Damned if I know. Chris Suellentrop, however, does his bit to explain the vagaries.
REPUBLICANS AGAINST GAY-BAITING: So far, no quotes at all revealing Republican commentators condemning gay-baiting before the Mary Cheney flap. Hmmm. But, hey, I’m still open to late-comers. Meanwhile, here’s another more specific challenge. Stanley Kurtz and Maggie Gallagher have long said that they’re not anti-gay, they just believe that civil marriage should be restricted to heterosexual couples. They have also said that they are not opposed to domestic partnerships or civil unions – as long as they maintain a clear second-class status and do not challenge heterosexual privilege. So what do Gallagher and Kurtz say about the various state constitutional amendments now up for the vote? What do they say about Louisiana’s recently passed amendment? These amendments go far further than keeping civil marriage exclusively heterosexual. They also ban domestic partnerships, civil unions, or indeed any civil relationship between two gay men or lesbians. Here’s Ohio’s amendment language:
This state and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance or effect of marriage.
The campaign, as Michelle Goldberg points out, has been so viciously homophobic in its rhetoric and intent and the measure so sweeping in its gutting of gay rights that even the Republican governor has come out against it. But will Gallagher and Kurtz? I’m holding my breath.
UPDATE: Here’s Michelle Malkin complaining about the RNC flier. Her complaint, however, is not an actual criticism of gay-baiting. She focuses on the ludicrous Bible-banning tactic. Close and encouraging – but no cigar.
The Dish 