The Boston Globe reported on Monday morning that in light of the weekend vote in favor of gay marriage in New York, the Massachusetts Democratic Party and many of the candidates in the Democratic primary for U.S. Senate are putting pressure on Scott Brown to support gay marriage.
As is the norm for candidates and committees, the MA Dems tweeted a link at Scott Brown calling for him to support gay marriage. They tweeted this with a #MApoli hastag so it was visible to political junkies and journalists across the state in moments. One of the many great things about Twitter, in my opinion, is that it provides a great vantage point to see how the people that pay the most attention respond to information about the people they support. Brown supporters, like the Mass Republican Party and Brown himself, more often than not reach for the victim card “He’s a Republican!” “The machine is evil and against him!” “He drives a truck!” “Dianne Wilkerson!” – any card, really. They don’t like to consider Brown’s positions, and they rarely if ever defend him.
Today was the same old story when the Mass Dems and candidate Bob Massie tweeted about Scott Brown and gay marriage. A few MA Repubs (including BMG fav Scott Conway) chimed in to say that Scott Brown’s position on gay marriage is the same as President Obama’s. On the surface, that’s true. It’s when you open the hood and look inside that “Brown=Obama” fails to pass the smell test.
Why? First off, we all know that President Obama supports gay rights. His position on gay marriage has flip-flopped evolved, but he has not yet come out in favor of gay marriage. He hasn’t come out against it recently, either. He said it’s up to the states. If he’s re-elected, I anticipate his position will further-evolve. He repealed Don’t Ask Don’t Tell. He supports gay and lesbian adoption. He supports equal rights under the law for same-sex civil unions. He supports the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act. Barack Obama is not hostile towards gays. His past actions and statements indicate an evolving position on gay rights that could very plausibly result in his support for gay marriage.
Scott Brown, on the otherhand, has made statements, friends, and policy positions that imply that he is hostile towards gay rights.
Let’s take a look at the November 1, 2001 Boston Globe. Potential-State Senate candidate and then-State Rep Scott Brown connected State Senator Cheryl Jacques announcing her plans to stand for re-election and the fact that her partner Jennifer was three months pregnant in this curious way:
[Scott Brown], a potential candidate for [Cheryl Jacques]’s seat, said in a telephone interview Tuesday that he was not surprised Jacques might seek to remain in the Senate, given what he called her “alleged family responsibilities.”
Sure, he apologized. That’s great. That’s what people do when they don’t filter their comments and say something stupid. That’s not something I would say, though. Even unfiltered. It’s not something that comes to my mind when I learn that a family is expecting. Scott Brown said it. I can’t find the exact quote, but he later went on to describe Jacques relationship as “not normal” in “today’s society”. That tells me that he’s not homosexuality’s best friend.
Remember in 2007 when he went to King Phillip High School to talk about gay marriage and went off on a profane rant? I’m sure some of the tension (excitement?) of picking and choosing who deserves to be “equal” in Massachustts was getting to him when he dropped the “F bomb” twice about a Facebook page in front of a room of high school kids, but c’mon. This story alone wouldn’t matter in the realm of gay rights if it weren’t for how he later went on to defend his remarks. As brilliantly relayed by BMG’s own Scout before the 2010 special election, Scott Brown excused his actions as being his reaction to the sex-ed curriculum at King Phillip. What kind of sex ed? He was upset about the mention of rape, sodomy, and anal sex.
Rape? That’s bizarre. With 90,000 reported rapes in the US in 2009, it’s a huge issue that deserves coverage in the health curriculum.
Sodomy/Anal Sex? Scott Brown was upset that the possibility of sex between two men was presented to a classroom of high school students. It should be. I remember the first time we learned about anal sex in school – I was in 6th grade. We learned that anal sex carries with it a much higher risk of contracting a sexually transmitted disease. That’s a pretty big deal, and something that should certainly be taught in the classroom. A quick look at the topic on Wikipedia to double check my recollection includes this quote:
Judy Kuriansky, a Columbia University professor and author, stated, “It really is shocking how many myths young people have about anal sex. They don’t think you can get a disease from it because you’re not having [vaginal] intercourse.”
Why would Scott Brown not want high school students, many of them likely sexually active, to not learn about anal sex? Oh, right. Anal sex is commonly associated with homosexuals. To Scott Brown, gays are second class citizens who don’t deserve to learn about safe sex.
Scott Brown and HATE GROUP leader Brian Camenker
In February 2010, a month after his election, Scott Brown re-affirmed which side he’s on when it comes to gay rights. MassResistance – a Southern Poverty Law Center-designated HATE GROUP – issued a press release about how their leader, Brian Camenker, met with Scott Brown. Camenker met Brown at an event to thank the representatives of his grassroots supporters who helped get him elected, and that show of gratitude to all apparently required an invitation to a hate group. One of MassResitance’s known goals is to remove the discussion of homosexuality and limit the discussion of sexual education in the schools. Does that sound familiar? Scott Brown expressed his anti-homosexuality/sex ed views after King Phillip incident in 2007, and here he is meeting with someone who leads a group devoted to the subject. Odd. The MassResistance press release closed with the following, emphasis mine:
But Brown’s message was that he’s willing to listen to us and take us seriously. And despite years of politics and sudden national fame, he hasn’t become elitist or condescending
Here’s my interpretation: MassResitance has a seat at Scott Brown’s table, and despite the time he’s had over the years for his opinion to “evolve”, he’s staying put.
When faced with DADT, he punted and said “I’ll do what the military leaders recommend”, eventually voting in favor of repeal after voting against debate on the bill. He caved to his constituents but was able to pin his decision to the military leaders. Fair enough. A baby step in the right direction, but not nearly enough.
Barack Obama has a history of supporting gay rights, and has shown a willingness to evolve his views. He’s a friend of the gays.
Scott Brown has a history of supporting anti-gay initiatives and anti-gay groups, making anti-gay statements, and a firm willingness to stay firmly where he is. He’s not such a friend of the gays.
See the difference?
I applaud the Mass Democratic Party, Bob Massie, and any other candidate who has made statements about Scott Brown’s unwillingness to stand up for equality. Massie even pointed out that he disagrees with the president, but he didn’t equate Brown with the president for good reason. After all, it’s “the people’s seat”. With 53% of the nation supporting gay marriage, it’s time for Scott Brown to represent “the people”, but I hold little hope. Thankfully, with hard work, we’ll be electing a senator who does support gay marriage in 2012!
that there are differences between Brown’s and Obama’s position, it sure would be a hell of a lot easier to make the argument if Obama would get off his ass on this issue. For God’s sake, several Republicans in the NY Senate voted to legalize same-sex marriage. Are they really ahead of Obama on this?
I’m guessing that Obama is not anti-gay marriage. I’m guessing he’s tap dancing around holding onto support, specifically from the African American and Latino communities. Remember Prop 8 in California? It was voted on the same day as the 2008 election, and 70% of black voters voted against gay marriage, and the AP attributed the passing of Prop. 8 to those communities.
Do I like our elected officials flip flopping to get re-elected? Not at all. Would it be easier if Obama would come out in favor? Of course. Is it worth possibly losing the support of 70% of Latinos and African Americans? In my opinion, yes. I’m guessing his advisers would disagree.
Regarding the New York Republicans – they’re not ahead of Obama. They’re at the same place. The difference is, someone stepped in and gave the NY R’s money to compensate for the loss of support they will experience at the polls. Obama hasn’t had that experience.
Don’t contribute to his re-election unless he comes out in favor of gay marriage. When his campaign asks for money, make it clear that’s why you’re not donating.
Supporting gay marriage wouldn’t cause him to lose black and Latino voters. He’s just being overly cautious, as he always does. The only effective way to respond to such an overabundance of caution is to make the status quo more dangerous than whatever it is he’s afraid of doing.
Obama beat McCain 62-36. Even though their positions on same-sex marriage were essentially the same, they were very different in a relative way in their two parties: McCain was usually portrayed as a socially liberal Republican and Obama’s position on gay marriage was considered conservative and traditional, he hyped up his church going, his marriage, etc. McCain was divorced and not very church going, he was a sailor. Obama sailed in Massachusetts, McCain garnered snores.
Then just a year and a half later, Brown beat Coakley 52-47. This time their positions on same-sex marriage were different, and everyone knew it. It was what Brown was most famous for here in Massachusetts, from back in the Vote On Marriage days. it’s not as though anyone thought Brown was the same as Coakley or Obama on marriage.
So, my point is, is this post a Brown 2012 campaign ad or what?
McCain and Obama’s positions on same sex marriage were absolute not “essentially the same”. Obama was against personally against same-sex marriage but did not think the Federal Government should outlaw it, plus he was in favor of civil unions. McCain actually campaigned for a state amendment that would have outlawed same-sex civil unions or domestic partnerships.
On other LGBT issues such as DOMA, “don’t ask, don’t tell”, employment discrimination, Obama and McCain had directly opposing views.
On LGBT issues, McCain was anything but a “social liberal”.
What I remember is Sarah Palin saying she had the same position as Biden in the debate, and thinking that Biden and Obama taking more courageous stands against the left wing in their party, while McCain and Palin seemed to be afraid of offending the left wing of the Democratic party. And I remember McCain was basically selected by the media and elite cognoscenti of the party for being moderate on social issues, unlike Huckabee or Romney, so the theory was he’d have a better chance at getting moderates in the middle who support gay marriage. And they ran with that strategy through the debates, instead of on marriage.
Brown found a way to run on marriage without drawing attention to it, but by not being afraid or ashamed of his history and values, not throwing Camenker or VOM under the bus and apologizing to the news anchors. So it was perhaps a stealth marriage campaign, but Massachusetts voters were hungry for a chance to vote on marriage and against elitist lawyer lesbian looking women. (So keep that in mind when nominating Warren, though at least she is not associated with gay marriage and could rescue the party if she refuses to drink the kool-aide.)