In case you didn’t catch the debate today between candidates vying for RNC chair, the “defense of marriage” was a topic important enough to merit its own question. The question, posed by none other than the National Organization for Marriage (NOM), asked the five candidates to explain, in 30 seconds, how they will defend the sanctity of marriage. So naturally, each candidate delivered a fiery denunciation of heterosexual divorce, promising to push for a constitutional amendment banning the practice. Some even mentioned Newt Gingrich, John McCain, and David Vitter by name, lambasting their egregious offenses against the sacred institution of marriage.
…No, actually that’s not what happened at all. Psych. Everybody knows loving gay couples, not divorce, pose the real threat to heterosexual marriage. No, in reality, the question delivered by NOM was apparently taken as an invitation to see who could denounce the evil queers harshly enough to satisfy the Religious Right part of the GOP base, yet sweetly enough not to offend GOProud.
Current RNC chair Michael Steele, for example, while claiming “traditional” marriage is “foundational to who we are as a nation, how we define ourselves as people,” was careful to point out that his stance against marriage equality is “not to the exclusion of others” (really!? I had to rewind on that one). He went on to say that his belief that two men or two women should not be able to enjoy the civil institution of marriage is meant “in a supportive way” (if you’re asking, “Supportive of whom?” you’re not alone).
Another candidate, Reince Priebus, also claimed opposite-sex marriage is “foundational in our lives,” but went on to declare his support for the “dignity” of gay and lesbian people, saying that “everyone should be loved. But at the end of the day, I believe that marriage…should be between one man and one woman.” The follow-up question, “How does keeping gay and lesbian people from partaking of marriage reinforce their dignity?” was not asked, but the answer probably would have been interesting.
Other candidates didn’t much care to mirror Steele’s and Priebus’ obvious attempt to look like tolerant, non-homophobic members of the mainstream. Ann Wagner, after gloating about her own happy, heterosexual marriage (as if to say, “See what I have? Na na na na boo boo, you can’t have it”), went on to brag that Republican legislators successfully pushed a constitutional amendment banning marriage equality in her state of Missouri. Saul Anuzis, asserting that marriage is a “religious and a cultural institution that has existed for over 2,000 years” (neglecting the fact that the state issues marriage licenses, but that’s unimportant, I guess), actually touted the fact that marriage discrimination against gays and lesbians is something that distinguishes the United States from many other countries in the world. Maria Cino cited her “faith” while stating her opposition to gays and lesbians getting married.
GOProud, by the way, hasn’t issued a response as of yet. Big shocker there, considering their only position on marriage is that it’s a “state issue.”
Watch the video:
Now, two obvious questions naturally arise after watching that debate segment. First, why are there gay Republicans? I completely understand the gay conservative thing…obviously, being gay doesn’t mean you have to have liberal or progressive positions on everything. But, as a gay person myself, I can’t wrap my mind around actually joining a party that hosts a debate like this, in which candidates vying to be my leader actually compete to see who can protect marriage from me.
Then again, maybe I’m a hypocrite:
I belong to a party that does not recognize my basic right to marry in its platform. I sat and watched the 2008 Democratic Presidential candidates (with the very notable exception of Dennis Kucinich), one after another, fail to support marriage equality. I sat and watched while my candidate, Barack Obama, competed with John McCain in Rick Warren’s church to be the pro-“traditional” marriage candidate in front of an audience of religious fundamentalists. I walked into a voting booth and knowingly voted for a man who does not support my full equality. So maybe I should lay off of gay Republicans, because I do enough overlooking myself when it comes to my own political party. Obviously, on the issue of gay equality, the Democratic Party is far superior to the GOP, which in some instances still supports the criminalization of homosexuality. But we're not all the way there yet, and until we are, maybe I don't have much room to talk.
Which brings me to the second obvious question: Why are the leaders of our party – President Obama, especially – not seeking to distinguish themselves on this issue from the candidates running for RNC chair? To his credit, the President has stated that his position on the issue is “evolving” (implying that believing in marriage equality is a higher, more developed level). I guess it’s a start. Joe Biden has stated that marriage equality is “inevitable” and that there will someday be a national consensus on providing gays and lesbians the fundamental right to marry. In the meantime, though, Obama and Biden are sticking to their positions. And so are many others in this party.
Much of it has to be political. But the numbers just don’t support the continued resistance to what Joe Biden admits is “inevitable.” Polls have suggested that a plurality (and in some cases a slim majority) is coalescing around marriage equality. More importantly, opposition remains in the (shrinking) minority.
I'm not making the argument that President Obama is just like a Republican on marriage. After all, he does support repealing DOMA, and he does oppose Constitutional amendments - state and federal - that ban marriage equality. But the central rhetoric, that "marriage is between a man and a woman," that "faith" plays a role in his opposition to marriage equality, remains. And it just has to go.
We won’t achieve the national consensus Joe Biden is talking about overnight. But if President Obama dares to take the lead, which I hope (and think, call me an optimist) he will, it might be sooner than we think.