"A strong America must also value the institution of marriage. I believe we should respect individuals as we take a principled stand for one of the most fundamental, enduring institutions of our civilization."
"Our nation must defend the sanctity of marriage."
So said G.W. Bush in his State of the Union speech last night. It has been expected that Bush would try to make the issue of gay marriage work to his advantage somehow during his reelection campaign. Recent announcements, as well as his speech last night, make it clear that this is going to be done in two ways.
How best can this type of tactic be fought? I propose the invocation of the "Barney Frank Rule"; closeted Republican legislators should be "outed" if Bush's campoaign persists in using this type of divisive wedge issue in their campaign.
"A strong America must also value the institution of marriage. I believe we should respect individuals as we take a principled stand for one of the most fundamental, enduring institutions of our civilization."
"Our nation must defend the sanctity of marriage."
So said G.W. Bush in his State of the Union speech last night. It has been expected that Bush would try to make the issue of gay marriage work to his advantage somehow during his reelection campaign. Recent announcements, as well as his speech last night, make it clear that this is going to be done in two ways.
One approach is going to be the $1.5 billion dollar
"Healthy Marriages Initiative". This initiative actually serves two purposes. First, it is aimed at low-income couple, and will provide training to help them develop interpersonal skills that sustain healthy marriages. A form of blackmail, it effectively requires that those dependent on certain forms of Government assistance be legally married, since they are only eligible for it if they are in fact married. There may be rational reasons for wanting low-income couples to be married (e.g., poverty rates for single- versus multiple-parent families), and "semi-coercive" measures like this are nothing new, having been enacted in one form or another since the welfare reforms of the mid 90's. Bush's proposal more than doubles the amount of money available for these types of programs from around $700 million to the stated proposed amount of $1.5 billion.
The second purpose served by these programs becomes clear. Surely Rove and company must know, and expect, that inevitably in an election year the issue will arise of how to deal with gay marriages. Are gay couples to be eligible for the same types of benefits, especially if they have a marriage that is recognized by their State? Now, statistically speaking, the number of low-income, gay couples who are married is likely to be miniscule (even moreso if children are involved). There may in fact be no one this policy actually applies to in the entire country at the present time. But if the issue gets raised by gay-rights activists looking for some type of equity and equal treatment, Bush gets to tout the sanctity of traditional marriage. This potentially wins support among conservative Democrats who are uncomfortable with the idea of gay marriage, and puts Democrat candidates into a bind. If they support the status quo (meaning that gay couples are not eligible for the programs, even in States that recognize their marriage), they lose support from gays and sympathizers. If they challenge the status quo and publicly advocate making gay couple eligible for these types of programs, they lose the support of conservatives who might otherwise be tempted to vote for a Democratic candidate in the fall.
The second way in which the "gay-card" will be played by Republicans is more overt, and will come in the form of proposals to amend the constitution in such a way that gay marriage will become illegal. Bush as much as called for such a measure in last night's SOTU, and we can expect events such as
this to occur with increasing regularity over the course of the year. In fact, we can expect that Bush will beat this issue to death, since it may be effective for the same reasons just stated; Democrat candidates will be put on the defensive and will lose no matter which side they argue. It also has the fringe benefit of motivating the conservative base.
The question thus becomes how best to counter such tactics. The thing to keep in mind is that tactics like this aren't used by Republicans because they are necessarily driven by an antipathy towards gays. Many of them might be, but that is not the primary motivation. Rather, it is simply politics. Republicans believe that this is a winning issue for them, and they'll dangle the proposition of a constitutional amendment against gays in front of the more rapid zealots, and stoke the fires of fear in socially conservative moderates. But more likely than not, this issue will be immediately dropped after the election. It's a way to win, not a crusade.
What I propose is a variation of the Barney Frank rule. Recall that back in 1987, Republican's under Newt Gingrich initiated an infamous whisper campaign implying that Tom Foley was gay. Things got so out of hand that the openly gay Frank threatened to retaliate by publicly naming a number of closeted House Republican members. The rumors quickly stopped. The Frank rule says basically that "outing" of a closeted individual is acceptable only when the person in question is using a position of power and influence to engage in gay-bashing as a matter of politics or policy.
Using gay-marriage as a wedge issue in order to win an election certainly qualifies as such an instance in my opinion. Accordingly, I'll propose the following for discussion and consideration. If Republicans persist in pushing proposals that can only be interpreted as thinly-veiled forms of gay-bashing in order to win votes, should Democrats or anyone with insider knowledge threaten to "out" prominent closeted Republicans? Would this be effective, and would it be acceptable?
Regarding the issue of effectiveness, it's already proven that it will work, as was shown by Barney Franks in 1987. Of course, one shouldn't assume that Republicans don't mean what they say. If they talk about constitutional amendments banning gay marriage, they may actually end up doing it eventually. All the more reason to stop them. If they are driven by fanaticism and principle, threatening a few Republicans with "outing" won't matter to the Bush administration, and will not likely prevent them from pushing the issue of gay marriage. But if these "trial balloons" are merely a cynical way off manipulating public opinion in order to win an election (which I think is the case), I predict that this issue would very quickly be dropped by the Bush team when they are faced with threats of retaliation against closeted Republicans. At some point, someone will come to Bush and tell him that they've got 5 Senators and two dozen members of congress who are, to put it nicely, "unhappy" with the situation.
As far as fairness goes, again I see nothing wrong with exposing the hypocrisy of closeted Republican lawmakers who benefit from public campaigns that would seek to deprive other gays of their rights. When Republicans win elections, they win power, closeted or not. If there are Republican individuals in positions of power, then they should be "outed" if they support these types of policies, especially when a clear intent of proposing the measures to begin with is to win political power in the first place.
Should this type of tactic apply to anyone other than directly responsible individuals? For example, should staffers, family or associates be targeted as well? I'd say not, since they aren't the ones engaging in rank hypocrisy. But elected officials should be fair game, it seems to me. So I'll throw it out there. What do you think?