ThinkProgress Logo

LGBT

Portman’s Support For Same-Sex Marriage And Why Respect For Equality Should Be A Basic Qualification For Office

Sen. Rob Portman’s (R-OH) evolution on the issue of marriage equality—from opponent to advocate—followed a deeply personal conversation he had with his son two years ago. It’s a conversation countless families must grapple with and a conversation that now underscores the disconnect between the head and the heart of conservatism’s view of marriage equality at a pivotal moment in the debate.

Though Portman’s experience is heartening, Americans must demand more from their leaders than public acknowledgement of private family truths. Portman, Vice President Dick Cheney, and the recent wave of prominent conservatives coming out in support of equality should be commended for demonstrating a commitment to family above the politics of the moment. Still, respecting equality under the law should be a basic qualification for office, not an epiphany a lawmaker experiences after recognizing that inequality hurts the people he loves and the millions of parents and children he serves.

The damage is caused largely by the anti-gay laws and policies that their party has championed for years. DOMA, for example, is a legislative reflection of the discrimination that forces hundreds of thousands of gay and lesbian children to remain hidden in the closet living in shame of who they are. DOMA is the reason that same-sex couples face a higher tax burden than their heterosexual counterparts, resulting in less income and higher poverty rates among the LGBT community. And DOMA demonstrates that LGBT people are still treated like second class citizens in a country that supposedly values equality and justice above all else.

In coming out, one of the most powerful lessons learned is that telling your story may make it easier for the next person. By coming out to loving parents, Portman’s son made it that much easier for others to do the same. In fact, his example clearly demonstrates the ways in which coming out to your friends and family can enrich their lives, and may change the lives of people you’ll never meet.

Last month, 131 prominent Republican politicians signed a brief calling on the Supreme Court to end DOMA and rule in support of marriage equality for same-sex couples. These Republicans have acknowledged what a strong majority of Americans already know: that there is no reason for a Washington bureaucrat to stand between LGBT Americans and the altar. While the degree to which Portman’s evolution will move his party forward is still uncertain, by sharing an honest love for his son and concern for his future, he will make it that much easier for others facing similar circumstances. Hopefully, Portman’s conversion will inspire lawmakers to recognize the damage their anti-equality policies are causing to their LGBT constituents before they realize the victims are their loved ones.

Jon Shields is a Special Assistant for the Communications team at the Center for American Progress Action Fund.

LGBT

The Shaky Science Behind George Will’s Column On Same-Sex Marriage

Washington Post columnist George Will.

The Washington Post published an opinion piece Friday by conservative pundit George Will called “The shaky science behind same-sex marriage.” Though Will has admitted there is an “emerging consensus” for same-sex marriage and predicted that the issue will prevail in the Courts, he highlights a brief from Maggie Gallagher’s Institute for Marriage and Public Policy that argues against equality by suggesting that the social science research currently available is not a sufficient rationale for that victory:

A brief submitted to the U.S. Supreme Court concerning the California case by conservative professors Leon Kass and Harvey Mansfield and the Institute for Marriage and Public Policy warns that “the social and behavioral sciences have a long history of being shaped and driven by politics and ideology.” And research about, for example, the stability of same-sex marriages or child-rearing by same-sex couples is “radically inconclusive” because these are recent phenomena and they provide a small sample from which to conclude that these innovations will be benign.

Unlike the physical sciences, the social sciences can rarely settle questions using “controlled and replicable experiments.” Today “there neither are nor could possibly be any scientifically valid studies from which to predict the effects of a family structure that is so new and so rare.” Hence there can be no “scientific basis for constitutionalizing same-sex marriage.”

The brief does not argue against same-sex marriage as social policy, other than by counseling caution about altering foundational social institutions when guidance from social science is as yet impossible. The brief is a preemptive refutation of inappropriate invocations of spurious social science by supporters of same-sex marriage.

Will endorses two arguments here, both of which are unsupportable. The first is that any social science that supports a liberal position shouldn’t be trusted because social science already has a liberal bias. The second is that it’s reasonable to conclude that it’s impossible to measure anything that hasn’t been legalized, even if legalizing it is the only way to test it. Together, these form a tautological argument that social science is only valid and useful if it supports keeping things the way they already are, which is not only a very narrow dismissal of the work social scientists already do, but also a philosophy that inherently prevents change.

Will then proceeds to demonstrate just how susceptible he is to conservatives’ fraudulent interpretations of what science is available:
Read more

Health

Sarah Palin Drinks Big Gulp During CPAC Speech: ‘Shoot, It’s Just Pop!’

During a dynamic and lively speech at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) on Saturday, Sarah Palin poked fun at New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s campaign to reduce obesity by limiting the availability of large sugary drinks.

Halfway through her speech, while describing exchanging guns with her husband Todd for Christmas, the former Alaska governor pulled out a Big Gulp from behind the podium, smirked, took several sips, and remarked, “Oh Bloomberg is not around, our Big Gulp is safe! We’re cool. Shoot, it’s just pop!” The crowd erupted in applause. Watch it:

The gag was funny, but the Big Gulp is more than just pop — increasing serving sizes are one of the causes of the nation’s obesity epidemic.

As portion sizes have spiraled out of control, soft drinks sizes have seen one of the largest increases, ballooning by over 50 percent since the mid-1970s, just as rates of obesity nearly tripled. The average American child now consumes approximately 270 calories from soft drinks each day and nationally U.S. children drink about 7 trillion calories from soda each year.

The obesity epidemic now accounts for 21 percent of national health care spending — costing the nation more than $160 billion every year — a figure that will continue to rise since 42 percent of Americans are projected to be obese by 2030.

And while Bloomberg’s ban won’t single-handedly slim down the nation, public health advocates believe that it will discourage people from consuming “excess quantities of sugar-sweetened beverages” and change “social norms and unhealthy behaviors.” Palin may not need that kind of persuasion — after finishing her speech, she left her Big Gulp behind.

LGBT

Boehner Says He Would Oppose Marriage Equality Even If Son Was Gay

House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) — who is spending millions of taxpayer dollars opposing marriage equality — told ABC’s This Week that he could never see himself supporting same-sex unions, despite the growing evolution towards marriage for all within the Republican Party.

Responding to Sen. Rob Portman (R-OH) change of heart on the issue, Boehner said that he “appreciates” his friend’s new position, but insisted that “I believe that marriage is a union of a man and a woman” and predicted that he would not change his mind even if he found out that his own son is gay:

MARTHA RADDATZ (HOST): Can you imagine yourself in a situation where you reversed your decision as Portman has on gay marriage if a child of yours or someone you love told you they were gay.

BOEHNER: Listen, I believe marriage is a union between one man and one woman. It’s what I grew up with, it’s what i belive, it’s what my church teaches me and I can’t imagine that position would ever change.

Watch it:

Research indicates that people who have a close gay friend or family member are “more than twice as likely” to support same-sex marriage.

LGBT

Slamming Portman, GOP Rep Says He Would Still Oppose Marriage Equality If His Son Came Out

Rep. Tim Huelskamp (R-KS)

NATIONAL HARBOR, Maryland — Rep. Tim Huelskamp (R-KS) attacked Sen. Rob Portman (R-OH) for supporting marriage equality at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) on Friday.

Speaking in a sideroom, Huelskamp blasted Portman’s announcement this week that he has evolved to favor same-sex marriage two years after learning his own son was gay. “Here’s a senator who couldn’t deliver his own home state in the presidential election,” Huelskamp said dismissively. He continued, “somehow, we’re supposed to believe that if we abandon traditional marriage, that liberals are going to flock to us,” calling Portman’s position a “capitulation.”

ThinkProgress asked Huelskamp whether he would re-examine his own feelings on marriage equality if it turned out he had a gay son like Portman, but the Kansas Republican was unmoved by the prospect. “I support traditional marriage,” Huelskamp simply retorted.

KEYES: Do you have a sense on, if it were your son who came out and told you that he was gay, how you would react to that announcement?

HUELSKAMP: Well, I agree with Sen. Portman when he ran for election. And that’s the principle. The principle is, traditional marriage and family is the foundation of society. It’s been a conservative bedrock principle for many years. And one thing that we have to do as conservatives, I believe, is actually communicate the value of marriage and family for the children. [...] Bill Clinton and myself, Bill Clinton in 1997 had the same position I have today. Actually Barack Obama had the same position two years ago. Isn’t it amazing how you read the tea leaves, you read the polls, and at the end of the day something suddenly changes over night?

KEYES: So, to clarify, you would still oppose same-sex marriage even if your own son came out?

HUELSKAMP: I support traditional marriage.

Watch it:

LGBT

Fox News Virtually Ignores Portman’s Evolution On Marriage Equality

Sen. Rob Portman (R-OH) — who was considered a frontrunner for the GOP vice presidential nomination in 2012 — came out in support of marriage equality on Friday morning, becoming the only sitting Republican senator to support same-sex marriage. But you wouldn’t know that from watching Fox News, since the network virtually ignored the story.

A ThinkProgress analysis using TV Eyes found that the right-leaning channel mentioned the word “Portman” just three times from 6:00 AM to 11:59 PM on Friday, while competitors MSNBC and CNN — which broke the story early that morning — covered the senator’s evolution extensively, mentioning “Portman” 27 and 40 times, respectively:

Fox News has a habit of ignoring pro-LGBT news that does not appeal to the conservative base. For instance, the network offered slim coverage to the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, the passage of New York’s historic same-sex marriage law, and failed to report that former RNC Chairman Ken Mehlman — who had orchestrated President Bush’s gay-bashing 2004 re-election campaign — had come out as gay.

Election

The Political Legacy of Robert Kennedy — Barack Obama?

This is part 1 of a 2 part series on RFK and the Obama coalition.

Forty-five years ago today, Senator Robert F. Kennedy announced his candidacy for the President of the United States promising to lead a moral and political uprising to end the war in Vietnam and to fight the corrosive poverty afflicting American cities and rural areas.  Affected greatly by the legacy of his brother President John F. Kennedy, his growing alignment with the Civil Rights and anti-war movements, and his work to fight the war on poverty, Sen. Kennedy sought to do what no liberal politician before him had been able to accomplish—unite African Americans, Latinos, young people, and liberal intellectuals with blue collar whites to advance progressive causes and give political voice to the disenfranchised in American society.

Kennedy’s straightforward talk about the problems of “the other America” and the need for racial reconciliation and expanded opportunities for all people—across racial and ethnic lines—rallied communities across the country.  Although his campaign lasted only 82 days before he was gunned down in Los Angeles—a few months after the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.—Robert Kennedy’s forward-looking vision and unique political strategy presaged a fundamental transformation of American liberalism away from its New Deal roots and towards the emergent coalition of minorities, young people, women, professionals, and middle class whites that would eventually elect Barack Obama in 2008 and re-elect him in 2012.

The decades following Kennedy’s presidential run were not easy for center-left forces as progressives faced numerous political difficulties, ideological set-backs, and outright campaign and governing failures.  A resurgent conservative movement that gained strength during the 1970’s and 1980’s successfully shifted ideological discourse and public policy away from New Deal and Great Society liberalism and towards supply-side principles, social conservatism, and aggressive militarism.  At the national level, the Democratic Party lost control of many states, particularly in the South, and a large percentage of its white working class base to an increasingly conservative Republican Party under Ronald Reagan and Newt Gingrich.

These ideological and political streams eventually converged to cause the most damage during the failed presidency of George W. Bush in the early 2000’s when the United States embarked on series of policy mistakes from the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq to unfunded tax cuts for the wealthy and the dismantling of federal regulations to protect the environment, public health, and the economy.

With President Obama’s re-election, the tide has clearly turned for progressives as the conservative realignment in American politics has reached its peak and is rapidly declining due to long term changes in America; a new and vibrant coalition in American politics has indisputably arrived.  This powerful Obama coalition, presaged by Kennedy in 1968, has the potential to dominate politics for a generation and usher in a new era of progressive public policy.

But will it?  That depends on the extent to which this coalition can be mobilized and broadened as we move forward.

The strengths of the coalition are obvious, starting with minority voters.  The share of minority voters in the 2012 election increased by 2 percentage points, bringing their share of the voting electorate to 28 percent.  That compares to just 15 percent of voters in 1988.

Overall, Obama received 80 percent support from people of color in 2012 just as he did in 2008.  His support among African-Americans was almost as overwhelming last November (93-6) as it was in 2008 (95-4).  And his support among Hispanics (71-27) improved substantially over its 2008 level (67-31).  In addition, Obama achieved historic levels of support among Asian-Americans, carrying them by 73-26, compared to 62-35 in 2008.

Adding to the power of the minority vote is the certainty of its continued growth.  The share of minority voters in the 2016 election should be around 30 percent and, in the 2020 election, around 32 percent.

Millennial generation (born 1978-2000) voters are also a central component of the Obama coalition.  Young voters in the 18-29 year old age group — all Millennials — defied skepticism about their likely levels of voter turnout, comprising 19 percent of voters in 2012, up from 18 percent in Obama’s historic campaign of 2008.  In addition, since many Millennials are now older than 29, the share of Millennials among voters is significantly underestimated by just looking at 18-29 year olds.  Taking these older Millennials into account, the true share of Millennials in the 2012 electorate was probably around 26 percent.

Millennial 18-29 year olds supported Obama by a 23-point margin in the 2012 election (60 percent to 37 percent). This is strong support, by far Obama’s best performance among any age group, just as was the case in 2008, when Obama performed even more strongly among these voters (66-32).

As with people of color, we will see more and more of these voters in the electorate over the next several elections, as the number of Millennial eligible voters increases by about 4 million a year.  By the 2016 election, Millennials should be about 36 percent of eligible voters and roughly a third of actual voters.  And by the 2020 election, Millennials should be nearly 2 in 5 (39 percent) eligible voters and around 36 percent of actual voters.

Unmarried women are another key part of the Obama coalition.  Obama carried this group by a wide 67-31 margin in 2012, not far off his 70-29 margin in 2008.  Unmarried women were also a larger share of voters, 23 percent vs. 21 percent in 2008.  This trend may continue in the future, since the growth rate of unmarried women is roughly twice that of married women.

While not as strong for Obama as unmarried women, their male counterparts also favored Obama, giving him a healthy 56-40 margin, close to the 58-38 margin they gave him in 2008.  And their share of voters went up even more, increasing by 4 points to 18 percent.  All told, unmarried voters were 40 percent of voters in 2012, up 6 points from 2008’s 34 percent share.

Obama also received strong support from those of non-Christian faiths (72-27) and those with no religious affiliation (70-26).  In addition, voters with a postgraduate education (a good proxy for professionals) supported Obama by 55-42 and residents of large metropolitan areas (54 percent of voters) supported him by 56-42.  Again, all of these groups have been growing and should continue to grow over time.

Obama generally did poorly among white voters but the college-educated were a relative bright spot.  He lost this group by 14 points (as compared to 20 points among all white voters) and did substantially better among white college-educated women, losing them by a modest 6 points.  White college-educated voters have been increasing both as a share of overall voters and—very rapidly–as a share of white voters.  Based on historical patterns and projections of future educational attainment, these trends should continue for some time.

(Part 2 of the series will examine strategies for connecting diverse constituencies with the white working class.)

Climate Progress

Guardian: ‘White House Officials … Gave Strong Indications The President Is Inclined To Approve The Keystone XL Pipeline’

WashPost: “EPA likely to delay climate rules for new power plants”

The Obama Administration has, tragically, signaled it may retreat on two major climate issues.

The UK Guardian reported Friday:

Barack Obama’s grand vision of action on climate change shrank to $200m a year to fund research into clean fuel cars, with signs of retreat on the big environmental issues of the day….

But on the most immediate environmental decision in his in-tray — the future of the controversial Keystone XL pipeline project – White House officials indicated on Friday that Obama’s green and liberal supporters would be in for a disappointment. Officials signalled that the president was inclined to approve the project.

I must say that this $200 million a year, which has zero chance of seeing the light of day in the Tea-Party-controlled House of Representatives, is perhaps the tiniest bone one could imagine throwing the climate community in return for a decision to help unleash the uber-dirty tar sands.

And as if that wasn’t enough to suggest Obama’s recent strong words on climate (“If Congress Won’t Act Soon To Protect Future Generations, I Will“) were just that — words – the Washington Post reported on Friday:

The Obama administration is leaning toward revising its landmark proposal to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from new power plants, according to several individuals briefed on the matter, a move that would delay tougher restrictions and could anger many environmentalists.

I have also heard from a source very familiar with the regulatory process that EPA now believes it screwed up the initial proposal, potentially subjecting it to court challenge.

Rewriting the proposal would significantly delay any action…

While the move could bolster the administration’s legal justification for regulating power plants’ carbon emissions, any delay on the rules would be a blow to environmental groups and their supporters, who constituted a crucial voting block for President Obama and other Democrats in last year’s elections.

As is typical of the WashPost, the administration’s moved is framed entirely as “a blow to environmental groups” rather, than, say, a blow to the environment itself or as a blow humanity.

The White House appears utterly clueless about the importance of these issues and the self-destructive nature of its “all of the above” energy strategy, as the WH official quoted by the Guardian makes clear:

The official dismissed environmental groups’ contention that building the pipeline would open up vast deposits of the Alberta tar sands, and so increase the emissions that cause climate change. “There have been thousands of miles of pipelines that have been built while President Obama has been in office, and I think the point is, is that it hasn’t necessarily had a significant impact one way or the other on addressing climate change,” the official said.

He added that Obama’s environmental policies would more than make up for any negative impacts from the Keystone XL project. “There’s no question of that.”

Seriously, that’s the White House defense for Keystone: We’ve opened thousands of new spigots for oil (and gas), so what’s one more?

Memo to White House: We are far past the point where breaking even on carbon emissions – or doing a little better than break even —  is a rational goal.

Politics

Bachmann Accuses Obama Of Living A Life Of Excess

Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) criticized President Obama’s so-called life of excess at the White House, arguing that the first family is living rich on the taxpayer’s dime as the nation faces sequestration and large deficits.

In one of her first major addresses since winning a close re-election bid in November, the Tea Party favorite conceded during her address at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) on Saturday that Obama and his family “deserve to live in the White House,” before listing “the perks and the excess of the $1.4 billion presidency that we’re paying for”:

BACHMANN: And this is a lifestyle that is one of excess. Now we find out that there are five chefs on Air Force One. There are two projectionists who operate the White House movie theater. They regularly sleep in the White House in order to be readily available in case the first family wants a really really late show. And I don’t mean to be petty here, but can’t they just push the play button? We are also the ones who are paying to walk the president’s dog. Paying for someone to walk the president’s dog. Now why are we doing that when we can’t even get a disabled veteran into the White House for a White House tour?

Watch it:

Obama has actually one of the lowest net worths of any American president, and has less wealth than Republicans like George W. Bush and Ronald Reagan. Bachmann and her husband Marcus have also done well for themselves and have an estimated net worth of between $1.3 million and $2.8 million.

Bachmann, meanwhile, has faced criticism for refusing to pay $5,000 to five staffers from her failed presidential bid, even though she has more than $2 million in her campaign account.

Economy

Five Reasons Washington Shouldn’t Panic About The Debt

Once again, the March budget season has arrived, and Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) has engineered another draconian fiscal vision for the House Republicans. The plan would radically remake Medicare, decimate Medicaid, grant a huge tax cut to the wealthy, and slash support for the poor, investments, and civic infrastructure.

Ryan and his cohorts justify these plans by insisting that America faces a “debt crisis,” that the deficits we’re currently running are too high, and that we must act immediately to fix these problems. Centrists and other “serious” pundits and lawmakers throughout Washington have bought this argument, if not all the details of Ryan’s specific solution, and they’ve scoffed at President Obama’s insistence that we don’t actually face a looming debt crisis. Here are the reasons Obama’s right, and they’re all wrong:

1. We don’t ever have to actually eliminate the debt: The United States ran up a huge debt burden in World War II. More importantly, in raw dollar terms, we never repaid that debt. We simply grew the economy so that the size of the debt fell in comparison. That’s what’s happening in graphs where the debt burden drops in the post-war years. That burden is measured as a ratio of debt-to-GDP, and in ratios the denominator matters as much as the numerator.

2. The budget doesn’t actually have to balance to reduce it: If we can keep deficits under a certain threshold every year, then economic growth will overtake it, meaning our debt-to-GDP ratio will either stay the same or even drop. For the immediate future, the economy looks set to grow by about 4 percent a year in nominal terms (that is, real growth plus inflation). If we can keep each year’s deficit to 4 percent or less of public debt already held, debt-to-GDP will stabilize. America can, in fact, run deficits in perpetuity.

3. The debt is already as balanced as it needs to be: Federal spending involves a host of programs called “stabilizers” — spending that automatically kicks in when the economy tanks, without any acts on the part of lawmakers, boosting GDP growth and helping Americans who have lost their jobs. These include unemployment insurance, food stamps, welfare, Medicaid, and many others. Tax revenues also naturally fall as unemployment rises.

The Congressional Budget office just released a report that stabilizers will add $422 billion to the deficit in 2013. That leaves $423 billion — out of the estimated $845 billion deficit for the year — that isn’t due to the automatic stabilizers. Publicly held U.S. debt is currently around $11.5 trillion, and $423 is less than 4 percent of that.

Take out the stabilizers, and the deficit is within the window necessary to stabilize the debt. And all we have to do to unwind the stabilizers is get the economy firing on all cylinders again. This holds true for about the next decade, before growth in Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid finally begin to slowly overtake it. The country still has problems, but it has lots of time to sort them out.

4. The “debt crisis” is not a certainty: Paul Ryan may talk as if it is, but it’s merely a projection — one possible result if the CBO’s guesswork about the future proves accurate. The Center for American Progress recently dove into CBO’s methodology, and found that the projections build in a host of sometimes-dramatic assumptions about Congress’ future spending and taxation choices, as well as other factors that could very well not come to pass.

Beyond trying to predict future Congress’ policy preferences, much of the future debt is based on projections that health care costs will continue growing at their previous trend. But the whole point of health care reform is to alter that trend by altering health care markets. Obamacare may already be doing this. CBO’s projections for Medicare spending over the next decade dropped by $500 billion between 2010 and 2013, simply because health care cost growth unexpectedly slowed.

In fact, if that slowdown becomes the new norm, Medicare spending will stay essentially flat as a share of the economy from here on out. That doesn’t show up in CBO’s long-term projections because their methodology uses cost growth over the last two decades to predict future trends. (See page 60.) It’s literally within the realm of reasonable possibility that the long-term debt problem is already solved — all without lawmakers having to cut a dime.

5. We don’t know how much debt actually causes crisis: Ryan and others often cite a finding that economic growth slows as debt-to-GDP reaches 90 percent. But there’s a big correlation-causation problem with this. Remember the denominator: slowing GDP, regardless of debt, could raise debt-to-GDP just as much as higher debt could. And the countries that fit with the 90 percent threshold prediction also present an apples-to-oranges problem when compared to America. Britain, Japan, and France — advanced democracies like ours, with their own currency — shouldered debt levels far in excess of 90 precent over extended periods of time in the past. No debt crisis arrived.

In conclusion: the “debt crisis” is a mere phantom — only one of many possible futures, and far from a certainty. The interest America is paying on its debt is currently lower than it was in the 1990s, despite a lower debt-to-GDP ratio then. When inflation is factored in, current real interest rates on our debt are negative. Financial markets are willing to pay us to borrow from them.

Meanwhile, every dollar we cut — nay, every dollar we fail to borrow — is a dollar that isn’t going to shore up the safety net, to rebuild the country’s infrastructure, or to support struggling Americans while their livelihoods remain on the line. That we’re passing on this opportunity to repair our country, much less even considering the monstrosity that is the Ryan budget, really is absurd.

Older

Switch to Mobile
ThinkProgress Signup Overlay Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress

Sign Up