Young Conservatives and Log Cabin Republicans full page ad in the Tampa Tribune today.
It isn't only the Democratic National Committee that is
getting in the Republican's faces about their policy shortcomings. A group of conservatives including Young Conservatives for the Freedom to Marry and the Log Cabin Republicans have taken out a full-page ad in the
Tampa Tribune challenging the Republican's party's conventional wisdom on the issue of freedom to marry for LGBT couples.
The ad reads:
“The Institution of marriage is the foundation of civil society. Its success as an institution will determine our success as a nation."
Tony Perkins, Family Research Council, GOP Platform
We agree. That's why Log Cabin Republicans and Young Conservatives for the Freedom to Marry believe that government should stop denying marriage licenses to committed gay and lesbian families. As conservatives, we believe that the freedom to marry is directly in line with the core ideals and principles of the Republican Party. Family values means valuing ALL families.
I actually really love the tagline:
"Family values means valuing ALL families." It's always a good strategy to cleverly appropriate your opponent's favorite talking points.
Huffington Post has more:
From the convention center in Tampa, Fla., where the Republicans are holding their national convention this week, Sarah Longwell of the Young Conservatives for the Freedom to Marry explained the motivation behind the ad.
"We took out the ad because we believe marriage is an important institution," Longwell, who aided in drafting the ad, told The Huffington Post. "In fact it's so vital we want to help strengthen it. Tony Perkins is right -- he's just not right about excluding us."
R. Clarke Cooper, the head of the Log Cabin Republicans who also contributed to the drafting of the ad, joked, "It was a collaboration between the [two] groups -- a much easier drafting process than the platform."
Ultimately they are right. Marriage is a conservative goal for the LGBT rights movement to be pursuing. Dan Savage recently made the point in his debate with Brian Brown, how for years the far right said marriage was inappropriate for gay relationships, because gays were just too flighty and fickle and decadent to know what real commitment looks like.
And now, we know there are many couples who have made decades-long commitments. There are couples who stuck by one another through richer and poor, sickness and health There are couples like Edie Windsor and Thea Spyer, and all they want is legal recognition of their relationships, but they're told they can't enjoy the support of their government. This just doesn't make any sense.
Which I suppose, is the whole point of being a Republican these days, to decouple yourself from common sense and rational thought.
Rationally, there is a simple math problem for them to solve. The youth just don't share their anti-gay animus. And, like their animus to immigration reform, it presents a long-term demographic problem. The future majority is brown and supportive of LGBT rights, GOP. Get with the program or get left behind.
So, are Republicans totally immune to evolution?
After the fold, a Republican Senator from a conservative state already seems to have evolved.
Sen. Orrin Hatch
Coincidentally, Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT) made some marriage equality evolution news today. He was gracious enough to appear on LGBT activist/journalist Michelangelo Signorile's radio show yesterday. Hatch announced despite having voted for it in the past,
he would not be voting for the Federal Marriage Amendment again should he be called upon to do so. He explained he still opposed marriage equality, but felt it was a state issue.
Hatch said, "I haven't even considered" the idea of amendment at this point in time. "I'm a believer that the states should be able to make their own determination... I believe in the sanctity of the marriage covenant and the traditional definition, but the states have a right to [recognize same-sex marriage]."
It's kind of interesting that these Federalist principles didn't occur to Hatch when he voted for it in June of 2006. But, I'm glad he's apparently had time to arrive at a more thoughtful position. Hatch does deserve credit for being an early proponent for AIDS funding in the 1980s, when most of his DC colleagues were apathetic to the epidemic. As a senior Republican member of the Senate, and a Mormon from a conservative state, Hatch's jumping ship is actually a pretty big hit to the Fundamentalist Christian's goal of ever passing such an amendment. If the movement has lost Orrin Hatch, it can only be seen as fringe goal.
What I also found interesting is Hatch doesn't even know his own party nominee's position on the Federal Marriage Amendment:
Told that Romney supports a federal marriage amendment, which would take away the rights of states to enact marriage equality, Hatch said, "I've never heard that -- never heard him say that. I don't think that's his position. But I don't know."
Yep. It's true.
Romney signed a pledge to pass the Federal Marriage Amendment. (Ron Paul and Jon Huntsmen were the only GOP candidates not to sign the extremist National Organization for Marriage's pledge.) The pledge also promised to rescind marriage equality in Washington, DC among other anti-gay goals outlined.
Ah..."getting to know you..." It's like the theme song Republicans are still singing about their nominee. Yes, Romney really is that extreme.
Or at least, in the past, Romney promised the party extremists he would be extreme. To be fair, with Romney it doesn't appear past or present policy positions are really any indication of future policy positions. He might Etch-A-Sketch between now and the next time the Amendment comes up again. Who really knows?