Quantcast

«

»

May 08 2013

NOM: GOP Wouldn’t Survive Marriage Equality Shift

With Republican Party consultants and power brokers increasingly recognizing that the party must become more inclusive, the religious right is frantically trying to preserve its influence over the party platform. Brian Brown of the National Organization for Marriage gave an interview with USA Today in which he said that if the GOP accepted marriage equality, it would be destroyed:

PAGE: Reince Priebus, the Republican National Chairman, said the party needed to be inclusive on this issue — needed to keep the party platform but welcome people who support same-sex marriage as good Republicans. Should the party be inclusive?

BROWN: Does “inclusive” mean that you get rid of your founding principles? Are party platforms supposed to mean anything? If the party does that, the party’s done. The party is done if the Republican Party abandons traditional marriage. It would mean that it has turned its back again on not only its base, but on the overwhelming majority of folks who identify as Republicans.

Done! Done, he says! And this demonstrates the bind that the Republican party finds itself in, trying to appeal to younger voters while not losing the hard right. But demographic and electoral reality is difficult to budge. As Nate Silver notes, the polls over the last year and a half have strongly shown majority public support for marriage equality. And even among Republicans, the numbers are only 56% opposed. Independents strongly favor it now, especially younger voters, who support it by a nearly 3-1 margin. If you take out elderly voters, whose numbers will drop for obvious reasons over the next few years, the reality just doesn’t budge.

And by the way, this notion that supporting equality would “abandon traditional marriage” is absurd. Traditional marriage isn’t going anywhere and it won’t be affected in the slightest by allowing gay couples to get married too, any more than allowing interracial marriage affected non-interracial marriages.

25 comments

Skip to comment form

  1. 1
    Modusoperandi

    Traditional Marriage® is getting destroyed. I mean, just try to find a man and a woman whose marriage was arranged by their parents anymore! And don’t get me started on the disappearance of the dowry!
    Thank God for unplanned pregnancies, or the other branch of Traditional Marriage® would be gone, too!

  2. 2
    John Pieret

    The toughest thing about riding a tiger is the dismount.

  3. 3
    Doug Little

    These fundie types have an unhealthy obsession with destruction. If they don’t completely agree with your position something is gonna be destroyed.

  4. 4
    Doug Little

    The toughest thing about riding a tiger is the dismount.

    Oh I’m so stealing this!

  5. 5
    scienceavenger

    First off, man-woman only marriage is NOT a founding principle of the GOP. It wasn’t even much of an issue when the party was founded. What is it with traditionalists that they can’t ever get the history of anything right?

    Second, the party will no more be destroyed than the country will be. The party graybeards will just have to hold their nose and vote GOP despite the party’s modernization, and until they become a nonissue politically.

  6. 6
    scienceavenger

    Seconded on the Tiger comment. That wins the net.

  7. 7
    kantalope

    Gonna have to disagree with Ed here. Getting more people to join newly inclusive Repubs would definitely destroy traditional marriage. In fact, it will also destroy apple pie. People would certainly start to favor the much more tasty, tart and g-hey key lime pie. Also, no more mom. Guns will no longer shoot STRAIGHT. Zombies. ARGH…[transcript unintelligible for 6 minutes] Hunker-down true Republicans! Hunker-down! The true faith cannot be contaminated (nor our bodily fluids diluted) by the admission of unclean thought or deeds. Better to die pure.

    Better to die pure, indeed.

  8. 8
    alwayscurious

    Now if only the GOP could gerrymander state lines. They could retain their tyranny of the small minded, maintain a majority in the House, and not have to abandon support for marriage purity laws.

  9. 9
    sundoga

    If the GOP abandons the religious right and the extremists, I suspect their number of members will go UP.

  10. 10
    glodson

    Considering that the GOP seems to need fearmongering and religiously driven zealotry, NOM might be right, but for the wrong reason.

  11. 11
    matty1

    Does “inclusive” mean that you get rid of your founding principles?

    I found the founding principles of the Republican Party. The words marriage and traditional are not included. Also absent are God, Jesus, Christ and conservative.

    The statement ends

    believing that the spirit of our institutions as well as the Constitution of our country, guarantees liberty of conscience and equality of rights among citizens, we oppose all legislation impairing their security.

    Now who’s ignoring their founding principles?

  12. 12
    stever

    Of course the fundies are obsessed with destruction. What else would you expect of a death-cult? And traditional marriage really is on the way out, has been for centuries. Modern law doesn’t even recognize the concept of women as prizes of war, and it’s been a long time since a man who fancied a particular virgin could establish a legal claim by just raping her, leaving her father no choice but to hand her over, because nobody else would accept damaged goods. The last vestige of woman-as-domestic-animal was repealed in Louisiana in my lifetime.

    The only hope for the Republican party is a counter-revolution, taking the Grand Old Party back from its Religious Reich hijackers. Every government needs a Loyal Opposition, and if the Republican Party can’t recover from its theocratic dementia, some other party will rise to replace it. When was the last election with a Whig on the ballot?

  13. 13
    Gretchen

    And by the way, this notion that supporting equality would “abandon traditional marriage” is absurd. Traditional marriage isn’t going anywhere and it won’t be affected in the slightest by allowing gay couples to get married too, any more than allowing interracial marriage affected non-interracial marriages.

    Well, it depends on what you consider “traditional”….

    When black people and white people were allowed to marry, conservatives could at least console themselves with the notion that the wives in these couplings held true to the promise to obey their new differently raced husbands, as they assume is at least possibly true of all pairings of men and women.

    But if we’re talking about two men together, or two women together, that’s a whole ‘nother kettle of fish! Who’s supposed to obey who? While a coupling of male and female is at least potentially sinful in that the wife in that partnership might not be properly submitting to her man, in a gay partnership it is certain that no wives are submitting to any husbands! And that, my good sir, is an up with which we shall not put!

  14. 14
    raven

    Does “inclusive” mean that you get rid of your founding principles?

    Hating gays was a founding principle of the GOP? It wasn’t. It wasn’t even on the distant horizon. In terms of things people have to worry about, such as the future of the USA, unemployment, the economy, the wars, etc.., this is a minor side issue.

    Brown the chistofascist troll:

    Are party platforms supposed to mean anything? If the party does that, the party’s done. The party is done if the Republican Party abandons traditional marriage.

    If the fundies aren’t lying they are just wrong. It would be an astonishing benefit if the GOP was “done”. If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is. In reality the fundies would scream and then vote GOP anyway. They just elected Sanford in SC!!! After all, hypocrisy is one of their three main sacraments.

    Besides we abandoned traditional marriage centuries ago. Men can still marry as many wives as they can round up, at least in Utah, but buying a lot of sex slaves is right out and likely to result in a long prison term.

  15. 15
    abb3w

    @8, alwayscurious

    Now if only the GOP could gerrymander state lines.

    Theoretically doable via major Article IV Section 3 shenanigans, but would require majority (disciplined) voting control of both House and Senate, and co-operation of the legislatures for the states being gerrymandered. Given Senate rules, it would also require either rule changes to prevent fillibuster or a disciplined three-fifths majority there.

    In practice, I think such attempts would likely blow up in the face of anyone trying it, by triggering civil unrest with more impact on elections than from any such gerrymandering.

  16. 16
    Rey Fox

    MAKE IT SO MAKE IT SO MAKE IT SO

  17. 17
    D. C. Sessions

    And here I would have thought that the hard part about tiger riding is the after-game dinner.

  18. 18
    D. C. Sessions

    I really don’t know how the Republican Party is going to do without the lunatic fringe. It’s an interesting thought experiment, but we’re not going to find out any time soon because that same lunatic fringe holds the whip hand in the Party. Any apostate Republican officholder had best have a good lobbying or think tank gig lined up, ’cause’n he’s going to be primaried out of a job.

  19. 19
    Bronze Dog

    The problem I have with the phrase “traditional marriage” is that marriage has been changing for quite a long time, and the wingnuts are trying to reverse those settled changes on top of preventing current trends. They rail against feminism because we’ve been pushing marriage towards an equal, consensual partnership and away from the chattel-based model where women are treated as passive, submissive trophies or livestock to be bought and sold for political and economic benefits. We see women as people, so they have the right to choose for their own benefit and to be treated as equal partners. We’ve also made arranged, coerced marriages the sort of thing villains do in stories. The happy ending in these stories is caused by the characters getting out of the arranged marriage and marrying for love instead. We’re also removing reproduction as a purpose, since we’re fine with lovers getting together and not having kids if they don’t want to. Allowing same sex marriage extends on those trends, and if we cross that line, they wingnuts will have a harder time reversing our cultural progress.

  20. 20
    Bronze Dog

    Shorter version: I see “traditional marriage” as wingnut code for old-fashioned chattel-based sexist marriage, not a description of a modern, egalitarian, love-based heterosexual marriage.

  21. 21
    jamessweet

    If the Democratic Party abandons their racism and embraces civil rights, they are done, DONE I tell you!

    Oh wait.

  22. 22
    jamessweet

    Since when is 56% an “overwhelming majority”? Huh…

  23. 23
    Zugswang

    This must be what an ideological death rattle sounds like.

  24. 24
    naturalcynic

    Since when is 56% an “overwhelming majority”? Huh…

    When you have a fuckup like Sanford running. Any other R would get >60%

  25. 25
    hunter

    “If the party does that, the party’s done. The party is done if the Republican Party abandons traditional marriage.”

    Is that somehow a bad thing?

Leave a Reply

Switch to our mobile site