The problem with reports like this is that you start to wonder what kind of game they're playing -- at least I do:
"I don't think a person who acknowledges that they have gay tendencies is disqualified per se for the job,” Sessions tells Mark Halperin on Morning Joe.
That doesn't really answer the question of whether he thinks somebody who is openly gay, as opposed to struggling with those "tendencies," is qualified, though I think he meant to indicate he wouldn't pick that ground to fight on.
It gets even more knotty when you mix this into the recipe:
In a move that will surprise gay activists and liberals, a spokesperson for Focus on the Family, a top religious right group, tells me that his organization has no problem with GOP Senator Jeff Sessions‘ claim today that he’s open to a Supreme Court nominee with “gay tendencies.”
The spokesperson confirms the group won’t oppose a gay SCOTUS nominee over sexual orientation.
“We agree with Senator Sessions,” Bruce Hausknecht, a spokesperson for Focus on the Family, which was founded by top religious right figure James Dobson, told me a few minutes ago. “The issue is not their sexual orientation. It’s whether they are a good judge or not.”
Their sexual orientation “should never come up,” he continued. “It’s not even pertinent to the equation.”
I don't know that I'm as willing as John Aravosis to take this at face value, but it's sure an interesting development.
And maybe Aravosis is right: the right is beginning to realize that their anti-gay stance is turning rancid and that most people in the country don't agree with them in the least on most issue relating to gays. But to admit it publicly? (Which is what this amounts to.)
What's happening in the world?
(The issue, of course, is what factors are going to go into Obama's pick: I'm going with Ben Smith and figuring that he's going to avoid the openly gay candidates, simply because that seems to be the issue he's most frightened of, even though it's a winner for him.)
(Sessions' comment gives a clue, I think, and it's something that Ben Smith touches on: they're recasting the whole issue, downplaying the sexual orientation bit, because it has backfired badly. The tactic now is going to be, once again, to blur definitions. The "gay tendencies" comment is indicative: to the Christianist right, no one is really gay, everyone is really straight, although one can be tempted into homosexual behavior. Watch for it -- it's going to be entertaining.)
Footnote:
Even Tony Perkins is avoiding Teh Gay. Must be hard when your trademark issue is a big negative for you.)
No comments:
Post a Comment