Remember the good old days of 2003-2006, when Republicans were all about defending marriage from the gays? Those were great times. The party was being led by its 'Christian' right-wing base and their efforts were paying off. Just about every Republican out there was voicing the concern that gays were going to destroy the sanctity of marriage, ruin the traditional institution of marriage, and even start thinking that they're capable of adopting kids if that happens.
These days, though, national Republicans aren't fighting so hard to save this nation's morality. One might start to wonder if they've just given up. Has the gay taken hold of both our national parties and destroyed America from within? Maybe. Republicans are being downright nice to gays in their public speeches and private outreach. They've decided to downplay their fears about marriage and even acknowledge that gays are real people with real feelings. Who don't deserve to get married. But still. It's a step up from the "Save Our Children" campaign.
In fact, here's Newt Gingrich as late as 2010 on gay marriage:
"Judge Walker's ruling overturning Prop 8 is an outrageous disrespect for our Constitution and for the majority of people of the United States who believe marriage is the union of husband and wife. In every state of the union from California to Maine to Georgia, where the people have had a chance to vote they've affirmed that marriage is the union of one man and one woman. Congress now has the responsibility to act immediately to reaffirm marriage as a union of one man and one woman as our national policy. Today’s notorious decision also underscores the importance of the Senate vote tomorrow on the nomination of Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court because judges who oppose the American people are a growing threat to our society."
Outrageous. A growing threat. Congress should immediately rectify the situation. Sounds ominous, right? Clearly this was a dire situation. The gays were going to destroy everything. And this was his rhetoric in 2010. In 2006 I would imagine it was worse. So, what's the deal with his comments yesterday:
VAN SUSTEREN: So cutting to the chase, you're opposed to gay marriage, because that's essentially what this issue was about.
GINGRICH: Well, I'm very strongly in support of marriage being between a man and woman, which is what it has historically always been. And I -- but beyond that, I'm very strongly opposed to courts on many topics, not just on issues of marriage, but on many topics, we've been in a cycle where judges decide they will rewrite the constitution based on their whim. I think that's wrong. I think it's constitutionally wrong.
And I think that it represents an abuse of power by judges. And Iowa was an opportunity to start sending a signal that we need a national debate. I mean, the 9th circuit court is consistently wrong. It's overturned more than all the other courts. And I think we ought to recognize that when you have judges who are consistently wrong, they shouldn't be there.
'Well, you see, I oppose lots of stuff and things, really you shouldn't even pay much attention to my opposition to same sex marriage, ya know, cuz, there's lotsa stuff out there to be against. And now ask me something about something else please so I don't have to keep talking about this.' There's no urgency at all in that. It was just another thing on his platform. We're not all going to die in an apocalyptic gay firebombing I guess. And I guess we don't even need Congress to act on this immediately. (Though Gingrich does support Boehner in defending DOMA and thinks the president should be impeached for a blatantly political decision, or something. But he didn't mention that in the interview.)
Speaking of Boehner, here's his rather nice statement on DOMA:
"I will convene a meeting of the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group for the purpose of initiating action by the House to defend this law of the United States, which was enacted by a bipartisan vote in Congress and signed by President Bill Clinton. It is regrettable that the Obama Administration has opened this divisive issue at a time when Americans want their leaders to focus on jobs and the challenges facing our economy. The constitutionality of this law should be determined by the courts — not by the president unilaterally — and this action by the House will ensure the matter is addressed in a manner consistent with our Constitution."
Wait, what? It's just regrettable that this horrendous affront to our very moral fabric is happening? It's just regrettable that the president is unilaterally changing the definition of our sacred tradition of man-wife marriages? Regrettable? And it's bad that it's happening at this time? So it's appropriate to do this at a different time? Changing the definition of marriage is fine... next month when the economy is better? So we'll all have jobs but Satan will roam the earth and make us all have buttsex with each other. Well, okay. Way to defend the country.
At least though, he personally supports the law, right? I mean he's willing to say it's constitutional right? It's necessary? We should keep marriage the way it is? Not cede any ground to the gays in this moral battle? Right? Right?
Apparently not. John Aravosis and others have pointed out the distinct lack of claims of constitutionality from Boehner and other Republicans. In fact the decision to even step in to defend the law came so late that many people are questioning the immediacy of the anti-gay rights fight:
The early statements by many prominent Republicans following the administration's DOMA decision were muted, prompting questionsover whether opposition to gay marriage had faded as an issue for the GOP base. However, Boehner told CBN that House members have been discussing their options and will make a decision on how to proceed by the end of the week.
They of course decided outright to avoid a House floor debate and vote on the issue and appoint a group to decide if they should defend the law. This was a convenient way of avoiding any direct statements on the issue.
Back when gays were compared to box turtles things were so much easier. In those days, even the president thought the end of civilization and matrimony was near:
"We stand for institutions like marriage and family which are the foundations of our society," he said, drawing thunderous applause from the partisan crowd. "We stand for judges who strictly and faithfully interpret the law, instead of legislating from the bench."
And even Bill Frist (presumably after watching hours of video footage) determined that marriage was about to be destroyed:
Bush's stance against was echoed by Republican Sen. Bill Frist of Tennessee during debate. "Will activist judges not elected by the American people destroy the institution of marriage, or will the people protect marriage as the best way to raise children? My vote is with the people," said the majority leader.
But at least we have someone like Rick Santorum, who's running for president, to tell us, I guess while a frothing, white substance mixed with saliva spews out of his mouth, that gays can be compared to man-on-dog relationships:
AP: OK, without being too gory or graphic, so if somebody is homosexual, you would argue that they should not have sex?
SANTORUM: We have laws in states, like the one at the Supreme Court right now, that has sodomy laws and they were there for a purpose. Because, again, I would argue, they undermine the basic tenets of our society and the family. And if the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything. Does that undermine the fabric of our society? I would argue yes, it does. It all comes from, I would argue, this right to privacy that doesn't exist in my opinion in the United States Constitution, this right that was created, it was created in Griswold — Griswold was the contraceptive case — and abortion. And now we're just extending it out. And the further you extend it out, the more you — this freedom actually intervenes and affects the family. You say, well, it's my individual freedom. Yes, but it destroys the basic unit of our society because it condones behavior that's antithetical to strong healthy families. Whether it's polygamy, whether it's adultery, where it's sodomy, all of those things, are antithetical to a healthy, stable, traditional family.
Every society in the history of man has upheld the institution of marriage as a bond between a man and a woman. Why? Because society is based on one thing: that society is based on the future of the society. And that's what? Children. Monogamous relationships. In every society, the definition of marriage has not ever to my knowledge included homosexuality. That's not to pick on homosexuality. It's not, you know, man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be. It is one thing. And when you destroy that you have a dramatic impact on the quality —
AP: I'm sorry, I didn't think I was going to talk about "man on dog" with a United States senator, it's sort of freaking me out.
SANTORUM: And that's sort of where we are in today's world, unfortunately. The idea is that the state doesn't have rights to limit individuals' wants and passions. I disagree with that. I think we absolutely have rights because there are consequences to letting people live out whatever wants or passions they desire. And we're seeing it in our society.
Harsh! At least someone's willing to kick gays ar-...hey... what's that I see...?
Let me first define what we are not talking about. I believe if two adults of the same sex want to have a relationship that is their business. But when they ask society to give that relationship special recognition and privileges, then we should be able to have a rational debate about whether that is good public policy.
Wuh... wait... really? Are you sure? I mean, I'm all for doggy style but you want to rationally discuss this? We're in the midst of turtles and dogs trying to marry our men, and now is not the time to be rational. Indeed the president now opposes a law that prevents turtles and dogs from marrying men and wants to see it overturned in court. And the Republican Speaker of the House is defending it because it's constitut-... er because... well he didn't say, but it's important!
What is going on here? I mean, won't someone please think of the children?
What's the Republican party going to do after all to try to win the 2012 election? I mean with primaries beginning in Iowa and New Hampshire, what are they going to do to win independents- oh I think I understand what's going on now. Unfortunately for America, the downfall of our civilization is no longer a big deal because of some polling. After all this time, all the fighting, all the insults, all the propagating of stereotypes, this is ending with a whimper.
It would be fine to be used as pawns in a political game, I guess, if it were not for the fact that when we are discussed in such a hateful manner, hate crimes against us increase. When hate crimes committed against almost every other group were decreasing around the time of the marriage debate, antigay hate crimes were increasing. Hate crimes increased as much as 18% in 2006 alone. And none of the rhetoric that led directly to this was even real. They were faking it. Either that or they're faking it now and just trying to win based on polling. But it was at the very least not a deeply held conviction by most of these Republicans. It wasn't important.
This isn't really comforting to gays even now, as gay rights debates continue. In the middle of the DADT debate, articles were exclaiming that the GOP was quietly trending toward support of gay rights. Those of us who pay attention laughed it off. When the GOP in the House and Senate largely oppose a bill to let gay people serve openly in the military, something nearly all Americans have supported for a long time, and they opposed it so much that they openly said it would lead to more deaths and amputations, the GOP very obviously does not 'support' gay rights. They don't care either way - it's a campaign issue.
But this is reality and it's 2011. Many independents would be turned off if the GOP comes out in full-throated opposition to gay rights and gay marriage during the presidential campaign season. Many moderate Republicans would probably even want to focus on jobs and the economy and not a pointless quest to hurt a small minority. So, the GOP will now be really nice, or really quiet, when it comes to gays. But we remember.