The Democrats’ Gay Convention

By Rod Dreher • September 5, 2012, 3:07 PM

On Monday night, Michelle Obama told the nation that her husband wants everyone to succeed no matter “who we love.”

If that was not clear enough, she returned to the point later in her address. “If proud Americans can be who they are and boldly stand at the altar with who they love,” she said, “then surely, surely we can give everyone in this country a fair chance at that great American dream.”

She was not the only one. At times it seemed as if almost every speaker on the first night of the Democratic National Convention was touting same-sex marriage.

What’s remarkable about it is the stunning about-face the Democratic Party has done on gay marriage in such a short amount of time. My guess is they figure that nobody who sees opposing gay marriage as a make-or-break issue regarding their vote is likely to vote for Obama anyway, so they’re aiming to excite the base.

This seems risky to me. What about the blue-collar vote, Catholic and otherwise, in Pennsylvania and Ohio? I’m guessing the DNC has polled this thing out and concluded that the potential upside outweigh the downside, but still, this is bold. Any Evangelicals on the fence about voting for a Mormon have just been given a big shove by the Democrats meeting in Charlotte.

Posted in Gay Marriage, Politics. Tagged Barack Obama, Democrats, gay marriage, homosexuality, Mitt Romney, same-sex marriage.

36 Responses to The Democrats’ Gay Convention

EngineerScotty says:

September 5, 2012 at 3:17 pm

That support for gay marriage is a Democratic plank, has been known for several weeks.

Given how the issue now polls (more Americans seem to be for it than against), I don’t think this is politically unwise. Those who are are ideologically against it are probably not voting for Obama in any case.

And keep in mind–this is juxtaposed against the GOP convention, in which a hard line against SSM was taken.

You’ll notice that the Republicans are desperate to make the election a referendum on Obama’s handling of the economy; and are FTMP avoiding social issues. When was the last time THAT happened?
Floridan says:

September 5, 2012 at 3:17 pm

I think you overestimate the number of Catholics who will base their vote on the SSM issue. The times they are a’changing.
Tyro says:

September 5, 2012 at 3:25 pm

I think we are going to look back and see opposition to gay marriage as basically a 2004-era spasm. We are working up on 10 years now that civil unions and gay marriage have been legal in various US states, and it doesn’t seem worth turning it into a confrontation over, for most people. Even the Republicans have concluded that there are no votes to be gained over the issue– it was the focus of the 2004 campaign, but it has barely merited a single mention at the 2012 Republican convention.

One of the great skills of being a political strategist is understanding what issues really resonate and push people’s buttons in a given year. Opposition to gay marriage really got people riled up in 2004, and republicans leveraged that to victory quite skillfully. The issue doesn’t really connect with people now, so Democrats can openly embrace it to shore up their base, while republicans stay mostly silent because time spent opposing gay marriage takes away from time that could be spent talking about other issues that are more likely to bring out the vote.
JoeMerl says:

September 5, 2012 at 3:30 pm

If Obama wants to run on his record, he only has a few avenues to pursue: killing bin Laden, health care, and his support for gay rights (in terms of both repealing DADT and endorsing SSM). He can only take so much credit for the first and the second is as hated as it is loved, so…
Matt in TX says:

September 5, 2012 at 3:32 pm

Any Evangelicals on the fence about voting for a Mormon have just been given a big shove by the Democrats meeting in Charlotte… What about the blue-collar vote, Catholic and otherwise, in Pennsylvania and Ohio?

The Dems are making a much bigger deal about abortion than they are about gay marriage at this convention. They’ve been lining up the abortion-lobby speakers; I’m not aware of any gay-marriage-lobby folks who have been given speaking slots.

Considering the Dems’ enthusiasm for abortion rights, and the likely effect of *that* on the Evangelicals and Catholics, why not go ahead and be pro-gay-marriage, too?

I note once again your highly sensitive antenna regarding gay stuff, and the comparable disinterest you seem to show towards abortion. I realize that people have different issues which set them off, and I myself don’t care for the way these two issues get paired. But I would be interested to learn more about why one exercises you so much more in your writing than the other.
Laser says:

September 5, 2012 at 3:33 pm

I thought it was the conservatives who were always bringing up divisive social issues that scared off the fiscal moderates. I cannot get over how these democrat ladies love talking about their hoo-has thinking it scandalizes those mean old white guys in the GOP. It just makes you look shallow. Frankly if yelling vagina! is all you have, maybe suffrage wasn’t such a great idea.

As far as gay marriage goes, never have 2% of the population been able to co-opt the nation’s focus so effectively. Get off my lawn!
loudonisafool says:

September 5, 2012 at 3:38 pm

I was shocked, frankly. But I loved it. This is the Democratic party of caricature. I thought it only existed on the pages of Daily Kos and in the blogs of a handful of Jesus-Haters. But there on my radio was the party of abortion and gay sex, strutting with plumage on full display. Seeing the missteps of GOP election year politics being played out on the other side is very refreshing. And while I’m glad the mask is off, I’m a bit frightened to see what lies beneath. I had always hoped I was being uncharitable in my characterizations.
Rod Dreher says:

September 5, 2012 at 3:45 pm

But I would be interested to learn more about why one exercises you so much more in your writing than the other.

Because abortion’s legality is largely settled. I would love to see Roe v. Wade overturned, but I don’t think that’s going to happen anytime soon. The Supreme Court will be ruling on same-sex marriage sometime in the next few years, and their ruling will have serious implications for religious institutions, which mean a lot to me. Plus, I have been called a troglodyte for being pro-life, but I have never been called a bigot, and I don’t fear that pro-lifers will be discriminated against, socially or in the workplace, for their pro-life convictions.
Brian says:

September 5, 2012 at 3:45 pm

My wife was watching in the other room, as I can’t stand political speechifying. The most bizarre thing to me was how many speakers based their speeches around idiotic call-and-response catch-phrases. Did they all think they were going to be speaking to an audience of first graders?
JB says:

September 5, 2012 at 4:02 pm

A presidential candidate shouldn’t have any “position” on gay marriage except this: “The Constitution does not authorize the federal government to interfere in marriage and family life. Under the Tenth Amendment, the right to legislate regarding marriage belongs only to the States. As President, I will ensure that the federal government stays out of this area and respects the laws chosen by the people of each State on this issue … and MANY others.”
Matt in TX says:

September 5, 2012 at 4:06 pm

@ Mr. Dreher:

Thanks for answering so quickly!

Plus, I have been called a troglodyte for being pro-life, but I have never been called a bigot,

Haven’t you written that a group of women, upon learning you were pro-life, said that they “didn’t feel safe around you anymore,” and that one of the women was your housemate at the time? I mean, I guess that’s different from being called a bigot.

Why do you (or any other commenters, for that matter) think that pro-lifers are not/will not be discriminated against, socially or the in the workplace, but people against gay marriage will be discriminated against? I’m genuinely curious. How will that work? I can think of some possibilities, but they all seem dependent on pro-gay-marriage folks being more powerful (more numerous, maybe, or otherwise more able to privilege their view of the world) than pro-abortion folks. Do you think this is, or will be, true? Why?

If your argument is simply “It’s too late to stop abortion, but it’s not too late to stop gay marriage,” then OK, I get that.
Tyro says:

September 5, 2012 at 4:08 pm

The most bizarre thing to me was how many speakers based their speeches around idiotic call-and-response catch-phrases. Did they all think they were going to be speaking to an audience of first graders?

You do realize that people love this stuff, right? Political conventions/rallies, like corporate training events, are generally organized and planned within an irony-free zone. I shiver to think about what the get-to-know-you “icebreaker” activities were like at the convention.
Neil says:

September 5, 2012 at 4:09 pm

I think the most bizarre thing is that the NYT got to watch the speech via a time travel device on Monday night, when the rest of the country watched it on Tuesday night.
Mike says:

September 5, 2012 at 4:12 pm

This is a battle for Independents, not necessarily a few blue-collar Catholics in Ohio and Pennsylvania (both states where Obama is already doing well). Independents find the GOP position on social issues to be off-putting. So emphasizing choice and gay issues skews well with exurban voters. Dems aren’t interested in Evangelicals who are afraid of Mormons (who would also not likely want to support Obama anyway if they are they nutty).

The approach of talking about marrying who you love is a great way to spin the issue. That resonates with moderates where the “equality” and “traditional family” arguments don’t work.
Noah172 says:

September 5, 2012 at 4:16 pm

never have 2% of the population been able to co-opt the nation’s focus so effectively

Ooh, boy, we could have a real lively discussion over which 2 percent minority of our nation is most effective at steering the other 98 percent of us in its direction.
Charles Cosimano says:

September 5, 2012 at 4:22 pm

Now Brian, these are delegates at the Democratic National Convention. You should not so insult first-graders.

The political calculus is pretty clear. The folks who really get upset about SSM aren’t going to vote for Obama anyway, so there is no downside to that. Being pro choice has never cost a Democrat his seat so there is no downside to that. So for all the silliness (it helps if you have a keynote speaker that someone has actually heard of or are they really crazy enough to think that the mayor of San Antonio is going to be elected to anything else) the Democrats are really playing it pretty safe.
J says:

September 5, 2012 at 4:25 pm

Sheesh, so much grumpiness. Yes, Democrats throw the good parties and have more fun. It’s a Beltway truism.

If you think this is scary, it’s also getting at least 48% of the popular vote. Now, I think it’s all a little ahead of where the Party as whole is on gender issues, but not by much. In 2008 their Convention greatly lagged where the Party base was on those. And that was a major source of internal upset.

My impression of the current Convention is actually how very black/Latino it is in motifs. If Obama is not getting reelected this is one grand congratulatory and farewell party for him and the demographic coalition he represents. And not bad a welcome party for Latino voters and politicians.

The 2016 Democratic Convention is going to be even more this way. Chances are the nominee is going to be a woman, too.

Ain’t this a great country?
David J. White says:

September 5, 2012 at 4:38 pm

The most bizarre thing to me was how many speakers based their speeches around idiotic call-and-response catch-phrases.

Isn’t call-and-response part of the black church tradition? Maybe that’s what they’re trying to appeal to.
blackman1 says:

September 5, 2012 at 4:41 pm

They should have held this in SanFrancisco!
stef says:

September 5, 2012 at 4:42 pm

Why shouldn’t the Democrats openly promote same-sex marriage? It’s a significant civil rights issue, and the GOP has long since lost the historical high ground on civil rights issues. 1964 is a long way in the past.

As far as “religious freedom,” let me know when Catholics last got picked on because they don’t allow church remarriage after divorce.

Re: abortion. When the GOP adopted (as they did in 2000, 2004, and 2008) an abortion plank that essentially says no exceptions, not even for rape or the mother’s life, some attempt to minimize this by saying “platforms don’t matter; no one pays attention to them.” But when the Democrats adopt a clear pro-gay marriage plank, suddenly platforms matter.
William Burns says:

September 5, 2012 at 4:53 pm

“As far as gay marriage goes, never have 2% of the population been able to co-opt the nation’s focus so effectively.”

I don’t know about that–the neocons are probably less than two per cent of the population.
Uncle Vanya says:

September 5, 2012 at 4:55 pm

Same sex marriage is going to be a gold mine for the divorce lawyers. Picture the hystrionics. Who gets the Chippendale mahogany commode and who gets the antique china?

How about a new show? Gay divorce court.
Rebecca Trotter says:

September 5, 2012 at 5:00 pm

My husband works in an office with a large number of gay and lesbian people. He says that he is hearing a lot of people who are irate with Obama. It’s probably a calculated “get out the base” thing. They figure most people who are persuadable on the fence aren’t paying attention to what a bunch of politicians are saying on the first couple nights of a convention they aren’t really paying attention to.
Aerys T. says:

September 5, 2012 at 5:26 pm

Rod, I respectfully submit that Roe is only technically “settled,” per Casey’s revision of Roe. It’s a pretty safe bet that four current justices want to overturn Roe and Casey as soon as possible, and allow unfettered state regulation of abortion. If President Romney appoints a replacement for Ginsburg or Breyer (or Kennedy), then the Roe-Casey regime would very likely be abolished in the next four years. Ginsburg and Breyer might try to wait Mittens out, of course, but Kennedy is up there in years, a Republican, and relatively conservative (despite his Casey opinion). There’s a decent shot he’d seize the moment and retire so as to allow Mittens to name his replacement. And that’d be it for Roe-Casey.

In sum, if re-criminalizing abortion is your bag, it’s very doable. You’ve got four votes on the Court; all you need is one more.
loudonisafool says:

September 5, 2012 at 5:56 pm

The political calculus is pretty clear. The folks who really get upset about SSM aren’t going to vote for Obama anyway, so there is no downside to that. Being pro choice has never cost a Democrat his seat so there is no downside to that.

Has SSM won a ballot initiative yet? Clinton was pretty astute on these issues with “safe, legal and rare” and “don’t ask, don’t tell.” The base hated it, but that’s basically where most swing voters were and, I think, still are. They’re turned off by late term abortion, a white woman of means aborting because Costco is declasse, and in your face gayness. So I think those voters will be stupefied by the gleeful embrace of abortion and gay marriage they’re seeing in Charlotte. They voted for hope and change, to an end to partisan politics, to an end to wars of convenience, to convince themselves they aren’t racist and, most of all, to hand over the economic reigns to anybody but the GOP. What they got was a defense of gay marriage, contraceptives they get to pay for with higher health plan premiums, high unemployment, continued trouble in housing, and an underperforming stock market. Yippee.

In any event, casting a secret ballot is not the same thing as having a conversation with a nosy pollster. The echo chamber of liberal blogs has possibly caused the Democrats to miscalculate. Or maybe they believe this is the best way to turn out the young voters they’re taxing with Obamacare and high unemployment. Either way I’m glad to see it because it gives the Rombot a fighting chance.
E says:

September 5, 2012 at 7:03 pm

@Mike:

Independents find the GOP position on social issues to be off-putting.

I’m interested in any hard evidence this is true. The first thing to remember is that political scientists have long known that true independents are a small percentage of the potential electorate (~10% [?]). Most “independents” are nothing of the sort—they like the sound of the moniker because they think others will see them as free and (well) independent thinkers—but in reality they are basically reliable Democrats or Republicans.

With all due respect to the romantic image of an “independent” voter who carefully “considers all the issues,” actual independents tend to be “low information” voters who don’t normally follow politics. When they take an interest, it typically involves less the social issues and more the “bread and butter” issues.
JonF says:

September 5, 2012 at 7:29 pm

I wonder if the 1932 convention featured similar new-found righteousness on the matter of dropping Prohibition?

Re: What about the blue-collar vote, Catholic and otherwise, in Pennsylvania and Ohio?

Guess what? A lot of those people could not care less. See: Charles Murray on the working class, religion and moral issues. And the ones that do care are already voting Republican.

JB: I could not agree more with your “Tenth Amendment” comment. Unfortunately neither side seems willing to go that route.

Aerys T: I don’t see Roe being overturned outright, partly because do not Chief Justice Roberts being willing to take a huge step like that (just as he was unwilling to overturn the ACA) I do see it being nibbled away in a “Death of 1000 cuts” manner if a President Romney appoints the next Supreme Court Justice or two. I suspect most Republican strategists would prefer that result also: on one hand they would have victories to hand to the pro-Life movement; on the other hand they would not be large enough to seriously alarm the half of the country that is pro-Choice leading to defeat in coming elections.
Peterk says:

September 5, 2012 at 9:04 pm

“we could have a real lively discussion over which 2 percent minority of our nation is most effective at steering the other 98 percent”

then feel free to explain it those of us who are bit slower

I do know that a large majority of Americans believe that homosexuals make up at least 1/4 of our population. I wonder why? could it be because they see them as major characters on tv shows, are Hollywood celebrities, featured in advertising campaigns etc?
David J. White says:

September 5, 2012 at 9:52 pm

Independents find the GOP position on social issues to be off-putting.

Well, I’m an independent who does try to pay attention to politics, and social issues is one area where I pretty much fully agree with the GOP. It’s their economic platform I can’t stand.

Anytime people like Tom Friedman start making noises about the desirability of a “centrist” third party, their vision always seems to be of a party that is conservative on economic issues and moderate/liberal on social issues. I’m conservative on social issues and populist on economic issues, and I don’t see anyone even trying to appeal to people like me. Maybe, alas, there aren’t many.
Edward Hamilton says:

September 5, 2012 at 10:03 pm

The social archconservative in me has long ago resigned himself to the ascendancy of the gay movement, but the grammatical archconservative in me still grinds his teeth at the newest phrase being used to sell it.

If she had said “with whom they love”, well, I’d be all for getting out the rainbow banners and pink triangle lapel pins.
J says:

September 5, 2012 at 11:11 pm

I don’t know about that–the neocons are probably less than two per cent of the population.

Corporate CEOs and billionaires probably too….

In any event, casting a secret ballot is not the same thing as having a conversation with a nosy pollster. The echo chamber of liberal blogs has possibly caused the Democrats to miscalculate.

The Silent Majority is nowhere as large and nowhere as silent as it used to be. It’s running low on voters, really. There are few or no uncontacted large tribes of conservative voters left Out There to enlist with the GOP.

I do know that a large majority of Americans believe that homosexuals make up at least 1/4 of our population. I wonder why?

From their own relatives….
Fred Garvin says:

September 5, 2012 at 11:47 pm

You need to celebrate your diversity! The truly sad and pitiful thing about Dems and gay marriage is how lemming-like and opportunist it’s been. Kelp has more moral fiber than most of these people who have suddenly “come out” for something 90% of them would’ve laughed at 15 years ago.
No wonder people don’t bother with Mainline Protestantism anymore; why bother with going to church to do activism when the only issues (Chris Hedges’s “boutique activism”)important to them are winning without them even showing up?
James says:

September 6, 2012 at 7:24 am

David J. White said:
I’m conservative on social issues and populist on economic issues, and I don’t see anyone even trying to appeal to people like me. Maybe, alas, there aren’t many.

I have no idea where the polling would be on this, but anecdotally speaking, you are definitely not alone. Most of the independents I know in upstate NY (and used to encounter in NE Texas) fall right there.
pinkjohn says:

September 6, 2012 at 8:08 am

Very interesting. Back when I was very involved in Democratic politics (1992 or so) We had a large presence at the convention. There was a big march for HIV/AIDS, lots of gay delegates and a coordinated placard demonstration on the floor. For the elections in 2000 and 2004, we were told to shut up and sit quietly lest we further inflame the evangelicals, while the all these states passed anti-marriage equality laws and delivered the country to GWB. While I hope we don’t deliver the country back to the Republicans by our “outness,” it’s nice to let out of our “cage” again.
dalea says:

September 6, 2012 at 2:55 pm

Gay people make up about 5 to 6 percent of the electorate. This is because more than 90% of gays vote. Additionally, gay people volunteer at a rate over 40% and donate to political causes at a rate approaching 50%. We are the ATM of the Democratic Party. So, a party promoting the causes of its volunteers, voters and donors is not odd. There are more Gay than Jewish voters, which should explain why this is going on. A small politiclly active group can have an outsized impact.

Plus when NM gov Martinez took an anti-SSM, anti-civil union position; every hairdresser in Santa Fe refused to style her hair. This could happen to any politician.
Siarlys Jenkins says:

September 8, 2012 at 10:23 pm

What nobody has noticed is that there is darn little the President of the United States or the federal congress can do about marriage.

Constitutionally, it is a matter for the states. Federal supremacy is unlikely to be an issue, since the feds don’t issue marriage licenses. Democrats running for state legislative positions pay little or no attention to the broad exercise in rhetoric that is the national platform. Many who run for congress don’t either.

I would prefer that President Obama had said as much: its just not in his job description to do anything about the qualifications for a marriage license. But I hardly care what he says on the subject. Its not a make or break issue for me, and, I know he can’t do much about it from the White House anyway.

However, as to Roe/Casey, I really wouldn’t count on Chief Justice Roberts as a vote to overturn. And who knows? Scalia and Thomas are both getting old. Replacing Thomas with someone in the Thurgood Marshall mode would only be poetic justice.