Marriage equality support Ann Kuster (D) unseated Rep. Charlie Bass (R) (Credit: David Lane / Union Leader)

In endorsing anti-LGBT Mitt Romney earlier this year, a spokesman for the Log Cabin Republicans explained that the group believes “we should never make the perfect the enemy of the good.” In endorsing a slate of 13 Congressional incumbents with an average Human Rights Campaign score of 38 percent, they lived up to that belief. But voters defeated six of those incumbents, replacing them with Democrats who are full-fledged supporters of marriage equality.

Just one Congressional Republican — Log Cabin Republican endorsee Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL) — has endorsed marriage equality. Rather than just endorse her and other challengers who were willing to endorse equality, the group backed some candidates who were literally 0s on equality.

In the past, the Log Cabin Republicans have argued that “to attain substantial legislative progress, we need votes from both sides of the aisle — Republican and Democrat.” But these six defeats of so-called “pro-equality champions” show voters in moderate districts preferred candidates who support the LGBT community 100 percent.

The six defeated fair-weathered “allies” were:

1. Sen. Scott Brown (R-MA). Brown, who was among the ThinkProgress Anti-LGBT Dirty Dozen Senate candidates based on his opposition to same-sex unions and the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, lost to Senator-Elect Elizabeth Warren by a 54 to 46 margin. Warren strongly backed marriage equality throughout her campaign and prominently featured her support for LGBT equality on her campaign website. Brown continues to oppose marriage equality even though same-sex marriage has been legal in Massachusetts since the 2003 Goodridge v. Department of Public Health ruling by the state’s Supreme Judicial Court.

2. Rep. Charlie Bass (R-NH). Bass, who earned just a 15 percent HRC score for his second stint in Congress, was defeated by Ann Kuster by a 50 to 45 margin. Kuster signed Freedom to Marry’s pledge to support marriage equality and noted on her campaign website that she believed the government should stay out of questions “including whom to marry, when and whether to bear a child and how to raise kind and compassionate children.” Bass has not backed marriage equality even though same-sex marriage has been legal in New Hampshire since the governor signed a marriage equality bill into law in 2009.

3. Rep. Judy Biggert (R-IL). Biggert was defeated by former Rep. Bill Foster by a 58 to 42 margin. Biggert expressed in the campaign that she was “close to reaching for gay marriages” but did not yet support them. Foster hit her for her opposition, noting that he was “not ambiguous” in his support for equality. “She has not yet evolved. So, she’s crawling out of the swamp or something… I’m all dry, fluffed off and happy to be a hominid.”

4. Rep. Mary Bono Mack (R-CA). Bono Mack, though supportive of her openly-transgender step-son, steadfastly refused to back marriage equality. She lost to Raul Ruiz, by a 52 to 48 margin. Ruiz frequently made his support for LGBT equality part of his campaign stump speech and highlighted on his campaign website: “I believe that no one should be discriminated against on the basis of who they love or their gender, religion, or race. I support the equal rights of gay and lesbian couples to marry who they love. We need to move our policies towards those which advocate fairness and equality for all.”

5. Rep. Bob Dold (R-IL). Dold, who voted for LGBT equality just 35 percent of the time in his lone House term, was defeated by Brad Schneider, by a 50.5 to 49.5 margin. Before the Chicago Tribune editorial board, Dold argued that marriage should be reserved for only opposite-sex couples. Schneider, on his campaign website page on LGBT equality wrote: “I believe that two people who desire to make a lifelong commitment to build a future together should have the right to do so, and it should be called ‘marriage,’ plain and simple. Only by extending the full and complete rights, benefits, and protections that flow from marriage can we claim that all people and families are truly equal. I strongly hold that all Americans should be entitled to the unconditional right to marry, regardless of sexual orientation.”

6. Rep. Nan Hayworth (R-NY). Hayworth, who refused to back marriage equality despite having an openly gay son and being a member of the Congressional LGBT Equality Caucus, lost to Sean Patrick Maloney, by a 52 to 48 margin. Though Hayworth’s home state of New York made same-sex marriage legal in 2011 through legislation, she continued to refused to back marriage equality. Maloney, who is openly gay, is a strong proponent of marriage equality who helped push for its enactment in the state legislature. Maloney attacked Hayworth for her lack of support for the state law and for her silence on the issue.

Polls now show the majority of Americans support marriage equality and voters in all four states considering the same-sex marriage questions on Election Day voted in favor of LGBT families. These six races show that voters in “swing” districts will no longer give a free pass to those who are occasionally for equality; when given the option to elect someone who stands firmly for LGBT rights, they are choosing perfect over mediocre.

When the Log Cabin Republicans endorsed Mitt Romney, the group argued that it believed he would LGBT support nondiscrimination protections, engaging in some remarkable spin about their optimism for his candidacy. But the National Organization for Marriage’s Brian Brown doesn’t take the Log Cabin Republicans “that seriously,” telling BuzzFeed that he believes strongly in Romney’s anti-equality credentials:

BROWN: I was in Connecticut during the 2004 Massachusetts fight. [Romney] was very strong, he spoke at rallies, he was strong the whole way through. Were there some people that were disappointed that he didn’t just, by fiat, say, “We’re not going to obey the judges!”? There are always people that do that, but in the real world, Romney went above and beyond.

He’s always been a strong supporter of protecting marriage, and he was an early signer of the Marriage Pledge. We obviously believe that he will follow through in his commitment; I don’t see why anyone would say otherwise.

Of course, Romney signed NOM’s pledge, committing to support a federal constitutional amendment banning the freedom to marry and to defend Christians’ “religious liberty” to discriminate against same-sex couples.

Though Brown has a public written commitment from Romney that Log Cabin Republicans doesn’t, his expectations of rolling back marriage equality suggest his judgment is questionable. He also told BuzzFeed that he believes opponents of equality could win in all four states this week, and even where they lose, he believes NOM can still successfully rescind the freedom to marry. For example, he is committed to Iowa passing a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage if and when the state leadership changes and Senate Leader Mike Gronstal (D) is no longer there to prevent such a measure from advancing. Also, if the Supreme Court rules for marriage equality in either the Proposition 8 case or any of the Defense of Marriage Act challenges, Brown is ready for the “big opportunity” to bring a renewed fight for a Federal Marriage Amendment.

Polling over the past two years has consistently shown that marriage equality has a majority of support in this country. With young people more likely to support it, the trend is only likely to continue. Brown may have the more apt perception of Romney’s positions on LGBT issues, but the Log Cabin Republicans certainly have more reason to be optimistic about the future of equality.

LCR's R. Clarke Cooper, Mitt Romney, and former Rep. Jim Kolbe (R-AZ)

Perhaps the Log Cabin Republicans’ endorsement of Mitt Romney has already received more attention than it probably deserves, but as the gay conservatives continue to defend their choice, they paint a distorted picture of the candidate that must be called out. The group’s level of delusion in terms of the LGBT ally they think Romney can be far exceeds their false hope that he might endorse employment nondiscrimination protections. In a new response from LCR’s Chris Pick, the group takes a defensive stand against accusations that they are traitors to the gay community and suggests that they have been physically threatened, which of course should be condemned. But Pick then makes a case for Romney that does not in any way reflect reality:

Observing the onslaught of hostility, it is apparent that too many in the LGBT community are laboring under a misperception of who Governor Romney is. As we said in our endorsement statement, Mitt Romney is not Rick Santorum.

If Santorum is really the bar by which LCR measures an ally to the gay community, then the group has no standard whatsoever. Surely in 2012, an ally can be measured by more than simply not attacking gay people at every opportunity.

Mitt Romney is the candidate who, when asked in a primary debate last year, “when’s the last time you stood up and spoke out for increasing gay rights?” answered, “right now.”

Romney made this statement just seconds after reiterating his opposition to same-sex marriage.

Mitt Romney is the candidate who, as a moderate governor of Massachusetts, appointed several openly gay individuals as judges and said “he has not paid a moment’s notice to his nominees’ … sexual orientation.”

This ignores the fact that he also fired staffers ostensibly for being openly gay and he opposes federal workplace protections for LGBT employees.
Read more

Log Cabin Republicans Executive Director R. Clarke Cooper

After the Log Cabin Republicans’ disappointing endorsement of Mitt Romney yesterday, media outlets speculated as to what would inspire them to abandon their principles in such a way. Ben Adler at The Nation noticed that LCR claimed it could “work with a Romney administration to achieve a desirable outcome” on workplace nondiscrimination, so he followed up with executive director R. Clarke Cooper. Cooper claimed that he was confident that Romney would support anti-discrimination legislation, because he “has been adamant” in opposing discrimination. Adler concluded that Romney must have secretly promised LCR support for the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) in exchange for its endorsement. (Demonstrating conservatives’ distrust for Romney’s integrity, Bryan Fischer of the American Family Association reacted quite negatively to the news.)

But BuzzFeed’s Chris Geidner double checked, and suddenly Cooper was not as enthusiastic about these claims, clarifying, “I did not say Romney would sign the current form of ENDA,” but that the group is confident that they could “achieve desirable tangible outcomes on workplace discrimination.” Herein lies the obvious flaw with LCR’s endorsement: completely false hope. Mitt Romney certainly proved in the debates that he’s capable of sounding moderate despite how conservative his principles — or at least his campaign platform — remain. Even if there was no ENDA promise, any hope conveyed to LCR by the Romney campaign in regards to federal employment protections was surely a ruse.

There is absolutely nothing in Romney’s history to warrant optimism that he has any concern for LGBT people. In May, he flat-out said that he would not support ENDA because he believes states should get to decide whether it’s okay to fire people just for being LGBT. As governor, he ostensibly fired two of his employees for just that reason, in addition to demonstrating galling insensitivity to LGBT families. Ryan’s record is no better; though at one point he did cast a vote in favor of ENDA, he then said he could no longer support it if included protections based on gender identity, and he has refused to answer questions on the matter since Romney tapped him as a running mate. Arguably, LCR only claims to support equality for “gay and lesbian Americans,” so perhaps they are prepared to abandon the transgender community to achieve “tangible outcomes” that include only protections based on sexual orientation.

What’s most telling is how incessant LCR has been about spinning the endorsement since it was announced yesterday, including this ENDA confusion. It is clearly a departure from its past integrity and the days when endorsements were withheld from candidates that did not adequately support LGBT (or at least LG) equality. In fact, GOProud splintered off from LCR specifically to be a group for gay conservatives whose priorities are unapologetically not concerned with LGBT rights at all. Perhaps LCR is jealous of the media attention GOProud has received from making waves at the Conservative Political Action Conference, but it’s clear that what lines once existed between the groups are quickly diminishing.

The Log Cabin Republicans claim that they are making a difference within the GOP by being present and swaying conservatives to better understand LGBT rights, and this may well be true on the individual level. However, the group accomplishes nothing — and abandons what principles its work is built upon — when it praises candidates like Romney who have nothing genuinely supportive to say at all. In fact, LCR’s effectiveness was very much drawn into question when it was revealed that party leaders developed a particularly anti-LGBT platform specifically to rebuke the group’s efforts to participate in the Republican National Convention. If a group no longer stands by its founding values and is creating a backlash anathema to its stated goals, it’s hard to understand what relevance it has at all.

Romney testifying for the Federal Marriage Amendment in 2004.

The Log Cabin Republicans announced Tuesday that they have endorsed Mitt Romney for president, a significant departure from 2008, when the group ran ads hitting Romney for his shift from moderation to severe conservativism and highlighted him as an example of what is wrong with the Republican Party. The organization, which calls itself “the nation’s only organization of Republicans who support fairness, freedom, and equality for gay and lesbian Americans,” makes this choice despite Romney’s staunch support for a federal marriage inequality amendment and his steadfast opposition to LGBT equality.

The “qualified endorsement” notes:

If LGBT issues are a voter’s highest or only priority, then Governor Romney may not be that voter’s choice. However, Log Cabin Republicans is an organization representing multifaceted individuals with diverse priorities. Having closely reviewed the candidate’s history and observed the campaign, we believe Governor Romney will make cutting spending and job creation his priorities, and, as his record as Governor of Massachusetts suggests, will not waste his precious time in office with legislative attacks on LGBT Americans.

Romney has a long, surprisingly consistent record of actively opposing LGBT equality. Despite once pledging, as a candidate, to be “better than Ted” Kennedy on gay rights, Romney made his opposition to marriage equality one of the benchmarks of his one term as governor. He fired two state employees ostensibly for marrying their same-sex partners, dissolved the Governor’s Commission on Gay and Lesbian Youth, blocked an anti-bullying guide because it contained the words “bisexual” and “transgender,” and his testified against marriage equality to the Senate Judiciary Committee after the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled the state’s ban was unconstitutional. A Boston Spirit article recently noted his stunning insensitivity to LGBT people, including reportedly telling a lesbian constituent, “I didn’t know you had families.”

As a presidential candidate, Romney signed the National Organization for Marriage’s (NOM) pledge to support a federal marriage inequality amendment to the constitution and to appoint anti-equality Supreme Court justices. His campaign website notes that he will “appoint an Attorney General who will defend the Defense of Marriage Act” and “champion a Federal Marriage Amendment to the Constitution defining marriage as between one man and one woman.” He boasted that he used an obscure 1913 law (originally intended to limit interracial marriage) to prevent out-of-state couples from marrying in Massachusetts, saying “we prevented Massachusetts from becoming the Las Vegas of gay marriage.” His political committee even donated $10,000 to NOM in support of California’s unconstitutional Proposition 8.

Read more

Casey Pick, Log Cabin Republicans

Gay Republicans have had their own dim spotlight at the Republican National Convention as they peddle apologetics for their party while trying to advance LGBT equality from within. Log Cabin Republicans were proud to have been part of the platform drafting committee, but the GOP ended up approving one of the most anti-gay platforms ever. One member of LCR, Casey Pick, admitted to NPR that the platform might very well have been a “hostile” retaliation to their presence:

PICK: When you back someone into a corner, they fight back twice as hard. The platform is ugly and harmful. We lost, and you could say the social conservatives in our party dropped the hammer harder because we were there.

Former Rep. Jim Kolbe (R-AZ), who is openly gay, believes 2012 will be the last year for such vitriol, but Pick’s comments suggest otherwise. The Family Research Council’s Tony Perkins had a prominent leadership role on the drafting committee and personally drafted much of its social policy. Though LCR has achieved visibility at this year’s convention, their contributions seem particularly unwelcome in contrast. Though the group admitted the platform was “bad with a capital ‘B,’” it continues to defend the Romney/Ryan ticket, compromising its supposed commitment to LGBT equality in favor of party politics.

GOProud has also taken advantage of the convention’s publicity, but unlike LCR and despite being a gay Republican group, they never purport to support any aspect of LGBT rights.

The hate-group branded Republican Party.

Though this year’s Democratic Platform is the most pro-LGBT in history, complete with full support for marriage equality, the Republican Platform is set to be as anti-LGBT as ever, according to drafts approved by subcommittees Monday. Despite Log Cabin Republicans’ hopes that the language would include at least an allusion to “dignity and respect” for gay people, R. Clarke Cooper conceded that the end result is “bad with a capital ‘B.’” Tony Perkins, of the anti-gay hate group the Family Research Council, took personal credit for drafting the anti-equality language, boasting that platform drafting leaders Gov. Bob McDonnell (R-VA) and Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) were “friends of FRC.” Here is some of the hostile anti-equality language Perkins incorporated into the draft:

Marriage and the Judiciary

A serious threat to our country’s constitutional order, perhaps even more dangerous than presidential malfeasance, is an activist judiciary, in which some judges usurp the powers reserved to other branches of government. A blatant example has been the court-ordered redefinition of marriage in several States. This is more than a matter of warring legal concepts and ideals. It is an assault on the foundations of our society, challenging the institution which, for thousands of years in virtually every civilization, has been entrusted with the rearing of children and the transmission of cultural values.

Defense of Marriage

That is why congressional Republicans took the lead in enacting the Defense of Marriage Act, affirming the right of States and the federal government not to recognize same-sex relationships licensed in other jurisdictions. An activist judiciary usurps the powers reserved to other branches of government and endangers the foundation of our country. We oppose the Administration’s open defiance of this constitutional principle — in its handling of immigration cases, in federal personnel benefits, in allowing a same-sex marriage at a military base, and in refusing to defend DOMA in the courts — makes a mockery of the President’s inaugural oath. We commend the United States House of Representatives and those State Attorneys General who have defended these laws when they have been attacked in the courts. We reaffirm our support for a constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman. We applaud the citizens of the majority of States which have enshrined in their constitutions the traditional concept of marriage, and we support the campaigns underway in several other states to do so.

Marriage

The institution of marriage is the foundation of civil society. Its success as an institution will determine our success as a nation. It has been proven by both experience and endless social science studies that marriage is best for children. Children raised in intact married families are more likely to attend college, are physically and emotionally healthier, are less likely to use drugs or alcohol, are less likely to engage in crime, and are less likely to get pregnant outside of marriage. The success of marriage directly impacts the economic wellbeing of individuals. Furthermore, the future of marriage affects freedom. The lack of family formation not only leads to more government costs, but also more government control over the lives of its citizens in all facets. We recognize and honor the courageous efforts of those who bear the many burdens of parenting alone, even as we believe that marriage, the union of one man and one woman must be upheld as the national standard, a goal to stand for, encourage, and promote through laws governing marriage. We embrace the principle that all Americans should be treated with respect and dignity.

The platform, as drafted, is not only an open attack on the lives of LGBT people, but a blatant distortion of reality. The social science about the value of marriage for children also applies to same-sex couples. Despite recognizing the courage of single parents, the GOP is content to disregard the very existence of the country’s one million LGBT families raising two million children. Instead, as per the kind of rhetoric that warrants FRC’s designation as a hate group, Perkins suggests that offering any dignity to gay and lesbian couples would be the undoing of society, an “assault on the foundations of society.” As a majority of Americans embrace marriage equality, the Republican Party continues to wholeheartedly embrace the most extreme anti-gay positions in the country.

Log Cabin Republicans cannot ignore the anti-gay elephant in the room.

The Log Cabin Republicans were quick to defend Paul Ryan on Saturday when Mitt Romney picked him as his vice presidential running mate, despite Ryan’s abysmal voting record on LGBT issues. Now, LCR’s R. Clarke Cooper is again defending the GOP ticket by clinging to Ryan’s one pro-LGBT vote — a vote for the Employment Non-Discrimination Act that was preceded immediately by a vote to kill it — with the absurd belief that Romney might change his position and give gay voters a reason to vote Republican.

Here’s Cooper writing today for the Daily Caller:

Romney is not ready or willing to support same-sex marriage, but there are still concrete steps that his campaign can take to counter the liberal strategy of painting the GOP as anti-gay that would also provide tangible benefits for LGBT Americans… By vowing to sign an executive order preventing federal contractors from firing people for being LGBT, and joining Paul Ryan in support for ENDA, Romney can draw a favorable contrast between himself and the president.

By supporting ENDA and the federal contractor executive order, Romney and Ryan can turn the conversation about LGBT equality back to the economy. It’s a message that unites Americans, provides real benefits for millions of LGBT people and plays to the strengths of the Romney-Ryan ticket. Romney and Ryan both have records of supporting these protections, and for practicing nondiscrimination in their own leadership roles, so this step is entirely in line with the Romney-Ryan campaign’s “promise of equal opportunity, not equal outcomes.” Even for gay voters, the 2012 election is about restoring economic prosperity, growth and jobs.

The distortion Cooper attempts is nothing short of delusional. There is no liberal strategy to paint Republicans as anti-gay — they proudly own that in all of their position statements, much as it may chagrin the Log Cabin Republicans to admit it. Romney openly opposes ENDA, and given Ryan’s refusal to offer a nondiscrimination statement for his own Congressional office, it seems that neither has truly demonstrated “leadership” on the matter. Despite the fact that President Obama has not signed the executive order Cooper mentions, it would take a whole lot more than that for Romney to “draw a favorable contrast”;  his opposition to ENDA, marriage equality, and all other LGBT issues would easily maintain a significant imbalance. Cooper’s clinging to a position that neither Romney nor Ryan actually holds.

Cooper’s motives are clear: he’s a Republican, he identifies with other Republicans, and he wants Republicans in power for economic reasons, even if LGBT equality has to take a backseat. The lines seem to be blurring between the Log Cabin Republicans, which used to prioritize “representing the interests of gay and lesbian Americans and their allies,” and GOProud, which splintered off because there were some gay Republicans who couldn’t be bothered with defending their own community. Maybe Cooper is just speaking on behalf of the wrong group.