Monday, May 22, 2006

Ray Meier Runs With the Religious Right's Anti-Marriage Crusade

Republican Ray Meier loves trying to have it both ways on the marriage equality issue. In most public statements, Ray Meier tries to offer a mushy, ambiguous message that he thinks will mollify Democrats while not offending his right wing religious base.

When he talks to a Republican audience, however, Ray Meier lets his inner bigot emerge. Meier recently told the right wing rag Human Events that he's anti-marriage rights all the way.

"Meier said he believes marriage is a union between a man and a woman. Even though he would normally take the federalist position and let states decide, he said he would likely support the Federal Marriage Amendment because courts had left Congress no other option."

This statement by Ray Meier contains one of the tightest ideological turnabouts I've seen in awhile. Like most Republicans, Meier says that he supports States Rights - which has long been a code word for opposition to civil rights for African Americans and other minorities. In a broader sense, States Rights is supposed to represent a political philosophy that the federal government should defer to the states when it comes to matters of legal authority.

Yet, on the issue of marriage, Ray Meier performs a quick about face, and says that, on this one issue, States Rights should not apply.

Why? There's nothing legally distinct about the issue of marriage that would justify such a discrepancy. In truth, Ray Meier doesn't seem to be a deep thinker when it comes to political philosophy. Instead, Meier follows his cultural instincts, and culturally, Ray Meier comes down solidly in the old right wing tradition of using fear, bigotry and hatred as a political tool.

When fear and hatred were consistent with a States Rights opposition to civil rights for African Americans, the Republican Party was for States Rights. Now that fear and hatred are consistent with an anti-States-Rights crusade against same-sex couples, Republicans are against States Rights.

Forget all the talk about preserving the institution of marriage. The real question we ought to be asking in this debate is: Which candidate is trying to help more people get married?

Right wing ideologues like Ray Meier are smothering marriage, holding it back, cutting it down, and making it shriveled and smaller. They want to prevent more people from getting married. Progressives, on the other hand, are trying to strengthen the institution of marriage by helping more people get married.

It's time to talk plain truth on this issue.Ray Meier and his Republican supporters are anti-marriage. After all, you can't strengthen marriage by making it illegal for people to married.


Anonymous said...

Everytime Ray Meier opens his mouth he makes a fool of himself. This is GOOD.

I honestly don't understand you Jonathan. Your idea of the perfect issue is exactly what a candidate who wants to win would be better off leaving alone in such a close election. Ray Meier is pandering to the base he already has with this kind of comment about marriage. Let him talk through both sides of his mouth. It will come in handy in a debate. Mike Arcuri isn't going to get the vote of some right wing nutball and he doesn't expect to. Do you really think it would be beneficial to Mike Arcuri to get into a spitting match over what constitutes marriage in this district, where it's hard to say where the MAJORITY stands? Or do you really think Mike Arcuri should do what Les Roberts would do and then lose by a mile? Once again Jonathan, Like It Or Not, the majority of this district is MODERATE not PROGRESSIVE. And that doesn't mean they aren't "real democrats". It simply means they aren't Progressives. I say there are certain issues that Mike Arcuri shouldn't touch unless he's asked. A press release on an issue such as this is the dumbest thing Arcuri could do. To come out swinging on this issue is to endanger his election. I say if he's asked, he should answer. But not before. Now you might think that's wrong, but I get the distinct feeling that doing the Les Roberts' schtick would be the worst thing that could happen in this district, unless of course we all want Ray Meier to be the next congressman. You will also note that Ray Meier didn't make that remark as a press release but rather when talking to the Bush sycophants.

The people in this district outside of your niche and the far right niche care far more about jobs, the cost of heating their homes, the national debt, the cost of gasoline, and property taxes than they care about what constitutes marriage, save for religious zealots, most of whom are not democrats or moderate republicans. Arcuri has to steal the votes of moderate republicans and this issue is simply not one that will do that.

Every time you post and INSIST that Mike Arcuri MUST do THIS and MUST do THAT, I generally disagree with you completely and shake my head because I think all of your ideas would be self destructive.

What you really need to do is run for office Jon. And like Les Roberts, your perception of what it takes to get votes would place you in the "drop out" position. You snort at polls but the TRUTH is, Jon, if you want to WIN, you have to pay attention to the real heartbeat. Later, when you win, you get to do what is right. It's the way it is, Jon. I know you think it sucks, but the idea, Jon, is to WIN not to look for bomb issues to shoot rocks at. These issues you think are front and center are questions you answer when the topic arises, not press releases. They are the 10-foot poll issues right now, and that's the way it is. How many votes do you think would be gained by doing a press relase on the issue of marriage? And now many would be lost?

Now I know i have made you angry, but that's ok, so long as you aren't Mike Arcuri's consultant, I think he has a good shot.

24 Independent said...

Oh 6:15, you're so busy putting words in my mouth, you must think politics is some kind of puppet show.

I'm not angry at you, 6:15. I just disagree with you.

And when have I snorted at polls?

You know, I hear Democratic politicians talking to Democratic voters all the time about how they'll run their campaign slanted toward the right, and THEN embrace progressive politics once in office. The problem is that, once they're in office, then they say that they need to slant their votes to the right so that they can stay in office, so that they can do something progressive later, eventually, sometime.

This is how we got so many Democrats voting for the Iraq War. This is how we got Democrats like Joseph Lieberman in the Senate.

It's a fraud.

You're interested in winning an election for a team. I'm interested in promoting a set of ideas. I'd rather us have a Democrat than a Republican, but if the Democratic candidate won't stand up for what's right, then there really isn't much point.

The biggest problem with Mike Arcuri is that he just doesn't stand up for much at all. He seems to be following the advice that the way to be a successful candidate is to say as little about anything as possible.

Maybe that's good for an Arcuri for Congress campaign - though I doubt it. I know for sure it's bad for our country.

Nobody's going to cross over from the Republican Party or from the vast bank of independent in order to vote for an ambiguous smudge.

Arcuri needs to stand up for something if he wants to inspire voters to turn out at the polls for him.

Anonymous said...

Those who truly know Arcuri, know that he has a problem with marriage in general. It's called "being faithful" of which he's know nothing about!