The GOP Plan to Stoke Anti-Gay Bigotry in 2016

We have seen the GOP use anti-gay bigotry and animus before to turn out its aging, angry base, most notably in 2004 when Karl Rove conspired to use gay marriage bans to whip up the GOP base.  Now, with gay marriage bans struck down nationwide, Michelangelo Signorile predicts that the GOP will again use anti-gay animus to turn out its shrinking  base.  Here are highlights from his column in Huffington Post:

There have been predictions for several years that gay-bashing by GOP presidential candidates would be dead by 2016, some of it wishful thinking by gay advocates. Back in 2012, Fred Sainz of the Human Rights Campaign, for example, commenting on the lack of discussion of gay issues in the three debates between President Obama and Mitt Romney, said, "What we're seeing is proof positive that gay issues aren't the wedge they used to be." The public, he said, has "moved on."

Fast forward to 2015: Ted Cruz, Scott Walker and Rick Perry have expressed blatant anti-gay positions, from banning gay scout leaders to supporting yet another marriage amendment. Some pundits believe this to be politically dangerous, certainly in a general election, and they're right when it comes to the more overt bigotry.

[N]ew polling underscores that covert messaging -- the dog whistle -- could do the trick for the GOP, just as it has worked for the party on race and gender for decades now. Jeb Bush has defended "religious liberty" -- the new code words for anti-gay positions -- even while saying gay couples deserved "respect" for their relationships. And just last week, Bush said he supported the idea of anti-discrimination laws protecting LGBT people, though he thought they should be handled "state-by-state"  . . . But in comments that directly followed, Bush said that he believes there should be an exception for people with religious objections to allowing gays and lesbians to marry, . . . In other words, those who would discriminate in the first place should be exempt from laws banning discrimination. This will in fact be the more subtle -- but no less vile and discriminatory -- gay-bashing of the 2016 election.

Right on schedule, GOP legislators in Congress introduced -- and last week publicly promoted -- the deceptively-named First Amendment Defense Act, a bill which appears to be designed to do what the George W. Bush-backed Federal Marriage Amendment was meant to do in 2004 and the year preceding it: Fire up the anti-LGBT evangelical base and create excitement among them for candidates backing it.

The ACLU describes it as "Indiana on steroids," referring to the initial, notorious Indiana Religious Restoration Freedom Act.  

[I]t's true that a large portion of the country supports marriage equality and public opinion has moved quickly in a positive direction on that issue. But as the AP reported, the poll found that when religious objections are thrown into the mix, the public has a jarring reaction, and one that LGBT activists should be taking heed of rather than simply trumpeting new and breathless polls claiming more support:

When the two are in conflict, 56 percent of those questioned said it's more important for the government to protect religious liberties, while 39 percent said it's more important to protect the rights of gays and lesbians.

So, in the AP poll we're actually now seeing nearly 60 percent of Americans agreeing with Jeb Bush's position, and this is up sharply since the Supreme Court ruling, from just over half. There's a sharp difference between Republicans and Democrats, too. Among Republicans, 82 percent said it was more important to protect "religious liberties" than gay rights . . .

While it may be accurate to say that a majority of the American public has "moved on" with regard to marriage equality, that's not true among the base of the GOP. And, more critically, the majority of Americans in general hasn't "moved on" when it comes to "religious liberty" vs. "gay rights," not by a long shot.  

The First Amendment Defense Act . . . . It's unlikely this bill could get 60 votes in the Senate, nor would it likely be signed by President Obama. But the Federal Marriage Amendment had even worse odds. The real goal wasn't to get it passed, but to engage anti-gay voters in the presidential and congressional races.  

That may or may not be enough to garner GOP wins in 2016, but it will surely have the effect of injecting bigotry into the 2016 political discourse -- which is already happening -- and legitimizing religious hatred and discrimination. And that's always a loss for the average gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender person, still not legally protected in the majority of America and subjected to derision, discrimination and violence every day. 

The War for LGBT Equality is Far From Over

To hear some pundits talk, one would think that the war for LGBT equality is over and, if the U.S. Supreme Court makes same sex marriage a nationwide right come June, we should all be sitting back luxuriating in our new found freedoms.  This view conveniently ignores the reality that in 29 states gays can be summarily fired based on the sexual orientation and/or gender expression.  Worse yet, in states like Virginia there are no public accommodation protections for LGBT citizens.  The discrimination sought to be made legal under Indiana's "license to discriminate law" is already legal in Virginia.  Add to this reality the Christofascists' rising hysteria as they lose the so-called culture wars and their demands for special rights that far too many Republicans seem only too happy to grant.  In a piece in Huffington Post, focus is given to Michelangelo Signorile new book that looks at the future of the struggle for LGBT equality.  Here are highlights:

The queer rights movement has come a long way over the past 50 years and has seen an especially mind-blowing array of triumphs secured in just the last five years. From marriage equality sweeping much of the United States to the transgender community gaining traction, momentum and unprecedented visibility, today the dream of equality for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people is closer to becoming a reality than ever before.

But before you break out the champagne and start drafting an invite list for a celebratory party, there's some bad news: we've still got a long way to go before queer people attain all of the rights that non-queer people have. And, what's more, we have a lot more work left to do in terms of changing the way that non-queer people think about the lives and experiences of queer people on the most fundamental of levels.

I recently chatted with my colleague Mike [Signorile] about his new book including everything from how "the closet" has changed over the years to his vision for our future and how we can -- hopefully -- one day achieve victory.

Noah Michelson: Do you remember where you were and what you were doing when you got the idea for the book? Is there a specific moment you can point to when you thought "OK, it's time to look into this more closely"?
Michelangelo Signorile: The book came together over a period of several years. It actually crystalized as an idea as far back as 2009, when facts on the ground, in terms of how people experienced homophobia and transphobia, were never quite matching the celebrations in the media of the victories, which then were still baby steps compared to now.

The first chapter is entitled "Victory Blindness." What exactly does that mean and how is it affecting the movement?
Victory blindness is something we all succumb to at times. It's a term I use to describe the phenomenon in which we focus on the wins, so starved for validation, that we allow them to blind us to the continued bigotry we face. We become enthralled, intoxicated -- spellbound by even a little bit. The effect is that it obscures our reality -- literally our vision -- and it makes us lose our gumption, not wanting to rock the boat, fearful that we'll lose what we've gained and not get what little bit we think we need, when in fact we need a lot and we should be strong and confident knowing our allies will stay with us. . . . . We were and are still hated and despised by many -- despite having so many allies now -- and we have no rights in most states nor federal protections. So this is victory blindness, and it can have the terrible effect of actually allowing the backlash to grow because it telegraphs that we will back down. 

The part of the second chapter, entitled "We Don't Serve Fags Here," that intrigued me the most is your discussion of the closet and how, even in 2015, it is such an enduring and dangerous phenomenon. How has the closet changed since you began writing about it and what do you think needs to happen for it to vanish altogether -- or is that even possible?
So many people clearly have come out in the past 25 years, since I wrote my first book, Queer in America, and people are coming out at much younger ages. . . . . But we still see the closet strictly enforced among public figures. We still see the media not going there in discussing public figures -- even those in the glass closet -- sending the message that it's still shameful. We still see Hollywood enforcing the closet. And, in my research for It's Not Over, I found that even as things had changed, many many more average LGB people than we think are still deeply closeted, living tormented lives, married to people of the opposite gender when they're not bi, just to pass as straight, particularly in conservative parts of country.

We have to get to a place where people do not go in the closet -- where they're raised as queer, and that will only happen when we revolutionize education and teach about sexual orientation and gender identity in school, k-12. It's just starting in California. We need to take it to all 50 states

[F]rom the number of reported hate-based attacks in the United States increasing to this frightening new crop of "religious freedom" bills aimed at allowing discrimination against queer people. Some have written off this ramping up of anti-queer sentiment as the last gasp of a soon defeated right-wing coalition. How do you feel about that assertion and what's the danger in framing these events in this way?
You know, everything is the last gasp of something -- until people get their breath again. We thought we saw the last gasp of racism 50 years ago. Then we thought we saw it over and over again, including when President Obama was elected, right? We were "post-racial" and all this. Obviously it wasn't true. The enemies of LGBT equality, similarly, as they have done with women, will keep working at finding ways to try to thwart us. 

Tell me about "covering." What is it and why can it be harmful?

Covering is when members of marginalized groups attain certain rights and then think that the best strategy is to try to fit in -- not to focus on difference. He writes about it from the perspective of race, as an Asian American, as well as from the perspective of being gay. For queer people, covering is when we tone down or assimilate in, or try to show cultural tastes that are more in line with the mainstream, and downplay our own culture. And certainly, refraining from showing same-sex affection or sexuality is covering. 

Why do you think it's important for the media to stop trying to stay neutral on these issues? What do you say to those who claim that abandoning that neutrality means stories can't be accurate or fair?
This really is a two-pronged question -- one about journalism and one about bigotry. Let's start with journalism. I've long maintained that "objectivity" and "neutrality" are a bit silly to strive for because it's really impossible, particularly when you as the journalist are a member of a marginalized group and other people have made up the rules of "objectivity."

[G]getting to the second part of the question, the homophobia, and transphobia, issue, the bigotry -- the opposing view is now completely debunked when it comes to a scientific point of view. There are no reputable scientists, medical associations, sexologists, etc., who see homosexuality, bisexuality or transgender identity as harmful -- and so all the media is left with to show an opposing view is bigotry, most often from religious conservatives. And they just do not have a place anymore -- and perhaps never should have -- in public policy debate. The media no longer bring white supremacists on to debate racial issues. It's time they stop bringing on anti-gay hate groups too.

I think Michelangelo is on to something.  Read the rest of the piece or, better yet, get his new book,  It's Not Over, here.

Why Right-Wing Christians Believe Republican Lies

A piece in Salon written by Frank Schaeffer, a former evangelical himself, looks at why the Republican Party's lies play so effectively.  Part of it is the evangelical Christian's rejection of logic, reason, and objective reality.  Part of it also is because of evangelical Christians' rejection of science and knowledge.  Indeed, many seem to celebrate the embrace of ignorance.  But overall, Schaeffer argues it's because they have been brainwashed into believing lies all their lives.  Here are some article highlights:

The Republican Party base is white evangelicals. So it’s no wonder that GOP lies about the country, the economy and the president worked. The folks who base their lives on religious mythology have spent lifetimes being trained to believe lies. On Tuesday they won. Lies won.

Since the economy has rebounded and healthcare reform has worked, all that remained for the GOP was to lie. And since the base of the GOP is white aging southern evangelicals, the GOP was in luck. 

These are easy folks to lie to. That’s because they already accept an alternative version of reality. Also, of course, since the lies are about a black man, that doesn’t hurt. Yes, race is still an issue.

The midterm election boiled down to xenophobia about the “other.” Ebola was the president’s fault! ISIS is coming to get us! We aren’t safe!

None of this is true, but no matter. In fact, judging by actual facts the Obama presidency has been successful in spite of GOP obstruction. The economy is back. Jobs are up. We’ve been kept safe from terror attacks. America is strong.

What we’ll now see is a reinvigorated religious right. And since lies worked so well we’ll have more of them. Creationism, anti-gay initiatives, anti-choice initiatives, and of course pro-Koch-brother-financed lies upon lies to bury climate change debate are on the way.

The Republican-dominated Supreme Court stands ready to back corporate- and religious right-financed attacks of the environment, pro-Wall Street laws and all the rest.

Racism won. Evangelical myth won. Wall Street won. The banks won. America lost.

Pundits say Republican Anti-LGBT Rrights Platform Cost Romney Election

Interestingly, two conservative pundits are making the argument that the GOP's anti-gay platform cost Mitt Romney the presidency.  By crunching numbers in certain key states, they argue that had the GOP not nearly completely alienated LGBT voters (not to mention much of the youth vote for the same reason), Mitt Romney would have garnered enough additional votes to swing the election results in those states.  Ohio is a case in point.  One can only hope that the powers that be in the GOP begin to realize that pleasing the Christofascists alienates more voters than it attracts.  With the growing acceptance of gays and gay marriage, the anti-gay platform will be come even more of a loser for the GOP.  If Republican Party truly wants to win at the national level, the first thing they need to do is kick Tony Perkins, Mike Huckabee, Rick Santorum, et al, and the Catholic bishops to the curb. Here are highlights from Gay Star News on this analysis:

Two leading US conservative pundits have suggested that a different Republican stance on LGBT rights could have won them the US presidency.

Fox News contributor Ellen Ratner crunched the numbers and found that if Republican candidate Mitt Romney had managed to garner even 48 percent of the LGBT vote in Ohio he would have carried the key state.

‘Our calculations found that 48 percent of gay voters in Ohio equals 128,742 voters. Or 69,736 more gay voters than Romney actually received,’ Ratner wrote.

‘By our math, if Romney earned 69,736 more votes, he would have totaled 2,654,356 votes, and Obama would've totaled 2,622,125. Therefore, Romney would have won Ohio by 32,231 votes.’  Instead exit polls showed that only 22 percent of LGBT Ohioans had backed the Romney camp.

Ratner’s sentiments were echoed by The Washington Post’s Jennifer Rubin, who wrote that same-sex marriage was ‘a battle that social conservatives have lost.   "That was crystal clear on Nov. 6. Maine, Minnesota, Washington and Maryland handled gay marriage the right way in a democracy — proponents went to the voters, made their case and won the support of a majority of their fellow citizens,’ Rubin wrote.  .   .   .   .  as a national issue there is no other way to put it: The ship has sailed.

‘Conservatives don’t have to like gay marriage. But they campaign on it at their own risk. Holding onto an issue on which the federal government has precious little to say anyway is as foolish as opining on rape, abortion and God in a two-minute debate answer.

'Opposition to gay marriage by national officials is a political loser, which conveys to a majority of voters an out-of-touchness and lack of inclusiveness. It deprives Republicans of support from the gay community and makes it that much more difficult to reach out to young, urbanized voters.’

The conservative pundits’ analysis backs up a pre-election report by the Gallup polling organization that suggested hardcore support among LGBTs could deliver a second term to President Barack Obama

If the GOP is smart, they will not let Tony Perkins and similar extremist write much of the Party's platform in 2016.