Obama Should Feel 'Uncomfortable' That Conservatives Are Co-opting Gay Rights Issues: Top Dem

The notion that the gay rights community would abandon the Obama White House over its unwillingness to fully embrace their legislative priorities may seem absurd to the casual political observer. But the recent embrace of same-sex marriage by prominent conservatives, most notably former RNC Chair Ken Mehlman, has some Democratic operatives concerned.

On Monday, former McCain campaign manager Steve Schmidt argued that there was a "strong conservative case to be made in favor of gay marriage" and that more and more Republicans are dropping their opposition to the cause. Shortly thereafter, a prominent Democratic consultant got in touch with the Huffington Post to make the case that the Obama administration risks losing the gay rights community (or at least depressing their votes) with its tepid embrace of their priorities.

"I think they have been put in a tough place by these conservatives and they should be," the consultant said. "There are a whole group of people who are to the left of them on gay rights. And they are Republicans. It should make them feel uncomfortable."

LBGT voters are not, of course, monolithic. And on a host of other fronts, they are repulsed by the GOP's policies. Talk about abandoning Obama and the Democrats, in some respects, has been driven more by a desire to scare the party into action than sincere intent to vote Republican.

But that doesn't mean it's impossible for an electoral shift to take place or that there aren't those in the GOP who welcome siphoning off the LBGT vote. Though hardly a barometer for the Republican Party's collective psyche, John McCain's daughter, Meghan, made overtures along these lines on Tuesday night.

"We get the bad rap as Republicans being against gay marriage," she told Fox News. "[Obama] isn't doing anything for the gay community."

Indeed, even in the Democratic tent there is some marvel, concern and even a twinge of envy at the changes taking place within the GOP.

"There has always been this libertarian segment of the Republican Party who thinks the government ought to get out of your life, and that group has, for various reasons, become more emboldened," said Steve Emeldorf, an aide to former House Minority Leader Dick Gephardt, who is fundraising with Mehlman in support of same-sex marriage. "Maybe ten years ago they were scared of this issue, but as it becomes more acceptable the libertarians are like, yeah, this is our philosophy."

"You had the most conservative vice president in the history of the world [Dick Cheney] with a lesbian daughter who over the last couple years has signaled he is for gay rights and marriage," Elmendorf added. "And if you have this guy who is the icon of the right wing there... It sort of snowballs."

Comments

[CroatianCritter]

08:04 PM on 09/06/2010

I am a libertarian and take the new SUPPORT by the Republicans for our ideals as just "stances" needed for them to regain power. Libertarian ideals are intriguing and the Republicans have been stealing them from us to gain power and then once the power is obtained, the ideas are quickly flushed down the toilet. All I can say to Obama is this, "what are you waiting for?" Gays are the same "PEOPLE" listed in the Constitution with the same rights as everybody else. Why are you procrastinating when you can not lose on this issue? This is more proof of what an absolute DUD this president has become. And if you don't believe me, don't read the JOBS bill he just created. It feels like it came out of the Republican Party headquarters.

[liberal123]

10:50 AM on 09/03/2010

This is very small subset of the Republican Party that is backing gay marriage. The republican party is hostile to gays on all major issues - marriage, DADT, adoption, etc. Ken Mehlman is trying to convince himself that he has not spent his political career undermining gay rights - - but that is what he has done.”

[direct democracy]

05:23 PM on 09/02/2010

Conservatives have coopted the religious issue, the gun issue, are coopting the legalizing pot issue and the gay issue. In fact conservative Democrats seem to be Republican operatives coopting the formerly liberal Democratic Party.

Obama can't stand up to the conservative oligarchy. He is not on an equal footing with the masters of the universe like wealthy T Roosevelt and FDR were. He recognizes his masters and is careful not to annoy them. There are violent white men out there that used to lynch uppity black people not long ago, as has recently been made abundantly clear by gun totin' white mobs.

[BocaMom]

05:15 PM on 09/02/2010

Good for the Republicans! If President Obama won't honor his campaign promises, at least the Republicans will support gay rights!

[Bradley Bailey]

04:49 PM on 09/02/2010

So they're going to go from fighting about us to fighting over us?

[dcjdjay]

04:30 PM on 09/02/2010

Just because Meghan McCain and Elizabeth Hasselcrack say they're pro-gay marriage doesn't mean that conservatives are co-opting gay rights issues, or are pro-gay on anything. None of the GOP Congressional Reps, Governors, or Senators are pro-gay on much.

As a gay man, I'm disgusted and offended that someone could extrapolate Meghan McCain's need to hang out with fabulous A-gays at some West Hollywood party as a pro-gay stance by the GOP.

[CraiginPhoenix]

04:23 PM on 09/02/2010

What a joke.

Someone should tell Mike Castle or Lindsay Graham that the Republicans are the champions for gay rights, because from where I sit, they still attack anyone they even "think" is gay, even within their own ranks.

[Keo]

03:54 PM on 09/02/2010

Until the GOP platform specifically supports gay marriage, the GOP hasn't "co-opted" anything.

[Sean Thomas]

03:24 PM on 09/02/2010

Government should be out of this problem. We should grant a civil union to any adult couple (or group; why do I care if someone's poly?) that requests it - conferring all of the rights and responsibilities of such a union to those citizens.

Marriage then becomes a point best left to the individuals and communities to recognize or not recognize as they see fit - so long as it doesn't impinge on those basic rights and responsibilities.

[Artboyz]

03:27 PM on 09/02/2010

One of the biggest fears of those fighting against marriage equality is that the federal government would be forced to institute a national civil union standard that would make traditional marriage superfluous. It will never happen.

[Sean Thomas]

06:23 PM on 09/02/2010

I think most people want government to stay out of our personal lives, and time will bend it that way.

Battles over marriage should be in the churches and societies that care about social norms.

The government should only be in the business of enforcing equal rights for all.

[paulflorez]

11:53 PM on 09/18/2010

What you are saying has nothing to do with civil marriage. Religious marriage is already something each of us is free to define. Same-sex civil marriage is banned in my state, yet I can still enter into a religious marriage with my partner in my church if I wish.

This isn't about religious marriage at all, or even the word "marriage," this is about de-legitimizing same-sex couples and Gay Americans in the eyes of society using the government to do so. If you rename civil marriages to "civil unions" because of Gay Americans, then THAT DE-LEGITIMIZES THEM. Why? Because gay Americans are so "immoral" that we had to rip an innocuous word with more than one contextual meaning out of government. It legitimizes the attitude that gay Americans are immoral. Why didn't we change the word "marriage" to "union" when interracial marriage was on the table, and if the government changed "marriage" to "union" because of interracial couples wanting to get married, would that not have inherently said something negative about interracial couples?

Religious marriage and civil marriage are two completely different things. Just because you enter into a religious marriage does not mean you have a civil marriage, and just because you enter into a civil marriage does not mean you enter into a religious marriage. You can marry wine and art, sports and war, and a multitude of other objects without religious connotation. That is civil marriage, a secular government institution.

[rawresolve]

03:19 PM on 09/02/2010

He should feel "uncomfortable" about his semantic lack of support for equal protection under the law or his inability to make the AMERICAN case for the separation of church and state in terms of peoples personal lives.

[Duppy]

03:09 PM on 09/02/2010

Its a trick. Dont fall for it.

[Truthahn]

02:53 PM on 09/02/2010

Believe it or not, it is possible to lean right on fiscal issues and left on civil liberties and gay rights. I do. In fact I'm far to the left of Barack Obama on these issues.

[Belthazar]

02:51 PM on 09/02/2010

Should there be more support for civil rights in the Republican Party? Easy answer, YES! However, and I could have missed it, has there been ONE currently elected Republican or Republican candidate that has publically stated his/her support for Gay Marriage, ending DADT or DOMA? Libertarian, Ron Paul?

And as to citing Dick Cheney, it should be noted that he was out of office when he gave the interview. Moreover, while he stated his support for gay marriage, he also, in the same interview, stated it was a State’s right issue and should be left to the States; “…It has always been a state issue and I think that is the way it ought to be handled, on a state-by-state basis…”

In other word, the 30+ states that have constitutional amendments banning gay marriage should stand.

[Sean Thomas]

03:16 PM on 09/02/2010

Or you could enforce the Constitution, your call.

[Belthazar]

06:04 PM on 09/02/2010

Are you suggesting the enforcement of the State(s) Constitutions banning gay marriage? I was noting Cheney's position for all those that keep stating how 'even' Cheney supports gay marriage w/o mentioning the caveat: handled on a state-by-state basis. Therefore, the effect of his position would be the 30+ states that have constitutional amendments banning gay marriage should stand.

[paulflorez]

11:57 PM on 09/18/2010

Ron Paul voted against a constitutional amendment for marriage, but he does not support same-sex marriage.

He personally opposes the Lawrence v. Texas ruling. He basically says that states have a right to criminalize homosexual activity. Would a man who thinks that states have a right to throw Americans in jail just for being gay support same-sex marriage?

[rebel9999]

02:49 PM on 09/02/2010

Didn't Obama say he believed marriage was between a man and a woman? I think gay couples should have the same rights strait couples have when it comes to taxes, health insurance, adoption, hospital visits, etc. To deny them those same rights is not American.

[charlesdickens]

02:29 PM on 09/02/2010

What happened to the repeal of "don't ask, don't tell"? Don't ask, I guess. I refer to David McCullough's book, "Truman," which states: "[Truman] ORDERED the desegregation of the armed forces." (emphasis mine)