Mitt Romney and the Wrath of the Log Cabin Republicans
The former Massachusetts governor spent much of his political career courting gay conservatives, only to do an about-face on gay rights (and a host of other issues) in advance of his presidential run. For the Log Cabin Republicans, it's payback time.
Wed Oct. 24, 2007 11:00 PM PDT
A 30-second TV spot that recently aired in Iowa opens with a still frame of Mitt Romney and a calm female voice intoning, "For years, he's fought conservatives and religious extremists." It goes on to show the former Massachusetts governor stating a variety of socially moderate views, at one point reprising a video clip from a 1994 debate in which he says, "I believe abortion should be safe and legal in this country." The ad closes with the lines, "A record fighting the religious right. A pro-choice record. Massachusetts values. Mitt Romney."
Continues Below
Continued From Above
As Romney strives to remake himself as a social conservative—the candidate who represents "the Republican wing of the Republican party," as he recently put it—his previously moderate views on gay rights, abortion, and gun control are precisely the issues he's trying to distance himself from. So who's behind the devious ad? Not a liberal 527 or one of his GOP rivals—it's the Log Cabin Republicans, the national organization of gay conservatives, who have made Romney the target of a full-fledged attack campaign. Last weekend, the organization dispatched Jimmy LaSalvia, its grassroots outreach director, to the Family Research Council's "Values Voters Summit" in Washington, where Romney, along with the rest of the Republican field, tried to sell evangelicals on his conservative bona fides. Though Log Cabin has long had a contentious relationship with the religious right, LaSalvia made the trip into enemy territory for the express purpose of spreading the organization's anti-Romney message.
It wasn't always this way. Romney spent much of his political life courting Log Cabin Republicans. When he ran for senator against Ted Kennedy in 1994, he sought and won the organization's endorsement. In a letter to the group, he wrote, "For some voters it might be enough for me to simply match my opponent's record [on gay rights]. But I believe we can and must do better. If we are to achieve the goals we share, we must make equality for gays and lesbians a mainstream concern. My opponent cannot do this. I can and will."
In the same letter, Romney went on to support domestic partnership rights; the federal Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA); a federal panel to reduce suicide among gay and lesbian youth; and a future in which "gays and lesbians [are] able to serve openly and honestly in our nation's military."
When Romney ran for governor in 2002, he again sought and won the Log Cabin endorsement. During that campaign, in which he ran with lieutenant governor candidate Kerry Healey, Romney handed out a flier at a gay pride parade reading, "Mitt and Kerry Wish You a Great Pride Weekend! All citizens deserve equal rights, regardless of their sexual preference."
Log Cabin works to elect "fair minded" Republicans to public office, and after Romney won the governorship in Massachusetts and turned his sights on Washington, it looked like they had a chance to put one in the White House. Then the Massachusetts courts threw everyone a curveball. In late 2003, the state's Supreme Court legalized gay marriage, and Romney did a complete 180 on gay rights, coming out not only against the court's ruling but against civil unions as well. By 2006, he was stating publicly that he opposed ENDA and supported "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." Currently, he is the only major Republican candidate who backs a federal constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage, a position popular with the GOP's evangelical base.
"Governor Romney would be the first to say that he has learned from his experiences and his past campaigns," says Romney spokesman Alex Burgos, asked about the candidate's change of course on gay rights. "There are certain issues where he has been very clear and asserted that he is proud of the fact that he has changed his position. He has made it clear that as president, just as he did as governor of Massachusetts, he would oppose same-sex marriage, but at the same time that he supports a society that doesn't discriminate against people on the basis of sex, ethnicity, or sexual preference."
LaSalvia, however, sees something a bit more duplicitous in the way that Romney first cast himself as a champion of gay rights only to reverse himself once elected. "He told us exactly what we wanted to hear back when he needed our endorsement," he says, "and now he's doing the same thing to the groups who he thinks he needs to win the presidency. Our message is, 'Learn from our mistake.'"
LaSalvia insists, however, that Log Cabin's campaign against Romney isn't motivated solely by Romney's about-face on gay rights. "He has completely reversed himself on almost every issue. And he has spent millions of dollars in Iowa to paint a picture of himself that isn't true, that doesn't accurately reflect his record." One piece of literature Log Cabin hands out details Romney's flip-flops on 15 positions, from abortion to stem cell research and from taxes to gun rights.
But why not attack the other Republican candidates? Almost all of them have a flip-flop or two in their pasts, and none of them are particularly friendly to the gay community. "We have disagreements, obviously, with other presidential candidates," LaSalvia says. "But when you look at their records and you look at their positions, you get a good sense of what they would be like as a president. I don't think anybody can accurately predict what a Romney administration would look like. The only thing that has been constant in his record has been his ambition."
With the most gay-friendly Republican in the race, Rudy Giuliani, reportedly reevaluating his opposition to a constitutional same-sex marriage ban in order to boost his lagging support among evangelicals (a situation Log Cabin is "following closely," says LaSalvia), who can the group turn to?
No one, according to LaSalvia. "We will probably not endorse anyone in the primary."
Comments
Lesbians and gay men have already lost the fight for same-sex marriage. 45 states have laws or constitutional amendments prohibiting same-sex marriage. (Source: Human Rights Campaign) There has been over 48 million votes cast on this issue in 29 states and almost 32 million, almost two-thirds, voted against same-sex marriage. As the noted gay historian and professor at the University of Illinois, John D'Emilio, observed in his 2006 article, The Marriage Fight Is Setting Us Back, "The campaign for same-sex marriage has been an unmitigated disaster. It has created a vast body of new anti-gay laws." There has already been, in effect, a national referendum and we have lost......BIG.
There is a myth that marriage has more rights and benefits than civil unions/domestic partners. That myth is born from the fact that civil unions/domestic partners have only been passed by states. States have no power to grant the 1138 federal benefits of marriage. However, a national civil union policy would. Senators Clinton, Obama, Edwards, Dodd, & Biden have pledge to support a national civil union policy.
In poll after poll, a clear majority of voters support civil unions with all the same rights, benefits and obligations of marriage but oppose same-sex marriage. Illogical? Yes! But it is a fact we must live with.
It is time to move on to a fight we can win.
Here in Oregon, we thought we were well on the way to civil unions when our allies "compromised" and passed domestic partnership legislation which we were informed was "less controversial" and less likely to draw significant opposition from the fundies. Wrong. The first thing they did was to start circulating petitions to revoke the both the domestic partnership and non-discrimination laws. Fortunately they fell short on signatures so now they're talking about an initiative drive. I think we'll defeat it, but I can't believe we have to keep fighting this battle... just for something that isn't even a legitimate civil union.
While I recognize the feeling of doom and failure in these comments, and I sincerely hope they're wrong, I've been around long enough (I came out in 1950) to know that the real attitude should be that we haven't won YET. It may take longer than most of us current lgbts are alive, but I've been around long enough to be astonished at what HAS been accomplished, stuff I never thought would be. If we wait another fifty years to start again on this issue, it'll take fifty years longer (and fifty years more of us will be denied what is our right); the fight must continue today; we owe it to those gays who will follow us. I for one don't want them to have the same oppressions we've had, and the only ray of hope is to continue to fight.
I come from an era when there were no freedoms for Blacks; virtually no women's rights compared to now; when we had no gay press whatsoever (much changed after John Rechy's novel City of Night was published and became an international bestseller) and when, as yet, there were no organizations. Expect amazing results, but only if we demand and work for them.
I'm a former VERY negative pessimist who came out in 1951 and at that time felt we didn't deserve any improvements to our lots; we were that vile. How different things seem at seventy-two!
I am a straight man who is entirely disgusted with the anti-gay discrimination in this nation. I served in the Army with several gay men who were just as professional and dedicated as everyone else, and nobody felt uncomfortable with them in our unit. What kills me the most is the conservative right statement that gay marriage threatens the institution of marriage itself. I am happily married, and if gays and lesbians were to start marrying tomorrow, it would not threaten my marriage in the least. Those who feel threatened by gay marriage should wake up and realize that if they feel that way, the problem is in their own marriage, not in those of anyone else.
I do not understand why gays belong to and support a political party that obviously despises them and continually works against their interests.
I am straight, but support human rights - straight, gay or otherwise. As far as I am concerned, the Republican policy of supporting homophobia, working against the interests of the majority of their constituency (the middle class) and their outright hypocrisy would prevent me from supporting any Republican.
Join the Dems, Log Cabiners.
The Log Cabin Republicans are the Incredibly Strange Creatures Who Stopped Living and Became Mixed-Up Zombies of dodoistic irrelevence. 'Gay' & 'Republican' go together like egg rolls and enemas. (Except in furtive, dark bathroom stalls and rented rooms?).
We have to keep working for gay marriage, though it may take longer than most of us will be alive. The place? The children. Over the years, it's been the younger generation, growing up, who've supported changes and this is important. Religion uses its children; despots and dictators and conquerors "educate" the children to their way of thinking. We can, too. It starts, also, with the kids we adopt -- they learn we're not monsters. If those who despise us brainwash their children, then our responsibility is to start education young, as well.
Skip the concept that those who help us are "glorifying" homosexuality. They're just recognizing that we're here, will always be, and are useful members of society -- unless we're maladjusted, which is caused by the confusion our enemies cause. And when they question one of us about being "for" gay and lesbian marriage, the response could be: "Yes, and I want to make it safe for you to have one, also, even though you may not choose that option." By the way, Michael Strassberg, thanks for your open mind --and I didn't get the feeling I usually get when someone writes "I'm straight," that they feel the necessity of showing what great people they are. You sound like a sincere human being, nothing more, nothing less.
What fools like Giuliani and Romney don't understand is that when they turncoat on their previous statements --support for same-sex marriage -- just to increase their conservative support, they lose their lgbt support. It may not be equal (or it may be), but it could help them lose the elections if we don't support them. We have to let them know, otherwise boycotts don't work. As well, we need to spread the word loudly through both lgbt and general publications.
No wonder so many think politics aren't worth it. Social justice activism is, but politics itself is like the poop we get even when we eat a healthy meal.
The problem isn't that Romney is a Mormon; he has been that all his life, while the strident homophobia is recent. The problem is that like Reagan, GHW Bush and GW Bush, he's willing to pander to the bigotry and spitefulness of the conservative Christian community, both Protestant and Roman Catholic, to gain votes. It's his lack of principle, not his membership in a generally right wing church, that's the problem. Consider the rich irony that both Clinton and Gore are Southern Baptists, while Poppy Bush is an Episcopalian and W is a United Methodist--both from normally moderate, mainstream churches.
I am not gay, but I think all citizens should enjoy equal rights especially civil rights, and that our government should distance itself from all religions and revert to revering and following the mandates of our Constitution.
It is not the government's business to restrict the right of anyone's pursuit of happiness including those born with the genetic propensity to be gay.
Additionally, it is not the government's business to peer into any bedroom as long as it is occupied by consenting adults.
I just do not understand why there is even a group called "Log Cabin Republicans". The Republican Party should simply be repugnant to gays. The Republican Party's "social conservative" hypocritical members and leadership are primarily homophobic, intolerance and its candidates are hypocritical panderers to the "religious wrong", the equivalent in America to the Taliban, whose leadership and members would gladly invoke mosaic law which calls for stoning homosexuals (and many others) to death.
Which one of the knuckle draggers are the Log Cabin Republicans going to vote for? It is obvious that the best chance for gays to live as full members of society is with the Democratic Party, where they would be welcomed and not despised.
Romney is far from being the only hypocrite, but keep the ad running. Run them against Giuliani too, and spread them around to the other Republican candidates as well.
Ads showing the hypocrisy and ignorance of the spewers of Republican propaganda on talk radio and Faux News would be good to see too.
Yes, that's hard to understand. The Log Cabin Republicans have placed their faith in the wrong camp. Democrats truly welcome diversity as in GLBT. Humanity does not equate with the Cleaver family. We're not gay or communists, but tolerance and equal opportunity are our beacons of hope.
The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment refers to the first of several pronouncements to the United States Constitution. It said that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...." Together with the Free Exercise Clause, ("...prohibiting the free exercise thereof"). These two clauses make up what are commonly known as the "religion clauses" of the First Amendment.
So why not accept that "marriage" is a religious function while a "civil union" is a function of government? To do otherwise seems to violate our basic Constitutional rights. If GBLT"s want to get "married", let them join the church of their choice. It's a matter to be resolved between them and their denomination.
If Unitarians or Episcopalians care enough about their brothers and sisters to allow them to marry homosexually or heterosexually, so be it. If the Baptists and Jehovah's Witnesses are homophobic, shun them.
If gay agnostics and atheists don't want to darken the threshold of a church marry, let them join in a valid civil union.
The idea that so-called civil society can prevent same-sex partners from sharing the same civil rights ... such as visitation or the right to parent a child ... is abhorrent, an abomination, and an insult to our founding fathers whose tolerance for differences in belief and behavior is our bedrock.
It has come to pass that a large number of gay men have come out of the closet in recent years. A large percentage of these men have mothers. There are also quite a large number of fathers concerned with the well being of homosexual sons and daughters. Brothers and sisters frequently support their siblings. Among their friends are many that are not interested in their sex but are just friends. All of these people in support of gay people make "gay bashing" unhealthy for polititians as they will slowly learn.
Two of the problems we need to consider: 1) Civil Unions are nice-sounding, but a civil union couple gets about 1,000 fewer legal rights and benefits than those who are married, heterosexually. 2)The Catholic Church has a swell catch-22 in their approach. LGBTs are looked at with a patronizing eye when they explain that all who are married should receive the benefits mentioned above, but -- gays can't marry, so that's a problem. If we could get married in the church, we yada yada yada. Still, AT THE PRESENT TIME, the church isn't as harsh on us as before. I remember how, in the fifties, they were calling us things much worse than perverts and sometimes calling also for us to be destroyed. Incidentally, the Knights Templar have just been "graced." (They're the ones in The Da Vinci Code, But written better about and with greater depth by Humberto Eco in Foucault's Pendulum. (Wow, what a book!) This "grace" has to do with the fact that in some hidden corner in the Church archives, a notice from the then-pope was found which absolved the Knights of any wrong-doing, homosexual or otherwise. Seems the then-King of France owed the Knights a lot of money, and needed to get rid of the debt, so he started a vicious campaign against them, so he could refuse to pay such a dirty group; and he went after their lands all over the world, hoping to be enriched by them. Frankly, I'm against marriage of any kind, but if we can, we must go through it to get the extra rights. But how dare any organization tell us we must register who we sleep with, then get permission to (they hope) sleep with only that person!
When I wrote that the Knights Templar were totally absolved of all charges, including homosexuality, I didn't mean the church had given them special dispensation. I meant that there had been no proof of the goshalmightyterrible acts of homosexuality they'd been charged with. Incidentally, the late, great Dr. John Boswell wrote a book about early homosexual marriages that were condoned by the Church.
Mitt Romney Bain entity benefited from $300 million fraud issues that was accomplished by admitted acts of false affidavits in Delaware Federal Courts. This Perjury is not being prosecuted because the law firm that admitted the false affidavits, Morris Nichols Arsht & Tunnel (MNAT) had a partner who is now the US Attorney for Delaware, Colm F Connolly. Who is now being promoted to a Federal Judge position. It seems it is a good career move to refuse to prosecute your partners, associates and clients of your firm. Wonder how much more will happen once Romney gets elected President?
S.Petersen's concern about freaks and marriage is stupid. If S.Petersen were to look at our language, which is fluid, he'd see that words expand their meanings constantly and that he has no control over it beyond calling people freaks (nice of him to read about us if we're not part of his concern -- why are we on his mind?) -- in the Bible, awful meant full of awe; hopefully originally meant full of hope, as in "She said hopefully."; pimp recently expanded its meaning; mouse, thanks to computers, has a new meaning; unique is supposed to mean one of a kind, but is used differently by many; agnostic by one dictionary means someone who holds to the doctrine that the creator and creation are unknown and unknowable, not the steet definition of not knowing if there's a god or not, etc. How does S.Petersen come to define freaks? Is it a judgment call? His? God's? (I'm assuming SPetersen is male). It's of no value in a discussion to go into name-calling: that merely reflects on the name-caller, not the individuals he/she are attempting to insult, and it does nothing in the way of moving a discussion forward. S.Petersen, when you say somelthing of intelligence, you'll convince people more than you will by just showing generalized hostility.
Greetings. Pat Henry below made a comment about shunning Jehovah's witnesses for being 'homophobic'.
Remembering my classical Greek, we have no fear or phobia of homosexuals. We do, of course, obey God's laws regarding homosexuality. It is wrong, ungodly, demonic. So, we do not engage or condone engaging in homosex of any version.
We have the same view of any form of fornication -porneia- as practiced by many today.
Will we help homosexuals get rid of that ungodly habit? Sure! We help people of all walks of life to cease the practice of any unbiblical practice:
adultery
homosexuality
fornication
murder
drug use
smoking
alcoholism
theft
pornography addiction
spouse, child or elder abuse
any other crime or activity
as delineated in the Bible.
Will we tell others not to do so?
Nope. We will offer training and guidance. If one wants to avail himself of our help, we will do so.
Otherwise, most have precious little understanding of our free and open meetings in most neighbourhoods in Most countries in the world.
In Conclusion, no fear. But, we detest the sin, but love and are willing to help the sinner.
And, we do this at no cost to the one being assisted or to the general public.
Len Buckholtz needs to learn how to read and INTERPRET what he's read. The Patrick Henry comments -- all of them --are positive towards gay marriage as something equals should all have. Buckholtz's ya-ta-ta truly only shows he has an abnormal interest in lgbt issues; why is between him and his therapist. If the Bible only has one interpretation, than why are there so many different Protestant and Unitarian (among others) groups instead of only the Mother Church (Catholicism). And there are many phrases in the Bible that can be interpreted as gay-friendly. If L.B. is truly interested, he can go to A Different Light Bookstore and find a number of books that quote the Bible as positive and NOT negative re the subject. Jesus never made any comments except to say that what his Father said was correct (not on the topic, and also paraphrased here by me.). The interpretation of the Bible changes with each individual who reads it; and I doubt the L.B. is an expert, since he can't even understand what Patrick Henry's clear, even writing states.
