The Republican presidential candidates have been racing to take advantage of Thursday’s Iowa district court ruling in favor of marriage equality. Nothing highlights your conservative credentials like pandering to the base’s hatred of designated groups of people, and the right’s field has lost no time getting to it. That their unctuous avowals of the importance of “protecting marriage” come even as the Larry Craig scandal unfolds only heightens the air of grotesque hypocrisy that surrounds any conservative exercise in culture-warring.
This sort of thing is Sam Brownback’s bread and butter, and he didn’t disappoint, declaring:
We should have the courage and conviction to speak out against this decision. The people of Iowa reject the redefinition of marriage, and I pledge to defend the bond of marriage, as I have consistently done in the past.
But it isn’t just Brownback who has the remarkable courage to play to the naked prejudice of the right wing. Mitt Romney, a man of many principles, wants the world to know that his knee jerked faster than anyone else’s:
After a judge on Thursday struck down Iowa’s law banning same-sex marriage, Romney quickly condemned the ruling and renewed his call for a federal constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman.
Already today, his campaign has issued statements with reports that he was the first candidate to react to the decision and that the National Review Online is calling gay marriage a “new front-burner issue” in Iowa.
The other contenders might not have been quite so clever, but they’ve reliably chimed in with their official gay-hating statements nonetheless. “Maverick” Senator John McCain said the ruling was “a loss for the traditional family,” for instance, while New York liberal Rudy Giuliani made sure to note that “marriage is between a man and a woman,” though I’m sure he meant to say that “marriage is between a man, a cousin, a woman, a mistress, and the media.”
There are a few — a very few — thoughtful conservative commentators who are appalled at their party’s reliance on gay-hatred as a political technique. One day, I think, conservatives will look back on this era in their history with the same sense of shame with which they remember how they once supported legal segregation of the races. Not that it will absolve them of their sins.
The other story here, of course, is the cowardice of the Democrats in the face of the same issue. But that’s for the good folks over at The Left’s Field to discuss.
19 Responses to “Iowa: Golden Opportunity to Hate on the Gays”
Conservatives don’t just have no shame about their racist past; they’ve also got no shame about lying about it. Ask any conservative about the 1964 Civil Rights act, and nine times out of ten you’ll get the patented half-truth spiel about how a higher percentage of Republicans than Dems voted for the bill (without mentioning that those Republicans came from states that never elect them to the Senate anymore), Al Gore’s daddy voted against it (while forgetting that Bush’s father campaigned against it as well), etc.
In a way, I’m glad there are so few Republicans who are speaking out against their party’s anti-gay hatred. 40 years from now, opposition to gay marriage is going to be just as taboo as support for segregation is now, and the Republicans won’t be able to pull the wool over anyone’s eyes this time.
I wonder how old you people are. Democrats were the party of segregation and racism for most of this country’s history. It was, after all, a Republican who issued the Emancipation Proclamation, and a Democrat who proclaimed, “Segregation today, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever!” Not until Lyndon Johnson successfully rammed the Civil Rights Act through Congress did the tables turn and the Republican party come to be seen as the party of racists. That’s why the South turned to the Republicans and why Johnson was right when he opined, at the signing of the Civil Rights Act, that he had just handed the South to the Republicans for a generation. His only error was believing the South would get over its racism and come back to the Democratic party in one generation.
SueDe,
Those Dems you refer to, Dixiecrats, were conservatives and for the most part they left the Democratic party to join the Republicans. It’s called a realignment. If you look around, I think you’ll see that we are in the midst of another realignment. Moderate Republicans are leaving the party because of the nastiness of all those southern, former Dixiecrats. But you just keep on yammering about Lincoln and those evil Jim Crow Dixiecrats. The rest of us will keep on living in the present and looking to the future, while you die out, dinosaur.
amazing how you just slipped that tiny little sliver about the demobrats at the end, after smearing the republicans throughout this embarassment of a piece. the truth is that the entire top tier of democrat presidential contenders are against gay marriage. perahps that is the hypocrisy you are thinking of, a party that courts the gay vote so openly yet opposes their lifestyles, now thats hypocrisy.
what is also disturbing is the wrong assumption that all gays support gay marriage. talking heads have hammered craig saying he is a hypocrite for voting against gay marriage and yet being potentially gay or bisexual himself. the truth is there are many gays who oppose gay marriage, the log cabin republicans for example, so it is truly wrong of this site or any other to attempt to speak for all gays or to wrongfully assume all gays are on the same page on marriage, because that is simply incorrect. being gay doesnt automatically make you a supporter of gay marriage, this site should know better then to make such biased assumptions, oh wait no it doesnt.
Oh please, I know you didn’t invoke segregations and civil rights in defense of the pathetic democrat party….time for a little history lesson on real shame fellas:
A little known fact of history involves the heavy opposition to the civil rights movement by several prominent Democrats. Similar historical neglect is given to the important role Republicans played in supporting the civil rights movement. A calculation of 26 major civil rights votes from 1933 through the 1960’s civil rights era shows that Republicans favored civil rights in approximately 96% of the votes, whereas the Democrats opposed them in 80% of the votes! These facts are often intentionally overlooked by the left wing Democrats for obvious reasons. In some cases, the Democrats have told flat out lies about their shameful record during the civil rights movement.
Democrat Senators organized the record Senate filibuster of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Included among the organizers were several prominent and well known liberal Democrat standard bearers including:
- Robert Byrd, current senator from West Virginia and former member of the Ku Klux Kllan
- J. William Fulbright, Arkansas senator and political mentor of Bill Clinton
- Albert Gore Sr., Tennessee senator, father and political mentor of Al Gore. Gore Jr. has been known to lie about his father’s opposition to the Civil Rights Act.
- Sam Ervin, North Carolina senator of Watergate hearings fame
- Richard Russell, famed Georgia senator and later President Pro Tempore
Democrat opposition to the Civil Rights Act was substantial enough to literally split the party in two. A whopping 40% of the House Democrats VOTED AGAINST the Civil Rights Act, while 80% of Republicans SUPPORTED it. Republican support in the Senate was even higher. Similar trends occurred with the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which was supported by 82% of House Republicans and 94% of Senate Republicans. The same Democrat standard bearers took their normal racists stances, this time with Senator Fulbright leading the opposition effort.
It took the hard work of Republican Senate Minority Leader Everett Dirksen and Republican Whip Thomas Kuchel to pass the Civil Rights Act (Dirksen was presented a civil rights accomplishment award for the year by the head of the NAACP in recognition of his efforts). Upon breaking the Democrat filibuster of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, Republican Dirksen took to the Senate floor and exclaimed “The time has come for equality of opportunity in sharing in government, in education, and in employment. It will not be stayed or denied. It is here!”
Outside of Congress, the three most notorious opponents of school integration were all Democrats:
- Orval Faubus, Democrat Governor of Arkansas and one of Bill Clinton’s political heroes
- George Wallace, Democrat Governor of Alabama
- Lester Maddox, Democrat Governor of Georgia
The most famous of the school desegregation standoffs involved Governor Faubus. Democrat Faubus used police and state forces to block the integration of a high school in Little Rock, Arkansas. The standoff was settled and the school was integrated only after the intervention of Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower.
Even the Democrat Party organization resisted integration and refused to allow minority participation for decades. Exclusion of minorities was the general rule of the Democrat Party of many states for decades, especially in Texas. This racist policy reached its peak under the New Deal in the southern and western states, often known as the New Deal Coalition region of FDR. The Supreme Court in Nixon v. Herndon declared the practice of “white primaries” unconstitutional in 1927 after states had passed laws barring Blacks from participating in Democrat primaries. But the Democrat Parties did not yield to the Court’s order. After Nixon v. Herndon, Democrats simply made rules within the party’s individual executive committees to bar minorities from participating, which were struck down in Nixon v. Condon in 1932. The Democrats, in typical racist fashion, responded by using state parties to pass rules barring blacks from participation. This decision was upheld in Grovey v. Townsend, which was not overturned until 1944 by Smith v. Allwright. The Texas Democrats responded with their usual ploys and turned to what was known as the “Jaybird system” which used private Democrat clubs to hold white-only votes on a slate of candidates, which were then transferred to the Democrat party itself and put on their primary ballot as the only choices. Terry v. Adams overturned the Jaybird system, prompting the Democrats to institute blocks of unit rule voting procedures as well as the infamous literacy tests and other Jim Crow regulations to specifically block minorities from participating in their primaries. In the end, it took 4 direct Supreme Court orders to end the Democrat’s “white primary” system, and after that it took countless additional orders, several acts of Congress, and a constitutional amendment to tear down the Jim Crow codes that preserved the Democrat’s white primary for decades beyond the final Supreme Court order ruling it officially unconstitutional.
Hispanics in South Texas were treated especially poorly by the Democrat Party, which relied heavily on a system of political bosses to coerce and intimidate Hispanics into voting for Democrat primary candidates of choice. Though coercion is illegal, this system, known as the Patron system, is still in use to this day by local Democrat parties in some heavy Hispanic communities of the southwest.
And I’m not going to even go into Lincoln guys, but next time you attack republicans on race or bigotry, trying looking in the mirror first. Funny that the liberal party in this country that recieves 90% or more of the black vote every election cycle has still yet to put forth a black candidate to represent them. In fact, the highest minorities to ever serve in government were appointed by George W. Bush. Maybe this will be the year, then again maybe the long racist histroy of the Democrats and the DLC will crush Obama and continue this sad legacy.
That was one heck of a cut and paste by “matt”. Really, the shameful history of Southern Dems with respect to race is no secret, but here are a couple little hints: Lookit who is winning the Southern White vote now. And lookit who most black folks are voting for. Huh. It’s almost exactly the opposite of the line “matt” is taking. I wonder why that is. I wonder…
Maybe it’s because conservative Southern Whites, the GOP mainstay, have a bit of a racism (and sexism and homo-hating) problem. Just because they changed their team jerseys don’t mean they’re different people. I for one am glad that of all the compromises I have to make to vote Dem, being on the same side as the racists is not one of them.
paperwright ignores the entire post, and claims that the racist dems became republicans hahaahahha. what a joke. the democrats of course are the only party still represented by klan members in congress, who supports the aclu which fights for the rights of the klan, and continues to court the gay vote while its top tier all oppose gay marriage. dems have no leg to stand on this issue.
Matt – Your comprehension skills are unenviable. The ACLU supports everyone’s rights of free speech and free association because their belief in the principles of the Constitution is steadfast and universal.
While the top Dems might not support gay marriage, they do support civil unions and have worked to end other forms of discrimination against them. Also, none of them are trying to win votes by stirring up bigotry against them. And as was noted previous regarding the votes of racial minorities, while the gay vote isn’t monolithic, the larger majority of them support the Democrats. So it wouldn’t seem by a long shot that you’re qualified to speak to their mainstream preferences or opinions.
While it’s true that the southern “Dixiecrats” were against the Civil Rights act and were pro-segregation, that is no longer the case. Those who believe that way are now members of the conservative Republican party, or are independents. They felt that the Democratic Party did not represent their position on these subjects. The liberal, Democratic Party now stands for equality and for the sanctity of the rights guaranteed to the individual by the Constitution.
To try to equate the beliefs of members who left the party because it did not represent them with that party is absurd.
Racism is largely (but not exclusively) a conservative trait in this part of the country (the deep south). As a resident of the south, I see it everyday. Trying to justify contemporary actions by comparing them to antiquated party alignments just does not work.
Today, the Democratic Party is largely a party of liberals, and liberals are not racist or homophobic, as a general rule.
uh paulie, the front runner for the nomination of my partner is pro-civil unions, he has actual done more for gays and lesbians then anyone in your top tier.
and opposing gay-marriage does not equate to gay-hatred, again another incorrect assumption. the log cabin republicans are against gay marriage, do they hate themselves, or maybe they just understand the popular will of the american people is that marriage is between a man and a woman. i doubt the vice president hates his daughter, but that doesnt mean he believes in gay marriage.
its people like you who want to link every position you disagree with to bigotry that are the real hate mongers. if someone wants immagration reform, they are a racist, if they want traditional marriage, they are a bigot. thats how the left goes about its attacks, and its disgusting.
wake up natasha, the dems are champions of stirring up race and bigotry to their advantage. in 04, bush won the more hispanics then any republican in history, so what did the dems do to combat that, they labeled anyone who was for ending illegal immigratin a racist who hates mexicans. what a dispicable way to regain lost hispanic support.
not to mention the race peddlers like sharpton and jackson, who themselves are anti-semites, who use race to divide americans on a daily basis. what a crock.
Another note about the Republican party and race: How did southern whites end up in the Democratic party in the first place? Because they viewed the Party of Lincoln as responsible for freeing slaves and forcing southern whites to treat ex-slaves as full citizens. Therefore the generations-long hatred of anything associated with Republicans was enough to keep them from registering as Republicans. For those who resented the south losing the “War of Northern Aggression,” Republican was a dirty word.
Until the Civil Rights Act. Then segregationist southern whites had a fresh(er) enemy: those in the Democratic party who led the fight for civil rights. Realizing they were marching under the wrong banner, Dixiecrats migrated to the Republican party, as LBJ correctly predicted.
So this isn’t an example of irony. Dixiecrats moving en masse to the Republican Party is, as Paul notes, realignment. And quite predictable and logical cause and effect.
Matt sounds like that guy at Usenet who constantly bashes “Paulie” for expressing his opposition to bigotry and homophobia, saying that calling out bigots and racists as such is “bigoted.” That is the epitome of history-twisting perversion on the account of lower-case “matt”–whom I don’t believe is actually gay despite his references to “my partner” to give himself some sort of artificial cover.
“matt”, your right-wing conservobot roots are showing.
partner was a typo, party was the word i was shooting for, “frontrunner for the nomination of my PARTY”. the point was that the republican party you claim is so hateful is backing pro-gay rights candidate rudolph giuliani, so your charges simply do not fit.
and still no liberal on this site has explained why the top tier of the liberal party continues to oppose gay marriage. why are the top dems not accused of the same biogtry that you people lambast the republicans for? hypocrisy just runs too think in liberal veins.
liberals are too ashamed of their own history. it must be horrible to be a party that gets 90% of the black vote, yet has still to this day never run an african american on its major party ticket. democrats breathed a huge sigh of relief in 1996, as Colin Powell passed on the presidential race, knowing that the first african american president being a republican would have exposed the hypocrisy and self-loathing that the liberal party is full of.
amazing that the supporters of byrd and sharpton can say with a straight face that they are open minded and republicans are bigots.
btw, powell and rice are the highest ranking african americans in u.s. history, appointed by a republican.
Matt,
So Rudy is more Pro- gay than anyone running in the Democratic race? He has done more for the gay issue than the Demos….. I think you were suppose to be quiet about that fact before the Primary election. After the Primary you were suppose to start shouting that little fact. OOps!
Something to say?
[One day, I think, conservatives will look back on this era in their history with the same sense of shame with which they remember how they once supported legal segregation of the races.]
I’m sorry, did I miss some big shame-fest on the part of conservatives where they actually renounced Jim Crow?
Because it seems to me that they just silently abandoned Southern Dem Jim Crow in favor of the Republican Lee Atwater disproportionate effect / code word Southern Strategy. And of course, in many cases, the racism is right there floating on the surface anyway, as in the recent John Hawkins Townhall piece on Katrina, and its comments.
Left by paperwight
September 1, 2007 at 10:21am