George W. Bush has gay friends. So does Sarah Palin. Amazingly, so does Rick Santorum. And let me guess: soon Mitt Romney will, too.
Every Republican politician seems to have at least one gay friend these days. That's not too difficult: even if you tried, it would be hard to live and work in America without meeting at least one openly gay person you can get along with. But for a right-wing politician having gay friends, shall we say, has benefits. These unnamed, unseen gay friends send a message that an anti-gay politician isn't a hater. I mean, how can you hate your friends? It's just policy, nothing personal.
Of course, the problem is that it is personal. Having gay friends doesn't absolve one of anti-gay prejudice any more than loving one's wife and daughters absolves one of defunding Planned Parenthood. Even if you'd be happy to have gay people over to dinner, that doesn't give you a pass to deny them fundamental rights.
The "gay friends" defense is weak, but popular. And Mitt Romney, scrambling to clarify his position on equal rights after President Obama's endorsement of marriage equality, must be considering it right about now.
Romney has always been careful to stipulate that his various and elusive anti-gay policies have nothing to do with any personal anti-gay animus. This strategy was clear in a 2006 speech to the right-wing Family Research Council, recently unearthed by PFAW's Right Wing Watch. In it, taking homophobia to a whole new level, the candidate declares that "the price of same-sex marriage is paid by the children" and amazingly asserts that marriage equality is the result of "spreading secular religion and its substitute values." He then offers a spoon full a sugar with a call for an "outpouring of respect and tolerance for all people" and laughably encourages his listeners to "vigorously protest discrimination and bigotry."
When President Obama announced last week that he supports marriage equality, Romney responded by repeating his opposition to not only marriage equality but also to civil unions. He then insisted that same-sex couples have the "right" to "have a loving relationship, or even to adopt a child." The next day, he changed his mind about the adoption part. The day after that, he delivered a commencement address to Liberty University, which bans openly gay students and is allied with some of the most vile anti-gay rhetoric in the Religious Right today.
But none of this wavering matches Romney's recent, brief hiring of an openly gay staffer, foreign policy spokesman Richard Grenell. A Republican adviser told the New York Times after Grenell was forced out of Romney's campaign, "It's not that the campaign cared whether Ric Grenell was gay. They believed this was a nonissue. But they didn't want to confront the religious right." Increasingly, when it comes to choosing between basic dignity and futile attempts to appease the far right, the mainstream GOP has been choosing the far right.
Unfortunately for Romney, the Religious Right, the object of his caving, isn't buying his frantic attempts to pander. The most outspoken critic of Romney's decision to hire Grenell quickly, the American Family Association's Bryan Fischer, became the most outspoken critic of the decision to fire him. "How is he going to stand up to North Korea if he can be pushed around by a yokel like me?" Fischer demanded.
It has to give at least some Republicans pause that the far right has become so extreme, and Republican leaders have become so subservient to their demands, that it is now not even possible to have any gay people work for a GOP campaign.
But soon Mitt Romney will tell us that he has gay friends.
Follow Michael B. Keegan on Twitter: www.twitter.com/peoplefor
Richard Zombeck: Below the Fold: JPMorgan's $2 Billion Fail Whale
Eric Schoenberg: A Tale of Two Loopholes: The President's Taxes and Mine
Marjorie Cohn: Romney the Bully
Gideon Resnick: Gay Rights as Told by Obama and Romney
"SOME OF MY BEST FRIENDS ARE DIVIDEND COUPONS"
ARE FROM PEOPLE WHO FANTACIZE THAT OBAMA HAS POWER OVER STATE LAWS
--- and are angry at him for not "magically removing them"
The President of the USA has NO power over State marriage laws --- the way those get overturned is for injured parties (ie Gays who want to marry) bring lawsuits to declare those laws unconstitutional.
THE ONLY THING OBAMA CAN DO IS LEAD BY EXAMPLE --- if he starts telling States to change their laws, he will be ripped to shreds.
YES, HE COULD HAVE BEEN MORE BLUNT -- but what good does that do Gays if it offends the voters who voted for those ugly laws and Romney wins?
IN THE CIVIL RIGHTS ERA, WHEN KENNEDY AND JOHNSON PUSHED FOR FREEDOM, THEY HAD THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE COUNTRY BEHIND THEM --- that is not true today
Doesn't this kinda sound like what you are saying about Romney "having gay friends"? Perhaps in Obama's case it should be worded, "my best donation bundlers are gay, but I won't let it affect policy. Nothing personal".
1- HE CAN'T OVERTURN STATE LAWS -- that is for the courts
All marriage laws are State laws, except DOMA, and other laws about Federal matters
2-- THINK, GET OUT OF THE CLOUD OF BITTERNESS AND GANJA --
What result would he get if he gave a speech saying that all the State laws, constitutional amendments, etc are wrong and should be withdrawn, and that he was putting out a US Constitutional amendment to counteract them?
POLITIICIANS CAN ONLY DO WHAT THEY HAVE THE POWER TO DO
---- and by you picking at the good guy, you take energy that ought to go towards the bad guys
Also, 75% of the American people poll that they favor ending work place discrimination, and that they think it is just plain wrong to fire people for being gay. So this is definitely within the power of what President Obama could do. Pelosi, Reid, and civil rights leaders have begged Obama to take this action on multiple occasions, but he insists on standing with Mitt Romney, that gay equality is under state's rights. Obama is the ONLY democratic leader who stands with the Republican on this. ALL the others favor doing it.
The President has every right to make his policies as he sees fit. I am not arguing that. I am trying to get the readers of these threads to consider the hypocrisy of saying Obama is brave and bold for doing something, and then immediately saying Romney is evil for doing exactly the same thing. Right now they are both saying that they "affirm" that gays should be treated equally in their heart, but that they won't let that effect their policy.
The harsh truth though is that there are those in every group who will sell themselves and their compatriots out for money.
That's what it really comes down to. Being a Republican is a choice and gay Republicans put that above their own civil rights and worse, civil rights for their families and the people they claim to love.
I think Romney's the first one to ask about that.
He's sure no Jack Kennedy.
Also, I'm not seeing the incentive here to be less freaky.
If we went back to the era the GOP wants to take us to, we'd be hearing from the conservative candidate that "some of my best friends are Jews".
I have looked a couple of times at his interview. Does anyone notice how he is saying he had to wrestle for 50 years to come to the conclusion that gays should be treated like people? That took 50 years? Why am I not impressed? And then he says, "but don't worry, I won't let this feeling affect my policies!"
Such boldness! Such courage! The world stands in awe.
Ship?
Long gone.
I have friends who are Jewish but I don't meet a Jewish person for the first time and greet them with the phrase, "Some of my closest friends in Los Angeles are Jews." Ditto for my wealthy friends. "You're rich? Oh wow, I have a lot of rich friends and I like them a lot."
Our association with any group of people doesn't necessarily establish a respect for them. It just means we have an association with them. More and more we've begun to understand that if we're OK with someone we don't have to work so hard to establish that fact. I don't need you to tell me you have gay friends because the way you treat me and interact with me will tell me everything I need to know about you and your attitudes. Don't say it, just do it.
Besides, the belief that you can get 'government out of marriage' is the most misguided of all beliefs on this topic. Marriage is first and foremost the legal recognition that two legal strangers are now next of kin and family. Marriage, in all its forms from the beginning of time has been a legal arrangement establishing some sort of kinship arrangement.
That is impossible to enforce without government.
First chance he got he had someone dig up an anti miscegenation law that was overtly racist, in order to stop LGBT Mass people from having the full faith and credit of the US Constitution. And make all this mess. All he had to do was not do that. Like he promised.
It took the guy until middle age to decide that he supports those fundamental rights you so rightly criticize Romney for disdaining...
The President campaigned on a repeal of DADT, which is repealed, and a repeal of DOMA, which he is no longer defending in Court.
Mitt Romney is so prejudiced against gays that he not only opposes legal recognition of our marriages, but civil unions too. He has further signed a pledge with the bigoted NOM to use the Presidency to undermine the few legal gains we have made, launch an inquisition against us in court and seek to enshrine discrimination against us into the U.S. Constitution.
There was a world of difference in these two men BEFORE the President made his historic announcement last week.
But "conservative" has equaled "ignorant" and "misinformed" for a long time now.
I'm voting for the libertarian Presidential nominee as a moral act. Then I will vote a straight Democrat ticket for Congress and state to block Romney's actions. It is the only way for a gay person or their family to retain their self-respect.
Context: Obama throughout his career has worked to advance gay rights, and done more than any other President to bring them forward, even before his declaration. This in a political environment when advancing gay rights could be toxic or even fatal.
Context: Mittens mouthed so pro-gay platitudes to try to get elected in a liberal state but then did nothing to advance gay rights one iota once elected and quickly turned hostile when that was necessary to pander to someone else.
Hmmm....
Thinking. It is so very difficult for some.
Ask him that since marriage is between one man and one woman . . . .how would he feel about one gay man marrying one lesbian woman. I'd give ANYTHING to hear his reply . . .
His hair *moves?*