Granite State values
New Hampshire, a political barometer on gay marriage
Granite State values
Dick Polman, Inquirer National Political Columnist
Late yesterday, New Hampshire legalized gay marriage. This development didn't get big play online or in print, mainly because we've already reached the point where it's no longer deemed big news when a new state stands up for equal rights.
New Hampshire became the sixth state to legalize gay marriage, but we should at least pause to note the significance of this news. New Hampshire is a former Republican bastion - or, as we used to say a generation ago, "a rock-ribbed" Republican bastion - that has now become a swing state dominated by its burgeoning population of independent voters. Increasingly, New Hampshire's elected leaders act in ways that mirror the mood of those independent voters.
The legislative compromise that produced the gay marriage bill, signed into law yesterday afternoon by the centrist Democratic governor, is a barometer of mainstream independent opinion - and fresh evidence that legal and cultural barriers to gay marriage will continue to fall, state by state, with each passing year.
New Hampshire epitomizes these changes. Barely ten years ago, the Republicans held both U.S. House seats, both U.S. Senate seats, the governorship, and both state legislative chambers. Nothing unusual about that; the GOP-leaning politics of the Granite State had long been carved in granite. In fact, it wasn't so long ago that the New Hampshire media was dominated by one man, archconservative newspaper publisher William Loeb, the Rush Limbaugh of his day, who routinely used his Manchester Union Leader as a weapon to bludgeon Democrats. Richard Nixon's dirty tricksters used to pump their sewage directly into Loeb's paper; at one point, they concocted a fake document (dutifully printed by Loeb) that seriously damaged front-runner Ed Muskie's 1972 presidential campaign.
Today, by contrast, New Hampshire's Republicans control absolutely nothing, with the sole exception of Judd Gregg's lame duck U.S. Senate seat. The big switch has occurred not because the voters have suddenly become Democrats en masse, but because independents (by far the largest group in the state electorate) have opted to vote for Democratic candidates. And the ranks of those independents have swelled mightily during the past 10 years, thanks to a massive influx of high-tech and financial-services workers (transplanted from neighboring states), and thanks to a large in-migration of retirees who have brought their independent politics with them.
And there's another factor, which very much plays into the gay marriage development: Many of New Hampshire's traditional Republicans have libertarian instincts, which means they believe in the traditional conservative credo that government should leave people alone. (After all, the state motto is "Live Free or Die.") On that issue alone, they have grown increasingly alienated from the national GOP, which is increasingly dominated by socially conservative southerners and evangelicals who want government to police the bedroom.
This helps to explain why, in the state legislature, many of the swing votes for gay marriage were cast by Republican lawmakers. As one of them, State Rep. Anthony DiFruscia, remarked yesterday during floor debate, "If you have no choice as to your sex, male or female; if you have no choice as to your color; if you have no choice as to your sexual orientation; then you have to be protected and given the same opportunity for life, liberty, and happiness."
Actually, that's not much different than what conservative attorney Ted Olson said the other day. Olson served President Bush as U.S. Solictor General, and prior to that he was most famous for arguing candidate Bush's case during the 2000 post-election Florida ballot imbroglio. Today, however, he has teamed up with his 2000 legal adversary, David Boies, to file a federal lawsuit on behalf of gays seeking to marry. Olson told Larry King, "This isn't a Republican or Democratic issue. It's not a liberal or a conservative issue. The right of individuals committed to one another to live in a stable, committed, loving relationship is something that we should all respect and be for."
Ultimately, the vote yesterday in New Hamsphire is yet another wake-up call to the national GOP. The party can no longer afford to target gay marriage as a wedge issue, because gay marriage is inexorably becoming mainstream. It can no longer get mileage by denouncing "San Francisco values," because, even as innuendo, that old pejorative is not accurate anymore. No, if the GOP really wants to stick with that kind of rhetoric, it would have to denounce "New Hampshire Iowa Massachusetts Connecticut Vermont Maine values."
Doesn't quite have the same ring, does it?
-------
Meanwhile, yesterday, Sonia Sotomayor's critics tried to trumpet a new Gallup poll which reports that "only" 54 percent of the American people support her nomination to the high court. This number was ballyhooed in some conservative quarters as proof that she's going down. Or something. It's hard to tell whether these critics opted to consciously ignore the fine print, or whether they're willfully ignorant.
Either way, they omitted something basic:
There have been seven court nominees since 1987. Gallup has measured the early support for all seven. And lo and behold, Sotomayor's 54 percent is higher than the early support for any other nominee - with the sole exception of John Roberts in 2005.
Moreover, only 24 percent of Americans oppose her nomination - another Gallup stat that many of her critics chose to ignore.
And even though, in a separate Quinnipiac poll, 71 percent of Americans disagree with Sotomayor's federal appeals ruling against those white New Haven firefighters (another poll ballyhooed by conservatives yesterday), the fine print omitted by her critics tells us something arguably more important:
Nearly six in 10 Americans (59 percent) said that Sotomayor's stance in that case doesn't make them more or less likely to support her, and another seven percent said her stance makes them more likely to support her. And this morning, the Qunnipiac poll reported overall support numbers that are virtually identical to the Gallup numbers: 55 percent of Americans saying yes to her nomination, and 25 percent saying no.
All of which helps explain why the Senate Republicans are basically stuck with only one battle cry: "Delay the hearings until September."
Doesn't quite have the ring of victory, does it?
"...if you have no choice as to your sexual orientation; then you have to be protected and given the same opportunity for life, liberty, and happiness." This is true. I'm just unaware that it's been proven that sexual orientation is not a choice.— Phrossty- Something I like about your writing is that while you have an obvious point of view (eg, Sotomayor should be confirmed), you mostly stick to talking about the politics of the situation, not arguing whether your position is right or wrong. Whether Sotomayor should be confirmed is a separate question from whether those who oppose her will be able to spin matters to stop her. I suppose many of your readers interpret what you write as a discourse on the moral direction of the country, instead of an analysis about who's going to win the argument, which explains why you get a lot of fussing.— KWH
- Phrossty, I'm a little surprised at your comment. Do you have any gay friends? If so, and you ask them, I believe they will tell you that their sexual orientation was no choice. It's simply who they are. My dear friend -- who also happens to be gay -- once told me she was incredulous that anyone would think she would choose to be discriminated against, to embarrass or hurt her parents, to live a life underground. I can't for a moment believe that it is a choice. But proof? Perhaps you're correct. Scientifically, it no doubt hasn't been proven.— NigeltheMastiff
- @Nigel - It's a bit of pretzel logic for me. I've beaten this horse to death, so I apologize to the blog community for the repeat story.... I waffle - probably because at the end of my argument I wind up in a religious paradox. I favor civil unions for gays with all the legal entitlements thereunto based on a fredom of choice viewpoint. I oppose calling it "marriage" as marriage was instituted by God (who?) to be between genders not within. The paradox comes up when God (who?) stipulates homosexuality to be an abomination. If one is born that way, then God isn't fair. It's the (double) predestination problem like Judas Iscariot. The Christ said it would have been better for the betrayer not to have been born, but the scriptures must be fulfilled. Kind of hard for Judas then, but he was free to choose to betray Jesus or not. My mortal mind cannot comprehend the reconciliation of both man's free will and God's (who?) sovreignty. Additionally, it's been my personal and anecdotal experience that there's a lot of choice in the issue. I've also witnessed propensities in prepubescent children that made me go "hmmmm, perhaps folks are born gay." 1) I don't have many gay friends anymore. 2) I'm fairly certain gay by birth has not been scientifically proven.— Phrossty
- Phrossty, I seem to remember that you have a very strong faith. I believe you and I discussed the differences between Quakerism and your beliefs at one time (or was that Liberal?). And I am in no way disparaging your religious beliefs. But I always consider that the Bible was pulled together from an enormous body of work, chosen by the leaders of the early Catholic Church. So I try to put all that in context. At the time, there was really no developed science, no psychology, no technology. And I realize that you may believe that it really is the word of God. However, that word was written down and interpreted by human beings with the knowledge of the day. So maybe God wasn't being quite so definite as they thought? On the other hand, I'm sure my Quaker beliefs are influencing me, as we believe that truth continues to unfold, which would mean that positions wouldn't necessarily remain static. If you think of kindness and compassion as the underpinning of Jesus' teachings, rather than set-in-stone rules, I guess my way of thinking is more understandable.— NigeltheMastiff
- Dick, since your obsessed with Sotmayor, reconcile this: in 1994 she said that woman are better judges because "better will mean a more compassionate and caring conclusion." Does not sound like following the rule of law to me. Was she lying yesterday when she said she would "follow the law"?— CD75
- Dickie, your Messiah, Obama, does not believe in Gay Marriage and he is our President. You should also take up the issue with him and call him out for his prejudice and distain for equal rights. You are so partisan and full of hate that you fail to mention this in your blog. Dems have a supermajority in Congress and own the presidency. If they believe in equal rights, they should do more. Instead, you take lame shots at the repubs. Do you have any integrity and balance?— CD75
- Sotomayor's stance in the firefighter case makes me more likely to support her. The opinion in that case was a per curium which roughly means that there is no legal issue for them to decide - that they are forced to rule that way - and that the only way to change it is by Supreme Court Precedent, Congressional action etc. Face it she ruled (as 1 of 3) they way she was forced to - a STRICT CONSTRUCTIONALIST. Do you want a judge to interpret law or make it GOP ???? You CANNOT have it both ways !!! Once again I say thanks President Obama for an inspiring nominee !!!— ModerateMarge
- Phrossty, there have been studies that have shown homosexulaity in the animal population, but I don't think that any study would be able to conclusively answer the question yes or no, simply because even if there is a "predisposition" one way or the other, there are a host of social factors they may affect how one perceives his or her own sexuality (such as gender stereotypes and religious influences), and how one chooses to idenitfy him or herself sexually. Therefore, the answer may, to some extent, be both. On the religious issue, I'm really looking for a good explantion of the Biblical mandate, but haven't seen one. Leviticus considers "man laying down with man" to be an abomination, but says the same thing about eating shrimp and lobster. Meanwhile, I've not heard of any New Testament reference on the subject, and doesn't the New Testament reject some of the mandates from the Old Testament? I just don't see where all the Biblical fuss comes from when something like adultery made the top ten no-no list but doesn't seem to receive the same vitriol. I just hear people say "It's in the Bible" so I don't get it.— etotheb
- Dick, I find it hilarious that you would scold someone for cherry picking poll data. You are the King of Cherry Picking. Takes one to know one?— CD75
- I love how Cheney is now blaming Clarke for 9/11. Has he no shame? I don't think I can remember one person being so wrong about almost everything. How people voted for him and Bush is beyond me, but it appears that the party of personal responsibility is once again running away from the truth.— chasing history
- Hey, CD-- instead of spending your time trolling Polman, why don't you go read the Bulletin? They're Philadelphia's strong, conservative, right-thinking voice, standing up for traditional-- they what? When? Oh. Never mind.— Irritated Prof
- What Polman is missing is that New Hampshire did it the way Convervatives and Republicans want it done, through the Legislature and not by judicial edict. Notice there are no conservatives filing lawsuits like the gay marriage supporters did in California after the voters rejected it. Nor will you see any. If conservatives want this reversed, they will try to do it through the ballot box, not the court system. That is all they ask, let the people and their legislatures decide, and not the courts.— tom - wilmington, de
- Phrossty - at exactly what date and time did you chose to become straight?— xtremeTF
- No tom, sorry - it does not work that way - the "people" do not get to vote on civil rights and equality that are guaranteed in the Constitution. If so, please tell which of your civil rights you'd like to have put up for a vote for revocation.— xtremeTF
Cited by the Columbia Journalism Review as one of the nation's top political reporters, and lauded by the ABC News political website as "one of the finest political journalists of his generation," Dick Polman is a national political columnist at the Philadelphia Inquirer. He is on the full-time faculty at the University of Pennsylvania, as "writer in residence." Dick has been a frequent guest on C-Span, MSNBC, CNN, NPR and the BBC. He covered the 1992, 1996, 2000, and 2004 presidential campaigns.
ARCHIVES
All commentaries posted before April 18, 2008, can be accessed at www.dickpolman.blogspot.com.
- American Spectator
- David Limbaugh
- Free Republic
- Glenn Reynolds
- Hugh Hewitt
- Human Events
- John Hawkins
- Matt Lewis
- Michelle Malkin
- National Review
- Opinion Journal
- Power Line
- Red State
- The Brody File
- The Daily Caller
- Town Hall
- Weekly Standard
- Center for American Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- Daily Kos
- David Corn
- Huffington Post
- Media Matters
- Mojoblog (Mother Jones)
- Open Left
- Political Animal
- Salon's War Room
- Talking Points Memo
- Tapped
- The Democratic Strategist
- The Grey Matter
- Unclaimed Territory
- Andrew Sullivan
- Attytood
- Chi Tribune's The Swamp
- CJR's Campaign Desk
- CNN's Political Ticker
- CQ Politics
- FactCheck.org
- Gail Collins
- Howard Kurtz
- Mickey Kaus
- NBC's First Read
- Obit
- Political Wire
- Politico
- Politics Daily
- Pollster.com
- Real Clear Politics
- The Atlantic Wire
- The Fix
- The Moderate Voice
- The Plank
- USA Today On Politics
- Wonkette
