Republicans and the unlikely bedfellows of marriage equality
February 27, 2013 7:57 AM Subscribe
The national Republican Party still continues to oppose same-sex marriage, one of the factors of social conservatism that lost it the youth vote in the 2012 election and may have caused Romney's defeat. Many Republicans, however, have been arguing for a sea change to revitalize the party. They may have found it, in an unlikely appeal that "The party of Lincoln should stand with our best tradition of equality and support full civil marriage for all Americans.". A large number of prominent Republicans have signed onto an amicus brief opposing same-sex marriage bans in the Proposition 8 case currently before the Supreme Court - and some believe that the Republican support may allow the justices the political and legal support to rule for national marriage equality.
Among the big names on this: Jon Huntsman, Meg Whitman (who supported Prop 8 initially), and Steve Schmidt (senior strategist for McCain/Palin.)
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 8:01 AM on February 27, 2013
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 8:01 AM on February 27, 2013
How To Distinguish "Republicans" and "Prominent Republicans"
http://www.esquire.com/_mobile/blogs/politics/prominent-republicans-gay-marriage-022613
posted by Ironmouth at 8:01 AM on February 27, 2013 [5 favorites]
http://www.esquire.com/_mobile/blogs/politics/prominent-republicans-gay-marriage-022613
posted by Ironmouth at 8:01 AM on February 27, 2013 [5 favorites]
Look at the list of names who signed the brief. Notice that most of the descriptions of what they did have an end date. Most of these are people aren't running for office any more.
posted by charred husk at 8:03 AM on February 27, 2013 [31 favorites]
posted by charred husk at 8:03 AM on February 27, 2013 [31 favorites]
"ok....whats the catch here?"
Republicans forcing Democrats to step up their game in a good way for once.
posted by Blasdelb at 8:04 AM on February 27, 2013
Republicans forcing Democrats to step up their game in a good way for once.
posted by Blasdelb at 8:04 AM on February 27, 2013
ok....whats the catch here?
No catch. It's just that now BOTH conservative parties support same-sex marriage.
posted by DU at 8:07 AM on February 27, 2013 [13 favorites]
No catch. It's just that now BOTH conservative parties support same-sex marriage.
posted by DU at 8:07 AM on February 27, 2013 [13 favorites]
I'd like to think they are doing this because it's the right thing to do, not the thing to do to get the youth vote back.
But, faking the belief until you genuinely have the belief (because I'm pretty confident this is what will happen) is better than not believing.
posted by Leezie at 8:07 AM on February 27, 2013 [1 favorite]
But, faking the belief until you genuinely have the belief (because I'm pretty confident this is what will happen) is better than not believing.
posted by Leezie at 8:07 AM on February 27, 2013 [1 favorite]
Party of Lincoln, Party of Lincoln, Party of Lincoln... hey y'all you know who was not super into the whole States' Rights thing? "This guy who opposed most of what we stand for used to use our name! Vote for us!"
posted by showbiz_liz at 8:09 AM on February 27, 2013 [3 favorites]
posted by showbiz_liz at 8:09 AM on February 27, 2013 [3 favorites]
See also: David Cameron.
posted by Pre-Taped Call In Show at 8:10 AM on February 27, 2013
posted by Pre-Taped Call In Show at 8:10 AM on February 27, 2013
Ironmouth: "How To Distinguish "Republicans" and "Prominent Republicans"
Christine Todd Whitman is an influential Republican? Since when? You might as well be talking about William Seward.
Zing!
posted by notsnot at 8:10 AM on February 27, 2013 [1 favorite]
Christine Todd Whitman is an influential Republican? Since when? You might as well be talking about William Seward.
Zing!
posted by notsnot at 8:10 AM on February 27, 2013 [1 favorite]
Putting aside the realpolitik of the move, and my own feelings of self-satisfaction on this:
Welcome to the right side of history, Prominent Republicans. Thanks for joining us.
posted by Capt. Renault at 8:11 AM on February 27, 2013 [2 favorites]
Welcome to the right side of history, Prominent Republicans. Thanks for joining us.
posted by Capt. Renault at 8:11 AM on February 27, 2013 [2 favorites]
Tonight on Fox News : Anti-gay freedom hating communist democrats and how they've always opposed the freedom to choose who you marry.
posted by Pogo_Fuzzybutt at 8:11 AM on February 27, 2013 [6 favorites]
While this is a good start, it's worth it to note that "many Republicans" does not extend very far into elected officials:
The extent to which one is pleased by this is a matter of perspective. Should one see a glass half full or a glass half empty?posted by zombieflanders at 8:12 AM on February 27, 2013 [8 favorites]
The glass-half-full contingent will note that this kind of list would have been largely impossible as recently as a decade ago, and reinforces just how much progress has been made in a very short period of time. The "Republicans for marriage equality" club was infinitesimally small up until very recently, and now it's not.
The glass-half-empty crowd will note that there are 30 sitting Republican governors, and 45 sitting Republican senators, and the grand total of them who signed on to this brief is zero. There are 232 sitting Republican members of the U.S. House, and only two have stepped up to put their names on this list -- 0.8% of the caucus.
See, the problem with hating gay people is you have to directly hate gay people - its not like blacks or women where you can go after a societal group but dress it up as a bunch of economic decisions that just happen to affect them.
posted by Artw at 8:12 AM on February 27, 2013 [14 favorites]
posted by Artw at 8:12 AM on February 27, 2013 [14 favorites]
No catch. It's just that now BOTH conservative parties support same-sex marriage.The Republican Party does not support same-sex marriage. The Republican Party explicitly opposes it.
Some individual members of the Republican Party support it. "Mary Bono Mack, James B. Comey, Jon Huntsman, Ken Mehlman, Steve Schmidt, William F. Weld, and Meg Whitman" are not -- not by a long shot -- the Republican Party.
Good for them, but "Mary Bono Mack supports gay marriage!" is not exactly terribly exciting news, and more importantly it does not even remotely alter the fact that the Republican Party is explicitly opposed to it.
posted by Flunkie at 8:15 AM on February 27, 2013 [4 favorites]
Tonight on Fox News : Anti-gay freedom hating communist democrats and how they've always opposed the freedom to choose who you marry.
Also, it turns out the Obamacare is "the New Closet".
posted by steambadger at 8:16 AM on February 27, 2013
Also, it turns out the Obamacare is "the New Closet".
posted by steambadger at 8:16 AM on February 27, 2013
"The person who is going to decide this case, if it’s going to be close, is going to be a conservative justice who respects traditional marriage but nonetheless is sympathetic to the claims that this is just another form of hatred. If you’re trying to persuade someone like that, you can’t persuade them from the perspective of gay rights advocacy.”
Silly me. Here I was thinking that the SCOTUS was a truly independent branch of government, deciding cases based on the merits of the respective arguments rather than the names attached to the briefs, and willing to take courageous positions without political cover, simply because they were the right thing to do.
posted by googly at 8:17 AM on February 27, 2013 [6 favorites]
Silly me. Here I was thinking that the SCOTUS was a truly independent branch of government, deciding cases based on the merits of the respective arguments rather than the names attached to the briefs, and willing to take courageous positions without political cover, simply because they were the right thing to do.
posted by googly at 8:17 AM on February 27, 2013 [6 favorites]
I'm not sure about this remote hate thing Art. In fact i would wager that as acceptance becomes the norm (what ever that means) you may see more republicans defending there african-american daughters who happen to lesbian, then in any time in history.
posted by clavdivs at 8:19 AM on February 27, 2013
posted by clavdivs at 8:19 AM on February 27, 2013
Meg Whitman (who supported Prop 8 initially)
Yeah, the snippet we saw on the local (Bay Area) news last night she was all "I've changed my mind because of new information!" and we were all "Fuck. You." It's the same goddamn "information" that was evident during the whole Prop 8 debacle.
posted by rtha at 8:19 AM on February 27, 2013 [6 favorites]
Yeah, the snippet we saw on the local (Bay Area) news last night she was all "I've changed my mind because of new information!" and we were all "Fuck. You." It's the same goddamn "information" that was evident during the whole Prop 8 debacle.
posted by rtha at 8:19 AM on February 27, 2013 [6 favorites]
It's kind of like saying my local parish priest would be happy to preside over two men getting married even though he has no power to do so since the Church still forbids it.
posted by charred husk at 8:20 AM on February 27, 2013 [1 favorite]
posted by charred husk at 8:20 AM on February 27, 2013 [1 favorite]
So it's basically, "Welp, might as well let them get married, it could get us the White House in 2016."
IOW the tiniest policy shift that might appeal to the mythical undecided voter in hopes it might do what a vat of Brylcreem and two hundred hours of don't-lose-your-temper-on-television training could not do for Romney.
At least that's the framing I'm reading here?
"Hey, they won't have babies, so the abortion issue doesn't matter to them!" this is some seriously low hanging fruit.
Cool. Okay, thanks, elephants! Thelephants!
posted by seanmpuckett at 8:21 AM on February 27, 2013 [1 favorite]
IOW the tiniest policy shift that might appeal to the mythical undecided voter in hopes it might do what a vat of Brylcreem and two hundred hours of don't-lose-your-temper-on-television training could not do for Romney.
At least that's the framing I'm reading here?
"Hey, they won't have babies, so the abortion issue doesn't matter to them!" this is some seriously low hanging fruit.
Cool. Okay, thanks, elephants! Thelephants!
posted by seanmpuckett at 8:21 AM on February 27, 2013 [1 favorite]
Party of Lincoln, Party of Lincoln, Party of Lincoln... hey y'all you know who was not super into the whole States' Rights thing? "This guy who opposed most of what we stand for used to use our name! Vote for us!"
There's a painting that has Reagan and Nixon playing cards with Lincoln. It's so appalling, both as art and as political comment, that I sometimes wonder whether it's extremely dry satire.
posted by Rustic Etruscan at 8:22 AM on February 27, 2013 [4 favorites]
There's a painting that has Reagan and Nixon playing cards with Lincoln. It's so appalling, both as art and as political comment, that I sometimes wonder whether it's extremely dry satire.
posted by Rustic Etruscan at 8:22 AM on February 27, 2013 [4 favorites]
Silly me. Here I was thinking that the SCOTUS was a truly independent branch of government, deciding cases based on the merits of the respective arguments rather than the names attached to the briefs, and willing to take courageous positions without political cover, simply because they were the right thing to do.
Sure, and the executive branch faithfully executes the law and Constitution even when doing so would go counter to its own policy preferences, and Congress's job is to pass laws, not grandstand. Can I live in your country?
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 8:23 AM on February 27, 2013 [7 favorites]
Sure, and the executive branch faithfully executes the law and Constitution even when doing so would go counter to its own policy preferences, and Congress's job is to pass laws, not grandstand. Can I live in your country?
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 8:23 AM on February 27, 2013 [7 favorites]
So we don't want to encourage even this incremental step towards positive change?
posted by Capt. Renault at 8:25 AM on February 27, 2013 [6 favorites]
posted by Capt. Renault at 8:25 AM on February 27, 2013 [6 favorites]
This is nice to see and I would think it could be smart politics for Republicans to adopt more broadly. Yes, there are still large numbers of right-wingers for whom this is a "morals" issue and maybe they just can't get past that. But with some messaging it could just as easily become a "freedom" issue. With the raging fight on the right against gun control - with Republicans saying "this is my freedom as an American and you can't take that away from me just because you don't agree" - you could repackage the gay rights issue the same way.
Republicans could still stand on limited government and less spending and all of that stuff - and in those issues there's still lots of fodder to fight the class war that they seem so fond of - but they could start to look at these issues as ones of individual freedom and speak loudly that they hold the rights of citizens to do as they please in the highest regard. I'd bet that would win them a lot of votes and endanger only a few.
(Yes, that's a long shot. But dare to dream.)
posted by AgentRocket at 8:25 AM on February 27, 2013 [1 favorite]
Republicans could still stand on limited government and less spending and all of that stuff - and in those issues there's still lots of fodder to fight the class war that they seem so fond of - but they could start to look at these issues as ones of individual freedom and speak loudly that they hold the rights of citizens to do as they please in the highest regard. I'd bet that would win them a lot of votes and endanger only a few.
(Yes, that's a long shot. But dare to dream.)
posted by AgentRocket at 8:25 AM on February 27, 2013 [1 favorite]
Maybe now the churches will quit kissing up to the Republicans and quit looking for political solutions for spiritual problems.
posted by St. Alia of the Bunnies at 8:27 AM on February 27, 2013 [5 favorites]
posted by St. Alia of the Bunnies at 8:27 AM on February 27, 2013 [5 favorites]
Sure, and the executive branch faithfully executes the law and Constitution even when doing so would go counter to its own policy preferences, and Congress's job is to pass laws, not grandstand. Can I live in your country?
Absolutely! That would double the population.
posted by googly at 8:28 AM on February 27, 2013 [4 favorites]
Absolutely! That would double the population.
posted by googly at 8:28 AM on February 27, 2013 [4 favorites]
Lincoln Would Be a Democrat Today, Say Doris Kearns Goodwin and Tony Kushner
"The Republican Party and the Whig Party, of which Lincoln was a member, believed that government had a role in helping to move the country forward through building dams and dredging rivers and making harbors better, and the transcontinental railroad, much like what we call stimulus today," she (Kearns Goodwin) tells THR. "He also believed government had a role in helping people rise to the level of their talent in their discipline, that sort of equal-opportunity role, in that sense he might find the principles of the Democrats congenial."posted by Golden Eternity at 8:29 AM on February 27, 2013 [1 favorite]
No, it's good, Capt. Renault. It just reads as totally mercenary. I mean one could think that maybe they really think that it's cool that marriage should be between two loving people now? Despite decades of frothful rhetoric against it? And now it's okay? I mean, it's so calculating. It's a good thing as a policy, but a sudden change in a "what's best for society, mom, America and Apple pie" belief tends to show more about the way they think than anything else.
posted by seanmpuckett at 8:30 AM on February 27, 2013 [1 favorite]
posted by seanmpuckett at 8:30 AM on February 27, 2013 [1 favorite]
Party of Lincoln, Party of Lincoln, Party of Lincoln
I'm pretty sure they're talking about the car. They could clarify this by calling themselves the Town Car Party.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 8:31 AM on February 27, 2013 [9 favorites]
I'm pretty sure they're talking about the car. They could clarify this by calling themselves the Town Car Party.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 8:31 AM on February 27, 2013 [9 favorites]
Whatever the reasons, it is more important to me that our LGBT citizens have as much support as possible. The fact that a number of highly recognizable Republicans are coming out in favor of gay marriage is such a shift in the wind as to have been unthinkable 10 years ago. The world is changing toward inclusiveness, and that's always a messy business, and I want it to happen faster and better, but I cannot help but be glad for this.
posted by Bunny Ultramod at 8:31 AM on February 27, 2013 [6 favorites]
posted by Bunny Ultramod at 8:31 AM on February 27, 2013 [6 favorites]
I don't doubt the sincerity of those who signed the brief. I doubt how much impact this actually will have on the Republican party.
posted by charred husk at 8:34 AM on February 27, 2013 [1 favorite]
posted by charred husk at 8:34 AM on February 27, 2013 [1 favorite]
"I've changed my mind because of new information!"
New shit has come to light.
posted by Ironmouth at 8:36 AM on February 27, 2013 [1 favorite]
New shit has come to light.
posted by Ironmouth at 8:36 AM on February 27, 2013 [1 favorite]
Silly me. Here I was thinking that the SCOTUS was a truly independent branch of government, deciding cases based on the merits of the respective arguments rather than the names attached to the briefs, and willing to take courageous positions without political cover, simply because they were the right thing to do.
You're thinking of the Warren Court or Burger Court. About the time Bush replaced Marshall with Thomas under the "one black guy is the same as any other black guy" doctrine we started to see more decisions come down to "can you convince Kennedy it's a good idea". 5-4 decisions merely to keep the progress made since the 1970s is not conducive to a progressive society. And then you just have abominations like Van Orden v. Perry or Board of Education v. Earls which drag things backwards.
posted by Talez at 8:37 AM on February 27, 2013
You're thinking of the Warren Court or Burger Court. About the time Bush replaced Marshall with Thomas under the "one black guy is the same as any other black guy" doctrine we started to see more decisions come down to "can you convince Kennedy it's a good idea". 5-4 decisions merely to keep the progress made since the 1970s is not conducive to a progressive society. And then you just have abominations like Van Orden v. Perry or Board of Education v. Earls which drag things backwards.
posted by Talez at 8:37 AM on February 27, 2013
Following charred husk, this is a list mostly composed of gay Republicans, people who've never held elected office, washouts and has-beens, and elected officials from places far more liberal than your average Republican.
It's nice to see, really and truly, but it doesn't really matter for the overall Republican position on marriage equality or how the party is seen by folks. Todd Akin and his ilk blethering on speak far more loudly than these folks signing an amicus brief.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 8:38 AM on February 27, 2013 [1 favorite]
It's nice to see, really and truly, but it doesn't really matter for the overall Republican position on marriage equality or how the party is seen by folks. Todd Akin and his ilk blethering on speak far more loudly than these folks signing an amicus brief.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 8:38 AM on February 27, 2013 [1 favorite]
Todd Akin and his ilk blethering on speak far more loudly than these folks signing an amicus brief.
Now now. Let's not be too hard on Todd Akin. The man gift wrapped the Democrats a Senate seat with a nice little bow on top. One shouldn't look gift horses in the mouth.
posted by Talez at 8:41 AM on February 27, 2013 [2 favorites]
Now now. Let's not be too hard on Todd Akin. The man gift wrapped the Democrats a Senate seat with a nice little bow on top. One shouldn't look gift horses in the mouth.
posted by Talez at 8:41 AM on February 27, 2013 [2 favorites]
I don't doubt the sincerity of those who signed the brief. I doubt how much impact this actually will have on the Republican party.
Fortunately, the only Republicans I care about this impacting are the ones to whom the brief is addressed. The rest of the Republican party can, to put it as delicately as I can, go fuck themselves.
posted by MCMikeNamara at 8:45 AM on February 27, 2013
Fortunately, the only Republicans I care about this impacting are the ones to whom the brief is addressed. The rest of the Republican party can, to put it as delicately as I can, go fuck themselves.
posted by MCMikeNamara at 8:45 AM on February 27, 2013
Much as I mock the closeted Republicans and their ridiculous over-the-top homophobia, I really do not understand out gay republicans. I mean, seriously, what is the appeal? You get to feel important for five minutes every so often when they pretend not to be the party of bigotry? You know they'll be straight back to wanting to put you in re-education camps in the morning.
I guess they just really, really hate women and poor people to the extent that putting up with being useless and hated makes sense.
posted by Artw at 8:45 AM on February 27, 2013
I guess they just really, really hate women and poor people to the extent that putting up with being useless and hated makes sense.
posted by Artw at 8:45 AM on February 27, 2013
I don't doubt the sincerity of those who signed the brief. I doubt how much impact this actually will have on the Republican party.
Actually, it seems like the potential of being a fork issue, particularly in the pressure it puts on the Obama administration. Right now, they have not submitted an amicus brief, and no one knows which way they're going to jump. If they don't submit an amicus brief and Republicans do - no matter how indicative they are of the rest of the party - then it can legitimately be argued in 2014 or 2016 that Republicans are further ahead in terms of gay rights. If the Obama administration does submit an amicus brief, any positive buzz it could have generated is drowned out by the Republican one, which beat them to the punch.
posted by corb at 8:45 AM on February 27, 2013
Actually, it seems like the potential of being a fork issue, particularly in the pressure it puts on the Obama administration. Right now, they have not submitted an amicus brief, and no one knows which way they're going to jump. If they don't submit an amicus brief and Republicans do - no matter how indicative they are of the rest of the party - then it can legitimately be argued in 2014 or 2016 that Republicans are further ahead in terms of gay rights. If the Obama administration does submit an amicus brief, any positive buzz it could have generated is drowned out by the Republican one, which beat them to the punch.
posted by corb at 8:45 AM on February 27, 2013
Where is Lindsey Graham on that brief? Must've been home snuggling with his boyfriend when this was circulated and missed it.
then it can legitimately be argued in 2014 or 2016 that Republicans are further ahead in terms of gay rights.
Yes, I can't wait to see a GOP candidate argue this in a primary debate.
posted by octobersurprise at 8:49 AM on February 27, 2013 [1 favorite]
then it can legitimately be argued in 2014 or 2016 that Republicans are further ahead in terms of gay rights.
Yes, I can't wait to see a GOP candidate argue this in a primary debate.
posted by octobersurprise at 8:49 AM on February 27, 2013 [1 favorite]
I really do not understand out gay republicans. I mean, seriously, what is the appeal?
A misguided sense of fiscal responsibility.
posted by Talez at 8:50 AM on February 27, 2013 [2 favorites]
A misguided sense of fiscal responsibility.
posted by Talez at 8:50 AM on February 27, 2013 [2 favorites]
There's a painting that has Reagan and Nixon playing cards with Lincoln. It's so appalling, both as art and as political comment, that I sometimes wonder whether it's extremely dry satire.The fact that you can't see Lincoln's face, while they're all (with the possible exception of Lincoln) having a good laugh at something, and the focus of their attention is definitely Lincoln, makes me think that they're all laughing at him. Dubya in particular has a body language that seems to me to be "in your face" confrontational jocularity, and likely just made a joke that Lincoln is some kinda pinko commie Muslim.
The look that you can't see on Lincoln's face is one of confused annoyance.
posted by Flunkie at 8:51 AM on February 27, 2013 [1 favorite]
From the "lost it the youth vote" link:
In the end, the Republican Party’s failure to progress on social issues was a deal-breaker for America’s youths.
While this is a plausible (and very tempting) narrative, I would like to see this hypothesis supported by some actual data.
"Missy Tranter, a 24-year-old Washington, D.C., resident" and "Katie Lazares, 25, of Massachusetts" is kind of a small sample size, and sounds like it might possibly overrepresent women who live in extremely blue areas.
posted by dersins at 8:52 AM on February 27, 2013
In the end, the Republican Party’s failure to progress on social issues was a deal-breaker for America’s youths.
While this is a plausible (and very tempting) narrative, I would like to see this hypothesis supported by some actual data.
"Missy Tranter, a 24-year-old Washington, D.C., resident" and "Katie Lazares, 25, of Massachusetts" is kind of a small sample size, and sounds like it might possibly overrepresent women who live in extremely blue areas.
posted by dersins at 8:52 AM on February 27, 2013
I mean one could think that maybe they really think that it's cool that marriage should be between two loving people now? Despite decades of frothful rhetoric against it?
Maybe that's true. But maybe we should make it as easy as possible for people to support gay marriage, instead of having qualifiers attached to that support, that it's mercenary, that it's not what they really believe, whatever.
Perhaps you're absolutely right, that these prominent Republicans didn't have a true Road to Damascus moment (which is not to say I share your reading of their motives). But for whatever reason, they're on board now, and we should welcome that. If we chastise these people for putting themselves out there, we are not making it easy for others to change their minds on this.
I think we need to welcome this change, instead of condemning it.
posted by Capt. Renault at 8:53 AM on February 27, 2013 [2 favorites]
Maybe that's true. But maybe we should make it as easy as possible for people to support gay marriage, instead of having qualifiers attached to that support, that it's mercenary, that it's not what they really believe, whatever.
Perhaps you're absolutely right, that these prominent Republicans didn't have a true Road to Damascus moment (which is not to say I share your reading of their motives). But for whatever reason, they're on board now, and we should welcome that. If we chastise these people for putting themselves out there, we are not making it easy for others to change their minds on this.
I think we need to welcome this change, instead of condemning it.
posted by Capt. Renault at 8:53 AM on February 27, 2013 [2 favorites]
It just reads as totally mercenary. I mean one could think that maybe they really think that it's cool that marriage should be between two loving people now? Despite decades of frothful rhetoric against it? And now it's okay? I mean, it's so calculating
I think it was mercenary in the first place. Why would someone who believes (allegedly) in individual liberty and less government encroachment favor laws that encroach on individual liberty?
There was progress being made for rights for everyone then about 1970 the GOP saw the religious vote and jumped on it.
So it was full of it from the start.
The 70s is when the log cabin republicans started. McCain supported them and rejected the federal marriage amendment. Not that McCain hasn't been all over the map to try to get elected. I don't know it's the first time a politician caught the way the wind was blowing.
posted by Smedleyman at 8:57 AM on February 27, 2013
I think it was mercenary in the first place. Why would someone who believes (allegedly) in individual liberty and less government encroachment favor laws that encroach on individual liberty?
There was progress being made for rights for everyone then about 1970 the GOP saw the religious vote and jumped on it.
So it was full of it from the start.
The 70s is when the log cabin republicans started. McCain supported them and rejected the federal marriage amendment. Not that McCain hasn't been all over the map to try to get elected. I don't know it's the first time a politician caught the way the wind was blowing.
posted by Smedleyman at 8:57 AM on February 27, 2013
If they don't submit an amicus brief and Republicans do - no matter how indicative they are of the rest of the party - then it can legitimately be argued in 2014 or 2016 that Republicans are further ahead in terms of gay rights.
In the same way that it can be legitimately argued that humans have never been to the moon.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 9:01 AM on February 27, 2013 [1 favorite]
In the same way that it can be legitimately argued that humans have never been to the moon.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 9:01 AM on February 27, 2013 [1 favorite]
Actually, it seems like the potential of being a fork issue, particularly in the pressure it puts on the Obama administration. Right now, they have not submitted an amicus brief, and no one knows which way they're going to jump. If they don't submit an amicus brief and Republicans do - no matter how indicative they are of the rest of the party - then it can legitimately be argued in 2014 or 2016 that Republicans are further ahead in terms of gay rights. If the Obama administration does submit an amicus brief, any positive buzz it could have generated is drowned out by the Republican one, which beat them to the punch.
What the hell kind of cognitive dissonance is this? BLAG is fighting the DOMA legal shitfight on behalf of house republicans. How the hell could you make this argument in good faith or in good conscience?
posted by Talez at 9:02 AM on February 27, 2013 [1 favorite]
What the hell kind of cognitive dissonance is this? BLAG is fighting the DOMA legal shitfight on behalf of house republicans. How the hell could you make this argument in good faith or in good conscience?
posted by Talez at 9:02 AM on February 27, 2013 [1 favorite]
There's a painting that has Reagan and Nixon playing cards with Lincoln. It's so appalling, both as art and as political comment, that I sometimes wonder whether it's extremely dry satire.
TBH I can't see it as anything but satire.
posted by shakespeherian at 9:03 AM on February 27, 2013
TBH I can't see it as anything but satire.
posted by shakespeherian at 9:03 AM on February 27, 2013
I really do not understand out gay republicans. I mean, seriously, what is the appeal?
They're gay Republicans so, presumably they're rich; and they're rich, gay, Republicans, so presumably they're vain; and they're rich, gay, vain, Republicans, so presumably they're hot; and they're hot, rich, gay Republicans, so presumably they have no moral compass at all. The appeal is obvious. I mean, it's like a CW television show come to life!
posted by octobersurprise at 9:05 AM on February 27, 2013 [2 favorites]
They're gay Republicans so, presumably they're rich; and they're rich, gay, Republicans, so presumably they're vain; and they're rich, gay, vain, Republicans, so presumably they're hot; and they're hot, rich, gay Republicans, so presumably they have no moral compass at all. The appeal is obvious. I mean, it's like a CW television show come to life!
posted by octobersurprise at 9:05 AM on February 27, 2013 [2 favorites]
corb, your idea that the republican Party could in any way be somehow "leading" on gay rights rather than playing desperate catch-up is pure god damn fantasy.
Oh no no no, I in no way whatsoever think that the Republicans overall are leading on gay rights. I'm saying that by them stepping up to the plate, the Democrats are challenged to either move further, or look like they are behind the Republicans.
You're right - gay people will likely absolutely not forget how shitty the Republican party has been to them, at least within a generation or two. But there are a lot of people, I think, who are just J. Citizen, who oppose same-sex marriage bans and suchlike, but who fiscally support Republicans. Right now, they vote Democrat more often than not - but enough of a change I think possibly could swing them. And I think even that slim possibility is something that the Republicans need right now.
What the hell kind of cognitive dissonance is this? BLAG is fighting the DOMA legal shitfight on behalf of house republicans.
Rebellion in the Republican party - which, if they get enough positive buzz, might be enough to turn it. It's the same way that Tea Party republicans have fought the Republican leadership many a time - it's not cognitive dissonance, it's a house divided against itself.
posted by corb at 9:06 AM on February 27, 2013
Oh no no no, I in no way whatsoever think that the Republicans overall are leading on gay rights. I'm saying that by them stepping up to the plate, the Democrats are challenged to either move further, or look like they are behind the Republicans.
You're right - gay people will likely absolutely not forget how shitty the Republican party has been to them, at least within a generation or two. But there are a lot of people, I think, who are just J. Citizen, who oppose same-sex marriage bans and suchlike, but who fiscally support Republicans. Right now, they vote Democrat more often than not - but enough of a change I think possibly could swing them. And I think even that slim possibility is something that the Republicans need right now.
What the hell kind of cognitive dissonance is this? BLAG is fighting the DOMA legal shitfight on behalf of house republicans.
Rebellion in the Republican party - which, if they get enough positive buzz, might be enough to turn it. It's the same way that Tea Party republicans have fought the Republican leadership many a time - it's not cognitive dissonance, it's a house divided against itself.
posted by corb at 9:06 AM on February 27, 2013
Also, I don't think the White House filing an amicus brief could go down as anything but "OBAMA DEMANDS SUPREME COURT MAKE GAY MARRIAGE LEGAL" in the United States of Fox News.
posted by Talez at 9:06 AM on February 27, 2013
posted by Talez at 9:06 AM on February 27, 2013
And I think even that slim possibility is something that the Republicans need right now.
What the Republicans need right now is a frank look at how almost all of their policy positions are based around 'FUCK YOU X' for various values of X.
posted by shakespeherian at 9:10 AM on February 27, 2013 [5 favorites]
What the Republicans need right now is a frank look at how almost all of their policy positions are based around 'FUCK YOU X' for various values of X.
posted by shakespeherian at 9:10 AM on February 27, 2013 [5 favorites]
There's a painting that has Reagan and Nixon playing cards with Lincoln. It's so appalling, both as art and as political comment, that I sometimes wonder whether it's extremely dry satire.
Teddy is there too right? Also appalling. To be absolutely honest, I don't think it's fair to Nixon to be included with Reagan and Bush 43...
posted by spaltavian at 9:21 AM on February 27, 2013
Teddy is there too right? Also appalling. To be absolutely honest, I don't think it's fair to Nixon to be included with Reagan and Bush 43...
posted by spaltavian at 9:21 AM on February 27, 2013
The one gay Republican that I personally know* is, like almost all other Republicans that I know, not rich. He's not rich by a long shot. Rather, he is, just like almost all other Republicans that I know, under the impression that he would be rich if commies would just stop wasting money on crazy things like feeding poor people, public education, libraries, and inspecting the food supply.I really do not understand out gay republicans. I mean, seriously, what is the appeal?They're gay Republicans so, presumably they're rich
*: I mean, the one Republican that I know who I am 100% sure is openly gay. There seem to be so many Republicans who doth protest too much that at this point my gut reaction to finding out that someone is a Republican is that they're a closeted gay person.
posted by Flunkie at 9:30 AM on February 27, 2013 [1 favorite]
then it can legitimately be argued in 2014 or 2016 that Republicans are further ahead in terms of gay rights.
I loled.
posted by Aizkolari at 9:36 AM on February 27, 2013
I loled.
posted by Aizkolari at 9:36 AM on February 27, 2013
I'm still stuck on Meg Whitman's "new information" problem. She said "The facts and arguments presented during the legal process since then have had a profound impact on my thinking." To which, again, I say fuck you. There are not any "new" facts on this. I am still, in fact, married, just as I was then.
Also, she apparently announced this on LinkedIn? Is that a thing?
posted by gingerbeer at 9:36 AM on February 27, 2013 [2 favorites]
Also, she apparently announced this on LinkedIn? Is that a thing?
posted by gingerbeer at 9:36 AM on February 27, 2013 [2 favorites]
"Prominent Republicans" as a link title for this bunch of relative nobodies is hilarious. Also, charred husk.
Having said that, good for them.
posted by Eyebeams at 9:37 AM on February 27, 2013
Having said that, good for them.
posted by Eyebeams at 9:37 AM on February 27, 2013
Here are some T-shirts that remind of what Southern Republicans think of the Party of Lincoln.
posted by jonp72 at 9:38 AM on February 27, 2013 [1 favorite]
posted by jonp72 at 9:38 AM on February 27, 2013 [1 favorite]
Related: The Economic Closet: The Business Case for Gay Marriage
posted by MCMikeNamara at 9:50 AM on February 27, 2013
posted by MCMikeNamara at 9:50 AM on February 27, 2013
Jon Huntsman will always be the once and forever savior of the GOP, the vanquisher of Obama, the lost Utahan hope of 2012.
posted by Apocryphon at 9:54 AM on February 27, 2013 [1 favorite]
posted by Apocryphon at 9:54 AM on February 27, 2013 [1 favorite]
Also, she apparently announced this on LinkedIn? Is that a thing?
Yeah, it's a LinkedIn thing. I don't know what they call it - "CEO Hijinx," maybe, or "Keeping up with the 1%." Before Whitman, it was Richard Branson. I complained to LinkedIn about those, and the CSR pretended to not know anything about it, let alone how I could stop them from being in my Inbox. I had to create a special filter to automate them to the trash. I just sent another complaint about the Whitman one.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 10:16 AM on February 27, 2013
Yeah, it's a LinkedIn thing. I don't know what they call it - "CEO Hijinx," maybe, or "Keeping up with the 1%." Before Whitman, it was Richard Branson. I complained to LinkedIn about those, and the CSR pretended to not know anything about it, let alone how I could stop them from being in my Inbox. I had to create a special filter to automate them to the trash. I just sent another complaint about the Whitman one.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 10:16 AM on February 27, 2013
What happened their insistence that gay people getting married would destroy the institution of marriage? The institution of marriage which in the U.S. is running about a 50% success rate--or worse for marriages beyond the first one.
Maybe now the churches will quit kissing up to the Republicans
Likewise, the GOP will stop pandering to them as if their party has the market cornered on being religious.
and quit looking for political solutions for spiritual problems.
I don't agree with describing the state of being gay and wanting to have your marriage legally recognized (or wanting to get married period) as a "spiritual problem".
Yes, I can't wait to see a GOP candidate argue this in a primary debate.
Yeah, I can't wait to see which ones will try to claim they were for it all along but couldn't speak out because they were trying to be a Good Republican. I also can't wait to see which ones still won't be able to avoid quoting Bible verses against it.
Respect Traditional Marriage!
posted by fuse theorem at 10:20 AM on February 27, 2013
Maybe now the churches will quit kissing up to the Republicans
Likewise, the GOP will stop pandering to them as if their party has the market cornered on being religious.
and quit looking for political solutions for spiritual problems.
I don't agree with describing the state of being gay and wanting to have your marriage legally recognized (or wanting to get married period) as a "spiritual problem".
Yes, I can't wait to see a GOP candidate argue this in a primary debate.
Yeah, I can't wait to see which ones will try to claim they were for it all along but couldn't speak out because they were trying to be a Good Republican. I also can't wait to see which ones still won't be able to avoid quoting Bible verses against it.
Respect Traditional Marriage!
posted by fuse theorem at 10:20 AM on February 27, 2013
Actually, it seems like the potential of being a fork issue, particularly in the pressure it puts on the Obama administration. Right now, they have not submitted an amicus brief, and no one knows which way they're going to jump.
This is fairly misleading. The Obama administration has, in fact, filed a brief in the DOMA case asking for it to be struck down. It specifically mentions Prop 8 as proof of bias against GLBT citizens.
If they don't submit an amicus brief and Republicans do - no matter how indicative they are of the rest of the party - then it can legitimately be argued in 2014 or 2016 that Republicans are further ahead in terms of gay rights.
There is literally zero proof of that legitimate argument. First of all, the Republicans have already submitted an amicus brief. BLAG, which under HRes 1 formally represents the entire GOP caucus of at least one chamber of the legislative branch of government (including Rep. Pryce and Rep. Ros-Lehtinen, who voted for it) submitted their support of DOMA and Prop 8 already. The only thing that can be argued is that 0.8% of Republican members of a single chamber of one branch of the federal government (filing as private citizens per above), and 0.0% of elected Republicans that hold statewide office at either the state or federal level are further ahead of their own party in terms of gay rights.
If the Obama administration does submit an amicus brief, any positive buzz it could have generated is drowned out by the Republican one, which beat them to the punch.
How, exactly? The "Republican brief" doesn't represent the party, the elected officials, or the party-affiliated organizations. The official Republican brief has already been submitted. The Obama brief represents the full arguing power of the elected officials of the executive branch of the federal government, with the implicit support of the entire Democratic caucus of the House (again, per HRes 1).
Oh no no no, I in no way whatsoever think that the Republicans overall are leading on gay rights. I'm saying that by them stepping up to the plate, the Democrats are challenged to either move further, or look like they are behind the Republicans.
In what way? It's been 45 years since the Civil Rights Act, and the GOP is still considered the party of white folks. It's been 48 years since the Voting Rights Act, and exclusively GOP state and local governments are arguing for it to be struck down at this very moment and will probably be successful.
So, no, a bunch of private citizens who call themselves Republicans will not, either implicitly or explicitly, position Republicans ahead of gay rights. Especially not when the official Republican position across the party and amongst elected officials is still in opposition to them.
You're right - gay people will likely absolutely not forget how shitty the Republican party has been to them, at least within a generation or two. But there are a lot of people, I think, who are just J. Citizen, who oppose same-sex marriage bans and suchlike, but who fiscally support Republicans. Right now, they vote Democrat more often than not - but enough of a change I think possibly could swing them. And I think even that slim possibility is something that the Republicans need right now.
They also need to stop being straight-up racist (arguing for major section of civil rights legislation to be struck down), sexist (refusing to approve things like the Violence Against Women Act), isolationist (running immigration checks on the looks of people's shoes), and pretty much every other negative -ist that they're widely considered to be right now.
Rebellion in the Republican party - which, if they get enough positive buzz, might be enough to turn it. It's the same way that Tea Party republicans have fought the Republican leadership many a time - it's not cognitive dissonance, it's a house divided against itself.
What rebellion? Like I said, BLAG was authorized by every single voting member of the House GOP caucus, including Rep. Pryce and Rep. Ros-Lehtinen. There's no rebellion, the house (or House, for that matter) is not divided against itself at all.
posted by zombieflanders at 10:24 AM on February 27, 2013 [7 favorites]
This is fairly misleading. The Obama administration has, in fact, filed a brief in the DOMA case asking for it to be struck down. It specifically mentions Prop 8 as proof of bias against GLBT citizens.
If they don't submit an amicus brief and Republicans do - no matter how indicative they are of the rest of the party - then it can legitimately be argued in 2014 or 2016 that Republicans are further ahead in terms of gay rights.
There is literally zero proof of that legitimate argument. First of all, the Republicans have already submitted an amicus brief. BLAG, which under HRes 1 formally represents the entire GOP caucus of at least one chamber of the legislative branch of government (including Rep. Pryce and Rep. Ros-Lehtinen, who voted for it) submitted their support of DOMA and Prop 8 already. The only thing that can be argued is that 0.8% of Republican members of a single chamber of one branch of the federal government (filing as private citizens per above), and 0.0% of elected Republicans that hold statewide office at either the state or federal level are further ahead of their own party in terms of gay rights.
If the Obama administration does submit an amicus brief, any positive buzz it could have generated is drowned out by the Republican one, which beat them to the punch.
How, exactly? The "Republican brief" doesn't represent the party, the elected officials, or the party-affiliated organizations. The official Republican brief has already been submitted. The Obama brief represents the full arguing power of the elected officials of the executive branch of the federal government, with the implicit support of the entire Democratic caucus of the House (again, per HRes 1).
Oh no no no, I in no way whatsoever think that the Republicans overall are leading on gay rights. I'm saying that by them stepping up to the plate, the Democrats are challenged to either move further, or look like they are behind the Republicans.
In what way? It's been 45 years since the Civil Rights Act, and the GOP is still considered the party of white folks. It's been 48 years since the Voting Rights Act, and exclusively GOP state and local governments are arguing for it to be struck down at this very moment and will probably be successful.
So, no, a bunch of private citizens who call themselves Republicans will not, either implicitly or explicitly, position Republicans ahead of gay rights. Especially not when the official Republican position across the party and amongst elected officials is still in opposition to them.
You're right - gay people will likely absolutely not forget how shitty the Republican party has been to them, at least within a generation or two. But there are a lot of people, I think, who are just J. Citizen, who oppose same-sex marriage bans and suchlike, but who fiscally support Republicans. Right now, they vote Democrat more often than not - but enough of a change I think possibly could swing them. And I think even that slim possibility is something that the Republicans need right now.
They also need to stop being straight-up racist (arguing for major section of civil rights legislation to be struck down), sexist (refusing to approve things like the Violence Against Women Act), isolationist (running immigration checks on the looks of people's shoes), and pretty much every other negative -ist that they're widely considered to be right now.
Rebellion in the Republican party - which, if they get enough positive buzz, might be enough to turn it. It's the same way that Tea Party republicans have fought the Republican leadership many a time - it's not cognitive dissonance, it's a house divided against itself.
What rebellion? Like I said, BLAG was authorized by every single voting member of the House GOP caucus, including Rep. Pryce and Rep. Ros-Lehtinen. There's no rebellion, the house (or House, for that matter) is not divided against itself at all.
posted by zombieflanders at 10:24 AM on February 27, 2013 [7 favorites]
I really do not understand out gay republicans. I mean, seriously, what is the appeal?
A misguided sense of fiscal responsibility.
The more money you have, the easier it is to ignore or buy your way past oppression.
Also being gay or anything else doesn't necessarily make you sympathetic to the problems of others.
posted by emjaybee at 10:27 AM on February 27, 2013 [4 favorites]
A misguided sense of fiscal responsibility.
The more money you have, the easier it is to ignore or buy your way past oppression.
Also being gay or anything else doesn't necessarily make you sympathetic to the problems of others.
posted by emjaybee at 10:27 AM on February 27, 2013 [4 favorites]
Jon Huntsman, who made it all the way to the . . . second Presidential primary last year — prominent Republican! And he is arguably the most prominent among this group of nowhere men.
posted by Eyebeams at 10:37 AM on February 27, 2013
posted by Eyebeams at 10:37 AM on February 27, 2013
Not to be cynical, but it is exactly things like this that make me suspect/fear that the Supreme Court will just throw the cases out for lack of standing (and duck the merits), rather than enter the political fray either way. Plus, they'd get to restrict standing and other procedural barriers to getting into court even further than they already have (cough Clapper v. Amnesty International cough).
posted by likeatoaster at 10:50 AM on February 27, 2013
posted by likeatoaster at 10:50 AM on February 27, 2013
In other news from this brave new world where Republicans stand up for the right of people to do what they want in their own bedrooms without government interference, New Hampshire state rep Mark Warden backs a proposed bill to reduce the penalty for assault because "a lot of people like being in abusive relationships."
posted by Flunkie at 11:01 AM on February 27, 2013 [1 favorite]
posted by Flunkie at 11:01 AM on February 27, 2013 [1 favorite]
It's going to be wonderful/unfortunate to witness the circular firing squad that erupts between the majority of republican leadership who are determined to be on the wrong side of history and the handful that are actually sane. I doubt this will be the last. It's going to be a rough decade for the republican party.
posted by mullingitover at 11:28 AM on February 27, 2013
posted by mullingitover at 11:28 AM on February 27, 2013
Regarding whether or not the Obama administration will file an amicus brief, or not ...
New York Times:
New York Times:
A White House official said Tuesday morning that no decision has been made on whether to file an amicus brief; the deadline is Thursday. The Wall Street Journal, citing unnamed sources, reported Tuesday evening that the administration was still weighing its decision, and is “looking at options that fall short of embracing a constitutional right'’ to same-sex marriage.Wall Street Journal:
Mr. Obama has made supporting same-sex marriage a central theme in his recent speeches, including his second inaugural address and has often stated that Americans ought to have equal rights, “no matter who you love.” He announced during his re-election campaign last year that, after months of saying his views were “evolving,” he had concluded gay couples ought to be allowed to marry.
"[A]dministration lawyers worry that taking such an expansive view in legal briefs could unnerve some justices in the Supreme Court's conservative wing, the people familiar with the matter said," the Journal reported.New York Times Editorial: Beyond Selma-to-Stonewall
The outcome of the Proposition 8 case is likely to affect the lives of gay, lesbian and bisexual Americans for years to come, even if the final disposition is not sweeping enough to wipe out all state laws currently banning same-sex marriage. A strong filing by the Justice Department, forthrightly declaring that denying the freedom to marry violates the Constitution, would put the full weight of the federal government on the side of justice and could influence the shape of the ruling.posted by ericb at 11:33 AM on February 27, 2013 [1 favorite]
For the administration to be missing in action in this showdown risks conveying a message to the justices that it lacks confidence in the constitutional claims for ending gay people’s exclusion from marriage or that it believes Americans are not ready for a high court ruling making marriage equality the law of the land — impressions strikingly contradicted by legal precedent, the lessons of history and by the president’s own very powerful words.
I support this for two reasons: I think that it is the right thing to do, and I also support having a healthy Republican party. Right now, they're a passel of visigoths and wackjobs so beholden to their own monstrous resentments that they can't help the country at all.
That said, I do hope this increases the pressure on the Obama administration. We were getting word trickling out from folks close to him that a decision was imminent, but that was weeks ago and no one seems to know what happened.
If y'all want, my job — self link, obvs — does have a letter writing campaign up to encourage Obama to file an amicus brief. Also, it may not work on Chrome or Firefox on Macs for some reason that we haven't been able to figure out, likely due to a conflict in old Mozilla code and old Kintera code.
posted by klangklangston at 11:43 AM on February 27, 2013 [1 favorite]
That said, I do hope this increases the pressure on the Obama administration. We were getting word trickling out from folks close to him that a decision was imminent, but that was weeks ago and no one seems to know what happened.
If y'all want, my job — self link, obvs — does have a letter writing campaign up to encourage Obama to file an amicus brief. Also, it may not work on Chrome or Firefox on Macs for some reason that we haven't been able to figure out, likely due to a conflict in old Mozilla code and old Kintera code.
posted by klangklangston at 11:43 AM on February 27, 2013 [1 favorite]
In other news from this brave new world where Republicans stand up for the right of people to do what they want in their own bedrooms without government interference, New Hampshire state rep Mark Warden backs a proposed bill to reduce the penalty for assault because "a lot of people like being in abusive relationships."
Astounding. I don't think a lot of people do "like" being in abusive relationships, but many find it hard to leave one, just as many people find it difficult to leave any sort of relationship of the intimate manner.
posted by juiceCake at 11:46 AM on February 27, 2013
Astounding. I don't think a lot of people do "like" being in abusive relationships, but many find it hard to leave one, just as many people find it difficult to leave any sort of relationship of the intimate manner.
posted by juiceCake at 11:46 AM on February 27, 2013
It's a good thing that this is happening. However, the opposition is so strong within the party that it will take someone of real influence rather than someone like Huntsman they didn't even like before this to persuade them to start to change.
Perhaps most striking is that a clear majority of Republicans — 54 percent — opposed gay marriage strongly. And among those describing themselves as “conservatives,” 68 percent said they oppose gay marriage strongly.
I laughed at people who suggested African American social conservative Democrats would be scared off by Obama making the decision to support gay marriage because even if they oppose it that opposition is way down their list of priorities. Gay Marriage is a really big deal for the Republicans who oppose it. Opposition against anyone who supports legalizing gay marriage will still be absolutely crushing in Republican primaries for years to come.
posted by Drinky Die at 11:51 AM on February 27, 2013
Perhaps most striking is that a clear majority of Republicans — 54 percent — opposed gay marriage strongly. And among those describing themselves as “conservatives,” 68 percent said they oppose gay marriage strongly.
I laughed at people who suggested African American social conservative Democrats would be scared off by Obama making the decision to support gay marriage because even if they oppose it that opposition is way down their list of priorities. Gay Marriage is a really big deal for the Republicans who oppose it. Opposition against anyone who supports legalizing gay marriage will still be absolutely crushing in Republican primaries for years to come.
posted by Drinky Die at 11:51 AM on February 27, 2013
Fortune: "Scores of corporations will file a Supreme Court brief favoring gay marriage later this week. Signatories will include Apple, Facebook, Intel, and Morgan Stanley."
posted by ericb at 12:01 PM on February 27, 2013 [2 favorites]
posted by ericb at 12:01 PM on February 27, 2013 [2 favorites]
Opposition against anyone who supports legalizing gay marriage will still be absolutely crushing in Republican primaries for years to come.
Maybe. It seems that the tack they're taking is that civil marriage should be legal, but churches should not be forced to recognize them. So they can protect "religious/real" marriage, while still allowing the freedom of the state. If they go in that direction, it's possible that they'd be able to keep the religious support /and/ that of those who aren't social conservatives.
I think also what we'll see is a gay-marriage-supporting Vice Presidential candidate, since they don't have to go through the brutal primary process.
posted by corb at 12:09 PM on February 27, 2013
Maybe. It seems that the tack they're taking is that civil marriage should be legal, but churches should not be forced to recognize them. So they can protect "religious/real" marriage, while still allowing the freedom of the state. If they go in that direction, it's possible that they'd be able to keep the religious support /and/ that of those who aren't social conservatives.
I think also what we'll see is a gay-marriage-supporting Vice Presidential candidate, since they don't have to go through the brutal primary process.
posted by corb at 12:09 PM on February 27, 2013
There has, as far as I am aware, never been any serious proposal by anyone to force churches to recognize gay marriages. Just like, for example, the Catholic church is not forced to recognize marriages between divorcees, or for that matter marriages between Hindus.
Of course, that has never stopped Republicans from going apoplectic about how the liberals are trying to force churches to recognize gay marriages, though. Republicans go apoplectic about all sorts of stupid shit that doesn't correspond to reality.
posted by Flunkie at 12:21 PM on February 27, 2013 [6 favorites]
Of course, that has never stopped Republicans from going apoplectic about how the liberals are trying to force churches to recognize gay marriages, though. Republicans go apoplectic about all sorts of stupid shit that doesn't correspond to reality.
posted by Flunkie at 12:21 PM on February 27, 2013 [6 favorites]
Maybe. It seems that the tack they're taking is that civil marriage should be legal, but churches should not be forced to recognize them. So they can protect "religious/real" marriage, while still allowing the freedom of the state.
Who's "they"? It's certainly not politicians. And WTF is up with the church thing? At no point has gay marriage legislation asked for anything but legal recognition, churches don't even enter into the equation.
If they go in that direction, it's possible that they'd be able to keep the religious support /and/ that of those who aren't social conservatives.
Seeing as how that's the case now and they're keeping only the religious support, this has no factual basis.
posted by zombieflanders at 12:26 PM on February 27, 2013 [1 favorite]
Who's "they"? It's certainly not politicians. And WTF is up with the church thing? At no point has gay marriage legislation asked for anything but legal recognition, churches don't even enter into the equation.
If they go in that direction, it's possible that they'd be able to keep the religious support /and/ that of those who aren't social conservatives.
Seeing as how that's the case now and they're keeping only the religious support, this has no factual basis.
posted by zombieflanders at 12:26 PM on February 27, 2013 [1 favorite]
I believe the opposition is about a belief many hold that gay marriage is destructive to the health of families in our society more than it is a fear of interference with the Church.
posted by Drinky Die at 12:36 PM on February 27, 2013
posted by Drinky Die at 12:36 PM on February 27, 2013
Charlie Pierce calls out "the catch" in the Times article:
But the presence of so many well-known former officials ... suggests that once Republicans are out of public life they feel freer to speak out against the party’s official platform, which calls for amending the Constitution to define marriage as “the union of one man and one woman.posted by benito.strauss at 12:37 PM on February 27, 2013
Flunkie:
It's the price of taking money from Caesar, though.
posted by charred husk at 12:44 PM on February 27, 2013 [2 favorites]
"There has, as far as I am aware, never been any serious proposal by anyone to force churches to recognize gay marriages. Just like, for example, the Catholic church is not forced to recognize marriages between divorcees, or for that matter marriages between Hindus."The issue comes the same way birth control did. The Catholic Church isn't required to say birth control isn't a sin, but as long as people are working for them they have to deal with federal regulations in terms of who gets what benefits. So they complain about having to pay for birth control and they'll probably complain about having to offer benefits to same sex partnerships.
It's the price of taking money from Caesar, though.
posted by charred husk at 12:44 PM on February 27, 2013 [2 favorites]
I recommend this article ...
Harvard Magazine: How Same-Sex Marriage Came To Be -- "On activism, litigation, and social change in America."
posted by ericb at 12:57 PM on February 27, 2013
Harvard Magazine: How Same-Sex Marriage Came To Be -- "On activism, litigation, and social change in America."
posted by ericb at 12:57 PM on February 27, 2013
What a joke Corb.
Get back to us next time somebody supporting marriage equality actually manages to win a Republican primary.
posted by moorooka at 1:13 PM on February 27, 2013 [1 favorite]
Get back to us next time somebody supporting marriage equality actually manages to win a Republican primary.
posted by moorooka at 1:13 PM on February 27, 2013 [1 favorite]
Frank Rich on the National Circus: Republicans Avoid Getting Flattened by History
Former McCain strategist Steve Schmidt told the Times, "The die is cast on this issue." Does this push indicate a real change on this issue within the GOP? Or is it merely a token gesture from marginalized moderates?posted by ericb at 1:15 PM on February 27, 2013 [8 favorites]
Schmidt is right: The die is cast on this issue, and the [Republican amicus brief] signatories are belatedly getting ahead of history before it flattens them like a tank. Generational turnover alone assumes gay marriage will be a done deal in America; public opinion on this issue has moved faster than any civil-rights battle in our history. So excuse me for being the skunk at the party, but where were these latently brave conservatives when their stand might have made a much bigger difference in bringing equality to gay Americans?
Ken Mehlman, the Bush-era Republican chairman, deserves credit for his activist stance on marriage once he left politics and came out as gay (in 2010). But that doesn’t erase the ugly history that came before: He stood idly by when Bush and Rove vilified gay men and women to scare up votes during the 2000 and 2004 campaigns — a strategy that whipped up further bigotry against vulnerable gay citizens even as the country was still in the shadow of the 1998 murder of Matthew Shepard.
Ken Mehlman, the Bush-era Republican chairman, deserves credit for his activist stance on marriage once he left politics and came out as gay ...
Richard Socarides | The New Yorker: Ken Mehlman’s Gay-Marriage Mission.
posted by ericb at 1:21 PM on February 27, 2013
Richard Socarides | The New Yorker: Ken Mehlman’s Gay-Marriage Mission.
posted by ericb at 1:21 PM on February 27, 2013
Maybe. It seems that the tack they're taking is that civil marriage should be legal
Whose the "they" here? The GOP is fimrly against civil marriage; and a some people mostly out of office don't change that.
posted by spaltavian at 1:59 PM on February 27, 2013
Whose the "they" here? The GOP is fimrly against civil marriage; and a some people mostly out of office don't change that.
posted by spaltavian at 1:59 PM on February 27, 2013
There has, as far as I am aware, never been any serious proposal by anyone to force churches to recognize gay marriages. Just like, for example, the Catholic church is not forced to recognize marriages between divorcees, or for that matter marriages between Hindus.
Sure, but we're not talking about reality: we're talking about the politics of holding onto a base. If you ratchet up the "And they'll force our priests to marry them!" then when you "Boldly saved our priests from being forced to recognize these immoral marriages" you are a hero. Regardless of whether the threat ever existed. Ratcheting up the fear to solve the problem is exactly what politicians /do/. Thus why language is being inserted in all of these speeches about how of course churches shouldn't have to recognize these things.
posted by corb at 2:54 PM on February 27, 2013
Sure, but we're not talking about reality: we're talking about the politics of holding onto a base. If you ratchet up the "And they'll force our priests to marry them!" then when you "Boldly saved our priests from being forced to recognize these immoral marriages" you are a hero. Regardless of whether the threat ever existed. Ratcheting up the fear to solve the problem is exactly what politicians /do/. Thus why language is being inserted in all of these speeches about how of course churches shouldn't have to recognize these things.
posted by corb at 2:54 PM on February 27, 2013
"And they'll force our priests to marry them!"
I mean exactly what couple wants to get married by a minister who hates them?
posted by shakespeherian at 3:08 PM on February 27, 2013 [1 favorite]
I mean exactly what couple wants to get married by a minister who hates them?
posted by shakespeherian at 3:08 PM on February 27, 2013 [1 favorite]
Sure, but we're not talking about reality: we're talking about the politics of holding onto a base. If you ratchet up the "And they'll force our priests to marry them!" then when you "Boldly saved our priests from being forced to recognize these immoral marriages" you are a hero. Regardless of whether the threat ever existed.
Replace gay marriage in these "immoral marriages" with mixed-race marriages. Now, tell me if that made a difference amongst "the base" as opposed to widespread revulsion from both sides. And if you can provide any evidence of the existence of this mythical bloc of powerful social conservatives who would change their mind on gay marriage if only it wasn't tied to church issues, I'd be shocked.
Ratcheting up the fear to solve the problem is exactly what politicians /do/. Thus why language is being inserted in all of these speeches about how of course churches shouldn't have to recognize these things.
So, instead of actually making the case for gay marriage as a right, they should lie about a non-existent threat? And we wonder why people think so poorly of the GOP.
You had a decent OP, but the fact that every comment afterwards has basically been a whitewashing of wide swaths of the GOP based on 75 people, combined with hints of reverse homophobia amongst the left and an intensely cynical view of the fight for civil rights outside the GLBT community sends up a huge red flag.
posted by zombieflanders at 3:18 PM on February 27, 2013 [1 favorite]
Replace gay marriage in these "immoral marriages" with mixed-race marriages. Now, tell me if that made a difference amongst "the base" as opposed to widespread revulsion from both sides. And if you can provide any evidence of the existence of this mythical bloc of powerful social conservatives who would change their mind on gay marriage if only it wasn't tied to church issues, I'd be shocked.
Ratcheting up the fear to solve the problem is exactly what politicians /do/. Thus why language is being inserted in all of these speeches about how of course churches shouldn't have to recognize these things.
So, instead of actually making the case for gay marriage as a right, they should lie about a non-existent threat? And we wonder why people think so poorly of the GOP.
You had a decent OP, but the fact that every comment afterwards has basically been a whitewashing of wide swaths of the GOP based on 75 people, combined with hints of reverse homophobia amongst the left and an intensely cynical view of the fight for civil rights outside the GLBT community sends up a huge red flag.
posted by zombieflanders at 3:18 PM on February 27, 2013 [1 favorite]
Frank Rich on the National Circus: Republicans Avoid Getting Flattened by History
Former McCain strategist Steve Schmidt told the Times, "The die is cast on this issue." Does this push indicate a real change on this issue within the GOP? Or is it merely a token gesture from marginalized moderates?
I love this, but mostly for language/rhetorical reasons.
1) "Flattened by History" — My favorite W.F. Buckley quote is one from the inaugural of his magazine: "It [the National Review] stands athwart history, yelling Stop."
2) "The die is cast on this issue." — In English this can have two different meanings, though they aren't so contradictory that people feel the need to clarify which one they mean. The original source (Suetonious) attributes it to Caesar when he took his army into Italy. In Latin "Alea iacta est" clearly means that the six-sided gambling device has been thrown and it's too late to change your bet.
But in English it could also mean that the metal for this mold has been poured and is solidifying, there can be no changes now. The difference between the two interpretations is that in the second the final shape is known, in the first it is not. Clearly Schmidt is using it in the second sense. No wonder McCain lost, surrounded by staffers with such a weak knowledge of Suetonius.
posted by benito.strauss at 3:37 PM on February 27, 2013 [6 favorites]
but the fact that every comment afterwards has basically been a whitewashing of wide swaths of the GOP based on 75 people, combined with hints of reverse homophobia amongst the left and an intensely cynical view of the fight for civil rights outside the GLBT community
You, sir, are reading in things that aren't there. Except for the intensely cynical view of /everything/. I do have a cynical view of many people, particularly politicians. If these people all turn out to be morally motivated, I will be pleasantly surprised, but I can't help but wonder about the timing on this - now, after a disastrous election, comes the support for gay marriage? Do you seriously think that doesn't read as a little sketchy?
I am saying nothing about the broader swaths of the GOP. I am simply saying that this may be evidence that there is a rebellious patch of the GOP, which could be an interesting thing to watch.
posted by corb at 3:37 PM on February 27, 2013
You, sir, are reading in things that aren't there. Except for the intensely cynical view of /everything/. I do have a cynical view of many people, particularly politicians. If these people all turn out to be morally motivated, I will be pleasantly surprised, but I can't help but wonder about the timing on this - now, after a disastrous election, comes the support for gay marriage? Do you seriously think that doesn't read as a little sketchy?
I am saying nothing about the broader swaths of the GOP. I am simply saying that this may be evidence that there is a rebellious patch of the GOP, which could be an interesting thing to watch.
posted by corb at 3:37 PM on February 27, 2013
BTW, I think some of you are missing part of corb's point. It's not that the GOP is going to convince the average pro-gay-rights MeFite with this. But we're all hearing about people who have been life-long Republicans and never thought they could vote for a Democrat who are just disgusted with the current GOP and are leaving it.
Making this change (if, in fact, it does lead to a change in the GOP, which I'm doubtful of) might be enough to stop these folk from going that last step to think of themselves as "ex-GOP". (Please correct me if I've gotten you point wrong, corb.)
To me it fits in with Jindal's "Stop being the stupid party.", which I translated as "stop being so explicit about things you know so many people find objectionable." I don't think that it's intellectually honest, but it doesn't have to be — all it has to be is effective.
posted by benito.strauss at 3:50 PM on February 27, 2013 [3 favorites]
Making this change (if, in fact, it does lead to a change in the GOP, which I'm doubtful of) might be enough to stop these folk from going that last step to think of themselves as "ex-GOP". (Please correct me if I've gotten you point wrong, corb.)
To me it fits in with Jindal's "Stop being the stupid party.", which I translated as "stop being so explicit about things you know so many people find objectionable." I don't think that it's intellectually honest, but it doesn't have to be — all it has to be is effective.
posted by benito.strauss at 3:50 PM on February 27, 2013 [3 favorites]
I am saying nothing about the broader swaths of the GOP. I am simply saying that this may be evidence that there is a rebellious patch of the GOP, which could be an interesting thing to watch.
And the "evidence" is that a pathetically small handful of Republicans, none of whom have any prospect or intentions of ever actually running for office as Republicans, are taking a position on an issue that would assure them absolutely zero chance of winning a Republican primary, due to the fact that Republican primary voters are, by-and-large, bigots.
Until this "rebellious patch" starts to include some serious primary candidates (instead of a handful of political has-beens and never-weres) then it is a complete irrelevance. This post is a ridiculous effort (by a Republican) to try and pretend that the Republican Party is becoming less homophobic, when all it actually shows is that a extremely small number of low-profile Republicans are starting to realize that their party's inherent homophobia is going to be a politically liability in future general elections.
posted by moorooka at 4:47 PM on February 27, 2013 [1 favorite]
And the "evidence" is that a pathetically small handful of Republicans, none of whom have any prospect or intentions of ever actually running for office as Republicans, are taking a position on an issue that would assure them absolutely zero chance of winning a Republican primary, due to the fact that Republican primary voters are, by-and-large, bigots.
Until this "rebellious patch" starts to include some serious primary candidates (instead of a handful of political has-beens and never-weres) then it is a complete irrelevance. This post is a ridiculous effort (by a Republican) to try and pretend that the Republican Party is becoming less homophobic, when all it actually shows is that a extremely small number of low-profile Republicans are starting to realize that their party's inherent homophobia is going to be a politically liability in future general elections.
posted by moorooka at 4:47 PM on February 27, 2013 [1 favorite]
I believe the opposition is about a belief many hold that gay marriage is destructive to the health of families in our society more than it is a fear of interference with the Church.
I'm googling through polls to try and see if I can figure out how much of the opposition falls into the "think churches will be forced to gay marry" territory and I can't quite find an answer. However, every poll seems to suggest that what I said above is actually very rarely cited as the most important concern. People do think that, but it is not the major cause of their opposition.
Among those who oppose same-sex marriage, Gallup asked an open-ended question -- "what are some of the reasons you oppose legal same-sex marriages?" Forty-seven percent of those respondents defended their position on the basis of religious beliefs or the Bible. Another 20 percent said marriage should be between a man and a woman and 16 percent said gay marriage is morally wrong or that they have traditional beliefs about marriage.
I have no doubt a possibly significant amount are trying to say what corb is saying. They mean, "It's against the Bible, so my Church shouldn't be forced to do it." instead of "It's against the Bible, so nobody should be allowed to do it." It's hard to nail down how many though, my tendency is to assume social conservative Republicans lean more theocratic.
Support for civil unions at least seems the majority view among Republicans, so it does seem possible majority support for civil marriage might be imminent if you use the right rhetoric and convince them there is no reason to have a separate but equal civil union. But hey, if the opposition is based on religion, maybe not. Marriage is sacred to them and they won't accept using the same word. Either way, you are gonna need a bigger name than Huntsman to get it going.
A majority of Republicans across the country now support some form of legal recognition for gay couples. 12% are in favor of full marriage rights, 39% support civil unions, and only 48% believe there should be no legal rights for gay couples at all.
posted by Drinky Die at 4:55 PM on February 27, 2013
I'm googling through polls to try and see if I can figure out how much of the opposition falls into the "think churches will be forced to gay marry" territory and I can't quite find an answer. However, every poll seems to suggest that what I said above is actually very rarely cited as the most important concern. People do think that, but it is not the major cause of their opposition.
Among those who oppose same-sex marriage, Gallup asked an open-ended question -- "what are some of the reasons you oppose legal same-sex marriages?" Forty-seven percent of those respondents defended their position on the basis of religious beliefs or the Bible. Another 20 percent said marriage should be between a man and a woman and 16 percent said gay marriage is morally wrong or that they have traditional beliefs about marriage.
I have no doubt a possibly significant amount are trying to say what corb is saying. They mean, "It's against the Bible, so my Church shouldn't be forced to do it." instead of "It's against the Bible, so nobody should be allowed to do it." It's hard to nail down how many though, my tendency is to assume social conservative Republicans lean more theocratic.
Support for civil unions at least seems the majority view among Republicans, so it does seem possible majority support for civil marriage might be imminent if you use the right rhetoric and convince them there is no reason to have a separate but equal civil union. But hey, if the opposition is based on religion, maybe not. Marriage is sacred to them and they won't accept using the same word. Either way, you are gonna need a bigger name than Huntsman to get it going.
A majority of Republicans across the country now support some form of legal recognition for gay couples. 12% are in favor of full marriage rights, 39% support civil unions, and only 48% believe there should be no legal rights for gay couples at all.
posted by Drinky Die at 4:55 PM on February 27, 2013
LYou, sir, are reading in things that aren't there. Except for the intensely cynical view of /everything/. I do have a cynical view of many people, particularly politicians. If these people all turn out to be morally motivated, I will be pleasantly surprised, but I can't help but wonder about the timing on this - now, after a disastrous election, comes the support for gay marriage? Do you seriously think that doesn't read as a little sketchy?
I think it's highly sketchy. But I'm not the one making the argument that these 75 people filing a brief could in any way, shape, or form put them ahead of Democrats on gay marriage in 2014 or 2016; or that public opinion could be swayed towards them, or that there's mysterious social conservatives that somehow won't mind gay marriage as long as they keep it away from churches. Thus the comments about whitewashing and reverse homophobia insinuations.
I am saying nothing about the broader swaths of the GOP. I am simply saying that this may be evidence that there is a rebellious patch of the GOP, which could be an interesting thing to watch.
So then it's not any sort of bloc with power? Then why keep pressing the "rebellion" point? You have no evidence. You have a press opportunity from a bunch of private citizens and absolutely nothing representative of either the party as a whole or anything but a statistically insignificant number of elected officials.
posted by zombieflanders at 5:14 PM on February 27, 2013
I think it's highly sketchy. But I'm not the one making the argument that these 75 people filing a brief could in any way, shape, or form put them ahead of Democrats on gay marriage in 2014 or 2016; or that public opinion could be swayed towards them, or that there's mysterious social conservatives that somehow won't mind gay marriage as long as they keep it away from churches. Thus the comments about whitewashing and reverse homophobia insinuations.
I am saying nothing about the broader swaths of the GOP. I am simply saying that this may be evidence that there is a rebellious patch of the GOP, which could be an interesting thing to watch.
So then it's not any sort of bloc with power? Then why keep pressing the "rebellion" point? You have no evidence. You have a press opportunity from a bunch of private citizens and absolutely nothing representative of either the party as a whole or anything but a statistically insignificant number of elected officials.
posted by zombieflanders at 5:14 PM on February 27, 2013
I really do not understand out gay republicans. I mean, seriously, what is the appeal?
I think the West Wing covered this:
posted by His thoughts were red thoughts at 5:19 PM on February 27, 2013
I think the West Wing covered this:
SKINNERFrom 'The Portland Trip', Seaon 2, Episode 7.
Ask me the question, Josh!
JOSH
How can you be a member of this party?!?
SKINNER
You've been holding that in for way too long, man.
JOSH
This party who says that who you are is against the law.
...
SKINNER
I agree with 95% of the Republican platform. I believe in local government. I'm in favor of individual rights rather than group rights. I believe free markets lead to free people and that the country needs a strong national defense. My life doesn't have to be about being a homosexual. It doesn't have to be entirely about that.
posted by His thoughts were red thoughts at 5:19 PM on February 27, 2013
Clay Bennet does a great job with simple visual metaphors.
My life doesn't have to be about being a homosexual. It doesn't have to be entirely about that.
It does if you wanna attend CPAC.
posted by Drinky Die at 5:31 PM on February 27, 2013 [1 favorite]
My life doesn't have to be about being a homosexual. It doesn't have to be entirely about that.
It does if you wanna attend CPAC.
posted by Drinky Die at 5:31 PM on February 27, 2013 [1 favorite]
I'll write here what I wrote on the NYT forum, when they printed an article about this:
We do not want or need the support of Republican scumbags who have dedicated the last four decades treating us like subhuman garbage. Either the Supreme Court recognizes our rights or this country continues its seemingly inexorable decline into a third-world paradise for Christian, extremist thugs. But either way, opportunistic Republicans -- especially those who signed this amicus brief, who have otherwise been notorious bigots for years -- can go to hell, for all I care. They've actively been in the way and just need to go away before they do more damage.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 6:54 PM on February 27, 2013 [4 favorites]
We do not want or need the support of Republican scumbags who have dedicated the last four decades treating us like subhuman garbage. Either the Supreme Court recognizes our rights or this country continues its seemingly inexorable decline into a third-world paradise for Christian, extremist thugs. But either way, opportunistic Republicans -- especially those who signed this amicus brief, who have otherwise been notorious bigots for years -- can go to hell, for all I care. They've actively been in the way and just need to go away before they do more damage.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 6:54 PM on February 27, 2013 [4 favorites]
New shit has come to light.
Santorum looks increasingly exposed.
posted by jaduncan at 12:54 AM on February 28, 2013
Santorum looks increasingly exposed.
posted by jaduncan at 12:54 AM on February 28, 2013
Obama administration will be filing an amicus brief later today!
posted by ericb at 11:08 AM on February 28, 2013 [2 favorites]
posted by ericb at 11:08 AM on February 28, 2013 [2 favorites]
Clint Eastwood to Supreme Court: Drop California's ban on same-sex marriage.
posted by ericb at 11:41 AM on February 28, 2013 [2 favorites]
posted by ericb at 11:41 AM on February 28, 2013 [2 favorites]
NFL Players Brendon Ayanbadejo and Chris Kluwe File SCOTUS Brief Urging Court to Strike Down Prop 8 [PDF].
posted by ericb at 11:42 AM on February 28, 2013 [2 favorites]
posted by ericb at 11:42 AM on February 28, 2013 [2 favorites]
In related news: David Boies And Theodore B. Olson, Bipartisan Gay Marriage Lawyers, Land Book Deal.
posted by ericb at 1:42 PM on February 28, 2013
posted by ericb at 1:42 PM on February 28, 2013
Don’t Call Republicans Who Favor Marriage Equality Prominent. Call Them Irrelevant.
posted by ericb at 1:44 PM on February 28, 2013 [1 favorite]
posted by ericb at 1:44 PM on February 28, 2013 [1 favorite]
Well, better late than never. But unless the Republican Party does something about its Tea Bag wing, this is going to be a "RINO" moment for most of the people who jump on board.
posted by CBrachyrhynchos at 2:08 PM on February 28, 2013
posted by CBrachyrhynchos at 2:08 PM on February 28, 2013
Conservative speakers and organizers will flock to Washington, DC next week for the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC). But GOProud, an extreme right-wing gay organization, won’t be invited this year after outcry from anti-gay groups that spearhead the conference. The decision to exclude GOProud for the second year in a row has triggered a schism between conservatives who plan to boycott the conference until GOProud is invited and those who believe the group goes against social conservative values.
posted by Golden Eternity at 3:03 PM on March 10, 2013
posted by Golden Eternity at 3:03 PM on March 10, 2013
Rand Paul Gives His Musings On Gay Marriage
posted by homunculus at 2:12 PM on March 13, 2013 [1 favorite]
posted by homunculus at 2:12 PM on March 13, 2013 [1 favorite]
« Older Dora Viola G.I. de Orellana Plantagenet & Co. | Privilege to pee Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by wheelieman at 7:59 AM on February 27, 2013 [1 favorite]