Organizers for this year's Conservative Political Action Conference, as they've done in the past, made a deliberate decision to prohibit Republican groups advocating gay rights from participating in the event. On the main stage, attendees saw notable GOP leaders like Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) proclaim that his desire to discriminate against LGBT Americans does not make him a "bigot."
But away from the speakers and organizers, it was clear to many that the marriage debate is effectively over, the right has lost, and even CPAC activists no longer seem to care.
Consider the results of the new Washington Post/ABC News poll.
I put together this chart to show the trajectory over the last decade, and the trend line isn't exactly subtle.
But the closer one looks at the results, the more striking they are. Among Americans aged 18 to 29, support for marriage equality is 81%, which reinforces the simple fact that opponents are not only fighting against social progress, they're also fighting a losing battle against a calendar that's indifferent to their culture war.
Indeed, even among white evangelicals protestants, 31% back marriage rights for same-sex couples, which may not sound especially impressive, but that total has more than quadrupled over the last decade.
Also note, history suggests movements on social progress rarely go backwards, and there's nothing to suggest opponents of marriage equality will suddenly reemerge and become the majority again. That trend line in the poll is only going to keep moving in a progressive direction, and there's not much Republicans can do about it.
At this point, the ideal solution for GOP officials would for the Supreme Court to simply rule in favor of same-sex marriage, end the debate, and take the issue out of the hands of politicians altogether.
Leave a Comment:
The Republican Party isn;t interested in doing anything but superficial media propaganda as part of their ballyhooed directional "makeover." This is a farce and an attempt to pull the proverbial wool over the eyes of an obedient press, ready to peddle stories about a "changed" GOP. Chairmen and rich donors and establishment types can speak of tolerance and a new agenda all they want. The core of the modern GOP has withered to nothing but the most extreme, radical, fanatical, racist elements of the nation;s political scum. A few glitzy TV ads is not going to help when the bulk of the party believes that our black president is a foreign-born terrorist agent, gay people are the biggest threat to America, and anyone with a Hispanic last name is an apologist for "illegals." - progressive
You need to see a therapist, make it a psychiatrist
pascoguy65
You need to see a therapist, make it a psychiatrist
*******************************************************
It is truly a hand of the divine to luxuriate the ease of those who put the muscle in Pater familias . With such a gnomic and breezy utterance one suspects you have the strength for more intriguing mysteries . Is this , or is this not , a cover from the Delphic Tones ?
Here come old flattop . He come grooving up slowly . He got ju-ju eyeballs . He's one holy roller .
The Tones who should be in town until someone recognizes the idea , throw them out , as a squeezy , but equal , entity to suffering the indignity of .
Those who bravely tread the treadsteps of the relentless celebrity of Delphic Tones mouthpiecing (DTMP) should heed cautions , Aesop was framed .
Arrivederci ! Wishing the warmest place imaginable for your very own therapy ...
The GOP will come around. In 20 years, they will proudly tell you how they championed Marriage Equality, just like they advanced the Civil Rights Movement.
Conservative history is whatever you want it to be. All you have to do is wrap it up in a Flag, beat it with a Bible, and get Rush Limbaugh to tell people what to believe. And just like that, you're created a narrative.
For example:
And the south is not racist anymore, even though they still fly that flag and Ole Miss had to be sued to remove their southern plantation owner as their mascot!
To be fair, it was the Republican Party that Martin Luther King, Jr. belonged to and they were the party that did a majority of the civil rights advancements. At the time, the Democratic Party was "close" to the suppression of black people in our country. I couldn't believe it either....even spent a long time looking it up and checking the facts. If the Republicans returned to that method of thinking, this country would be so much better off.
You sir are full of @!$%#. Martin Luther King Jr. had no political party affiliation. But he stated that he had always voted for Democrats before the 1956 POTUS election. He voted for JFK in 1960 and said had JFK not been assassinated he would have voted for him again. Here is the source for this
information. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther_King,_Jr.
Reading is fundamental and might keep from being just mental!!!
Then don't, because it's a ridiculously inaccurate assessment of history, and the impact of the short-lived Dixiecrat movement.
David, it's not worth getting upset about. After having just commented that Conservatives create their own historical narrative, this comment by Chase was either an example, or a fine case of irony.
"At the time, the Democratic Party was "close" to the suppression of black people in our country."
That is a big pile of El Toro Caca. Al Smith, a Dem who ran for president in the 1920's gathered enough votes to nearly push through a civil rights platform for the Dem party, but it failed by one vote. From that time forward, the Southern Dems kept pushing back against the party and were the first faction to pull away from Dems and Roosevelt. They dominated the Congress and party until the 1950's because they were a swing faction. After Eisenhower and Kennedy, they lost their influence as a swing faction. Then LBJ passed the CRA and the rest is history.
Many years ago, before the Age of Political Correctness, the circus came to town, and had something called a "Side Show". There the rubes could see the Tattooed Lady, the Siamese Twins, the Dog Faced Boy, and Little Egypt, who "slithered on her belly like a reptile."
Now we have CPAC each year, and you can't tell the freaks on stage from the ones buying the books and clapping their hands.
Note to Dems: Double down on the money for Dr. Dean's 50 state initiative!
Oh but Day , the circus still comes to town . I've seen the clown car pull up and disgorge a large collection at the event known as the Republican primary. I have high hopes the festivities will continue in 2016.
Oh, but the GOP takes itself very seriously. Republicans ears are stuffed with their own grandiose rhetoric, they can't hear anything other than their own self-sanctioned religion: more money, more power.
"the ideal solution for GOP officials would for the Supreme Court to simply rule in favor of same-sex marriage"
That would be nice but we'll be starting with three votes to uphold the ban...Thomas, Alito and Scalia. I'm not convinced there aren't two more votes in agreement, or, at least, that the court will conclude that the matter should be left to the states.
I agree. Everyone seems to think this would be a slam dunk for LGBT rights, but with this SCOTUS I would not be too sure.
I think it would bemore interesting to see the religious affiliation as well as the race of the individuals taking place in the poll. I find in my own contacts with people that it is RELIGION, not political party alliliation that has an effect on their views on gay marriage.
The Democrats have overwhelmingly controlled The General Assembly in Rhode Island since the 1950's, yet gay marriage can NOT pass there. Rhode Island is the most Catholic state in the union. I can only think there is a correlation there.
We are in a great track. Hopefully the Supreme's will decide in our favor so we can move on from this issue and lead our lives.
how ironic that Rhode Island - the place where people went whose religious ideas were too out there for the PURITANS, fercrissakes - is now rigidly Catholic.
Roger Williams and Anne Hutchinson sigh.
@PascoGuy
Doesn't appear that this WaPo poll has religious crosstabs....
Here's Pew's findings, with crosstabs for different religions, from Feb. 2012 [note the group most opposed to gay marriage is white evangelicals]
http://www.pewforum.org/Gay-Marriage-and-Homosexuality/Religion-and-Attitudes-Toward-Same-Sex-Marriage.aspx
Thanks for that Helen. I know there was a ballot initiative i worked against in 2008 in Florida (Amendment 2) that stated that marriage was Consitituationally defined as anything ONLY between a man and woman. After it passed, all the polls on the issue said that it was put over the top by evangelicals, specifically the un/under-educated black Baptists who were told by their preachers to vote for this amendment.
Like they did for abortion?
Perhaps. Sometimes social justice needs a shove into the room.
Ask Presidents Lincoln and Johnson about that.
Point being, how did that do in regards to defusing the political controversy?
See quote above about "ideal solution."
We know that answer, DC.
Social evolution is a funny thing. Issues can burn up and heal, or smolder and hope it goes out in time. Do you have the patience to allow change after your lifetime, and not during it?
If so, you're a better man than I. When I see a problem, I like to yell at it (or mock it) until my voice goes harsh. Not sure I can sit back and hope future generations don't suffer the same injustices.
And if I were a better man still, I'd do more, contribute more, participate more.
I'm not disagreeing with your preferred outcome nor your passion.
What I don't see is how this works for Republicans -- the ongoing controversy is hurting them, but a USSC decision might have the same effect on that controversy that Roe v. Wade did on the controversy over abortion: rather than settle it, it took a low-key disagreement and drove it to dominating judicial appointments and political alignment or forty years.
Also note, history suggests movements on social progress rarely go backwards
Unless it's about women's reproductive rights.
Realizing abortion is wrong is moving forward, not backwards. Reproductive Rights? That's the latest spin word on this? I guess if it helps you sleep at night.
Such small thinking, Eric. Is abortion really "wrong" in all cases? Would you really condemn a woman to death by forcing her to go through a pregnancy that would otherwise kill her? Is it really YOUR choice about who lives and dies in that situation?
Reproductive Rights encompasses a wide range of things other than "right to an abortion," including, but not limited to, access to profilatics and other birth control. Both men and women have interest in "Reproductive Rights," bro.
So, it's ok to bellow about preserving Constitutionally-protected rights such as owning a gun but it's just as ok to bellow about amending or reversing another Constitutionally-protected right, abortion. Ironic how the GOP has no problem cherry-picking which parts of the Constitution they will uphold. Sorry, but no uterus, no say.
I find it interesting that both lines reverse direction briefly as soon as Obama took office. I am wondering about the causality. Was it because of the initial spike in Obama Derangement Syndrome?
Doubtful. It's probably just a case of polling not being an exact science and there was simply a time when support/opposition was just about an even split. A polling expert would probably have a more definite answer, but that period's shifts are possibly just noise. Plus, Obama waffled on the question of equality until last year.
What happened in the middle of '06? The graph looks like there was an event that started the mind shift moving.
Lets hope the SCOTUS does whats right. This matter is very dear to my heart after watching what happens when a same sex partner has passed away. It is heart breaking watching your friend and her children mourn a lost of a parent/spouse. Its even harder when you have to watch a parent of her spouse make decisions that you know that person would not want but since they were "not married" even though they have lived as one with this person for 15 years and have children, a life and more they have no say. Btw children are now grown, very productive members of society and have started their own famlies. and dispite what one grandmother thought that "gay people raise gay children" they are both hextrosexual......I have to say though my husband did ask the grandma at what point did she decide to be straight and it shut her up.
So, what happened in July of 2006 that started the trend towards support?
More people came out. The resulting shift in public rejection of (often violent) repression of LGBT people led more of them to come out. Snowballs.
And let us all take a moment for the memory of Harvey Milk.
I am not a Libertarian, but on the same sex marriage issue, I can see their point. Why is government even involved with the marriage issue at all? Why not get rid of government interference and make the government involvement limited to the issuance of a civil union certificate for everyone? Then the marriage issue becomes mute. If you want to go on to get married, that is a choice where the couple and the institution (church, synagogue, etc) all need to be on the same page. If they are not the couple can choose a different institution. Sounds simple to me.
Scott: The government is involved, period. Benefits are at issue, as well as rights. The Libertarian message is rarely reality based...
I understand that government is involved, but let them issue civil union certificates for everyone. Just call it civil unions and not marriage. Marriage should just be between two people committed to each other. The civil union certificate would take care of the benefits and other legal issues. The marriage would be the emotional ties between the two people regardless of gender.
How many of those benefits require Government intervention outside of enforcement of mutually-agreed contracts?
D.C.: I am mostly referring to employer health and life insurance. Employers have enjoyed the disgusting traditional definition of "spouse" for far too long. By giving same sex couples full equal treatment, we will also end up reducing the amount of uninsured. Yes, we will need the government to step in, the tendency of business interests is to only look at the bottom line.
Never looked at this on a time line before. Its interesting to note that civil rights opposition is still so alive and persistent in 2013.
I believe this was the tipping point where the lines begin to trend in opposite directions:
"We declare that barring an individual from the protections, benefits and obligations of civil marriage solely because that person would marry a person of the same sex violates the Massachusetts constitution," Massachusetts State Supreme Chief Justice Margaret Marshall wrote in the 4-3 decision in November 2003.
That first spike in 2003 of opposition to that ruling was not not sustained. Cities across the US followed by making marriage certificates available for gay couples even though each was struck down by state courts, legislatures, and referendums. The effect was the overall opposition lost its grasp. Mainly because of the age factor.
As a teenager in the late 60s I was always struck by the generation gap and how young adults were forcing issues to change society on their terms. Witnessing how that shaping turned out in my late 50s I'm not surprised that this generation of young adults is tacking in a new direction to reshape change on their own terms. Terms I hope they understand won't fly with their young adults when they reach elder status.
I hope SCOTUS looks at the evidence and gets on the right side of history here. There is no "gay marriage" and "straight marriage", just "marriage".
Mr. Benen: If the SCOTUS does rule in favor of same sex marriage, it won't "take it out of the hands of the politicians" any more than Healthcare Reform. We will still have right wingers try to undermine...
Same-sex marriage, I believe, will be the subject that might divide the GOP presidential field in 2016. More so than the economy, foreign policy and even possibly abortion.
Within another year or two, the GOP will have always been in favor of marriage equality.
Not the evangelical base or the big employers...
I cannot imagine why you say big employers are against marriage equality when one of the briefs filed with SCOTUS in favor of equality was one jointly filed by nearly 300 companies and cities. Many of the companies are among the biggest in the country.
Now, of course, it's hard to imagine the religious right every coming around, but they don't really have to. We're not going to convince everyone, and they can be stubborn mule-headed idiots if they want to. The only real problem with these dead-enders is their efforts to redefine religious liberty as the freedom to discriminate.
Why do we plot lines when in reality, it's a bunch of dots inconsistently over time?
Because we live in a society in which a religious mode of thinking has taught people to shove the vast complexity of the natural world into tiny, vague to the point of irrelevant, psalms and parables. A vast majority of our nation's minds have not been genuinely challenged for generations. They possess no capacity to see complexity or the gigantic field of gray between their extremist black and white positions. This is the result of doing that to the minds of children.
I tend to agree with the points this article makes except for the one, paraphrased, that social progress tends not to backslide. In this case, I think we may be in more danger than normal of having public opinion reverse.
The concept of gay marriage being "bad" is intimately woven with standard religious doctrine in the US. Any scenario which leads people to embrace religion strongly can cause this attitude to gain sudden strength, especially a disaster. Terrorist attacks, potential super storm activity. Earth quakes on a massive scale (more likely than you may think, given some of the bizarre seismic behavior we've seen this past decade out in Yellow Stone).
My point being, don't turn your backs on these people and congratulate yourselves yet. Until there is a federal level law that forbids states to criminalize same sex marriages, AND provides the same level of protection to those who do marry, you have accomplished nothing and are on very shaky ground. Remember, the religious have an institutionalized meeting place which they go to weekly to hear propaganda and reaffirm each other's biggotry. That is a damned powerful networking force that can move with surprising silence.