-
Tebowing and ‘Polarizing’
June 11, 2013 | 7 comments
-
SEQUESTER: The Horror!
March 1, 2013 | 4 comments
-
SOTU Preview: Human Props, Budget Fights, and Wedge Issues
February 12, 2013 | 0 comments
-
Hello, I Must Be Going
August 14, 2012 | 18 comments
-
Weekend Political Wrap-Up, Paul Ryan Edition
August 12, 2012 | 16 comments
The Spectacle Blog
Yesterday former Republican National Committee Chairman and Bush campaign chief Ken Mehlman publicly announced he was gay. That doesn’t particularly interest me — it’s his business and it wasn’t the world’s most closely guarded secret — but it has occasioned some commentary on the Republican Party and conservative movement that is interesting.
The Atlantic’s Marc Ambinder charges that “Mehlman’s leadership positions in the GOP came at a time when the party was stepping up its anti-gay activities.” His evidence for these claims? The “distribution in West Virginia in 2006 of literature linking homosexuality to atheism” and “the less-than-subtle, coded language in the party’s platform.”
Give me a break. That West Virginia literature was an isolated example in a disastrous year for Republicans nationwide. The Republican Party’s public opposition to same-sex marriage, on the other hand, was hardly coded or obscure. In fact, the emphasis on the redefinition of marriage reflected a conscious strategy even by social conservatives to move the focus on that issue away from homosexuality toward the definition of marriage itself.
The marriage ballot initiatives in 2004 and 2006 came in direct response to the judicial imposition of same-sex marriage in Massachusetts through a court case in 2003 that took effect in 2004. The federal Defense of Marriage Act in 1996 was in direct response to a similar ruling Hawaii in 1993. Proposition 8 in California was a response to a Massachusetts-style state supreme court ruling overturning California’s Proposition 22, which was passed in response to a Massachusetts-style ruling in Vermont.
Now, you can think opposition to same-sex marriage is wrong or misguided. But the fact is, most campaigns against it were not undertaken just for the hell of it. They were undertaken to reverse legislative or judicial gains made by the other side. The real story is how many people in the Republican leadership benefit politically from social issues that they don’t really care about, have no interest in doing anything about, and on which they often sympathize with the other side.
View all comments (20) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by W. James Antle, III
http://spectator.org/blog/2010/08/26/ken-mehlman-and-the-anti-gay-b
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
The Spectacle Blog
Democrat Dan Maffei Blames Budget Cuts for Girl’s Rape, Mother’s Murder
Robert Stacy McCain | 6.18.13
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Derek Leaberry| 8.26.10 @ 3:11PM
That Ken Mehlman is a homosexual is no surprise and no real secret. What Mehlman's self-outing most reveals is how accepting George W. Bush and Karl Rove are of dishonorable behavior. Of course, the placement of Dick Cheney on the 2000 Republican ticket should have been enough proof that Bush's social conservatism was contrived.
canuckistani| 8.26.10 @ 3:37PM
Ouch.
NotALibertarian| 8.26.10 @ 3:24PM
Ken Mehlman presided over the RNC when the party was at its worst. It should come as no surprise that this same person is jumping on the libertarian bandwagon in an attempt to gain publicity and make up for his lack of talent. Too bad prominent conservatives will be suckered into making public statements of support for him. What's there to support?
Alan Brooks| 8.27.10 @ 8:39PM
Rove looks gay himself, if you looked up 'Mature Gay' you would see photos of 60 year olds who look like Rove: smiley, cute, roly poly.
Out of the closet girls!| 8.27.10 @ 2:47PM
Out of the closet, and into the streets!!
We are here, and we are queer!
We Tea Baggers can use new slogans. Yippie!
Siegfried X| 8.26.10 @ 3:39PM
Yes. The Republican leadership was and is far to the left of its base. And in your own words, "it wasn't the world's most closely guarded secret". Both the Bush Administration and John McCain personally said on several occasions that they "loathe" the social right.
So the real mystery is why the Republican base keeps voting for such candidates. It seems that the more a candidate insults a conservative, the more that conservative supports the candidate.
Siegfried X| 8.26.10 @ 4:08PM
This raises the question: "Besides war, are there ANY issues on which the Republican leadership REALLY disagrees with the Democratic Party?"
Republicans are not fighting homosexual rights in any way. They caved in over a decade ago, probably around the time that homosexual programs began airing on television.
The Republican leadership is just as pro-amnesty as the Democrats, as Bush and McCain's support of amnesty shows. True, Republicans are temporarily withholding their support for tactical reasons, but spokesman like Steele and politicians like McCain make clear that the Republican Party is strongly pro-amnesty.
The Republican establishment still seems to strongly support Ted Kennedy type programs like in the Department of Education and Bush's prescription program. Maybe they really oppose ObamaCare but RomneyCare wasn't much different. The RINO leadership won't commit to any spending cuts, or even commit to cutting spending.
The list could just go on and on and on. The RINOs haven't compromised with the Tea Party at all, but treat them as enemies to be ignored or defeated.
So the idea that the Republican Party is conservative or might just magically go conservative after the election is just a fantasy. The RINOs would need to be politically dragged to the negotiating table kicking and screaming, and even then would be more likely to become Democrats rather than compromise with the Tea Party.
CalMark| 8.26.10 @ 4:36PM
Mehlman was a completely incompetent political operative. He presided over a period that was absolutely disastrous for his party and his country. As a result, he was discredited and thrown down the obscurity hole, where he belongs. THAT has nothing to do with his private life.
That said, this seems to be nothing more than the standard way that a discredited Republican incompetent regains relevance: bashing the GOP.
This has nothing to do with Mehlman's sexual orientation. It has everything to do with Ken Mehlman regaining status as a "player" in the D.C. power game.
NotALibertarian| 8.26.10 @ 5:18PM
"Mehlman was a completely incompetent political operative. He presided over a period that was absolutely disastrous for his party and his country."
. . . And, as such, his mission to provide extra rights for a sexual minority in this country should make conservatives less inclined to support them.
William R| 8.26.10 @ 6:44PM
Actually is was the policies of Bush, Cheney and Rove that led to the disastrous 2006-08 elections. Obama is President today because Bush listened to Cheney instead of Colin Powell.
Mark Anderson| 8.26.10 @ 9:05PM
Such wonderful comments, very clever people here.
They speak directly for God| 8.27.10 @ 2:51PM
Oh yes. They are all Einsteins, and Ben Steins.
Oh, my goodness gracious, i am just the cat's meow. The GOP Log Cabin has a true home for sure . You go girls!.
DC | 8.27.10 @ 12:39PM
I disagree that to oppose the radical redefinition of marriage that social conservatives "moved the focus of that issue away from homosexuality". The Parties like to think they can control the People's voice, but the reality is America is opposed to mainstreaming homosexuality in any way, whether by providing special rights, adoptions, "civil unions" which is just another name for marriage, "domestic partner" which is another legal mechanism for marriage rights and any public recognition of homosexuality as an accepted lifestyle choice for our children. It is not. Those who care about children and the spiritual, mental and sexual health of others will never bend on that point regardless of what the Party bosses wish Americans to accept. Any complicity with the attempt to radically redefine marriage and/or make homosexuality more acceptable in our society contravenes the human rights of children and families and thus must be opposed by all freedom loving people.
Raving Rabbi| 8.27.10 @ 2:41PM
Right on, DC!
First, from a religious angle: Being religious means subjugating your personal desires to the service of a Higher Power, saying, "YOUR Will be done!" For millenia, those with primarily same-sex ideations subdued them, often marrying masculine females, occasionally not marrying. Now, the secular ideal of doing what makes you feel good, of being "true to yourself" (not to be confused with the religious ideal of being "true to your Self", the Self created in G-d's own Image) has been allowed to trump the G-dly ideal. Hence, we hear even conservatives saying, "Hey, he didn't choose to be gay!" (Imagine if we said, "He didn't choose to be a murderer. After all, the thoughts of murder just continuously popped into his head, he couldn't help it!" People would protest, "Why didn't he fight those thoughts? Counter them? Get help? Pray?" Why is sexuality different? Isn't that how we keep ourselves from philandery & perversion?) Has religion lost the public battle to secularism?
From a practical angle: Homosexuality was used in Rome & other societies to keep from giving women too many rights. After all, we only need them for child-bearing and housework. To properly value women, we need to leave at least some social disadvantage to choosing the homosexual lifestyle.
Rabid Rabbi| 8.27.10 @ 3:00PM
Alexander the Greatest Queen ever!
Caesar was so jealous girlfriend, let me tell you.
And those gay Jewish musicians and comedy greats. Can't beat them with a stick, unlwess they beg you too.
Ohh ha ha , i am just too funny!
Notice how you do not say GOD fully, rabbi right, but it makes no difference. Many, including Bobby Jones University, say you are doomed to Hell , and they are not alone among fanatical "Christian" deominations.
But then it is the same philosophy throwqn back at you. You say only one God, monotheism, but Christians say one Christ, but they break Him apart through division, which is the definition of denominate.
Raving Rabbi| 8.27.10 @ 3:52PM
Rabid, glad you were able to amuse yourself... now please wipe the foam from around your mouth.
The powerful often went for homosexuality - it was an additional power kick to be able to dominate a man in bed.
Jewish homosexuality after the ghetto walls came down was mainly men who were so close to their mothers, they had difficulty sexualizing women. When they lived in a society that presupposed marriage, and where there were no sexual options other than women, their libidos pushed them into marriages, usually with women very different than their mothers. But when the university doors opened...
They can say I'm doomed to Hell all they want, I still think that ultimately they're less of a threat to my personal liberties than the liberals and leftists who want to civilize me.
While I wouldn't consider Christianity to be Absolute Monotheism, Christians at least understand that the world is one unified whole, with one theme and purpose. They even agree that the Ultimate Purpose is the Kingdom of G-d. Polytheists saw the world as opposing forces battling each other: The Sun God wins by day, the Moon God beats him at night. The only time Christians slip into this thinking is in G-d vs. the Devil, where most Christians seem to believe that the forces of evil have some independent existence that's not being constantly fueled by G-d's Will.
So, I still stand with well-meaning Christians & Moslems against the Big Lie of secularism.
Alan Brooks| 8.27.10 @ 4:12PM
"the placement of Dick Cheney on the 2000 Republican ticket should have been enough proof that Bush's social conservatism was contrived."
Rove ws the worst of the lot; did you read his book? it is worse than the ex-First Lady's book-- there is nothing new in it, the book is nothing but a royalties-ticket.