Running for President Sure Makes a GOP Candidate Anti-Gay

by Michael Jones · 2009-12-22 07:13:00 UTC

Tim PawlentyMinnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty sure spins our head right round. Sixteen years ago, Pawlenty was a member of the Minnesota House of Representatives, where as a moderate Republican he voted for a measure outlawing discrimination in public housing, employment and accommodations based on sexual orientation. Sure seems like a move that indicated Pawlenty was ahead of his party (if not ahead of many Democrats) on some LGBT issues.

Fast-forward to 2009, however, and you see in Pawlenty a future GOP presidential candidate who realizes that a gay rights vote on one's record is worse than three divorces and dodging the draft (hi Newt!) when it comes to Republican primary politics.

In an interview with Newsweek's Howard Fineman, Pawlenty tries to distance himself from the anti-discrimination vote he gave in 1993, saying that the legislation was overbaked. (Whatever the hell that means.) For good measure, Pawlenty adds in a "marriage is to be defined as a union between a man and a woman" line, and a hearty "I don't think all domestic relationships are the equivalent of traditional marriage." Word has it that Pawlenty was trying to get a third anti-gay statement out there, but he tripped over the weighty grab bag of tired right-wing talking points.

Pawlenty was never a hero in LGBT politics. But it's disappointing that he joins a list of Republican politicians as varied as Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney and John McCain, who chose to run away from any element of LGBT support simply to appease a fringe (though vocal) minority in their party. Last week we asked "Is there room in the Republican Party for LGBT politicians?" Maybe the question should be refined.

Is there room in the Republican Party for anyone who supports LGBT rights?

Pawlenty's dance is probably one he feels he has to make in order to appease a primary electorate that punishes moderates. Witness the first stop in the 2012 GOP election cycle, Iowa, which has a history of putting fringe conservatives near the top of their caucus list. Mike "let's quarantine people with HIV and eww gross sodomy" Huckabee won in 2008. And in previous years, Pat Buchanan and Pat Robertson have both found success by finishing strong seconds in Iowa.

If Pawlenty wants to be as right-wing as these folks, he's going to have to two-step it to the right big time. What better place to start than by pretending that a previous vote in support for gay rights was misguided, and that if you had to do it all over again, you would have decided to vote for bigotry.

"In 1993 I voted for a bill prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation in public accommodation, housing, and employment. That was 16 years ago," Pawlenty said, taking on the role of Captain Obvious. Then comes the sucker punch. "We overbaked that statute, for a couple of reasons. If I had to do it over again I would have changed some things."

Pawlenty may be one to watch in the lead-up to 2012. But if his interview with Fineman is any indication, he's going to spend the next few years making himself out to be more conservative than he actually is, and demonizing certain groups to win some cheap political points.

Which basically makes Pawlenty just like many other standard-bearers for the GOP: Short on ideas, wishy-washy on civil rights, and maleable by the religious right. Here's betting that he finishes in at least the top three in Iowa.

(Photo courtesy of marcn's photostream on Flickr.)

Michael Jones is a Change.org Editor. He has worked in the field of human rights communications for a decade, most recently for Harvard Law School.
PREVIOUS STORY:
Mexico City, Gay Marriage and a Latin American First
NEXT STORY:
Bullied high schooler convinces MPAA to change ‘Bully’ rating to “PG-13”

COMMENTS (12)

    Comment Policy

    · All fields are required to comment.

    [X]

    Comments on Change.org are meant for further exploration and evaluation of the campaign on Change.org. To that end, we welcome constructive comments. However, we reserve the right to delete comments which, as determined solely in our discretion: (1) are offensive, abusive, or off-topic; (2) include content solely intended to personally attack the campaign creator, (3) are designed to subvert or hijack comment threads rather than contribute to them; and/or (4) violate our terms of service and/or privacy policy. Repeat offenders may be permanently removed from the site at our discretion. Please also be advised that: (A) we do not actively curate and/or monitor in any manner whatsoever the comments made on the Change.org platform, and (B) the creator of each campaign on Change.org may remove any comment at her/his/its discretion.