a Republican controlled Senate has passed it.

The difference, of course, is that Gov. Cuomo has made this a priority and used his significant resources and political capital to help make it happen.

Of great significance as well is that public opinion is changing. As the New York Times reports:

In 2004, according to a Quinnipiac poll, 37 percent of the state's residents supported allowing same-sex couples to wed. This year, 58 percent of them did.

Just in terms of the raw politics involved, New York is by far the largest state to have passed legislation to recognize same-sex marriage and, as the Times writes, "is home to a large, visible, and politically influential gay community." The implications are huge.

But dozens of other states have constitutional amendments or laws banning same-sex marriage and the issue is sure to be a part of the landscape in the culture wars that have been and will continue to define the 2012 election cycle.

Which, of course, brings us to President Obama, who addressed more than 600 donors at a fund-raiser on Thursday night of the LGBT Leadership Council Gala in New York City, many of whom probably thought they would hear something different from the President given recent reports of his "evolving stance" on marriage equality.

Alas, that was not to be, as he offered only mention of past accomplishments on same-sex equality without in fact getting close to adding marriage to the list.

I do understand politics and I understand that America is a big country with complex national political dynamics, but if Republican legislators can stand up and say that they have decided to support same-sex marriage simply because it is the right thing to do, then the man who promised to bring us hope for a better future should be able to do the same thing.

I'm getting a little tired of this act. When four GOP New York State Senators are out ahead of you, Mr. President, on issues of basic human rights, it's time to stop evolving and start acting. When Republicans decide that they must risk their own political future to do the right thing on something so fundamental, you might want to think again about your own position.

C'mon. Surprise us.

Below is a clip of Sen. Grisanti giving reasons for his changed vote.

(Cross-posted to Lippmann's Ghost.)

Is the Religious Right coming around on same-sex marriage?

By Michael J.W. Stickings

As Mother Jones is reporting, the theocratic, evangelical right may finally be realizing that it is losing its battle against marriage equality. As Jim Daly, president of James Dobson's Focus on the Family puts it:

We're winning the younger generation on abortion, at least in theory. What about same-sex marriage? We're losing on that one, especially among the 20- and 30-somethings: 65 to 70 percent of them favor same-sex marriage. I don't know if that's going to change with a little more age -- demographers would say probably not. We've probably lost that. I don't want to be extremist here, but I think we need to start calculating where we are in the culture.

They're not winning on abortion and they're certainly not winning on same-sex marriage.

Now, Daly certainly doesn't speak for the entirety of his movement, but "it can't help the anti-gay religious right to have such a prominent social conservative say that the crusade against gay marriage has essentially been lost and that it's time to accept that reality and move on." 

The Religious Right isn't coming around on same-sex marriage, certainly not, and I suspect that Daly won't find much agreement among his fellow Christianists. Still, it's somewhat encouraging that reality -- if not yet freedom, equality, and justice -- is breaking through into the darkness.

Gay marriage! In the Navy!

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Good riddance, DADT. Welcome aboard, same-sex marriage:

The military establishment, it appears, is willing to drag congressional Republicans kicking and screaming into the post-Don't Ask, Don't Tell era. The US Navy has authorized its chaplains to perform same-sex marriages on military bases in states that legally recognize such unions. That news came in a memo from the service's head chaplain (PDF), dated April 13:

Consistent with the tenets of his or her religious organization, a chaplain may officiate a same-sex, civil marriage: if it is conducted in accordance with a state that permits same-sex marriage or union; and if that chaplain is, according to the applicable state and local laws, otherwise fully certified to officiate that state’s marriages...if the base is located in a state where same-sex marriage is legal, then base facilities may normally be used to celebrate the marriage. This is true for purely religious services (e.g., a chaplain blessing a union) or a traditional wedding (e.g., a chaplain both blessing and conducting the ceremony).

The policy's unlikely to have a significant impact on gay or military communities: There's no naval base, for example, in Iowa, one of five states (along with the District of Columbia) that recognize same-sex marriages. And until the DADT repeal is certified by the Pentagon, no service members are likely to be hitching up at the Washington Navy Yard. Not only that, chaplains who disagree with gay marriage on theological grounds are under no obligation to perform the ceremonies, which shrinks the pool of willing wedding officiators to virtually nil.

No, but it's a start, and an extemely positive one. Republicans, bigoted or otherwise, aren't amused, of course, but the military, along with the rest of America, is slowly embracing equal rights for gays and lesbians, with retrograde conservative views becoming more and more the ugly relics of an ugly past.

Marriage equality is coming. And, with it, America, and its military, will be a much better place.