That said, they’re seemingly back on message when it comes to same-sex unions, after a minor slip-up last year in the Golden State.

The Washington Supreme Court is currently considering a challenge to the state’s Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), a challenge that could result in one of three possible outcomes, according to the Advocate.

The options: first, the court could uphold the law, and nothing would change; second, the court could delcare the law unconstitutional and grant same-sex marriages on the spot (we’ll call that the “Massachusetts Plan”); third, they could declare the law unconstitutional and demand the legisltuare find a way to grant same-sex couples marriage-type rights (we’ll call that the “Vermont Plan.”)

What, you may ask, do Washington state Republicans have to say about this? They’re harping on the courts again, saying that marriage should be defined by the legislature, not those pesky activist judges.

That’s been the party line, but most recently, it required a little retooling by some folks down the coast. Which brings us back in time; while DA has been undeniably on hiatus for nearly a year, the one story that nearly brought it back to life was, not surprisingly, this one.

Anti-gay marriage Republicans, perhaps thinking short-sightedly, have always worked under the assumption that no legislature would ever have the chutzpah to legalize same-sex marriage. Under that assumption, their tirade on the court system always sounded good: the people (via the legislative branch) should decide this issue, not the courts. Then, along came California, and everything changed.

As everyone knows, this past September – facing the prospect of being the first Governor to sign a bill legalizing gay marriage – moderate Governor Arnold Swarzenegger balked.

If he had said that he just doesn’t believe in it, fine. That’s his prerogative.

If he had said that constituent calls into his office were overwhelmingly unsupportive of the bill, fine. It’s blatant followership, not leadership, but fine. There are plenty of leaders who value polls over their gut.

The Governator used neither of these justifications for his veto. Instead, he went where no Republican had gone before: he said that gay marriage in California was an issue that should be decided by the courts. Was the Governor grasping at straws to find a reason to oppose this bill? Was he following the GOP party line of “say no to happy gays?” I’m not sure.

Last night, however, the Governor went out on a political limb by making what is probably one of the most self-effacing State of the State speeches in California’s 155-year history. The Governor indicated he heard the voters’ message to “cut the warfare, cool the rhetoric,” and “find common ground.”

Maybe he’ll put down the RNC talking points and rediscover himself. Wait for it.

“The governor’s kind of bi about this issue. In one venue he swings for civil unions and in another venue he says he has always been against them.”

The Governor’s flip-flop on this issue certainly provided more than adequate reason for a response from the Massachusetts GLPC, but the one they gave was childish and demeaning to the community they purport to defend. Ms. Isaacson may have thought her quips about the Governor being “bi” or “swinging” this way or that are cute, but if they were uttered by someone on the other side, she (and the folks over at GLAAD would likely find it offensive.

There’s enough mockery and offense directed toward the GLBT community from outside sources, it seems hardly necessary to propagate it from the inside on such a serious political issue.

In South Carolina this past Monday, Romney gave a speech outlining his hard line stance against not only gay marriage but against all psuedoforms of it as well, including civil unions. Now, this wouldn’t be too odd, considering President Bush recently held the same position – at least until his announced support for state-based civil unions a week prior to the election. However, the position of Presidential hopeful Mitt Romney doesn’t seem to jibe with Governor Mitt Romney.

The Boston Herald reported this week on the Presidential hopeful’s speech to South Carolina conservatives and noted that while in his home state of much-more-liberal Massachusetts, the Governor has actually supported civil unions. So which one of them is running for President?

The Governor’s office is quick to note that the Governor’s support for civil unions was only a last-ditch effort to stop May 17th’s same-sex marriage fiesta from happening, and under less than Defcon 1 circumstances, he’s still opposed.

So, I guess it’s only when he’s against the fence that his staunch values can be subject to compromise. Very Presidential.

One section accuses the venerable Nevadan of being “out of touch with mainstream America” because he lives in a $750,000 condo in the Ritz Carlton in Foggy Bottom. Problem is, they’re not looking in the mirror too closely: Reid’s counterpart on the right owns a multi-million dollar home in Washington and commutes to work on a private family jet.

There’s nothing wrong with Frist’s wealth, or with Reid’s $.75 million condo. But if the RNC is going to make arguments, at least make ones that hold water. Errr, Evian.

On Monday, the New York Times reported that during campaign 2004, Republicans targeted their campaign advertising where it impacted most – makes sense, right? Right. Republicans are smart about stuff like that. The report goes on to list the top shows among Republicans. Near the top of the list and especially popular with Republican women – is the NBC sitcom “Will & Grace.”

It’s far too overboard to say something like “they’re good enough to entertain us, just don’t ask for rights,” or “they’re funny to laugh at, just don’t love each other PLEASE.” Far too overboard, right?

Forget I said anything.

Moderate Arlen Specter felt the singe of the right’s fire and brimstone after his ill-advised shot across the conservative bow earlier this month asking the President to be mindful not to appoint judges who would “change the right of a woman to choose, overturn Roe v. Wade.”

Religious rights groups like the American Family Association fired back with grassroots alerts urging conservative-minded Senators to vote against Specter for the Judiciary Chair slot. Whether these campaigns are successful or not will be determined in the coming days as Congress returns to work this week to stop-gap fund the government through January.

If Specter is ousted as Chair, the religious right’s grip on the GOP gets stronger, and the GOP campaign message gets altered: It’s a big tent, but if you don’t agree with the President on hot button Bible issues, it’s not big enough for you.

The term “activist judges” has become synonymous in right-wing circles with all things liberal and wrong with the world. Add in the fact that questioning the President and/or the war was considered “un-American” by rabid Bushies even before George W received his mandate from the masses, and Ashcroft’s got a double shot of conservative rally juice.

Thankfully, Ashcroft is no longer the sitting Attorney General, so it’s a moot point to say that his call for a blanket judicial “pass” on all war-related decisions made by the Bush Administration is not only reckless but also flies in the face of the balance of powers.

I’m guessing those “activist” judges wouldn’t have listened to him, anyway; giving the right-wing “activist” activists yet another reason to assert they should be stripped of their power to judge.

These moderates have some soul searching to do, and they’re likely wondering if their souls are as blessed as those of their more socially conservative partymates. They’re rightly concerned about their place in the party and if the religiously motivated right-wing of the party is right in claiming a mandate to lead the party down the path of light to Holy victory.

Social moderates have hope for the future of the party, as two top-tier moderates’ names have already been floated for 2008: Giuliani and McCain. If they’ve got some free money and time, they’d be well advised to take a page from the left-wing handbook: early money is like yeast.

[gay republicans]

Although they might hold the same political views as their social moderate counterparts, gay Republicans are perennially seen as self-haters for aligning themselves with a party who consistently uses their lives as a wedge issue to win campaigns. This year was no exception – beyond the President’s marriage amendment proposal and 11 state-level bans on gay marriage, the Republican Party approved a platform that not only opposes gay marriage, but opposes any recognition of any type of same-sex relationships.

Like their straight counterparts, these boys and girls will likely cringe at the thought of a death or retirement on the Supreme Court, and will be cheering on efforts by moderate Senators like Judiciary Chairman-to-be Arlen Specter to ask the President to send middle-of-the-road judges to the Upper House for confirmation. Gay Republicans have the same hope for 2008 as the moderates – that their party will be saved by the venerable former-NYC mayor or the rogue Arizona Senator.



[democrats in general]

Arguably the most disaffected group of all, the Democrats are scrambling to find their place in this new world. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee tried to do so this week by sending a plea for new money, noting that “Republicans unleashed every weapon in their arsenal to deliver a knockout blow to Congressional Democrats. They failed!”

Clearly, someone should have mentioned that they need to find their place in the real world. In less fundraising-centric circles, however, the Democratic House Leader has been seen mentioning God and church quite a bit more often in the course of television interviews, which may only further justify the moral right wing’s superiority complex in Republican ranks. Pelosi seems to be enacting Roll Call Executive Editor Morton Kondracke’s Tuesday missive on the Dems and God.

The Dems are also looking four years ahead, but the only two names that keep popping up are Edwards and Clinton. While those names will certainly get their own fired up, this year has proven that their own just isn’t enough. The Republican names on the hotplate for ’08 are inherently party-line crossers and will suck the energy out of either Edwards or Clinton.

But it’s a long four years. Who knows what might happen by then. President Obama, anyone?

Simple. For moderate Republicans who don’t find themselves too keen on Bush, it’s time to look ahead to brighter days. The current foci of these hopes are the two top [Presidentially eligible] Republicans in the field today: Rudy Giuliani and John McCain. This hope isn’t misplaced, either; aside from being moderates, these guys are as close as the GOP comes to Clintonesque rock star status.

With many moderate GOPers ready to wince at either outcome this Tuesday, perhaps hope for next contender will be the glue that holds them together until November 4. 2008. Of course, the first thing on the agenda for any White House hopeful is money. Naturally, part of my conversation revolved around fundraising efforts, starting in January. Yes, January ’05.

In deference to the Office of the President, however, let’s hope the fundraisers don’t kick-off before the inauguration.

Not to scare the fundies, however, the President made sure to reiterate his feeling that the Marriage Protection Amendment is the only way to protect marriage between a man and a woman, and once again threw his full support behind the proposal. Still, this marks a softening of the President’s rhetoric on this touchy issue, perhaps in an effort to assuage moderates’ fears that the Chief Executive is too deep in the pocket of the religious right-wing of the party.

We’ll find out in a week if these concessions will do anything for the President in the polls, but in the last seven days, every faction counts – as long as it can be done quietly enough so as not to eviscerate the hopes of the religious zealots he needs to win.

Related Posts:

The W stands alone?