John McCain's 2008 presidential campaign manager is urging Republicans to rethink their position on gay marriage.
'Steve Schmidt, a California political strategist, has long held more moderate views on social issues than do many top GOP officials. Yesterday, he used a speech in front of the gay rights group Log Cabin Republicans to urge the party to shift its views on same-sex marriage. Otherwise, he said, it will continue losing voters who are younger than 35 or who live outside the South.
"For the party to be seen as anti-gay, that is injurious to its candidates in places like California and Washington," Schmidt said.
He added: "Republicans should reexamine the extent to which we are defined by positions on issues that I don't believe are among our values and that put us at odds with what I expect will [be] over time, if not a consensus view, then the view of a substantial majority of voters."'
I am inclined to agree, although I can't argue with the fact that there is a substantial Republican constituency among religious conservatives who may never reconcile themselves to the legal recognition of gay marriage.
'Many Republicans oppose both civil unions and gay marriage, and several key party leaders, including Republican National Committee Chairman Michael S. Steele and former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney, a potential 2012 candidate, condemned the Iowa decision. Responding to Schmidt's comments, Trevor Francis, Steele's spokesman, noted that opposition to gay marriage is in the party's platform but said, "We have a big, broad and diverse party."
Schmidt pointed out that Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr. (R), who leads one of the most conservative states, has recently come out for civil unions. California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R), who opposed the initiative that passed in his state in November, has backed efforts to overturn it.
"I know mine is a minority view among Republicans, and I don't honestly expect our party will reverse in the very near term its opposition to same-sex marriage," Schmidt said. "Nor do I see support from it from a strong majority of the general public."'
Schmidt may be right about the slim chances for a quick shift in party stance on the issue, but support for gay marriage in the general public may be stronger than he thinks. A Newsweek poll from last December revealed substantial support for civil unions, though somewhat less for gay marriage.
But notice how much support has grown in a matter of only four years. More and more Americans are concluding that the difference between marriage and civil union is little more than semantics. So, let's get over it people. The fabric of American society will not be harmed because two people of the same gender get married.
It's been my position that the future of the Republican party lies with the libertarians. There are practical advantages to maximizing personal liberty, and often severe disadvantages that arise when we attempt to curtail it. One great example from history is progressive support for prohibition.
'Prohibition exhibited many of the characteristics of most progressive reforms. That is, it was concerned with the moral fabric of society; it was supported primarily by the middle classes; and it was aimed at controlling the "interests" (liquor distillers) and their connections with venal and corrupt politicians in city, state, and national governments. Still, it was not until U.S. entry into the Great War that prohibitionists were able to secure enactment of national legislation. In 1918, Congress passed the 18th Amendment to the Constitition, prohibiting the manufacture, transportation, and sale of alcoholic beverages. States ratified the Amendment the next year.
Herbert Hoover called prohibition a "noble experiment," but the effort to regulate people's behavior soon ran into trouble. Enforcement of prohibition became very difficult. Soon, such terms as "bootlegger," "bath tub gin," and "speakeasy" became household words. Gangs of hoodlums became more powerful as they trafficked in alcohol. By the 1930s, a majority of Americans had tired of the noble experiment, and the 18th Amendment was repealed.'
That particular attempt to regulate behavior gave rise to organized crime in America. Not the outcome progressives had in mind. Just as progressives of the early 20th century misjudged the effects of prohibition, today's conservatives misjudge the impact of legalizing gay marriage. The nation will barely notice it. The gay movement will breath a collective sigh of relief, and its members will be free to direct their attention to other pressing issues.
Log Cabin Republicans are natural allies with the libertarians. Both value personal freedom. It is not a stretch for more gays to gravitate towards the libertarianism once they are comfortable with the idea that they need not rely on the protection of Democrats, who really don't place a high value on personal freedom anyway.
Democrats place a high value on political power, and when liberty threatens their grip on it, liberty becomes a target. Think Fairness Doctrine. Think campaign finance reform.
'The issue bandied about on Tuesday asked whether banning the broadcast of “Hillary: The Movie,” 30 days before last year’s Democratic primary, violated McCain-Feingold (a lower court said yes), and whether that application of McCain-Feingold violated the constitution.
Much of the intrigue arrived courtesy of Malcolm Stewart, the lawyer for the government. According to the NYT’s take, Stewart largely argued that Congress has the sweeping power to ban political books, signs and videos, so long as they’re paid for by corporations and disseminated not long before an election.
Stewart argued there was no difference in principle between the 90-minute documentary and a 30-second television advertisement, a position which Justice Kennedy seemed to find hard to stomach.
“If we think that the application of this to a 90-minute film is unconstitutional,” Justice Kennedy said, “then the whole statute should fall under your view because there’s no distinction between the two?”
It didn’t sit well with other justices, either. According to the NYT’s Adam Liptak: “by the end of an exceptionally lively argument at the Supreme Court on Tuesday, it seemed at least possible that five justices were prepared to overturn or significantly limit parts of the court’s 2003 decision upholding the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law . . . .”
Part of the problem facing the law seems to lie within the current makeup of the court. Justice Alito replaced Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, an author of the 5-to-4 decision upholding the McCain-Feingold law in 2003. Justice Alito appears to be more skeptical of campaign finance regulation than Justice O’Connor was.
The Court could take a somewhat narrow approach to the case. But, according to Liptak, Stewart’s answers on Tuesday seemed to invite the court toward a broader ruling.
Justice Scalia admitted to feeling a little “disoriented.” “We are dealing with a constitutional provision, are we not, the one that I remember which said Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of the press?” he asked.'
Freedom of speech, freedom of the press, both are subject to interpretation when Democratic political fortunes are at stake. Democrats seem all to willing to place limits on liberty when their political advantage is threatened.
The natural counter for this is a Republican party embrace of the libertarian model. That means unequivocal support for freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, the right to keep and bear arms, and the right for people to live as they see fit. It includes supporting gay marriage. Let's wake up, people.
