The True Believers will knock him out for his support for civil unions. Now, before any black-and-white thinking person comes in and tries to tell us that his position is identical to Obama’s, please watch this interview from Morning Joe, where recently announced GOP candidate Jon Huntsman explained that yes, he supports civil unions, but that “redefining marriage would be impossible.” What a strange choice of words. But the reason he won’t make it very far is this part:
I think redefining marriage is something that would be impossible and it’s something I would not be in favor of. But I believe, just subordinate to marriage we have not done an adequate job in the area of equality and reciprocal beneficiary rights. I’ve spoken out about that, my support of civil unions, some people like it, some people don’t.
Yeah, that’ll go over well with the Bachmann crowd. The gay conservative wingnuts probably won’t like him either, because he used the word “equality,” which engenders in them fever dreams of Stalinism or something, because they are weird.
By the way, if you missed Huntsman’s truly bizarre announcement speech, Rumproast provides it with the headline “Jon Huntsman: I Have Only Just Begun to Lose the GOP Presidential Primary.” Heh.
Ain’t he sweet – he wants to grant lesser people something subordinate to marriage so they can be slightly more equal to those who are far better and more deserving of full benefits of citizenship. Republicans are sometimes so cute in their hate!
Sad part as of now this is the same position the president holds.
I think Obama’s position on this is for political reasons and not how he necessarily feels, but as Michaelangelo S. pointed out on the radio yesterday–Obama should come out for full marriage equality, because those who are bothered by that will never vote for him anyway. Progressives on the radio, tv and blogosphere should be running the gov’t; they have so much more common sense than ‘liberal’ politicians do.
BTW–you can see that Huntsman doesn’t have any gays involved in running his campaign—that sign is about as boring and tired as you can get. And choosing to announce in front of the Statue of Liberty—-yawn—i think ronald reagan already did that.
Oh, Gary, I agree. He should come out for it, but whatever their calculations are, they’re political, so I also disagree with some of the hysteria over it, as I detailed in my piece yesterday on that subject.
Evan,
That’s where you and I disagree. I am “hysterical” because I believe that he came out in support of marriage equality we would be talking about MD being the 6th state to pass SSM. Instead by his cowardly stance it gave others here in MD cover.
Maybe, and I agree that his reticence on the matter is galling. Where I disagree is with this scorched earth all-or-nothing policy that so many people have taken, with literally no precedent and no reason to feel specifically “betrayed.” Obama has done nothing any different, either on the campaign trail or as president, from what any other similarly positioned Democrat would have done. It’s annoying, to be sure. But I guarantee you that if Hillary had won the nomination and the presidency, she would have governed in a very similar way. This is just typical Democratic party b******t, which is what we deal with in a nation that Does Not Have a progressive party, but which is simultaneously far better than the GOP alternative.
And that is why myself and many other are leaning to supporting real progressive in 3rd parties. 3rd parties only get off the grown when people start voting for them and working with them. They will never become viable if everyone had the attitude you have that it’s a wasted vote. A movement has to start somewhere.
Meanwhile, let’s screw the country for the 50 years it’ll take to get a joke like Cynthia McKinney elected.
We’re not ever going to have a third party in this country, not in our lifetimes. It’s Just Not Going To Happen.
Hell a third party is useful even if it gets 10% of the vote because it forces the Democrats to act like real progressives and try to get those votes back or continue to lose elections.
Cool. And if we roll back women’s reproductive rights and give John Bolton the keys to the nuclear arsenal in the process by taking an idealistic stand, f**k all those victims, right?
I love how Obama’s supporters when they have nothing else play the fear card. You have to vote for him or the boogeyman will get you. Sorry but if you are voting for someone because of fear of the other candidate you are voting for all the wrong reasons.
Umm, it is the Republican party that plays the fear card to get votes, not the other way around. Just like all of America need to fear the Gay Agenda… (Whaling and chain rattling)
Nice try on the reversal though! :)
Except we have legislative documentation for what you refer to as “the boogeyman.” We know about the hundreds of bills being pushed in state legislatures trying to roll back reproductive rights. They exist and are not figments of people’s imaginations.
So no, I’m not voting out of “fear” of the other candidate. I’m simply playing the game on the board that exists, rather than the board that exists in my liberal fantasies.
Tim, you sound very intellectual…and very “sophmore year civics) and I will grant you the moral high ground, but, think of this.
If the Nader voters had not voted like they did “out of principal”, Bush would not have been president. And 10′s of thousands of people in the middle east would not be dead, and Roberts would not be Chief Justice.
Fear, as any evolutionary biologst will tell you, is the body and minds way of getting us away from the hungry lion before it has a chance to eat it.
Do you take PRIDE in being naive?
Actually both sides play the fear card. Go to gayAmericablog or Pam’s House Blend or Bilerico and see it in action. Any time someone makes any argument against Obama someone pops up on their with the boogeyman argument. It’s become laughable.
Oh lord, Gene, so much of what we’re dealing with here is that there is a group of people who, as Amanda Marcotte said this morning (I linked it somewhere in these comments), are unwilling to acknowledge the very real differences between the parties. The Supreme Court is HUUUUGE. And who’s going to be retiring over the next four years? More likely a couple from the liberal wing than the conservative wing.
But let’s sleep at night soundly knowing that we voted our idealism, if such a thing comes to pass as a GOP ideologue president doing the same thing Bush did when given the chance to make Supreme Court appointments. We wuz teachin’ the Democrats a lesson!
Tim….which one of the anti gay psychos running for President on the Republican ticket do you prefer to Obama? Since you seem intent on helping one of them get elected, I assume you have a favorite?
It’s only a “boogeyman argument” if you’re a single issue voter without a real grasp of the wide range of issues this nation faces on a daily basis.
Sorry. My status as a gay voter doesn’t trump my concern for the greatest good for the greatest number of Americans. That’s liberalism in a nutshell.
I prefer Romney. He would inevitably become a victim of the same bigotry he once used to gain attention for himself at the expense of GLBT people in Massachusetts. Right wingers aren’t ready for a Mormon President.
Gene,
I love how people like you play what if’s Gore could have gotten in their and started a bigger war or a myriad of other things so the what ifs is merely conjecture.
As for naive no I was naive when I bought into we have to vote for A or B. As a young naive college student I felt this way. I was motivated by fear and said well I have to support the Democrats. As I got older I realized that the reason we as a constituency are taking advantage of time after time after time. They come to us when they need our money and votes then throw us the under bus when it is political expendient. In fact I would contend you are naive. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
Actually Gene I prefer a true 3rd party liberal candidate. I have only voted for a Republican once in my life.
Evan, I admit it, I don’t get them either. I DO get being frustrated! I AM frustrated at times with this administration, but…MY GOD! the OTHER options? How old is Justice Ginsburg? Scalia for that matter, and Thomas is not young!
Some people seem to not even THINK about that! Yet, they still go on and on about how Obama has not been the perfect pro Gay/Lesbian President and do not even think about how good he has been, or who a republican would vote on the court…you know that court Tim, the one with the 5-4 split against us now that will be voting in a few years on the constitutionality of gay marriage?
But, GOD FORBID you vote for someone who is not PREFECT…yeah, its better to allow some a*****e to win “that will teach the democrats!” (how ignorant and naive!) And while these “I must vote my conscience” (dramatic music, wind in hair, Tara in the background as the camera pulls back) types feel great about themselves, we will get an anti gay, anti woman, anti choice Christocrat.
I am sorry Tim…I dont meat to be rude, but the correct terms here are naive, and stupid.
Grow up, see the reality of the situation.
Tim, you did not ansewr my question REALISTICALLY. If you dont vote for Obama, but for a third (no hope, but you get to feel SOOOO smug) party candidate, you ARE voting (in the REAL world) for the republican…which one do you want to see in the Oval Office then?
The only choices in the REAL world are Obama (not perfect but pro gay) or an Anti Gay republican.
which do you prefer? Or do you prefer feeling “god about youself” as a republican lays waste to myriad minorities, because we all know that this is what will happen.
(by the way, I know republicans who voted for 3rd party candidates instead of McCain in North Carolina and Ohio. THEY have GROWN UP and DEEPLY, DEEPLY regret their decision, so yeah, both sides use the fear card, because depending on your worldview, it is a TRUE CARD, and Obama has been national health care, GAy Pride month declairing, DADT repealing, Pro Choice president.
I hope they are not the only ones who grow up.
Again I am sick of a******s like you questioning my vote because you so fear Republicans. Wow he declared gay month. DADT which he had nothing to do with in fact he tried to get the House to put it off until this year. Please do your homework. Pro choice but willing to agree to the Stupak amendment and a provision that prevents DC from using funds for abortion services.
It’s funny how those like you are so easy to give him a free pass and blame the potential of him not getting elected to whiners. Many if he fufilled his promises he would get elected. By the way how is that Iraq working out? How about Gitmo?
[...] believe in most of the same things, but who approach voting very differently. In the comments on this post and this post, I’m having to explain the very real consequences of protest-voting for [...]
Yes, Tim, because you were involved in the back channel negotiations and you just know for certain that Obama had nothing to do with DADT or anything else.
I think i’m missing something here. “before anyone points out that his stance and obama’s stance are the same….” but then you point out exactly how his stance and obama’s stance is the same. Was your point, “let me do it for you”?
He’s also come out saying he’d respect marriage equality laws in NY.
Inclusion wins, evan! Even if you want Obama to get re-elected, wouldn’t you prefer the race to be between two relatively pro-gay candidates?
No, Jared, you are missing something. The point is that their stances are NOT the same.
Tim said “Hell a third party is useful even if it gets 10% of the vote because it forces the Democrats to act like real progressives and try to get those votes back or continue to lose elections.”.
No, a third party is not useful, its counter productive and we’ve seen that in Canada for the past 4 or 5 elections. The progressive vote has been divided between the NDP and the liberals and in the last several elections that has allowed the conservatives to win each election with less than 40% of the total vote. That’s what you’re hoping for Tim, a system where 60% of people vote progressive and the Republicans get elected over and over again with a minority of the votes.
And that’s in a parliamentary system!
Ok, i’m not being facetious here — genuinely sincere: How are their stances on gay rights different?
Obama actually has a record of doing things re: marriage equality, such as no longer defending DOMA, opposing marriage amendments, etc. Huntsman has done a couple of things here and there but is clearly stating that he only supports civil unions and that marriage “cannot be redefined.” Obama parrots the “civil union” line, but his actions belie different motivations. Nobody should really be under the impression that Obama doesn’t actually personally support marriage equality. Obama will move left, on some political schedule on that issue, while Huntsman, if he wants to appease the mouthbreathers, will have to move right from his stance.
That is the difference.
Evan, I’m still not seeing where they’re different. If they do have differences in their stances, I’d really like to know. (Maybe it deserves it’s own post from you?)
I think you’re right that Obama speaks more conservatively on the issue than he really believes. I think that’s the same for Huntsman. And I think W. did too, for that matter (I remember a quote from the “marijuana tapes” where he said something along the lines of how people have encouraged him to make gays the enemy, but he doesn’t think they are.) But I care less about the secret feelings of a politician than I do their stated political stances.
As to actions — Huntsman has also made clear that he would not use federal powers to block gay marriage. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0611/57476.html It's quite clear that he, just like Obama, opposes a federal marriage amendment (I think this one kind of falls under stances, not actions for both of them though.)
I can’t comment on Obama’s history of supportive actions for marriage equality, because as far as I know, it doesn’t exist. That’s just as far as I know though — but i’d be surprised if there were one, considering he’s stated multiple times that he’s opposed to gay marriage.
Of course Huntsman hasn’t done anything as large as ending the defense of DOMA, but Utah Governors and Ambassadors to China rarely have had that opportunity, so I find it difficult to judge him for that.
Jared, Obama says on equal marriage “I’m not there yet, god is in the mix”. Huntsman says equal marriage is impossible. Putting everything else aside that’s a huge difference. One is open to changing his mind the other is 100% close-minded. Based on that alone there’s no way I’d want Huntsman to be U.S. president over Obama
Priya, maybe you interpret that so it feels like a difference to you, but I don’t think there is. One says you can’t redefine marriage, so allow separate but equal; the other says you shouldn’t redefine marriage, so allow separate but equal.
What does “can’t redefine” mean? Is he being semantic? What does “god is in the mix” mean? Does god change his mind?
Jared, anyone can see the difference–one says “can’t” the other says “I don’t think you should but things change.” Neither is great, but at least one leaves the door open.
Oh! So you mean to say that even though we’d get the exact same result and actions from either of them in office, the difference is whether they say a words definition can’t change or whether they say they might change their mind in the future, depending on what god says. Of course, both of their very, very subtly different explanations for their stances lead to the EXACT SAME OUTCOME, but the difference is huge to you? Ok. That makes a lot of sense, I understand now. Thanks for clarifying this, everybody.
Jared…and I really dont mean this as an insult…but, you almost sound like one of those gay people who WANTS to vote for a republican. And respectfully, Priya is right “No, never” and “I am evolving on the subject” are two very, very different things. Everything I have seen is that this is the most gay friendly president ever, and that Hunstman would represent a political party that has opposition to our rights in its platform, is himself a member of a cult that is viciously anti gay and which worked hard to overturn marriage in California…oh hell..what more do you need to hear?
All christians are members of a historically and vehemently antigay cult, no reason to single out mormons. Don’t be so quick to forget obama’s anti-gay pastor. That’s just religion for you.
And the difference you guys are drawing is semantic and immaterial, and I think you know it. They both support state rights to redefine marriage. They both oppose federal intervention to prevent those states from doing so. You’re deciding that the difference is in your interpretation of a handful of words from two quotes out of many. That’s silly, and you know it. If there are real differences between the two political stances (not on your imagining what their secret feelings are), I’d genuinely like to hear them.
As to what kind of gay I am: I’m one of those gays that doesn’t want our political system to be controlled by two camps: one being staunchly anti-gay, the other being “at least not the other guys.” I’m one of those gays that would LOVE if the presidential debates didn’t present anti-gay hate rhetoric to the american public as a valid political opinion.
Can you imagine what the political discourse in this country would be during the entire campaign season if Huntsman and Obama were the candidates? “Mr. President, you say you don’t support marriage equality, but you support states rights to decide and wouldn’t intervene. Mr. Huntsman, what do you think of that?” “I agree, next question please.” No crazy bachmann s**t, no crazy palin s**t, no crazy “indoctrinate our children” s**t, just plain simple “of course they should have rights.”
I’m one of those gays that think debates about marriage equality are as offensive, ridiculous, and inappropriate as debates about segregation. And like the segregation debate, I’d like to see the gay marriage debate take a place in history as we finally achieve equality.
Gene,
I can’t believe you have the nerve to jump and down on here about how much someone’s vote matters, when you refuse to even serve on jury duty. Your one vote on a jury could save an innocent man. That’s much more powerful than if Tim votes for a third party in a national election.
I also noticed that you called Tim stupid. A wise man once said that when you resort to name calling, that shows that you’ve lost the argument.
Jared said “Priya, maybe you interpret that so it feels like a difference to you, but I don’t think there is.”.
You’re welcome to think there’s no difference, but I’m sure to the vast majority of people there is. One says he’s willing to change his mind the other says he will not change his mind under any circumstances – that’s a night and day difference to any rational person.
Jared said “Oh! So you mean to say that even though we’d get the exact same result and actions from either of them in office, the difference is…”
See, now you’re pretending to not get the obvious. We most certainly aren’t saying we’d get the exact same result and actions from either of them in office. With Obama there’s a possibility he will support and advance marriage equality, with Huntsman there’s absolutely no chance. Any rational person will always take the possibility of success over no chance for success whatsoever.
Jared, its clear to me that you want to punish Obama for not being supportive enough and you’re willing to shoot yourself in the foot to do so. I’m all for people shooting themselves in the foot if that’s what’s most important to them, but the trouble is that if you succeed you shoot a lot of other people who did the right thing in the foot as well.
Gene,
You mention in your post, that if Bush had not been President we wouldn’t have John Roberts as Chief Justice. Are you kidding me?!?! After all of your talk about how the justice system is so corrupt it doesn’t matter if you throw your jury summons away?
Obama will come out for full gay marriage after he has won a 2nd term.
If he does so before, there is a slim chance he will lose.
My recognizing the fallacies of the jury system has little to do with a future 5 to 4 vote against a womans right to choose Jack. Or the legality of gay marriage.
Duh.
And, as it happens…sometimes calling a position stupid is just factual. Not name calling :) Please note I also used the word naive, and that was not an insult either, just factual in this case.
We dont live in a parlimentary system, and third party votes dont make makor parties move in either direction. They just make sure that those who want to “punish” or “teach” them ensure that their own farthest opponants win.
Never let the perfect be the enemy of the good…I think thats how the old saying goes.
Priya — I don’t think i’m shooting anybody in the foot by thinking it’s a good thing to have two presidential candidates who publicly and politically agree that spewing anti-gay hate rhtetoric is bad and that gays should have equal rights (even if they think they should be “separate” rights). With either of them, we’d have an equal ability to achieve marriage equality through the states (which frankly, is the best way to do it — we don’t to be forever mired in the supreme court limbo that abortion is in). I just don’t think I’m shooting myself in the foot to be glad that political oponents agree on an issue like this. Would I be shooting myself in the foot to be glad that neither supports segregation? Shooting myself in the foot to be glad that neither denies climate change?
I don’t understand what you mean by i’m trying to punish obama. I really just don’t get that at all. I haven’t said that people should vote one way or the other. All I’m saying is that on this one, very important issue, they have the same political stances. Isn’t it possible that I could want obama to win but still be able to cede the the truth about his opponents stance on an issue?
I actually think that people who INSIST that one of the two political parties that control this country MUST be anti-gay (some liberals) are no better than the people who INSIST that one of the two political parties that control this country MUST be anti-gay (some conservatives).
Gene,
So an innocent man going to jail has no importance to you? I don’t understand what you keep talking about. If you are on a jury, you think you won’t be allowed to vote your conscience? Sounds like you are the stupid one.
And I just called you lazy before. That is factual also.
RECOGNIZING that one the two political parties that control this country IS, by and large, anti-gay is not the same thing as INSISTING that party MUST be.
Political discussion is meaningless if it is not based in reality. Jared, please reread the title of this blog post. This article is not saying Jon Huntsman must be stopped; it is saying he has no chance and it is very probably right.
Jared said “I don’t think i’m shooting anybody in the foot by thinking it’s a good thing to have two presidential candidates who publicly and politically agree that spewing anti-gay hate rhtetoric is bad and that gays should have equal rights”.
I never said thinking that would be shooting yourself in the foot. It’d be great if both the Republican and Democrat nominnees felt that way. What’s shooting yourself in the foot is trying to get a third party to get enough votes to rob the Democrats of the win, but not get enough votes to win themselves. You seem to think that if a third party gets 10% of the vote by being more gay friendly than the Democrats that when the Democrats lose the election they’ll become more gay friendly and then in the next election win back that 10% of the vote and win the election as a more gay friendly party. That’s not what would happen. A third party isn’t going to get 10% of the vote merely by being more gay friendly, they might do it by having different policy positions than the Democrats as well and by simply appealing to that 10% for emotional reasons unconnected to policy or gay rights. Then if the Democrats lose the election because of that loss of 10% of voters and become more gay friendly they might get a few votes back, but they’re not going to get all of the 10% back because most of the 10% is going to still prefer the third party because they never voted for them because of their gay rights stand in the first place. The third party won’t go away, it will continue to split the progressive vote between Democrats and the third party thus giving the election to the anti-gay Republicans over and over and over. I’ve seen it happen in my country, I speak from experience, not from fantasies.
Jared said “I actually think that people who INSIST that one of the two political parties that control this country MUST be anti-gay (some liberals) are no better than the people who INSIST that one of the two political parties that control this country MUST be anti-gay (some conservatives).”.
I’ve never heard any liberal say that one of the two parties must be anti-gay. I agree that the conservatives who do think that are not good people.