Same-Sex Marriage and the Republican Party
A surprising call for conservatives to stop running against it
Blogging earlier today for the Washington Post, Jennifer Rubin–whose political commentary throughout the campaign often bordered on parody–immediately and surprisingly gave one of the most rational assessments on the Republican Party’s shortcomings in the most recent election.
On the topic of gay marriage, Rubin urged conservatives to depart from their long-standing practice of campaigning against the issue. She wrote:
In fairness to Mitt Romney, he never once use gay marriage to stir up his base, evidence of his innate decency and, if one is more politically cynical, the lack of political mileage to be gained from the issue. In the future, Republicans for national office would do well to recognize reality. The American people have changed their minds on the issue and fighting this one is political flat-earthism. As with divorce, one need not favor it, but to run against it is folly, especially for national politicians who need to appeal to a diverse electorate.
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.
Perhaps, it’s just the glee of rare agreement, but I found her take on the issue just hours after Republicans suffered defeat to be forward-thinking and impressive. As the election postmortems roll in, one narrative that I find logical is the idea that the GOP lost a winnable election by failing to learn its lessons from 2008.
I’ll be writing more on the Jewish vote tomorrow, but for now, I’ll echo Rubin in saying that if Republicans hope to seize a broader piece of the Jewish vote (and countless other groups) in national elections, it would be wise for their candidates to moderate their stances (and rhetoric) on social issues like same-sex marriage, which 81% of Jews support.
Daily rate: $2
Monthly rate: $18
Yearly rate: $180
WAIT, WHY DO I HAVE TO PAY TO COMMENT?
Tablet is committed to bringing you the best, smartest, most enlightening and entertaining reporting and writing on Jewish life, all free of charge. We take pride in our community of readers, and are thrilled that you choose to engage with us in a way that is both thoughtful and thought-provoking. But the Internet, for all of its wonders, poses challenges to civilized and constructive discussion, allowing vocal—and, often, anonymous—minorities to drag it down with invective (and worse). Starting today, then, we are asking people who'd like to post comments on the site to pay a nominal fee—less a paywall than a gesture of your own commitment to the cause of great conversation. All proceeds go to helping us bring you the ambitious journalism that brought you here in the first place.
I NEED TO BE HEARD! BUT I DONT WANT TO PAY.
Readers can still interact with us free of charge via Facebook, Twitter, and our other social media channels, or write to us at email@example.com. Each week, we’ll select the best letters and publish them in a new letters to the editor feature on the Scroll.
We hope this new largely symbolic measure will help us create a more pleasant and cultivated environment for all of our readers, and, as always, we thank you deeply for your support.