The Supreme Court's acceptance of a series of challenges to the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and California's Proposition 8 presents a crucible moment for the conservative movement. I have long argued that it's in the Republican Party's interest to get on the right side of history and embrace gay marriage, which is after all inevitable. My argument is one of both political expediency and morality.
The Party of Lincoln was formed in opposition to a moral wrong in slavery. Granted, the GOP's opposition to the "peculiar institution" was at first an economic one, and later a pragmatic response to a crumbling Union. As Steven Speilberg's marvelous new movie makes clear, however, Lincoln and the so-called Radical Republicans made a moral case for slavery's abolition. In what has been a difficult year for the party I have always called home, this historic moment made me proud and underpinned my deep animosity towards those in the Party who now stand against the full human rights of another historically marginalized group of Americans.
Moreover, DOMA, which was passed by a Republican-led Congress and signed by Bill Clinton, violates conservatives' core belief in federalism. Calls for a constitutional amendment to this effect equate with the highest levels of hypocrisy. Let's assume that the Supreme Court strikes down DOMA on equal protection (14th Amendment) grounds and allows Proposition 8 to stand. This would enable states to address an issue, namely marriage, that it previously and rightly governed. While acknowledging a federal interest given the benefits due to widows and windowers of deceased spouses, this stance is more consistent with conservatives' opposition to Roe v. Wade.
If I could take the abortion parallel one step further, however, I might suggest that if the act is morally and constitutionally indefensible (it is, im my mind), the same reasoning applies to federal and state restrictions on the right to marry for same-sex couples. My hope is that Justice Kennedy and perhaps Chief Justice Roberts side with the Court's liberal wing and right a historic wrong with the strike of a pen.
Before turning to the political angle, I would like to make one more moral claim. Empirical evidence suggests that both parties should elevate and embrace two-parent families for the purpose of raising children who will be lifelong contributors to our country's economic and civic sectors. It is agnostic about the gender mix of parents. It seems that those who support strong family values should embrace marriage, the bedrock of two-parent families, regardless of the couple's sexual preference.
Now on to the expediency argument. Republicans are getting clobbered among young people because their views towards immigration, abortion (only the extreme views of Akin, Mourdock, and too many others), and yes, immigration, don't square with the diverse, open-minded Millennial culture. If the GOP and its candidates don't evolve on this issue and others, they will continue to lose national elections and see their ranks maginalized to rural America and the Deep South.
Whereas Republicans may have once profited from their opposition to gay marriage (the empirical evidence is mixed), it is now clearly an albatross. The party will be better off once the issue is settled and it can return to its core message of limited government, strong families, peace through strength, and a healthy civil society.
Like many of the groups who twice constituted a winning electoral coalition for President Obama, gay Americans, or at least a subset of them, are ripe for the picking for Republicans willing to compete for every vote. By taking a rigid stance against their very being, too many gay Americans are forced to vote against an economic agenda they would otherwise embrace in order to realize their full civil liberties.
Former Republican Solictor General Ted Olsen is lead counsel in the challenge to Proposition 8 alongside his Democratic opponent in Bush v. Gore. Olsen's brave stance gives me hope that other Republicans and conservatives will experience a similar epiphany. Are you willing to join us in embracing morality, constitutional and family values, and the most prudent political path forward for the Grand Old Party?
Hey Shawn,
ReplyDeleteGlad you are back. This is a pretty strong article. I admire your ability to both take on the GOP current position, as well as your honesty in admitting the electoral component involved. Neither is easy to do. However, the hero of your party, at least since the rise of the New Right in the late 60's, Ronald Reagan, is who brought the Religious Right on board, be it policy agenda, or rhetoric such as referring to 60's social liberalism, as the "filthy speech movement." The Gary Bauers of your party often bring this up. Really, until you or others of your brand (meaning cerebral Republicans) are willing to repudiate the Gipper on this element of his agenda, and mea culpa for the GOP history on the issue, this will fall on deaf ears. Not an easy task as it was very hard for my party to realize the New Deal coalition has died. But the Reagan coalition has also died.
Anand
Shawn - The Republican Party has a significant opportunity to establish the proper grounds on which gay unions can become broadly recognized and accepted for what they are. First, it is important that we all come to recognize that marriage exists only between a man and a woman. This is a basic fact based upon the nature of marriage as an institution across time. But this does not mean that unions of gay and lesbian individuals should not be welcomed and supported for the reasons you cite. The GOP must strike that middle ground, promoting full federal rights for unions of gay and lesbian individuals but drawing the important distinction between those unions and the institution of marriage. This is not a case of separate but equal. It is the coexistence of two distinct institutions. The GOP is well poised to draw this distinction. The Democratic Party will not which creates an opportunity for the Party of Lincoln.
ReplyDelete