Gay Marriage

Democrats You Might Have Thought Already Supported Gay Marriage Announce Actually Supporting Gay Marriage

Evolution speeds up

|

Mike Riggs took note earlier of Sen. Mark Kirk joining Sen. Rob Portman today as a Republican supporting same-sex marriage recognition.

Democratic Delaware Sen. Tom Carper

Democratic politicians are also jumping on the bandwagon, which may come as a surprise to those who thought same-sex marriage recognition was already a solid plank in the party's platform. The Democratic Party may be further along than the Republicans, but they're not as far as they like to think. Just ask Illinois residents, who are struggling to get gay marriage recognition through the state legislature, despite a Democratic supermajority.

Democratic Delaware Sen. Tom Carper announced his support for same-sex marriage recognition today on Facebook.  Delaware's Democratic Rep. John Carney made a similar announcement yesterday, as did Pennsylvania Sen. Bob Casey. Steve Benen at MSNBC notes that with Carper's announcement, only seven Democratic senators have yet to throw their support behind gay marriage recognition.

Could it be that by the time the Supreme Court rules on the Defense of Marriage Act case it just heard last week there might be enough political will to strike it down regardless? Perhaps there really shouldn't be any fear of the Supreme Court punting on the issue and leaving marriage rules up to the states.

The GOP-led House of Representatives would be a tougher battle, but Mich. Rep. Justin Amash (all over our site this week) told the Huffington Post last week he supports eliminating DOMA (a shift in his position from 2010) as part of his libertarian belief that the government should get out of marriage entirely. On the other hand, Republican Rep. Matt Salmon of Arizona is not taking the Portman route. He has a gay son, but still opposes same-sex marriage recognition. On the other, other hand Republican Rep. Jeff Flake, also of Arizona, could see a future GOP presidential candidate supporting same-sex marriage recognition, even though he does not. Like I said in March, the Republican Party's going through some major shifting in their views on gays and gay marriage recognition. I am very curious as to what their party platform will have to say on the matter come 2016.

NEXT: Game of Thrones Season Three Premiere Breaks Piracy Record

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. I strongly suspect, based on that picture, that Delaware Sen Tom Carper is not human. Or if he is, I’m not sure I want to know what horrors he was subjected to that did that to him.

    1. He looks like some mutant cross of Alan Alda and Matt Frewer.

      1. Thank you. I got Alan Alda, but the other was not coming to me.

        1. I see Max Headroom everywhere.

          1. R-r-r-radical!

      2. Frewer played Moloch in Watchmen? I’m reading the entire series on Kindle right now. Anybody see the movie? Is the movie any good?

        1. Since the book was perfect, there was no reason to make the movie at all. Which probably explains why they got the least relevant director in history to man the slo-mo dial.

          1. The book is perfect, right? This is the second time I’ve read it, the first since 1992. It’s pretty awesome.

            I don’t want the movie to shit it up.

            1. The solution to that is to not watch the movie.

        2. Seeing as “graphic novels” are for thumb-sucking teenagers and shut-in nerds with skin problems, I have no idea about the quality of the comic. The movie was watchable but a bit turgid, but as I understand it it follows the comic almost exactly. I was high on tramadol and Dogfish Head when I watched it, so that probably contributed to any enjoyment of it.

          1. I’m confused. You describe a category in which you belong, then you exclude yourself as if you were not in that category.

            1. Being Italian-American is not a “skin problem,” Pro L.

            2. Stop projecting, ProL. I mean, “Comic Book Guy”.

              1. You are very familiar with projection, aren’t you? It’s because it is you who are the Projector, isn’t it?

                Confess.

                1. Worst. Insult. Ever.

                  1. Again with the projection.

          2. You are as tasteless as your so-called risotto.

            1. I forgot the salt that time! Fuck you, Mr. Perfect! Why don’t you go read some Beetle Bailey? That’s right up your alley, right? It has so much subtext!

            2. I know. And his substituting skim milk for heavy cream was distressing. And canned stock??

        3. The casting was off here and there and the acting was no great shakes, but they used the comics as a shooting script and storyboard, so it is amazingly accurate (while also missing the point.)

          It’s fairly pointless, but not outright horrible.

          1. so it is amazingly accurate (while also missing the point.)

            I think the change of the end is what caused this. I think if you hadn’t read the book you probably would get the wrong idea from the movie.

            1. I thought the ending was the best part of the movie. Give the people an enemy they know exists, and won’t question, rather than a mysterious one they’ll study forever, probably figuring out your trick given enough time.

              1. Yeah, I agree that that makes a lot more sense.

        4. I read the graphic novel first, then saw the movie about a week later. The movie stays pretty true to the book except at the end and I thought it was well done. Of course, a lot of stuff in the book had to be removed so the movie didn’t end up being 8 hours long.

          1. I liked the movie more than any other superhero movie. I don’t read comic books.

            You have to watch it a few times.

            1. You have to watch it a few times.

              Only if you really hate yourself.

        5. The movie was very well done in my opinion. I watched the movie before the book, and after reading the book I thought to myself “I’m glad they changed the ending in movie, because if they had stayed true to the book the audience would have howled in laughter.” Seriously. The ending in the movie is logically consistent and makes sense, as opposed to the ending in the book which is just scifi so bad even Syfy would be embarrassed to film it.

          1. Since they cut out all of the bits about scientists and movie producers going missing, the context for the book ending was removed from the movie. The biggest disappointment was the change to Dr Manhattan’s story. Instead of ending with a “Fuck you all, I’m going somewhere else” from the book, it ended with a “You’ve convinced me, I’ll leave for the good of humanity.” That’s pretty lame.

      3. He looks like some mutant cross of Alan Alda and Matt Frewer

        If he starts being maudlin and unfunny in poorly rendered 3D, we’ll know you’re on to something.

  2. Politicians like people believing they support a position whether it is true or not. It helps ensure their votes to solve the problem. They only start actually trying to solve the problem when the risk of losing votes for not solving becomes greater than the risk of losing votes because the problem is already solved.

    1. The classic “if-by-whiskey” approach, where they can play both sides regardless of what they actually believe.

    2. it’s like the opposite of libertarians who hate it when people believe they support a position whether it is true or not.

  3. What’s worse?

    Coming out in favor of gay marriage because the issue now affects you more directly (a la Rob Portman)? Or coming out in favor of gay marriage because now everyone is coming out in favor of it and you better just jump on that bandwagon lest your liberal constituents turn on you?

    Fuck off, populist slavers!

    1. Eh, Portman gets a lot of flack, but sometimes deeply held prejudices need to be unseated by personal experience.

      There’ve been suggestions that parents with children they intuit are gay to take on strongly anti-gay positions to try to prevent their kids from growing up gay. So it’s probably just one set of policy by personal experience being replaced by another set of policy by personal experience.

      1. I agree with you. I was [attempting] making the point that all of these Democrats are just now coming around because everyone else is, i.e., for strictly populist reasons.

        And that, to me, is far worse than someone who seems to legitimately have a change of heart because it now affects him personally. Portman got a lot of flack for coming around now that his son is gay, but where’s the outcry over these people? Huh? Democrats? Liberals?

        crickets

        1. Good luck with that. The Democrats just retcon any possible resistance to gay marriage within their own ranks.

  4. I think all Senators should be group married to each other. It’s time that this country is led by a family, with real family values.

    1. You really want to bring new meaning to the word “nepotism”, don’t you. Realize that under your idea, none of them could testify against each other. Oh wait, they’d never do that now regardless.

    2. We could spawn a whole new cable network to run the reality shows of the Senate living, loving, learning, and fighting with one another.

      Well, two networks. C-SPAN After Dark would be a premium channel.

      1. Chuck Schumer; I can’t wait to see them titties.

      2. This would be an awesome idea if it included one person getting kicked out of the house every week.

    3. Ooh yes. I want them to all call each other “brother-husband.” Well, you know, not all, but most.

      1. This week on The Real Housespouses of Washing D.C., Chuck rips out Nancy’s weave, and Dianne’s plastic surgery is far more disastrous than anyone imagined.

        1. Then they could go mud runnin’ and get stuck and die of CO poisoning.

          Too soon?

            1. The sooner the better?

          1. MTV has killed again. It’s getting a real taste for it now.

            1. First it killed the radio star. Then it killed good videos. Then it slayed taste with reality TV. And now it has moved on to killing its own reality TV stars. What is next in MTV’s serial killer evolution? VH1?

              1. They killed VH1 years ago. I think it will be content to sup upon itself for a few more years. The garmonbozia generated by the Jersey Shore mutants will last years.

                1. Jesus Christ, NutraSweet, using words from TP:FWWM? Did you hit your head on the toilet this morning?

              2. I remember tending to prefer the videos made before MTV existed to the ones made for MTV.

              3. MTV now with 100% more decade nostalgia programming on an endless marathon loop!

          2. OMG how did I not know about this? I knew I should have been watching that show!

  5. Wonder how many of them are just Sean Penns?; Regressives who make a half-asssed show of supporting gays when it makes them look like good people, and hen turn around and heap idolaty unto people like Fidel Castro, who shipped gays to concentration camps.

  6. Is there any other issue that you can think of that has next to zero relevance for the vast majority of the population but yet has received more attention than this?

    Estimates put the gay population at between 3%-7% of the population, with 3% openly admitting their sexual preference. I would say it’s probably more like 8% but even with that I can’t understand why this issue is SUCH A HUGE FRIGGING DEAL.

    1. Culture war. It’s our favorite thing. And this is a proxy battle for a lot of other issues, the historical treatment of gays and religious conservatives dismayed that they no longer control the “morals” of the country in particular. Gays are fighting a war they have almost entirely won and religious conservatives are fighting a war they have utterly lost. And both sides get to play at being martyrs.

      1. I’m the first one to admit that anyone arguing about the “sanctity of marriage” is a complete fucking idiot and deserves to be ignored at all cost, but jesus this issue has enough legs to run a marathon.

        GAYS CAN MARRY. AND DIVORCE. AND SHIT ALL OVER THEIR KIDS AND FAMILY AND FRIENDS IN THE PROCESS. Yay equality!

        1. Don’t worry, as soon as this is settled it will die down incredibly fast, because in reality no one actually cares very much about this issue; as said above by NutraSweet, it’s just a proxy issue for a different battle, and once it’s over it will cease to have such cache.

          1. But because it is only a proxy to begin with, it will not stop. It will just become something else.

            1. Quite true, but it won’t be this any more.

    2. Partially it’s a shibboleth/mascot thing, partly I think because there are so many gay people in the media and pop culture spheres. I mean, if you watch TV you’d think one in five people or so are gay.

      Just like they consistently paint gun ownership as some fringe nut thing when in reality there are more gun owners in this country then there are Catholics.

      1. “Partially it’s a shibboleth/mascot thing”

        So you’re saying that Tom Carper is a gay mascot? I guess I can see that.

    3. That small percentage adds up to 25 million people. How many people voted in the election last November?

      1. As of 2011 there 237,657,645 people aged 18 or above. 7% of that is 16 million people.

        So you think that an issue that only affects 16 million out of 230 million should get this much attention?

        1. I don’t think it deserves this much attention. But, I can’t even begin to talk about Fed policy, gun control, national debt, or any other “conservative” argument without gay marriage being thrown in my face and used to invalidate my argument. So, gay marriage may not be the greatest thing to happen to liberty, but if we can move past this social issue, maybe we can look at, and debate some actually important issues.

          1. You poor, deluded fool.

          2. Some dude posted on Facebook that the same people who oppose gay marriage are the people who don’t want the government in “their house” and demand to have AR-15’s with grenade launchers.

            I believe the quote around “their house” implies that people don’t actually own their own homes. Odd that.

          3. but if we can move past this social issue

            HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!

            That’s hilarious LBC.

        2. Well, just last week in a thread regarding state freedom rankings, the authors gave far more weight to a state’s policy on same sex marriage than many other, more important liberty issues.

          For example, there was NO consideration of immunity for public sector actors. Limiting marriage to heterosexuals has far less impact upon liberty than judges and prosecutors enjoying absolute immunity.

          1. Of course, if two lezzies want to associate for life, why should they have to seek the state’s permission to do so?

            1. Who says they do?

          2. “Hurr durr that study weighed something I don’t like too heavily and I didn’t pay attention to the fact that I can customize the weightings.”

        3. 16 million is a lot of people. Far fewer than that are affected by eminent domain, asset forfeiture laws, beaten by cops, etc. I think that’s even substantially higher than the estimated number of illegal immigrants in the country. Should we stop talking about all those things, too?

          1. When did we START talking this seriously about either asset forfeiture laws or eminent domain issues?

            I wasn’t aware we had.

            Just a quick anecdote via Google Search-

            asset forfeiture laws=About 343,000 results

            Gay Marriage = 2,250,000,000 results.

            1. Well, then, once this foolishness gets settled we can focus on those as well.

              1. I’m not saying that it isn’t an important issue, and of course from a libertarian perspective I think we pretty much all agree that the govt shouldn’t have anything to do with marriage in the first place which makes it a great example of why the govt does such a terrible at managing issues like this, but still. You would think this is the great civil rights issue of our time or something.

    4. It’s a stupid argument. Not that the gays don’t have a legitimate beef, but the noise around it versus far greater acts of oppression is just silly.

      1. That’s the point. If gay marriage didn’t exist, the proggies would invent it. It’s a great way to distract from all the horrible, stupid, wasteful, criminal, asinine things the government does on a daily, no an hourly basis.

        1. I have no vested interest in the debate, but it seems like fine tuning while the whole country is on the wrong channel. In fact, all I see is snow.

    5. Once we get our equal rights we’ll shut up. How about that?

  7. This just in:

    Teh gayz decide to agree with the APA of pre-1973 that homosexuality is a mental disorder because they feel discriminated against by the retarded population receiving SSI disability benefits.

  8. It looks like Amash wants to repeal the “federal definition of marriage portion of DOMA,” not the whole law.

    Repealing the entire law wouldn’t get the federal government out of marriage; on the contrary, it would put the feds in the position of requiring some states to follow the marriage laws of other states.

  9. http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_n…..e-two?lite

    Steve Benen seems to just assume that all 48 Democratic senators are pro gay marriage. Even if he was right, I don’t quite know what he’s basing his assumption off of.

    1. Oops, 48 is not “all” of the Dems in the Senate. But, still, it seems like a high number. Is he right?

    2. It’s been hilariously awkward for some of the staunchly Democratic gay rights groups when Democrats block gay rights legislation and Republicans break ranks to make up the difference. NY during their gay marriage debate and on the national level with DADT come to mind.

      I cannot stress enough how much I hate Harry Reid.

  10. Democratic Delaware Sen. Tom Carper

    Well, that is technically alt-text. But I’m not positive that the general guideline of “technically=best kind” holds for alt-text.

    1. “I’m not having a stroke, this is just how I smile”

  11. Democrats You Might Have Thought Already Supported Gay Marriage Announce Actually Supporting Gay Marriage

    So this is like an updated version of the old game “Canadian…or Dead?” that we play here in the border states.

    The Shat? Canadian, of course.
    Peter Graves? Dead.
    Lorne Greene? Trick! He’s a dead Canadian.

    Etc.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.