Getty Images
The march towards marriage equality has taken some important steps forward recently, and with public attitudes quickly becoming more progressive, it's no longer a question of "if" the nation will do the right thing, but rather, "when."
Indeed, support for marriage equality is even becoming more bipartisan, slowly but surely, with Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio) joining a growing number of Republicans outside public office in support of same-sex marriage.
That said, progress among GOP officeholders remains terribly slow.
Support for gay marriage is picking up steam all over the country -- except on Capitol Hill.
Take Sen. Saxby Chambliss. When asked if his views had changed on gay marriage, the Georgia Republican quipped: "I'm not gay. So I'm not going to marry one."
Well, with logic like that, it's obvious our elected leaders are poised for a mature, high-minded debate about civil rights.
I mean, really. Saxby Chambliss opposes marriage rights because he's "not gay"? Does he realize that same-sex marriage would not require him to leave his wife and marry a man? Do Americans really have to wait for elected officials to actually be gay before marriage equality is a national reality?
In some ways, Chambliss' response is a counterweight of sorts to Portman's response. In the latter case, the Ohio Republican came around after learning that his son is gay and wanting him to have equal rights. In the former, the Georgia Republican isn't personally gay, so he doesn't see the need to extend equal rights to anyone else.
Of course, by this reasoning, Chambliss would be comfortable with discrimination against anyone who isn't a wealthy, white, Christian guy from the South.
The disconnect between inside-and-outside-the-Beltway attitudes comes at a thorny time, especially for Republicans. The party is trying to broaden its appeal to younger Americans -- who support gay marriage in large numbers -- as well as scores of new voting blocs. Some establishment figures have changed course, with Rob Portman last week becoming the first sitting GOP senator to endorse gay marriage, after learning that his son is gay. And the Republican National Committee, in a bluntly worded report detailing the GOP's political woes, called for the party to become more sensitive on the issue of gay rights.
But many lawmakers are changing their legislative tactics and toning down their public rhetoric -- rather than undergoing a sea change in their stances.
The piece quotes quite a few lawmakers who aren't willing to endorse marriage equality -- including alleged champions of civil liberties like Rand Paul -- but my personal favorite came from Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.): "I believe in traditional marriage -- between a man and a woman, without animosity. I don't mind if people are able to transfer their property, visit their loved ones in hospitals, but marriage to me, I've stayed with the concept of traditional marriage."
On a related note, this "disconnect between inside-and-outside-the-Beltway" seems to come up quite a bit, doesn't it? Most Americans want new measures to prevent gun violence, bills to create jobs and promote economic growth, marriage equality, higher taxes on the wealthy, and fiscal compromises, but many of the officials voters elected to shape federal policy don't seem inclined to take public attitudes to heart .
Perhaps they're too invested in looking at the world through a Chamblss-like lens.
Update: Adam Serwer compared Chambliss' answer to former Sen. Jon Kyl's (R-Ariz.) famous declaration that he doesn't need maternity care, so requiring maternity care in insurance plans isn't important.
Leave a Comment:
Right. And this is exactly why the Republicans are going to either change their ways or go away completely. It's called progress, and it's as it should be.
That is the sentence in the post that I found most important. Steve is right. Chambliss would be comfortable with discrimination against anyone who isn't a wealthy, white, "Crhistian" guy from the South. Hell, just about every angry old white man in the Republican party feels the same way. That is why they are unable to tell the fringe of their party to STFU. They think the fringe is right.
Your forgetting that Republicans have rigged the electoral process to guarantee their re-election, in the states they already control from the top down. The GOP isn't going away. With state level GOP electioneering, we'll be lucky if the Democratic Party survives another 12 years.
Huh. Let's continue the "logic"- Chambliss doesn't get turned on by having a penis inside of him. Therefore, he won't marry such a person.
If the logic angle won't work, then perhaps the Portman empathy angle would? That is, do we think Chambliss would change his mind if his wife came out, explaining she was just going through the motions of being straight because she was terrified of the consequences of the alternative. Do we expect he would be charitable and happy that his wife could at last remarry someone she was in truly love with?
I think not. This type of opponent is neither for true love nor are they for logic.
James,
The GOP is blatantly manipulating the electoral process to stay in power. This will slow their loss of power at the expense of angering generations of voters.
People resent being manipulated and discriminated against. The GOP is driving voters under the age of 40 into the Democratic Party. The long-term survival of the GOP is endangered by the same tactics that prop them up today.
California is the prime example of how the GOP is slowly alienating the populace. California was a slightly Republican-leaning state as recently as the early 1990's. Today the California GOP qualify for protection under the Endangered Species Act.
For those who aren't naturally empathetic, Empathy requires intellect to imagine being someone else's position.
I wouldn't consider Portman empathetic or refer to Portmans change of mind as empathy because Portman changed his position because of Portmans own situation and personal experience.
When it's your own situation or experience it is far from empathy.
.
(Sorry, this was suppose to be at the end of the thread, thats where I thought I was putting it, but I forgot I changed my mind about posting something up here and when I posted at the end it popped up here because I didn't close and re-open the page. Damn)
Interesting op-ed in the local paper today.
Person wrote in about marriage, how man - woman are "biological compliment"(s) with the implication that procreation is a requisite for "marriage".
So I'm wondering, is it a marriage if the man and woman don't procreate?
What about if the man-woman combo can't procreate? Does that mean if I got a vasectomy my marriage would be void? Or how about when my wife went through "the change"? What about if one or both of us were born sterile?
This hayseed went on to say how the Man - Woman paring provides a stable atmosphere for the rearing of these children. Really?
Really??
Sorry, I feel a mini lobotomy coming on.
Fact is it's the dysfunction I've seen in Hetro Marriages that have me supporting Homosexual Unions* being able to adopt.
(*be damned what those unions are called)
.
Asking some Confederate moron to have "empathy" is like asking Hitler to stop being anti-Semitic. Guys like Chambliss really are as stupid as they sound when they open their mouths.
If you look at it, Portman was driven by tribalism, not empathy. A member of his close tribe had an interest, therefore he takes up that interest.
The GOP's dynamics are driven by tribalism, not the empathy needed for a true Big Tent. Therefore, to ever achieve a big tent they will either have to use repression or deception to keep the lunatics in the tent, or they will have to fundamentally alter the dynamics of how factions under the big tent interact with each other. I may have little sympathy with a Teamster who wants to stomp protesters against settlements on the West bank, but I feel solidarity with them on their demands for fair wages. That kind of empathy tends to reduce the inclination to want to stomp protesters, and so the tribalism gets unwound in favor of harmony based not on the ancient tribal idea of "gecynd"- of being allied because you are of the same nature.
The ancient thing has roots in totemism- of having the same innate nature or bond- and has more to do with the reptilian brain than the higher order harmony inducing cognitive centers supporting empathy.
And so on, and so forth. Keeping it classy, Chambliss. Stay proud, and sleep well at night.
Nobody in my family has been killed by gun violence, so I'm going to fight for fewer restrictions/regulation of guns.
I haven't had my life turned upside down by extreme weather, so climate change doesn't exist.
Sounds good to me!
No, but he is a big jerk, which is why he cares so much for the rights of other big jerks.
I'm not disabled, so I don't give a damn about disabled equal access.
I'm not sick, so I don't give a damn about right to medical treatment.
Lindsay Graham does not approve of my marriage? I will immediately tell my wife to cut off the "animosity" towards me...
Yeah my husband said the same thing to me when I read this aloud. I told him to shove it.
I don't own a gun, so Senator Chambliss shouldn't have the right to have one, either.
And I'm not a straight, so I'm not going to marry one. I feel so equal now.
Wouldn't you love to see Lindsay Graham make the same statement?
'I'm not __________. So I'm not going to marry one'
Insert one of the following:
Black, Jewish, Asian, Evangelical, Catholic, Hispanic
Etc., etc., etc.
Who's left?And should I assume he married an A--hole, since he is one?
In the Senator's case it would be "a decent human being"!
How about filling in the blank with "woman?"
Well, one could just tweak a little and repeat his words back to him.
If you do not choose to marry the same sex (whether you're gay or not), you don't have to. Choose one person that is of age. Or if you choose, don't marry anyone.
Simple, not complicated. Gender. Race. Mixed Race. Religion. Non Religious. "People" are "people". Do we really have to explain this? Apparently we do.
The guy's also playing with the right-wing meme that if same-sex couples can marry, then hetero people will be forced to marry same-sex partners. I suppose many have already seen this satirical 'ad', but it plays off of things the other side really believe. (Only the satiric intent makes it funny.) And I can sort of see a point to their fear of mandatory same-sex marriages. They think that everyone who is married must be required to be in a different-sex union, so naturally they think our side is just as committed to enforcing conformity as they are.
So, yeah, he's saying he doesn't care about LGBT issues because he's not LGBT; but he's also saying he won't support LGBT issues because he really believes he'll be forced to marry a man if he does. Self-centered and thick as a yard of lard. A winning combination in an elected official.
My keyboard is drowning in coffee - such good snarking!
Rarely is the conservative philosophy so perfectly distilled to its vital essence: F*ck you, got mine.
Nailed it.
You left out the other main element of conservative philosophy that More is never enough!
Look, I'm not trying to stop anyone from getting his or her hate-on, but I honestly truly think Chambliss was trying (TRYING) to make a joke. Think about it.
"Have you changed your mind about gay marriage."
"No, I'm still straight, but if I change my mind, you're the first guy I'd call, sexy."
I'm not saying I'm any funnier than Chambliss, but that's the KIND OF funny Chambliss was going for.
It's like the "in my day women used aspirin for birth control by locking it between their legs" line, and lots of people went all "THAT doesn't work for birth control, the old man is crazy" before going "oh, right, if her legs are locked, she can't have sex, it's a 'joke...'"
Lots of reasons to think Chambliss is a pantload, let this one slide. It's not a lack of logic, just a lack of maturity and lack of awareness that this is a sensitive issue for far too many people to be so glib instead of answering the question honestly.
Nope, sorry. "It's just a joke, lighten up" is nothing but passive-aggressiveness, pure and simple. It puts the onus on the butt of the "joke" to just let it slide, no matter how stupid or offensive the "joker's" position is. It's how abusers are able to continue to abuse: everything becomes the butt of the joke's fault.
This line of thinking should especially NOT be used to excuse that horribly misogynistic crap about the aspirin between the legs. Just because someone frames something as a joke does not automatically make it okay.
I agree Slappy. My joke I keep repeating is that gays should be allowed to marry... why should straight people be the only ones to suffer...
Freddie-1717641
I'm not saying you have to like the joke or think it's funny or "lighten up." I'm saying if you can't tell that it's an attempt at a joke and not the way he really shapes his opinion on gay marriage (though it does seem that GOPers embrace gay marriage when someone they care about wants it), then you wind up looking like a boob and I don't want you or anyone else here looking like a boob.
Thank you very much for your concern, but I'm not terribly worried about looking like a "boob" when it comes to my reaction to someone who has the power to shape policy that can affect my life making a stupid remark like this.
Yeah, but your reaction is that of someone who doesn't realize it's a joke. And you don't have to think it's funny. But you DO have to understand it's a joke, because then the narrative as far as the old white men who have the power to shape policy that can affect your life is going to be "Liberals! They can't take a joke! What boobs!" And you become the butt of a joke on Hannity or O'Reilly and conservatives continue feeling justified in treating you and your agenda as inferior and the problem gets worse instead of better.
I mean for Christ's sake, the quote from the report this comes from, the reporter admits it was a Chambliss "quip." You don't have to lighten up, but you really need to tone it down if you don't want to be treated as shrill and emotional and all the other adjectives people use to not take people like us seriously
Anyone else notice how unfunny Republican "jokes" are?
Slappy, a joke is only a joke when the audience laughs. And if the audience doesn't laugh, the failure is the comic's.
I use that line myself all the time. The difference is, I actually support marriage equality.
The teapubs seem to have a liking for prostitutes, so would they marry one?
Projection being their favorite spew of anything, I sure would like a peek in their closet.
As distinct from his actual positions, which are ...
Oh, wait.
It's so nice that Mr. Chambliss has a choice of who to marry.
i think whats even more interesting is that these anti everything candidates continue to get re-elected year after year. so the people in their districts must believe and feel the same way. its not like there are not gay people in the south. i'm sure they have to be more careful about how they feel. not as open or honest as they are in other areas. perhaps its their upbringing, but i have visited many places where feelings about anything unusual or different is met with hostility. the people are very rigid about things in society. if it doesn't fit their mold, they don't like it. i am sorry to say that in some areas of this country, tolerance for anything different is going to take a long time to change. for some groups of people change is terrible. at least thats how they think.
Many of the narrow-minded people in small towns live in a relatively homogenous society. The closest they get to a minority might be black people and that number may be also small. People who live in these towns are insulated from many of the problems of large cities. Their perception is that large cities are full of minority people (blacks and Hispanics) who are on welfare and suck up welfare benefits. This is the stereotype Reagan painted when he ran for president. And many Republicans are playing to that image.
duplicate. sorry.
I think we might have to wait for this "old guard" of close-minded 65 and up people to die off or retire before real movement can be seen on the Hill. These people have been set in their ways for their entire lives, and changing their minds at this late stage in the game is highly unlikely. Life isn't a Hallmark movie. Sometimes the bigoted racist or homophobe or anti-Semite doesn't have a revelation and see the error of their ways. Sometimes they live and die the same way.
The positive news is that among kids, young adults, and the 50 and under crowd, their minds are being changed. People under fifty grew up in a time of changing societal norms: Women starting to break into jobs that had previously been men only. The appearance of non-nuclear families. Integration between blacks and whites. Gay people being more open. They are more flexible in their beliefs and more willing to consider a different status quo. They've seen society change and know from experience that a changing society isn't the same as a crumbling one.
I think in as little as 10-20 years gay rights will be a fight that isn't even a fight anymore. It will be as accepted at a black kid and a white kid going into a restuarant and eating lunch together today and no one thinking twice about it.
That being said, I don't think it will be because we've changed the minds of people from Saxby Chambliss' ilk. It will be because they are no longer in a position to do anything about the views they hold.
Hate to break it to you,
I'm 54, in the early 70's I thought: I can't wait till these old farts are out of power and my generation takes over because nothing could be this stupid or screwed up.
I was wrong.
.
Ya-where were these guys hiding when I was young? I thought I'd never see the likes of Strom Thurmond again. But it just goes to show that politics is generational. We pass down what we know to our kids.
Those people/that thinking are/is quickly going out to pasture. It's also very hard to be against people you know that are being themselves and their "selves" are not monsters, like many folks were told.
Just like in the days of segregation, if you didn't know someone "somehow different", you might believe the scary stories rather than seeing reality.
Although reality does suck at times, no argument there.
Under 60. Remember desegregation.
Excuse me, 50 and under crowd. I was around for the beginning of the women's movement and civil rights movement and I am waaaaaay over 50 (65 later this year). Give credit where credit is due. Back in the 60s and 70s when I was young there were two distinct groups, the hippies and the red necks, the hippies (anti-establishment) being the progressives and the red necks being what they've always been and still are. We were the ones who started all the change that you youngsters are benefiting from today. We were the ones beaten by police at antiwar protests and civil rights marches.
Thanks, I was slightly younger, unable to protest much except in my high school (which I did).
I remember with great pain some of the most horrific event, like Kent State, the National Guard shooting and killing students who were "attending", not necessarily protesting, but they got shot.
The Vietnam War was horrifying. The news reported nightly, the death count numbers updated.
My brother and cousin were over there, so I had no animosity toward the soldiers, but the Gov. Raygun and Pres. Nixon calling out the guard on the hippies.
No hard feelings toward Kent State, Ohio (I know some people there teaching... but that was so very wrong!http://video.search.yahoo.com/video/play?p=Four+dead+in+ohio&tnr=21&vid=6D158EAC5108A3163B4A6D158EAC5108A3163B4A&l=265&turl=http%3A%2F%2Fts1.mm.bing.net%2Fth%3Fid%3DU.4811446609379714%26pid%3D15.1&rurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bing.com%2Fvideos%2Fwatch%2F%3Fq%3DFour%2Bdead%2Bin%2Bohio%26vid%3D6D158EAC5108A3163B4A6D158EAC5108A3163B4A%26docid%3D4811446609379714&sigr=13p67sj03&tt=s&tit=Niel+Young+Ohio+Lyrics&back=http%3A%2F%2Fsearch.yahoo.com%2Fsearch%3Fei%3DUTF-8%26p%3DFour%2Bdead%2Bin%2Bohio%26fr%3Dytff-yff18&sigb=129jeakua
Yes, protestors set the ROTC building on fire (at night), but does that warrant shooting and killing. Like today, disobeying the police does not warrant shooting.
We also had all those assassinations of civil rights people and the "wrong kind" of politicians, like Bobby Kennedy. I was 10 when JFK was killed. I was devastated to hear the news of all these things, although I was still in junior high and high school. Plenty of turmoil.
I never got hit by police, but I later was a target for those that did not like my sign, which was very, benign. But I was the wrong "kind" so many times.
Gee, I thought we had free speech and other rights and that petitioning our government, freedom of assembly for a redress of grievances was allowed!
Yes, the police asked us to move back off the sidewalk at one of the huge Cindy Sheehan rallies during Iraq.
Chambliss also strikes me as someone that would joke about war sort of like "bomb bomb bomb. bomb bomb Iran.
Yeah he would.
Dear America -
Sorry about Chambliss. But I can't promise we'll do better next time.
Sincerely, Georgia
So you're not gay. OK. So why do you give a damn that someone else is and would like to marry their partner? How is THEIR marriage hurting YOU? I'm not gay either but if it makes for happiness for someone else....why NOT? How does it change how I live my life? It doesn't. It has NOTHING to do with me. So why should something that doesn't impact you or force you to do something you don't want to do, bother you? It has NOTHING to do with YOU!
Personally I think there's an equal chance everyone is COMPLETELY misinterpreting this response.
How many times have all of us said, "If you don't like gay marriage, then don't marry someone of the same sex."?
This is exactly what he is saying. And I mean exactly, literally, verbatim. He didn't say anything about anyone's marriage but his own.
What he may be saying here is, he has come to realize what other people do is none of his business, and only his own marriage is. This is what we have all been begging people to do--to recognize that their own beliefs and preferences should only apply to their own life. No one else's.
Admittedly the statement is a bit ambiguous. A simple "yes" or "no" would've been much more clear. But if he is still opposed, he easily could've said, "Marriage is only for people like me who aren't gay." Or, "I'm not gay, and anybody who is doesn't deserve to get married," or any number of other stupid ways to respond.
He didn't do that. He gave the answer we have been telling religious people is the right response all along. Am I the only one who sees this with an open enough mind to see the possibility that he actually has changed his position on whether same sex marriages should be legal?
I can't find any subsequent statements from him on this, and I've been Googling it. If he has since clarified, and I'm wrong, please let me know, because I'm also open to the possibility I'm wrong here. There is simply no way to say "yes" or "no" from what he said, and in my mind, his answer is much further away from most of the mean spirited selfish things people usually say on this topic.
Again, he never said anything about anyone's marriages except his own. Call me hopelessly optimistic, but I say this could be huge progress. Not the stupidity everyone is so quick to pin on him. Might turn out to be one of the smartest things any white Southern Christian Republican politician has said on this topic in a while.