Rob Portman becomes only GOP Senator to endorse gay marriage.

[memphis]

Is there any evidence that rich Republicans support gay marriage any more than other members of the party? I'm doubtful. These exclusive types are just that. Exclusive.

[Torie]

Your instincts on this are well - wrong. Google is your friend.

[Sol]

Is there any evidence that rich Republicans support gay marriage any more than other members of the party? I'm doubtful. These exclusive types are just that. Exclusive.

In NC for Amendment 1, the Amendment failed in a lot of the wealthy conservative Charlotte and Raleigh suburbs. Similarly, gay marriage outran Obama in a lot of the DC and Baltimore suburbs.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

One of the most influential supporters of gay marriage is turning out to be the business community. It's just plain good business for gay workers to not be oppressed, which is part of why Apple and Google always wind up going to bat for gay rights at the ballot box.

When the voice of corporate America finally grows loud enough -- and it will, as Portman can probably figure out -- institutional opposition within the GOP will just fall apart. It's already happening.

[Torie]

One of the most influential supporters of gay marriage is turning out to be the business community. It's just plain good business for gay workers to not be oppressed, which is part of why Apple and Google always wind up going to bat for gay rights at the ballot box.

When the voice of corporate America finally grows loud enough -- and it will, as Portman can probably figure out -- institutional opposition within the GOP will just fall apart. It's already happening.

And quickly. All but the dumbs and zealots within Pub circles know that it is politically toxic to do what they have been doing for much longer.  They want out of the issue, and they want out sooner rather than later.

[TDAS04]

One of the most influential supporters of gay marriage is turning out to be the business community. It's just plain good business for gay workers to not be oppressed, which is part of why Apple and Google always wind up going to bat for gay rights at the ballot box.

When the voice of corporate America finally grows loud enough -- and it will, as Portman can probably figure out -- institutional opposition within the GOP will just fall apart. It's already happening.

And quickly. All but the dumbs and zealots within Pub circles know that it is politically toxic to do what they have been doing for much longer.  They want out of the issue, and they want out sooner rather than later.

The Republicans are in quite a tough position.  If they support gay marriage, they'll have to put up with a tantrum from much of the base, and that could severely injure the party in the short-term.  Yet, there is no question that staunch opposition could not be helpful to any party over the long-run.

Anyway, good for Portman.  It's beautiful to watch the cause of the anti-gay forces implode before their very eyes.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Some CPAC reactions;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1NVw7xnIMY4&feature=player_embedded

Well in this unscientific sample of 4 people, we have two evangelical ministers, one who thinks that sodomy is evil, and another who thinks gays should never have come out of the closet. Was the taker of the videos cherry picking in order to embarrass?  Inquiring minds want to know.

Do you really think these reactions aren't typical?  Do you think even 10% of the people who attend CPAC support gay marriage?

I have no idea as to either of your queries. Maybe Inks or Phil have an opinion on that. I am suspicious however, when 2 of the 4 interviewees just happen to be hard wired evangelical ministers.

Consider also this is a conference with a very large number of students, which you would not have guessed from that video.

[Smash255]

Is there any evidence that rich Republicans support gay marriage any more than other members of the party? I'm doubtful. These exclusive types are just that. Exclusive.

In NC for Amendment 1, the Amendment failed in a lot of the wealthy conservative Charlotte and Raleigh suburbs. Similarly, gay marriage outran Obama in a lot of the DC and Baltimore suburbs.

True, but part of that is certainly due to the fact you have a very heavy northern transplant population in suburban Charlotte and Raleigh. (Containment Area for Relocated Yankees)

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

One of the most influential supporters of gay marriage is turning out to be the business community. It's just plain good business for gay workers to not be oppressed, which is part of why Apple and Google always wind up going to bat for gay rights at the ballot box.

When the voice of corporate America finally grows loud enough -- and it will, as Portman can probably figure out -- institutional opposition within the GOP will just fall apart. It's already happening.

And quickly. All but the dumbs and zealots within Pub circles know that it is politically toxic to do what they have been doing for much longer.  They want out of the issue, and they want out sooner rather than later.

The Republicans are in quite a tough position.  If they support gay marriage, they'll have to put up with a tantrum from much of the base, and that could severely injure the party in the short-term.  Yet, there is no question that staunch opposition could not be helpful to any party over the long-run.

Anyway, good for Portman.  It's beautiful to watch the cause of the anti-gay forces implode before their very eyes.

Republicans can't move on and rebrand as a party -- and they're going to need to rebrand to get back into power they enjoyed last decade -- until they get put marriage in the rear-view mirror. I'm sure there are plenty of GOP conservatives hoping that the Supreme Court legalizes gay marriage just to get the issue off the table.

[politicallefty]

Republicans can't move on and rebrand as a party -- and they're going to need to rebrand to get back into power they enjoyed last decade -- until they get put marriage in the rear-view mirror. I'm sure there are plenty of GOP conservatives hoping that the Supreme Court legalizes gay marriage just to get the issue off the table.

We should have our first insights into the Court in not much more than a week, but I think you're right on that point. If the Supreme Court legalizes gay marriage in all 50 states this term, it won't be an issue in 2016 except among a very fringe base (which could still very well control most Republican primary elections). I'm sure many among their Southern base will scream for a constitutional amendment that will never happen. When it comes to the general electorate, staunch opposition to marriage equality will only hurt at that point.

I think Portman's only shot at being on a presidential ticket hinges upon the Supreme Court striking down DOMA and every gay marriage ban in the country so as to minimize the issue as much as possible by 2016. Unless the Republicans nominate a true firebreather in 2016, Portman could conceivably still be the VP nominee. If gay marriage is still alive as a political issue at the point, he most certainly will not be on a Republican ticket. While it may have been cowardly to take this position so late in light of what he has known for two years, there is still some courage risking his position in a party that remains so obstinate on this particular issue.

[memphis]

The Republicans have never let a Supreme Court decision influence their positions. The majority of the party is still foaming at the mouth over the gays. That's not going away. However the court rukles, their official platform will still call for a constitutional amendment in 2016.

[anvi]

You still get it wrong. This (the bolded part) is exactly what Krugman is saying. He just adds that it would be nice if the generally heartless Republicans managed to develop the same empathy for people to which they have no direct connection. And please don't say it's rare or difficult. Any decent person can do that.

I don't think it's rare at all.  And I do wish politicians would develop more empathy for others with whom they have no connection.  But, though I really don't want to belabor the point, Krugman wrote of Portman: "apparently we’re supposed to praise him for his new enlightenment. But while enlightenment is good, wouldn’t it have been a lot more praiseworthy if he had shown some flexibility on the issue before he knew that his own family would benefit?" and "Someone should ask Portman why he didn’t take a stand for, you know, other people’s children."  That strikes me as a rather uncharitable characterization in this case. When someone does something good, all we want to do is beat them up for not being perfect?  Krugman, then, is our model of perfection?   But to each person, their own reading.

[afleitch]

The GOP has a wider problem. The mood of the people is moving so fast America is likely to have gay marriage in more and more states yet the Republican base hasn't even accepted the need to even respect the dignity of LGBT people. Their view of gays hasn't evolved from those rather quaint 50's public information films. Legalising gay marriage doesn't mean that people will stop being bigoted, quite the contrary they may become further entrenched against it. Legalising gay marriage won't stop closeted gays from being little self destructive timebombs. A bigger cultural change is needed and when the marriage battle is won we need to go back to the grassroots again to win over hearts and minds.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Yeah it's absurd to think the Supreme Court legalizing gay marriage means the Republicans will drop opposition to it. They haven't done so for abortion in 40 years.

[Brittain33]

Looks like there were 5 interviewees (a young guy shows up 2 minutes in) and the second minister sure looks like a lobbyist or professional type rather than a minister. That said, it's not a scientific poll.

The pastor of the "black church" was something special. Was he affecting an 18th century accent?

[Brittain33]

Is there any evidence that rich Republicans support gay marriage any more than other members of the party? I'm doubtful. These exclusive types are just that. Exclusive.

In NC for Amendment 1, the Amendment failed in a lot of the wealthy conservative Charlotte and Raleigh suburbs. Similarly, gay marriage outran Obama in a lot of the DC and Baltimore suburbs.

True, but part of that is certainly due to the fact you have a very heavy northern transplant population in suburban Charlotte and Raleigh. (Containment Area for Relocated Yankees)

That is a good point--but these people are reliable Republicans all the same in their new homes.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

People who flee the North because of taxes or whatever seem like a pretty likely bunch to be pro-gay marriage Republicans.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

The GOP has a wider problem. The mood of the people is moving so fast America is likely to have gay marriage in more and more states yet the Republican base hasn't even accepted the need to even respect the dignity of LGBT people. Their view of gays hasn't evolved from those rather quaint 50's public information films. Legalising gay marriage doesn't mean that people will stop being bigoted, quite the contrary they may become further entrenched against it. Legalising gay marriage won't stop closeted gays from being little self destructive timebombs. A bigger cultural change is needed and when the marriage battle is won we need to go back to the grassroots again to win over hearts and minds.

what?

[Lief 🗽]

The bottom line is that people entrusted with making public policy should do so considering how it effects all Americans, not just their children. And while it's nice that Portman now supports the correct moral position on this one issue, it's hardly brave or heroic; if anything it's cowardly.

[afleitch]

The GOP has a wider problem. The mood of the people is moving so fast America is likely to have gay marriage in more and more states yet the Republican base hasn't even accepted the need to even respect the dignity of LGBT people. Their view of gays hasn't evolved from those rather quaint 50's public information films. Legalising gay marriage doesn't mean that people will stop being bigoted, quite the contrary they may become further entrenched against it. Legalising gay marriage won't stop closeted gays from being little self destructive timebombs. A bigger cultural change is needed and when the marriage battle is won we need to go back to the grassroots again to win over hearts and minds.

what?

I probably should have rephrased that to 'self loathing gays' who tend to be the biggest homophobes out there.

[TDAS04]

The GOP has a wider problem. The mood of the people is moving so fast America is likely to have gay marriage in more and more states yet the Republican base hasn't even accepted the need to even respect the dignity of LGBT people. Their view of gays hasn't evolved from those rather quaint 50's public information films. Legalising gay marriage doesn't mean that people will stop being bigoted, quite the contrary they may become further entrenched against it. Legalising gay marriage won't stop closeted gays from being little self destructive timebombs. A bigger cultural change is needed and when the marriage battle is won we need to go back to the grassroots again to win over hearts and minds.

You have a point.  If, for example, Minnesota legalizes gay marriage, that probably won't stop the harassment of gay kids in Pipestone.  Still, the law is an all-too important step.  Roe v. Wade certainly did not end opposition to legalized abortion, but the movement for enforcing racial equality at the government level in the 1960s did pave the way for the election of the first African-American as POTUS four decades later.  Actually, the movement for gay rights seems to be occurring much faster (remember the change from 2004 to 2012?); it is not out of the question that an openly-gay person could possibly be elected POTUS in the 2020s.

[anvi]

The bottom line is that people entrusted with making public policy should do so considering how it effects all Americans, not just their children. And while it's nice that Portman now supports the correct moral position on this one issue, it's hardly brave or heroic; if anything it's cowardly.

But don't you think that a lot of elected officials who disagree with one another strongly about policy issues do believe that they have the larger public good in mind?.  People who believe that gay marriage will erode society, or something comparably wrong, probably do so because they really think allowing it would do the country more harm than good.  Obviously, it would be hard for me to disagree more strongly than I do with Portman's previous position and those who still want to deny gay people right to marry.  But, if I call someone who changes their mind, in the correct way, a coward for doing so just because his child's experience was the cause of his change, I think that would imply that I also believe that people can't hold opposing convictions and yet that both might, in their respective views, may have the larger public interest in mind.  In that case, every disagreement will make people view one another as little more than moral slugs, and it's fairly hard for a society of people to do much together that way.

[This user has not been convicted of 34 felonies]

Some CPAC reactions;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1NVw7xnIMY4&feature=player_embedded

Horrific

[All Along The Watchtower]

Your instincts on this are well - wrong. Google is your friend.

Still, more rich Republicans oppose any legal recognition of gay couples (33%) than support full marriage rights (24%). All you have shown is that 76% of rich Republicans are moderate heroes (at best) on the rights of gay couples. Hardly encouraging. If anything, I think it says a lot, in general, about (Republican) members of the best-educated and most materially comfortable class in America that so few of them truly care about the plight of a group that has historically and currently faces incredible persecution for something that has been scientifically (education, anyone??) been shown to not be a "choice." So much for "noblesse oblige".

[Smash255]

Is there any evidence that rich Republicans support gay marriage any more than other members of the party? I'm doubtful. These exclusive types are just that. Exclusive.

In NC for Amendment 1, the Amendment failed in a lot of the wealthy conservative Charlotte and Raleigh suburbs. Similarly, gay marriage outran Obama in a lot of the DC and Baltimore suburbs.

True, but part of that is certainly due to the fact you have a very heavy northern transplant population in suburban Charlotte and Raleigh. (Containment Area for Relocated Yankees)

That is a good point--but these people are reliable Republicans all the same in their new homes.

Not nearly as Republican a your typical southern suburban Republican.  Also I would say many of them ten to be mixed politically.  Cary for example is pretty much marginal.