Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
The last few weeks have brought several apparently unrelated news stories that add up to something quite important. First we had the brouhaha over Ann Coulter speaking to a gay Republican group at a conference that is also sponsored by conservative bigwig Grover Norquist and some major GOP funders. Then there was the entirely unsurprising announcement by former Republican National Committee chairman Ken Mehlman that he's gay.
Sam Stein of the Huffington Post points out that this is just the beginning. The Republican party is seeing a sizable shift in support for gay rights among the people that really matter -- the big donors.
A major same-sex marriage fundraiser hosted by former RNC chairman Ken Mehlman and other Republicans provides one of the sharpest illustrations of how gay rights is becoming a cause among more elite, establishment members of the GOP.In addition to Mehlman, who recently announced that he was gay, the list of attendees includes several surprises, such as Ben Ginsburg, one of the Republican Party's top lawyers, and Henry Kravis and Paul Singer, two of the biggest donors to the GOP. According to one gay-rights activist involved in similar efforts, the fundraising pool goes even deeper.
And it's starting to have an effect:
"There is a strong conservative case to be made in favor of gay marriage," former McCain campaign manager and fellow same-sex marriage fundraiser Steve Schmidt told the Huffington Post on Tuesday. "Marriage is an institution that strengthens and stabilizes society. It is an institution that has the capacity to bring profound joy and happiness to people and it is a matter of equality and keeping faith of one of the charters of the nation, the right to live your life."More and more conservatives are saying that opposition to gay marriage would not be a litmus test for membership in the GOP," Schmidt added. "And more conservatives are making the case that no more do you want big government conservatives in the bedroom than big government liberals telling you how to live your life." ...
If anything, the hostility between the social conservative element of the party and those less adherent to that doctrine is already palpable. As one prominent Republican who supports gay rights put it:
"I think there is a growing mass of people in Republican politics who are fundamentally sick and tired about being lectured to about morality and how to live your life by a bunch of people who have been married three or four times and are more likely to be seen outside a brothel on a Thursday night than being at home with their kids... There is a fundamental indecency to the vitriol and the hatred directed against decent people because of their sexuality. People have reached a critical mass with this."
In reality, the Republican leadership has never really cared about this issue. They're shrewdly used it for political leverage, of course, but they don't really care about it. Even Rick Santorum, who is about as anti-gay as you can get, had a gay chief of staff and couldn't have cared less. He even defended him after he was outed.
But there was always one rule: Stay in the closet. Because the party leadership knew that they had to keep the religious right appeased in order to win elections. So while there have long been lots and lots of gay Republicans in Congress and in other positions of power, they had to keep it quiet. And now they're getting tired of being quiet.
What does all this mean? It almost certainly means that the religious right, which is not about to bend on this issue, is probably going to be less consistent in their support of the GOP. As this pro-gay rights movement grows among Republicans, you'll hear more and more talk of a third-party alternative. The GOP simply can't keep both groups happy at the same time. And with more and more prominent Republican fundraisers behind this movement, that choice becomes more difficult every day.
And I find that quite encouraging. And amusing.
Politics
Comments
Tee shirt idea:
I [heart] Gay Republicans
...and then wear it to some Teabagger Rallies.
Posted by: Skip | September 2, 2010 10:25 AM
Skip!! that is genius!! do it!
Posted by: Corrina | September 2, 2010 10:30 AM
It's probably coincidental but what I find interesting is that Fox News obviously and I'm convinced purposefully decided to amp-up momentum and conservative turn-out for the Nov. elections. They've done this by aggressively vilifying blacks, Muslims, and illegal immigrants but not gays (or atheists) - in spite of the Perry decision which provided previously proven effective fodder to create outrage amongst conservatives. So did this decision create an opportunity for some Republicans to reform the party on gay rights which they've now exploited or was there foreknowledge on who this electoral season's designated boogeymen would be where this initiative was planned in advance?
I think the former but think it'd be worthy if an investigative reporter who monitors the conservative movement and party politics looked for evidence of the latter. Especially since we continue to encounter Fox News driving the debate to the point they've now supplanted the Republican party as the primary generator of content promoting the conservative agenda. In the Bush years Fox took their talking points directly from the Bush Administration and other formal GOP leaders, now the power-player in the relationship has been reversed and GOP submissively reacts to the storylines promoted by Fox News. Given this new reality the question on gays becomes more interesting than it would be without the dynamic of Fox News now steering the Republican ship.
Posted by: Michael Heath | September 2, 2010 10:31 AM
How long until the Republicans re-write history and pretend they were the ones who wanted gay marriage all along (like they now pretend that the civil rights movement was a conservative action)?
The same thing is eventually going to happen with climate change. A few conservatives will cross over and join the progressives in acknowledging that AGW is real and a threat that must be addressed, and then years later they will act as if conservatives never hindered our country's ability to deal with climate change.
We all know that we're on the side that will win out in the end, what sucks is that our current opponents will undoubtedly deny that they were ever our opponents once we become victorious.
Posted by: Jordan G | September 2, 2010 10:31 AM
The GOP simply can't keep both groups happy at the same time. And with more and more prominent Republican fundraisers behind this movement, that choice becomes more difficult every day.
And I find that quite encouraging. And amusing.
Encouraging for sure. The religious right is the force behind a whole host of unmoderate social positions (anti-evolution, anti-sex ed, etc...). Any loss of power/influence by the RR is likely to make the GOP more open to moderate positions these other social issues, too.
Hey GOP - if you're going to piss off the RR while courting the moderates on this issue, why not not just keep that ball rolling?
Posted by: eric | September 2, 2010 10:34 AM
Do you think they could get that 3rd party up and running soon? I am tired of listening to GOPers cowtow to the religiotards rather than actually, you know, govern.
Posted by: MikeMa | September 2, 2010 10:35 AM
Maybe this will lead to a real separation of (religion) and (electable parties)
Posted by: Buffoon | September 2, 2010 10:49 AM
No, I think the republicans know that they have made the Christian right so afraid and hateful of the Democrats, that they can say and do just about anything with out having them jump ship.
Posted by: Holytape | September 2, 2010 10:50 AM
It'll be an interesting day when all that conservative outrage is directed at...each other. I'll bring the popcorn.
Posted by: WScott | September 2, 2010 11:02 AM
I also really liked the closing quote from "one prominent Republican" pointing out the hypocrisy of the likes of Newt & Rush lecturing anyone on morality. Too bad they had to make the point anonymously...
Posted by: WScott | September 2, 2010 11:11 AM
Anybody who is gay and worked for Rick Santorum.... I would have grave concerns about their mental health. Unless I guess if they were getting srsly paid for it, like way more money than they could make elsewhere...
Posted by: James Sweet | September 2, 2010 11:28 AM
@James Sweet,
How compartmentalized would your thinking have to be to write anti-gay speeches for Santorum while in bed with your gay SO? His salary must have been amazing to cover that dissonance.
Posted by: MikeMa | September 2, 2010 11:47 AM
MikeMa and James,
(Current) staffer salaries are a matter of public record, and you can google them pretty easily. For example, try http://www.legistorm.com/salaries.html
There is a wide range in salaries depending on who you work for and how junior or senior you are, but for most doctors, lawyers, or even stockbrokers, a staffer job would be a big step down.
Posted by: eric | September 2, 2010 12:50 PM
"The gays are responsible for the decay of modern America, promoting illegal drug use, spreading diseases like AIDS, and not remembering to change the toilet paper when the roll is empty."
"Robert, would you give it a rest already? I said was sorry!"
Posted by: mds | September 2, 2010 1:01 PM
Just a follow-up, Legistorm also includes past officeholders. For example, Santorum's chief of staff in the FY07 session was Wayne D. Palmer, and he earned ~$40k for the five months of the session (so...around $80k/year). Here's the relevant page: http://www.legistorm.com/member/83/Sen_Richard_John_Santorum/27.html
Posted by: eric | September 2, 2010 1:04 PM
Jordan G @ 4:
I'm not so sure about that. Given that conservatism is increasingly becoming a religious-political movement they could continue to fiercely reject the 'anthropogenic' element and instead argue we're in the endtimes as a result of gay marriage, abortion, electing black Muslims, etc. Peak oil will surely increase prices even as consumers transform to other sources of energy reducing total demand pressures (but leaving a more inelastic demand line). So I could see a Sarah Palin continuing to cry, "Drill, Baby, Drill" as the ocean's fisheries increasingly dwindle over the next couple of decades.
Posted by: Michael Heath | September 2, 2010 1:09 PM
Michael Heath "So I could see a Sarah Palin continuing to cry, 'Drill, Baby, Drill' as the ocean's fisheries increasingly dwindle over the next couple of decades."
Aren't they sufficiently endwindled now? How much more dwindlement will it take?
Posted by: Modusoperandi | September 2, 2010 1:30 PM
@16 Michael Heath
Well, I guess I could see you being right, only if the third party doesn't emerge. But if the GOP continues to become more pro-gay-marriage, it wouldn't be a surprise if the split occurs. And then the Republicans who don't join the new party will have a scapegoat when all of the current GOP's actions finally come to fruition and the negative consequences are felt.
Posted by: Jordan G | September 2, 2010 2:43 PM
Aren't they sufficiently endwindled now? How much more dwindlement will it take?
100%. Complete elimination of a resource is the only politically stable end point. As long as there are (example) fish to be fished, politicians have to somehow manage the competeing interests of exploiters and protectors. That is politically suboptimal, because they are not getting campaign contributions from 100% of the population. But once the fish are all gone, well, then they can give subsidies to fishermen that will return to them as campaign contributions for more subsidies, AND promote protection at the same time. To save the patient, we must kill the patient. You see?
Posted by: eric | September 2, 2010 3:43 PM
eric, sure, those so-called "environmentalists" are always going on an on about the so-called "tragedy" of the so-called "commons", but is it really so tragic? They know damn well we have to get the fish before the fish get us!
Posted by: Modusoperandi | September 2, 2010 3:51 PM
Michael Heath @3,
A sharp observation. And definitely very interesting.
I'm reminded of the former mayor of San Diego who was opposed to same-sex marriage until his kid came out of the closet. There seems to be a strong element of people shifting ground when they suddenly realize they personally know gay people, and that they're not perverts and creeps. Perhaps as more and more high level Republicans come out of the closet, or simply show that they're personally comfortable with homosexuals, there's sort of an amplifier effect, where others realize that they do in fact know gay people, and/or realize that they aren't going to suffer politically for toning down the anti-gay rhetoric.
Perhaps this is a watershed moment.
Posted by: James Hanley | September 2, 2010 4:22 PM
I recently got a viral email that insisted all Muslims are our enemies because they are all controlled by the fanatics. It included this paragraph:
I think this is the first time I've seen one of these emails suggesting that causing homosexuals to suffer is a bad thing. As part of the recent uptick in identifying all Muslims as the dangerous Others, homosexuals (they still can't bring themselves to say "gay and lesbian people") are actually identified here as part of the victim class that we're supposed to be concerned about. Maybe there really is a major shift going on in who it is that we're all supposed to be terrified of. Good maybe for the prospects of gay marriage, not so good for Muslims.
Posted by: JuliaL | September 2, 2010 4:35 PM
JuliaL, #22: The fact is that the fanatics rule Islam at this moment in history.
The fact is that no one rules Islam. As far as I know, mosques are pretty much independent. The teachings of famous and respected Imans are not doctrine that must be accepted by all.
There is an exception in those countries where the state exerts a great deal of control over the content of the doctrines, that is, where Islam is the state religion, but the rules promulgated by the state, obviously, will only be valid within that country.
The model for Islam is not the Catholic Church with its hierarchy and official dogma. The proper model would be congregational churches like the Baptists. Or, in the cases where there is a national authority, the independent provinces of the Anglican Communion.
Posted by: Chiroptera | September 2, 2010 4:52 PM
Chiroptera,
I suppose that gets ignored by the far right because it isn't nearly as scary as imagining that every mosque everywhere is a source of violence and danger.
(You did realize that I was quoting a viral email, not offering my own opinion about Islam?)
Posted by: JuliaL | September 2, 2010 5:36 PM
JuliaL, #24: (You did realize that I was quoting a viral email, not offering my own opinion about Islam?)
Yes, I did.
Posted by: Chiroptera | September 2, 2010 6:18 PM
A homosexual being a conservative is like a Jew being a Nazi.
Posted by: William George | September 2, 2010 7:02 PM
As a near commie progressive LGBT person, when the GOP was actually more moderate and much less socially conservative, then it was mentally viable to be a LOG CABIN Repug. It was the Capitalistic 'money-is-god' issues and lifestyle being promoted. All types could love that, blacks, immigrants or whites.
Posted by: megan | September 2, 2010 9:52 PM
No need to Godwin us for the point to be made.
Posted by: Jordan G | September 2, 2010 9:53 PM
Eventually they won't need to reconcile the two groups - the majority of relgious fundies will simply reverse themselves as they did on interracial marriage; the vote for women; alcohol prohibition; segregation and slavery.
They'll grudgingly admit that okay, maybe, SOME religious people - a minority - had a problem with gay marriage a long, long time ago.
But mostly they'll be busy screaming over abortion dcotors, illegal immigrants, muslism or whoever the latest target is.
Posted by: Ian Gould | September 3, 2010 2:08 AM
Whenever someone mentions the "emergence" gay Republicans as a new phenomenon, it's useful to look at the history (and big kudos to you, Ed, for highlighting the one unbreakable taboo, stay in the closet). Back a few years ago, there were several very good diaries about the DC Lavender Mafia over at the Great Orange Satan. If you really don't understand how one can be gay and Republican (or gay and conservative), I recommend:
Gay facts and fantasies in Propagannon research (The diarist is talking about Jeff Gannon, the prostitute admitted daily to Bush White House press briefings as a rep of the Talon News Service, a fair amount of speculation but includes an excellent summary of The Way Things Work if you're young, pretty and looking for a sponsor into the closeted A-Gay circle.)
For Howie Kurtz: Gays facts and fantasy pt 2 (Do the names Hoover & McCarthy ring a bell? Sadly no mention of Roy Cohn, one of the most infamous gay Republicans of the 20th century)
Gay facts and fantasies in Propa-Gannon - Update (Much more speculative than historical, but I draw your attention to a note about one Ken Mehlman, who I seem to recall being in the news recently--this diary was written 5 years ago)
Posted by: usagi | September 3, 2010 3:25 AM
Fuck Ken Mehlman (but not with my dick). Fuck Lee Atwater. Fuck every one of those lying sacks of shit who made their livings denying the that others should enjoy the same rights that they enjoy.
On the day when the Ken Mehlman's of the world stand in the public square and admit that they lied to further the hideous agendas of their masters and spill their guts to the american public about their own roles and the roles of their masters in the attempted destruction of my country and nation, THEN they get a little sympathy. Until then, fuck'em, fuck'em all.
Posted by: democommie | September 3, 2010 7:16 AM
Hmm ... this reminds me of Mark Russell back in - 1996 I think - or was it late 1995. He said something like Bob Dole had to please the right-wing faction of the GOP so he returned the donations from the gay Republicans - all two of them.
Posted by: MadScientist | September 3, 2010 7:40 AM
There is a wide range in salaries depending on who you work for and how junior or senior you are, but for most doctors, lawyers, or even stockbrokers, a staffer job would be a big step down.
Posted by: sex hikaye | September 7, 2010 9:59 AM
They can join the southern Democrats. Heh.
Posted by: MK | September 13, 2010 1:48 PM